The Bronze Age Towers at Bat, Sultanate of Oman: Research by the Bat Archaeological Project, 27-12 9781934536070

Table of contents :
Contents
Figures
Tables
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction
2. The Archaeological Site of Bat in Its Environment
3. Excavations at Kasr al-Khafaji (Tower 1146)
4. Excavations at Matariya (Tower 1147)
5. Digital Documentation of Kasr al-Sleme (Tower 1148)
6. Excavations at Tower 1156
7. Surface Structures at Ad-Dariz South
8. Other Towers in the Bat Area
Typological and Chronological Consideration of the Ceramics at Bat, Oman
10. The Bat Chipped Stone Assemblage
11. Metal
12. Preliminary Report on Ground Stone Artifacts from Bat
13. Conclusion
Appendix I. Archaeobotanical Studies at Bat. A Short Summary and Recommendations
Appendix II. Falaj al-Sharsah (Islamic Period): Ancient Water Systems in Oman
Appendix III. Assessment of Mudbricks from Tower 1147
Appendix V. Excavation of the Wadi Suq tombs at Tower 1156
APPENDIX VI. List of Field Staff (2007–12)
Bibliography
Author Biographies

Citation preview

The Bronze Age Towers at Bat, Sultanate of Oman Research by the Bat Archaeological Project 2007–12

museum monograph 143

The Bronze Age Towers at Bat, Sultanate of Oman Research by the Bat Archaeological Project 2007–12

Christopher P. Thornton, Charlotte M. Cable, and Gregory L. Possehl†, editors

university of pennsylvania museum of archaeology and anthropology philadelphia

library of congress cataloging-in-publication data

Names: Thornton, Christopher P., editor, author. | Cable, Charlotte M., editor, author. | Possehl, Gregory L., editor. Title: The bronze age towers at Bat, sultanate of Oman : research by the Bat Archaeological Project, 2007-12 / Christopher P. Thornton, Charlotte M. Cable, and Gregory L. Possehl, editors. Description: Philadelphia, PA : University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2016. | Series: University Museum monographs ; 143 | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2016021471 | ISBN 9781934536063 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Excavations (Archaeology)--Oman--Båat. | Antiquities, Prehistoric--Oman--Båat. | Bronze age--Oman--Båat. | Båat (Oman)--Antiquities. Classification: LCC DS247.4.B37 B76 2016 | DDC 939.4/9--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016021471

© 2016 by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Philadelphia, PA All rights reserved. Published 2016 Published for the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology by the University of Pennsylvania Press. This publication was made possible with financial support from the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate of Oman

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper.

To Gregory L. Possehl (1941–2011), who led the way into the Unknown

Contents List of Figures

xi

List of Tables

xix

Acknowledgments

xxi

1

2

3

4

INTRODUCTION Christopher P. Thornton and Charlotte M. Cable Between Two Civilizations Chronology and Terminology at Bat The Site of Bat History of Excavations at Bat THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE OF BAT IN ITS ENVIRONMENT Stéphane Desruelles, Eric Fouache, Tara Beuzen, Wassel Eddargach, Cécilia Cammas, Julia Wattez, Chloé Martin, and Margareta Tengberg Geology and Climate Paleoclimate Geomorphological Characteristics of the Wadi Sharsah Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion EXCAVATIONS AT KASR AL-KHAFAJI (TOWER 1146) Christopher P. Thornton Previous Research: Danish Team (1986) Recent Research: American Team (2008–10) Post-Bronze Age Levels: Strata 0–3 Ramp Wall: A Closer Look at the Late Islamic Reuse of the Tower Trenches B–G: A Better View of Umm an-Nar Period Trench A: The Deep Sounding Results of Three Seasons of Excavation at T. 1146 EXCAVATIONS AT MATARIYA (TOWER 1147) Charlotte M. Cable Introduction and Background Location Previous Excavations at Matariya Excavations by the American Expedition (2008–11) Post-Bronze Age: The Demise and Reuse of a Tower

1 1 2 4 8 13

13 14 15 15 16 21 22 25 25 28 28 33 34 39 46 49 49 49 49 53 56

viii

contents

Tower Interior: Variations on the Tower Theme The Tower Wall: A Tale of Two Walls Tower Exterior: Monumentality and Mudbrick Results of Four Seasons of Excavation at Matariya: The Life of a Tower Conclusion 5

6

7

8

DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION OF KASR AL-SLEME (TOWER 1148) Yasuhisa Kondo Introduction Photogrammetric Survey of the Mound Discovery of the Petroglyphs Quantitative Summary Discussion Conclusion and Future Tasks EXCAVATIONS AT TOWER 1156 Anne Mortimer Introduction The Stratigraphic Sequence at T. 1156 Phase 1—The Tower Phase 2—Abandonment Phase 3—Remodeling of the Tower Phase 4—Settlement Activity Phase 5—Platform Construction Phase 6—Funerary Activity Phase 7—Post Wadi Suq Phase 8—Natural Accumulation Proposed Summary of Events (by Phase) The Finds Conclusions SURFACE STRUCTURES AT AD-DARIZ SOUTH Kristen Hopper and Yasuhisa Kondo Introduction GPS Survey of ADS 1 and ADS 2 Ad-Dariz South 1 (ADS 1) Ad-Dariz South 2 (ADS 2) ADS 2: Discussion Conclusions OTHER TOWERS IN THE BAT AREA Charlotte M. Cable Introduction Kasr al-Rojoom Husn al-Wardi Al Qa’a Tower Al-Khutm

60 65 66 79 82 83 83 83 91 116 120 122 123 123 124 127 139 141 142 142 146 148 148 148 149 152 155 155 155 155 160 164 166 169 169 169 169 169 170

contents

Wahrah Qala Summary 9

10

11

12

13

TYPOLOGICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION OF THE CERAMICS AT BAT, OMAN Christopher P. Thornton and Royal Omar Ghazal Introduction Ware Typology Chronological and Typological Considerations Hafit Period Ceramics Umm an-Nar Ceramics Black-on-Red Fine Wares (The Funerary Pottery) Domestic Ware Iranian Ceramics Harappan Ceramics Wadi Suq Ceramics Discussion of Other Ware Types Preliminary Analysis of Ceramic Typology THE BAT CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGE Gabrielle Choimet Introduction Methods Débitage and Raw Material Preliminary Observations Synthesis Metric Data Conclusion METAL Benedict Leigh The Bat Collection Methodology Typology Summary PRELIMINARY REPORT ON GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS FROM BAT Teresa Costa Introduction Definitions and Methodology Archaeological Contexts and Artifacts Artifacts Technology Contexts of Consumption and Discard CONCLUSION Charlotte M. Cable and Christopher P. Thornton Between Two Civilizations (redux) The Uniqueness of Bat

ix

170 177 179 179 180 187 188 193 193 195 200 204 208 208 212 217 217 217 218 218 225 225 227 229 229 229 230 235 239 239 239 240 253 256 259 259 260

x

contents

APPENDIX I: ARCHAEOBOTANICAL STUDIES AT BAT. A SHORT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Margareta Tengberg Introduction Results of the Analysis of Samples Collected in 2008–11 Discussion APPENDIX II: FALAJ AL-SHARSAH (ISLAMIC PERIOD): ANCIENT WATER SYSTEMS IN OMAN Julien Charbonnier General Description of falaj al-Sharsah Conclusion

263 263 263 266 269 269 283

APPENDIX III: ASSESSMENT OF MUDBRICKS FROM TOWER 1147 Anne Mortimer Introduction Comments on the Bricks Conclusions

289

APPENDIX IV: RADIOCARBON DATES FROM BAT Christopher P. Thornton Radiocarbon Dates from Bat

299

APPENDIX V: EXCAVATION OF THE WADI SUQ TOMBS AT TOWER 1156 Kimberly D. Williams and Lesley A. Gregoricka Context Excavation Features A and B Feature C Feature D Features E and F Architectural Description Summary

303 303 303 303 305 305 306 306 308

APPENDIX VI: LIST OF FIELD STAFF (2007–12)

309

BIBLIOGRAPHY

311

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

329

289 289 297

299

Figures (the color insert appears between pages 154 and 155)

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12

The main polities of the 3rd millennium BCE in the “Middle Asian Interaction Sphere” A typical Hafit tomb assemblage of the Omani interior A typical Umm an-Nar collective tomb assemblage from Bat A typical Early Wadi Suq tomb assemblage from Bat Topographic map of the Oman Peninsula showing key 3rd millennium sites Map of Bat, showing the location of the towers and other key areas A schematic topographic profile of the Bat Valley The Bat Valley in 2012, as seen from the top of the Settlement Slope Magnetometry plan of Operation A and B Map of the main wadi system from Bat to ad-Dreez, showing the known tower locations Location of the Wadi Sharsah in north-western Oman Past and present anthropogenic features and hydrography of the Wadi Sharsah Geomorphology of Bat area near Tower 1146 Stratigraphy of “S1” section near Tower 1146 Radiocarbon and OSL dates taken from “S1” section and Deep Sounding in Trench A of Tower 1146 Stratigraphy of the Deep Sounding of Trench A in Tower 1146 Thin sections of samples coming from S1 Archaeobotanical and malacological analyses Hypothetical reconstruction of relationship between the tower and S1 Plan of Frifelt’s test trenches from her 1986 season at T. 1146 The western section of Frifelt’s “Trench 1” Tower 1146 seen from the north in 2008 The excavation grid for T. 1146 established in 2010 Small stones laid along the north side of the tower wall to retain the “rocky fill” layer (“Stratum 2”) Trench 46189 before the complete removal of Stratum 3 The rocky fill (Stratum 2) overlying the tower wall in Tr. 46154 The southern and western sides of the tower wall were the best preserved with large tower stones intentionally laid in a chaffy mud packing On the south side of the tower wall (in Trs. 46188–46189), small stones were laid on top of large tower stones and packed into chaffy mud Third millennium BCE stone walls underlie the Ramp Wall Plan of T. 1146 showing the trench layout of the 2009 sondages The southern profile of Trench B, showing the relationship between the Extension Wall and the Tower Wall

2 color insert color insert color insert 5 6 6 7 9 10 color insert color insert color insert color insert 16 17 19 20 23 26 27 28 28 30 31 32 32 33 34 35 35

xii

3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27

figures

Structures 1 and 2 in Trenches B–G as excavated in 2009 36 Hearth 090309 found amongst Middle Umm an-Nar ceramics on the surface 37 The complex sub-phases of Structure 2 38 The Hafit stone wall bases discovered at the bottom of Trenches B and G 39 The south and east sections of Trench A 40 The north and west sections of Trench A 42 The Hafit period walls at the base of Trench A 44 Important evidence of small-scale copper metallurgy was found in the Hafit levels of Trench A color insert The bottom of the Deep Sounding of Trench A showing the sandy, cobble-strewn sediment (Stratum 12) 45 Photomosaic of Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) after the 2010 season 47 Location of Matariya relative to the modern school at Bat and the remains of Tower al-Qa’a 50 Matariya tower (1147) seen from the south, before renewed excavations began in 2008 50 Digital elevation model (DEM) of Tower 1147 51 Plan of Frifelt’s 1989 trenches at Matariya 52 The northwest side of Tower 1147 during excavations in 2008, showing the stone ring walls that at least partially encircle the tower 54 The trench grid overlying Matariya, with the tower walls indicated 55 The large tower wall rockfall on the east side of the tower 56 A selection of diagnostic ceramics found in tower wall rockfall 57 Iron Age and historic period ceramics found in pits dug into the rockfall layer 58 Bead cache (lot 090804) from the medieval layers on top of T. 1147 59 Miniature jar (lot 090834) found in mudbrick slump on top of the tower 60 Photomosaic showing the mudbrick compartments inside the tower wall in relation to the stone well 61 Locations of sondage 470573 and mudbrick compartment AL 62 Interlocking mudbrick layers in the tower interior 63 Eastern section of sondage 470573 64 Looking westward at the central well of Matariya, with an associated stone wall to the South 65 Two flat stones, set at an angle into packed mud, associated with a wall stub and the central well 66 The dissection of the inner tower wall: two views 67 Photogrammetric plan of excavations 68 Frifelt’s original section drawing from Trench 2 69 Frifelt’s original plan and section of Trench 5, where it meets the tower wall 70 A view of Frifelt’s Trench 5 from the east, after reopening her sondage in 2010 72 The northern profile of Trench 5, bounded on the left by the tower wall and on the right by the retaining wall 73 Looking northeast at Matariya 74 Two views into mudbrick compartments 75 The stone ring walls encircling the tower in plan 76 Photomosaic plan view showing the adjustment to the retaining wall on the northeast side of Tower 1147 77

figures

4.28 4.29 4.30 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 5.40 6.1

Close-up of the northeast side The stone tower outer wall, northern side Northern profile of Trench 470491, showing the light grey, compact soil on top of dark, mudbrick slump Mound of Kasr al-Sleme (Tower 1148), as seen from the south Northern façade of Kasr al-Sleme, as seen from the northeast Workflow of the photogrammetric survey Ideal overlap of overhead photographs and transects Layout of ground control points (GCPs) and transects at Kasr al-Sleme TIN surface model of Kasr al-Sleme Photomosaic overlapped by 0.2-meter-contour Georectification of image Photomosaic of Kasr al-Sleme Northern façade of Kasr al-Sleme, pictured with shift lens Collapsed wall in the northwest quarter of Kasr al-Sleme Scheme of the petroglyph database Management of the petroglyph data by means of GIS Location and specifications of the petroglyphs at Kasr al-Sleme Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 1 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 2 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 3 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 4 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 5 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 6 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 7 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 8 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 9 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 10 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 11 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 12 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 13 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 14 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 15 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 16 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 17 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 18 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 19 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 20 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 21 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 22 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 23 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 24 Iconographical classification of the petroglyphs at Kasr al-Sleme Typology of petroglyphs at Kasr al-Sleme Tower 1156 during the 2011 season, Tower 1145 (Kasr al-Rojoom) in the background

xiii

79 80 80 84 84 85 86 87 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 95 97 98 99 100 101 102 104 105 106 107 108 109 109 110 112 113 113 114 114 115 116 117 118 119 119 120 121 124

xiv

6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30 6.31 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35 6.36 6.37 6.38

figures

Frifelt’s original plan of her long sondage through T. 1156, juxtaposed with the southern profile of the sondage as drawn in 2010 by the American expedition Trench grid established at Tower 1156 in 2010, with the 0,0 point located next to the easternmost Umm an-Nar tombs in the Bat cemetery Outer wall, middle wall, and inner wall, showing the stepped formation of the tower wall Outer and middle walls showing the stone construction methods Outer and middle walls on the south side of the tower The outer wall on the south side of the tower The outer, middle, and inner walls on the northwest side of the tower The northern section of the tower wall was originally built onto a rib of natural protruding limestone bedrock Features 525 and 533 in the east-facing section of Frifelt’s sondage Paved surface 528 from the north, seen from the outer face of the inner wall of the tower within Frifelt’s sondage Excavated section of the inner ditch in relation to outer tower wall; cross wall 527 in foreground and firepit 153 in the background Inner ditch terminal with partial view of the ‘cistern and later backfill deposits on top Revetment wall 529 and section through inner ditch 152, as seen from the outer tower wall Revetment wall to the northwest of the tower sits directly on top of unaltered bedrock Revetment wall in relation to inner ditch, cistern and cross wall West facing section through inner ditch deposits to the east of cistern Eastern edge of floor 542 (of cistern 543) in relation to cut 270 Cut 270 in relation to cistern slab wall 541 Causeway on southern side of Tower 1156 The test sondage dug into trench SS1135 to the south of retaining wall Wall seen from the northwest, with Tower 1156 in the background Photomosaic showing the Phase 4 walls overlying Tower 1156 Phase 4 wall as seen from the east Feature 532, a stone-lined circular pit (now semi-circular due to Frifelt’s sondage) Feature 533, with earlier firepit 198 to the left The firepits associated with Feature 533 The “hard core” deposit over Tower 1156 The upper “hard core” deposit in trench SS0911 Wadi Suq tomb adjacent to Frifelt’s sondage Wadi Suq tomb over the infilled inner ditch on the northwest side Copper/bronze arrowheads (lots 101303, 101305–101306) discovered in Wadi Suq tomb collapse on the north side of Tower 1156 in 2010 A ceramic jar neck from lot 12SS171 is the only diagnostic pottery found in Phases 1–3 (Early Umm an-Nar levels) Crucible fragments from various contexts at Tower 1156 Zoomorphic clay figurine fragment, lot 1255261, probably depicted an oryx or antelope Incised Umm an-Nar rim sherd from surface deposit lot 1255232 Etched carnelian bead found in upper fill deposits (Phase 4?) of the inner ditch Photomosaic of Tower 1156 combining the results of the 2010–13 seasons

125 126 127 128 129 129 130 131 132 133 134 134 135 135 136 137 138 139 140 140 141 143 144 144 145 145 146 147 147 148 149 150 150 151 152 152 153

figures

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 10.1

xv

Location of ADS 1 and ADS 2 (Imagery from Google Earth) 156 A view of ADS 1, seen from the south 157 Photomosaic of ADS 1 created in 2009 158 Ground control point layout at ADS 1 in the 2012 season 159 Photomosaic of ADS 1 created in 2012 160 Ten cm contour and hillshade of ADS 1 based on the 2012 survey results 161 View of ADS 2 towards the southeast showing the construction material of the large enclosure 161 Location of ADS 2 transects, and ground control points 162 Plan view of ad-Dariz South 2 created in ArcMap 163 Architectural features in and to the west of the large enclosure, facing towards the mudbrick structure 164 Total Station survey of visible surface features with topography 165 Photograph of petroglyph located on the south-east portion of the ring wall 166 Topographic maps of ADS 2 with 10 cm contours 167 Kasr al-Rojoom (T. 1145) as seen from the Settlement Slope to the east 170 A consolidated plan of Tower 1145 171 The circular central well of Kasr al-Rojoom (T. 1145) 172 Bat village, looking southwest toward Husn al-Wardi 172 The base of Husn al-Wardi sits directly on top of natural conglomerate rock (similar to T. 1148) 173 Stone tower wall of al-Qa’a tower, buried under rockfall and debris from Wadi Suq tombs 173 Tower wall at al-Qa’a from the south, with the stone revetment wall located downslope 174 Tower al-Khutm from the north, after excavations by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture in 2009–10 174 Plan of the tower at al-Khutm after excavations by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture in 2009–10 175 Stone foundation of Wahrah Qala, built on a natural stone outcrop that towers over the modern village of Wahrah 176 Wahrah Qala 176 Hafit period wares from Matariya 191 The most complete “Hafit Ware” sherd (lot 090827) from Tower 1147 color insert Bat funerary wares 194 Umm an-Nar pottery from 1146 196 Umm an-Nar pottery from 1147 197 Umm an-Nar pottery from 1156 198 Iranian fine-ware pottery from Bat 202 Harappan pottery from Bat 205 Harappan ceramics from lot 101004, found amongst the tower rockfall at Matariya 207 Wadi Suq pottery from Bat 209 Medium-coarse Wadi Suq pottery tempered with copper slag from Operation A (lot 070401) 210 Iron Age pottery from Bat 211 Early-Middle Islamic wares from Bat 213 Late Islamic wares from Tower 1146 214 Main lithic categories at Kasr al-Khafaji (1146), Matariya (1147) and Operation A 219

xvi

10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.14 12.15 I.1 I.2 II.1 II.2 II.3 II.4 II.5 II.6 II.7 II.8

figures

Distribution of tools from the three main sites Lithics from Operation A Lithics from Tower 1146 Lithics from Tower 1147 Lithics from Tower 1156 Distribution of blank types Blanks length/width ratio Types of cores Metal and metallurgical artifacts from T. 1146 Metal and metallurgical artifacts from T. 1147 Metal and metallurgical artifacts from T. 1156 Metal and metallurgical artifacts from Operation A/B Hammerstones (lots 070305 and 071000) from Operation A Quern (lot 080310) found in the tower wall fill of T. 1146. Quern (lot 090132) from the Hafit period levels found underneath Tower 1146 in Trench A Multipurpose hammerstone/anvil (lot 090139) from the Hafit period levels found underneath Tower 1146 in Trench A Multipurpose hammerstone/anvil (lot 090319) found inside Structure 1 amongst Middle Umm an-Nar fill in Trench B at Tower 1146 Whetstone (090324-A, left) and possible chert core (090324-B, right) found inside Structure 1 amongst Middle Umm an-Nar fill in Trench B at Tower 1146 A selection of querns (lot 092201) found on or near the surface amongst tower rockfall around Tower 1147 Hammerstones (lot 100807and lot 101613) found amongst the tower rockfall outside of Tower 1147 Quern (lot 101417) found as part of the inner tower wall at T. 1147 Mortar stone (lot 101406) found as part of the inner tower wall at T. 1147 Quern (lot 091808) found next to Hafit period mudbrick walls along with an imported Mesopotamian sherd at T. 1147 Quern fragments (lot 093202) found inside T. 1147 within a pit of likely prehistoric date Groundstone tool (lot 080825) found inside a mudbrick compartment outside Tower 1147 Hammerstone (lot 101301) and anvil (lot 101307) found among surface debris and rockfall at T. 1156 Fossilized coral(?) mortar (lot 11SS101) found among surface debris at T. 1156 Impressions of cereal chaff on mudbrick (T. 1147, lot 101206) Open thorn woodland near Bat with ghaf trees (Prosopis cineraria, front left) and acacias General map of Bat area Map of falaj al-Sharsah The subterranean gallery of falaj al-Sharsah from flj040 Five access shafts of falaj al-Sharsah The access shaft flj006 from above Plan of access shaft flj094 at the ground surface The sharī‘a flj040 from the southwest The dike flj019 from the northwest

219 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 231 234 236 238 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 264 267 270 271 273 274 275 275 276 277

figures

II.9 II.10 II.11 II.12 II.13 II.14 II.15 II.16 II.17

The dike flj039 from the east The sounding 1 (flj095): plan and view from the west The sounding 1 (flj095): west and east sections Covering slabs from the east at flj095 The sounding 2 (flj096): plan, sections and view from the north Sluice supports in the sounding 2 (flj095) from the south-east The primary canal of falaj al-Sharsah from the east The northern secondary canal crossing a tributary wadi at flj098 from the south Corona image of the wadi al-Sharsah showing how the falaj was abandoned long before modernization began in the 1980s III.1 Example of a fragment of a plano-convex mudbrick showing mold edge (lot 110262) III.2 Full-sized mudbrick with handprints (lot 110261) III.3 A complete one-third mudbrick (lot 110274) III.4 Traditional mudbrick making at Maneh (2010) showing the prepared clay mixed with water and vegetable matter III.5 Traditional mudbrick making at Bahla (2009) showing the re-kneading of the clay and water mix by foot III.6 Example of mold edges on a brick (lot 110267) III.7 Wooden mold in use at Maneh (Dhakhiliyah Province) for modern restoration of mudbrick structures III.8 Plant impressions on one side of a mudbrick from placing the mudbricks on the ground to dry (lot 110257) III.9 Plant impressions on one side of a mudbrick (lot 110242) suggesting the intentional flattening of the brick within a mold III.10 Unusual depressions seen on one side of a mudbrick (lot 110273) III.11 A number of handprints were found on mudbricks from Tower 1147, including this brick from lot 110268 III.12 Tally marks were found on a few examples in which the original surface of the brick was preserved (lot 110249) V.1 Wadi Suq features on top of the northeast side of T. 1156 V.2 Example of human remains recovered from Feature B V.3 Late Umm an-Nar ceramic found at the bottom of (likely pre-dating) Feature C V.4 The exterior wall of Feature A was built to meet the exterior wall of Feature B V.5 Detail of exterior wall of Feature A built to meet the exterior wall of Feature B

xvii

278 279 280 282 284 285 285 286 287 290 290 291 291 292 293 293 294 294 295 296 297 304 305 306 306 307

Tables Table 1.1 Table 9.1 Table 9.2 Table 9.3 Table 11.1 Table 11.2 Table 11.3 Table 11.4 Table 11.5 Table I.1 Table I.2 Table I.3 Table IV.1

Periodization of the Omani Bronze Age used in this volume, compared to the Hili and Mesopotamian sequences All ceramics excavated at Ts. 1146, 1147, and 1156 from 2008–12 Cleuziou’s periodization of Hili-8 Chronological table Typology of metal and metallurgical artifacts Metal and metallurgical artifacts found at Tower 1146 Metal and metallurgical artifacts found at Tower 1147 Metal and metallurgical artifacts found at Tower 1156 Metal and metallurgical artifacts found at Operation A/B Plant impressions found and studied at Bat Identifiable seed/fruit remains from Bat Charcoal identified from Bat Radiocarbon dates from the Bat settlement

3 181 193 215 230 230 233 235 237 264 265 265 301

Acknowledgments

A

s with any large multi-year project, the list of acknowledgments can be truly daunting. First and foremost, we must thank the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of the Sultanate of Oman, without whose support and enthusiasm for this project we could never have accomplished everything presented in this volume. Similarly, we must express our deepest appreciation to the kind people of Bat, who allowed us into their lives and each winter welcomed us back with a smile and a wave. The archaeological site of Bat is a focal point not only for Oman’s past, but also for its future. Working with the Omani government and researchers, modern members of the Bat community and their close neighbors, it is clear that all are committed to the archaeological heritage for which they are stewards. Together, we are working to bridge the gap between the ancient past and the rapid development of modern Oman. The opportunity to do so is as unique and richly important as the origins of the site itself, and has the potential to act not only as an engine for growth in interior Oman, but also as a model for the interactions between research specialists, community members, and government ministries in the face of modern development. Needless to say, this project could never have happened without the generous support of a number of donors and funders in addition to the Ministry of Heritage of Culture. The University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) provided equal support for the Bat Archaeological Project from 2007–11. The National Geographic So-

ciety’s Committee for Research and Exploration provided Gregory Possehl a grant in 2006 to buy a total station for his Oman research. A number of private donors, including members of Greg’s family, provided crucial stop-gap funds when needed. Many devoted members of the excavation team, including David and Leslie Bosch and Yasuhisa Kondo, donated expensive equipment to the project which was greatly appreciated. Dr. Paul Rissman, a former student of Greg’s, donated not only his time and experience to the Bat Project as an excavator, but donated financially to the project as well. It was Paul’s generosity that allowed the Bat Archaeological Project to move forward after Greg’s untimely death in October 2011 (just before the 2012 field season). For stepping up when we needed him most, we and all of the Ph.D. students whose degrees depended on the Bat Archaeological Project are eternally grateful to Paul. This monograph was commissioned and supported by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture, most notably by His Excellency the Undersecretary for Heritage Mr. Salim Mohammed Al Mahruqi; the former Director General for Archaeology and Museums, present Adviser of His Highness the Minister of Heritage and Culture for Special Projects, His Excellency Mr. Hassan Mohammed Al Lawati; Prof. Maurizio Tosi, the advisor for archaeology to His Highness the Minister; the former Director of Excavations Mrs. Biubwa Ali Al Sabri; and the present Additional Director General for Archaeology and Museums Mr. Sultan Saif Al Bakri. From the Penn Museum, Dr. Jim Mathieu, Head of Publications, provided excellent guidance and facilitated peer review, and

xxii

acknowledgments

Dr. Page Selinsky copy edited the entire volume and brought it to publication. A number of illustrators contributed to the completion of the plates, including Reilly Jensen, Kimberley Leaman-Insua, Guenever Thaarup, and numerous members of the excavation teams over the years. Many of the maps and photogrammetric images in this volume were produced by our stellar GIS team, including Robert Charles Bryant, Kristen Hopper, Hannah Hunt, Yasuhisa Kondo, Sutapa Roy, and especially Stefan Smith, who worked most directly on this monograph. Darius Salimi edited most of the text and collected the references. Our friends and colleagues provided a number of images and information for this volume, and we would like to thank them all for their generosity and support. Last but not least, a word of deep appreciation must be given to the late Prof. Gregory L. Possehl, who initiated the Bat Archaeological Project, provided years of mentorship to both of us, and allowed for a veritable army of students and colleagues to carry out research in one of the few calm pockets of the Middle East for many years. Greg loved to provide pithy sayings for any occasion, many of them derived

from Sir Mortimer Wheeler and other esteemed predecessors, but three sayings in particular have stuck with us over the years: 1. Go from the Known to the Unknown. 2. Go Out, not Down. 3. Archaeology is a series of Mistakes; the Key is to make sure you Document those Mistakes. This volume is very much a product of those three rules. We summarize what is known about Bronze Age towers of Oman in Chapter 1 and then spend the rest of the volume explaining what is still unknown. This volume goes out broadly to multiple periods and subjects, without diving too deeply into any one. Finally, there are undoubtedly numerous mistakes documented in this volume, but if so, that is the nature of archaeology and we hope future scholars will make it their mission to document their own mistakes in the exciting world of Bronze Age Arabia. C.P.T. and C.M.C. Washington, D.C. September 2015

1 Introduction Christopher P. Thornton and Charlotte M. Cable

Between Two Civilizations

I

n the 3rd millennium BCE, Southwest Asia witnessed the emergence of a new socioeconomic system in which independent states became reliant, if not entirely dependent, upon other states for the maintenance of their elaborate social, cultural, and religious behavior (Fig. 1.1). In what was arguably the world’s first foray into “globalization,” complex societies arose in the Middle East, northwestern South Asia, and southern Central Asia based on the control of localized production (both craft and subsistence) and the long-distance trade of those products (e.g., Kohl 1979, 1989; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1996; Ratnagar 2004; Possehl 2007). It was a delicate system—one that eventually collapsed around 2000 BCE due to environmental, demographic, and sociopolitical factors—but the exchange of ideas and people along this network continued for thousands of years and ultimately led to the interconnected world of globalized economies that we are experiencing today. The power players of the 3rd millennium BCE trade networks were the major riverine states of Mesopotamia and the Indus (or “Harappan”) Civilization. Neighboring states, such as Elam/Anshan in southwest Iran; Jiroft/ancient “Marhashi” in southeast Iran; and the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex or “BMAC” in southern Central Asia, also played critical roles as drivers of the overland routes (e.g., Lamberg-Karlovsky 1975; Kohl 1987; Potts 2002; Pittman 2013). However, these regions were in some ways overshadowed by the sheer bulk of trade goods that could be passed along the Gulf sea route

(Potts 1993b; Possehl 1997; Ratnagar 2004). Indeed, by the late 3rd millennium BCE (i.e., Akkadian-Ur III periods in Mesopotamia; ca. 2300–2000 BCE), the sea trade between northwest India and southern Iraq (via the Gulf ) had become the primary route of importation/exportation in the region (Possehl 1986; Edens 1992). The Akkadian texts of Sargon and his successors tell us about four important polities or regions involved in the sea trade: 1) The Indus Civilization (“Meluhha”); 2) southeastern Arabia (“Magan”); 3) Bahrain and the eastern Arabian littoral (“Dilmun”); and 4. Mesopotamia itself (Oppenheim 1954; Kramer 1964; Yoffee 1981; Heimpel 1987; Potts 1990a; Possehl 1996; Glassner 1996; Crawford 1998). All four areas were both producers and consumers of imported goods, and all four launched their own ships for the maritime trade. However, work in the Gulf region since the 1950s has shown that Mesopotamia and the Indus Civilization exerted considerable influence over the two smaller polities, although at different times and in different ways (see Carter 2012; Thornton 2012). While texts from the Akkadian through Isin-Larsa periods present a clear vision of Mesopotamian conquest and control of the Gulf region, the archaeological remains of the 3rd and early 2nd millennia BCE from eastern Arabia demonstrate a far more complex situation of cultural influences, population movements, and economic co-dependencies (e.g., Potts 2005, 2010; Laursen 2009, 2010, 2011; Gregoricka 2013a, 2013b). Compared to Mesopotamia, Dilmun, and the Indus Civilization, the lands of ancient Magan

2

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 1.1 The main polities of the 3rd millennium BCE in what Possehl (2007) called the “Middle Asian Interaction Sphere.”

(modern-day Oman and the UAE) have received relatively little attention. Thus, our understanding of the local context—social, political, and economic— underlying Magan’s relationship with its neighbors remains somewhat simplistic. Worse, our current picture of ancient Magan is heavily weighted towards coastal sites (i.e., those most directly involved in the long-distance trade) at the expense of inland sites, despite the fact that the latter are most likely to offer the best view of ancient Magan’s sociocultural milieu. While some important early exceptions exist (e.g., Hili), archaeological emphasis in interior UAE and Oman has generally been on mapping and excavating Bronze Age tombs. For example, although surveys of interior Oman have been conducted since the 1970s (e.g., Humphries 1974; de Cardi et al. 1976; Gentelle and Frifelt 1989; Orchard and Stanger 1994; al-Jahwari 2009), very few settlement sites of the interior were ever surveyed and even fewer have been excavated (see Cable and Thornton 2013). Of the few Bronze Age interior settlement sites that have

been excavated (e.g., Hili, Bisya/Salut, Bat, Maysar), not one has ever been fully published. As a result, archaeologists working in the interior of Oman do not have a clear understanding of the artifactual or architectural record of this region, but must constantly compare what is found to distant coastal sites such as Tell Abraq (Potts 1989, 1990b, 1991, 2000), Umm an-Nar Island (Frifelt 1991, 1995), Kalba (Carter 1997a; Eddisford and Phillips 2009), Ras alJinz (Cleuziou and Tosi 2000), Ras al-Hadd (Reade 1990; Azzara 2009), and others.

Chronology and Terminology at Bat One of the great problems in the prehistoric archaeology of ancient Magan is the reliance upon mortuary typologies and relative dating of grave goods to establish chronologies and terminologies. This fixation on the burials, which were often reused multiple times and over hundreds of years, has led archaeolo-

3

introduction

Table 1.1 Periodization of the Omani Bronze Age used in this volume, compared to the Hili and Mesopotamian sequences. Period

Date Range

Hili-8 period

Mesopotamia

“Hafit”

3100–2900 BCE

Ia–b

Jemdet Nasr – Early Dynastic I

“Late Hafit”

2900–2800 BCE

Ic

Early Dynastic I–II

“Early Umm an-Nar”

2800–2500 BCE

IIa–IIc1

Early Dynastic II–IIIA

“Middle Umm an-Nar”

2500–2200 BCE

IIc2–IIe

Early Dynastic IIIB – early Akkadian

“Late Umm an-Nar”

2200–2000 BCE

IIf–IIg

Late Akkadian – Ur III

“Early Wadi Suq”

2000–1600 BCE

III

Isin/Larsa – Old Babylonian

gists to divide the Bronze Age of ancient Magan into three general mortuary phases—called the “Hafit,” “Umm an-Nar,” and “Wadi Suq” periods—each of which straddles anywhere from 400–800 years. Of course, there is not necessarily agreement about what we mean by “Hafit,” “Umm an-Nar,” and “Wadi Suq,” as these terms can refer to chronological periods, archaeological “cultures,” grave types, ceramic styles, etc. Because of this terminological confusion, the dating of these three periods is highly variable across the literature. For the purposes of this volume, the three periods are stylistically tied to known pottery types of the region and chronologically defined based on radiocarbon dates and external comparanda (see Table 1.1). The “Hafit” period is traditionally defined by small, single-inhumation, stone cairn tombs (often called “beehive tombs”) atop low rocky hills that gradually transition into larger, multiple-inhumation cairn tombs located on the talus slopes or at the base of these same rocky hills (e.g., Frifelt 1975a; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007; Potts 2012; Williams and Gregoricka 2013; al-Jahwari 2015). Hafit tombs are notable for containing early metal artifacts as well as occasional imported ceramic jars from Mesopotamia of the Jemdet Nasr through Early Dynastic I/II types (Fig. 1.2; see color insert). This places the Hafit period roughly between 32/3100 and 28/2700 BCE. Hafit period settlements are rare; the best known are the Hili-8 tower (e.g., Cleuziou 1989a) and HD-6 near Ras al-Hadd, Oman (e.g., Tosi et al. 2001; Azzara 2009). Both sites are notable for being almost entirely aceramic, with the exception of a handful of Mesopotamian and southeastern Iranian sherds. However, significant evidence of shell and lithic working, bead making, and metal working is present at HD-6 (Hil-

bert and Azzara 2012; Giardino 2015), suggesting that this region had already joined the global trade networks by the early 3rd millennium BCE. At least nine radiocarbon dates from HD-6 suggest that this site existed no earlier than 3100 BCE and no later than 2600 BCE, straddling the Hafit and Early Umm an-Nar periods. Building III at Hili8 also provided datable material for the Hafit period, with two dates from Period I giving a 2-sigma (hereafter 2σ) range of 3360–2875 cal. BC. While the terms “Hafit” and “Early Umm an-Nar” are difficult to define, the lack of appreciable ceramics at both HD-6 and Hili-8 (periods I-IIc1) seems to be contemporary with the “aceramic” phases at Khafaji, Matariya, and T. 1156 (Chapters 3, 4, and 6). For the purposes of this volume, the “Late Hafit” period is defined by the transition from mudbrick towers to stone-built towers, and the beginnings of local pottery production at Bat, which occurs around 2800 BCE (see Chapters 4, 6, and 9). This correlates nicely with recent literature demonstrating a transitional phase between Hafit and Umm an-Nar period mortuary customs at around the same time (Potts 2012; Williams and Gregoricka 2013). The following “Early Umm an-Nar” period is therefore defined in this volume by the presence of stone-built towers (also including smaller, lighter-colored mudbricks than in the preceding Hafit period) and by the earliest evidence of Umm an-Nar ceramics, with their characteristic black-on-red or black-on-buff painted designs, fine fabric, and distinctive jar forms (see Chapter 9). The Umm an-Nar period is traditionally defined by having larger tombs than in the Hafit period, which were often subdivided internally, faced with white limestone, and located on the alluvial terraces

4

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

below the low rocky hills (e.g., Vogt 1985; Weeks 2010; Munoz 2015). These tombs often contain numerous individuals (sometimes hundreds), as they were reused over many centuries, with earlier bodies and grave goods either pushed to the sides or collected and deposited in pits outside of the tomb (Fig. 1.3; see color insert). The grave goods themselves are richly adorned with both local and imported pottery, ornaments made of semi-precious stone, metals (including occasionally gold and silver), and shell. A German team has been working on the Umm an-Nar tombs at Bat since 2005 and has reported on this work in numerous papers (e.g., Böhme 2011, 2012; Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011; Döpper and Schmidt 2013, 2014; Thornton and Schmidt 2015). Umm an-Nar period settlements are far more common than Hafit period settlements across Oman and the UAE, and many have been excavated (e.g., Frifelt 1995; Potts 2000; Vogt 1994; Cleuziou and Tosi 2000) although few have been completely published. As part of the Bat Archaeological Project, we conducted a non-systematic survey of 3rd millennium BCE tower sites in order to understand the general distribution of such settlements across the Oman Peninsula (Cable and Thornton 2013). Although missing non-tower settlement sites (e.g., Asimah), this preliminary survey demonstrated a clear line of tower sites following the southern piedmont of the Jebel Akhdar Mountains, with an intriguing distinction between large tower sites (3–4+ towers) and small tower sites (1–2 towers). There was also a surprisingly high number of tower sites on the Emirati coastline (both east and west), while none were known from the extensive Omani coastline. Recent surveys by Derek Kennet (pers. comm.) and Anne Mortimer (pers. comm.) have revealed both large and small tower sites along the northern piedmont of the Jebel Akhdar as well as on the Batinah Coast of Oman, which will no doubt alter this picture considerably. There is not a single Umm an-Nar period site that has a radiocarbon-dated stratigraphic sequence from 2800 to 2000 BCE. At Hili-8, Cleuziou was unable to find datable material for all of Periods IIa– IId, comprising the Early Umm an-Nar period and most of the Middle Umm an-Nar period. Period IIe at Hili-8, correlating to the end of the Middle Umm an-Nar period, provided two dates in the range of

2500–2100 BCE (2σ). The Late Umm an-Nar period at Hili-8 (Period IIf ) provided three dates in the range of 2400–2000 BCE (2σ), while Period III (Wadi Suq) contexts gave two dates in the range of 1950–1650 BCE (2σ). A better type-site for the Late Umm an-Nar period is Maysar-1 (Weisgerber 1981:191–96), for which only radiocarbon dates from “Haus 1” are published (ibid., 251). If the date from “Loc. 1” is removed as being too late (Wadi Suq Period), then the other three dates from Maysar-1 provides a range of 2300–2000 BCE for the Late Umm an-Nar period. The Early Wadi Suq period is defined at Bat by a return to single inhumation burials, often oval in shape, without a significant stone structure built on top. Grave goods include mostly local “Wadi Suq” pottery with few imports, ornaments made of shell and semi-precious stones, numerous locally-made soft-stone vessels, and an increase in metal weaponry such as arrowheads (Fig. 1.4; see color insert). Wadi Suq burials were often placed on top of Umm an-Nar period monuments and houses in the Omani interior and were frequently constructed of stones robbed from the earlier cairn tombs, suggesting a break in social and cultural values between the Umm an-Nar and Wadi Suq periods (e.g., Cleuziou 1981, 2002a). This contrasts significantly with the evidence for continuous social evolution from the Middle Umm anNar period through the Wadi Suq period along the Emirati coastline (e.g., Potts 1990a; Carter 1997b) and to a lesser extent along the east coast of Oman (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007:257–76). The prevalence of settlements along the coastline vs. the dearth of such settlements in the interior in the early 2nd millennium BCE may suggest an increasing emphasis on the Gulf trade and/or the collapse of large oasis-based settlements of the interior (Righetti 2015).

The Site of Bat This volume presents the results of six seasons of excavations at the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Bat in North-central Oman. It represents perhaps the first archaeological monograph for any prehistoric site in Oman and one of the few for 3rd millennium sites of Magan in general. While a fully-realized local picture of ancient Magan is not yet complete, this monograph is a step in that direction, combining

introduction

stratigraphic excavations of a 3rd millennium BCE settlement site with radiocarbon dating and artifact studies. The emphasis of these initial six seasons was on Bronze Age monumental structures called “towers” in order to determine how, when, and why they were built. The site of Bat was originally inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in December 1988, along with the nearby beehive tombs at al-Ayn. The UNESCO-protected zone includes only the northern part of Bat (from Tower [T.] 1147 to the northern edge of the Bat necropolis) and has traditionally been the focal area of research at the site. The evaluation statement submitted to UNESCO noted that “the zone encompassing the settlement and necropolises of Bat is the most complete and best known

5

site of the 3rd millennium BC” in the Sultanate of Oman, and encouraged the protection of other Bronze Age monuments not in the official protected zone (such as T. 1148). Thanks to the efforts of numerous researchers, the local people of Bat, and the Omani Ministry of Heritage and Culture, the site remains in fairly good condition despite the increased construction and modernization of Omani towns. There are three principal areas of the Bat archaeological landscape: 1) the main alluvial valley of the Wadi Sharsah running southeast-northwest; 2) the low hills surrounding the main valley; and 3) the tributaries of the Sharsah which run from northeast to southwest until they collide with the main valley (Figs. 1.5 and 1.6). The majority of the stone tower monuments are located in and around the main

Fig. 1.5 Topographic map of the Oman Peninsula showing key 3rd millennium sites mentioned in this volume.

6

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 1.6 Map of Bat, showing the location of the towers and other key areas with 3rd millennium BCE settlement remains.

Fig. 1.7 A schematic topographic profile of Bat Valley. The main wadi channel lies south of Bat village, while the gravel road to the north is in fact a smaller outlet of the same wadi system (see Chapter 2).

introduction

Fig. 1.8 The Bat Valley in 2012, as seen from the top of the Settlement Slope (looking south).

7

8

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

valley, whether in the alluvium or on top of one of the surrounding low hills overlooking the alluvium. Most Hafit-period graves are located on the low limestone hills surrounding the main valley, particularly on the northern side of the valley. In contrast, most Umm an-Nar graves are located on naturally-raised “islands” formed by the small tributaries running from the northeast until they collide with the Wadi Sharsah near T. 1145. This raised area of concentrated Umm an-Nar and Hafit tombs is referred to as the “Bat Necropolis.” Separating the Bat Necropolis from the main alluvial valley is an area of ruined rectilinear structures on the southern (valley) side of the low limestone hill that runs along the northern edge of the Wadi Sharsah from T. 1145 until just past T. 1146. This collection of Bronze Age structures is referred to as the “Settlement Slope,” following Frifelt (1976, 1985), and is one of the few areas of Bat where a significant amount of Bronze Age pottery is visible on the surface. Today, the flat land that makes up the valley’s bottom consists of open, little-used land cut by wadi channels (some of them braided), agricultural fields, and the modern village of Bat (Figs. 1.7 and 1.8). The historic (mudbrick) village of Bat and its centuries-old Husn (fortress) is located mostly to the south of the alluvial plain, while the modern expansion of Bat is occurring more to the north and west of the valley. The southern part of the landscape has been most prominently altered by both natural and human forces and the archaeological remains seem to be discontinuous, with stone towers and a few tombs scattered amongst the palm trees, crop fields, and houses.

History of Excavations at Bat The archaeological site of Bat was first reported by Capt. Anthony Witheridge, a British officer in the service of the Sultan, who visited the Wilaya (“province”) of Ibri in 1966. Witheridge noted a ruined “kasr” (“palace”) made of large stone masonry and reported it to British archaeologist Beatrice de Cardi, who conducted one of the first archaeological surveys in the Omani interior (1975, 1977; de Cardi et al. 1976). De Cardi had already made a name for herself surveying and excavating in Baluchistan (e.g., 1959, 1970, 1983) and became interested in North-central Oman because of parallels to the Bronze Age materi-

al she was excavating at the site of Bampur in Persian Baluchistan (1970:268). Just as de Cardi and her team approached Bat from the east, another indomitable archaeologist, Karen Frifelt, was approaching North-central Oman from the west (1971, 1975a, 1975b). Frifelt had been part of the Danish archaeological mission in the Gulf for years, finally branching out on her own to begin formative excavations in the UAE at the sites of Umm an-Nar (1991, 1995) and Hili (1975b). As she approached the mountainous regions to the east, Frifelt became fascinated with the thousands of stone cairns that dotted the hillsides, conducting surveys and excavations at Jebel Hafit, Wadi Jizzi, and Wadi Suq (1970, 1975a). It was this interest in understanding the mortuary typologies of southeastern Arabia that initially brought Frifelt to Bat, where the large, well-preserved cemetery spanning multiple periods proved too tempting to abandon. Frifelt continued to work at Bat on-and-off for almost two decades (1973–90; see 1976, 1979, 1985, 1989, 2002a; Gentelle and Frifelt 1989; Brunswig 1989) and did much to elevate the importance of North-central Oman to archaeologists working in the Middle East and South Asia. In 2004, a German team under the direction of Gerd Weisgerber began new excavations and reconstructive work at the Bat cemetery (see Thornton and Schmidt 2015). As Weisgerber’s health deteriorated, the responsibilities of the German mission to Bat fell onto the shoulders of Manfred Böhme, who began preliminary publication of the tomb excavations (Böhme 2011, 2012; Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011). Conrad Schmidt became director of the German Expedition to Bat in 2010 and renewed excavations at the Bat cemetery while also expanding their research to nearby sites in order to place Bat into a more regional context (Döpper and Schmidt 2011, 2013). In 2006, the American expedition to Oman was asked by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture to begin excavations at the Bat settlement, focusing specifically on the monumental “towers” first explored by Frifelt. The “Bat Archaeological Project” was headed by Gregory Possehl of the University of Pennsylvania from 2007 until his untimely death in 2011, at which point the project was continued by Christopher Thornton, Charlotte Cable, and Yasuhisa Kondo as

Fig. 1.9 Magnetometry plan of Operation A and B, showing series of ditches and walls comprising these complex and enigmatic structures (Image courtesy of the German Archaeological Mission to Bat).

10

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

the new “American-Japanese Bat Archaeological Project” or “AJBAP.” Research in January–March of 2007 focused on a preliminary settlement survey; salvage excavations in the foundation trench of a new house being built just west of Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146); and then more focused excavations at two circular mounds to the west of Kasr al-Rojoom (T. 1145) called “Operation A” and “Operation B.” These circular structures had originally been explored by the German mission, who produced an excellent magnetometry image of the area (Fig. 1.9). Preliminary excavations in February of 2007 confirmed the presence of stone walls and ditches around these circular buildings, yet limited time prevented the continued exploration of this area. The German mission under Schmidt has recently returned to Operation B and will hopefully shed light on these enigmatic structures. In the second season at Bat, the American mission began excavations at Khafaji (T. 1146; 2008–

10) and Matariya (T. 1147; 2008–11), as detailed in this volume (see Chapters 3 and 4). In 2009, the research plan expanded to include the tower at Khutm, where a Ministry of Heritage and Culture team conducted mapping, restoration, and limited excavations from 2009–10 under the supervision of Thornton (see Chapter 7). In 2010, the American team began excavations at T. 1156 on the Settlement Slope (2010–12; see Chapter 6) and mapping of Kasr alSleme (T. 1148) to document the Bronze Age structure and the later pecked rock art (see Chapter 5). A French geomorphology team under the direction of Eric Fouache joined the Bat Archaeological Project in 2010 in order to study the alluviation in the main Wadi Sharsah and the environmental conditions of Bronze Age Bat (see Chapter 2 and Appendix 1). Special studies of the lithics (Chapter 10), ceramics (Chapter 9), groundstone tools (Chapter 12), and metal objects (Chapter 11) were carried out by team

Fig. 1.10 Map of the main wadi system from Bat to ad-Dreez, showing the known tower locations in this area.

introduction

members over various seasons, but are extremely preliminary. A limited number of faunal remains were found—most in fragmentary condition and few in clear Bronze Age contexts—that will need to be studied at a later time. The Bat Archaeological Project also conducted a preliminary tower survey of Oman (Cable and Thornton 2013) and mapped two towers at the nearby town of ad-Dariz (Chapter 7; Fig. 1.10).

The Significance of Bat The site of Bat was one of the initial 3rd millennium BCE settlements to be excavated in Oman and, thanks to Karen Frifelt’s superb work, it became a type-site for the broader region. Since Frifelt’s time, we have come to understand that Bat is not unique—there are other large centers of the 3rd millennium BCE, including Khashbah, Bisya, Hili, and Qumayra—but it was part of a broader regional network of oasis settlements that engaged in both agricultural and craft production for presumed export to the coast. What makes Bat special, however, is the exemplary preservation of the prehistoric remains at the site—a testament to the local people’s care of their cultural heritage—and the unusually deep stratified deposits there that are finally providing datable cultural material to refine our regional chronology of the 3rd millennium BCE.

11

Bat is also special because it was the first prehistoric site in Arabia to be inducted onto the UNESCO World Heritage Site list and remains an important symbol of Omani cultural heritage to this day. Yet we sadly know little about ancient Bat and the people who lived, worked, and died there for over a thousand years. Where did they put their houses? What did they eat? Were they ethnically homogenous or more cosmopolitan? Did they produce crafts for export or simply for local consumption? Most importantly for this volume, what inspired them to spend so much time and effort constructing hundreds of massive cairn tombs and at least eight monumental towers? These are the questions that first drove the Bat Archaeological Project to begin work in January 2007 and that continue to drive the project to this day. In this volume, the results of five seasons of excavation focusing on the monumental “towers” will be presented. Many of the studies in this volume were the product of student research projects, Masters theses, and Ph.D. dissertations that will be better detailed in future publications and through continued research. While we may never fully know the reasons why the ancient people of Magan built these dramatically large platforms, the results presented here are already changing our understanding of these enigmatic monuments and their role in the Bronze Age settlements of the Oman Peninsula.

2 The Archaeological Site of Bat in Its Environment Stéphane Desruelles, Eric Fouache, Tara Beuzen, Wassel Eddargach, Cécilia Cammas, Julia Wattez, Chloé Martin, and Margareta Tengberg

I

n the area of Bat, the fluvial terraces in the Wadi Sharsah are rich in Bronze Age archaeological remains, many still extant on the surface. Most are stone-built structures dating to the Umm an-Nar period, although excavations by the American team have uncovered areas of stone and mudbrick construction dated to the Hafit period (see Thornton and Schmidt 2015). As mentioned above, the Hafit period is particularly notable for the establishment of agricultural oases and villages in Oman and the UAE (e.g., al-Jahwari 2009; Méry 2013), but very few non-mortuary deposits from this period have ever been excavated. The discovery of stratified Hafit period deposits at Bat provides an important opportunity to assess the origins of agricultural villages in this region. Decades of archaeobotanical research proves that wheat, emmer, two-rowed barley, six-rowed barley, oat, pea, melon, and date palm consumption was present by the Umm an-Nar period (plant remains studied at Hili, Bat, and Tell Abraq by Cleuziou and Costantini [1980]; Willcox and Tengberg [1995]; Cleuziou [1999]; Tengberg [2003, 2012], and this volume). It has been pointed out, that the Early Bronze Age pluvial period might have had a favorable influence on the development of the first agricultural activities, allowing a more frequent use of runoff (Jorgensen and al Tikriti 2002; Parker et al. 2006; Häser et al. 2010; Preston et al. 2012). However, Bronze Age irrigation systems or practices are still poorly documented and are difficult to date, with the exception of a network of channels and ditches from Hili 8 (Charbonnier 2015). One hydraulic structure from

Bahlā, akin to falaj (a sloped tunnel draining groundwater up to the surface), has been dated to 3000 BCE (Orchard and Orchard 2007b), but its 3rd millennium attribution is still debated (Charbonnier 2015). According to Cleuziou (1998, 1999, 2009), the falaj could have been used since the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE at Hili (UAE), but evidence of hydraulic structures such as aflaj and date cultivation are more well-known and numerous for the Iron Age (Magee 2000; al Tikriti 2002; Cordoba and Del Cerro 2005; Cordoba 2013). It has been suggested that the development of this technology and resource exploitation in the Iron Age might have been southeastern Arabia’s response to the period of increased aridity beginning around 1000 BCE (Magee 2004). Our research reconsiders the natural, chronological, and anthropogenic context of the beginning of water control in Oman through a geoarchaeological and multidisciplinary approach. Given evidence for stratified Hafit and pre-Hafit sedimentary levels at Bat, the fluvial archives from this site are of great importance, and may shed new light on the “great transformation” to farming villages in southeastern Arabia (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007).

Geology and Climate The Bat area is located downstream in the Wadi Sharsah (“Sharsah Valley”), on the southwestern slopes of the central Hajar Mountains of Oman. This valley is one of the major networks of south-flowing wadis coming from the central mountain range

14

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

(Fig. 2.1; see color insert). The mountains are mainly composed of obducted materials. They constitute part of the Alpine mountain range, formed by the early Campanian thrusting of a fragment of the Tethys oceanic crust and the upper mantle over the northeastern edge of the Arabian Platform (Minoux and Jaujon 1986). Sedimentary rocks were tectonically transported to produce further nappes, like the Hawasina nappe and the Samail nappe. They now overlie a pre-Maastrichtian autochthonous rock. The Hajar Mountains uplifted during the Miocene Alpine orogeny, which caused further compressive deformation (Minoux and Jaujon 1986). Late Tertiary and Quaternary erosion of this newly created relief resulted in piedmont screes and vast coalescing alluvial fans in the southern flank of the Hajar Mountains. This semiarid to arid area is characterized by a high year-to-year variability (Sanlaville 2000) and weakness of rainfall occurring during extreme and local events. Two principal water vapor sources affect this area: a northern (Mediterranean influence) and a southern (Indian Ocean; Weyhenmeyer et al. [2002]), but it is currently located outside the range of the Indian Monsoon summer precipitations. Even if it is affected by high-altitude rainfall from the Hajar Mountains and can be considered as a relatively cool and humid area compared to other hyperarid regions in Oman, mean annual rainfall does not exceed 90 mm in Ibri1, concentrated between December and April. It is far from sufficient to sustain rain-fed agriculture or permit the existence of dryland farming (without irrigation inputs, the limits of dryland agriculture likely coincide with regions varying between a 200 and 250 mm of mean annual rainfall). Because of the climatic characteristics of its catchment, the Wadi Sharsah, like most wadis in the area, does not have a permanent flow.

Paleoclimate Since the end of the Pleistocene period, it has been demonstrated that the monsoon climate has repeatedly affected much larger areas of Oman and Arabia (Fleitmann et al. 2003; Fleitmann et al. 2007); in doing so, it has watered some parts of the territory that are currently under hyperarid to arid conditions. The northward shift of the mean latitudinal position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ZTIC) oc-

curred mainly during interglacial times, most recently at about 135–120 ka, 114–104 ka, 82–68 ka, 54–40 ka, and 10.5–6 ka BP (Burns et al. 2001; Fleitmann et al. 2007; Drake et al. 2013; Parton et al. 2013). It brought up hydrological conditions that favored the existence and expansion of interior lakes and drew out savannah biomes, including a denser vegetal cover composed of grassland and woody taxa such as Acacia, Prosopis, and Tamarix (Parker et al. 2004; Parker et al. 2006). The Arabian Early-Mid Holocene pluvial period extends from 10.5 to 6 ka BP (Clark and Fontes 1989; Fleitmann et al. 2003; Fleitmann et al. 2007; Fuchs and Buerkert 2008; Fleitmann and Matter 2009; Lézine 2009a, 2009b; Engel et al. 2012) and can be characterized by a significant regional heterogeneity for the onset, duration, and stability of this period (Preston et al. 2015). Those differences can be explained by centennial- to millennial-scale abrupt changes in the monsoon wind in sync with the fluctuations of solar output (Gupta et al. 2005), by recurring issues in the discontinuity of records in the Arabian Holocene geoarchives due to wind erosional processes (Berger et al. 2012), and by the record’s geographic situation—e.g. the orographic effect of the mountains. Furthermore, concerning the onset of Early-Mid Holocene pluvial condition, it has also been suggested that mid-latitude westerlies systems originating from the eastern Mediterranean were more important throughout northern Arabia during this period (Arz et al. 2003; Parker et al. 2006; Preston et al. 2015) and may have been another source of humidity between 6000 and 4000 BP. Paleoclimatic variability, including cycles of higher rainfall and fluvial activity, played an important role in the geomorphological processes that shaped the present landscape of southern Arabia. Geomorphological vestiges of past pluvial periods, such as paleolakes, have been frequently studied for their paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental records (McClure 1988; Radies et al. 2005; Davies 2006; Parker et al. 2006; Lézine 2009a, 2009b; Preston et al. 2012; Preston et al. 2015). Yet few studies have focused on Holocene fluvial deposits, with the exception of a study done by Berger et al. (2012) in the northern Hadramawt basin (Yemen). For our geographic area of study (the Hajar Mountains and its southern piedmonts), past research has only prin-

the archaeological site of bat in its environment

cipally focused on fluvial archives documenting the Pleistocene fluvial activity (Blechschmidt et al. 2009; Parton et al. 2015).

Geomorphological characteristics of the Wadi Sharsah The present floodplain of the Wadi Sharsah is formed by small braided channels, separated by sediment bars, which are covered by ephemeral streams. The water occasionally streams in three channels characterized by an important lateral displacement: (i) a main active channel located to the south; (ii) the major secondary active channel, in the center of the plain; and (iii) another secondary active channel in the north of the plain, at the point of contact between the plain and the low limestone hills (Fig. 2.2; see color insert). Typical floodplain landforms are present in the Wadi Sharsah, notably fluvial terraces of different levels. Some hydraulic works have affected the watercourse of the Wadi Sharsah. In order to protect the palm grove of Bat village, the main channel was blocked on one side, forcing the wadi to flow south of the village (between the conglomerate hills and the southern limestone slopes). One blockage is located near the base of Husn al-Wardi (the Bat fortress) in the center of the historic village and another one is located 1 km downstream. Due to the expansion of the modern village into the central floodplain, especially the construction of a school directly south of Tower (T.) 1147 (“Matariya”; see Chapter 4), and in order to protect cultivated areas, a dam was constructed in the eastern part of the village approximately 20 years ago. During flooding events, this dam forced water from the major secondary active channel near the center of the plain into the smaller secondary active channel to the north of the plain. This construction explains the recent incision and the lateral erosion that has occurred along the northern wadi (used as a gravel road), which currently threatens a number of archaeological monuments. “Kasr al-Rojoom” (T. 1145) underwent a period of severe erosion, leading to the construction of a protective wall. At the moment, the area to the north of T. 1146, along the northern wadi, displays a number of erosional ravines that could soon threaten the archaeological deposits around this monument.

15

Materials and methods A geomorphological analysis of the valley was conducted in order to study and map all of the features that characterized the Bat valley, in particular the terrace levels. The geomorphological mapping focused on a part of the valley that had a concentration of archaeological remains (Fig. 2.3, see color insert). The terrace levels were identified using geological maps (Minoux and Jaujon 1986), aerial photographs, and ASTER GDEM data, whilst also being supplemented by fieldwork data and topographic measurements in the area. The georeferenced data were integrated and combined with archaeological data using a geographic information system (GIS). Stratigraphic analysis of the fluvial deposits was done along the Wadi Sharsah watercourse in order to understand stream adjustments, alluvial deposition processes, and sediment features. The most interesting sections were recorded and supported through multidisciplinary studies. This paper focuses on the investigation performed on a 10 m long and 2.5 m high section (S1) located 143 m northeast of Kasr al-Khafaji (a Bronze Age monument also called T. 1146; see Frifelt [1989a] and Thornton et al. [2013]) on the left bank of a small tributary of the Wadi Sharsah (Fig. 2.4; see color insert). The section cuts the terrace level where the Bronze Age towers were built. A precise stratigraphic analysis was conducted in order to identify and analyze the different pedosedimentary units. Some undisturbed samples were collected in stratigraphic columns for micromorphological analyses in order to collect accurate data on the Wadi Sharsah flood dynamics. Sedimentary thin sections were made after Guilloré (1985) and then studied and described (according to the methods proposed by Bullock et al. [1985] and Stoops [2003]) under a polarizing microscope to determine the composition of the sediment and the part played by human and natural processes in the formation of the layers (Courty et al. 1989; Wattez et al. 1998; Cammas and Wattez 2009). Malacological study conducted on samples collected in the stratigraphy of the section provided data on the natural environment. A study of botanical macro-remains collected during the excavation of Early Bronze Age structures at Bat gave information on past local vegetation (see Appendix I). The results were inserted into a chronological framework based on radiocar-

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

16

Year of Sampling

Laboratory Number

Material

Depth

US of Sampling

Conventional Radiocarbon Age

Calibrated Date

2010

Beta 278911

Charcoal

1.4–1.5 m

US 20

4360 ± 40 BP

3090–2900 BCE

2010

Beta 278912

Charcoal

1.4–1.5 m

US 20

4370 ± 40 BP

3092–2904 BCE

2010

Beta 278913

Charcoal

2.0–2.2 m

US 2.24

4860 ± 40 BP

3711–3529 BCE

2011

Beta 291688

Charcoal

1m

US 2.20b

4920 ± 40 BP

3776–3642 BCE

2013

Beta 347964

Organic Sediment

1m

US 2.20b

4740 ± 30 BP

3635–3380 cal. BCE

2013

Beta 347968

Charcoal

1.2 m

US 16

4620 ± 30 BP

3512–3348 cal. BCE

Year of Sampling

Laboratory Number

Depth

Dose

n

Dose Rate

w.c

Age

2013

Rise 13 28 06

1.5 m

6.3 ± 0.2 Gy

28

0.65 ± 0.04 Gy/ka

1.00%

9.6 ± 0.7 ka BP

Fig. 2.5 Radiocarbon and OSL dates taken from “S1” section and Deep Sounding in Tr. A of Tower 1146.

bon dating of 5 samples of charcoal and 1 sample of organic sediment from this same section (Fig. 2.5). Reported radiocarbon ages were calibrated by Beta Analytic, Inc. using the INTCAL-09 data set (Heaton et al. 2009; Reimer et al. 2013). As a complement to the study of the section S1, the stratigraphy of the deep sounding (“Trench [Tr.] A”) dug into the central compartment of T. 1146 was observed in collaboration with the archaeological team. Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating was carried out by the Nordic Laboratory for Luminescence Dating on a sample taken at the bottom of the sondage.

Results 1. Some Bronze Age towers are built on a Holocene fluvial terrace level. Three fluvial terrace levels have been distinguished. The present floodplain is generally incised into a terrace level 2, located 1.50 to 2 m above the bottom of the present alluvial channel. This surface can be covered by extreme flash flood events. The alluvial fill is characterized by a predominance of black/gray deposits (silt, sand, and gravel). Locally, the Wadi Sharsah active channel cuts into a lower level (terrace 1) probably due to a recent incision. This lower level cannot be found around the former channels downstream of the modern levee crossing the floodplain. Above terrace 2, a higher terrace level (terrace 3) remains in some sectors of the valley.

Catastrophic floods seem to have been rare during the last four millennia, as suggested by the relatively small amount of superficial sedimentation (2–3 m of alluvium) and the survival of Bronze Age monuments and occupation surfaces on the modern landscape. However, certain prehistoric levels, such as the one surrounding T. 1146, have been buried under alluvium recently (over approximately the past millennium), which proves that the entire valley is an anthropogenic floodplain. There is some evidence that Bronze Age remains were constructed on anthropogenic “islands” above the floodplain. For example, the top of the circular wall of Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146), radiocarbon dated to ca. 2400 BCE, is visible on the surface today and it stands on a prehistoric surface (~1.5 m down) that roughly parallels the modern surface (see Thornton et al. 2013). However, the Hafit period structures underneath T. 1146 (dated to ca. 3000 BCE) are distinctly sloped down from north to south, with the tower wall on the north side sitting directly on top of the Hafit walls (~1.5 m below the surface), while on the south side, the Hafit walls are almost 3 m below the modern surface (and 1 m below the bottom of the tower wall). Even within the limited exposure of Hafit structures in Tr. A, the walls slope downward from north to south. These Hafit walls are built on top of 2–3 courses of mudbrick, which appear to form an artificial platform—although the horizontal exposure of the deep sounding in Tr. A is fairly limited at this level (Fig. 2.6). Underneath the “platform” is almost a meter of alluvium, which sits

the archaeological site of bat in its environment

Fig. 2.6 Stratigraphy of the Deep Sounding of Tr. A in T. 1146 (see Chapter 3), showing the continued strata numbers from Fig. 3.17. Note that points α and β have been added to both figures to align them together.

17

18

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

on top of a sandy layer with large river cobbles at the bottom of the deep sounding. An OSL sample taken from this bottom layer, from a period before anthropogenic control of this landscape, returned a date of 9.6 ± 0.7 ka BP. 2. The evolution of the Wadi Sharsah is strongly influenced by anthropogenic behavior The micromorphological study of the gravel road-cut section (S1) helped to identify 6 pedosedimentary phases related to floodplain evolution and the gradual human impact (Fig. 2.7). • Phase 1 (stratigraphic units [US] 2.26, 2.25, 2.24, 2.23 and 2.22), at the bottom of the section, is a massive greyish-white unit, which is predominantly composed of loamy clay. Occasionally, grey lenses are observed at the base. Biological cavities are also present. The particle size, the calcitic loam and fine, charred plant remains (50–100 µm) testify to a low energy dynamic, and the massive arrangement of the particles indicates a rapid sedimentation due to quick decrease of the flow. These episodes of flooding alternated with drier phases characterized by micritic crust with clay curls and biological activity features. Iron features, such as iron mottling indicates waterlogging. Some microincisions, filled with silty to sandy sediments, point out some very localized flows (microchannels) during this period. As a conclusion, these deposits prior to the 3rd millennium BCE (sample Beta 278913) are the result of a very low energy dynamic, followed by regular flooding and progressive silting in an active floodplain. • Phase 2 (top of US 2.21, US 2.20 [a and b]) is characterized by a stack of loamy microlayers and the abundance of microchannels filled with fine to medium sands, which indicate frequent flash floods. Microscopic features such as broken micritic crusts point to runoff on dry surfaces. Particle sizes ranging from silt to medium sands indicate low to medium energy flows. Compared to the previous phase, rhythms of floods are more irregular. At the top of the US 2.21, charred particles are less abundant and anthropogenic components, such as fine charcoals (in-

•

•

framillimetric) and small mudbrick fragments, begin to appear. Irregular flash floods could be due to climatic variation like aridification, but the presence of anthropogenic components towards the top of this phase suggests an increase of human impact on hydrological dynamics, which could be related to the progressive control of flow. Therefore, the top of the US 2.21 could show the beginning of anthropogenic influence on hydrologic dynamics, but for this phase the distinction between natural and anthropogenic impacts on hydrological dynamics needs to be better studied. The deposits of phase 2 were truncated. It could be either an anthropogenic excavation or a small gully created by runoff. According to the dating of the US 2.20b (3776–3642 cal BCE; Beta 291688) and the US 20 (3092–2900 cal BCE; Beta 278911–912), the digging occurred during the second half of the 4th millennium BCE. Phase 3 (US 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 29) is composed of alternating layers of thin white sediments (ranging from a few millimeters to more than ten centimeters) and light grey silty clay layers. This phase presents the same characteristics as deposits of phase 2. However, sand enrichment of the matrix indicates flow of slightly higher energy, and microchannels due to flash floods are more abundant. Clay coatings in biological porosity indicates input by very low energy flow. The absence of micritic crusts suggests longer periods of humectation. Another difference lies in an increased abundance of anthropogenic components (charcoals, mudbrick fragments, and some feces from herbivorous species). The deposits of phase 3, which occurred before 2900 BCE (according to the dating Beta 278911–912), correspond to the filling of a natural or anthropogenic excavation by gully deposits due to irregular and contrasted flows interspersed with longer periods of humectation. Phase 4 (US 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 30, 31, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11 and 2.19) sediments are a complex stratified sequence of layers, particularly developed in the natural or anthropogenic excavation, whose morphology and internal characteristics suggest anthropogenic activities: grains of pottery, centi-

Fig. 2.7 Thin sections of samples coming from S1. A: Massive microstructure, vesicles, and mottling iron related to water saturation; numerous charred and humified plant particles (phase 1); B: Thin bedded units of calcitic loam related to low energy flows; crack microstructures and curls of clay resulting of dewatering episodes by trampling, with charred plant remains (phase 1); C: Increase of sand (high energy flow) and sedimentary crust broken up; mechanical alteration related to human activities (phase 2); D: Mudbrick remains (phase 2); E: Remains of herbivore feces (phase 2); F: Fine loamy constructed floor, reworked by trampling, with charred plant remains (phase 3); G: Sandy loamy material and sedimentary crust related to regular flooding (irrigation?); partial mixing resulting from tillage (phase 3).

20

•

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

meter-sized charcoal fragments, and pieces of broken as well as whole mudbricks (especially the “dark brown” mudbrick type known from T. 1147 and Hafit levels under T. 1146) have been observed. The mudbrick material is organized both in thin lenses and in thicker deposits. When observed in a tell-type context, such a succession is typical of occupational phases correlated to mudbrick features (Courty et al. 1989; Matthews and Postgate 1994; Matthews 1995; Stordeur and Wattez 1998). The dating of the US 16 (3512–3348 cal BCE; Beta 347968), which seems too early compared to the dating of US 20, is probably disturbed by the reworking of anthropogenic elements. Phase 5 (US 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 2.5, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.27, 2.28, 2.29 and 2.30) is a complex sequence composed of rhythmic channeled and diffuse high energy deposits partially mixed by mechanical disturbances such as tillage. Gravelly sand lenses (from a few to several tens of centimeters thick) alternating with compact silty sand layers. These lenses are interrupted by a depression (US 2.27 to 2.30) with almost vertical asymmetrical sides and a flat bottom. It contains a fill of comparatively thicker layers of gravelly sand. The combination of high energy flows and tillage features strongly suggests irrigation. At the base of the deposit, micromorphological

•

analysis reveals what seemed to be part of a small wall built (US 2.8?) from sediment produced by scraping the surface soil of the irrigated fields. An earthen wall of about 10 to 20 cm in height unearthed in this level seems to testify the existence of canals or plots of irrigation. The macroscopic and microscopic sedimentary organization of this level could be typical of the installation and the maintenance of irrigation plots over a long period, structuring a system that seems to be very similar to the present one. This interpretation has to be supported by further field archaeological investigations associated with micromorphological studies. Phase 6 (US 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.12) is a mixed light beige-grey and silty sand assemblage with an abundance of sandy lenses (less than 1 cm thick) located within more massive layers. A few coarser sandy lenses are also observed in those sediments. This is due to occasional runoff events of variable intensity and limited extension. The question of the origin and the rhythms of these runoff episodes is yet to be answered.

The study of charcoal fragments (resulting from the use of wood as fuel) indicates a Bronze Age vegetation cover similar in composition to that around the site today (see Appendix I). The trees growing there were acacias (Acacia), ghaf trees (Prosopis cineraria), jujube (Ziziphus spina-christi; Fig. 2.8B) and tamarisk (Tamarix). The study of carbonized seed and

Fig. 2.8 Archaeobotanical and malacological analyses. A: Impressions of cereal chaff on mudbrick (Tower 1147); to the right the impression of an inner glume (palea) of barley; B: Transversal section of an archaeological charcoal fragment of jujube wood (SEM-photograph); C: Zootecus insularis; D: Melanoides tuberculata.

the archaeological site of bat in its environment

fruit remains, as well as of plant impressions on mudbricks (recovered during the excavation of occupational layers associated with the monumental Bronze Age towers), indicates the presence of cultivated barley (Hordeum vulgare; Fig. 2.8A) and free-threshing wheat of the bread type (Triticum cf. aestivum) during the Hafit period. Agricultural production took place in irrigated date palm gardens where the cultivation of date palms (Phoenix dactylifera), which provide a rich source of sweet and nutritious fruits, was combined with that of annual plants. The malacological analyses allow us to identify three main species of mollusks between US 2.21 and 2.1. Between US 2.21 and 2.20b, Zootecus insularis is present in large quantities (Fig. 2.8C). For US 2.14, Zootecus insularis is predominant but there are also specimens of Melanoides tuberculata (Fig. 2.8D). In US. 2.2 and 2.1, Melanoides tuberculata is most frequent with a few specimens of Pupoides sp. Zootecus insularis is a very common terrestrial mollusk in the UAE and in the Hajar Mountains (Ehrenberg 1831). Its natural environment consists of shady and humid places and it is, thus, easy to find in gardens and agricultural areas. Melanoides tuberculata is a freshwater mollusk that does not live in stagnant rivers, as it does not seem to tolerate salinities greater than 2 g/l. Its presence in the upper levels indicates the existence of fresh water, which could confirm the use of an irrigation system. The analyses and dating realized in S1 indicate gradual evolution of the landscape, from floodplains that are regularly flooded to the installation of an anthropogenic pedosystem, possibly related to tillage and even irrigation practices, prior to 3600 BCE.

Discussion Was the first control of flow irrigation coincident with the beginning of the aridification trend during the 4th millennium BCE? The geomorphological study of the Wadi Sharsah leads us to identify a stacking of the Holocene terraces testifying to a contraction of the active channel in the course of the second half of the Holocene. In addition, the stratigraphic unit 2.21 of S1, prior to unit 2.20b (radiocarbon dated to 3700–3400 BCE) corresponds to a transitional layer between fine deposits (due to important and regular flooding) of the pedosedimen-

21

tary phase 1 and sediments coming from controlled flow irrigation. The transitional period corresponds to the beginning of the aridification trend following the Holocene climatic optimum (10.6–6.2 ka BP; Berger et al. 2012) observed in the Arabian Peninsula. The Wadi Sharsah landscape at the end of the Neolithic reconstructed by our study includes gravel bars probably created by fluvial aggradation (as observed in the valley bottoms of the northern tributaries of Wadi Masîla [Anderson 2007; Berger et al. 2012]) during the Late Glacial Period. These deposits are covered by anthropogenic levels (light brown, compact silt; silty clay with medium compaction; and compact, brown, silty soil). This alluvium certainly created small elevations surrounded by channels, in particular, a paleochannel positioned on the northern side of the valley. We interpret the fine deposits of the pedosedimentary phase 1 in S1 as the result of a progressive filling of the paleochannel due to regular and low energy flooding. A similar pattern of human settlement, close to water and vegetable resources, was observed in other wadi bottoms (like wadis in Hadramawt [Berger et al. 2012]). The Wadi Sharsah could have been flooded for early agriculture or the flock feeding of nomadic pastoralists. According to micromorphological analyses, the deposits of the transitional period (US 2.21; prior to 3400 BCE) are due to irregular rhythms of floods. However, anthropogenic components at the top of the US 2.21 suggest a progressive control by diversion of flow supporting the (controlled) flood of the farmed areas. At this period, where flooding was relatively less frequent, the water of the Wadi Sharsah could have been collected and guided towards the cultivated area in order to allow irrigated agriculture in the floodplain. Three kilometers upstream from the archaeological site of Bat, on both the east and west sides of a limestone hill, a long, straight wall made of large limestone blocks was observed. This isolated wall is situated near the border of the main channel of the Wadi Sharsah, at the point of divergence where the wadi channel opens into the floodplain. This position is efficient to divert water rich in silt towards the cultivated areas in the north part of the valley during annual flooding. This hypothesis must be confirmed by archaeological investigation. Otherwise, to be truly effective, this diversion wall would need to be associated downstream with numerous dams and

22

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

channels to ensure a good distribution of water and sediment. This full system has not yet been discovered and, if it exists, may be present under the alluvium. The only archaeological structure that could correspond to such a system may be the “dam” described by Brunswig (1989) in his “Sondage 5,” which runs north-south across the northern wadi channel to the north of T. 1146. We suggest that this structure caught sediments, which favored the growing of cereals. According to Brunswig (1989), a potsherd found at the base of the dam in “Sondage 5” dates to the Umm an-Nar phase. New excavation with absolute dating of the deposits could confirm the chronology of the construction and the use of this device. Since the beginning of the Bronze Age (around 3100 BCE), we can assume that the hydraulic dynamics of the Wadi Sharsah were controlled. Due to the climate aridification during the 3rd millennium BCE, the flow collected by the first installation during the flooding became insufficient for the supply of the agricultural irrigation. As a consequence, it is possible that some aflaj were built to collect and use the groundwater of the Wadi Sharsah for irrigation. The perennial water supply by the falaj would allow for date palm cultivation and, in general, for oasis culture. At Bat, the date palm cultivation may have appeared at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE, although evidence for this is still circumstantial (e.g., the existence of date palm impressions on mudbricks at Matariya; see Appendix III). During the Umm an-Nar period, the aridification trend was still going on (with the 4.2 ka hyperarid event [Berger et al. 2012]), but the Wadi Sharsah underflow remains perennial, as is currently the case. In case of the water table falling, the deepening of the falaj would have ensured a continuous water supply of irrigated agriculture (plots of irrigation) of the oasis. Was the evolution of the area of Bat caused by progressive aridification and/or a plan to increase agricultural productivity (or both)? The major question this leaves us is the relationship between aridification and increased agricultural productivity. The two are certainly tightly intertwined. It is difficult to date the 3rd millennium BCE towers at Bat, but two have proven to be earlier than the others and date to the Hafit period. Both suggest an association with water—one through a central well, the other through a series of channels

and a cistern—and both are positioned on the northern side of the valley close to a paleochannel. Several later (Umm an-Nar period) towers along the same paleochannel also appear to have wells. While on the one hand this suggests that the paleochannel was still active and water was easily accessible, it also may indicate an increase in (agricultural) demands for water—assuming that several of these towers were in use at the same time, rather than used and abandoned in a sequence. Whether the increased local demand led to local aridification or whether the local aridification led to greater effort in exploitation of the paleochannel requires further study. This also raises a question of other technological developments at ancient Bat. Though under debate, there is little consistent evidence for irrigation by the all-important falaj until the Iron Age, long after Bat oasis first flourishes. Even ignoring the earliest possible dates for irrigation suggested by this research (i.e., at the end of the Neolithic), Bat appears to have been agriculturally tended and irrigated quite early. It is possible that the Iron Age and later reliance on falaj irrigation was an innovation brought on by population pressure and reliance on a successful combination of thriving oasis agriculture and pastoralism (Magee 2014).

Conclusion The geoarchaeological study of the Wadi Sharsah and, in particular, the site of Bat, allows us to present a preliminary reconstruction of the evolution of agricultural practices in the floodplain. The micromorphological analysis of samples coming from S1 (which cut alluvial deposits of the Wadi Sharsah) indicates gradual evolution of the landscape, from floodplains that are regularly flooded to the installation of an anthropogenic pedosystem, possibly related to tillage and irrigation practices, prior to 3400 BCE. This alteration results from the climatic changes (progressive aridification since the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE) and, secondarily, from technical adaptation of the human societies to hydroclimatic constraints (seasonal and year-to-year variability of surficial flow, water table flow and so forth). The chronology deduced from the study of S1 is coherent with the regional reconstruction of Holocene climate variation. In addition, our study in-

the archaeological site of bat in its environment

23

Fig. 2.9 Hypothetical reconstruction of relationship between the tower and S1.

dicates an agricultural improvement of the valley towards the end of the Neolithic, prior to the oasis culture associated with the building of towers and, eventually, the aflaj. The history of the valley could be further explored by a study of the functional relationships between farmed and built-up area (Fig. 2.9). Only an archaeological survey, allowing a geoarchaeological

investigation of natural and anthropogenic deposits at the boundary between those areas, will provide sound answers.

notes

2.1 Monthly averages for the 24-year period 1986–2009 (http://met.gov.om/opencms/export/sites/default/dgman/en/ weather-chart/historical-data/).

3 Excavations at Kasr al-Khafaji (Tower 1146) Christopher P. Thornton

T

he Bronze Age tower known today as Kasr al-Khafaji, first surveyed and test excavated by Karen Frifelt in 1986, is generally referred to as “Tower 1146” in the archaeological literature (Frifelt 1989a; Thornton et al. 2013). This tower is partially buried in the alluvium of the wadi plain just 200– 250 m southwest of the Settlement Slope and about 350  m south-southeast of Kasr al-Rojoom (Tower [T.] 1145). In this chapter, the results of three seasons of excavation (2008–10) will be presented, focusing on the Bronze Age tower, contemporaneous structures located around the tower, the Hafit levels below the tower, and the Islamic-period reuse of the tower.

Previous Research: Danish Team (1986) In 1986, Frifelt returned to Bat to carry out limited excavations at T. 1146. Although this research was only partially published (Frifelt 1989a; see also Frifelt 2002a:103), the late Prof. Gerd Weisgerber was kind enough to provide digital copies of the drawings Frifelt made during her excavations at Kasr al-Khafaji. The drawings show four trenches: a ten-meter-long sondage leading south from the tower wall (Trench [Tr.] 1), a small (2 by 1 m) trench just south of this sondage (Tr. 2), one large trench in the center of the tower (Tr. 3), and a small (2 by 1 m) trench on the southern edge of the tower wall (Tr. 4) (Fig. 3.1). While the two small trenches are not overly informative, the two larger trenches are worth brief comment. Trench 3 was presumably opened in the center of the tower to find the square well, which is un-

questionably the central feature of this tower. In this trench, Frifelt uncovered part of the southern parallel wall as well as the beginning of one of the partition walls that radiate from the parallel, primary walls to the tower wall. Her plan drawing includes depths for many of the stones of the well podium and walls, but also the depth of her excavation between the walls in the central compartment of the tower. She marks the top stones of the northern side of the southern primary wall as 105–7 cm? (presumably below datum). Assuming none of these stones have been removed since 1986, this depth correlates to about 25 cm above Datum 1 in Bat 2008–10 terms. The bottom of the lowest course of stones is marked 145–54 cm?, while what seems to have been the bottom of her excavation is marked 172–220 cm?. The ten-meter-long sondage (Tr. 1) on the south side of the tower, beginning roughly where the ramp wall meets the tower wall, has been discussed previously by Frifelt (1989a:107–12) and will be merely summarized here (Fig. 3.2). The sondage is divided in half by what Frifelt called a “water channel,” based on its similarity to modern-day irrigation channels (see Frifelt 1989a: figs. 10.5 and 10.9). However, this feature could also be a wall constructed of stones on the exterior and interior faces, with the interior simply filled with mud, pebbles, trash, etc. At Maysar, for example, the stone walls were often filled with metallurgical debris, potsherds, and other domestic and industrial waste (Weisgerber pers. comm.). In the southern half of her sondage, Frifelt was able to determine roughly three periods of deposition based upon the associated pottery. The Middle-Late

0

Trench 2

5m

Trench 1

Fig. 3.1 Plan of Frifelt’s test trenches from her 1986 season at T. 1146 (original plans courtesy of G. Weisgerber).

N Trench 3

26 the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 3.2 The western section of Frifelt’s “Trench 1,” opened on the south side of T. 1146 in her 1986 season (courtesy G. Weisgerber).

28

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Islamic period material, which was associated with a clay-lined oven, lay directly above a level assigned to “the pre-Islamic period” based upon “a few potsherds that appear to relate to the Iron Age” (Frifelt 1989a:112). This description is unfortunately rather vague, as Iron Age-related material encompasses anything from the Late Bronze Age through the Early Islamic Periods. Regardless of what it is called, this proto-historic level sits directly on top of a layer of “hard packed silt” containing “stones and stone chips, small freshwater mollusks and scattered potsherds of 3rd millennium date” (Frifelt 1989a:112). In this southern part of the sondage, the horizon between “Pre-Islamic” and Middle-Late Islamic levels lies at a Frifelt depth of roughly 180 cm (ca. 50 cm below our Datum 1) while the “Pre-Islamic” to Bronze Age transition occurs at roughly 205–55 cm (ca. 105–55 cm below our Datum 1). The northern half of the sondage was more complicated and did not correspond well with the levels seen in the southern half. Characteristic of the upper part of the section is rockfall from either the tower wall or the “water channel” intermixed with loose, sandy sediments. The bottom half, however, appears to be a fairly solid mass of “pale grey compact silt” that begins roughly at the base of the plinth stones of the tower wall (about 280 cm in Frifelt depths; about 150 cm below Datum 1). This compact layer is just over a meter thick and sits on top of a series of flat stones laid atop one another that Frifelt (1989a:112) interpreted as a wall. This partially-fallen wall sits within a matrix of similar compact grayish silt, but this layer also contained charcoal and “plant impressions representing domestic cereals” (Frifelt 1989a:112). Although these remarks will need to be checked with future excavations, we can readily infer that this lower wall is part of the pre-tower Hafit levels found at the bottom of Tr. A and Tr. B (see below), and the compact layer of grey “silt” may in fact be the silty, light grey mudbricks used to fill in the Hafit walls as found in Tr. A (see below).

Recent Research: American Team (2008–10) In 2008, the American team at Bat began the first of three seasons of excavation at T. 1146 (Fig.  3.3). The goal of this research was to under-

stand how and why this Bronze Age tower was built and to determine a chronological framework for its construction, use, and re-use. In the first season, the strata overlying the Bronze Age tower were removed to understand the periods of re-use of this monument (see “Post-Bronze Age Levels” below). In the second season, an area outside the tower was opened to determine the stratigraphic relationship between the Extension Wall and the tower itself (see “Trenches B–G”), and the central compartment of the tower was opened as a Deep Sounding to find virgin soil (see “Trench A”). Finally, in 2010, another area on the southeast side of the tower was opened to determine the relationship between the ramp wall and the tower (see “Ramp Wall”) and the Deep Sounding was completed (see “Trench A”). In all, the excavations at T. 1146 provide a fascinating sequence of use, desertion, and re-use from pre-Hafit period irrigated fields to the possible Late Islamic period use of the tower for its well.

Post-Bronze Age Levels: Strata 0–3 Before beginning excavations in 2008, the presence of a Bronze Age tower at the site was relatively clear. The large stone tower wall was visible on three sides, while the southeast side of the tower wall, between the Ramp Wall and the Extension Wall, was not visible. An arbitrary grid of 5 x 5 m trenches was established on and around the tower, placing the ca. 20-meter-diameter tower in the center of a 90 x 90 m grid along the magnetic N-S/E-W axes (Fig. 3.4). Each trench was then given a number beginning with “46” (for T. 1146) and then a three-digit number beginning with 000 at the very northwest corner of the 90 x 90 m grid. Thus, the tower itself sits between Trs. 46133 (NW corner) and 46210 (SE corner) in a 30 x 30 m area. A rebar datum (“Datum 1”) was placed in concrete just northeast of the tower at the northeast corner of Tr. 46120 (UTM coordinates: Northing 2572596.75, Easting 474246.08, Elevation 475.2 m), with the modern surface of the fallow fields at that point serving as an arbitrary “0” depth against which the tower excavations could be measured. As a standard, we would daily take a depth reading in the center of the western (60–63 cm above Datum 1) and eastern (+37–40 cm) flagstones of the well.

Fig. 3.3 Tower 1146 seen from the north in 2008, after brush and modern trash were cleared from the surface.

Fig. 3.4 The excavation grid for T. 1146 established in 2010, using magnetic north for the north-south axis.

30

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

The excavations to remove the historic layers overlying the Bronze Age tower were carried out rather quickly. First, numerous thorny shrubs and two trees were removed from atop the tower, and the surface debris (“Stratum 0”) was removed. The top 10–20 cm of backfill from Frifelt’s Trench 3 was also removed to re-expose the well stones and the walls she had uncovered. Excavation proceeded from this area to the east through 10–20 cm of the loose upper-most sediment (“Stratum 1”) until the top of the “rocky fill” (“Stratum 2”), which was comprised of numerous fist-sized wadi pebbles and angular rocks densely packed in relatively loose, silty sediment. In certain areas of the tower (e.g., Tr. 46136), small stones had been laid along the outer edge of the tower wall to hold in the rocky fill, which lay over the original tower wall stones (Fig. 3.5). The rocky fill stratum (ca. 30–40 cm deep) was then removed down to the top of the “rockfall” (Stratum 3), which was comprised of stones that fell or were knocked down from the original walls of the

tower and which effectively seal the Bronze Age tower below. The rockfall (ca. 40–50 cm deep) within the Bronze Age tower was often found ‘concreted’ within a very hard, compact, loamy sediment (often with visible chaff) that behaves like mudbrick except it has no obvious form. The rockfall stratum was drawn and photographed and eventually removed to expose the preserved walls and wall faces below (Fig. 3.6). Having established the three major strata lying above the Bronze Age part of the tower, horizontal excavation was carried out across almost the entire tower. In general, the uppermost soil and the rocky fill strata were removed as one dirt lot to reach the Bronze Age rockfall. One exception was the complex on the east side of the tower delineated by the Ramp Wall (Tr. 46191) and the Extension Wall (Trs. 46173–46174). In this area, the upper-most soil was removed to reveal rocky fill in the extension (east side of 46173, west side of 46174), while in the ramp (east side of 46191) there was rockfall in loose sandy/silty sediment. In the extension, the

Fig. 3.5 Small stones laid along the north side of the tower wall to retain the “rocky fill” layer (“Stratum 2”), most probably dated to the Middle Islamic Period.

excavations at kasr al-khafaji (tower

1146)

31

Fig. 3.6 Trench 46189 before the complete removal of Stratum 3, showing how the walls and compartments were effectively sealed by rock collapse (taken from south).

rocky fill was excavated down to Bronze Age rockfall but no further for fear of undermining the Extension Wall. The same was true for the Ramp Wall, which at two courses deep was possibly unstable (see “Ramp Wall” below). In most cases, the removal of Stratum 1 revealed the uppermost stones of the circular tower wall, while the rocky fill (Stratum 2) and the rockfall (Stratum 3) generally lay on top of the interior walls of the tower. The major exception was on the east side of the tower, where the circular tower wall lay hidden underneath the rocky fill, which was contained by the Extension Wall (Fig. 3.7). The west side of the tower (Trs. 46152 and 46170) seems have been better preserved, as demonstrated by the intact “pavement” of large, offset tower wall stones (Fig. 3.8). Above these pavement stones, three or four layers of smaller stones (similar in size to the stones used for inner wall construction) were laid flat on top of one another into packed mud (also found on the south side of the tower) (Fig. 3.9). This seems to have been the intentional fill of this five-meter-thick tower wall, possibly forming a ring-like platform with stone paving surrounding the inner compartments.

Dating the post-Bronze Age levels has proven to be very difficult, given the lack of datable material (other than a single goat mandible found just below Stratum 1) and the lack of well-defined primary contexts. In general, Stratum 1 seems to contain mostly ceramics of the Late Islamic period, including glazed Bahla Ware, comb-incised buff ware, and fabric-impressed ware (see Chapter 9). A number of broken glass fragments, including bracelets and small button-base bottles, were also found in this upper stratum. The date of the rocky fill of the tower and the Extension Wall area (Stratum 2) was also difficult to ascertain. This was due mainly to the great diversity of pottery types found in this stratum, as well as the lack of comparable excavated material from the Omani interior. The pottery from this stratum includes Sgraffiato Ware of the 11th–13th centuries CE, as well as turquoise glazed and redand-yellow glazed wares from later periods. Based on these ceramics, a Middle-Late Islamic period age is suggested for the rocky fill. The rockfall (Stratum 3) below was unfortunately almost completely sterile, so it is not clear when the Bronze Age tower was originally abandoned.

32

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 3.7 The rocky fill (Stratum 2) overlying the tower wall (near where it meets the Extension Wall) in Tr. 46154.

Fig. 3.8 The southern and western sides of the tower wall were the best preserved, and removal of Stratum 3 rock collapse in Trs. 46169–46170 unveiled large tower stones intentionally laid in a chaffy mud packing (e.g., under the half meter stick).

excavations at kasr al-khafaji (tower

1146)

33

Fig. 3.9 On the south side of the tower wall (in Trs. 46188–46189), small stones (identical to those of Stratum 3) were laid on top of large tower stones and similarly packed into chaffy mud.

Ramp Wall: A Closer Look at the Late Islamic Reuse of the Tower In 2010, it was decided to explore in greater detail the Ramp Wall that emanated from the circular tower wall towards the southeast. As had been determined in 2008, this crude wall of large upturned stones was stratigraphically much higher than the upper course of the tower wall and clearly did not adjoin it. The fill in the area bounded by the Ramp Wall was entirely of Stratum 1, with occasional large stones from the tower wall (or reused stones from the Ramp Wall) in amongst the loose sandy/silty sediment. It had also been determined in 2008 that the rocky fill (Stratum 2) and rockfall (Stratum 3) evident just north of the Ramp Wall in between the Extension Wall and the circular tower wall was almost

entirely lacking from the southern area bounded by the Ramp Wall. Thus, it was hypothesized that the Middle Islamic reuse of the tower demarcated by the Extension Wall had been truncated by a subsequent (Late Islamic) reuse stage involving the creation of a ramp that possibly led up to the well platform. To test this hypothesis, multiple levels of large stone rockfall were removed from the area between the Extension Wall and the Ramp Wall, while smaller stone rockfall was removed from Trs. 46209– 46210 (i.e., south of the Ramp Wall). The bottom levels of rockfall in both areas sat upon and were impacted within a dense, grey-brown, loamy sediment, in which Bronze Age stone walls (“Structure 3”) were uncovered. These stone walls are stratigraphically contiguous with Structures 1 and 2 discovered on the northeast side of the tower in 2009 (see “Trenches

34

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

B–G”). Having excavated below the base of the ramp wall, it was clear that this feature sat atop the remnants of the rocky fill layer (Stratum 2) that was likely removed in this area to build the ramp (Fig. 3.10).

Trenches B–G: A Better View of the Umm an-Nar Period Trench B was a five-by-five-meter sondage opened in 2009 at the intersection of the tower wall with the Extension Wall in order to determine the relationship between them (Fig. 3.11) Although no archaeological material was found that could date the construction of the Extension Wall directly, its foundation sits higher than the fill layers containing Umm an-Nar pottery. Furthermore, the construction style of the

Extension Wall is distinctly inferior to that used in the tower wall (Fig. 3.12). Thus, it is our conclusion that the Extension Wall post-dates the tower wall. In the course of opening this sondage, which did not respect the original 5-by-5-meter grid established in 2008, two stone walls were discovered running southeast-northwest through the trench. It was decided to follow these new walls (“Structure 1”) through horizontal excavation. These new sondages were designated Trs. C through G to differentiate them from the official grid system (although the southeast corner of Tr. D is also the southeast corner of Tr. 46174). Another rectangular stone-built structure (“Structure 2”) was found in Trs. C and D. Both structures appear to be related to at least two phases of use during the Umm an-Nar period (Fig. 3.13).

Fig. 3.10 Third millennium BCE stone walls underlie the Ramp Wall, which remains pedestaled on Stratum 1 sediment (taken from the east).

Fig. 3.11 Plan of T. 1146 showing the trench layout of the 2009 sondages.

Fig. 3.12 The southern profile of Tr. B, showing the relationship between the Extension Wall and the Tower Wall.

36

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 3.13 Structures 1 (top) and 2 (bottom) in Trs. B–G as excavated in 2009. Note the Hafit stone wall foundations in the deeper part of the sondage to the west of Structure 1.

excavations at kasr al-khafaji (tower

“Structure 1” is constructed of large, well-laid stones forming foundation walls 70–80 cm thick (only one or two courses remain) on the west, south, and north sides of the structure. A smaller wall (only 50 cm wide) exists on the east side of Structure 1. This wall is constructed of smaller stones and emanates from the northern wall towards the south, where it ends at a doorway on the southeast side that was later blocked by a single course of stone. The northern and southern walls of Structure 1 end somewhat abruptly in Trs. E and F. This may suggest that Structure 1 was originally much larger—the eastern wall seems to be an interior wall, rather than an exterior wall like the northern, western, and southern walls—but at some later point was either destroyed or robbed of its stones. The interior of Structure 1 was filled with clayey/ashy mud with small amounts of Umm an-Nar pottery (also one sherd of Black Slipped Jar) and the occasional stone artifact in the secondary fill/wall collapse. No domestic features (such as a hearth) or distinctive artifacts were found inside the only surviving room of this structure, making its function rather uncertain. The floor of this room (located 95– 100 cm below Datum 1) consisted of compact light grey clayey mud that was mostly sterile.

1146)

37

In contrast, the outside of this structure was rich in cultural material. To the west of this building, between Structure 1 and the tower wall, a stratum of undifferentiated, grey-brown, loamy sediment 40–50 cm thick sat atop a surface notable for having a large hearth (lot 090309) at 100 cm below Datum 1 (Fig. 3.14). Charcoal samples taken from this hearth (Beta 260664) and a small hearth just above it (Beta 260663) place this stratum between 2460–2270 BCE (see Appendix IV). This thick stratum contained significant amounts of archaeological material, most notably pottery of Middle Umm an-Nar type. In addition, a few sherds of imported Indus pottery (Black Slipped Jar fragments and Redon-Buff Slip sherds) were found in these levels. Additionally, one Black-on-Grey canister fragment from southeastern Iran was found in the upper part of this stratum but on the northeast side of Structure 1. The more southern of the two rectangular structures (Structure 2), found in Trs. C and D, had at least three phases of construction (Fig. 3.15). The earliest wall cuts across the center of the structure diagonally from southwest to northeast; it was not clear how (or whether) it adjoins with the other walls of Structure 1. However, the northern and north-

Fig. 3.14 Hearth 090309 found amongst Middle Umm an-Nar ceramics on the surface on which Structure 1 was built.

38

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 3.15 The complex sub-phases of Structure 2.

eastern walls of this structure consist of multiple courses of stone that sit upon the same surface as the diagonal wall, which is even with the Umm anNar hearth surface found in Tr. B (ca. 100 cm below Datum 1). Directly on top of this diagonal wall is a dividing wall running east-west that separates the structure in half. This dividing wall appears to abut (and be contemporary with) the western wall of this trench, the base of which is higher than the northern and northeastern walls (but even with the dividing wall). Finally, the latest phase is found on the southeast and southern walls, which are only one course deep and much wider than the northern and western walls of this structure. In width, these later walls are comparable to the northern, western, and southern walls of Structure 1, while the thinner walls of Structure 2 are

more comparable to the eastern wall of Structure 1. This may suggest that the rest of the interior of Structure 2 is to the west, underneath the Extension Wall. In Tr. B and later in Tr. G, excavation was carried out below the rectangular Umm an-Nar structures to look for the base of the tower wall. Beneath the Umm an-Nar hearth surface in Tr. B, a few stone walls and fragmentary dark mudbrick areas were uncovered (beginning around 125–30 cm below Datum 1). These stone foundations for mudbrick walls are similar to those found at the bottom of Tr. A (see below). There was no pottery associated with these layers, and very little cultural material in general, suggesting that Hafit levels were reached here. Alongside the tower wall, a layer of small angular rocks and fist-sized cobbles was found sitting directly on top of the large plinth stones (ca. 115–25 cm

excavations at kasr al-khafaji (tower

1146)

39

Fig. 3.16 The Hafit stone wall bases discovered at the bottom of Trs. B and G (from the southeast). The tower plinth stones appear to lie on top of these walls, which may explain why no in situ mudbricks were found on top of these wall bases, although the relationship between the bottom of the tower and the Hafit period walls is not entirely clear.

below Datum 1). While initially the plinth stones appeared to be too far from the tower wall to be an actual plinth (Fig. 3.16), a small sondage dug next to the plinth stones revealed that due to the settling of the tower wall over the millennia, the large plinth stones had been squeezed out almost entirely from under the tower wall.

Trench A: The Deep Sounding In 2009, the large central compartment of the tower—bounded by the northern and southern parallel walls, the well platform to the west, and the inner wall to the east—was opened as a Deep Sounding to look for virgin soil. In 1986, Frifelt had followed the east side of the well platform down about 1.5 m from

the surface at that time. Thus, the uppermost layers of the western half of Tr. A were removed as backdirt (as indicated by plastic bags and tin cans laid under rocks). The eastern side of Tr. A was intact and consisted of hard-packed, light-colored clayey-mud lying below the stone walls of the northern and southern parallel walls (Stratum 5a/5b). This loamy sediment was almost entirely devoid of cultural material, barring the occasional piece of charcoal (e.g., C14 sample 090110, Beta 260660) (Figs. 3.17 and 3.18). In the easternmost part of Tr. A, this hardpacked, clayey-mud, fill layer sat atop a well-prepared, yellow-white, plastered surface (Stratum 7). In the majority of the trench, however, Stratum 5 sits above a sandy-loamy layer containing fist-sized cobbles and rock (Stratum 6) that seems to emanate

40

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 3.17 The south and east sections of Tr. A, showing the complex sequence of events from the Hafit walls at the bottom to the interior tower walls at the top (Strata 0–3 had already been removed before Tr. A was opened, with Stratum 3 level with the interior tower walls).

excavations at kasr al-khafaji (tower

1146)

41

42

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

excavations at kasr al-khafaji (tower

1146)

43

Fig. 3.18 The north and west sections of Tr. A. In the west section, the in-filling of the Haft period structures with light-colored and smaller Umm an-Nar style mudbricks is best demonstrated.

44

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 3.19 The Hafit period walls at the base of Tr. A. The 2010 Deep Sounding (see Fig. 2.6) is visible in the southeast corner of the trench.

from the base of the well platform. These two strata (6 and 7) sit directly on top of the Hafit walls of Stratum 8 (Fig. 3.19). On the southern and western sides of the trench, the dark mudbrick walls on stone foundations were still standing over half a meter in height. The room formed by these walls in the northwest corner of the trench was filled with light mudbricks (Stratum 8e), while the southwest and northeast corners of the trench appear to have a trash fill instead. The southeast corner of the trench was particularly interesting, as a dark mudbrick “platform” (two courses high) seems to have been covered with the same light mudbricks used to fill the room in the northwest corner. The dark mudbrick “platform”

continues in the northeast corner of the trench and served as the floor of the stone wall room. There were very few artifacts found in the Hafit levels of Tr. A, radiocarbon dated to ca. 3000 BCE (C14 090136, Beta 260661). These include two crude quern stones (090124 and 090132), a small lithic scraper (090123), and a ground-stone tool (090139) (see Chapters 10–12). In addition, there was intriguing evidence for metallurgical production, including a piece of copper ore (090140) from inside the room in the northeast corner of the trench and an unusual fragment of copper platy-slag (plattenschlacke) found inside the area truncated by the south section of the trench (Fig. 3.20; see color insert).

excavations at kasr al-khafaji (tower

1146)

45

Fig. 3.21 The bottom of the 2010 Deep Sounding of Tr. A showing the sandy, cobble-strewn sediment (Stratum 12) suggestive of a fast-moving wadi system. An OSL date from this level returned an age of 9.6 ± 0.7 ka BP or ca. 7500 BCE (see Chapter 2).

In 2010, it was decided to continue the Deep Sounding in the southeast corner of Tr. A formed by the stone wall (northern edge of 2010 sondage) and the easternmost mudbrick wall (western edge of 2010 sondage). Originally, only the eastern half of the 2010 sondage was opened in order to get a N-S section of the sounding. Later, the western half of the sondage was removed. The entire 2010 sondage was taken down about 1.2 m below the base of the Hafit walls, ending around 2.55 m below Datum 1 at a

sandy layer filled with large cobble stones suggestive of a wadi bed (Stratum 12) (Fig. 3.21). Interpretation of the 2010 sondage is complicated by the small area exposed. The stone Hafit wall in the northeast corner of Tr. A was built on top of an earlier platform of dark mudbricks (~3 courses high; Stratum 10) on which sat a layer of light-grey, siltychalky sediment containing flecks of charcoal and small pebbles (Stratum 9). This domestic fill or trash layer is underneath the dark and light mudbricks of

46

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Stratum 8a but seems to be contemporary with the stone Hafit wall. Below the earlier mudbrick platform of Stratum 10, there was about 60–70 cm of grey-tobrown, silty-loamy sediment devoid of any obvious cultural material (Stratum 11), but similar to the irrigated alluvium seen in pre-Hafit levels at the road section (see Chapter 2). This layer of potential alluvium sat directly on top of the wadi cobbles of Stratum 12.

Results of Three Seasons of Excavation at T. 1146 The earliest levels reached at T. 1146 suggest that, at some point in the past, a fast-moving wadi flowed underneath Kasr al-Khafaji. At some later point, the area was transformed into irrigated agricultural fields, suggesting the control of the wadi through dams and bunds. Later, Hafit people built modest stone and dark mudbrick structures on top of a platform of dark mudbricks, perhaps to raise the structures above the level of the irrigated fields. It is interesting to note that the mudbrick walls built on stone foundations appear to be slightly earlier than the entirely stone walls found in the northeast corner of trench. Thus, the radiocarbon date (090136) used to date this period (3050–2900 cal. BC), which came from an ashy (potential hearth?) area inside the stone wall room in the northeast corner of the trench, actually dates the secondary Hafit phase associated with the stone walls and the later mudbrick platform/floor of Stratum 8. The earlier mudbrick platform (Stratum 10) and its associated fill (Stratum 9) remain undated but are probably only slightly earlier (ca. 3100–3000 BCE). At some point (ca. 2850–2500 BCE; see C14 090137, Beta 260662), the Hafit phase was filled in with light mudbricks and the entire area was leveled. The stone well platform sits directly on top of the filled-in Hafit phase, as do the plinth stones of the tower wall itself. Given that no foundation trench was found around the tower wall, either by Frifelt or by our excavations, it seems likely that the base of the tower wall was intentionally buried in the hardpacked, grey-brown silty-loam that lay underneath the Umm an-Nar walls in Trs. B–G, although this will need to be explored in future seasons. Inside the tower, the filled-in Hafit levels were covered with a layer of wadi cobbles radiating from the well plat-

form (perhaps for drainage purposes) and then covered with the hard-packed, light grey silty-loam on which the interior stone walls were built. It is not entirely clear if the construction of the tower wall and well platform was contemporary with the stratigraphically-higher interior stone wall construction, or if there were two phases of use of the tower during the Umm an-Nar period. A single C14 date (Beta 260660) taken from the hard-packed, light grey silty-loam directly underneath the southern interior wall of Tr. A provides a date range of 2430–2150 cal. BC, which notably does not overlap with the date range of the infilling of the Hafit levels (C14 090137: 2860–2480 cal. BC). This suggests a substantial period of time between the infilling of the Hafit structures and the construction of the interior stone walls. Whether the tower wall and well platform were constructed closer to the date of the infilling of the Hafit levels, or whether they are contemporary with the construction of the interior walls, requires further investigation. Following the abandonment of Kasr al-Khafaji sometime before the Late Umm an-Nar phase (ca. 2250 BCE), the tower complex was reused over many millennia, although for what purpose remains uncertain. The tower likely provided a suitable platform on which to build later houses, although the evidence for this is missing, and the presence of a stone-built well in the middle of the structure was no doubt enticing to farmers of the Islamic period. It is hoped in the future to return to T. 1146, focusing in particular on the area of the Extension Wall and the Bronze Age levels underneath it. Here we may be able to determine the relationship between the Umm an-Nar structures outside the tower and the construction of the tower wall itself. The excavations at Kasr al-Khafaji were unfortunately unable to address key questions about the function of these monumental stone towers in the 3rd millennium BCE due to significant re-use and modification in later periods. However, the presence of intentionally-filled Haft domestic structures directly underneath the stone tower suggests a fairly dramatic change in the use of the alluvial landscape in this part of the settlement. Similarly, the presence of domestic structures around the tower in the main phase of its original use, ca. 2400–2300 BCE, suggests that the monument was at some point

excavations at kasr al-khafaji (tower

integrated back into a domestic milieu and not set apart from the living spaces. These same domestic structures around the tower preclude the possibility that this tower and its well were used purely for agricultural or water management purposes (if at all), while its position in the alluvial plain would seem to

1146)

47

rule out a defensive purpose. Thus, whether the missing superstructure of Kasr al-Khafaji was a domestic building (e.g., the house of a tribal leader) or a ritual structure or both remains uncertain and will require future excavations around the exterior of the tower to look more closely at the surrounding structures.

Fig. 3.22 Photomosaic of Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) after the 2010 season.

4 Excavations at Matariya (Tower 1147) Charlotte M. Cable

Introduction and Background

T

he Bronze Age monument known as Matariya—Frifelt’s Tower (T.) 1147—is located just to the northeast of the modern village of Bat. Although Frifelt (2002a) recognized “1147” as a monumental feature like Kasr al-Rojoom, Kasr al-Khafaji, and the others in Bat, its less impressive appearance meant that it was never identified as a tower by local people. Instead, the tower’s name, “Matariya,” derives directly from its location rather than from its own distinct characteristics. Matariya is located less than 1 km from Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) and 1.5 km from al-Rojoom, at 474952E 2572081N (UTM, WGS 1984). This chapter lays out the results of four seasons of excavation at Matariya (2008–11), including its Hafit period beginnings, its modifications through the Umm an-Nar period, its destruction phases, and its later reuse.

Location Like Khafaji and Rojoom, the stone monument sits in the alluvial plain on the northern side of the wadi amid long-deserted open fields and modern rubbish dumps. Three hundred meters to the south is a combined primary and girls school built in the 1990s (Figs. 4.1 and 4.2). Archaeologically, Matariya appears somewhat isolated. Less than 20 m to the southeast is feature 1167a, identified by Frifelt (1989b:10) as “the enclosure.” In the fallow land beyond are the remains of several Umm an-Nar tombs, abandoned wells of unknown date, and the remains of an abandoned falaj running towards the village

(see Appendix II). Locally, two large acacia trees grow on either side of the tower, one adjacent on the west and the other on the east. Around the eastern tree, tower wall stones had been rearranged to create a small enclosure that we named the “bedu encampment.” The tower itself sits atop a gently terraced mound that rises about three meters above the surrounding plain (Fig. 4.3). Dimensions of the stone tower wall itself are ca. 20 m N-S and 19 m W-E.

Previous Excavations at Matariya The earliest mention of Matariya is in a survey report by Beatrice de Cardi and colleagues (1976:72 and pl. 15), where Matariya is described as a “low mound with remains of circular construction in the fields north of Bat.” Excavations were first conducted in 1989 by Frifelt (2002a). From the beginning, it was noted how Kasr al-Khafaji, Kasr al-Rojoom, Kasr al-Sleme, and Matariya all had similar diameters, were sub-circular in plan, and were built of stone blocks. Frifelt was fairly confident that Matariya was the same kind of feature as the others. Therefore, her excavations at Matariya were brief and concerned with determining basic presence/absence, period dating, and broad structural components of the tower, particularly to allow comparisons to the other towers in Bat. However, Matariya’s location—in an open, long-abandoned field—allowed for more extensive study of this particular tower. In the wake of excavations at Kasr al-Rojoom (Frifelt 1976, 1985), Kasr al-Khafaji (Frifelt 1989a), T. 1156 (Frifelt 1985), several tombs, and sections of the “Settlement Slope,”

50

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 4.1 Location of Matariya relative to the modern school at Bat and the remains of Tower al-Qa’a, discovered in 2012 (see Chapter 8).

Fig. 4.2 Matariya (T. 1147) seen from the south, before renewed excavations began in 2008.

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

51

Fig. 4.3 Digital elevation model (DEM) of T. 1147.

Frifelt sought to identify at Matariya evidence for irrigation and agriculture (Frifelt 1989b). While the results of the Danish expedition at Matariya have only been partially published (e.g., Frifelt 2002a), the Ministry of Heritage and Culture graciously granted us access to the Danish team’s unpublished season report, which proved invaluable for our own work (Frifelt 1989b). Over a three-month season, Frifelt excavated nine trenches at Matariya: one inside the tower (Trench [Tr.] 9); two abutting the tower on the exterior (Trs. 2, 5); and six in the surrounding and adjacent areas (Trs. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8) (Fig. 4.4). Of particular interest were Trs. 2, 5, and 9, all of which were re-opened during the 2008–11 excavations at Matariya and deserve some discussion.

The 2.5-meter-wide Tr. 2 is partially published (Frifelt 2002a: fig. 4) and extended 25 m west from the western edge of the tower’s stone wall to a depth of up to 5 m below the height of the tower. The trench uncovered a series of mudbrick structures, initially presumed to be domestic, outside of and underlying the stone wall of the tower. One filled “room” was ca. 2 m wide and contained a flint tool and conch shell. The total depth of cultural deposits in Tr. 2 extended ca. 2.5 m below the tower plinth—though the mudbrick ends less than 1.5 m below the plinth. Frifelt identified a hearth (1147e, in her nomenclature) in the east section of Tr. 2, ca. 60 cm beneath the tower’s stone wall and between two phases of mudbrick construction. Charcoal samples from

52

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 4.4 Plan of Frifelt’s 1989 trenches at Matariya (adapted from Frifelt 2002a: fig. 3).

the hearth were radiocarbon dated to the Hafit period, 2910–2610 cal. BC (2σ; see Appendix IV). There were remains of at least one stone wall in Tr. 2 (“1147c”), but Frifelt was unable to associate this wall with any other major features (in large part due to its fragmentary nature). On the other side of Matariya, Tr. 5 was 1 m wide and extended 37 m to the east. Its western end abutted the tower wall, and its eastern end abutted the “Enclosure” (Frifelt’s “1167”)—a curious, low, circular, stone construction that was probably contemporary to the tower. Frifelt identified mudbrick construction in Tr. 5 similar to that found in Tr. 2 under the stone tower wall. She proposed that this earlier structure, underlying the stone tower, may have been a recessed

mudbrick wall faced with dark mudbricks or slabs. Frifelt also identified hearths in Tr. 5 (features 1147aa and 1147ab), which were located in the northwest corner under the tower wall and in the northern section, respectively. These hearths were re-excavated in 2010 and samples were sent for radiocarbon dating, which provided date ranges spanning 3100–2900 BCE, notably earlier than the hearth in Tr. 2. Frifelt identified several channels, ditches, and/ or moats adjacent to the tower, including five in Tr. 2 and three in Tr. 5. She was only tentatively able to associate features across her different trenches. Trench 9 was excavated as a continuation of Tr. 5 inside the tower. It was only begun in the final days of excavations at Matariya, and work there was cut

excavations at matariya (tower

short by weather. Frifelt did not find the central well, which in her mind marked Matariya as somehow different from Kasr al-Rojoom and Kasr al-Khafaji. Frifelt noted that the tower wall itself was made up of two circular “ringwalls” (what we call “tower walls”). Based on Trs. 5 and 9, she determined that the inner tower wall was only 1–2 courses tall, sat “on top of a solid layer of fire-brittle stones” (Frifelt 1989b:2), and therefore tentatively suggested that this inner wall was a later feature. In addition to the tower wall, Frifelt documented a number of stone walls surrounding the tower (what we call “ring walls”). However, she struggled to understand whether the stone ring wall in Tr. 5 was contemporary with the mudbrick structure below the tower, or with the stone tower itself. These observations provided clear research questions needing further investigation.

Excavations by the American Expedition (2008–11) The American Expedition began the first of four seasons at Matariya in 2008 (Fig. 4.5). The focus of these excavations altered slightly, once it became clear that Matariya provided a unique opportunity to follow the development of the tower monument over time. Originally, the stone tower monument was considered something of a nuisance. Above a fascinating Hafit period settlement was yet another Umm an-Nar tower, we thought, and not a particularly impressive one, at that. Still, we sought to work with what we had. In hindsight, that turned out to be more than enough. Each season had multiple, overlapping goals and strategies. For example, in 2008 the focus was on removing rockfall outside the tower on the west side in order to unveil the purported mudbrick village underneath, whereas in 2010 the focus was on better understanding the mudbrick compartments inside the tower itself. Though attempts were made to reach sterile soil, this was achieved neither inside nor outside the tower. This was due to several factors: first, as the depths increased, safety became a concern. Second, the stability of the archaeological remains was a primary consideration. Although partially a stone monument, Matariya is held together by mud, which degrades rapidly.

1147)

53

In order to compress a complex and multifaceted excavation into a chapter, the discussion below is subdivided into three major themes. The first focuses on the destruction of the stone monument and later use of the tower (see “The Demise and Reuse of a Tower”). The second theme teases apart phases related to the modern stone tower, visible today (see “Variations on the Tower Theme”), while the third looks at the beginnings of the tower (see “Monumentality and Mudbrick”). The latter two themes can be divided roughly into “interior” and “exterior,” although the two spaces are only partially distinct. Taken together, these three themes can be overlaid to understand those parts of Matariya that changed over time—and those that remained constant (see “Results of Four Seasons of Excavation at Matariya”).

Excavation Strategies A 5-by-5-meter trench grid for the stone tower and its surroundings was established prior to excavation in 2008. Its orientation was determined in order to maximize information gained during Frifelt’s earlier excavations and, as such, the grid was deliberately off-set in relation to the stone tower. Archaeological north was set -71 degrees east of magnetic north and allowed for overlap between (and therefore integration of ) this project’s excavations and Frifelt’s earlier work. Frifelt’s vertical stratigraphic results were integrated into the initial horizontal excavations conducted by the American Expedition and helped to determine stratigraphic relationships across the entire set of features. To distinguish excavations and finds at Matariya—or T. 1147—from those of other towers, the first two numerals of the trench grid were always “47” (just as the trench numbers based on Kasr al-Khafaji’s grid begin with “46”). Trench numbering on the grid begins at an imaginary fixed point to the northwest, well away from the feature and the wadi plain. Forty trenches were numbered in each row of the grid, from west to east, beginning at 470001. Of these, excavations at Matariya fell within 43 trenches, in part or in whole (Fig. 4.6), resulting in a total horizontal exposure of ca. 200 square meters. Excavations proceeded using natural and cultural divisions wherever possible in order to facilitate

Fig. 4.5 The northwest side of T. 1147 during excavations in 2008, showing the stone ring walls that at least partially encircle the tower.

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

55

Fig. 4.6 The trench grid overlying Matariya, with the tower walls indicated.

stratigraphic analysis. The stone tower wall was used as a division between the interior and exterior of the tower, and excavations progressed with that opposition in mind. Flotation samples were taken from hearths and pits. Charcoal samples were collected where available, but primarily from hearths and ash pits. All bone, ceramic, lithic material, ground stone, and marine shell was collected; land shell was noted but not collected. The extraordinary number of querns recovered from inside the tower was documented, but only the most intact examples were cu-

rated (see Chapter 11, for a discussion of the querns). The Primary Datum was located at a high point on Matariya tower itself. It lies along the eastern edge of Tr. 470610 at a distance of 60 cm south from the conjunction of trenches 470570, 470610, 470571, and 470611. All elevation depths were taken in relation to the rebar Tower Datum, though a Second Datum, cemented in the ground off-site, was regularly used as a comparison. Initial excavations were arranged in order to take advantage of major topographic features in a

56

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

staggered, checkerboard pattern, thus maintaining stratigraphic sections for study without maintaining baulks. During 2008, excavations concentrated wholly on the western exterior of the feature, outside the tower wall; all other seasons included excavations both inside and outside the tower.

Post-Bronze Age: The Demise and Reuse of a Tower On the northwest, southeast, and northeast sides of the tower, we encountered a thick, heavy layer of rockfall. It was up to a meter deep in some places (particularly on the north and east sides), and the large stones (most certainly from the tower wall) frequently took several people (or a truck) to remove. The rockfall lay directly on top of mudbrick walls and an abut-

ting layer of compact, gray sediment (discussed below) (Fig. 4.7). On the southwestern side of the tower there was almost no rockfall, and in general the archaeological levels were relatively shallow. As this side is closest to the village it might be that any rockfall was removed for more recent purposes. The large, heavily jumbled stones made an irregular, rocky slope around Matariya, which would have been a poor choice for later use of the area around the tower as opposed to on top of it. Once the tower wall had fallen (assuming that the stones around Matariya are, indeed, fall from the tower wall) the top would have been open, mostly flat, and situated on a relative high point in the valley. Few ceramics were uncovered in general, but the majority was found within the rockfall or “destruction layer.” This layer was nearly indistinct from the surface soils, but the mixed layers’ finds dated from the

Fig. 4.7 The large tower wall rockfall on the east side of the tower, sitting directly on top of (and often impacted into) the mudbrick compartments below.

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

57

Fig. 4.8 A selection of diagnostic ceramics found in tower wall rockfall, spanning the 3rd through 1st millennia BCE.

Umm an-Nar through Iron Age periods (Fig. 4.8). At the base of the rockfall in Tr. 470574 and directly on top of a mudbrick compartment outside the tower, an Iron Age open bowl (lot 100212; Fig. 4.9E) was found that provides a terminus post quem for at least some of the wall collapse. Similarly, complete or nearly complete early historic or Islamic period cooking pots (e.g., lots 100218, 091202, 101413; see Fig. 4.9A–C) were found in pits within or on top of the rockfall both inside and outside the tower. Most intriguingly, the presence of Umm an-Nar and Indus ceramics found at the lowest levels of rockfall in multiple areas around the tower indicate that the stone monument was in some sort of use during the Middle-Late Umm an-Nar period before the walls collapsed.

Regardless of the precise date of the tower wall’s prehistoric destruction, the top of the ruined tower was in use up until relatively recently. Ash pits and rubbish dumps, complete with diagnostic ceramics and interspersed around mudbrick walls and over stone foundations, suggest that Matariya was in use up through the Medieval Islamic period. A cache of beads—including a New Kingdom scarab seal from Egypt—and other semiprecious materials was found in mudbrick wall slump in what was most certainly post-Medieval Islamic contexts, but probably not much later (Fig. 4.10). The cache (lot 090804) consisted of 26 objects that probably came from an Iron Age tomb or tombs: 24 beads made of stone, shell, glass, and faience; unaltered marine shell, a (broken)

Fig. 4.9 Iron Age and historic period ceramics found in pits dug into the rockfall layer both inside and outside the tower: A) lot 101413; B) lot 091202; C) lot 100218; D) lot 101611; E) lot 100212.

Fig. 4.10 Bead cache (lot 090804) from the Medieval layers on top of T. 1147, including a New Kingdom scarab seal (T).

60

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

ferrous pin; and the scarab seal. While it is therefore tempting to associate the cache with the Early Iron Age, stratigraphic information suggests otherwise. The cache was found 40 cm above an ash pit just to the north, radiocarbon dated to 1450–1640 CE (see Appendix IV).

That same mudbrick slump yielded a miniature jar with traces of turquoise glaze (lot 090804, Fig. 4.11) that is similar to a 9th century CE Abbasid vessel published by Carter (2011:251). If the chronometric dating is to be believed, then these finds represent post-Medieval acquisition of earlier Iron Age and Early Islamic tomb artifacts, after which the objects were stored in or under a mudbrick building and never recovered. Of course, the stratigraphic contours of the tower may not have been at all level and, due to the use of similar materials and technology, it is possible we simply missed the stratigraphic distinctions during excavation of the disturbed upper layers. The most recent activity at the site consisted of a series of ephemeral hearths of unknown age. These hearths were unassociated with any recognizable structures, and stratigraphically post-date the Medieval period habitation. No artifacts were found associated with the uppermost hearths. Several large pits of unknown age, filled with an assortment of large cobbles, subangular stones, and broken querns, were found inside the tower. Confusion over the location of Frifelt’s somewhat ambiguous “Trench 9” (which does not appear to have been rectangular) makes it difficult to say with any certainty where her backfill ended and the in situ deposits began. Therefore, little will be said about the strata in the southeastern quarter of the tower. However, Frifelt mentions the same large pit in her notes that we excavated to some depth; and certainly by the time the pit was emptied we were in good contexts. Similar but smaller pits were found all along the inside edge of the tower; it was soon determined that these other pits were rubble tossed between mudbrick walls as structural fill and were part of the tower construction.

Tower Interior: Variations on the Tower Theme Mudbrick Fig. 4.11 Miniature jar (lot 090834) found in mudbrick slump on top of the tower, most likely dated to the 1st millennium CE.

The discovery of a mudbrick structure with deliberate fill inside the tower was something of a surprise to us; Frifelt’s reports made no mention of any internal structures at all. We therefore opened

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

Fig. 4.12 Photomosaic showing the mudbrick compartments inside the tower wall in relation to the stone well (top-left).

61

62

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

a large portion of the tower interior to determine the overall structure (which consists of a collection of small mudbrick “compartments”), then chose several key locations to excavate to some depth (Fig. 4.12). A stone-lined well (discussed below), slightly off-center, was uncovered during the horizontal exposure of the tower, thus confirming that Matariya probably was a tower similar to that of the far more impressive Kasr al-Rojoom. The building techniques

tended to be a combination of (1) primary walls, made up of large, rectangular, slab-like mudbricks (c. 50–60 x 40 x 6–8 cm), and (2) parallel abutting walls or perpendicular walls made up of slightly smaller bricks (c. 45–50 x 30–35 x 6–8 cm). Usually the primary walls had abutting walls on each side, so that mudbrick walls three courses wide (made up of a central primary wall and an abutting wall on each side) constructed something of a skeleton structure

Fig. 4.13 Locations of sondage 470573 (noted with a rectangle) and mudbrick compartment AL (noted with a circle). These excavations focused on understanding the tower’s internal construction.

excavations at matariya (tower

across the tower interior. From these main walls, perpendicular walls divide the interior spaces into small, regularly sized compartments on the eastern and central parts of the tower interior; the mudbrick walls to the west seem to have created larger room-like spaces. However, there is no evidence of occupation of these spaces, nor that these were used as storage. The spaces were filled with a combination of rubble (with very evident tip-lines) and/or mudbrick. In order to maintain the integrity of the monument, we conducted only a few, small, vertical excavations in order to understand the phasing of the interior mudbrick and the associated stone tower wall. Sondage 470573 was a small triangular space (3 x 1 m) located against the southeastern interior of the tower wall, and compartment (AL) was centered in the south of the tower, roughly midway between the well and the tower wall (Fig. 4.13). Excavation of these two areas allowed us to determine that perpendicular mudbrick walls interlocked in an irregular fashion. Several cours-

Fig. 4.14 Interlocking mudbrick layers in the tower interior.

1147)

63

es of interlocking mudbricks were sometimes above as many as six abutting courses of mudbrick, which in turn were above more interlocking layers (Fig. 4.14). The mudbricks themselves tended to be regular in size and shape (although the builders used other sizes to ensure wall interdigitation). Even across phases, mudbricks tended to be large ca. 64 x 36 x 6 cm (for the abutting walls) or ca. 50 x 40 x 8 cm. The first type, rectangular in plan, are very similar to the mudbricks on the exterior of the tower (discussed below) and the Hafit mudbricks underneath Kasr al-Khafaji (see Chapter 3). The square slab-like bricks tend to make up the primary walls, while the rectangular bricks make up the parallel or perpendicular walls. Excavations of both sondage 470573 and compartment AL allowed us to identify two phases of mudbrick construction. However, the construction phases have very similar alignments over time, so that later walls tended to respect the alignments of earlier, lower walls (demonstrated clearly in Fig. 4.15). The composite photograph shows a cap in the secondary mudbrick wall construction ca. 70 cm from the top, where a packed mud layer was laid down from the primary wall (far left), over the then-top of the secondary wall, and in to the compartment. The secondary wall construction then continues over that packed mud layer. Visualizing this in plan, a hypothetical section cut straight through one of these compartments, all the way to the lowest mudbrick layer, would reveal a chimney-like chute. In addition, only a thin layer of sterile, silty soil divides the earlier and later phases, and the bricks from the later phase seem exactly like those from the earlier phase. These suggest that a short amount of time elapsed between building the earlier and later mudbrick phases. A radiocarbon charcoal sample (Beta 260667) from the fill of one of the later phase compartments provides a date range of 2895–2655 cal. BC (2σ), squarely in the Early Umm an-Nar period (see Appendix IV). Only sondage 470573 extended all the way to the bottom of the mudbrick, which sits on a prepared mud surface 2.8 m below datum. This lowest surface is about 30 cm deeper than the mudbrick visible in Tr. 2, and 10 cm deeper than the lowest course of mudbrick visible in Tr. 5. At no place, either inside or outside the tower, did we reach virgin soil. This was due to consideration for both safety and maintaining the integrity of the monument.

64

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 4.15 Eastern section of sondage 470573. Visible are the primary (far left) and secondary (left) mudbrick walls; the cross-section of a compartment (center and right); and the tower wall (upper back). Also note the mud and rubble fill of the compartment, in section.

The fill between the mudbrick walls consisted of rubble, relatively clean, packed mud, and some refuse. It seems certain that the fill within these small mudbrick spaces was deposited deliberately and, quite likely, over a relatively short period that left little time for natural deposits to build up.

Central Well The stone-lined well was discovered in 2009. Its top course was only 20 cm below datum and was made up of relatively small stones. The fact that this well is the central stone feature of the tower suggests that it too dates to the prehistoric period. The well

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

65

Fig. 4.16 Looking westward at the central well of Matariya, with an associated stone wall to the South.

and the retaining wall (see below) also have similar construction, which strengthens the hypothesis that the well is an earlier feature. One and a half meters to the south and facing the well is a freestanding stone wall stub. In its latest phase it was quite small, roughly 1.4 m long and 0.7 m wide (Fig. 4.16). In its earlier phase, which became visible ca. 70 cm below datum, it was a more complicated structure. Its western end, which only became visible towards the close of excavations, consisted of the same double-coursed width as the eastern end. Between them, at the same height as the western end (i.e., 70 cm below datum) were two large, flat stones laid at 35-degree angles from each other and set into the stone walls on either side (Fig. 4.17). The south face of the wall abuts mudbrick walls, which strongly suggests that this wall stub also dates to the Late Hafit or Early Umm an-Nar period. The entirety of the stone wall—its location (so close to the well); its dimensions (relatively massive but not particularly long); and its alignment (perpendicular to the well)—all suggest (1) that this stone wall had a greater antiquity than the other stone walls found on top of the tower; and (2)

that its function likely related to the well itself. It is possible that the wall was part of some sort of pulley system for hauling up water, and that the two angled stones acted either as part of some sort of water-bearing channel or as a support mechanism involved in extracting water from the well. Though the latter is more likely, further research is necessary before making any firm conclusions.

The Tower Wall: A Tale of Two Walls It was clear from our 2007 study of Matariya that the 20 m-diameter stone wall which bounds the tower may actually have been two walls. Careful clearing of the surface of the wall strengthened that hypothesis. The inner circular wall was made up of flat stones ca. 15 cm wide and 40 cm long, with well-constructed courses facing outward and an irregular inward-facing surface, forming a tower diameter of ca. 17 m. The outer wall was also made of stones facing outward, but the stones were roughly three and four times larger than those of the

66

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 4.17 Two flat stones, set at an angle into packed mud, associated with a wall stub and the central well.

internal tower wall. Between the two walls is a stone rubble fill. In plan, there was very little difference between the internal wall stones and the stones that appeared to fill some of the mudbrick compartments. For those compartments abutting the interior of the internal tower wall, the question became whether the pits or compartments abutted the internal wall or went beneath the internal wall (i.e., abutting the larger, external wall). If the latter was true, then the internal wall visible in plan would likely be evidence of a stone superstructure, recessed 1 m back from the external tower wall “base.” Most significantly, such a scenario would mean that the two walls signified not an earlier hidden wall and a later, more monumental wall, but rather a stepped single façade. To determine the relationship of the inner and outer tower walls and the relationship of the stone tower walls with its mudbrick internal structure, in 2009, we cut a small cross-section (1 m wide and 70 cm deep) through the inner wall and a mudbrick compartment on the southern side of the tower in trench 470653 (Fig. 4.18). This cross-section shows that the two walls are distinct: the inner stone wall continues

down for at least the distance excavated (3 courses), and a rubble-mud fill separates the inner and outer stone walls. Although excavation of the mudbrick/ stone tower wall junction was inconclusive and limited (we were concerned about the integrity of both features), careful plan mapping was helpful in this regard. Due to the size and shape of some of the compartments—mere centimeters remain of some of the walls—it seems very likely that the mudbrick structures were in place first, then were truncated and modified by the addition of the inner stone wall. This was followed, some unknown time later, by the addition of the outer stone wall. That the inner stone wall came first and was followed by a second, outer stone wall, is precisely Frifelt’s interpretation of the construction phases of 1167a, “the Enclosure,” which lies 40 m to the east of Matariya (Frifelt 1989b:10).

Tower Exterior: Monumentality and Mudbrick Excavations of the exterior of Matariya focused on understanding associated features, particular-

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

67

Fig. 4.18 The dissection of the inner tower wall: two views. Above: looking down. Below: looking into the stone and mud fill between the inner and outer tower wall. The distinct inner wall appears to continue downward, with a fill separating the inner and outer tower walls.

ly in the hopes that they would help (1) to explain the function of the tower itself and (2) to determine changes to the monument (Fig. 4.19). Of primary interest, were the ideas that the towers related to irrigation, elite housing, or defense—all of which have been proposed by previous researchers (e.g., Cleuziou and Tosi 2007; Frifelt 2002a, Weisgerber 1981). Excavations proceeded around the tower counter-clockwise over the course of the four years and uncovered several main features of interest: • A series of mudbrick structures underlying the stone tower and extending several meters beyond the stone tower wall; • Two stone ring walls, 5 m apart and with the tower roughly at their centers, which also bound the mudbrick structures beneath the tower wall; • A partially remodeled northeastern section; • A feature made up of light gray, extremely compact, anthropogenic soil, which also rings the tower.

Trenches 2 and 5 Two of Frifelt’s trenches (Trs. 2 and 5) were partially re-excavated in order to allow for direct comparisons between earlier results and new excavations. These trenches were very useful in the recognition of different types of mudbrick, in identifying building phases, and in the collection of carbon samples for C14 dating (discussed above) for comparative study. Only the east section of Tr. 2 (Fig. 4.20) and the west section of Tr. 5 (Fig. 4.21)—that is, sections documenting the relationship of the stone tower wall and the mudbrick beneath it—were available from Frifelt’s report. In 2008, Tr. 2 was re-excavated to a depth of 2.5 m below the top of the current stone tower wall, and the northern, eastern, and southern profiles were mapped. The two hearths in the east section were dug into a leveling layer, which appears to have been built of mudbrick slabs; though no vertical distinctions were

68

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 4.19 Photogrammetric plan of excavations. Note the mudbrick internal structures, and the mudbrick between the tower wall and the retaining wall.

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

69

Fig. 4.20 Frifelt’s original section drawing from Tr. 2 (courtesy of G. Weisgerber).

visible, the slabs were clay mixed with small amounts of chaff and charcoal and were 8 cm thick. The two hearths, which are at the same level, were later covered by another single layer of mudbrick slabs, thus sealing the earlier deposits. The presence of these hearths, in addition to lenses of sandy silt in this same layer, suggests that this period of construction took some time. This leveling layer is visible in the north and south section profiles for at least 7 m beyond the stone tower wall, where the remains of the retaining wall are visible as well. In 2010, Tr. 5 (Fig. 4.22) was re-excavated to a distance of 5 m beyond the stone tower wall and a

depth of 70 cm below the tower plinth; this was directly due to difficulties removing backfill between the tower wall and the inner ring wall, which is quite well preserved in that location. It is a testament to Frifelt that she was initially able to excavate such a constricted area without damaging nearby features. Its southern, western, and northern sections were drawn, and new radiocarbon samples were taken from hearths 1147aa and 1147ab. The sections of Tr. 5 show, below the stone tower, an anthropogenic leveling stratum, followed by a substantial mudbrick structure (Fig. 4.23). The hearths were both dug into the leveling stratum and

70

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

Fig. 4.21 Frifelt’s original plan and section of Tr. 5, where it meets the tower wall (courtesy of G. Weisgerber).

71

72

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 4.22 A view of Frifelt’s Tr. 5 from the east, after reopening her sondage in 2010. Note the depth and preservation of the retaining wall (first ring wall) on this eastern side of the tower.

clearly predate the stone tower wall. The C14 samples taken from these hearths provide useful terminus post quem dates for the initial construction of mudbrick structures at Matariya The earliest mudbrick structure was built on the leveling stratum, partially faced with vertical bricks or slabs, and was later cut into to make the foundation trench of the stone tower wall. A second mudbrick structure, not as well preserved and built of less compact, less regular mudbricks, was added about 70 cm east of the first structure (i.e., further out from the tower) during an apparent “fill phase”: the space between the two mudbrick wall phases was filled with packed mud at the same time that the second mudbrick wall was being built, and then capped with more compact clayey material. It is tempting to associate this outer mudbrick phase as preceding the construction of the

stone tower wall—they are at the same level—but this was never determined. It most certainly follows after the more substantial mudbrick structure.

Mudbrick Structures Excavations outside the tower uncovered a series of mudbrick compartments, filled with compact mud, mudbrick, and other material, and forming a single, gigantic mudbrick structure underlying the stone tower wall. The exterior walls of the mudbrick structure(s) were arranged perpendicular to each other in a stepped pattern (Fig. 4.24). These structures were made of primary and secondary mudbrick walls forming square or rectangular compartments 0.7– 1.2 m in length. There was no evidence of doors or habitation of any sort, except the remains of a fire in

Fig. 4.23 The northern profile of Tr. 5, bounded on the left by the tower wall and on the right by the retaining wall. Note: compact upper deposit (A); tower wall foundation trench (B); mudbricks (C, D, E, I, K); hard compact gray-brown soil (F, G, J); crumbly fill (H); degenerated brick material (L); a compact silty “leveling layer” (M); and hearths (O, N).

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 4.24 Looking northeast at Matariya.

74

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

75

Fig. 4.25 Two views into mudbrick compartments. Above: tower exterior, with rubble visible under well-laid bricks. Note the broken querns and the wet mudbricks used as fill. Below: tower interior compartment in section. Note the rubble fill (complete with tip line) and degraded mudbrick cap.

a single compartment. All of the compartments were first filled with rubble, then capped with well-laid mudbricks (Fig. 4.25). The result would have been a mudbrick platform remarkably similar in plan to the later stone tower of Kasr al-Rojoom (T. 1145).

The Stone Ring Walls Two stone walls, 5 m apart, discontinuously surround the stone tower. The inner of these walls, called the retaining wall, is a single course wide, mostly faced to the outside, and located between 3.4 and

8 m from the tower exterior. It appears to be associated with the earliest mudbrick phases described above: it sits on the same surface and respects the edge of the mudbrick. Interestingly, the prepared surface is not level, and the lowest depths of both the mudbrick and the retaining wall reflect this. On the western and southern sides of the tower, where the retaining wall is only a few courses tall, the base of the stone wall sits on the same prepared surface as the earliest phases of mudbrick (e.g., see Frifelt’s Tr. 2 S Section), while the Tr. 5 section suggests that the retaining wall goes well below the mudbrick—or, perhaps, that we

76

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 4.26 The stone ring walls encircling the tower in plan. Moving counter-clockwise along the ringwall, the finishing of both its face and overall arc degrade.

simply have not reached the bottom of the mudbrick structures in this area. The character of the retaining wall, though almost certainly a single feature, changes around the tower. In general, the retaining wall is very well constructed and fairly regular, but on the western side of the tower, an area of wall is both unfaced (i.e., the stones are rough and irregular) and the direction of the wall overall is far less smoothly circular (Fig. 4.26). It seems quite likely that this was some sort of “patch job,” though it could also be an example of the earliest sections of wall-building, after which they altered their techniques. On the western and eastern sides of the tower, the retaining wall appears to have had a compact mud facing or possibly

brick slabs, thicker on the bottom and thinning toward the top of the retaining wall (see Fig. 4.23D). This suggests that the wall would have been visible to those approaching the tower during the first half of its use and, what appears to have been dug in to the Early Bronze Age “tell,” was in fact the outer face of the much larger Matariya monument. As the name suggests, the wall seems to have acted as some sort of retaining wall. Mud and clay were packed between the mudbrick structure and the retaining wall, creating a solid foundation of packed mud. Since the retaining wall respects the mudbrick structure in its entirety, it seems highly likely that the mudbrick was in place before the retaining wall

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

77

Fig. 4.27 Photomosaic plan view showing the adjustment to the retaining wall on the northeast side of T. 1147. Note the light grey compact soil inside of the retaining wall.

was built, but direct evidence for the phasing of these two features is still lacking. However, the construction of the mudbrick and the retaining wall seems to have happened around the same time (ca. 3000– 2900 BCE). One other change in the retaining wall, on the northeast edge of the tower excavations, is worth mentioning. After maintaining 40 m of its smooth arc counter-clockwise around the eastern half of the tower, the retaining wall quite deliberately jogs out ca. 60 cm beyond its original trajectory (Fig. 4.27; see also Fig. 4.19). While the precise reason for this is unknown, no doubt it is related to a number of other unusual features in this area, discussed below. How-

ever, this jog post-dates the original retaining wall. This is clear in two ways: first, the corner between the original wall curve and the perpendicular section, where it turns away from the tower, is not bonded— so much so that it almost looks like there is a small gap between the two sections. Second, in every other part of the tower, the compact soil abuts the inside (“back”) of the wall, but in this area it slopes down to the wall’s base. In other words, in this section the retaining wall does not function as such, but if the retaining wall had at one time continued in an unbroken arc, it would have been abutted by the compact soil as elsewhere. In addition, it is likely that this wall remodeling occurred at the same time as the con-

78

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

struction of the other stone walls in this area, as they are all aligned and built at nearly regular intervals. All of this then raises two questions: (1) why was an extra 60 cm important and (2) why did it become unimportant that the retaining wall function as a retaining wall? The outer of the two stone ring walls—simply called “the ring wall”—is a bit of a mystery. The function of this wall is unknown and, although it post-dates the retaining wall, no further chronological assessments can be made with any certainty. With the exception of the southwestern side of the tower, where the retaining wall also disappears (perhaps due to historic disturbance), evidence of this outer ringwall was uncovered in each major area opened in search of it (i.e., on the northern, southern, and eastern sides of the tower). In almost all places, the ringwall is more of a suggestion of the wall it once was. It consists at best (i.e., on the northwest side) of a stone wall two courses tall and one course wide and, while it follows the arc of the retaining wall at a distance of roughly 5 m, it is not as regular in plan. In general, the evidence of the wall qua wall consists of a line of stone blocks, ca. 25 x 20 x 18 cm, fallen out of place.

The Northeastern Tower Exterior In the same area where the retaining wall takes a very deliberate jog out from the tower, a number of other unusual features crop up in association— all of them lying on top of the mudbrick structure (Fig.  4.28). These include the eastern ends of two parallel stone walls, a stone pedestal, and a “threshold stone.” Between the tower and the retaining wall, we uncovered the eastern ends of two, straight, stone walls (see Fig. 4.28), both one course wide and three or four courses tall. They both appear to be sitting on mudbrick and, therefore, postdate the earliest phases of the tower. Unlike the retaining wall, the inner of these stone walls is faced only on the tower side. Since there is less than 2 m between the tower wall and the inner wall, this is particularly strange, and suggests that this might have been the beginning (or end) of a corridor of some sort. The second wall, 1.3 m to the north of the first, also faces to the interior. It is difficult to say more about this feature since only 1 m of its length was exposed.

The “pedestal” consists of a stack of stone blocks sitting on mudbrick and built up against the tower wall itself. At the base of the stack is a large, flat stone, nearly 1 m long and 60 cm wide. Whether this should be considered some kind of exterior entrance with a threshold stone; whether it relates to access to the top of the tower itself; or whether it is some other thing entirely is not yet known. However, in abutting the exterior tower wall it can be conclusively dated to sometime after—though probably immediately after—the construction of the exterior tower wall. It is also worth noting that the character of the tower wall itself changes precisely at this location. Comparing tower stones on the western side of the pedestal to those on the eastern side, the stones on the western side of the pedestal literally triple in size (Fig. 4.29). All in all, there was something different about the northeastern side of the tower, and this difference evolved specifically during the latter part of the tower’s construction. It involved not only building atop earlier features (e.g., the mudbrick structure) but also modifying earlier features (e.g., moving the retaining wall out).

Gray Soil Ringing almost entirely around the tower was a feature made up of light gray, extremely compact soil (Fig. 4.30; see also Fig. 4.29). While it is tempting in some places to call this feature a ditch, in others it most certainly is not; this varied deposition was a continuous puzzle during the four years of excavation. On the northeastern side of the tower, this gray soil looks like it was used to cap the mudbrick. To the east, it surrounds a section of the retaining wall but does not seem to have had any effect on the mudbrick slabs that faced it. Nearby, the same is true of the slabs facing a mudbrick compartment exterior. This suggests that the grey soil feature is not the contents of a wet ditch but, when laid down, was a much thicker substance, as the mudbrick facing slabs would have quickly dissolved in contact with water. The best explanation at the moment is that it was a form of plaster which was used to cover (or strengthen) surfaces, to fill gaps or holes, or both.

excavations at matariya (tower

1147)

79

Fig. 4.28 Close-up of the northeast side. Note the two stone walls, center and right, extending into the baulk.

Results of Excavation at Matariya: The Life of a Tower Four seasons of excavations at Matariya have brought to light one of the earliest known towers on the Oman Peninsula. Radiocarbon samples from hearths below the mudbrick structures date the first phases of construction to ca. 3000–2800 BCE (Hafit-Late Hafit periods). In this, it begins slightly earlier than T. 1156 (see Chapter 3), which dates to sometime around 2800–2600 BCE, and is contemporary with Hili’s Building 8, which began ca. 3000  BCE (see Appendix IV).While Matariya’s antiquity is important, what makes it unique is the sequence of changes that people made to the monument over time. Although we do not know how long they took to build Matariya, other towers, such

as Kasr al-Rojoom, were single construction events. Matariya has at least four construction events, each one increasingly monumental.

Phase 1: Construction of the Mudbrick Platform The earliest phase of construction we detected dealt with laying down a prepared mud “leveling” surface upon which the mudbrick structure, visible outside the tower, was built. Radiocarbon dates from Trs. 2 and 5 put the mudbrick leveling surface in the early 3rd millennium BCE (ca. 3000–2900 BCE), with the first phase of mudbrick construction occurring very soon thereafter. Mudbricks from this construction phase are quite similar to those making up the abutting walls of the mudbrick compartments inside the

Fig. 4.29 The stone tower outer wall, northern side. The tower stones on the left side are noticeably smaller than those exposed on the right. Also visible are the mudbrick structures underlying the stone tower. In the foreground is the retaining wall seen in Fig. 4.27.

Fig. 4.30 Northern profile of Tr. 470491, showing the light grey compact soil on top of dark mudbrick slump. It is not clear whether this light grey sediment is intentional fill or a product of irrigation practices around the tower.

excavations at matariya (tower

stone tower. This suggests that the first and second phases of constructions followed closely together.

Phase 2: The Filling of the “Platform” and the 2nd Phase of Mudbrick Construction The second, upper phase of mudbrick construction followed relatively soon after the first phase. Inside the tower, a charcoal sample (Beta 260667) taken from the fill of an upper phase mudbrick compartment provided a date range of ca. 2900– 2650 BCE. In addition, two “floating” dates were taken from the packed mud fill between the mudbrick structures and the retaining wall. These samples returned dates slightly later than those taken from Phase 1. In this case, a piece of charcoal (Beta 260665) abutting a mudbrick wall gave a date range of 2870–2600  cal.  BC (2σ), while another (Beta 244213), even with the base of the mudbrick walls, came back 2944–2692 cal. BC (2σ). An important thing to note here is that the retaining wall was already in place by this period. Although it is likely that the stone well also belongs to the very earliest phase, we can at least confidently say that it is present—probably remodeled—during the upper phase, when the mouth of the well must have been raised to the new level of mudbrick. Very few ceramics were found in Matariya’s fill. However, there were three notable exceptions: lot 090827; lot 092607; and lot 101420 (see Fig. 9.1). Lot 101420 was found in rubble fill between the second mudbrick construction phase and the stone tower wall. Lot 090827 is also from the interior of the tower, from inside the fill of a sealed mudbrick compartment. Lot 092607 was found abutting the interior face of the retaining wall, within the packed mud fill. All three resemble Early Dynastic I–II-style ceramics, which supports the idea that the mudbrick structure dates to the early 3rd millennium BCE.

Phase 3: Construction of the Smaller Round Stone Tower Wall It is possible that the inner stone tower wall was built during Phase 2 (i.e., during the remodeling of the mudbrick structure as a platform), but highly unlikely. During the third phase, sections of the Phase 2 rectilinear mudbrick structures were cut back in an

1147)

81

arc. The stones of the inner tower wall were laid into place—like the lining of the well, but mirrored and on a larger scale—and the mudbrick and stone structures then “bonded” together. The latter consisted, in part, of filling the abutting (and newly re-emptied) mudbrick compartments with more fill. Unlike the mudbrick compartments toward the interior of the tower, the ones abutting the stone tower wall had a combination of “junk” fill (e.g., a surprising number of broken querns, in addition to stones that strongly resembled the ones used to build the inner tower wall) and packed mud. This difference in fill strongly suggests that Phase 3 was begun only after Phase 2 was completed: that is, at the end of Phase 2, the tower looked like a mudbrick version of Kasr al-Rojoom.

Phase 4: Construction of the Outer Stone Tower Wall At some point after Phase 3, the larger round stone tower wall was added. There may be several reasons for this new addition, but all are equally speculative. First, this may have been purely decorative: the tower’s increasing aggrandizement is quite clear. Second, it could relate to trying to create a more massive base for some increasingly heavy material stored on the tower (there is no indication of storage inside the tower). Third, it could be related to decreasing accessibility of some resource—whether water (available from the well) or some other material stored on the tower. Fourth, it could be a defensive mechanism. As the reader no doubt noticed, not a single one of these explanations is necessarily exclusive of any of the others. Detangling these threads is one of the biggest challenges facing the study of these monuments. However, the answer may lie just northeast of the stone tower, where the addition of several stone walls, the remodeling of the retaining wall, and the construction of the abutting stone pedestal all point to a very specific early Umm an-Nar use of Matariya. Only future excavations in this area can provide the answers we seek.

Post-Construction Phases Although the length of each phase is unknown, these first four phases were begun in the Hafit period and completed by the Early Umm an-Nar period.

82

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

In addition, since the tower wall stones were found directly on top of the mudbrick levels, it is clear that whatever their purpose and however it appears to us today, the stone tower and the mudbrick structures below the stone tower once formed a single, massive, tiered structure ca. 30 m in diameter and at least 3 m tall (probably considerably taller). The later, stone construction was built as an addition to the mudbrick, rather than as a replacement. During the next phase in the “life” of Matariya, the tower remained in use up through the Iron Age, particularly on the top and eastern side of tower. Iron Age pottery is found outside the tower in sealed deposits below the wall fall (see Fig. 4.9). What is absent, is evidence of the use of Matariya during the Wadi Suq period. However, this raises a question regarding the use of the well. That the well was visible so close to the surface and was at least theoretically available up through recent times is no doubt true. However, the presence of a well shaft does not guarantee access to water, and it seems almost unthinkable that the Wadi Suq disavowal of Umm an-Nar practices would go so far as to refuse to use an Umm an-Nar well (Harrower et al. 2014).

Conclusion Over the course of four seasons of excavation at Matariya, we revisited a number of theories about the nature of Umm an-Nar towers and came to some new conclusions about how this monument type came to be. It is possible that the well and its associated features were integral to the tower’s beginnings and remained the tower’s centerpiece (both literal-

ly and figuratively) during its lifetime, though this has yet to be tested. The increasing monumentality of Matariya certainly points to aggrandizement. The construction techniques used in building Matariya required a massive input of labor, resources, and skills. Mudbrick walls up to 3 m tall and in two phases, laid down over an area measuring 25 by 20 m, led to the creation of the tower. The stone wall additions—the tower walls, the retaining wall, and the ring wall—added to the already impressive mudbrick monument, and resulted in a final monumental structure that archaeologists would recognize as the standard for 3rd millennium BCE towers across the entire Oman Peninsula. Yet aggrandizement, in and of itself, is not an explanation. The developments visible at Matariya point to more limited access to whatever was available on the tower’s surface, either the well at its center, a super-structure (now missing), or other material stored or placed there. Yet another related interpretation—that the tower increases the ability to irrigate nearby fields—cannot be ruled out, although there was no evidence at Matariya of water management except the well itself. Finally, it is possible that these structures were somehow defensive, in the traditional sense of the word. Nothing at Matariya conclusively eliminates any of these scenarios. Therefore, although it is certain that further excavations at Matariya and other towers will shed important light on the function of these towers, it now seems time to look at other parts of the Hafit and Umm an-Nar world in order to understand which of these hypotheses helps best to explain the larger cultural dynamics of the time.

5 Digital Documentation of Kasr al-Sleme (Tower 1148) Yasuhisa Kondo

Introduction

T

he site of Kasr al-Sleme, also called Tower (T.) 1148 (Frifelt 1976, 1985), is located at the southern limit of the Wadi Sharsah valley and the northwestern periphery of the present oasis village of Bat (see Fig. 1.6 for the location). It is a circular mound, topped by a ring wall of massive limestone blocks. The wall was built directly upon the bedrock, which contained lots of calcified pebbles (Fig. 5.1). Blocks from the wall were collapsed in most parts of the mound, although the façade was exceptionally preserved in the northeast quarter (Fig. 5.2). In the winter of 1975–76, Karen Frifelt and her team visited Kasr al-Sleme and reported as follows: on the outskirts of the village and incorporated in the surrounding gardens a sizeable mound, about 20 m in diameter and perhaps 6–8 m high, contains walls of roughly squared stone blocks, considerably larger than any used in the tombs. (Frifelt 1976:58) The ruin in the Sheikh's garden mentioned above is possibly the best preserved of all these buildings, with its inner walls standing 5–6 m high, but less accessible for excavation––not to mention the problems involved in moving 21/2×3/4×1/2 m blocks. (ibid., 61) Since then, Kasr al-Sleme has appeared in archaeological literature a few more times (e.g., Frifelt 1985:92; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007:146). However, detailed scientific documentation remained to be ac-

complished. It seemed that, as Frifelt mentioned, the solid bedrock and weighty blocks would potentially disturb man-powered excavations. Furthermore, the status of collapse looked too complicated for conventional hand-drawn documentation. We recognized the scientific importance of documenting this built structure, as it was thought to be one of the best-preserved 3rd millennium BCE “towers” in the eastern Arabian Peninsula. Therefore, our team started a digital photogrammetric survey in the 2010 season. This chapter reports the methods and results of the digital documentation project at Kasr al-Sleme carried out in the 2010–12 seasons.

Photogrammetric Survey of the Mound The primary goal of the photogrammetric survey was to create an overhead orthoimage for understanding the built structure of the mound. The team foresaw the difficulty in accomplishing this task and, therefore, the fieldwork at Kasr al-Sleme followed more straightforward projects at flat sites such as Ad-Dariz South 1 (see Chapter 7). Through the documentation project, as a secondary goal, we aimed to establish the systematic methods and workflow of archaeological photogrammetry with digital technologies.

Method of the Photogrammetric Survey Our photogrammetric survey was a combination of total station survey and overhead photography in

Fig. 5.1 Mound of Kasr al-Sleme (T. 1148), as seen from the south.

Fig. 5.2 Northern façade of Kasr al-Sleme, as seen from the northwest.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

the field, followed by post-processing procedures in the laboratory (Fig. 5.3). At the beginning, the region of survey was decided with careful observation of the target feature and surrounding topography. Then, a few semipermanent benchmarks (usually iron stakes) were knocked into the ground. The benchmarks were used for the instrument points and backsights of the total station. The geocoordinates (x, y, z or E, N, Z) of at least two benchmarks were measured by means of a total station when a reference system could be applied from known survey points (official benchmarks or benchmarks of another site, for instance). Otherwise, the geocoordinates were directly measured by high-precision DGPS (Differential Global Positioning System). In the case of Kasr al-Sleme, we used a relative coordinate system in 2010 and 2011, with the southwest corner of the mound set to the zero point (0, 0, 0). This point corresponded to 2572165.429 N, 473728.876 E, and 452.898 m above sea level in the UTM 40N (Universal Transverse Mercator zone 40 North) coordinate system. The backsight stake was located approximately 22 m north of the zero point (2572187.412  N, 473729.097 E, 454.941 Z in UTM 40N). Instrument points and backsights were also set up on the top and in the northeast external terrace of the circular structure. After benchmarks were installed, transects or rows for overhead photography, were laid out (Figs. 5.4 and 5.5). We used an 8-m-long rod for the overhead photography. A digital SLR camera (Nikon D40) was mounted on the top of the rod (Fig. 5.3). We used a DX NIKKOR 18–55 mm f/3.5–5.6G VR lens, covering the ground area of 7.5 x 5 m in average, at its widest angle of view (Fig. 5.4). Since every photograph has optical distortion more or less and it tends to be larger in the peripheral areas in general, we should trim the margins. For this reason, the margins corresponding to approximately 3 m (1.5 + 1.5 m) of the longer sides and 2 m (1 + 1 m) of the shorter side on the ground were trimmed off. It meant that we used the ground area of 4 x 3 m for each photo. We also considered it essential that the overlap should have ground control points (GCPs) shared in the neighboring two pictures. We made 1 m margins for the four sides of the trimmed area. Finally, we got a central area of 3 x 2 m wide for each picture. These values of breadth determine the

1148)

85

interval of transects. We set transects in 3 m intervals and took an overhead photograph while moving along transects in 2 m intervals.

Fig. 5.3 Workflow of the photogrammetric survey.

86

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.4 Ideal overlap of overhead photographs and transects.

The transects were set in accordance with the topographic nature of the mound (Fig. 5.5). At Kasr al-Sleme, parallel rows were laid out to the direction of traversing the contour in relatively gentle slopes of the peripheral areas and the flat surface on the summit. We set three rows in the eastern periphery, four in the west, three in the north, two in the south, and five on the summit. Additionally, the transects radiated outward in the areas of steep slope because photographs were to be taken from the top and we could get wider coverage in the lower areas. We called these rows “arcs” and set 15 arcs in the peripheral slopes where there was a heavy concentration of collapsed blocks. Following the transect setup, the GCPs were scattered on the surface so they formed a precise sur-

face model of triangular irregular network (TIN), except for some baselines on which GCPs were aligned in 2  m intervals along a transect in order to help photographers keep moving along the transects (Fig. 5.5). It was better to have 10 or more GCPs inside each photograph for the spline geometric conversion (see below). For GCPs we used red and blue Konoe washers, which are sold in Japan as professional survey supplies. Red washers were used for GCPs on the baseline, while blue ones were used for scattered GCPs. Blue or light blue “real” bottle caps were also used when the Konoe washers ran short. Green, orange, and colors other than blue and red were occasionally used with special meanings, such as the end of transects or alternatives to iron stake benchmarks and backsights. The difference in color was quite

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

1148)

87

Fig. 5.5 Layout of ground control points (GCPs) and transects at Kasr al-Sleme. Round points stand for GCPs on the baseline. The lines represent the rim of the ring wall on the top and the boundary of the premise of the site, defined by the fence and wall.

helpful to identify the location of pictures in the post-processing works. Next, GCPs were shot by the total station to get N, E, Z values. We employed Topcon’s GTS-235W total station. The total station survey was carried out in pairs, an instrument operator and a reflector holder (Fig. 5.3, top left). Overhead photography precedes or follows the GCP shooting. Photography was carried out by a team of at least three people––a photographer, who indicated where to stand the rod and released the camera shutter with a remote control, assisted by two or more operators to move and hold the heavy, wobbling photography rod (Fig. 5.3, top right). The routine––move the rod to a photograph position, stand the rod, adjust the angle, release the shutter, and then move the rod to the next

position––was repeated for hundreds of turns. Tireless endurance is required for this job. After trial and error, we found that it was better to move against the sun––from the north to south typically––to avoid the shades of the rods and photographers themselves appearing in pictures. The exposure and shutter speed are automatically optimized by setting the aperture as deep as possible when the shutter speed is fast enough to take a static picture with the wobbling rod without automatic calibration (non-VR mode). Due to the nature of digital photography, we were able to check the pictures on site immediately after a session had been completed. Returning to the dig house or base camp, all data acquired in the field were downloaded to a data server (typically a laptop computer with a large disk space).

88

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

The coordinate data of GCPs were converted from ASCII to a point cloud in the ESRI shapefile format using ArcGIS. Similarly, the file format of pictures was converted from RAW or JPEG to GeoTIFF. The point cloud (Fig. 5.5) was used for GISbased terrain analysis. The points were interpolated to create a digital surface model (Fig. 5.6). The methods of interpolation include natural neighbor (TIN), spline, and kriging (Conolly and Lake 2006:90–111). Operators should select an appropriate method in accordance with the three-dimensional characteristics of the topography. If the three-dimensional layout of the point cloud accurately reflects the topographic characteristics, we can select the natural neighbor or TIN model. However, if the topographic curvature is smoother than the point cloud, the spline algorithm can be applied. Otherwise, the kriging methods may be selected to reconstruct the surface close to the actual situation. The interpolated surface is then used for creating contour lines (Fig. 5.7). As mentioned above, every image has optical distortion more or less, due to the nature of the lens, the incorrect angle of the camera, and the wobbling rod. Therefore, the pictures must be calibrated to reduce distortion as much as possible to make a better orthoimage. This calibration is called georectification or geometric conversion. The pictures are georectified with the help of GCPs. We had three algorithms of georectification in ArcGIS. The first order conversion, also known as afin conversion, requires at least three GCPs for georeferencing to transform image into a parallelogram (Fig. 5.8, left). The second order conversion uses at least six GCPs to do a trapezoidal transformation (Fig. 5.8, middle). We used the spline algorithm for the third order conversion, for which ten or more GCPs are required. This method is also known as “rubber sheet conversion” to transform the image as if curving a rubber sheet (Fig. 5.8, right). In general, the higher order conversion transforms the image more closely to the real situation. We usually used the spline conversion, for which the dense scatter of GCPs was really helpful to find the congruent points between two images. In the case that the number of GCPs seen in a picture is less than ten, some identifiable features such as oddly colored pebbles or cracks on the surface of rock in the image were used as alternative GCPs. The geometric conversion is particularly effective for the

images of flat ground. A series of georectification of continuous images formed a stitched orthoimage or, so-called, photomosaic (Fig.  5.9). A thumbnail of the orthoimage was created for each transect to reduce image processing time. Finally, raster-format digital surface model, vector-format contour lines, and raster-based integrated orthoimage were overlapped to each other in GIS to create maps as final product (Figs. 5.7 to 5.9).

Results of the Photogrammetric Survey The TIN model derived from the total station survey revealed the topographic nature of the Kasr alSleme mound. It was approximately 8 m higher than the zero point (Fig. 5.6). The mound looked semicircular rather than circular, with a slightly gentler slope in the southwest quarter. On the eastern bottom of the built structure, there was a natural deposition of sandy soil, with a high concentration of potsherds. The photomosaic as a product of photogrammetry detailed the dimension and layout of the built structure (Fig. 5.9). According to the measurement by means of GIS, the ring wall was approximately 22 m in diameter. Some interesting features both inside and outside of the ring wall were identified when we had a closer look at the photomosaic. We discovered several pieces of evidence for a superstructure atop the mound. For example, the largest horizontal boulder was identified on the ashlar structure in the northwest corner of the summit (Fig. 5.9A). Some of the stone blocks on top were eroded by water, which indicates long-term exposure. If there used to be a well, as present in the other towers at Bat (see Chapters 3, 4, 6, and 8) and other places, then the tree stump on the summit (Fig. 5.9B) might indicate the location of the underground water vein. In the exterior, extended wall structures were identified. There were some traces of a zigzag stone alignment in the northeastern exterior (Fig. 5.9C). This alignment was possibly rectangular rooms as discovered in the exterior of Matariya (see Chapter 4) and Hili 8 (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007:144). Some of the stones in this sector were aligned in situ (Fig. 5.9D). There were two other stone alignments observed in the western and southern exterior. The stones used in the southern alignment (Fig. 5.9E) were a secondary

1148)

89

Fig. 5.6 TIN surface model of Kasr al-Sleme.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.7 Photomosaic overlapped by 0.2 m contour.

90

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

1148)

91

Fig. 5.8 Georectification of image.

use of collapsed materials, and those in the western one (Fig. 5.9F) are smaller than the materials used in the other parts. Therefore, these two alignments can be interpreted as the structure constructed after the abandonment of the circular structure. Some parts of the boundary stone wall of the premise, as seen in the northwest limit of the photomosaic (Fig. 5.9G), looked like a diversion of the original outer ring wall.

Observation of the Northern Façade As mentioned above, the northern façade of Kasr al-Sleme is one of the best-preserved ashlar structures of the possible 3rd millennium BCE “tower” in the eastern Arabian Peninsula. However, it cannot fully be analyzed in the overhead orthoimage (Fig. 5.9) because it is a three-dimensional structure. Hence, in order to investigate the architectural characteristics of the wall more in detail, the façade was photographed by Nikon D90 digital SLR camera with PC-E NIKKOR 24 mm f/3.5D ED shift lens that was able to control the perspective (Figs. 5.10 and 5.11). According to the measurement, the stone wall was approximately 3.5 m high. We can see a sophis-

ticated building technique in this façade (Fig. 5.10). Firstly, the wall stones were placed entirely in order from largest at the bottom to smallest on top. Secondly, the volume of stones was carefully adjusted so that the smaller stones are inlaid in the upper rows of ashlar in order to stabilize the architecture. Thirdly, the similar pattern observed on the surface of some blocks indicates the same rock source. It implies communal and collective labor to carry tons of rock materials from the sources within a relatively short time period. However, there were limitations of architectural technologies at the same time. The massive ashlar was difficult to maintain and, once collapsed, the wall was not reconstructed (Fig. 5.11). This was, perhaps, due to the social linkage weakening resulting in the structure being abandoned.

Discovery of the Petroglyphs One morning following rain in February 2010, the photogrammetry team discovered petroglyphs, or incised rock art, on the surface of several wall stones firstly by chance and subsequently by intensive survey. The team carried out a more in-depth documen-

92

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.9 Photomosaic of Kasr al-Sleme. The scale bars in the picture are 1 m long.

Fig. 5.10 Northern façade of Kasr al-Sleme, pictured with shift lens.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

1148) 93

94

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.11 Collapsed wall in the northwest quarter of Kasr al-Sleme.

tation project in the 2011 season. The petroglyphs are best seen when wet, but can be made out with careful observation even in full daylight.

Method of the Petroglyph Documentation The field investigation of petroglyphs at Kasr al-Sleme was conducted from January 31 to February 21, 2011. The discovered glyphs were sketched under observation with the help of polarized sunglasses and sunshade. A series of digital pictures was taken from different camera positions. An adequate number of GCPs were laid out on petroglyphs and included in the photographs for the purposes of microscale photogrammetry and three-dimensional reconstruction in the future. The geocoordinates of GCPs were precisely measured by means of a total station and used for GIS-based data management. A clinometer was employed for recording the orientation of the plane of glyph or the surface on which petroglyph was created. Additional attention was paid to the status of erosion (patination and ablation) and glyph techniques that could provide evidence for dating. The drawings were digitized and then imported into a GIS-based relational database, which also included pictures and description tables

(Figs. 5.12 and 5.13). In this research, GIS served as an information platform to integrate, manage, display, and analyze various geospatial data sources in different formats. The motifs of the petroglyphs were interpreted from the point of view of iconography. There is a substantial accumulation of knowledge, theory, methods, and case studies for petroglyph interpretation (Chippindale and Taçon 1998; Matheny 2004; Rozwaldoski 2004; Bednarik 2007; Anati 2010; Bahn 2010; Whitley 2011). Among those, Chippindale and Taçon (1998:6–8) suggest two approaches of petroglyph interpretation. When we have access to the “internal knowledge” of artists, we can apply the informed methods such as ethnography and interview to acquire direct understanding of the objects. On the other hand, when we do not know the internal knowledge of the artists, we have to interpret the objects by means of morphological analysis and analogy, which will provide an indirect understanding to the objects. In the case of Kasr al-Sleme, the indigenous knowledge about the creation and meaning of petroglyphs has already been lost although the modern Omani villagers are possibly the successors of artists. Therefore, we selected the formal approach to interpret the meaning of the artistic works on the rock.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

Fig. 5.12 Scheme of the petroglyph database.

Fig. 5.13 Management of the petroglyph data by means of GIS.

1148)

95

96

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Description of the Petroglyphs To date, at least 36 petroglyphs have been found on 24 wall stones. Most glyphs were created by pecking on a surface of tower stones after the collapse of the circular structure (Fig. 5.14). The characteristics of individual glyphs are described below.

Petroglyph 1 “a camel and rider” Petroglyph 1 (Fig. 5.15) was located in the middle of the southern slope. The plane of the glyph was oriented to the interior of the circular structure. The glyph was well preserved. It depicts a human riding on an animal with a long neck, small ears, thin and stretched legs, and a short tail. These physical features are reminiscent of a camel. The figure is heading to the right. There is a representation of a saddle on the animal’s back. The rider has a long left arm, which seems to be joined to the rein. The pecking is moderately patinated and an average of 2 to 3 mm in width.

Petroglyph 2 “two armed figures” Petroglyph 2 (Fig. 5.16) was located at the top of the southern slope and oriented to the exterior. Two standing humans are depicted. The figure on the left (glyph_id:21) holds up a sword-like weapon by the left hand and a shield by the right, while twisting at the waist and lifting the left leg. The figure on the right (22), meanwhile, is holding an ax by the left hand and extending the right foot out. The pecking is heavily patinated.

Petroglyph 3 “two riders” Petroglyph 3 (Fig. 5.17) was located at the bottom of the southern slope and faced the interior. Two figures of humans riding animals are depicted. The figure on the right (32) is far more distinct than the figure on the left (31). The representation of the human on the right (32) holds a shield in the right hand and a bow and arrow in the left hand. The animal on the left (31) can be interpreted as a camel, based on its short tail and hunched back (possibly with a hump), while that on the left (31) is ambiguous. Nevertheless the glyph itself is clearly distinguished, and it is either an equid or camel. The pecking is

moderately patinated. There are more indistinguishable traces on the surface.

Petroglyph 4 “an oryx and rider” Petroglyph 4 (Fig. 5.18) was located in the proximity of Petroglyph 3 and faced the southern exterior. The pecking is moderately patinated and 3 to 5 mm wide on average. The depicted figure is an animal and rider, heading left. The animal’s head is drawn in a very realistic manner with the representation of eyes, an elongated nose, and long ears. It should be noted that these are physical features of an oryx. In contrast, the rider’s head seems to be trivialized. The right arm is joined with a rein. A rider’s foot seems to be depicted below the human body. The right half of the figure and most of the animal’s front legs are missing. It is true that oryx riding is unlikely to happen. If the animal depicted is really an oryx, it could be interpreted as a mythical or imaginative scene.

Petroglyph 5 “group of riders” Petroglyph 5 (Fig. 5.19) was also located at the bottom of the southern slope and faced the exterior. At least six figures were identified among a scatter of pecking traces on the planar surface of a fallen wall stone, although the glyphs are heavily patinated and, hence, very fuzzy. Three of those (51, 53, and 56) can be interpreted as animals with human riders, heading right. For each of the three examples, the rider’s heads were unidentified. The animal depicted in glyph 53 can be interpreted as an equid, based on its elongated head. Glyph 56 is either an equid or a camel. In addition to these, one elongated neck and head of an animal (54) and another body of an animal (55) were partly identified.

Petroglyph 6 “two equids and riders” Petroglyph 6 (Fig. 5.20) was located at the middle of the southern slope and oriented to the interior. It has two representations of equids with elongated heads and riders. The figure on the left (61) is more patinated and fuzzier than that on the right (62). The rider’s depiction is ambiguous for both examples.

Fig. 5.14 Location and specifications of the petroglyphs at Kasr al-Sleme.

98

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.15 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 1.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

1148)

Fig. 5.16 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 2.

99

100

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.17 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 3.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

Fig. 5.18 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 4.

1148)

101

102

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.19 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 5.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

1148)

Fig. 5.20 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 6.

103

104

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Petroglyph 7 “an equid” Petroglyph 7 (Fig. 5.21) was located at the middle of the southern slope and faced the exterior. An animal with elongated legs and a long tail is depicted. A flexed front leg indicates the animal is walking. These physical features suggest possible interpretation as an equid. A somewhat complicated representation of ears may suggest a head ornament. The rider is not identified, although there are very fuzzy traces above the animal. The patination is less advanced than in other petroglyphs.

is noteworthy that the representation of a human head, arms, and a weapon or stick on the top left figure (101) is quite well preserved. This human is riding an animal heading right. The animal can be interpreted as a camel based on its elongated neck, relatively small head, and long straight legs. Although the front legs of the animal are missing, two dents relevant to the feet of 101 appear on the bottom left figure (102). Glyph 102 and the bottom right figure (103) can be interpreted as an animal heading left. These two figures are heavily patinated and ablated.

Petroglyph 8 “a horse and rider with weapons”

Petroglyph 11

Petroglyph 8 (Fig. 5.22) was located in front of a cave at the bottom of the northern wall. The block on which the glyph appeared was overlapped by another. The depicted figure, approximately 30  cm wide and 20 cm high, is the largest among the examples from this site. A horse and rider heading left are clearly depicted. The rider seems to wear a turban, holding a curved sword by the right hand and another weapon by the left hand. It could be interpreted as either a bow and arrow or a rifle. It is difficult to distinguish the horse’s tail from the back legs. The petroglyph is moderately patinated. The typical pecking is 4 to 5 mm wide.

Petroglyph 11 (Fig. 5.25) was discovered on the top surface of a stone in situ in the northeastern part of the ring wall. It seems that the glyph was drawn after another stone placed on the top had fallen off. The figure is too ambiguous to be identified.

Petroglyph 9 Petroglyph 9 (Fig. 5.23) was located at the northeastern exterior of the circular structure. The plane of the glyph faced up. The representation of legs and ears implies the characteristics of an animal. The elongated object vertically attached on the body may be interpreted as a rider with spear. The pecking is 6 to 7 mm wide on average, and the petroglyph is heavily patinated.

Petroglyph 10 “a camel with rider and two animals” Petroglyph 10 (Fig. 5.24) was located in the middle of the northern slope where a massive collapse of wall stones occurred. The glyph plane faced the exterior. At least three figures were identified. It

Petroglyph 12 Petroglyph 12 (Fig. 5.26) was located on the top of the eastern portion of the mound. There is a C-shaped geometric form on the left part of the surface. It can be interpreted as some sort of symbol or mark, but it is difficult to specify. There are some other traces of pecking across the entire surface of the rock. It is also noted that a reddish area on the surface might imply the presence of pigment.

Petroglyph 13 Petroglyph 13 (Fig. 5.27) was located at the northeast exterior. The stone was deeply buried in the post-abandonment deposit. The surface had been exfoliated several times and, for this reason, the glyph is partially missing. At least three figures have been identified although it is difficult to specify the details. The figure on the top (131) was drawn on the original surface, whilst those on the bottom (132 and 133) are on the exfoliated surface. The sequence of exfoliation indicates that the figure 131 is the earliest, and that figure 132 is older than 133. The pecking of the figure 133, typically 4 to 5 mm wide, is larger than that of the other two.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

1148)

Fig. 5.21 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 7.

105

106

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.22 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 8.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

1148)

Fig. 5.23 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 9.

107

108

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.24 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 10.

Fig. 5.25 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 11.

Fig. 5.26 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 12.

110

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.27 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 13.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

Petroglyph 14 “a canine”

1148)

111

Petroglyph 14 (Fig. 5.28) was located in the eastern sector of the top of mound. An animal heading left with a long tail and short ears is depicted, which suggests the physical features of a canine. The patination is advanced.

shade. There are at least two different scenes. The figure on the top (191) can be interpreted as a camel with human rider based on the animal’s long neck, folded and tied front legs, and hump on the back. The other figure on the bottom (192) can be regarded as a standing human raising both arms with weapons or long sleeves attached under the elbow.

Petroglyph 15

Petroglyph 20

Petroglyph 15 (Fig. 5.29) was created on a large fallen stone on the northeast exterior, next to Petroglyph 13. There is pecking scattered across the surface but it is too fuzzy to be interpreted.

Petroglyph 20 (Fig. 5.34) was located at the bottom of the southern slope next to Petroglyph 5. There is a cluster of pecking at the center of the surface though it is difficult to interpret.

Petroglyph 16

Petroglyph 21 “group of animals”

Petroglyph 16 (Fig. 5.30) was located on the level area of the top of mound. Similar to Petroglyph 12, circular pecking is observable on the top surface.

Petroglyph 21 (Fig. 5.35) was located at the bottom of the western slope. There are at least three animals heading right. Two of them (211 and 212) were drawn on a lateral aspect, while the other (213) is on a tilt and triangular plane. The animal in glyph 213 seems to be lead by a human rider with reins. It is either a camel or an equid. It is difficult to identify the species of the other two animals depicted because of fuzziness. Pecking is typically 4 to 5 mm wide. Figure 211 is better preserved because it was located in a dent in the rock.

Petroglyph 17 Petroglyph 17 (Fig. 5.31) was located on the eastern slope. There are at least four subtle artificial dents, 4 to 5 cm wide, on the surface facing the northeastern exterior. A band of pecking, typically 5 to 6 mm wide, is present in the area from the bottom right depression towards the central depression, although it is difficult to identify any subjects.

Petroglyph 18 Petroglyph 18 (Fig. 5.32) was located at the level area of the top of mound. It was found on a tilt plane of the wall stone. The depicted is possibly an equid and rider although the graphic could hardly be seen. The rider seems to hold something (shield?) in the left hand.

Petroglyph 19 “a camel with rider and a standing figure” Petroglyph 19 (Fig. 5.33) was located at the bottom of the southern slope and faced the exterior. Although the carving is heavily patinated and ablated, the figure can be seen in high-contrast sunlight and

Petroglyph 22 “an equid and rider” Petroglyph 22 (Fig. 5.36) was located next to Petroglyph 21. The stone was overlapped by two large stones (21 and 24). The depicted theme is an equid with a human rider heading right. It looks more like an onager or donkey than a horse. The natural color of the stone surface is also employed for the representation of the animal’s head. The petroglyph is moderately patinated and ablated.

Petroglyph 23 Petroglyph 23 (Fig. 5.37) was located at the top of the northern collapse. It was created on the lateral aspect of the block. A horizontal body and some peckings underneath it suggest the representation of an animal, although it is very fuzzy.

112

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.28 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 14.

Fig. 5.29 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 15.

Fig. 5.30 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 16.

Fig. 5.31 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 17.

Fig. 5.32 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 18.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

1148)

Fig. 5.33 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 19.

115

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

116

Fig. 5.34 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 20.

Petroglyph 24 Petroglyph 24 (Fig. 5.24) was located at the bottom of the western slope, next to Petroglyph 22. There is a vertical glyph and a horizontal one, although it is difficult to interpret the iconography.

Quantitative summary The petroglyphs were generally in clusters (Fig. 5.14). Nine examples (rock_id:1–7, 19 and 20) were found in the southern slope, and three others (21, 22 and 24) overlapped each other at the bottom of the western slope. The other 12 examples were scattered in the northern slope and atop the mound. All but one example, on the northeast wall, were carved on the smooth plane of fallen wall stones. This fact strongly suggests that the petroglyphs were created after the abandonment and collapse of the circular structure.

In terms of iconography, the motifs are limited mostly to humans and domesticated draft animals (Fig. 5.39). The petroglyphs recovered include 18 examples of human representation and 25 examples of animal representation, which includes 15 combinations of an animal and human rider (Fig. 5.40). These ridden animals include six equids (at least one horse), three camels, and one oryx. Six riders carry weapons such as a sword, ax, bow and arrow, and shield. Weapons are also depicted in the three examples of standing figures (21, 22, and possibly 192). There are also 10 representations of animals without riders. Of these, two equids (52 and 71) and one canine (141) have been identified. Fourteen (56%) of the total 25 animals with/without humans are facing to the right, while the rest are heading to the left. It is noteworthy that the three standing people face front (21, 22 and 192). On the whole, these figures are more or less stylized. The pecking varies from 2 to 7 mm wide in general, and is typically 4 to 5 mm wide.

1148)

Fig. 5.35 Physical appearance and possible reconstruction of Petroglyph 21.

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

117

118

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.36 Physical appearance (bottom) and possible reconstruction (top) of Petroglyph 22.

Fig. 5.37 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 23.

Fig. 5.38 Physical appearance of Petroglyph 24.

120

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 5.39 Iconographical classification of the petroglyphs at Kasr al-Sleme.

Discussion There is very little doubt that the circular structure of Kasr al-Sleme was built in the 3rd millennium BCE because the massive ashlar construction has a great similarity to other examples in the Bat area, as exemplified by Al-Khutm (see Chapter 8), Kasr al-Rojoom (Frifelt 1976), and other places in Oman such as Yanqul and Bisya. Dating of the petroglyphs can be discussed by iconographical and technological characteristics of the petroglyph itself and by site formation process. In the case of Kasr al-Sleme, the iconography of the petroglyphs provides compelling evidence. It is noted that a rifle-like weapon is depicted in Petroglyph 8 (Fig. 5.22). It is the only representation of a gun in this site, but a similar and indubitable scene of battle with a gun has been found in the Jebel Akhdar area (Preston 1976: pl. 18). Guns were not prevalent in Oman until they were introduced by the Portuguese in the 16th century CE.

The technological and stylistic similarity are remarkable characteristics of the petroglyphs found at Kasr al-Sleme. In terms of technology, the glyph was unexceptionally made with pecking. From the stylistic point of view, four thin legs stretching straight down from a thin horizontal body is the common style of animal. This technique and style is frequently observed on the wall stone of the 3rd millennium BCE towers such as Yanqul (Harrower et al. 2014) and al-Khashbah (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007:214). There is also a dense collection of petroglyphs in the similar technique and style on a canyon cliff of Wadi Dham (Preston 1976), 33 km east of Bat and Wadi al-Hayl, Fujairah, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (Ziolkowski 1998). These similarities strongly suggest that the petroglyphs were created in the same cultural tradition of a relatively short time period. Interestingly enough, the horse and rider representations in similar style have also been found in the late Islamic settlement near Bidyah Mosque (built in the second half of the 17th century CE), Fujairah, UAE (Ziol-

digital documentation of kasr al- sleme (tower

1148)

Fig. 5.40 Typology of petroglyphs at Kasr al-Sleme, including armed persons (A), armed riders (B), and quadruped animals without riders (C).

121

122

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

kowski 2007: fig. 58). This fact provides a reasonable analogy for dating the examples of Kasr al-Sleme. That equids and camels appear in the petroglyphs can be interpreted as domesticated animals because the scenes of riding are depicted. These domesticated animals provide supporting evidence for dating. The horse was probably domesticated in Central Asia by 3500 BCE (Outram et al. 2009), although it has not yet been made clear when the domesticated horse appeared in the Arabian Peninsula. The timing of the domestication of Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) is still a matter of debate. Crawford (1998:108) argues that the Arabian camel was not domesticated until the middle 3rd millennium BCE, while according to Cleuziou and Tosi (2007:158–59), zooarchaeological research at Hili 8 has revealed that camels in the 3rd millennium BCE were not yet domesticated. The possible earliest date of the petroglyphs could be determined if the scientific dating of the earliest domesticated horse and camel were firmly identified (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 2002; Magee 2011). The site formation process also supports the iconographical evidence of dating. Most of the petroglyphs of Kasr al-Sleme were discovered on the surface of collapsed stone blocks. It is also noted that no petroglyphs have been discovered in the excavations at Kasr al-Khafaji (see Chapter 3) and Matariya (see Chapter 4), which are towers that were buried beneath alluvial deposits for a long time. This geoarchaeological evidence supports the conclusion that the petroglyphs were made after the abandonment of the tower. There is one more pressing question: Who created the petroglyphs? The evidence suggests that

pastoral nomads probably did based on the main theme of draft animals (horses and camels) with or without riders. Many of the petroglyphs are, either intentionally or unintentionally, oriented to the exterior of the circular structure. It means that creators let visitors see the petroglyphs as evidence of their presence. The petroglyphs of Kasr al-Sleme provide interesting evidence of the continuous use of the ashlar “tower” as a landmark of communal society even after losing its original function and socioeconomic importance.

Conclusion and Future Tasks Digital documentations of the mound and petroglyphs at Kasr al-Sleme have revealed the "life story" of this independent mound in the southern periphery of the Bat valley. In the 3rd millennium BCE, a circular wall structure and the attachment compounds were built on the natural mound in the alluvial basin. The wall materials, larger than those used in Matariya and T. 1156, suggest that this building was made in the later phase of the development history of the 3rd millennium BCE “towers”. Nonetheless the original function was abandoned. The mound has continuously been used as a landmark, or focal point in the landscape, marked by petroglyphs. The information presented here is still limited and subject to update. In the near future, a more-precise documentation using a combination of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and Structure-from-Motion (SfM) technology will provide a better understanding and more sustainable preservation of this invaluable heritage.

6 Excavations at Tower 1156 Anne Mortimer

Introduction In some respects Structure 1156 resembles a tower, but the evidence as it exists on the surface is so fragmentary that this cannot yet be determined in a final way. —Possehl and Thornton 2007

T

his chapter summarizes five years of work (2007–12) by the Bat Archaeological Project that confirms Structure 1156 as a Bronze Age “tower” worthy of being awarded a name (as is the case with all the other towers within the Bat environs). This work has also demonstrated that Tower (T.) 1156 was in use from the Early Umm anNar through to the Wadi Suq periods—over 1000 years of adaptation from a tower to a settlement to a cemetery. Tower 1156 is located on the western edge of the “Settlement Slope” and was first recorded by the Danish Expedition in 1975 (Fig. 6.1). “Across the present road and less than 100 m from the excavated tower [Kasr al-Rojoom] the circular foundation of a slightly smaller, bur similar building was located” (Frifelt 1976:60). In the expedition undertaken in 1977/1978, more invasive work was done. A northeast south-west aligned trench, measuring 17 by 2 m, was excavated through what Frifelt regarded as the best preserved parts of the site, “starting outside the northern ringwall [tower wall] and including part of the interior” (Frifelt 1985:101) (Fig. 6.2). In her long sondage, Frifelt noted: an outer encircling wall, less than one metre thick, behind that a two metres wide space cov-

ered with rubble, but under that layers of ashes and other traces of fireplaces, the whole mixed up with potsherds, copper/bronze scraps, lumps of burnt and unburnt clay and a few fragments of quernstones. Behind that again rose the [tower wall], at least 2 m thick and merging into the inner walls of the construction. The inside appeared as a mass of stones from eroded walls, but there were also fragments of mud bricks, a thing not previously observed in connection with the towers at Bat…. In size this tower would have been considerably smaller than those registered so far, indeed only further excavation can show if it is the same kind of building, but the indications are strong. (ibid.) Frifelt never returned to T. 1156 and never published the pottery or finds from her sondage, thus the chronological sequence of events at this structure was never resolved. Work by the American team at T. 1156 under the direction of Dr. Gregory Possehl commenced in 2007, when a plan and section of the circular tower wall and first ring wall (Frifelt’s “outer encircling wall”) visible in Frifelt’s sondage on the northern side of the site were made. In 2009, a contour survey of the Settlement Slope and “Structure 1156” was performed along with a photomosaic. A grid of 5-x-5-meter trenches was established for the entire Settlement Slope, using the easternmost Umm an-Nar tombs of the Bat Cemetery as a fixed point for Trench (Tr.) 0 (Fig. 6.3). Trenches were labeled with “SS” (Settlement Slope) followed by a four-digit number (e.g.,

124

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 6.1 Tower 1156 during the 2011 field season, with T. 1145 (Kasr al-Rojoom) in the background.

Tr. SS0634). This protocol was the basis for a threeyear program of excavation from 2010–12. The 2010 excavation season was devoted to the horizontal exposure of the large curving tower wall (Frifelt’s “ringwall”) from the northern side of Frifelt’s trench towards the south-west. Excavations uncovered sections of three circular walls, which were certainly reminiscent of other tower walls at Bat, as well as evidence for badly disturbed Wadi Suq tombs on the north/northeast side. In 2011, excavation concentrated on the area to the east of Frifelt’s sondage with the objectives of tracing the continuation of the walls exposed in 2010 and defining walls to the south and east associated with the Settlement Slope. The 2012 season was intended to bring these two earlier excavation seasons into focus, thereby permitting a more holistic view of the structure and associated later Settlement Slope activity. This was achieved by exposing further sections of the tower wall, selec-

tively excavating in the interior of the tower, and defining the alignment of a feature tentatively interpreted as an inner ditch in the 2011 season.

The Stratigraphic Sequence at T. 1156 The natural geology below T. 1156—as illustrated by the re-excavation of Frifelt’s sondage in 2010 (see Fig. 6.2) and in deeply cut features on the site— indicate that the bedrock consists of a fragmented green colored limestone (138) that requires future analysis to ascertain its genesis. This type of geology may be one of the subdivisions of the Kharus geological formation in this area of Oman. Sealing the bedrock was an aeolian deposit with heat affected (red/orange) rock inclusions (137). The relationship of (137) to the tower walls and later structural activity suggests that it is a natural accumulation deposit—the result of climatic and soil degradation in the period prior to the construction of T. 1156.

Fig. 6.2 Frifelt’s original plan of her long sondage through T. 1156, juxtaposed with the southern profile of the sondage as drawn in 2010 by the American expedition.

126

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 6.3 Trench grid established at T. 1156 in 2010, with the 0,0 point located next to the easternmost Umm anNar tombs in the Bat cemetery. Extant stone walls of rectilinear Settlement Slope structures are shown in black around (and on top of) the circular tower.

excavations at tower

Phase 1—The Tower Structure 1156 is, like many of the 3rd millennium BCE towers in Oman, not a true circle in plan, measuring 22 by 23 m externally with an internal diameter of roughly 17.5 m. The tower was constructed of three walls (inner, middle, and outer) arranged in a step formation, which utilized the natural topography of the site and built directly on to the natural bedrock or the prehistoric scree horizon (Fig. 6.4).

1156

127

To date, the full circuit of the three tower walls has not been fully exposed. The middle and outer walls are better defined and allow a clearer pattern of how the tower was constructed (Fig. 6.5). The inner wall has been traced for less than 50% of its anticipated extent. A large Wadi Suq tomb-complex in the northeastern quadrant of the tower has prevented work in this area (see Appendix V). The tower walls are not typical Umm an-Nar walls in that they were not constructed with an in-

Fig. 6.4 Outer wall (sign board), middle wall (closer meter stick), and inner wall (farther meter stick), showing the stepped formation of the tower wall.

128

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 6.5 Outer and middle walls showing the stone construction methods (Scale: 0.5 m).

ner and outer face and a rubble core. Instead, these walls consist of an outer face backed by a rubble core (similar to the stone wall of T. 1147; see Chapter 4). Each wall is more or less built of the same size stones, generally 0.50–0.70 m in length and 0.50 m in width and consistently 0.15 m in depth. Thus, the tower wall consists of three externally-faced walls layered together. The distances between the walls vary, with the inner wall face being 1.8 m from the external face of the middle wall in their northern and southern extents, but in the east this distance diminishes to 1.4 m. Equally, the distance between the middle and outer walls are at variance, ranging from 0.7 m in the northwest and northeast to 1 m in the south (Fig. 6.6). The narrowness of the intervals between the walls determined the quantity and size of rubble used as infill. The reasons for the differences may

equate to the structural integrity of the monument as a whole. In the places where the outer wall has been fully exposed, two distinct areas require further comment. Both of these areas are along its southern extent and are 4 m apart. In the east, there is a distinct change from large flat angular stones to small rectangular blocks, and the section of the wall to the west appears to be disturbed with sections of its core exposed and facing stones missing (Fig. 6.7). Just 4 m to the west, there is a bulge in the alignment of the outer wall and the build of the outer wall overlaps itself (see Fig. 6.6). There is also evidence of considerable disturbance in the interval between the outer and middle wall. In the north of the site, the outer wall is positioned extremely close to the middle wall (Fig. 6.8). This may be due to the protruding bedrock on the north and northwest sides of the

Fig. 6.6 Outer and middle walls on the south side of the tower, showing not only variance in distance between outer and middle walls, but also discontinuities in the outer wall (Scale: 1 m).

Fig. 6.7 The outer wall on the south side of the tower, showing changes in construction technique as well as robbed out portions of the wall (Scales: 1 m).

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

130

Fig. 6.8 The outer, middle, and inner walls on the northwest side of the tower, showing reduced distance between the three walls in this part of the tower wall (Scale: 1 m).

tower (Fig. 6.9), which was integrated into the tower wall construction (seen also at Khutm tower). The changes in the alignment and build of the outer wall are not seen with the excavated in situ sections of the middle and inner walls, the reason for which is unclear. It is possible that the outer wall was a later addition to the tower structure and that the changes in build can be explained by other factors (see below).

Tower Interior Limited excavation was undertaken in the interior of the tower in 2012. One of the primary aims was to determine if T. 1156, like T. 1145, 1146, and 1147, possessed a well. A likely candidate for the well is feature , an unbounded stone sub-circular construction measuring 2 x 1.75 m and surviving to ca. 1 m above the base of Frifelt’s trench. It is likely that this feature is greater in depth, as illustrated by its associ-

ated cut [248] (Fig. 6.10) recorded in the base of Frifelt's trench. The eastern edge of the feature had been disturbed/damaged by Frifelt's excavation, but the majority of the feature remains intact. Its northern side had been utilized by a later storage pit (see below). Also associated with this phase of activity is a sub-circular firepit [198] measuring 0.42 x 0.40 m and 0.15 m in depth. Radiocarbon dating of the feature (Beta 316677) produced a date range of 2870 to 2600 cal. BC. To the west of firepit 198 is an area measuring 4 x 2 m (width defined by Frifelt's excavation) of a single course of irregular limestone slabs (528). The full extent of this surface is unknown; it abuts the inner wall of T. 1156 and extends under in situ deposits to the west and east (Fig. 6.11). It may have originally covered a greater surface area to the south but was disturbed by Frifelt's excavation. The surface is laid directly onto (137) and is clearly part of the initial construction phase at T. 1156. Its function is cur-

excavations at tower

1156

131

Fig. 6.9 The northern section of the tower wall was originally built onto a rib of natural protruding limestone bedrock (seen bottom-left). Radial walls were also built off of the outer tower wall on this side, perpendicular to the small wadi that runs from east to west just north of the tower.

132

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 6.10 Features 525 and 533 in the east-facing section of Frifelt’s sondage. Although heavily disturbed, both in the past and by Frifelt’s excavations, it is possible that these stones originally comprised the well inside the tower (Scale: 1 m).

rently uncertain, but defining its extent may aid clarity. Suffice to say it may represent a paved walkway around the perimeter of the interior of the tower; a similar feature is recorded at T. 1146.

Tower Environs As is the case with much of the excavation of 3rd millennium BCE towers in Oman, research concentrates on the structure of the tower and its interior. However, excavation in the immediate environs of a tower structure can provide so much more information about why these structures were actually built. Excavations at T. 1156 in 2012 located an inner ditch with associated features, evidence for the possibility of an outer ditch, a causeway, and copper smelting pits around the tower.

The Inner Ditch and Associated Features Excavation to the south, east, and west of the tower wall located a curvilinear sedimentary feature [152 and 207] which followed closely the alignment of the outer tower wall, but was either immediately adjacent to (as in Fig. 6.5) or only 0.20 m distant from the base of the tower wall (Fig. 6.12). Three sections excavated into the ditch on its eastern, northwestern and southeastern extents showed that it was approximately 2–2.5 m wide, being much wider on the northwestern side of the tower. The ditch was up to 1 m deep and had been cut into the natural green-colored bedrock. Found at the base of the inner ditch and sealed by the primary silting of the ditch (171), were two firepits [153] and [226] measuring 0.8 and 0.4 m diameter and 0.34 and 0.15 m deep respectively. Both

excavations at tower

1156

133

Fig. 6.11 Paved surface 528 from the north, seen from the outer face of the inner wall of the tower within Frifelt’s sondage (Scale: 1 m).

of these features had charcoal-rich associated fills intermixed with burnt stones. The radiocarbon date range for the charcoal sample (Beta 316675) taken from pit [153] was 2850–2500 cal. BC (2σ). The full circuit of the ditch is unknown, but it was not continuous as a terminal was located along the southern extent (Fig. 6.13). Whether the terminal is purely associated with the “cistern” (see below) or it also coincides with features associated with an entrance to the tower is currently unclear. In each of the excavated sections, it was shown that the inner ditch was also associated with an outer revetment wall constructed of unbounded medium sized blocks of stone, which survived up to 1 m and 5 courses in height (Figs.  6.14 and 6.15). To the south of the section shown in Figure 6.14, the retaining wall gradually decreases in height until it is no longer visible. This area was heavily remodeled during Phase 4 so

the stone work was most probably robbed and reused. Further to the south, the retaining wall reappears but is only represented by three vertical slabs similar to those used in the “cistern.” Revetment wall section to the south of only survived to two courses in height having been badly robbed to facilitate the construction of a Phase 4 wall . What is of interest, is that the upper course of must have been visible when the Phase 4 building was undertaken, as wall abuts this section of revetment and may have even used as a foundation. Excavation on the northwestern side of the tower also located a section of the revetment wall (Fig. 6.15). It is worth noting that the construction of this revetment feature is not consistent. The excavated sections and were built directly onto the bedrock base of the inner ditch (Figs. 6.14 and 6.15) whereas this is not the case with section , where the surviving section of the wall sits on top of the cut for the ditch (Fig. 6.16). This arrangement may be directly related to the immediate proximity of the “cistern.” Walled ditches associated with 3rd millennium BCE towers are not an uncommon trend, as such features have been recorded at Building 3 at Bisya (Orchard and Orchard 2007a, 2008, 2009) and at ST1 at Salut (Degli Esposti forthcoming). The presence of a ditch with a 3rd millennium BCE tower is often attributed to the idea of providing the tower with a defensive role or for irrigation (if located in the alluvium). Excavations at T. 1156 provided information that may suggest another function for this feature, as evidenced by the presence of two

Fig. 6.12 Excavated section of the inner ditch in relation to outer tower wall (seen at right); cross wall 527 in foreground and firepit 153 in the background (Scale: 1 m).

Fig. 6.13 Inner ditch terminal (seen behind half-meter stick) with partial view of the “cistern” and later backfill deposits on top.

Fig. 6.14 Revetment wall 529 (near north arrow) and section through inner ditch 152, as seen from the outer tower wall (Scale: 1 m).

Fig. 6.15 Revetment wall to the northwest of the tower sits directly on top of unaltered bedrock, which serves as the bottom of the inner ditch (Scale: 1 m).

136

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

cross walls ( and ) and a stone structure named, for the purpose of this report, the “cistern.” Cross Walls 527 and 536 Excavation within the inner ditch on the eastern and southern side of the tower located two cross walls. Both of these structures abutted the outer tower wall and the revetment walls and respectively. Cross walls (Fig. 6.12) and (Fig. 6.15) both survived as a single course. Wall was built on to the natural bedrock, and there was a distinct change in levels on either side of the build, suggesting that the inner ditch may have been terraced in this part of the site. Although further work will be needed, it is suggested that these two cross walls were part of a water management system associated with feature (the cistern), in which

the walls provided further opportunities to control water flow. Further evidence to suggest a connection with structure (the cistern) was the use of a smooth white mortar seen in the construction of the “cistern” and also evident in the construction of walls and . Excavation to the west of wall showed that the inner ditch significantly narrowed to a width of 0.80 m at the base as it approached the cistern (see Figs. 6.16 and 6.17). The Cistern At the western terminus of the inner ditch, was an oval shaped cut [264] that contained a stone constructed feature measuring 3.5 x 1.5 x 0.69 m. This structure was in a very good state of preservation with only slight damage to its western side. Originally, the

Fig. 6.16 Revetment wall (right, foreground) in relation to inner ditch, cistern and cross wall (behind half-meter stick).

excavations at tower

1156

137

Fig. 6.17 West facing section through inner ditch deposits to the east of cistern . Note the unaltered bedrock outcropping underneath the half-meter stick.

wall of this structure was a discontinuous circuit of vertically placed stone slabs, measuring between 0.50 and 0.70 m in width and 0.03 to 0.08 m in thickness, set against the foundation cut [264]. Two sections of this wall survived: in the north and in the south (Fig. 6.17). The floor of the feature (542) consisted of a carefully laid arrangement of smaller limestone slabs, which terminated abruptly at a north-south cut [270] (Fig. 6.18). It is suggested that this feature is a cistern for collecting water, given its position at the end of the inner ditch, the unusual vertical placement of the flat stones, and the evidence for silting. Cut 270 also continued up the southern face of the cistern (Fig. 6.19). It is further suggested that the eastern side of was represented by a (wooden?) shutter. No traces of the actual shutter survived

in situ. However, the continuity of the silting deposits to the east, and the lack of any evidence to suggest deliberate demolition of the eastern end of the cistern, suggest that a wooden or stone slab may have originally resided in cut 270. A firepit located in the silt overlying the cistern level provides a terminus ante quem for the final use of the cistern. The charcoal sample (Beta 316679) from this firepit gives a date range of 2890–2670 cal. BC. Water Management The actual purpose of the “cistern” awaits further analysis, but it is likely that the cistern and associated features were part of a water management system at T. 1156. As mentioned previously, the inner ditch is perilously close to the outer wall. If the ditch was indeed part of a water management sys-

138

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

tem, then action would have been needed periodically to counter erosion. Causeway Excavation also demonstrated a possible path or causeway associated with the tower. Sections of this feature were located immediately to the south of the inner ditch and cistern and also in the west, where it measured approximately 2 m in width and consisted of re-deposited and compacted bedrock (Fig. 6.20) or re-deposited bedrock with added stone fragments . The causeway was delineated by the revetment wall of the inner ditch on one side and a further retaining wall on the other side, with wall radiating from the tower wall in the south. Walls 531 and 539 were constructed of smaller stone blocks to those used in the inner ditch

retaining walls and were more haphazardly coursed (see Figs. 6.20 and 6.21), but were built directly onto the natural bedrock. The full extent of this feature is currently unknown. The causeway at T. 1156 can be paralleled with similar features recorded at the “Building 3” tower at Bisya/Salut (Orchard and Orchard 2009) and Tower ST1 (formerly “Building 5”) also at Bisya/ Salut (Degli Esposti pers. comm.). The Outer Ditch The immediate environs of the causeway were investigated by way of a section 1.5 m to the west of retaining wall and 2.7 m to the south of radiating wall . Both excavations showed in these areas a drop of 1 m from the top of the causeway to the bedrock. To the south of , excavation

Fig. 6.18 Eastern edge of floor 542 (of cistern 543) in relation to cut 270 (Scale: 0.5 m).

excavations at tower

1156

139

Fig. 6.19 Cut 270 in relation to cistern slab wall 541 (Scale: 0.5 m).

Until further excavation is undertaken, it is impossible to say definitively that the firepits were located in an outer ditch at T. 1156. There is always the possibility that the excavated areas adjacent to the causeway actually represent the natural slope, which had later been modified by the creation of an inner ditch and the causeway. However, there are two contributory factors that suggest otherwise: 1. If the outer ditch is not an outer ditch, then why was the area deliberately backfilled in what appears to be a single episode (211 and 238) with material identical to that used in the infilling of the inner ditch. 2. The presence of Wall 524

located a group of four firepits ([239], [241], [250], and [252]) all cut into the bedrock. The full extent of this activity is currently unknown. The pits varied in size from 0.50 to 0.90 m in diameter and were associated with charcoal-rich fills intermixed with burnt stones. Of the group, two are worthy of further consideration. Firepit 250 contained a fragment of a crucible with in situ copper smelting residue (see Fig. 6.34) while firepit 241 was the largest of the group and possessed a stone slab floor associated with considerable amounts of charcoal. It is suggested that these features were associated with small-scale copper smelting. A charcoal sample (Beta 316680) from firepit 252 provides a date range of 2900–2670 cal. BC. This not only dates the industrial activity but it also provides a date for the start of Phase 2 activity at the site, as all of the features were sealed by the primary silt deposit (247).

Wall 524 is located on the western side of T. 1156. The exposed section measures 5.4 m in length and survives to a height of 0.60 m (4 courses of stone work). The wall appears to continue to the south, but its northern extent had been damaged in the past by the wadi (Fig. 6.22). At first thought, this wall possibly represents a revetment for a platform, as its circuit mirrors that of the western section of the causeway in Tr. SS0758. If it is the outer revetment wall for the ditch (a trend seen in the inner ditch), then the outer ditch at T. 1156 would be approximately 5.5 m in width. This is not unusual for such a feature. The outer ditch at ST1 at Bisya is over 5 m wide and the outer ditch at Building 3 at Bisya is 4.5 m wide.

Phase 2—Abandonment The actual life span of T. 1156 as a tower is open to conjecture. Radiocarbon dates from firepit 198 in the interior of the tower, firepit 153 in the base of

Fig. 6.20 left Causeway on southern side of T. 1156, with the retaining wall in the foreground, the revetment wall behind the meter stick, and the tower wall in the background. Cistern , not visible, is located between and the tower wall.

Fig. 6.21 below The test sondage dug into trench SS1135 to the south of retaining wall (at left). The meter stick sits atop yellow-colored altered bedrock, while ashy firepits 239, 241, 250 and 252 can be seen at right dug into this same bedrock.

excavations at tower

1156

141

Fig. 6.22 Wall seen from the northwest, with T. 1156 in the background (Scale: 1 m).

the inner ditch, and firepit 252 in the possible outer ditch all point to a period of activity between 2850 and 2650 BCE (see Appendix IV). Phase 1 comes to an end with a period of abandonment as illustrated by the primary silting of the inner ditch (171 and 210), the disuse of the cistern (as evidenced by deposits 260 and 256), and the primary silting of the “outer” ditch (213 and 247), which sealed the industrial activity. Although the ditches go out of use, there is still some form of activity at the site as evidenced by firepit 245, which was cut into the tertiary silting of the cistern. The radiocarbon sample taken from firepit 245 produced a date range of 2890– 2670 cal. BC, suggesting that Phase 2 occurred very soon after Phase 1. In the center of the tower, a Phase 1 firepit [198] is sealed by a 0.13 m deep, silty, sand with small stone inclusions (180), with only a very small assemblage of 3rd millennium BCE pottery recovered from this context.

Phase 3—Remodeling of the Tower Phase 3 activity is characterized by the systematic backfilling of the inner and outer ditches with up to 1.60 m of deposits of angular stone blocks (presumably taken from the tower walls) mixed with natural scree deposits (see Figs. 6.12–15, 6.17, 6.20, and 6.21). The vast quantity of material relocated in this undertaking (not forgetting the labor and coordination involved in this enterprise) gives us a glimpse of the social fabric at the time and how much the people or hierarchy wanted or needed to extend the Settlement Slope. Finds from the excavated sections of the ditch fills were few and consisted of a very small assemblage of late 3rd millennium BCE pottery, animal bone (equid and goat/sheep), and some fragments of mudbricks. However, of note, was the recovery of imported pottery from southeastern Iran (“Snake

142

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Cordoned Ware”; Fig. 9.7A) and an etched carnelian bead (Fig. 6.37), both of which can be dated to the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE. The in-filled ditches and the leveled areas of the tower provided the structural base for the construction of walls associated with the Settlement Slope activity (Phase 4).

Phase 4—Settlement Activity Phase 4 activity at T. 1156 was characterized by the construction of a number of north-east southwest aligned walls , and north-west south-east aligned walls (Fig. 6.23). These walls of dry stone construction consisted of an inner and outer face with a smaller stone spine measuring between 0.50 and 0.60 m in width. They varied greatly in length due to Phase 5 activity (see below). In the main, the settlement walls only survived to a single course. The exception to this is wall , which was 5 courses in height in the west, but decreased to a single course in the east with a stepped foundation. This wall ran upslope and was built directly onto the in-filled inner ditch, therefore requiring variation in course build to accommodate underlying topography (Fig. 6.24). Excavation in 2012, just to the east of the inner ditch, provided evidence for the terracing of the natural slope to create a base to construct walls and . Due to the discontinuity of the Phase 4 walls, it is not possible to reconstruct actual “house” plots, but one can see that the intervals between the walls varied from 1.5 m (walls 507 and 511) to 4.5 m (walls 505 and 507). Between walls 511, 545 and 544 the distance was a constant 3 m. Only a single entrance was located between walls 505 and 512. There was no evidence for internal features such as hearths or floor surfaces in the excavated areas. Only a small portion of the interior of the tower has been excavated. Excavation just to the north of center of the tower and adjacent to Frifelt’s trench located two stone (semi-) circular structures (Fig. 6.25) and (Fig. 6.26). Associated with these structures were four firepits [179, 189, 191, 196] and a posthole [201], all of which cut into the Phase 2 horizon (180) (Fig. 6.27).

The full extent of and is unclear. Based on available evidence, they are most likely to have been 1.2 m in diameter and 0.60 m in depth. Feature was partially removed by Frifelt’s excavations and feature lies beneath a Wadi Suq tomb. The function of these features is also problematic. There is no evidence of burning in them, although they are surrounded by small firepits (Fig. 6.27). It is suggested that they may represent storage pits. As only a small percentage of the interior of T. 1156 has been excavated, there is the distinct possibility that other such features remain in situ. The small collection of firepits located to the south of structure were sub-circular in shape, measuring between 0.30 and 0.40 m in length and between 0.06 and 0.20 m deep. The posthole [201] was 0.25 m in diameter and 0.10 m deep. No finds were recovered from this group of features, but the associated charcoal fills have provided the opportunity for future radiocarbon dating and environmental analysis. Firepit 179 had been bisected by Frifelt's trench, suggesting that this group of features correspond with the activity recorded by Frifelt. As these features do not appear to be associated with walled structures, their relationship to the Settlement Slope structures to the south is unclear. Perhaps they represent non-enclosed “backyard activity.”

Phase 5—Platform Construction Where settlement walls have been traced within the tower circuit, they are covered over by a layer of angular stone tumble (183, 193, 203, 217, and 233; Fig. 6.28). This material was in turn sealed by a compact layer of small stones in a sand matrix (154, 157, 234, 235, 236: Fig. 6.29). These deposits are interpreted as the deliberate laying down of a “hard core” deposit to create a platform. Material recovered from these deposits included pottery of a late 3rd millennium BCE date and pieces of mudbrick. The presence of mudbrick may argue for the demolition of mudbrick walls built on top of the Phase 4 stone wall foundations. In the interior of the tower, where no settlement walls to date have been located, the Phase 4 activity is sealed by two distinct deposits: a compact sand with limestone inclusions, copper waste,

Fig. 6.23 Photomosaic showing the Phase 4 walls overlying T. 1156, taken at the end of the 2011 field season.

excavations at tower

1156 143

Fig. 6.24 Phase 4 wall as seen from the east. The baulk radiating north from in the middle of this image demarcates the original location of a later Phase 4 wall , which was constructed of large stones likely robbed from the tower beneath (two of these large stones can still be seen at right, pedestaled on top of early Phase 4 deposit).

Fig. 6.25 Feature 532, a stone-lined circular pit (now semicircular due to Frifelt’s sondage) (Scale: 0.5 m).

Fig. 6.26 Feature 533, with earlier firepit 198 to the left (Scale: 0.5 m).

Fig. 6.27 The firepits associated with feature 533 (Scale: 0.5 m).

146

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 6.28 The “hard core” deposit over T.1156 (Scale: 0.5 m).

and mudbrick fragments (176), and a sand matrix intermixed with large quantities of limestone (172) that also contained a large amount of pottery and mudbrick fragments. The general character of the deposits suggests that they represent a demolition/ leveling episode to create a deliberate surface. Deposit (172) is of particular interest in that the associated pottery assemblage has material of both late Umm an-Nar and Wadi Suq type, with examples that may be transitional between these periods (e.g., see Fig. 9.6C). To the north of the area covered by deposit (172), excavation in 2010 recorded an area of “rockfall” that may also equate to this phase of construction or it more likely represents collapsed Wadi Suq tombs from Phase 6. Found amongst this deposit were three bronze arrowheads (Fig. 6.32) and numerous ceramic types including Incised Grey Ware from southeastern Iran (Fig. 9.7E). The bronze ar-

rowheads relate to Phase 6 activity at the site, while the Incised Grey Ware may be related to the collapse of the tower wall or to Phase 4. The full extent of this platform is currently unknown. Selective sampling in the future and the amalgamation of data from past excavations would be required to answer this question. However, from the current data it would appear that the original ground plan of the tower was the basis for the platform construction and a small area to the north outside of the original limits. This factor probably reflects the positioning of the two most northerly tombs at T. 1156.

Phase 6—Funerary Activity There were at least six tombs recorded on top of T. 1156 during the 2010–11 seasons at the site. Five are located within the tower circuit (e.g., Fig. 6.30)

Fig. 6.29 The upper “hard core” deposit in Tr. SS0911 (Scale: 1 m).

Fig. 6.30 Wadi Suq tomb adjacent to Frifelt’s sondage (Scale: 1 m).

148

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

and one is located outside of the outer tower wall in the northwestern area of the site over the inner ditch alignment (Fig. 6.31). Figure 6.30 shows the tomb to the west of Frifelt’s trench and Figure 6.31 shows the tomb located over the inner ditch. The largest tomb in the group, located on the northeastern side of the platform, was excavated in 2013 (see Appendix V). The shapes and sizes of these tombs are variable and may not be all of the same chronological period, although stratigraphically they appear to be a coherent set of Wadi Suq period tombs. Only excavation can resolve this issue. As mentioned above, the three copper/bronze arrowheads (Fig. 6.32) discovered in 2010 were not found in situ and may represent material eroded from the half-tomb located on top of the tower wall itself. In addition, a single carnelian bead from a deposit (257) situated immediately to the south of the large tomb excavated by Williams and Gregoricka (Appendix V) may also be a product of erosion or tomb robbing.

Phase 7—Post Wadi Suq Only a very small amount of Iron Age and Islamic period pottery has been recovered from the surface of T. 1156, and there is currently no suggestion that any Iron Age or later settlement activity is present.

Phase 8—Natural Accumulation All of the later structures and deposits on the site are sealed by a deflated layer of wind-blown sand and scree.

Proposed Summary of Events (by Phase) 1. [Early Umm an-Nar] Construction of tower walls, inner and outer ditches, and causeway; Small-scale industrial activity in the outer ditch; Recutting and remodeling of the inner ditch and construction of the cistern; Remediation work to outer wall due to water erosion

Fig. 6.31 Wadi Suq tomb over the infilled inner ditch on the northwest side (Scale: 1 m).

excavations at tower

1156

149

Fig. 6.32 Copper/bronze arrowheads (lots 101303, 101305–1306) discovered in Wadi Suq tomb collapse on the north side of T. 1156 in 2010 (Scale: 10 cm).

2. Abandonment of site—the cistern goes out of use. Natural siltation in inner and outer ditches, “squatter” occupation as illustrated by firepit 245 3. Systematic backfilling of inner and outer ditches and robbing of tower walls for construction materials 4. [Mid-Late Umm an-Nar] Construction of domestic structures and terracing of slope to allow further settlement activity. Domestic activity in form of storage and firepits 5. [Early Wadi Suq] Remodeling of site to permit construction of a platform for funerary activity 6. Construction of Wadi Suq tombs 7. Period of abandonment 8. Natural accumulation deposits

The Finds Pottery was the main category of finds within the excavation assemblage (see Fig. 9.6). Most of the ceramics came almost exclusively from disturbed

contexts in makeup/leveling horizons associated with Phases 4 and 5 at the site. Only a handful of pottery sherds were collected from Phases 1–3 and, of these, only one was diagnostic. The neck of a small jar was discovered in lot 12SS171 near the bottom of the inner ditch on the southeast side of the tower (Fig. 6.33). The ceramics from these layers were very friable and covered in lime, making visual identification difficult. However, the low amount of pottery corresponds well with the Early Umm an-Nar dates provided by radiocarbon. The scatter of copper prills found during excavations from varying locations and stratigraphic phases illustrate a history of copper processing at the site. This includes the primary fill of the outer ditch, deposits (213 and 247); the primary and secondary fills of the inner ditch (205, 210, and 228); the levelling deposit (176), which most probably equates to the deposits referred to by Frifelt; and scree deposit (208). In addition, crucible fragments were recovered from firepit 250, in hard core platform mate-

150

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 6.33 A ceramic jar neck from lot 12SS171 is the only diagnostic pottery found in Phases 1–3 (Early Umm anNar levels).

Fig. 6.34 Crucible fragments from various contexts at T. 1156 (Scale: 5 cm).

excavations at tower

rial (156), in the upper fill of the inner ditch (228), and in the rubble core between the middle and outer walls in the south-west circuit extent. To date, very little slag has been recovered from T. 1156. This corresponds with the metallurgical assemblages recovered from Operations A and B and T. 1147, none of which contained significant amounts of slag. This may suggest that metallurgical refining was taking place at these sites (i.e., the remelting of copper for purification or for casting). There is also the possibility that the smelting of high-grade oxidic copper ores (e.g., malachite or azurite) was taking place at the site, which rarely produces significant slag due to the limited amounts of gangue. Evidence for cultural interaction between the Arabian Peninsula and the Indus Valley is illustrated at T. 1156 by the presence of a few fragments of Black Slipped Jars. In addition, the recovery of two possible fragments of zoomorphic clay figurines, one

1156

151

found in a deposit () delineated by Phase 4 walls 505 and 528 and the second in a surface deposit to the south of wall 524, may suggest local imitation of Indus figurines. Of the two fragments, only is truly convincing as a figurine fragment (Fig. 6.35) and it probably depicted an oryx or antelope given that the horns were originally located on top of the head. In addition to these finds, an Umm an-Nar rim sherd with an inscribed Indus-style sign on the lip was recovered from a surface deposit () in the area of the outer ditch (Fig. 6.36; see also Fig. 9.6U). Further contact with the Indus Civilization is suggested by the recovery of an etched carnelian bead (Fig. 6.37) from deposit (206), an upper fill of the inner ditch. This bead is unusual in that the execution of the design and the shape of the bead do not correlate with classic Indus production (Kenoyer, pers.

Fig. 6.35 Zoomorphic clay figurine fragment probably depicts an oryx or antelope, but may also represent an ox. Such figurines are rare in Bronze Age contexts of the Arabian Peninsula.

152

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 6.36 Incised Umm an-Nar rim sherd from surface deposit lot 1255232.

Fig. 6.37 Etched carnelian bead found in upper fill deposits (Phase 4?) of the inner ditch.

comm.). This and the fact that the drill profile is “hourglass” in shape and not a vertical drill suggests that this may be a local imitation.

Conclusions As with many of the 3rd millennium BCE towers of Oman, there is so much more to these monuments than is perceived. Tower 1156 is a poor relation to

its sister tower Kasr al-Rojoom (T. 1145) in terms of structural integrity. Its structure is difficult to explain to visitors, with its confusing arrangement of walls (if the person can actually see them at first glance) and multiple phases of activity. Yet the program of work from 2010–12 has clearly illustrated the importance of this structure to our understanding of how it relates to the prehistoric settlement of Bat and to Bronze Age towers more generally. As is often the case with excavation, you go in search of answers to specific questions and come back with more questions than answers. This is certainly true of T. 1156. Who would have thought when excavation commenced in 2010 that evidence for multiple phases of occupation from the early 3rd millennium BCE to the mid-2nd millennium BCE would have been forthcoming? That evidence for the dismantling and filling-in of a “tower” structure during the Umm an-Nar period, possibly following a period of abandonment, suggests that the Umm an-Nar period was not a homogenous time of social expansion. In addition, the dramatic break in the ceramic and stratigraphic sequence between the Umm an-Nar and Wadi Suq periods, suggested by numerous scholars, is not evident at T. 1156. Instead, we see a gradual transition from the late Umm an-Nar into the early Wadi Suq periods. This proposed “transition” awaits further analysis of the ceramics from this site and more radiocarbon dates. Finally, the presence of a number of firepits associated with industrial activity (in this case, metal-working) and the variety of imported pottery found at T. 1156, both suggest that this site played an important socioeconomic role at Bat. The etched carnelian bead, the zoomorphic figurine fragments, the “Snake Cordoned Ware” sherd, the sherd of Incised Grey ware, and the ubiquitous Black Slipped Jar fragments, all testify to long-distance trade routes and perhaps multiple groups of people all living and working at Bat in the 3rd millennium BCE. The Umm anNar rim sherd found on the surface just west of T. 1156, in the area of the outer ditch, has an inscribed Indus-style sign on the lip, daring one to suggest that this sherd represents a local presence of Indus peoples at Bat who created hybrid styles and intermixed with local populations.

excavations at tower

1156

Fig. 6.38 Photomosaic of T. 1156 combining the results of the 2010–13 seasons.

153

C-1

Fig. 1.2 A typical Hafit tomb assemblage of the Omani interior, including copper-alloy weapons and/or ornaments, imported Mesopotamian ceramics, etc.

C-2

Fig. 1.3 A typical Umm an-Nar collective tomb assemblage from Bat, including numerous ceramic jars, imported and local ornaments, etc. (images courtesy of the German Archaeological Mission to Bat).

C-3

Fig. 1.4 A typical Early Wadi Suq tomb assemblage from Bat, including shell beads, copper/bronze arrowheads, simple painted ceramic beakers, etc.

Fig. 2.1 Location of the Wadi Sharsah in north-western Oman.

C-4

Fig. 2.2 Past and present anthropogenic features and hydrography of the Wadi Sharsah.

C-5

Fig. 2.3 Geomorphology of Bat area near Tower 1146.

C-6

Fig. 2.4 Stratigraphy of “S1” section near Tower 1146.

C-8

Fig. 3.20 Important evidence of small-scale copper metallurgy was found in the Hafit levels of Trench A, including a small fragment of copper ore (right) and a small platy-slag (left).

Fig. 9.2 The most complete “Hafit Ware” sherd (lot 090827) from Tower 1147.

7 Surface Structures at Ad-Dariz South Kristen Hopper and Yasuhisa Kondo

Introduction

T

here are at least two archaeological monuments located 1–2 km south of the modern town of Ad-Dariz (also spelled as Al-Darīz, Al Dreez, or A’Dreez), reported by K. Frifelt as “large circular stone constructions with 3rd millennium BCE pottery interspersed with Iron Age potsherds” (Frifelt 1985:91). In 2008, the American team rediscovered a “tower”-like mound on a relict flood plain, 1.5 km south of Ad-Dariz and 10 km west of the village of Al-Wahrah (Possehl et al. 2008:2). The mound was named Ad-Dariz South 1 (hereafter abbreviated as ADS 1). A first attempt at a photogrammetric plan of the site was undertaken in 2009 (Possehl et al. 2009). Further investigation of the surrounding area revealed a second large stone structure, this time a rectangular enclosure, approximately 375 m to the northwest of ADS 1. This structure was given the name Ad-Dariz South 2 (ADS 2). In the 2011 season, a total station survey and a program of photogrammetry were carried out at ADS 2 to further characterize the enclosure and surrounding features (Possehl et al. 2011:44–50). Subsequently, the second photogrammetric survey of ADS 1 was carried out in 2012. This chapter reports the methods and results of these field documentations.

GPS Survey of ADS 1 and ADS 2 The first step in our investigation was to record the real-world location of ADS 1 and ADS 2 through the use of a handheld DGPS unit (Hemisphere XF101) and ESRI ArcPad software. We mapped the

perimeter of ADS 1 and the extent of the mound, and the rectangular enclosure at ADS 2. Furthermore, we recorded the extent of a large cemetery directly north of ADS 1. The structure and orientation of the graves suggest that the cemetery most likely dates from the Islamic period. The following map illustrates the geographical relationship between the two structures and associated features (Fig. 7.1). ADS 2 is located 375.5 m east and slightly north of ADS 1. The distance between ADS 1 and ADS 2 was established through the use of a Topcon total station. As photogrammetry had been conducted at ADS 1 in the 2009 season, a known datum already existed at the center of the circular tower (located at UTM 40N, Easting 459106.928, Northing 2576030.200). The distance was measured from this central point to the SE corner of the large square enclosure at ADS 2 (located at UTM 40N, Easting 458747.072, Northing 2576137.277).

Ad-Dariz South 1 (ADS 1) The first photogrammetric survey of ADS 1, carried out in 2009, revealed that the mound is a circular structure measuring approximately 20 m in diameter and built with massive limestone blocks (Fig.  7.2). These features parallel the Bronze Age towers we excavated at Bat. The photomosaic created in that season (Fig. 7.3) is based on a relative coordinate system and was stitched with few ground control points. Therefore, there are distortions and discontinuities in the photomosaic rows that cannot be overlooked. This motivated us to redo the photogrammetry of

Fig. 7.1 Location of ADS 1 and ADS 2. Imagery from Google Earth - accessed June 7, 2012. Imagery date April 24, 2009.

Fig. 7.2 A view of ADS 1, seen from the south (Photo courtesy of Takehiro Miki).

158

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 7.3 Photomosaic of ADS 1 created in 2009.

ADS 1 in the 2012 season. It also allowed us to tie ADS 1 into a UTM coordinate system, as we had done with ADS 2 in 2011.

Method of the Systematic Photogrammetry The overhead photography of ADS 1 was taken January 9–12, 2012. The region covered by the photography was 30 by 30 m wide, following the magnetic north-south axis. Before photography, bottle caps were laid out at 1.5 m intervals north-south and 2.5 m intervals east-west (Fig. 7.4). These worked not only as ground control points (GCPs) but also as guidelines for photography transects. Approximately 100 auxiliary GCPs were scattered on the surface of stone structures to help in stitching the photographs.

The overhead photography was taken with a remote-controlled Nikon D90 digital SLR camera and Nikon Ai AF Nikkor 24 mm F2.8 single focus lens, attached to the top of a 6-meter-long aluminum rod. Twelve photography transects were made and the rod was moved from north to south to avoid creating shadows in the photographs. In total, we took approximately 240 pictures (or 20 pictures per transect on average). The location (x, y, z) of the GCPs was measured with a total station (Topcon GTS-235W).

Results of the Photogrammetric Survey of ADS 1 The detailed photogrammetry has revealed that ADS 1 is exactly circular, measuring 23.0 m in diameter. The ring wall structure is relatively well preserved in the eastern half. The typical thickness of the

surface structures at ad -dariz south

159

Fig. 7.4 Ground control point layout at ADS 1 in the 2012 season.

wall, which is usually two stones wide, is between 1.4 and 1.6 m in that portion. In comparison, there is more stone material in the western half of the structure likely representing collapse from the wall (but, might also be the remnants of a modern structure), and which has formed a terrace. Another modern structure, a quadrangular building with small stones, was built on the top of the mound between 2009 and early 2012 (Fig. 7.5). This shows how quickly the archaeological structure can be modified. Besides this structure, there are no features observable on the surface except for two walls attached to the ring wall

at the azimuth of three and eight o’clock. There are small numbers of potsherds and lithics on the northern half of the surface, while no artifacts are observed on the whitish surface of the southern half. There might be a trench or a pit underneath this whitish surface. The GCPs were also used for terrain analysis. The nearest neighbor interpolation of the Z value of GCPs allowed us to create a digital elevation model (DEM) and contours (Fig. 7.6). A measurement of the DEM reveals that the mound is only 1 to 2 m higher than the surrounding flood plain, and the re-

160

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 7.5 Photomosaic of ADS 1 created in 2012.

mains of the northern half of the ring wall are higher than other parts. It is difficult to date the structure from architectural evidence only, but the dimensions of the site coincide with those of Bronze Age towers at Bat (Towers [T.] 1147, 1148, and 1156 for example).

roughly east/west. Atop the mound, on its eastern half, is a large square stone enclosure of approximately 20 x 22 m (Fig. 7.7). The enclosure of ADS 2 is constructed of large stone blocks similar in size, shape, and material to those used in the construction of ADS 1.

Ad-Dariz South 2 (ADS 2)

Photogrammetry at ADS 2

ADS 2 consists of a large low mound approximately 115 x 75 m, with the long axis oriented

The goal of photogrammetry at ADS 2 was to create a detailed overhead photographic map of

Fig. 7.6 10 cm contour and hillshade of ADS 1 based on the 2012 survey results.

Fig. 7.7 View of ADS 2 towards the southeast showing the construction material of the large enclosure.

162

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 7.8 Location of ADS 2 transects, and ground control points.

the mound. In order to do this, a datum was established on a small high mound immediately to the east of the square enclosure. From this point, the majority of the features on the mound were visible. This datum was used as the origin for an arbitrary local grid system oriented north-south, and given the coordinates x=0, y=0, z=0. It is located at UTM40N, Easting 458754.051 and Northing 2576146.457. A backsight was established 30 m north of the datum. For photogrammetry, nine transects were laid out at 3 m intervals running in a north-south direction across the large square enclosure. Along each transect,

small blue survey markers, which would be visible in the overhead photos, were placed at 2 m intervals (Fig.  7.8). These markers were then measured with a total station (Topcon GTS-235W) to provide GCPs for the georeferencing of the photos. An average of 13 photographs were taken per transect using a Nikon D90 digital SLR camera mounted on a 7 m pole and operated by a remote control. Each transect was photographed from north to south, and all the photos were taken between 10:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to minimize the difference in light and shadows. Each photograph was georeferenced in ESRI ArcMap using the total station measurements and the corresponding survey markers visible in the photographs. The result is illustrated in Figure 7.9.

Feature Mapping and Topographic Survey Apparent on the surface of the mound of ADS 2 are various wall lines and architectural features, both inside and outside the enclosure, extending towards a circular mudbrick structure that is located on the southwestern portion of the slope approximately 50 m from the western wall of the enclosure

surface structures at ad -dariz south

163

Fig. 7.9 Plan view of ad-Dariz South 2 created in ArcMap by stitching together georeferenced overhead photographs.

(Figs.  7.9 and 7.10). The mound was traversed in rough transects (about 5 m across) to locate all of the visible surface features. These features were then mapped using the total station (Fig. 7.11). Within the enclosure there are several short sections of internal wall and a small circular structure (possibly a hearth). Another wall line abuts the inside of the western enclosure wall near the southwest corner forming an open-ended rectangle (Figs. 7.8 and 7.10). Without further excavation, it is difficult to

tell whether these internal features are coterminous with the enclosure or represent a later reuse of the structure. However, they are generally much less robust in construction. Many of the features outside of the large enclosure consisted of small rectilinear structures. Furthermore, there are several circular or ovoid features that may represent graves. Adjoining and immediately west of the circular mudbrick structure is a pit of approximately the same dimensions (ca. 5 m in

164

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 7.10 Architectural features in and to the west of the large enclosure, facing towards the mudbrick structure.

diameter). The pit is lined with mudbrick, and may have been created by the extraction of earth to create the bricks. Outside of the enclosure (approximately 12–17 m away), on three sides, there are traces of a circular ring wall constructed of two lines of large stones with a rubble fill. A petroglyph was also found on the southeast portion of the ring wall (Figs. 7.11 and 7.12). Petroglyphs, created by pecking images onto stones, were also discovered at T. 1148, Kasr-al Sleme (see Chapter 5), and appear to post-date the collapse of that tower. This petroglyph is in isolation and little can be said for its date at this point in time. Furthermore, a topographic survey was carried out over the entire mound at ADS 2. The mound was traversed in north-south transects and points were taken at roughly 5 m intervals across the site, with additional points taken to define distinct topographical features such as sharp rises and depressions in the ground. This data was combined with the point data

gathered for photogrammetry, and the point data taken to map the architectural features to produce elevation information for the site (Figs. 7.11 and 7.13).

ADS 2: Discussion There is a dense scatter of pottery across the entire mound, with the majority representative of the Islamic period. Fragments of glass and metal were found in lesser quantities. A small collection of pottery from inside the enclosure was made, which awaits analysis in a future season. Interestingly, the abundance of surface pottery at ADS 2 is in stark contrast to ADS 1, which had little to no pottery on the surface. This fact may be the result of alluvial deposition burying earlier material. While at this point there is no conclusive date for the rectangular enclosure at ADS 2, it is possible that the site was a locus of activity in both the Prehistoric and Islamic periods. Similarities in the

Fig. 7.11 Total station survey of visible surface features with topography (Natural Neighbor interpolation with hillshade at 10 cm intervals). Height values are in meters in relation to the datum (0,0,0).

surface structures at ad -dariz south

165

166

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 7.12 Photograph of petroglyph located on the south-east portion of the ring wall.

stone blocks used to build both ADS 1 and 2 (size, shape, material) could indicate that the structures are contemporaneous. However, it is also possible that ADS 2 was constructed at a significantly later time with building material having been robbed from ADS 1, after it had fallen out of use, to build the large enclosure at ADS 2. In either case, the site has clearly represented a focal point for settlement through time. Modern reuse of building material from ADS 2 is evidenced by relatively recent stone tent bases sitting directly on the surface to the northeast of the site. A similar feature was located on the surface of ADS 1 that had been constructed following the recording undertaken at the site in 2009 (see Results of the Photogrammetric Survey of ADS 1).

Conclusions In this preliminary survey of the two structures at Ad-Dariz South, we have attempted to record

the monuments as they are today, lest the growing town of Ad-Dariz further encroach on this landscape. The circular structure (ADS 1) is almost certainly a Bronze Age “tower”, as it shares many architectural similarities with other such towers in the area. The rectangular structure (ADS 2), however, is a bit of an enigma that will require future excavations to date conclusively. The architectural style is similar to Bronze Age towers—large ashlar masonry set without significant mortar—but the shape is unusual; only one other rectangular Bronze Age tower is known from Oman (at Khashbah; see Cable and Thornton 2013). The ceramic sherds that have been collected from around ADS 1 and ADS 2 are a mix of Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Islamic pottery, suggesting that this site was used and re-used over many millennia. The site is threatened by modern encroachment and by the fact that it sits within the flood plain of a large wadi, so test excavations and further study of this site are desperately needed.

Fig. 7.13 Topographic maps of ADS 2 with 10 cm contours.

surface structures at ad -dariz south

167

8 Other Towers in the Bat Area Charlotte M. Cable

Introduction

T

here are eleven 3rd millennium BCE towers in and around Bat; of those, eight (including al-Khutm) fall in the Bat area; one is located near the modern village of Wahrah; and two are near the village of ad-Dariz. While other chapters are dedicated to Towers (Ts.) 1146, 1147, 1148, and 1156 as well as to the ad-Dariz towers, this chapter will overview the remaining five: Kasr al-Rojoom, Husn al-Wardi, al-Qa’a, al-Khutm, and Wahrah Qala.

Kasr al-Rojoom One of the first 3rd millennium BCE towers excavated on the Arabian Peninsula and the first excavated in the Bat region, T. 1145 (Fig. 8.1) is locally identified as Kasr al-Rojoom. At the time of excavation in the mid-1970s, al-Rojoom stood 2.5  m above the alluvium. Reconstructions proposed by Frifelt (1976, 1985) after evaluation of associated rockfall suggest that the tower was ca. 5–6 m tall before it fell. In 1974, the “niched” or stepped stone tower wall was still visible (Fig. 8.2). The interior structure included a stone-lined well near the center (Fig. 8.3), 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. A charcoal sample (K-2797) from a hearth built during the original construction of the internal walls of

the tower provides a date range of 2700–2220 cal. BC. Two other radiocarbon samples (K-3207 and K-3208) from fireplaces in the “moat” surrounding the tower provide date ranges of 2625–1970 and 2600–2130 cal. BC (2σ).

Husn al-Wardi (“Bat Qala”) Bat Qala—known locally as Husn al-Wardi— lies near the center of the modern Bat oasis and was built on top of a Bronze Age tower monument (Fig. 8.4). Like T. 1148, the “Bat Qala” tower was built on a conglomerate outcrop and is made of large cut blocks. 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 (Fig. 8.5). Suleiman alJabri, Ministry of Heritage and Culture representative and a local of Bat, confirmed that a modern (i.e., mechanized pumping) well had been in use at Husn al-Wardi until very recently—possibly utilizing the original Bronze Age well of the tower. Partially abandoned now, the mudbrick superstructure and Islamic period modifications have rendered internal exploration difficult.

Al Qa’a Tower Five hundred meters north of Matariya, on top of a rocky prominence overlooking the Wadi al-Hijr, a seventh Bat tower was identified (Fig. 8.6). It is of unknown age and has experienced the effects of time—

170

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 8.1 Kasr al-Rojoom (T. 1145) as seen from the Settlement Slope to the east.

the top is covered with stone rubble and 2nd millennium BCE graves—yet it is likely that this was once an even larger monument than Kasr al-Sleme. It has several stone ring walls that take advantage of the ridgeline to increase its overall size (Fig. 8.7), much as alKhutm does. Little is known about this monument, but it may be helpful to compare its remains to some of those found at Bisya (Cable and Thornton 2013). As with Matariya, it is named after the area: al-Qa’a.

Al-Khutm Several kilometers west of Bat is a tower known as al-Khutm (Fig. 8.8). It is circular in plan, sits on limestone bedrock, and is structurally similar to T. 1146 and 1147. There have been only limited excavations of the interior of this tower due to the Iron Age tombs capping it. Excavations by a Ministry of Heritage and Culture team of archaeologists in 2009 and 2010 cleared the exterior tower wall, associated ring walls, and revetment walls (Fig. 8.9). The tower is built directly onto the bedrock and takes advantage

of the upright stones, similar to the construction of T. 1156. It appears to have several revetment walls and the remains of a possible rectilinear platform on the northwest side of the tower.

Wahrah Qala On the southern edge of the village of Wahrah, just to the west of al-Khutm, is Wahrah Qala (Fig. 8.10). 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 3rd millennium BCE tower construction: stone size, even coursing, and off-set stretcher stones all combine to form a well-built stone base such as those of Kasr al-Rojoom, Kasr al-Khutm, Matariya, and all of the others. However, as with Husn alWardi, the stone foundation has been altered in places (Fig. 8.11). This has disrupted the general shape of the tower—from circular to sub-circular—and altered the construction style.

other towers in the bat area

Fig. 8.2 A consolidated plan of T. 1145 (adapted from Frifelt 1976: fig. 3 and 1985: fig. 3).

171

Fig. 8.3 left The circular central well of Kasr al-Rojoom (T. 1145).

Fig. 8.4 below Bat village, looking southwest toward Husn al-Wardi. The base of this fort incorporates a 3rd millennium tower (“Bat Qala”).

Fig. 8.5 The base of Husn al-Wardi sits directly on top of natural conglomerate rock (similar to T. 1148). Note the transition from large, even blocks on the right (the “Bat Qala” tower), which form a gentle curve, to irregular, smaller stones on the left, which form a much straighter wall.

Fig. 8.6 Stone tower wall of al-Qa’a tower, buried under rockfall and debris from Wadi Suq tombs (top-left).

174

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 8.7 Tower wall at al-Qa’a from the south, with the stone revetment wall located downslope.

Fig. 8.8 Tower al-Khutm from the north, after excavations by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture in 2009–10.

other towers in the bat area

Fig. 8.9 Plan of the tower at al-Khutm after excavations by the Ministry of Heritage and Culture in 2009–10.

175

Fig. 8.10 Stone foundation of Wahrah Qala, built on a natural stone outcrop that towers over the modern village of Wahrah.

Fig. 8.11 Wahrah Qala. Note the change in construction from the right to the left.

other towers in the bat area

Summary As demonstrated in this chapter, the Bat region contains a number of Bronze Age monuments and sites that have barely been explored, let alone systematically excavated. Indeed, the Al-Qa’a tower was only noticed in 2011, many years after we had begun working at Bat, which suggests that there may still be Bronze Age monuments in the Bat landscape that remain undiscovered. Many of these monuments lie underneath historic struc-

177

tures—large stone platforms make excellent foundations for mudbrick forts—which adds an interesting cultural angle to these monuments about what the re-use of prehistoric monuments meant to the people of Medieval and pre-Modern Oman. Hopefully future studies will target some of the satellite sites to Bat—such as Khutm and Wahrah—to better understand settlement dynamics in the region and why certain settlements had towers while others did not.

9 Typological and Chronological Consideration of the Ceramics at Bat, Oman Christopher P. Thornton and Royal Omar Ghazal

Introduction

T

he excavated ceramics from the Bat towers are our best (and sometimes only) chronological markers for the different phases of construction and use of these monuments. This is particularly true for later periods in which the tower ruins were reused as building foundations, platforms for tombs, or sites of trash deposits. Indeed, the assemblage of potsherds from excavated tower contexts at Bat spans the entire ceramic sequence of North-central Oman from the early 3rd millennium BCE (Hafit-period ceramics) to 19th century CE glazed “Bahla Ware.”1 Unfortunately, most of the historic period ceramics of North-central Oman are largely undocumented (see Whitcomb [1975] for an early typology) and show few comparisons with better studied collections from coastal sites such as Sohar (Costa and Wilkinson 1987; Kervran 2004), Qalhat (Rougeulle 2010; Rougeulle et al. 2012) and sites in the United Arab Emirates (e.g., Kennet 2004). The prehistoric ceramics from North-central Oman are, in general, better known thanks to excavations at sites like Hili and Maysar (see Cleuziou 1989a, 1989b; Weisgerber 1981), although very little of the settlement pottery has been adequately published. Indeed, the most comprehensive treatises on the Bronze Age pottery of Oman (i.e., Méry 2000; also Cleuziou et al. 2011) rely almost entirely on funerary assemblages. Too few studies have successfully incorporated the discrimination of occupational phases with a study of ceramic typology. Most

publications do not venture far beyond the gross identification of archaeological cultures (i.e. Hafit vs. Umm an-Nar vs. Wadi Suq, etc.). To date, Hili 8 has been the only site to outline different occupational sub-phases for the Early Bronze Age sequence (Cleuziou 1989a, 1989b; Cleuziou et al. 2011), although much of the pottery remains unpublished. The emphasis on mortuary contexts has made identifying the prehistoric ceramics from settlement contexts more difficult. For example, the domestic pottery at Bat is quite different in fabric and design from the majority of grave pottery excavated by Frifelt in the 1970s (R.O.G. pers. obs. 2011). While Bat’s tombs were in use for an extensive period of time, their utility for constructing a chronological framework for the site is limited. Tombs often present overlapping phases or have gaps in their usage that are unclear. Objects from unrelated eras were also commonly recovered together due to appropriation, theft, or curation of heirlooms from earlier periods. Moreover, tombs were regularly disturbed in the past as a function of their prolonged usage, which included regular maintenance, cleaning, burning, and removal of the interred individuals and their grave goods (see Blau 2001; Munoz and Cleuziou 2009; Munoz et al. 2012). The prolonged funerary customs and usage of the tombs make identification of stratigraphic relationships almost impossible. While examination of Bat’s entire ceramic corpus (both mortuary and domestic) implies an almost unbroken occupation for the entire 3rd millennium BCE, no one archaeological feature or structure has yielded a

180

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

complete sequence whose stratigraphy would allow a robust classification of the occupational history of the site. Despite the lack of a suitable stratigraphic structure for Bronze Age ceramic studies, this chapter seeks to provide a preliminary and, admittedly, rather cursory typology of the excavated pottery found at Bat. Our second aim is to place our ceramics in relative chronological framework with respect to other excavated sites, particularly as regards the 3rd millennium BCE sequence. We begin our chronological assessment with the earliest pottery recovered from Tower (T.) 1147 (Matariya) at Bat. While only a handful of such sherds are represented, these Mesopotamian wares relate to the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic I-II horizons (i.e., 3200–2700 BCE). More importantly, at least one clear imitation Mesopotamian vessel was also recovered, which forces us to reconsider the development of ceramic technologies in the region. Following this discussion, we review the chronological evidence related to the ceramics of the Umm an-Nar period. This review includes not only the first truly autochthonous pottery in the region, namely the so-called “domestic ware” pottery (Blackman et al. 1989), but also concerns a number of imported ceramics derived from southeastern Iran and Indus sources.

Ware Typology Modern ceramic typologies are generally based on rigorous scientific analysis of fabric types, clay sources, inclusions and tempering, and other diagnostic features that are testable in the laboratory. In the absence of such information, we attempted to classify our ceramics in the field based on general fabric types (from “fine ware” to “coarse ware”) as classifiable with the naked eye and to attribute them chronologically based on comparison with published contexts from other sites. Having separated our ceramics into four fabric types (fine, semi-fine, semi-coarse, and coarse), we then further subdivided these types using a culture historical approach, emphasizing slip color, painted designs, known forms, etc. Such qualitative typologies have long been out of favor in archaeology, given their subjectivity and circular reasoning, but until the ceramics from the Bat settlement have been fully investigated, the pres-

ent typology serves to present the important ceramic data from the most current excavations at Ts. 1146, 1147, and 1156. Given the parameters of our study, the primary focus of this classification centers on the Early to Middle Bronze Age (ca. 3000–1800 BCE), but in the hopes of better understanding the site’s history of (re)usage, we have also included a tentative assessment of the pottery from later periods. Excavation of settlement contexts on the Oman Peninsula present certain challenges that impair our ability to conduct standard stratigraphic excavation and thereby properly seriate our ceramic typology. In particular, the homogeneity of the loamy soil matrix of the alluvial and aeolian deposits around the towers hampers our ability to identify stable floor levels. Other related factors include the relative scarcity of pottery from within the towers themselves, reflected both in the low density of ceramic production for most periods in the region and in other cultural behaviors, such as the habitual cleanliness of architectural units and other features. Finally, exposure to the elements has further hindered identification of wares on stylistic grounds, as weathering and surface patination from salts and other minerals have destroyed or obscured identifiable markers. Decoration and surface treatments do not fare well in the harsh conditions in the Oman interior. As such, the typology that follows has been forced to rely heavily upon fabric and form for classification. We should also note the conspicuous lack of wasters or other debris from the manufacture of ceramics that would allow us to more easily distinguish local wares from foreign ones. As shown in Table 9.1, over 3300 ceramic sherds were examined from the 2008–12 seasons at Ts. 1146, 1147, and 1156 and placed into the preliminary typology. This total comprises only sherds from non-surface lots, and treats refitted pieces as a single sherd. Sherds smaller than about 2 cm2 were not usually counted; if there were a handful of such small sherds of the same fabric, they were often counted as one or two sherds in the table. Similarly, complete vessels were only treated as one sherd, which skews the numbers slightly. Given the qualitative nature of measuring the total number of sherds (as opposed to total sherd density: weight per volume of dirt), one should remain circumspect about placing too much emphasis on the numbers in Table 9.1.

0

0

1

0

0

1147-10

1147-11

TOTAL

1156-10

1156-11

1

1

1147-09

Bat Total

0

1147-08

0

0

TOTAL

0

0

1146-10

TOTAL

0

1146-09

1156-12

0

1146-08

Mes'n Buff

3

0

0

0

0

3

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

Mes'n Red

Mesopotamian Wares

1883

1139

738

214

187

179

0

97

9

73

565

26

523

16

Umm an-Nar

4

2

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

Black on Grey

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Incised Grey

Iranian Grey Wares

Table 9.1 All ceramics excavated at Ts. 1146, 1147, and 1156 from 2008–12.

3

1

0

1

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

H. Black on Red

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

H. Bichrome

5

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

1

3

0

Cooking Pot

Harappan Fine Wares

FINE FABRICS

3

0

0

0

0

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

Fingernail Impressed

20

2

0

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

17

0

0

17

Blue Glazed

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

3

Sgraffiato

8

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8

1

0

7

White Glazed

Glazed Wares

169

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

168

8

5

155

Bahla

0

12

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

13

TOTAL

1147-08

1147-09

1147-10

1147-11

TOTAL

1156-10

1156-11

1156-12

TOTAL

Bat Total

12

1146-09

1146-10

0

1146-08

Red on Buff Slip

47

25

9

5

11

8

1

1

0

6

14

0

14

0

Black Slipped Jars

Harappan Red Micaceous

319

317

200

114

3

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

Wadi Suq Fine

197

9

1

1

7

112

0

97

7

8

76

5

2

69

Fine Red Stone

MEDIUM FINE FABRICS

Table 9.1 (cont'd) All ceramics excavated at Ts. 1146, 1147, and 1156 from 2008–12.

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

1

1

4

Buff Slipped Red

4

1

1

0

0

3

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

Mesopotamian imitation

58

55

51

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

2

1

Wadi Suq Coarse

32

0

0

0

0

3

0

1

2

0

29

5

0

24

Islamic Buff

MEDIUM COARSE FABRICS

24

0

0

0

0

5

0

2

3

0

19

0

0

19

Chaff Tempered Buff

0 2 66

TOTAL

Bat Total

1

1156-10 1

7

TOTAL

1156-11

1

1147-11

1156-12

0 4

1147-09

2

1147-08

1147-10

12 57

TOTAL

2

1146-09

1146-10

43

1146-08

Coarse Red Stone

78

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

78

6

5

67

Comb Incised Buff

412

3

1

2

0

5

0

2

1

2

404

1

12

391

OTHER Coarse Wares

COARSE FABRICS

4

3

2

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Quartz Tempered Coarse

Table 9.1 (cont'd) All ceramics excavated at Ts. 1146, 1147, and 1156 from 2008–12.

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Crushed Black Stone Coarse

3367

1561

1004

345

212

342

2

220

29

91

1464

66

582

816

Total

184

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

I. FINE FABRICS = fine, well-levigated matrix; few visible inclusions; soft texture IA. MESOPOTAMIAN WARES Fabric: Semi-fine to fine and well-levigated, buff to red in color, poorly-fired to well-fired Inclusions: Few visible, most less than 1 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Smoothed, no visible slip Other: Wheelmade Period: Early Bronze Age (Mesopotamian import) IA1. MESOPOTAMIAN BUFF WARE Fabric: Semi-fine to fine and well-levigated, greenish-buff in color, relatively well-fired Inclusions: Few visible (mostly black), most less than 1 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Smoothed, no visible slip Other: Wheelmade Period: Early Bronze Age (Mesopotamian import) IA2. MESOPOTAMIAN RED WARE Fabric: Semi-fine to fine and not as well-levigated, brown-red in color, relatively poorly-fired Inclusions: Few visible, most less than 1 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Smoothed, no visible slip Other: Wheel- and handmade Period: Early Bronze Age (Mesopotamian import)

IB. UMM AN-NAR WARES Fabric: Fine, pink/orange/tan in color with occasional gray core, relatively low-fired Inclusions: Few visible, most less than 1 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Often slipped in buff or red, though slip is frequently fleeting. Red slip occasionally discolors into brown or even black. Decorations include black painted lines, usually found on the upper half of the vessels, near the neck. Appliqués or raised ridges are sometimes found along the shoulder. Other: Mostly handmade, although indications of the slow wheel are seen on some sherds. Period: Early Bronze Age Note: The broad category “Umm an-Nar Wares”

includes a number of different variants, including Umm an-Nar Funerary Ware, early Umm an-Nar Domestic Ware, late Umm an-Nar Domestic Ware, Umm an-Nar Suspension Vessels, etc. These types require petrographic and stylistic analyses to differentiate them and will be the subject of future studies.

IC. IRANIAN GREY WARES Fabric: Fine, blue-gray in color, well-fired Inclusions: Few visible inclusions, all less than 1 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Darker gray exterior and either black painted decorations (“Black-on-Grey Ware” = IC1) or incised decorations meant to imitate softstone vessels (“Incised Grey Ware” = IC2). Grey wares decorated with black paint fall into two distinct stylistic traditions with overlapping spheres of production in southeastern Iran: (1) Emir Black-on-Grey and (2) Black-on-Grey canister jars. Other: Generally very well-fired (approx. 950–1000 degrees C); the incised pottery is notably harder than the other grey wares and in some instances, vitrification of fabric has been achieved giving the ceramic a metallic “clinky” sound when struck. Period: Bronze Age (Baluchistan import)

ID. HARAPPAN FINE WARES Fabric: Fine, tan to red fabrics, well-fired Inclusions: Few visible, most less than 1 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Smoothed and slipped Period: Bronze Age (probably Harappan import) ID1. HARAPPAN BLACK ON RED WARE Fabric: Fine, orange-red fabric, well-fired Inclusions: Few visible, most less than 1 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Dark red slip on exterior and probably interior, black painted linear designs (e.g., striped triangles) on exterior Period: Bronze Age (probably Harappan import) ID2. HARAPPAN BICHROME WARE Fabric: Fine, tan fabric, well-fired Inclusions: Few visible, most less than 1 mm in diameter

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

Surface treatment: Both dark red and cream slip, with black painted designs on the cream slip (exterior surface); possible red slip on interior Period: Bronze Age (Harappan import) ID3. BUFF COOKING WARE Fabric: Semi-fine to fine, green-buff in color, relatively well-fired Inclusions: Few visible Surface treatment: Slightly raised ledge around shoulder; often red slip from rim to ledge Other: see “Pot: Round Bottomed” (Dales and Kenoyer 1986:132–35) Period: Bronze Age (Harappan import or Harappan-inspired) ID4. FINGERNAIL IMPRESSED WARE Fabric: Semi-fine to fine, ranges from orange-buff to pink-red in color, relatively well-fired Inclusions: Few visible, though fine grained sand is present Surface treatment: Multiple “fingernail” impressions on interior of upper tray; no slip Other: Known tray-on-stand form, although no evidence of stand was found Period: Bronze Age (Harappan import or Harappan-inspired)

IE. GLAZED WARES Fabric: Semi-fine to fine, yellow-white to red-tan in color, well-fired Inclusions: Few visible inclusions (most less than 1 mm in size) Surface treatment: Glazed in various colors, both interior and exterior Period: Islamic

185

IE2. SGRAFFIATO WARE Fabric: Semi-fine to fine, brown-red in color, wellfired Inclusions: Few visible inclusions (most less than 1 mm in size) Surface treatment: Pale green-blue glaze with incised designs filled with darker green and blue glazes; or cream-white glaze with champlevé decoration. Other: “champlevé,” “green monochrome,” and “mono mustard” (Kennet pers. comm.) Period: Middle Islamic (11–13th cent. AD) IE3. WHITE GLAZED WARE Fabric: Semi-fine to fine, cream-white in color, wellfired Inclusions: Small black stone inclusions (most less than 1 mm in size) and fine sand Surface treatment: Off-white glaze on interior and exterior, occasional yellow, white, and red glaze as decoration or blue glaze “splashes;” glazes often “crazed.” Other: Includes imported “Chinese” porcelain and “Red-Yellow” glazed ware (Kennet pers. comm.) Period: Late Islamic IE4. BAHLA WARE Fabric: Semi-fine to fine, red to buff in color, wellfired Inclusions: Few visible, most less than 1 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Green to brown glaze on interior and exterior, occasional grooved designs Other: Wheelmade Period: Late Islamic

II. MEDIUM FINE WARE = semi-fine, well-levigated matrix; visible inclusions; rough texture

IE1. BLUE GLAZED WARE Fabric: Semi-fine to fine, tan to red in color, wellfired Inclusions: Few visible inclusions (most less than 1 mm in size) Surface treatment: Turquoise blue or green-blue glaze, often with indented, grooved, and/or appliqué designs Period: Middle Islamic

IIA. HARAPPAN RED MICACEOUS WARES Fabric: Semi-fine, red in color, well-fired Inclusions: White mica (muscovite) inclusions, up to 1 mm in length Surface treatment: Smoothed interior and exterior, slipped exterior

186

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Other: Prominent wheel marks (rilling) on interior Period: Bronze Age (Harappan import) IIA1. RED ON BUFF SLIP WARE Fabric: Semi-fine, red in color, well-fired Inclusions: Prominent white mica (muscovite), up to 1 mm in length Surface treatment: Smooth interior and exterior; exterior has buff slip and thick (up to 2–3 cm) red horizontal painted bands on exterior. Other: Prominent wheel marks on interior Period: Bronze Age (Harappan import) IIA2. BLACK SLIPPED JARS Fabric: Fine to semi-fine, red to orange in color, and well-fired Inclusions: Prominent white mica (muscovite), up to 1 mm in length Surface treatment: Interior and exterior are smoothed; black-slipped on exterior Other: Some sherds have black slip on the exterior and red slip on the interior. Rims are very distinctive for this class of wares, exhibiting a combination of flaring or everted ledge with a tapered end. Low/no necked, possessing a medium sized opening. Bodies of these jars are typically bulbous or globular in shape and have a base that tapers down like an amphora. Decorations are not typical on the vessels imported to Bat, but decorated varieties of this vessel do occur in Harappan contexts. Walls of the vessel are much thicker than what is typically found in local Early Bronze Age pottery. Period: Bronze Age (Harappan import)

IIB. WADI SUQ FINE WARES Fabric: Semi-fine, tan to orange-red in color, relatively well-fired Inclusions: Multiple stone inclusions, usually less than 1 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Red slip, occasional appliqué or painted designs on exterior Other: Spouts are considered indicative of Wadi Suq. Period: Middle-Late Bronze Age (Wadi Suq)

IIC. FINE RED STONE WARE Fabric: Semi-fine, tan to red-orange in color, relatively well-fired.

Inclusions: Small red stone inclusions (less than 1 mm in diameter) and some sand Surface treatment: Red slip on exterior and interior, occasionally decorated with black paint or appliqué designs Period: Iron Age II (Lizq/Rumeilah)

IID. BUFF SLIPPED RED WARE Fabric: Semi-fine, red in color, and relatively wellfired. Inclusions: Multiple stone, less than 3 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Buff slip on exterior, often decorated with raised ridges and incised lines Other: Wheelmade Period: Late Islamic

III. MEDIUM COARSE WARE = semicoarse, poorly-levigated matrix; few visible inclusions; rough texture IIIA. MESOPOTAMIAN IMITATION or “HAFIT” WARE Fabric: Medium coarse, tan in color, low-fired Inclusions: Large amounts of white, black, red, and clear grit, up to 1 mm in diameter; has a sandy texture that is uncommon for most local and imported wares. Surface treatment: Buff slip on interior and exterior; traces of red slip or paint found on neck exterior surface Other: Handmade Period: Early Bronze Age

IIIB. WADI SUQ COARSE WARES Fabric: Semi-coarse, pink-tan to brown-red in color, relatively poorly-fired Inclusions: Multiple stone inclusions, up to 4 mm in diameter (large calcium carbonates) Surface treatment: Red slip, occasional appliqué or painted designs on exterior Other: Occasionally tempered with copper slag Period: Middle-Late Bronze Age (Wadi Suq)

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

187

IIIC. ISLAMIC BUFF WARE

IVC. OTHER COARSE WARES

Fabric: Medium coarse, buff in color, and relatively well-fired Inclusions: Black stone inclusions, up to 3 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Buff slip, often decorated with raised ridges Other: Wheelmade Period: Late Islamic

Fabric: Coarse, brown/tan/orange/red in color, poorly-fired Inclusions: Multiple stone of various sizes, often 5 to 10 mm in diameter, in addition to chaff Surface treatment: None Other: Handmade Period: Uncertain

IIID. CHAFF TEMPERED BUFF WARE

Fabric: Coarse, orange-brown to brown in color, relatively poorly-fired Inclusions: Prominent quartz inclusions, up to 5 mm in diameter, as well as limestone and some chaff Surface treatment: None Other: Handmade Period: Iron Age

Fabric: Semi-fine to semi-coarse, buff in color, relatively poorly-fired with occasional gray core Inclusions: Chaff, approximately 10%, less than 4 mm in length Surface treatment: None Other: Probably handmade, possibly technical ceramics for metallurgy Period: Unknown

IV. COARSE WARE = coarse, poorly-levigated matrix; many visible inclusions; very rough texture IVA. COARSE RED STONE WARE Fabric: Coarse to very coarse, red-brown to tan in color, poorly-fired to relatively well-fired Inclusions: Red stone, up to 9 mm in diameter, some chaff Surface treatment: Sometimes decorated with red slip and smoothed, black paint and/or appliqué Other: Snake appliqué type is present on some examples. Period: Iron Age or Islamic

IVB. COMB INCISED BUFF WARE Fabric: Semi-coarse to coarse, buff in color, poorly-fired Inclusions: Multiple stone, up to 3 mm in diameter Surface treatment: Buff slip, thick comb-like incisions forming both straight horizontal and wavy lines Other: Handmade Period: Late Islamic (cf. Whitcomb 1975: plate 5B-I)

IVC1. QUARTZ TEMPERED COARSE WARE

IVC2. CRUSHED BLACK STONE COARSE WARE Fabric: Coarse, tan in color, relatively low-fired Inclusions: Crushed black stone, up to 6 mm in length, in addition to occasional chaff and red stone; inclusions are angular. Surface treatment: Possible buff slip on exterior and interior Other: Handmade Period: Iron Age

Chronological and Typological Considerations In the absence of absolute dates from secure contexts, archaeologists commonly rely upon stratigraphic seriation and ceramic comparison with regions whose chronology is already well established. The earliest chronological frameworks for the 3rd millennium BCE were put forward based on strong parallels in material culture, particularly imported pottery, with Mesopotamian and southeastern Iran. Parallels with known Iranian materials in particular were initially so pronounced that Danish excavators at Umm an-Nar Island believed it to be an Iranian colony (Bibby 1970; Thorvildsen 1962). In time, the distinctiveness of what would become the Umm an-Nar culture was recognized as an indigenous phenomenon with pronounced influence from foreign

188

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

trade. In a similar manner, finds from the earlier tombs of the Hafit culture discovered in the Buraimi region bore strong resemblance with pottery of Mesopotamian origin, and hence were dubbed “Jemdet Nasr tombs” (Frifelt 1975a, 1979; Tosi 1976). No cultural association was assumed, but these tombs have since been named the Hafit culture reflecting the site name in which its material culture was first recognized. In time, archaeological surveys in the Oman Peninsula (de Cardi et al. 1976; Frifelt 1971, 1975a, 1975b, 1976; Hastings et al. 1975; Weisgerber 1981) would come to recognize that the Hafit and Umm an-Nar cultures were widely distributed throughout the Emirates and northern Oman. As for the Umm an-Nar period, de Cardi (1970), Frifelt (1975a) and Tosi (1976) put forward early chronologies for the period based on parallels with Iranian sites such as Shahr-i Sokhta, Tepe Yahya, and Bampur. These pioneering attempts were soon followed by substantial work at Hili in the Buraimi region, which provided archaeologists the first tentative chronology based on stratigraphic excavations from both Hafit and Umm an-Nar occupation levels (Cleuziou 1989a, 1989b). Potts’s (1993b) attempt to redefine the region’s chronology in more general terms—i.e., Late Prehistoric (ca. 5000–3400 BCE), Protohistoric (3400–2300 BCE), and Early Historic (2300–300 BCE)—has not been widely applied in the scholarly literature.

Hafit Period Ceramics The earliest pottery discovered from the Bat settlement comes from Matariya (T. 1147) which, as discussed earlier in this volume (see Chapter 4), dates to the later Hafit and Early Umm an-Nar periods (ca. 2900–2600 BCE). Pottery in these early contexts is rare, and consists of four basic types: Mesopotamian Import (Types IA1 and IA2), Mesopotamian Imitation (IIIA), and early Umm an-Nar Ware (IB). It would be remiss to talk about ceramics without also mentioning the presence of metallurgical crucibles made of a chaffy ceramic in Hafit-Umm an-Nar transitional contexts at both Matariya and T. 1156 (radiocarbon dated in both places to ca. 2900–2650 cal. BCE). These crucibles are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this volume (see Chapter 11), but it is interesting to note how the people of early 3rd

millennium BCE Bat were quite familiar with the construction and use of technical ceramics, yet chose not to produce any coarse wares for cooking or other utilitarian tasks. Perhaps future excavations at domestic contexts will change that picture, but for now we must question whence the knowledge of both ceramics and metallurgy came to Oman. In recent years, geochemical and petrographic analyses have allowed us to probe deeper into the origins of ceramic production in Oman’s Hafit period (ca.3100–2800 BCE; see Méry and Schneider 1996:86–88, 2001; Méry 2000:169–89; Mynors 1983). Unlike most other regions in the Near East, the Oman Peninsula did not have a significant local tradition of pottery production until the mid3rd millennium BCE. It has been argued that the first autochthonous pottery emerges only after several centuries of importation of Mesopotamian and Iranian wares, likely during the transition between the Hafit and Umm an-Nar periods; i.e., approximately 2800 to 2700 BCE. Early interpretations of Oman’s regional chronology suggested that this interval was a time of decline or a hiatus, signaled in part by the waning influence of Mesopotamia in the region.2 However, notions of such a hiatus appear less tenable in light of current evidence. Recent work at Hili (Cleuziou et al. 2011; Méry 2010), Dhank (Williams and Gregoricka 2013), and elsewhere (see Frifelt 2002a; Potts 2012) suggests a more gradual progression took place between the Hafit and Umm an-Nar. Although long-distance trade appears to have contracted, there seems to have been persistent and continuous occupation at critical sites during this transitional interval. It could be argued that the Hafit and Umm an-Nar should be thought of as different phases of an evolving cultural horizon rather than as two distinct archaeological cultures. For the present, we will retain the traditional chronological terms, but we have tentatively called this transitional phase the Early Umm an-Nar period (ca. 2800–2500 BCE). Refining our understanding of this transitional period is of course important to note given the complex nature of the introduction of ceramic technology to the region. There are several overlapping and technologically complementary ceramic traditions introduced between 2800 and 2500 BCE to the Oman Peninsula just prior to the expansion of Magan’s indigenous pottery tradition. It has long been recog-

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

nized that the technical, stylistic, and morphological attributes of the Umm an-Nar pottery tradition show a strong similarity with imports from southeastern Iran, stemming from several overlapping spheres of production and exchange with Kerman, the Dasht Makran, and Baluchistan (Blackman et al. 1989; Méry and Blackman 1999; Méry 2000, 2010, 2013; Méry et al. 2012; Potts 2005; Wright 1984). We will consider this issue further in our discussion of the Umm an-Nar and Iranian pottery traditions in the following sections, but we should like to return to our original question concerning the earliest diffusion of ceramic technology into the region. The identification of the occupational phases relating to the Hafit and Early Umm an-Nar is inherently problematic, because relative dating cannot be undertaken given the dearth of ceramics. The majority of pottery from these early phases relates to funerary assemblages and not domestic contexts. Serge Cleuziou and Sophie Méry (Cleuziou and Méry 2002:282) have proposed the existence of locally-produced, fine red wares from the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE in the Oman Peninsula. Early Period I levels at Hili 83 revealed a small number of black-on-red pottery sherds produced from a fine paste, much like that of standard Umm an-Nar ceramics—especially the fine funerary wares. Such examples are rare in occupational levels, as ceramics had no clear function in the domestic realm prior to 2500 BC. Moreover, the sherds that remain are typically fragmentary and non-diagnostic apart from their Umm an-Nar-like, fine, red fabric. While an Early Umm an-Nar pottery tradition is strongly inferred from the available archaeological evidence, a clear developmental history or typological profile remains allusive. However, we are fortunate to have a few samples of pottery from Bat bearing on the question of the region’s first tentative steps toward local pottery manufacture. Although they represent a very small assemblage, observations based on three ‘Mesopotamian’ ceramics at Matariya present a more complex understanding of pottery’s origin and the development of the Umm an-Nar ceramic tradition (see below). It should be noted that in addition to these samples, other ceramics from Late Hafit or Early Umm anNar levels at Matariya include a small number of thin, well-painted black-on-buff or black-on-red

189

sherds (e.g., lots 080808–080812) similar to Early Umm an-Nar funerary ware (see below). Unfortunately, the samples thus far recovered are non-diagnostic apart from their Umm an-Nar-like fabric and paint. Méry (2000, 2010; Méry and Schneider 1996, 2001; Blackman et al. 1989) has demonstrated scientifically how some of these early Umm an-Nar-type black-on-red painted wares from Hili 8 and one sample from Bat were in fact imports from the Dasht Plain in the Pakistani Makran (Méry 2013:6). Additional samples of fine ware from the Bat cemetery area (Ghazal forthcoming), as well as samples from nearby Dhank, appear through instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) to be geochemically linked to Iran, pointing to the early influence of Iranian techniques on the local production of fine black-on-red ware pottery at Bat (Ghazal forthcoming). We hope that in the future, closer inspection and archaeometric analyses of the black-on-red wares from Matariya could help us to better distinguish the subtle differences between local fine red ware products and imported ones. Similar to the situation in Period I contexts at Hili 8 (Cleuziou 1989a, 1989b; Méry and Schneider 1996, 2001; Méry 2000:169–89), a few sherds of imported Jemdet Nasr/Early Dynastic I-II ceramic jars from Mesopotamia were found. These sherds were made of a well-fired, greenish-buff ceramic (Type IA1) or less well-fired, red-brown ceramic (Type IA2). Both subtypes of Mesopotamian import are distinguished by their lack of large visible inclusions, a property that they share with the early Umm an-Nar fine wares. Some of these vessels show clear rilling marks on the exterior and interior, indicating construction or finishing on some form of a wheel or tournette. Larger Mesopotamian vessels, like those recovered at coastal sites like Umm an-Nar Island (Frifelt 1991, 1995) and even in the interior (e.g., Cleuziou and Méry 2002:285, fig. 2), do not appear much in evidence. During the Hafit, Bat’s Mesopotamian imports were limited to a class of small biconical, narrow necked jars with a distinctive ledge rim with a tapered or beveled edge, sometimes giving the lip an almost faceted appearance. These jars were a persistent feature of the Hafit type graves of the early 3rd millennium BCE and several vessels have been recovered from Bat (Frifelt 1971, 1975a, 1975b),

190

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

as well as from other sites in the interior (e.g., Hili, Buraimi, Zukayt, Maysar, al-Khasbah, etc.). Earlier petrographic and geochemical comparison of Jemdet Nasr/Early Dynastic related pots with excavated samples in Oman have consistently demonstrated that they originated in Mesopotamia and were not imitated by local Omani potters (Méry 2000:169– 89; Méry and Schneider 1996, 2001). However, as will be discussed below, recent discoveries at Bat and elsewhere are beginning to call this into question and it now appears that Mesopotamian pottery may have influenced the early development of pottery technology in this formerly aceramic region. Three diagnostic samples of possible Mesopotamian wares were recovered during the 2009 and 2010 excavations from Matariya (T. 1147) and were submitted for INAA at the University of Missouri’s Research Reactor (MURR) (Ghazal forthcoming). All three sherds (lots 090827, 092607, and 102005) had the distinctive tapered or beveled ledge rim indicative of Mesopotamian jars, but these samples differed markedly in the composition of their fabrics (Fig. 9.1). Only one of the samples (lot 092607/ ROG264, for details see Ghazal forthcoming) had the well-fired greenish-buff appearance that suggests a proper Mesopotamian import. Karen Wilson and Helen McDonald at the Oriental Institute confirmed our initial assessment on the basis of visual comparisons with several Jemdet Nasr samples recovered from surveys in Iraq. Fortunately, several INAA samples from the Oriental Institute’s Warka and Akkadian surveys were made available for geochemical comparison with the gracious assistance of Leah Minc at the Oregon State University’s Radiation Center. Minc’s comparisons of the data confirmed that this greenish-buff sample from T. 1147 was indeed of Mesopotamian origin. Two additional samples (Type IIIA; lots 090827 and 102005), bearing strong morphological resemblance to Jemdet Nasr/Early Dynastic jars but differing markedly in the composition of the fabric (as mentioned above), were analyzed but the results revealed a geochemical signature that was more consistent with local Umm an-Nar pottery than those from Mesopotamia This is an important point, as prior archaeometric analyses of other Mesopotamian-style sherds (e.g., Méry 1991a:72; Méry and Schneider 1996; Cleuziou and Méry 2002:283) have consistently demonstrated

their importation. Our analyses challenge the proposition that the Umm an-Nar ceramic tradition owes its inspiration solely to Iranian imports and the direct influence of migrant potters from Iran (Potts 2005, Méry 2013:6). We do not wish to suggest that the Umm an-Nar pottery was of Mesopotamian origin, but rather to emphasize that the adoption of this new technology was an even more complex process than was previously believed. To highlight the local character of our Mesopotamian imitations, we have preliminarily designated them “Hafit Wares” (i.e., Type IIIA).The first of these samples from T. 1147 (lot 090827/ROG265), a beige slipped dark-red ware, stands out from the other 3rd millennium BCE ceramics recovered at Bat in that it possesses the distinctive tapered ledge rim shape of Mesopotamia imports commonly found in Hafit graves, but bears little resemblance to any other known red ware in the region (Fig. 9.2, see color insert). The ratio of mineral temper to clay matrix was remarkably high, producing a fabric that was uncharacteristically sandy and brittle/friable. The second sample from T. 1147 (lot 102005/ROG208), which is nearly identical to one example from tower levels at T. 1156 (lot 1255171), might be described most accurately as intermediate between the first two, being a brownish red ware with beige slip (like the first) but exhibiting a more refined paste, with fewer visible inclusions and indications of construction on a wheel or tournette. In both cases from T. 1147, the geochemical analysis indicated that the samples were not manufactured in Mesopotamia. Their geochemistry suggests a “local” origin somewhere in the Oman Peninsula, as they demonstrate a high statistical probability of membership with other Omani red wares (Leah Minc pers. comm.; Ghazal forthcoming). A third subtype of Mesopotamian-style vessel was recovered by Frifelt near T. 1145 and on the Settlement Slope near Structure 1155 (east of T. 1156). The sherds from near T. 1145 (DA#2954/ROG234 and DA#2965/ROG266) were similar to the red ware fabric of Type IIIA but without the buff slip. A third sample from near Structure 1155 (DA#2783/ ROG205) had the distinctive tapered ledge rim, but its neck was much shorter than other cited examples (e.g., Frifelt 1975a: fig. 19a, 19c–e, fig. 28a, 28c; Méry 2000:170, fig. 103) and its fabric was again similar to Type IIIA ceramics. Results from INAA

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

191

A

B

C

2 cm Fig. 9.1 Hafit period wares from Matariya: A) lot 092607, fine greenish-buff fabric with small black inclusions, wheel marks visible; B) lot 101420, medium tan-orange fabric with grey core and occasional sand, cream, and red inclusions; C) lot 090827, medium-coarse red fabric with brown core and many small white, red, and black stone inclusions, buff slip or wash on interior and exterior, degraded red slip visible on top of buff slip/wash on exterior neck.

192

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

on both of these samples concurred with our observations from the two samples at T. 1147 described above, that not all Mesopotamian-style sherds in Oman were imports from Mesopotamia itself. However, the results from the analysis could not match this sample conclusively with the other geochemical groups from Bat or other known sites, and the sample remains unassigned.4 Given the small number of samples involved, we can only make the most speculative of inferences here, but the data appear consistent with the proposition that experimental pottery manufacture based on Mesopotamian prototypes was already advancing during the Hafit period, prior to or perhaps in tandem with the introduction of Iranian imports from which the later Umm anNar pottery would evolve (see below). These early “Hafit Ware” samples could reasonably be promoted as experimental attempts—i.e., examples of ‘evolutionary’ stages (or dead ends)—in the development of local pottery techniques. In all cases, the form again was distinctly Mesopotamian in influence, but lacked any other stylistic or fabric characteristics indicative of that ware. All Mesopotamian imports (including ceramics) drop off remarkably after the Early Dynastic II period (ca. 2600 BCE), in favor of Iranian and Indus imports. The only exceptions to this are a small number of Early Dynastic III and Akkadian ceramics from Umm an-Nar Island (Frifelt 1995:121–37), Hili Tomb N (al-Haddu 1989: fig. 9), and Munay’i (Nissen 1966:75–76, Potts 1990a: fig. 115). Yet, while Mesopotamian imports may have ultimately been replaced by their Iranian/Makrani counterparts, they were instrumental in creating a demand and acceptance for a new technology whose symbolic value and ritual function became entrenched in Umm an-Nar mortuary practices. Although southeastern Iranian ceramics clearly influenced the style of Early Umm an-Nar ceramics (e.g., geometric and linear motifs used, orange-red slip), we might argue that at least one feature of the Mesopotamian imports and “Hafit Wares” survived into later periods: an adherence to a narrow necked, biconical jar as the most predominate form of pottery. Perhaps it would be over-reaching to suggest that these Mesopotamian imitations had an appreciable effect upon the technological or stylistic attributes of the subsequent Umm an-Nar pottery tradi-

tion. However, the prevalence of jar forms amongst these imported vessels, their imitations, and the subsequent Early Umm an-Nar wares and their Iranian counterparts, indicate a growing demand for a particular product that Mesopotamia may have instigated. It should be recalled that importation of Mesopotamian pottery had already occurred once before on the western coast of the Oman Peninsula and eastern littoral of Arabia during the fifth millennium BCE (Oates et al. 1977; Roaf and Galbraith 1994). However, these ‘Ubaid pottery imports not only failed to penetrate beyond the Gulf coast into the interior of Arabia as an object of trade, but more importantly, they appear to have made little headway in establishing a strong local demand for pottery production—with the exception of locally-produced chaff-tempered red wares found in association with ‘Ubaid pottery (Oates et al. 1977; Roaf & Galbraith 1994). With the decline in the Gulf trade during the 4th millennium BCE, pottery disappeared almost entirely and the communities of the Oman Peninsula and eastern Arabia remained aceramic for another millennium. With this in mind, the modest findings detailed above reflect the beginnings of a change in local tastes and behavior that would become one of the many hallmarks of the Umm an-Nar culture. By the Early Bronze Age, tastes were changing in tandem with the development of oasis-centered agriculture and the adoption of semipermanent settlement, which likely facilitated the adoption of a new mode of consumption and eventually production. The ubiquitous presence of Mesopotamian imports in Hafit funerary contexts reflects the growing symbolic importance of pottery (or its contents) to the mortuary rituals of this new era. While we may never know precisely what inspired the Umm an-Nar culture’s attraction to and adoption of this new technology (see Potts 2005), it seems clear that the importation of Mesopotamian wares in the Hafit period stimulated a lasting demand for ceramics—particularly small bi-conical jar forms with a low neck and narrow aperture. The almost exclusive and ubiquitous presence of these early imports in funerary contexts reflects the high symbolic value and growing importance that pottery (and its contents) would come to play. We might even infer that a failure to meet this growing demand, especially in the mortuary domain,

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

for ceramic jars motivated the development of what was to become the Umm an-Nar pottery tradition. However, it should be remarked that demand alone was not enough. The crude execution of these early imitations recovered from T. 1147 suggests that one key feature may have been missing—skilled craftspeople capable of imparting full knowledge of the ceramic arts. Given these new observations, it is therefore worthwhile to reconsider both the manner and duration of contacts between the indigenous population of the Oman Peninsula and their Mesopotamian counterparts. Like the ‘Ubaid fisherman that preceded them, the Mesopotamian merchants or sailors of the 3rd millennium BCE may not have taken skilled potters with them on their journey. Conversely, intrepid members of the indigenous population may have themselves ventured out and acquired these goods abroad with only partial understanding of their construction. Very different forms of contact may have been taking place during the Hafit and Early Umm an-Nar periods. Mesopotamian contacts may have been more indirect than what has been implied in the past, whereas interaction with communities from Iran and the Pakistani Makran may have been more direct and of longer duration. In considering the early history of pottery manufacture, the most important consideration is not the presence or timing of the transfer/transmission of these foreign materials but what they might tell us about the nature of early intercultural contact itself.

Umm an-Nar Ceramics

193

This was due in large part to an emphasis upon the graves, which were reused many times over hundreds of years, leading to a monotone view of the Umm anNar culture. Thanks to a growing body of settlement excavation at Hili, Umm an-Nar Island, Ras al-Jinz, Tell Abraq, Maysar, and other sites, we now know that this is incorrect. In fact, we can now distinguish at least three sub-phases of the Umm an-Nar period (called here Early, Middle, and Late), and many regional variants within this mega-culture. Currently, the only ceramic typology available for the Umm an-Nar culture is Cleuziou’s (1989a, 1989b) preliminary attempt for the Hili 8 settlement (Table 9.2). Cleuziou’s chronological scheme was divided into three major periods with multiple sub-phases, reflecting three distinct archaeological cultures (Hafit, Umm an-Nar, and Wadi Suq). The Hili sequence, when combined with C14 dates from Hili and other sites (see Appendix IV), provides a somewhat rough schema. While our interpretation of Bat’s chronology contrasts somewhat with the traditional understanding of the Hili sequence, we have relied upon Cleuziou’s ceramic typology as a guide.

Black-on-Red Fine Wares (The Funerary Pottery) As at other sites, black-on-red fine wares are far more common in funerary contexts than in the settlement area. Due to the earlier innovation of these wares, their presence in domestic contexts may at times be indicative of the earlier occupational phases of the site—particularly in lower levels of excavation where the so-called “domestic wares” (see below) are absent. For example, during the Early Umm an-Nar

It is somewhat perplexing that despite decades of research into the Umm an-Nar culture of the Oman Table 9.2 Early to Middle Bronze Age comparative chronological framework for Hili. Peninsula, we still do not have a firm grasp of the deHili Sequence velopment and collapse of Bat Periods Date Range Cultural Periods Hili Periods Hili Sub-phases this cultural phenomenon. Hafit Period I I a–b Hafit 3100–2900 BCE For years, the Umm an-Nar Ic Late Hafit 2900–2800 BCE culture was assumed to be a Umm an-Nar Period II IIa–IIc1 Early Umm an-Nar 2800–2500 BCE relatively homogenous cultural unit stretching from Middle Umm an-Nar 2500–2200 BCE IIc2–IIe Abu Dhabi to Ras al-Hadd IIf–IIg Late Umm an-Nar 2200–2000 BCE over a five hundred year peWadi Suq Period III IIIa–b Wadi Suq 2000–1600 BCE riod (ca. 2500–2000 BCE).

194

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

period (or Phases IIa–IIc1) at Hili, pottery is still relatively rare and certain Mesopotamian forms continue, but the bulk of the ceramics are fine Black-onRed “funerary” jars. The funerary pottery at Bat adhered fairly conservatively to a homogenous technological and typological tradition for nearly the entire 3rd millennium BCE (see Ghazal forthcoming). While it shows pronounced similarities to Iranian black-on-red ware pottery, the range of forms and decorative motifs are quite diminished (Fig. 9.3). Black-on-Red fine funerary jars are typically short-necked vessels with a flat base and slightly biconical or vase-like body. The vessel walls are thin (approx. 3 to 4 mm) and many show rilling marks on the interior, suggesting a form of wheel or tournette was used at some stage in their manufacture. The fabric of the pottery, like most of the pottery found at Bat, was of an extremely fine, smooth, non-porous paste with no visible inclusions (possibly levigated clay). The fabric color is typically red to buff and shows evidence of a thin red slip ap-

plied to the entire exterior surface. Vessels are often decorated with painted (single or double) horizontal bands framing a frieze of chevrons (a zigzag of 3 or 4 slanted strokes) or geometric decoration around the shoulder. In some cases, a narrower horizontal frieze of scallops or slanted lines can be seen above the shoulder decoration just below the neck. As a result, is has been proposed that the earliest examples of this black-on-red ware were exported from southeastern Iran sometime during the first half of the 3rd millennium BCE (Tosi 1986:469; Potts 2005; Méry 2000). Such exportation has been conclusively demonstrated through numerous archaeometric analyses (e.g. Méry 2000; Blackman et al. 1989). While it still remains unclear at what point emulation of foreign wares became more significant than importation, the emergence of a new “domestic” form of pottery around 2500 BCE strongly suggests that the technical knowledge necessary to not only emulate, but to innovate, had been achieved by the Middle Umm an-Nar period (Méry 2013:6).

Fig. 9.3 Bat funerary wares (courtesy of the German Mission to Bat).

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

As noted above, the black-on-red fine wares found on the Oman Peninsula were stylistically and technologically very similar to black-on-red (sometimes called “black-on-orange”) wares from southeastern Iran (Potts 2001, 2005; Méry 2000, 2013; Wright 1984). However, Méry (2013; Méry et al. 2012) has recently argued that the Umm an-Nar fine ware tradition originated from the pottery traditions of the Dasht Plain in the Pakistani Makran. Archaeometric analyses have demonstrated a clear geochemical correspondence between fine black-onred wares from the UAE/Oman and those from the Dasht (Méry and Blackman 2005). The first Dasht black-on-red imports were surely available as early as 2600 BCE, if not earlier, and continued until 2100– 2000 BCE (Méry et al. 2012). Both forms of pottery share a number of technological characteristics: (1) preparation was from a fine red paste, exhibiting few visible inclusions (typically with grains measuring less than 50 µm); (2) vessels were decorated with geometric designs in black paint around the rim, shoulder, and upper body; (3) the pots were provided a thin red slip, although this tends to be badly eroded in most cases; and lastly (4) ceramics were fired in an oxidizing atmosphere—most likely inside a form of updraft kiln (Frifelt 1990). As to the last point, however, identification of production areas at Bat remains elusive; no kilns, wasters, or other debris related to ceramic manufacture have yet been recovered.

Domestic Ware Beginning in the Middle Umm an-Nar (ca. 2500–2200 BCE, Period IIc2–IIe at Hili), the socalled “domestic” pottery emerges as the most typical form of pottery at Bat (Frifelt 1975a, 1975b, 1976) and other sites (Blackman et al. 1989; Cleuziou 1989a; Méry 2000; Weisgerber 1980, 1981). Unlike the “Sandy Red” wares at Hili, whose fabric texture contrasts sharply with Hili’s fine funerary wares, the fabric of domestic wares at Bat is not unlike the black-on-red funerary wares. The main difference is that Bat’s domestic pottery is often thicker and fired at lower temperatures, leaving the core a light grey and the fabric a pinky-orange color. Indeed, most of the technical characteristics of the ceramics are shared between these two groups of pottery, although the quality of domestic wares is somewhat

195

poorer. The decoration in particular seems to be simpler and more hastily rendered on domestic pottery. It should also be noted that the morphology of the domestic vessels and the decoration applied reveals them to be distinct with respect to their Indo-Iranian counterparts. The emulation of foreign forms and styles continue in the funerary tradition with little variation over the course of the Umm anNar horizon. The “domestic” wares share their predecessor’s conservatism in that they adhere to a few established forms and decorations and exhibit very little alteration during the five hundred years they were in vogue. What distinguishes them, however, is that unlike the funerary wares, the domestic pottery has no parallel outside of the Oman Peninsula. In this respect, they reflect the new autonomy of Umm an-Nar potters and the establishment of a truly autochthonous craft tradition (Cleuziou and Vogt 1985; Blackman et al. 1989:66). The most common shape of domestic pottery is a globular, open-mouthed jar (Figs. 9.4–9.6). The vessel rims were formed simply with a slight eversion of the jar mouth that ends in a tapered, rounded, or slightly beveled edge. Decorations are always geometric or linear on these vessels, and frequently consist of combinations of one or two wavy (“meandering”) bands—sometimes framed between single or double horizontal lines. The bases are typically flat and show no evidence of string cutting or other manufacturing marks. Some effort appears to have been taken to smooth the exterior of the vessels and this has eliminated some clues of their manufacture. Rilling marks, however, do continue on some vessels, although the globular jars may just as easily have been made by hand or in combination with a slow wheel. Indeed, many vessels exhibit traits indicative of coil construction (visible signs of the “coils” remain in the interior of some vessels). Méry (2010) has noted a similar trend of multiple overlapping forming practices in the Hili assemblage’s technical repertoire. It still remains unclear whether these different forming techniques truly co-occur or reflect an evolving technical sophistication or progression in Umm an-Nar potter’s techniques. Decoration below the midline of the pot is atypical of most Umm an-Nar pottery. On the globular domestic jars and fine funerary wares described above, decoration rarely extends below the midpoint

A

E

d ≈ 23 cm

B F C G

H

D

I

J

N

K

L

O

M

P

Q

R

d = 6 cm

S

d = 14 cm

U

T

d = 9 cm

0

5 cm

V

Fig. 9.4 Umm an-Nar pottery from T. 1146: A) lot 092104; B) lot 090307; C) lot 090317; D) lot 090304; E) lot 092104; F) lot 090317; G) lot 091902; H) lot 090304; I) lot 091117; J) 090304-090307; K) lot 090317; L) lot 090304; M) lot 090307; N) lot 090307; O) lot 090304; P) lot 090317; Q) lot 090307; R) lot 092104; S) lot 091902; T) lot 091305; U) lot 090304; V) lot 100503.

Fig. 9.5 Umm an-Nar pottery from T. 1147: A) lot 100805; B) lot 080204; C) lot 100805; D) lot 080807; E) lot 080808-809 and 080812; F) lot 101002; G) lot 080808; H) lot 102802; I) lot 101002; J) lot 101601; K) lot 080807; L) lot 091004.

A

B

C

D

A. Bat2010 Tower1156 Lot#101 902 TR 833, 908, 909, 984, 983, 1059

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L M N

P

O

Q

R T S

U

V

0

5 cm

W

X

Fig. 9.6 Umm an-Nar pottery from T. 1156: A) lot 12SS176; B) lot 12SS171; C) lot 12SS172; D) lot 12SS170; E) lot 101902; F) lot 101309; G) lot 11S102; H) lot 101902; I) lot 12SS172; J) lot 101904; K) lot 12SS180; L) lot 101309; M) lot 12SS163; N) lot 101909; O) lot 12SS205; P) lot 12SS172; Q) lot 12SS170; R) lot 101906; S) lot 11S111; T) lot 101501; U) lot 12SS232; V) lot 12SS172; W) lot 12SS136; X) lot 11S113.

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

of the body. However, a notable exception to this rule are the so-called “suspension vessels,” small to medium vase-like jars with straight or wavy ridge appliqués running along the shoulder (Fig. 9.3). Suspension vessels are typically decorated with a net pattern of crisscrossing lines wrapping around the body (from ridge to base) and are one of the few vessels to bear decoration below the midline to the base. These vessels often sit upon a low ring base. The vessels typically have four narrow holes at the base and along the shoulder ridge (horizontally oriented lugs), presumably so the vessel could be suspended. In some cases the “perforations” may be decorative, as the holes are often plugged with clay or incompletely perforated. Examples of this vessel type are rare in settlement contexts (e.g., Figs. 9.4R–T, 9.6V). Frifelt (1975a:368) notes a curious disparity in the concentrations of suspension vessels between Hili—where they were common in both graves and settlement contexts—and Umm an-Nar Island, where they were only found in the settlement. Examples of this type have been previously reported from Bat at T. 1145 (Frifelt 1985:97), Hili 1 (Frifelt 1990: fig. 16; al Tikriti 1981: pl. 65F,H), Hili 8 (Cleuziou 1979: fig. 33 nos. 4, 5, 9, 10), Bahla (Hastings et al. 1975: fig. 11 Z) and Maysar 1 (Weisgerber 1980, 1981). At Hili, the Umm an-Nar domestic pottery reaches its zenith in Period IIe (ca. 2200 BCE) in terms of painted and appliqué decorations, although the single/double meandering lines motif remains. One of the more interesting wares of this latter part of the Middle Umm an-Nar period includes a small number of globular jars with painted double spirals separated by raised (often painted) wavy appliqué ridges, multiple levels of decoration separated by horizontal bands, and painted hatches filling negative spaces between designs. At Bat, pottery of the Hili IIe type is particularly notable for having the slip and paint applied before firing, unlike the earlier IIc2-type pottery, which has a fugitive slip. By Hili IIf, which is contemporaneous with Tomb A at Hili North (and with the tower and settlement at Maysar), these complex painted and applied decorations have disappeared. Late Umm an-Nar ceramics include a number of new forms (e.g., bowls; stringcut bases; tube spouts) that become more prevalent in the subsequent Wadi Suq period, while the most distinguishing decorative motif remains the painted

199

double meander under horizontal bands just below the rim. At Hili, these lines were sometimes accompanied by vertical strokes crossing the axis of a single wavy line (Cleuziou 1989b:77). One can infer from this general ceramic sequence that pottery became more ingrained in the daily lives of the people of ancient Hili at the beginning of the Middle Umm an-Nar period (Cleuziou and Méry 2002). Before that time, pottery seems to have been rare, mostly imported, and perhaps highly valued. By the start of the Late Umm an-Nar period, settlement pottery was being produced en masse with little regard to the finished appearance of the vessels, although pottery from mortuary contexts is still finer and made with greater care. There also appears to be a general trend of including non-funerary wares in grave contexts as we transition from the Middle to Late Umm an-Nar periods. For instance, the larger, open-mouthed globular bodied jars and other domestic wares appear more frequently in the grave contexts at Hili North Tomb A, which straddles the Middle and Late Umm an-Nar subphases (Hili IIe and IIf ). A similar situation may be reflected in recent excavations at Tomb 401 at Bat (e.g., Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011: fig. 14 no. 67, fig. 19 nos. 115–17, 121, 126), which included a small number of domestic ware pots with its rather standard complement of Umm an-Nar funerary jars and Iranian grey ware imports. As noted above, the situation at Bat is slightly different from Hili, as there is no known local ware equivalent to Hili’s Sandy Ware. Geochemical analyses comparing Hili Sandy Wares to domestic wares at Bat have revealed that domestic pottery at each of the sites in question derived from distinctly different clay sources and did not appear to have circulated regionally, whereas a small number of the Omani funerary wares were exchanged between sites (see Ghazal forthcoming). There is certainly a distinction between thin-walled ceramics that are carefully painted, and thicker fine wares with more hastily rendered painted designs. However, the differences are currently too subjective to be of much use, and both types are often found in the same contexts (e.g., outside T. 1146). Furthermore, we are only just beginning to understand the complex stratigraphy of T. 1156 and the Settlement Slope, which is perhaps the only known location at Bat where an entire 3rd millennium BCE sequence can be documented.

200

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Thus, we currently lack a clear ceramic sequence as was documented at Hili 8. However, Bat does have certain well-dated contexts that provide glimpses at discrete phases of the Umm an-Nar sequence. The most obvious of these is the horizon of Umm an-Nar structures located outside of T. 1146 on both the northeast and southeast sides (see Chapter 3). On the northeast side in particular, in Trenches B–G, there was 40–50 cm of pottery-bearing fill between the tower wall and the wall of “Structure 1” that showed little evidence of mixing from later periods (Fig. 9.4). Two radiocarbon dates from primary hearth features near the base of this deposit provide an average date range of 2460–2270 cal. BC (2σ), putting this layer in the Middle Umm an-Nar period. The local pottery of this fill correlates well with Hili IIc2 pottery, being mostly globular jars with simple everted or rolled rims. The vessels are black-on-red or black-on-buff painted with linear bands at the neck and occasionally striped geometric motifs. In almost all cases, the slip on these sherds is fugitive, having been laid post-firing. Conspicuously absent from this assemblage of pottery are the double spiral painted motifs found on the “Settlement Slope” (Fig. 9.6J,T), at T. 1145 (e.g., Frifelt 1976:66) and from Hili 8 phase IIe (Cleuziou 1989b: pl. 27). As demonstrated in previous chapters of this volume, current excavations of Ts. 1146, 1147, and 1156 provide ample evidence of the Hafit through Middle Umm an-Nar occupation phases at Bat. As for the Late Umm an-Nar phase, we are still awaiting sound stratigraphic contexts with radiocarbon dates before positing a clear typology. A number of sherds from mixed surface contexts at T. 1156 can probably be associated with the Late Umm an-Nar period (e.g., Fig. 9.6A,C,K). They are generally better-fired than the ceramics from T. 1146, have extremely simple linear painted designs and few appliqués, and do not have fugitive slips. However, a better understanding of the complex stratigraphy of this area is needed before anything can be firmly attributed to the Late Umm an-Nar period.

Iranian Ceramics The presence of Iranian imported ceramics in Emirati and Omani sites of the 3rd millennium BCE has been recognized since the 1960s (Thorvild-

sen 1962; Frifelt 1971:374), based on comparisons between pottery recovered at Umm an-Nar Island (UAE) and Sir Aurel Stein’s (1929) surveys in Iranian Baluchistan. Subsequent work by de Cardi (1970) at Bampur (Iranian Baluchistan) and later in Oman extended the parallels between the two regions further. The most common Iranian imports found at Bat are of course the southeastern Iranian grey wares, including the Black-on-Grey or “Emir Grey” Type 2 wares (following Fairservis 1956,1961:86; see Wright 1984: fig. 3/29, 1985), Black-on-Grey canister jars (Potts 2003), and the more enigmatic Incised Grey Wares (Méry et al. 2012; During Caspers 1970a). Numerous examples of Iranian grey wares have been recovered at Bat, especially in the cemetery area where they make up a small but significant component of the funerary assemblages. In the settlement context at Bat, only four sherds of Iranian grey ware have been recovered (Fig. 9.7). Although the number is not significant, the presence of such a distinctive class of foreign imports bear some consideration for the sake of understanding the chronology of the site. In contrast, the presence or absence of Iranian red wares remains unknown, given their visual similarity with Umm an-Nar ceramics, although a single rim sherd of Snake Cordoned Ware (lot 12SS182) was found near the surface during excavations at T. 1156 (see Chapter 6).

Iranian Black-on-Red Fine Wares As discussed above, Méry (2000; Blackman et al. 1989) has argued convincingly that some of the earliest black-on-red painted wares found in the Hafit and Early Umm an-Nar periods at Hili 8 are in fact imports from southeastern Iran (Yahya IVC/early IVB period; Konar Sandal South pre-Citadel levels), although this can only be shown through laboratory analysis. Thornton (2012:610) and Potts (2005) have noted how little attention the role of Iranian imports on the creation of Umm an-Nar pottery has received and, by extension, the role of southeastern Iran on the formation of a unified Umm an-Nar culture. Indeed, the 3rd millennium BCE ceramics of Konar Sandal South near Jiroft in southeastern Iran (Yahya IVB period) bear a striking resemblance to Umm an-Nar ceramics, both in form and painted design, but also from a technological point of view

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

(see Madjidzadeh 2008:89–95). Early 3rd millennium BCE Black-on-Red ware (or “Black-on-Orange” as they are sometimes called in Iran) of the Yahya IVC1/IVB6-5 period is well-made and carefully painted, with a fugitive red slip that washes off with gentle scrubbing (Potts 2005; Mutin 2013). In contrast, the Black-on-Red and Black-on-Buff ceramics of the later Yahya IVB1-2 period (equivalent to the Konar Sandal South Citadel phase) are not as finely made nor as carefully rendered, although the slip and painted designs were added before firing. While forms and decorative motifs between the Oman Peninsula and southeastern Iran are not precisely identical, they share many similarities (e.g., a focus on jars with slightly everted rims; painted chevrons around a narrow low neck and shoulder; the use of applied wavy bands; etc.) and are deserving of a more careful technological and stylistic comparison. In the absence of obviously foreign decorative motifs (such as painted caprids) or whole vessels, however, visual discrimination of the Iranian black-on-red wares from their Omani black-on-red counterparts is very difficult based on techno-stylistic attributes alone, as the rim forms are virtually identical to the funerary wares of the Umm an-Nar period. Archaeometric analyses of several fine black-on-red ware jars from the cemetery area at Bat suggest that some of the “Umm an-Nar fine wares” are geochemically more similar to their Iranian grey ware counterparts (see Ghazal forthcoming). As noted in the previous section, only a handful of black-on-red fine wares attributed to the Early Umm an-Nar (comparable to Hili 8 Phases IIa–IIc1) were recovered at Ts. 1147 and 1156. We might reasonably anticipate that some small fraction of these examples could be of Iranian origin, but a more precise determination will have to await future archaeometric analyses.

Iranian Grey Wares When it comes to Iranian grey ware pottery, we are on somewhat more stable ground as they have been more extensively studied (Fairservis 1956; Wright 1984, 1985; Blackman et al. 1989; Méry 2000; Besenval and Didier 2004; Potts 2003; During Caspers 1970a). Their blue-grey appearance quickly sets them apart from their Omani counterparts. As noted above, there are three principle groups of Ira-

201

nian grey ware present at Bat. The first, the so-called Emir Type 2 wares, share a number of morphological and stylistic characteristics with the Iranian blackon-red wares described above. Their fabric was made of a fine, well-levigated clay and decorated with distinctive designs (mostly geometric, but horizontal friezes full of caprids are also known to occur). In the Gulf region, grey ware vessel shapes are generally limited to squat, biconical or globular jars with a short neck and narrow opening, but some bowls have also been recovered in the Bat cemetery (e.g., Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011: fig. 10 no. 11, fig. 11. no. 24, fig. 18, nos. 111–12). The remaining two grey wares forms are canister jars and incised pottery (typically canister or beaker in shape). All the grey wares are similar to the Emir wares from a technological stand point. The clays in all three cases are typically very fine, non-porous, and exhibit no visual inclusions or voids. All three groups were manufactured of a fine grey fabric that is well fired and clearly done in a reducing atmosphere. The exteriors of the vessels are somewhat lustrous, smooth, and slightly darker grey, suggesting a thin slip or wash may have been applied. Much like the black-on-red wares, the interiors of the vessels often exhibit fine drag marks or “rilling.” These marks, combined with the concentric ring impressions at the base, strongly suggest some form of wheel was used in their manufacture. In all three cases, the bases are slightly footed (projecting out somewhat from the flat base) or sit on a shallow ring. Necks are low, narrow, everted, and end in either a rounded, tapered, or beveled edge.

Emir Type 2 (Black-on-grey) Only a handful of Emir type black-on-grey sherds were recovered during the course of recent excavations (lot 101003 at T. 1147; lots 101310 and 11SS136b from T. 1156). Yet, numerous examples have been recovered from the cemetery area (Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011:143). Emir Type 2 wares are widely represented at Umm an-Nar related sites in the Emirates and Oman, including Umm an-Nar Island Grave II (Frifelt 1991: fig. 120), Al-Sufouh (Benton 1996: fig. 130), Ajman Tomb B (al-Tikriti 1989b: pl. 43A), Hili North Tomb A (Méry 2000: fig. 119 nos. 6–7), Hili Tomb B (al-Tikriti 1981: pl. 81E), and Bat Tomb 401 (Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011: fig. 11 nos.

A

B

C

D

E 0

5 cm

Fig. 9.7 Iranian fine-ware pottery from Bat, including: A) lot 12SS182, Snake Cordoned Jar; B) lot 12SS156, grey ware; C) lot 091904, Black-on-Grey canister; D) lot 101003, Black-on-Grey ware; E) lot 101304, Incised Grey Ware.

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

22–23). These black-on-grey vessels have a remarkably wide distribution in southeastern Iran as well; where they can be found in the Seistan, Kerman, Baluchistan, and the Makran (Wright 1984, 1985). Wright (1984, 1985) has suggested that the Emir Type 2 pottery originated in Baluchistan but their locus of manufacture has been recently attributed to the Dasht Valley of the Kech Makran (Mutin 2007; Méry 2010). Emir Type 2 appears in relation to the Bampur IV–VI (de Cardi 1970) and Shahr-i Sokhta phases 7 through 4 (Wright 1985:147) and Kech Makran Period IIIc (Dasht 2/Mir Qalat IIIC, see Besenval and Didier [2004:162]). Based on the Iranian data, a temporal range from 2700 to 2200 BCE would be permitted. Numerous examples of Emir 2 ware have also been recovered from the Arabian littoral sites in the Hofuf Oasis, Tell Ramad, and Dhahran tumuli field (see Piesinger 1983:313; Potts 1986; Zarins 1985). Zarins (1985:80) considers the southeastern Arabia and Bahrain examples of grey ware to be earlier than the Akkadian period (ca. 2350 BC).

Black-on-grey Canister Jars The only clear example of a Black-on-Grey canister jar (lot 091904) was found just north of Structure 1 outside of T. 1146 (Fig. 9.7C). Several other canisters have been recovered in survey and excavation in the Bat cemetery area (e.g., Frifelt 1975; Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011: fig. 12 nos. 26–30) and comparable examples have been recovered from Hili Tomb M (Cleuziou et al. 2011:50, fig. 53). Black-on-Grey canister jars are typically decorated over the entire exterior of the vessel. Morphological characteristics include an everted, rounded, or tapered rim, a very short neck (if any), and carination at the shoulder into a barrel shaped body that tapers down to either a flat foot or low ring base. Decoration extends in multiple bounded friezes formed by single horizontal bands. The range of decoration used is greater in this particular group than any other 3rd millennium BCE ceramic type found at Bat. The body of the pot is painted with multiple friezes, containing rows of scallops, horizontal isosceles triangles, palm fronds, diamonds, wavy diagonal bands, chevrons, and horned caprids. Black-on-Grey canisters comparable to those from Jiroft (see Potts 2005: figs. 10, 11, 12) have been re-

203

covered at numerous sites, including Tell Abraq (Potts 2005: figs. 13, 14), at Bat (in Tomb 401 [Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011: fig. 10 no. 6]), at Hili (e.g., Tomb B [Tikriti 1981: pl. 82J; Méry 2000: fig. 122, no. 1–3, fig. 123, nos. 1–3, 4]; Tomb 1059 [Bibby 1970: fig. 11]) and Umm an-Nar Island (e.g., Cairn V [Frifelt 1975a: fig. 11d, 1991: fig. 176]). The recovery of this particular ware at Umm an-Nar Island gives us a strong indication that these wares were imported prior to the abandonment of the site in 2350 BCE (Frifelt 1991, 1995). Moreover, the inclusion of this ware at Tell Abraq gives us a terminal date for their importation in the 22nd or 21st century BCE (Potts 2003:8). In both cases, the date ranges are confirmed with multiple radiocarbon dates. The temporal span of their importation is less significant in terms of the internal chronology of the Middle to Late Umm anNar period than it is of long standing debates concerning the heavily contested dating of sites in Iran— particularly Tepe Yahya, Bampur, and Shahr-i Sokhta (see Potts 2001; Beale 1986; de Cardi 1968, 1970; Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973; Meadow 1973; Shaffer 1992; Mortazavi 2006; Mutin 2013).

Incised Grey Ware A single sherd of Incised Grey Ware (lot 101304; Fig. 9.7E) was found amongst tower rockfall on the north side of T. 1156, although Incised Grey Ware has been found in the cemetery area (e.g., Böhme and al Sabri 2011: fig. 12, nos. 31–35; Schmidt 2012: fig. 3). This distinctive ceramic type was once thought to date to the end of the 3rd millennium BCE, based on their appearance at Shahr-i Sokhta IV (e.g., Lamberg-Karlovsky and Tosi 1973) and Bampur IV–VI (During Caspers 1970a). Both Iranian painted and incised grey wares supposedly appear in the Hili 8 sequence only in Phase IIf at the start of the Late Umm an-Nar period. This fact, coupled with the relatively late C14 dates at Tell Abraq, have been used to argue for a re-dating of Bampur, Yahya, and the chronological sequences of southeastern Iran more generally (see Potts 2003). However, more recent excavations in Pakistani Baluchistan have discovered Incised Grey Ware as early as Miri Qalat IIIb-c (ca. 2600–2500 BCE) (Franke 2008; Mutin pers. comm. 2010). Moreover, re-analysis of the Shahr-i Sokhta material has uncovered Incised Grey Ware from Pe-

204

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

riod III phase 4 contexts (i.e., ca. 2400 BCE; Vidale pers. comm. 2010). In many ways, this earlier dating makes more sense, as many of the Incised Grey Wares from southeastern Iran and the Oman Peninsula are clearly skeuomorphs of serie ancienne (or “Jiroft-style”) chlorite vessels, which date to pre-Akkadian levels at Ur, pre-Citadel levels at Konar Sandal South, and therefore Early-Middle Umm an-Nar levels in Oman and the Emirates.

Harappan Ceramics Perhaps the best studied collection of imported 3rd millennium BCE pottery on the Oman Peninsula consists of ceramics of the Harappan (or Indus) Civilization (e.g., Cleuziou and Méry 2002 for summary; also Cleuziou 1992; Edens 1993; Blackman and Méry 1999). As Méry and others have noted, the assemblage of Harappan ceramics in Oman and the UAE is limited to only certain forms and fabrics, including dish-on-stands, cooking pots, black slipped jars, fingernail-impressed plates, perforated jars, and a few black-on-red painted jars (Fig. 9.8). This represents a very small minority of the full repertoire of pottery seen at Mohenjo-Daro (Dales and Kenoyer 1986), Chanhu-daro (Mackay 1943), Lothal (Rao 1985), and other Indus sites of Pakistan and northwest India. Why such a limited number of ceramic types appear on the Oman Peninsula in the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE is not yet understood, nor do we fully grasp why certain types are found in the graves while other types are found in settlements. Numerous archaeometric analyses have clearly demonstrated that most Harappan ceramic types did not originate anywhere in Oman or the Emirates and are most likely imports from the greater Indus Valley. However, there are examples of locally produced imitations whose fabric is indistinguishable from local Umm an-Nar wares (see Méry 2000:238; Thornton 2012:607). The only Harappan ceramics that can be identified as imports purely from visual inspection are those made of what we call Red Micaceous Ware (not to be confused with the Micaceous Red Ware of Gujarat; see Herman and Krishnan [1993]). Red Micaceous Ware in Oman is well fired in an oxidative environment with a rather course texture caused by the addition of grit including large amounts of mica (Méry’s [2000:75] “petrographic group G”).

This ware is most commonly used in the construction of Black Slipped Jars (see below), but not exclusively so. Other than Red Micaceous Wares, the presence or absence of small amounts of mica cannot be used to determine local vs. imported fine wares. Thus, chemical analysis will be required to determine whether the Harappan-style ceramics found at Bat are imported or locally produced.

Black Slipped Jars and Red Micaceous Ware The most distinctive and easily-recognized Indus ceramics on Arabian sites are the Black Slipped Jars or “BSJs” (see Méry and Blackman 1999; Blackman et al. 1989). These “amphorae” of the 3rd millennium BCE are the most ubiquitous Harappan ceramic found on the Oman Peninsula, and there is no question of their importation into the interior of Oman. Both geochemical (INAA, XRD) and petrographic data (Méry 2000; Blackman and Méry 1999; Méry and Blackman 2005; Gogte 2000; Patel 2011; Ghazal and Hill n.d.) have demonstrated that pottery of this type occurs as imports from the greater Indus Valley region. It remains unclear, however, exactly where the BSJs were imported from, as the red micaceous fabric of BSJs is a minority in most Harappan ceramic assemblages within the greater Indus Valley (Cleuziou and Méry 2002:297; Patel 2011). In the course of our examination of the BSJ assemblage at Bat and elsewhere, the authors have been fortunate to interact with a number of Indus regional specialists, notably Mark Kenoyer, Rita Wright, and, of course, Gregory Possehl. They all suggest that while the form and attributes of this ware were very much in keeping with better known Indus assemblages, the quality of the ceramic appears to be poorer in several respects. Greyish cores and other firing irregularities in the matrix of the sherds, coupled with a thinner (and often badly eroded) black or red slip, suggest to them that the BSJs in Oman were of lower quality than what was typical of this pottery in the Indus heartland. Given the ubiquity of BSJs across the Oman Peninsula in the 3rd millennium BCE, it is likely that the majority of the material came from a single domain somewhere in the Indus’ periphery. Why these vessels are found throughout the interior of Oman and the UAE is not yet clear. We cannot, of course, discount the possible demand

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

0

I

5 cm

Fig. 9.8 Harappan pottery from Bat, including: A) lot 090305, buff cooking pot; B) lot 101701, Black Slipped Jar (BSJ); C) lot 11SS105, cord-impressed BSJ; D) lot 070021, perforated jar; E) lot 100805, polychrome painted; F) lot 070401, cord-impressed BSJ; G) lot 101004, Red-on-Buff Slip; H) lot 070304, Black-on-Red; I) lot 101615, fingernail-impressed plate.

206

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

for larger vessels, given the lack of locally-produced Umm an-Nar storage vessels. However, transport of BSJs through the interior would have required considerable effort. Even relatively recently, Omani ethnographic informants have expressed little need for pottery as a medium for storage or food consumption (e.g., Lancaster and Lancaster 2010:202). Therefore, the wide distribution of Indus wares in the 3rd millennium must lead us to conclude that there was some need or perhaps status in having these large vessels or their contents. Given our concern here with the Bat settlement chronology, the temporal span of BSJs must be considered. In the Indus Civilization, BSJs are associated with Mature Harappan sites (R. Wright 1991:80; Méry 2000:221, fig. 135). In southeast Arabia, numerous examples have been recovered from Umm an-Nar sites in Oman and the UAE, including Umm an-Nar Island (Frifelt 2002b, 1991, 1995), Ras alHadd (Reade and Méry 1988; Reade 1997:409), Ras al-Jinz (Cleuziou and Tosi 2000), Asimah (Vogt 1994), Maysar 1 (Weisgerber 1984:198), and Bat (Thornton 2012). Indeed, BSJs are the most frequent category of Indus material found in Oman. Their appearance in Oman can be confidently dated as falling after 2500 BCE at Ras al-Jinz based on finds from building I, Period II (Cleuziou and Tosi 2000). They also appear in association with ED III pottery at Ras Ghanada (Méry 1991b:241–44; Cleuziou 1992; Frifelt 1995: fig. 88), but do not occur at Hili 8 until phase IId through IIf (Cleuziou 1989a, 1989b). Late Umm an-Nar period examples of Harappan wares have been evidenced in IIf levels at Hili 8 and Period III at Ras al Jinz (RJ). No Harappan-related material was noted in secure Wadi Suq contexts at either RJ-1 or RJ-2. At this stage, it is probably safe to propose a general date of 2500–2000 BCE for the transport of BSJs in Oman and the UAE. As a point of interest, our excavations at Bat have uncovered another vessel form made of Red Micaceous Ware that currently has no known parallels in the greater Indus Valley (Fig. 9.9). These “Red-onBuff Slip” sherds were found at T. 1147 in rockfall alongside Fingernail-Impressed Harappan ware, and outside T. 1146 in the same Middle Umm an-Nar contexts as the Black-on-Grey canister fragment and a few BSJ sherds. These unusual “Red-on-Buff Slip” sherds have a nearly-identical fabric to the BSJs,

but differ in their surface treatment. While the interior surface remains unslipped (although heavily brushed), the outer surface is coated in a buff slip on which is painted thick red horizontal bands. No rims or bases of this type of ceramic have been found, so their form is currently unknown, but it seems likely that wherever the BSJs are made, these Red-on-Buff Slip vessels were made as well.

Other Harappan-style Ceramics at Bat While the origin of Red Micaceous Ware remains somewhat mysterious, other Indus wares were no less enigmatic. It is nearly impossible to identify imported Harappan fine wares without clearly diagnostic forms or painted designs. Some are more obvious than others, such as the single sherd of bichrome ware discovered in the mixed rockfall of T. 1147 (Fig. 9.8E), or the single black-on-red painted sherd with striped fish design from Operation A (Fig. 9.8H), but these are exceedingly rare. More common are the fingernail-impressed plates and the buff ware “cooking pots,” the latter of which has been found in secure Middle Umm an-Nar contexts outside T. 1146 (Fig. 9.8A). In their forms, they are unquestionably “Harappan,” but in their fabric and forming techniques they could have been made by the same potters who made the Umm an-Nar ceramics. Archaeometric data also indicate that locally-made imitations of these vessel types occur (e.g., Cleuziou and Tosi 1989: fig. 11 nos. 3, 5). At least one imitation Harappan sherd has been conclusively identified at Bat, with mineralogy and geochemistry that was comparable to the settlement pottery at Hili (Blackman and Méry 1999:17, 2004:234). The Indus-style “cooking pots” found at Bat and at Ras al-Hadd (Cleuziou and Méry 2002: fig. 5k) are an interesting case in point. It has been argued that the presence of cooking vessels could indicate the immigration of actual Indus peoples to the interior of the Oman Peninsula (Thornton 2012). Adding fuel to the fire, recent isotopic analysis of buried individuals from several late Umm an-Nar and Wadi Suq period tombs suggest that a small contingent of non-local residents were interred with the local population (Gregoricka 2011). Could this signify the presence of Indus individuals within Umm an-Nar communities and did they produce their own pottery to meet

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

207

Fig. 9.9 Harappan ceramics from lot 101004, found amongst the tower rockfall at Matariya.

the needs of their own culinary tastes? Unfortunately, both of these tantalizing propositions remain to be confirmed through future isotopic analysis and geochemical analyses. It is currently unclear whether “locally-made” in this context means that each site produced its own Harappan-style pottery, or whether certain sites on the Oman Peninsula with substantial influence from the Indus Civilization produced such wares for export to the interior. Ghazal’s (forthcoming) analysis of the Indus related wares from Ras al-Hadd, Ras al-Jinz, Maysar, and Bat does not support the idea of an influx of “locally-made” Harappan BSJs into the interior regions from eastern Oman. Data from INAA suggest that the Red Micaceous Ware ceramics from these sites all originate from a closely related source (currently no geochemical data for BSJ-related sites in the Emirates exist other than Hili). Moreover, the geochem-

ical data from the above sites were also found to be closely related to published findings on Harappan-related ceramics studied at Hili (Méry 2000; Méry and Blackman 1995, 1999, 2001, 2005), lending further credence to Blackman and Méry’s earlier proposition that the majority of the pottery was coming from a relatively distinct source in the Indus Valley region. There is also a puzzling discrepancy reflected in the INAA and XRD results from Ras al-Jinz. Méry’s INAA analysis of Harappan pottery included samples from the Ja’alan region and Hili. Based on her analysis, she concluded that the BSJs originate deep in the Indus heartland near Mohenjo-Daro, rather than near the coast (Méry and Blackman 1995, 1999; Méry 2000). However, Gogte’s (2000) XRD and petrographic analyses indicate that the Indus ceramics found in the Ja’alan region of Oman were not from the Indus heartland, but originated from

208

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

somewhere along the coast of Gujarat—possibly the Bronze Age port of Lothal. This suggests that there may be two different vectors of trade, interlinking the western-most Magan territories with the Indus River Valley and the eastern Ja’alan coast with Gujarat. As one final aside, it is worth noting that a number of Umm an-Nar vessels depict decorative motifs that clearly recall painted designs from Indus pottery. One recent example, from the excavations at Bat Tomb 401, depicts several lozenge-like shapes recalling fish on an Umm an-Nar style suspension vessel (see Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011: fig. 17 nos. 91– 93). Similar patterns evincing decorative hybridity/ emulation have been found on Harappan fine wares from Bat and elsewhere in the Oman Peninsula. The most notable example from the Bat settlement is the black-on-red painted “fish motif ” sherd excavated from Operation A in 2007.

Wadi Suq Ceramics Work on the pottery of the Wadi Suq period has been mainly limited to typological descriptions of the period’s various forms, fabrics, and designs (Righetti and Cleuziou 2010; Barker 2002; Carter 1997b; Vogt and Vogt 1987; Méry 1989, 1991a, 1991b, 2000; Velde 2003; Righetti 2015). Based on excavations at Tell Abraq, Kalba, and elsewhere in the UAE, a three stage division for the Wadi Suq now exists (Early, Middle/Classic, and Late; see Carter [1997b]). Wadi Suq pottery provides little standardization, so typologies tend to be fairly broad and limited to certain sites. Definitions of Bat’s Wadi Suq ceramics will have to rely upon the excavation of secure contexts, such as those currently being excavated on the Settlement Slope. We know that people were living around the site of Bat at this time (given the significant number of Wadi Suq burials found on top of Ts. 1145 and 1156, not to mention in the Bat cemetery itself ), and the significant amount of Wadi Suq pottery eroding from the tower at Khutm. During excavations between 2008 and 2012, the greatest number of Wadi Suq ceramics was found on and around T. 1156 (Fig. 9.10), due no doubt to the presence of Wadi Suq graves atop the Umm an-Nar structures (see Appendix V). While the identification of Wadi Suq ceramics is still problematic, certain diagnostic forms—

such as small cups with out-flaring rims and vertical painted designs as well as small pots with painted cylindrical spouts emerging from their shoulders—are textbook examples of early Wadi Suq types. The preliminary evidence from T. 1156 seems to suggest a continuous stratigraphic and ceramic sequence from the Umm an-Nar to the early Wadi Suq Periods. A handful of forms, such as a teapot-spouted jar with two painted wavy lines underneath the rim (Fig. 9.6C), could easily be seen as transitional ceramic forms combining elements of both Late Umm anNar (the double wavy lines) and early Wadi Suq (teapot spout) pottery. For the purposes of this typology, any ceramic displaying a fine or semi-fine fabric but with large, visible inclusions was considered “Wadi Suq.” This included an unusual semi-fine ware containing visible inclusions of copper slag (Fig. 9.11; cf. Méry’s [2000:266] “Shimal 1” petrographic group). Whether the presence of visible inclusions/temper will prove to be a defining characteristic of Wadi Suq pottery must await more intensive analysis of ceramics from better contexts at Bat.

Discussion of Other Ware Types As discussed in previous chapters, most known Bronze Age towers were reused in later periods, either as foundations for other structures, as sources of well water, or as dumping grounds (as they are today). Most of these later deposits are highly disturbed and eroded, while the Bronze Age levels were often cleared away, which makes delineating the exact phases of reuse extremely difficult. To make matters worse, our understanding of Iron Age, Late pre-Islamic, and Islamic period pottery of the interior of Oman is still limited. Indeed, there is still great disagreement over what constitutes the “Iron Age” in North-central Oman, when it begins and ends, and whether a “Late Pre-Islamic” phase can even be distinguished from the Iron Age in Oman (e.g., Mouton 2008; Phillips 2010; Yule 2013). Similarly, very few Islamic period sites have been excavated from the interior of Oman, with coastal sites such as Sohar (Kervran 2004) and Qalhat (Rougeulle 2010) providing only limited comparanda. The better published excavations of sites in the Emirates should in theory provide a strong ceramic sequence for the post-Bronze Age periods. For ex-

A

C

B

D

E F

G H

I

K

J

0

5 cm

L

Fig. 9.10 Wadi Suq pottery from Bat, including: A) lot 12SS175, T. 1156; B) lot 101501, T. 1156; C) lot 092202, T. 1147; D) lot 12SS202, T. 1156; E) lot 100805, T. 1147; F) lot 12SS202, T. 1156; G) lot 101308, T. 1146; H) lot 12SS183, T. 1156; I) lot 101907, T. 1146; J) lot 12SS219, T. 1156, ; K) lot 12SS183, T. 1156; L) lot 101907, T. 1146.

210

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 9.11 Medium-coarse Wadi Suq pottery tempered with copper slag from Operation A (lot 070401).

ample, sites such as Rumeilah, Tell Abraq, and Muweilah remain particularly important in defining the Iron Age ceramic sequences in the UAE (Mouton 2008; Boucharlat and Lombard 1985:49–51; Magee 1996:243–49, 2005b; Benoist 1998, 2001; Barker 2002; Iamoni 2009). However, the cultural trajectory of the Emirati and Omani regions appears to diverge during the Wadi Suq period, with the Emirati coastal settlements flourishing throughout the 2nd millennium BCE while contemporary sites in Oman appear to sink into relative obscurity. Early Iron Age settlement sites in North-central Oman (Lizq/Rumeilah I period: ca. 1200–600 BCE) such as Lizq (Weisgerber 1981:226–31), Salut (Degli Esposti and Phillips 2012), and Banah (north of Bat; unexcavated) suggest a resurgence of social complexity in the late 2nd millennium BCE, likely due to the rise of the aflaj. However, while Early Iron Age sites in the Emirates maintain long-distance trade networks with Iran and Dilmun in the Iron Age II period (e.g., Magee 1996, 2005a, 2005b), sites of the Omani interior of this period appear to be more provincial. The Iron Age pottery from the Emirates published by Mouton (1998) and others (above) certainly has parallels with the ceramics from Iron Age

sites in the Omani interior (see Yule 1999; Iamoni 2009; Phillips 2010; Kroll 1998), but also shows a great diversity of ware types and decorative styles that may be local productions. This variety continues in the Late Iron Age and Late Pre-Islamic periods of North-central Oman (ca. 600 BCE–600 AD, various parts of which are called the “Samad Period” depending upon the scholar), when Emirati sites like ed-Dur (e.g., Haerinck 2003) and Mleiha (e.g., Boucharlat and Mouton 1994; Reddy and Mouton forthcoming) are engaged in long-distance trade networks with the Eastern Mediterranean and the Indian Subcontinent, while North-central Omani sites remain more insulated. Of course, until the pottery from a multiperiod Iron Age/Late Pre-Islamic site in Oman is published with corresponding radiocarbon dates, we remain somewhat in the dark. In the meantime, the presence of red stone inclusions is generally held up as an indicator of Iron Age II pottery (Lizq/Rumeilah period) while later periods are determined based mainly on decorative styles and vessel forms (Fig. 9.12). The same challenges are true for the Islamic period. While glazed wares from Sohar (Kervran 2004), Qalhat (Rougeulle et al. 2012), and other coastal

A

B C

E

D

F

G

I

H

J

K

L

M

0

5 cm

N Fig. 9.12 Iron Age pottery from Bat, including: A) lot 080900, T. 1146; B) lot 081302, T. 1146; C) lot 081302, T. 1146; D) lot 100218, T. 1147; E) lot 081102, T. 1146; F) lot 080106, T. 1146; G) lot 081100, T. 1146; H) lot 081100, T. 1146; I) lot 081300, T. 1146; J) lot 091902, T. 1146; K) lot 081506, T. 1146; L) lot 100802, T. 1147; M) lot 080101, T. 1146; N) lot 081102, T. 1146.

212

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

sites have been successfully correlated with Iranian, Mesopotamian, Chinese, and other known ceramic types (e.g., Kennet 2004), the glazed wares from the interior are almost entirely different. Don Whitcomb’s early typology (Whitcomb 1975), as well as the de Cardi survey’s catalog of ceramics (de Cardi et al. 1976), provides the only good reference points. However, these typologies are very much in need of updating and do little to explain the variety of glazed wares found at Bat. There were a few diagnostic types found in the Bat assemblage, including Sgraffiato Ware (IE2; Fig. 9.13G) of the Middle Islamic period (ca. 11th–13th cent. CE) and Red-Yellow Ware of the Late Islamic period (18th–19th cent. CE), as identified by Derek Kennet (pers. comm. 2013). These few types allow for some limited dating of certain contexts. Even more difficult to understand are the unglazed coarse and semi-coarse wares, which are very similar from the Iron Age until the pre-Modern period, and which demonstrate a wide range of tempering materials, firing techniques, and surface decorations. In only a few cases at Matariya (T. 1147), where we have complete or near-complete vessels made of Quartz Tempered Coarse Ware (Type IVC1) and Crushed Black Stone Coarse Ware (Type IVC2) from what appear to be Iron Age pits (based on the presence of Iron Age ceramics such as lots 100212 and 101611 in other nearby pits), can we place some sort of chronological marker to these functional ceramics (see Fig. 4.9). Otherwise, the majority of the coarse and semi-coarse wares exists in mixed contexts, so their exact periodization is mostly unknown. However, we can say with some certainty that no semi-coarse or coarse wares were found in Bronze Age contexts, thereby reaffirming the accepted position that coarse and semi-coarse wares began in the Wadi Suq or Early Iron Age on the Oman Peninsula.

Preliminary Analysis of Ceramic Typology Caveats aside, there are a few interesting patterns that emerge from a basic analysis of these data. First, there is obvious clustering of certain types and periods of pottery. For example, T. 1156 contained a far greater number of Umm an-Nar sherds than Ts. 1146

and 1147 combined, due no doubt to the presence of Umm an-Nar domestic architecture built over the top of the Late Hafit/Early Umm an-Nar tower (see Chapter 6). Tower 1156 also contained almost the entire collection of Wadi Suq pottery, although Iron Age and Islamic pottery is almost entirely lacking from this tower site (and, indeed, from the Settlement Slope area as a whole). In contrast, T. 1147 contained the only examples of Mesopotamian imports and imitation pottery and the best collection of Iron Age pottery from the three towers, while T. 1146 had the only extensive Islamic period component. The second intriguing pattern that emerges from these data is the proportion of imported wares of the 3rd millennium BCE. The preponderance of Harappan related ceramics supports long-held assumptions that trade was the main force driving relations between ancient “Magan” and “Meluhha.” While obviously Iranian ceramics were exceedingly rare (although present) at all three towers, Harappan ceramics were rather ubiquitous. The ratio of Harappan to Umm an-Nar ceramics within certain contexts could be quite high—up to 5–10% of the total number of sherds—although as noted previously, the crude method of sherd counting makes such numbers mostly qualitative. This amount is of course modest, but it is worth recalling that the sum total of Harappan related pottery at the Hili 8 settlement only amounted to 1.5% of the total and derived from the later IId–f periods (ca. 2200–2000  BCE; see Cleuziou and Méry [2002:290, table X]). It should also be noted that Black Slipped Jars make up the majority (65%) of the Harappan sherds found at Bat; at T. 1156, all but two Harappan sherds are BSJ fragments. Of course, their easily recognizable form and fabric, in addition to the difficulty in identifying imported painted wares, may also be skewing the data considerably. Perhaps the most surprising ceramic-related discovery from our excavations at the Bat towers pertains to the presence of locally-made pottery designed to imitate Mesopotamian forms. While at Hili the local imitations were of Iranian black-onred painted wares, at Bat they chose to imitate Early Dynastic I-II jar forms, going so far as to create a greeny-buff slip to imitate the greeny-buff color of the well-fired, Mesopotamian, wheelmade imports. There is no question that the Umm an-Nar ceramic

B

A

D

C

E

F

G

H

J I

K

L 0

5 cm

Fig. 9.13 Early-Middle Islamic wares from Bat, including: A) lot 080307, T. 1146; B) lot 080307, T. 1146; C) lot 080307, T. 1146; D) lot 080905, T. 1146; E) lot 080307, T. 1146; F) lot 080106, T. 1146; G) lot 070021, T. 1148; H) lot 080106, T. 1146; I) lot 081506, T. 1146; J) lot 080106, T. 1146; K) lot 0080307, T. 1146; L) lot 081100, T. 1146.

A

d = 36 cm

B

d = 34 - 37 cm

C

D

E

F

H I

G

K L

J

M

N

O

P

R

0

Q

5 cm

S

Fig. 9.14 Late Islamic wares from T. 1146, including: A) lot 081506; B) lot 082500; C) lot 081100; D) lot 082500; E) lot 080300; F) lot 080303; G) lot 081507; H) lot 081901; I) lot 081100; J) lot 081900; K) lot 081100; L) lot 081100; M) lot 081102; N) lot 080106; O) lot 081900; P) lot 081700; Q) lot 081506; R) lot 081700; S) lot 081700. d = 5cm

K.S. North

?

Yahya IVA

Yahya IVB.2-1 / K.S. Citadel

K.S. pre-Citadel phase

Yahya IVB.6-4

Middle Babylonian

Old Babylonian

Isin Larsa

Ur III

Akkad

IIIB

IIIA

Late / Post-urban Harappan

?

Middle / Mature Harappan

Early Harappan

?

Indus (Meluhha)

Iron Age

Wadi Suq

Late Umm an-Nar

Middle Umm an-Nar

Early Umm an-Nar

Hafit

Neolithic

Cultural Periods

III

II

I

g

f

e

d

c2

c1

a-b

c

b

a

Hili 8

Tomb N

Tomb A

Tomb B

Tomb M

Jebel Hafit

Tomb Phases

Hili

Bat

Iron Age

?

Wadi Suq tombs

Settlement Slope

1146

?

1156

1147

pre-1146

Pre-Hafit agriculture

Settlement

Oman/UAE (Magan)

Banah Zeba

Tomb 401

Bat Type*

Ibri Selme

Hafit Type

Tomb Types

RJ 2 PIII

RJ1 Tomb 1

RJ 2 PII

?

RJ2 PI

Ras al’Jinz

Sources: Méry, Sophie (1995), “Archaeology of the Borderlands: 4th Millennium BC Mesopotamian Pottery at Ra’s al-Hamra RH-5 (Sultanate of Oman),” Archaeology of the Borderlands, 202; Alizadeh, Abbas 2010 “The Rise of the Highland Elamite State in Southwestern Iran: ‘Enclosed’ or Enclosing Nomadism?” Current Anthropology, 51( 3): 353-383; Yule, Paul (1999) “The Samad Period in the Sultanate of Oman,” Iraq 61: 122.; Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011: 146; Munoz et al 2012. *Tomb 401 **Hili 8 Settlement.*** After Carter 1997

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

2500

2700

II

Early Dynastic I

Proto-Elamite

2900

Uruk

Mesopotamia

Jemdt Nasr

Yahya VA / Aliabad

Southeastern Iran

3100

3300

3500

Date (BC)

Chronology in the “Middle Asian Interaction Sphere” (ca. 3500-1300 BC).

Table 9.3 Chronology of ancient Oman in relation to its neighbors.

typological and chronological consideration of the ceramics at bat, oman

215

216

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

tradition that arose by the mid-3rd millennium BCE was designed to copy the southeastern Iranian blackon-red style. However, the discovery of local Mesopotamian imitation pottery as well as chaffy technical ceramics for metallurgy in the early 3rd millennium BCE complicates the story considerably, and forces us to consider multiple reasons for the development of ceramics in Oman and the UAE.

notes 9.1 According to Carter (2011:37; per Andrew Williamson in Kennet 2004:54), Bahla Ware or Khunj pottery was very common in the 18th and 19th centuries CE (first appearing as early as 14th century CE). It appears to have gone out of use by the late 19th to early 20th centuries CE based on work at Ras al-Khaimah (Priestman 2005:270), the Bur Maher Fort (Carter 2011:266) and Zekrit (Guérin and Na'imi 2008:173). It is thought to have been made in southern Iran, at the site of Khunj, but some suggest that it continues to be made in Bahla, Oman.

However, the Bahla-Khunj Ware fabric is highly varied, which may be an indication that it was produced at several locales. Fabrics were typically fine, dense grey or red brown. The surface was speckled in brown or greenish brown glaze, perhaps in imitation of Chinese imports. The vessels are notably ridged due to manufacture on the wheel. 9.2 Mesopotamian influence in the interior largely ceased around 2500 BCE, but lingered until about 2350 BCE along the Emirati coast (Frifelt 1991, 1995). After ca. 2500 BCE, foreign imports from southeastern Iran and from the Indus Valley become more common (Thornton 2012). 9.3 Only 101 sherds were recovered in the Period I levels at Hili 8, representing only sixty vessels. (Cleuziou and Méry 2002:282) also note the rarity of pottery at other Hafit related sites, like HD-6 at Ras al-Hadd. 9.4 Unassigned samples are to be expected, as they may be random outliers or their geochemical signature may belong to compositional groups that have yet to be sourced. It is also possible that the high percentage of mineral temper has skewed the geochemical signature of the source clays in these samples.

10 The Bat Chipped Stone Assemblage Gabrielle Choimet

Introduction

Methods

he 2007–12 field seasons at Bat produced 423 lithic pieces. A sample of 350 pieces, including débitage, cores, tools and debris, was analyzed. Flints were systematically collected as follows:

For statistical purpose, the present study focuses on assemblages that have been considered “significant”—i.e., containing at least fifty pieces. Thus, only collections from Operation A, Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146), and Matariya (T. 1147) will be discussed in great detail. Nonetheless, pieces from the two other sites—‘Settlement Slope’ (T. 1156) and Kasr al-Sleme (T. 1148)—and those gathered on the surface in 2007 will also be mentioned for particular purposes. Every lithic piece has been collected, including the smallest chips, although sieving was not systematically utilized, which might explain the underrepresentation of chips. Henceforth, the sample may be considered as statistically meaningful except for smaller pieces. The lack of standard diagnostic tools after the end of the Neolithic excludes formal typology. Quantification through basic statistical parameters appeared to be the only way for a technological study. Basic groups were therefore established, based on the main products of the flaking process: blanks (flakes, laminar flakes, bladelets, and blades), cores, and waste material represented by chips (less than 10  mm in length) and debris (between 10 and 20 mm). The ‘undetermined’ class (raw material and other) was also included in this study. A difference is expected between surface and excavated lots (e.g., smaller pieces may have been taken away by wind erosion and heavy rains). However, since surface collections are numerically not signifi-

T

• • • • •

Operation A: n=74 pieces Kasr al-Khafaji (Tower 1146): n=60 Matariya (Tower 1147): n=181 ‘Settlement Slope’ (Tower 1156): n=18 Kasr al-Sleme (Tower 1148): n=1

These lithic artifacts come mostly from excavated layers and, to a lesser extent, surface collections. To this are added some other surface finds collected during the 2007 survey of the site and the surrounding region that was carried out before starting the excavations at Operation A. These finds amount to 16 pieces. The following report concentrates on raw material and technological characteristics and aims to: 1. Summarize the lithic assemblage of Bat and its technical aspects during the 3rd millennium BCE and possibly after. 2. Widen the Bronze Age lithic collection in the interior of the Oman Peninsula. Indeed, detailed publications devoted to Bronze Age lithic industries remain rare, contrary to the Neolithic period.

218

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

cant enough to compare to excavated material, this difference has not been taken in account.

Débitage and Raw Material Different raw material types can be distinguished with the naked eye, of which flint/chert is the most common (80.3%). Most of these materials probably come from the same geological deposits. Quartz, basalt, and possibly red jasper were also knapped but no preferential use of these raw materials has been observed. The material type of around 15% of the assemblage could not be determined at first glance. Nothing has yet been done on flaking capacities of the different raw materials found at Bat— although some qualitative differences have been noted—nor on mineral resources and geological formations of the nearby area (Cable 2012; Kondo pers. comm.). This being said, important raw material deposits in the surroundings, including on the nearest hill outcrops, must have provided large amounts of stone, particularly flint, for the Bat inhabitants during the 3rd millennium BCE. Survey of the region by Cable in 2013 noted local chert present as both bands in the limestone and nodules in the wadis (Cable pers. comm.). A great number of the Bat flint types show cracked surfaces: this is due to the heat (thermal flaking) that makes the nodules less difficult to knap. We can, therefore, assume that raw material was mostly collected carelessly on the surface, perhaps as wadi cobbles. In most cases, bad quality raw material might explain some accidents during the flaking process, such as hinged terminations. Despite the great variety of flint types, the Bat knappers may have slightly favored dark red “Hawasina” and gray flint (respectively 11.1% and 9.1% of the total), followed by blond flint (7.7%), and, to a lesser extent, yellowish-gray flint (6.5%). All the materials mentioned above were most likely available on top of the nearby hills in the form of small nodules. Orange, dark, yellow, beige, and purple flint were also used for stone knapping, as well as some other materials: quartz (n=6) is known to have been employed but in very low proportions; two of the quartz tools exhibit steep retouch. Basalt is present but only accounts for a few pieces (four, possibly five) of the assemblage. Limestone was rarely used for

blanks but rather for hammers (Possehl et al. 2009: figs. 23, 47). This great diversity shows how intense the exploitation was of the nearby mineral resources in and around Bat. On the other hand, one can also say that the type of raw material chosen received little attention by the ancient people of Bat, perhaps due to the relative abundance of metal tools at this time.

Preliminary Observations As regards the general state of preservation, very few pieces show patinated faces. Similar preservation conditions and a relatively low number of surface finds might explain this apparent homogeneity. At all sites, blanks represent the largest group, comprising 67.4% of the lithic finds (Fig. 10.1). Cores (12.6%) and waste material (19.4%) are also well represented. Two flint nodules were uncovered, one at Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) and one during the 2007 surface survey. The lithic assemblage appears quite homogenous, as roughly the same proportion of blanks to cores to waste is found at the three main sites. Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) yielded slightly more debris relative to blanks. In contrast, no less than 72% of the Matariya (T. 1147) assemblage is comprised of blanks. Cores represent 10.5 to 13%. Tools were found on the three main sites—comprising almost 27% of the assemblage at Operation A. They are generally made of wide flakes. Blade products are present but unequally distributed between the sites (Fig. 10.2).

Operation A The total unearthed area at Operation A is 275 m2. The excavations yielded 9 cores and 51 flakes, almost half of which are retouched (Fig. 10.3). Raw materials are many and varied, from dark red “Hawasina” flint to light gray, blond, pink, purple, or black-and-white banded flint. Flakes are often large and quadrangular. Chips and debris represent a reasonable proportion of the total (18.9%), suggesting that at least part of the knapping process took place on site. Nearly a third (27.3%) of the débitage products show cortex remains. Cores are relatively small (maximal dimensions between 40 and 50 mm), which means either that

the bat chipped stone assemblage

Fig. 10.1 Main lithic categories at Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146), Matariya (T. 1147) and Operation A (“Grand Total” includes Ts. 1148, 1156, and surface finds).

Fig. 10.2 Distribution of tools from the three main sites.

219

220

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

they were only abandoned at a late stage of the core reduction process or that knappers preferred small nodules.

Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) The tool kit found at T. 1146 is very similar to the one of Operation A. Except for a few retouched blades, laminar flakes, and eight cores, the lithic artifacts mainly consist of rough tools such as scrapers, retouched flakes, and backed pieces of which very few are reworked (Fig. 10.4). If they are worked, only direct retouch was employed. At Kasr al-Khafaji, 16.7% of the lithic artifacts are made out of dark red “Hawasina” flint and 8.3% are of quartz, including a scraper. About 30% of the T. 1146 assemblage was chips and debris, which is significantly more than the waste material uncovered at Operation A and T. 1147 (respectively 18.9% and 17.1%). This is particularly striking, given the limited sieving that was carried out at T. 1146 relative to T. 1147 (Thornton pers. comm.). We assume that knapping must have been carried out on the site, or at the very least the retouch stage.

Matariya (T. 1147) The lithic assemblage from Matariya shows some significant differences from T. 1146 and Operation A, which may relate to its earlier date and/or different methods of lithic collection (Fig. 10.5). For example, the proportion of blanks is higher at T. 1147, but the tool assemblage has much less variety than at Operation A and Kasr al-Khafaji. Matariya also yielded 19 cores (10.5% of T. 1147 lithic finds), including a blond flint multiplatform core (lot 080400; Fig. 10.5M). A laminar industry is far better represented at Matariya, a site that produced 9.4% of blades and blade fragments and 7.7% of laminar flakes. Two bladelets were uncovered. The average blade length is approximately 6 cm, up to 8–9 cm for the largest ones. One blade shows a large cortical band on the dorsal side; it has been worked by inverse scaled retouch. Another one has a trihedral section and a steep retouched side. There is also evidence for alternate retouch on a blade fragment: retouch is flat and

subparallel on the ventral side and semi-abrupt and scaled on the dorsal side. Some of the blades show long bulbar scars on their ventral sides and several impact points, suggesting the use of soft stone percussion (e.g., limestone or sandstone). This contributes to the uniform and consistent size and shape of the blade products, showing the regular removal of negatives. Finally, an oval-shaped biface, knapped from a large flake, was uncovered in one of the mudbrick compartments inside Matariya’s stone tower, amongst rubble deposit and wadi cobbles (feature 092202). It is made of slate gray flint and the bulb has been taken off by later retouch. This large biface is 102 mm long, 68 mm wide, and 22 mm thick and has a biconvex section and a rounded base. The lateral ridge is ‘sinuous.’ Retouch is invasive on the dorsal face but marginal on the ventral face. Removals are large and have most likely been obtained by hard percussion. Negative bulbs are quite marked. This characteristic piece most probably dates back to the Pleistocene.

Kasr al-Sleme (T. 1148) A single retouched flake (lot 070020) of brown flint/chert comes from the surface of Kasr al-Sleme (T. 1148). Future excavations may uncover more lithic material from this site, but the retouched flake found while cleaning the southeast side of the tower wall appears more similar to the T. 1146/Operation A assemblage than the T. 1147 collection.

‘Settlement Slope’ (T. 1156) The excavations at T. 1156 on the ‘Settlement Slope’ yielded a limited number of lithics, including four small cores, several retouched flakes, a side scraper, and two blades (Fig. 10.6). The first blade (7.5 cm long) was found on the surface and displays cortical remains (Fig. 10.6B). It has been retouched on its distal end and shows use traces on both sides. On the dorsal side, previous removal negatives are regularly spaced, which suggests the use of soft stone percussion or even an organic percussive instrument such as a horn core or a large bone. The second blade—made of good quality brown flint—shows regular removals and retouch on its proximal end (Fig. 10.6A). Soft stone percussion is clearly attested

Fig. 10.3 Lithics from Operation A: A) lot 070401; B) lot 070500; C) lot 070500; D) lot 070602; E) lot 070602; F) lot 070602; G) lot 071202; H) lot 071202; I) lot 071202.

Fig. 10.4 Lithics from T. 1146: A) lot 090317; B) lot 090317; C) lot 090138; D) lot 090111; E) lot 090307; F) lot 090307; G) lot 090113; H) lot 090138; I) lot 090123.

Fig. 10.5 Lithics from T. 1147: A) lot 080219-1; B) lot 080219-2; C) lot 080220-1; D) lot 080220-2; E) lot 080220-3; F) lot 090411; G) lot 100002; H) lot 101609; I) lot 101613; J) lot 101610; K) lot 101613; L) lot 110223; M) lot 110217; N) lot 090107; O) lot 092202-b; P) lot 092202-c; Q) lot 092202-d.

Fig. 10.6 Lithics from T. 1156: A) lot 101903; B) lot 11SS001; C) lot 11SS001; D) lot 11SS112; E) lot 11SS112; F) lot 11SS106.

225

the bat chipped stone assemblage

given the pronounced bulb scars. The distal end is lost and use wear traces are observable on both ridges. These two blades might have been retouched on their proximal ends in order to be hafted or, perhaps, to offer a secure grip in the hand.

Surface Finds A much-patinated turning core (lot 070030) found during the 2007 survey shows four long removals with parallel edges, slightly convergent. This core demonstrates that some blades were produced by unipolar débitage, although its date is not secure.

Synthesis As already discussed above, the trend on the three main sites is very similar in the typological distribution: there is a high degree of similarity between Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146), Matariya (T. 1147), and Operation A regarding the main lithic categories. It is somewhat less clear in the case of retouch level and metric data. This analysis clearly highlights a mainly flake-oriented production (61% of total blanks), although blades and laminar flakes were also produced at Bat (Fig. 10.7). Blades (together with blade fragments and bladelets) account for more than 13% of the total blanks, while laminar flakes account for 9.7%.

While chips are quite rare (4% of the total assemblage), one can argue that this may be due to the fact that non-systematic sieving was practiced. However, chips were collected and recorded on all sites as debris, which amounts to 15.4% of the total assemblage (16.7% at Kasr al-Khafaji, 16.6% at Matariya, and 13.5% at Operation A). Undoubtedly, at least part of the manufacturing took place at the sites themselves, if not the whole knapping process. Retouch was observed on 32.6% of the total amount of the blanks (with 41.1% unretouched and 26.3% undefined). The degree of retouch is relatively low: it is often short and marginal and there is almost no intentional forming, since a naturally sharp edge often serves as a cutting, backed, or scraping edge. Tools are commonly shaped by direct retouch (56.8%), sometimes inverse (12.2%) or partially bifacial (18.9%), rarely alternate, alternating or reflected. None appears to be pressure-retouched.

Metric Data In order to analyze the technological aspects of blank débitage, blades, flakes, and bladelets were measured (i.e., 136 pieces). Fragments were not taken into account, nor pieces without any clear evidence of flaking (Fig. 10.8). Flake metric analysis revealed that the average length and width of the

Fig. 10.7 Distribution of blank types.

226

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 10.8 Blanks length/width ratio: Laminar flakes have a length/width ratio between 2 and 3, while blades have a length/width ratio over 3.

flakes to be quite similar on all sites, with length ranging between 30–40 mm (median value: 33 mm) and width ranging between 20–30 mm (median value: 23  mm). Flake thickness varies between 3 and 22 mm. However, the regular flake length is slightly greater at T. 1147, with an average of 38.6 mm in length and 25.8 mm in width. Towers 1147 and 1156 yielded the longest blades. Larger flakes and blades (more than 5 cm in length) are all made out of flint, as are the largest cores (except lot 070030).

Cores Cores are present at all three sites. Multiplatform cores are the most common and are mostly polyhedral-shaped. Single platform cores are also wide-

spread and two striking platform cores and bipolar cores are represented as well (Fig. 10.9). Careful observation of bulbs and platform remnants enable us, in a few cases, to differentiate two different knapping techniques: both soft stone hammer and hard stone hammer were used at Bat. The use of a soft stone hammer (e.g., a limestone block) seems slightly more frequent, although it is always difficult to ascertain any débitage technique. There is a marked difference concerning the core size between the three main sites: while they range from 36 to 39 mm in length and about 33–34 mm in width at Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) and Operation A, they are much bigger at Matariya (T. 1147) where they average 47 mm in length with an overall width of 44 mm. Cores were, thus, given up at a

227

the bat chipped stone assemblage

Fig. 10.9 Types of cores.

relatively advanced stage of exhaustion, except at the latter site. The small number of trimming flakes and core preparation flakes indicates a relatively basic débitage. Cortex surfaces often served as striking platform and flakes were knapped without any core preparation such as preliminary flaking, overhang polishing or elimination (one specimen), rejuvenation core flaking (one specimen), resharpening, and so forth.

Tools Flake tools have no standard dimensions and can be either cortical or not. They are poorly reworked and quite a lot of them show hinged terminations. The tool kit includes scrapers, denticulated tools, and other retouched flakes/blades, sometimes made on quite thick blanks. Drills are rare: only two in the entire assemblage. Good quality red-brown and light gray flint are well represented among the tools (11% and 8.4% respectively). Operation A and Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) have a more varied tool kit than Matariya (T. 1147). Retouched flakes represent the largest group of retouched pieces together with scraping tools and retouched blades, at 22%, 20.7% and 17.3% respectively (see Fig. 10.2). Scraping tools have no regular pattern and the working edge can be heavily

retouched or marginal. They are made, almost exclusively, from a flake and their retouch is semi-abrupt to steep, sometimes reflected. Of these, one-third show cortical remains. A few tools were made from microlithic flakes (less than 20 mm). They are usually made of small chip-like flakes and show fine direct retouch or micro-denticulations. Three splintered pieces (‘pièces esquillées’) have been found: they are “flat with two or—rarely—four straight, parallel edges” (Uerpmann 1992:78), have a trihedral section, use-wear marks, and scars on both ends. Lastly, there is some evidence that blanks could have been hafted, as some blades and backed pieces were reworked on their proximal (sometimes distal) ends by direct, inverse or bifacial retouch.

Conclusion Based on the above analysis of 350 lithic pieces, several points need to be stressed regarding the main characteristics of the Bat stone production. First of all, the assemblage is characterized by a mainly flake-oriented production. Despite the production of blades and laminar blanks, we are clearly not dealing with a leptolithic industry (more typical of Upper and Epi-Paleolithic industries elsewhere in the Middle East). Even more characteristic is the fairly low

228

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

proportion of retouch: blanks are generally poorly retouched and are not part of a coherent débitage framework nor regular knapping pattern. Opportunistic tools were simply made from blanks with very little retouch. It can also be argued that débitage was not carefully planned, as no reoccurring tool forms could be observed. In addition, the search for good-quality material was not a major consideration. Manufacturing was most likely carried out on the site. The tool kit is mainly made up of scraping tools and retouched flakes and blades. Drills are practically nonexistent. A single characteristic Paleolithic tool found at Matariya not only suggests the presence of human occupation in the Bat area during the Pleistocene era, but further emphasizes (in comparison) the somewhat haphazard nature of the Bronze Age lithic industry at Bat.

Very few lithic assemblages from Bronze Age sites of Oman and UAE have been published, making it difficult to place the Bat corpus into a wider context. Hafit-period lithic assemblages from sites on the east coast of Oman, such as Wadi Shab GAS1 (Usai and Cavallari 2008) and Ras al-Hadd HD6 (Hilbert and Azzara 2012), show a similar pattern of exploiting local, poor-quality material to manufacture haphazard flakes and blanks. However, the lithic assemblage from these sites is almost entirely composed of perforating implements, undoubtedly used for Conus shell manufacture and other crafts. Such perforating implements are almost entirely absent from the Bat corpus. While this study of the Bat assemblage is by no means comprehensive, it contributes the first stratified corpus of Bronze Age lithics from the interior of Oman for future discussion.

11 Metal Benedict Leigh

T

he Oman Peninsula has long been reputed to be the region of ‘Magan,’ which is mentioned in 3rd millennium BCE cuneiform texts as an important source of copper for Southern Mesopotamia (Oppenheim 1954; Heimpel 1987; Potts 1990a:137; Weeks 2004). This association of Oman with the ancient copper-rich kingdom of Magan, has ensured a strong focus by archaeologists over the last half century on its metallurgical past (e.g., Hastings et al. 1975; Tosi 1975; Weisgerber 1981; Weeks 2004). The most comprehensive investigations to date on Oman’s ancient copper production were conducted in the 1980s by the German Mining Museum (DBM). Through surveys and excavations around the site of Maysar-1, the German team identified the Bronze Age as a period of heightened copper extraction (Weisgerber 1983). Alongside this primary evidence of copper mining, secondary evidence of copper production is evident from the large amount of metal objects associated with smelting, such as crucibles and slag, found on sites across the region. Furthermore, Omani copper was not solely produced for export, but used to craft a variety of objects found in equal abundance in graves across the region (Weeks 2007; Leigh 2012). Although a historic field of research, there are still numerous questions to be answered about Oman’s copper production during the Bronze Age. Was Magan’s copper production truly on an industrial scale and export driven? To what extent was tin-bronze and arsenic-bronze used during this period? Where were the major centers of copper mining

and production? In order to attempt to answer these questions, it is paramount that metal objects from Bronze Age excavations across the region are published and analyzed.

The Bat Collection The metal and metallurgical artifacts from Bat discussed in this chapter have been retrieved from excavations and surface surveys of the towers. Therefore, they provide a rare metallurgical assemblage from monumental and settlement contexts that can be compared to metal objects found in the graves. Bat is located along important trade routes, running from copper rich areas of the Hajar Mountains in the east to known centers of population and trade, such as Hili and Umm an-Nar Island, in the west, making this collection an important contribution to our understanding of the region’s metallurgy. A total of 135 metal or metallurgy-related objects were retrieved over five seasons of fieldwork. These objects are from surface surveys and excavations of Towers (Ts.) 1146, 1147, 1156, Operation A, and the surrounding area. Most of Bat’s metal artifacts are small fragments, with only a few complete objects. These objects range in date from the Hafit period through to the Late Islamic period.

Methodology The purpose of this study of the metallurgical remains was to: 1. Catalogue the metal finds and establish a typology.

230

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

2. Examine the assemblage of metallurgical finds, such as crucible fragments, slags, etc. and conduct a preliminary observational study to determine whether smelting or casting was taking place. 3. Summarize the entire corpus in relation to where they were found, highlighting trends and noting details of specific objects.

Table 11.2 Metal and metallurgical artifacts found at T. 1146. No.

Lot No.

Object

Metal

Period

1

080004

Ornament

Copper

Surface

2

080103

Pin

Copper

Islamic

3

080902

Metal Debris

Copper

Islamic

4

081101

Ornament

Copper/Iron Islamic

Typology

5

081302

Metal Debris

Silver

Islamic

6

081501

Pin

Iron

Islamic

The metal and metallurgical artifacts were classified using an expanded version of the typology established by the author (Leigh 2012). All 10 categories were recognized in the Bat collection, although there are no obvious ingots for trade and the one mold in the collection was found with two pieces of possible Iron Age pottery in a mixed context at T. 1147. The typology classification and their key attributes are outlined in Table 11.1

7

090126

Slag

Copper

Hafit

8

090140

Ore

Copper

Hafit

9

090312

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

10

100102

Metal Debris

Copper

Hafit

Table 11.1 Typology of metal and metallurgical artifacts. Typology

Characteristics

Arrowheads

Flanged arrowheads, measuring 5–10cm in length.

Crucible

Ceramic with copper slag adhering, used in smelting or melting processes.

Fragments of copper metal, either waste Metal Debris from s/melting (e.g., prills) or small fragments. Ingot

Copper Ingot, for the transport of copper.

Mold

Ceramic used for casting metal.

Ore

Metal-bearing minerals used for smelting.

Ornament

Pieces of copper shaped and molded for decorative purpose.

Pin

Thin pieces of copper with pointed ends, both with square and circular sections, used for functional and/or ornamental purposes.

Slag

By-product of copper smelting or refining.

Tool

Pieces of copper shaped and molded for functional purpose.

Tower 1146 There are a total of 10 objects associated with T. 1146, including one object found on the surface, five objects dating to the Islamic period, and four from Bronze Age contexts (Table 11.2; Fig. 11.1). The two ornamental objects found at this tower, a belt buckle (lot 081101) and a bracelet (lot 080004), date to the Islamic period. Other objects of note which date to the Islamic period are a piece of silver (lot 081302) and an iron pin or nail (lot 081501); these are the only artifacts in the Bat collection made out of iron and silver. Only a single metal object came from the Umm an-Nar contexts outside the tower in Trench B. A single copper blob that may be casting spillage (Fig. 11.1F) was found in lot 090312 alongside the large stone-lined hearth (lot 090309) amongst domestic refuse. Objects from Hafit contexts at Khafaji are exclusively by-products of copper smelting or melting, which include small flat lumps of metal (lot 100102), a small piece of copper ore (lot 090140), and two fragments of a small platy slag (lot 090126) (see Fig. 3.20). This suggests some form of smallscale copper processing in the early phase of this site; however, only laboratory analyses of these materials will be able to provide conclusions about the types of melting or smelting that took place.

Fig. 11.1 Metal and metallurgical artifacts from 1146: A) lot 080103; B) lot 081302; C) lot 080902; D) lot 081101; E) lot 090126; F) lot 090312.

metal

231

232

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Tower 1147 Tower 1147, excavated between 2008 and 2011, provided the largest assemblage of metal and metallurgical objects from sealed contexts, a total of 51 pieces (Table 11.3; Fig. 11.2). The vast majority of objects found in T. 1147 are small pieces of metal debris, with a large number of these described as ‘prills’ (a by-product of copper smelting). Much of the metallurgical debris was found in mudbrick construction and suggests that these date to the Late Hafit period. A number of slag fragments were located in the upper levels of mudbrick construction and may be Early Umm an-Nar in date. The pins, which tended to be highly corroded, were found in everything from Hafit to Medieval contexts. Alongside prills, there is further evidence of copper smelting with slag fragments and two crucibles, one of which had evidence of a blowhole or pouring spout. The first of these, lot 090831 (Fig.  11.2K), was found over a meter down inside the fill of a mudbrick compartment in the interior of the tower. Based on the combined chronometric and relative dating of other compartments, it is highly likely that this crucible dates to the Late Hafit period (see Chapter 4). The second crucible fragment, lot 091203, comes from the rocky fill of a large pit on the eastern interior of the tower. The pit was probably filled during the construction of the interior tower wall (i.e., the Early Umm an-Nar period), although it could be intrusive from later periods as well. A single mold fragment (lot 093205; Fig. 11.2A) was found in a pit of uncertain date, but as the only mold fragment known from Bat, it is worth noting. A tool found in mixed contexts on the top of the tower is described as a chisel (lot 090812; Fig. 11.2D) and has a number of stylistic similarities with tools found at other Umm an-Nar sites such as Ras al-Jinz (Cleuziou and Tosi 2000:51), Umm anNar Island (Frifelt 1995:195) and at Asimah (Vogt 1994). It has been hypothesized that this tool was used as a chisel for carving wood and stone, including the white limestone used in Umm an-Nar burials (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007). A single ornament (lot 100403; Fig. 11.2C) was found in T. 1147. It has been described as a pendant, though it may be an out-of-place net weight. It is a tear-dropped shaped piece of copper with a loop hole, so the piece was designed to be strung. It was

found amongst the rockfall (tower destruction levels), on the eastern side of the tower.

Tower 1156 A total of 25 metal or metallurgical objects were found at T. 1156 between 2010 and 2012, although that number is low as it treats small prills from the same lot as one artifact (Table 11.4; Fig. 11.3). Tower 1156 has been dated to the Early Umm an-Nar period, but had subsequent Mid-Late Umm an-Nar houses constructed on top, followed by Wadi Suq burials. Copper prills are rather ubiquitous on and around the tower, which is no doubt due to the prevalence of metallurgical pits found in the Early Umm an-Nar tower phase (see Chapter 6) and in the Umm an-Nar domestic phase of the Settlement Slope. Besides the metallurgical debris (including slagged crucible or furnace fragments, occasionally with blow-holes; e.g., Fig. 11.3A,E), the most interesting metal finds from T. 1156 are the three arrowheads (lots 101303, 101305, and 101306; Fig. 11.3B–D) found eroding out of a small oval-shaped tomb on the north side of the tower wall. A similar arrowhead was found by Frifelt (1976: fig. 4) along with Wadi Suq steatite vessels. Given that arrowheads are understood to be an innovation of the Wadi Suq period in this region (Magee 1998), it can be assumed that these arrowheads (and the associated tomb on T. 1156) date to ca. 2000–1600 BCE.

Operation A/B The surface collection and limited excavations in 2007 of two circular structures known as “Operation A” and “Operation B” to the west of T. 1145 provided a large assemblage of metal artifacts and metallurgical remains (Table 11.5; Fig. 11.4). While the corpus is similar to the metallurgical remains at T. 1156, the slags and crucible fragments are quite different. This may suggest either a chronological distinction or a different technological process. Unfortunately, most of the Operation A/B remains come from surface collection and not excavated contexts. The vast majority of the excavated part of the collection is metal debris, mostly consisting of copper prills or metal fragments. The plethora of copper prills, an “ingot” of copper straight from a cru-

233

metal

Table 11.3 Metal and metallurgical artifacts found at T. 1147. No.

Lot No.

Object

Metal

Period

29

092214

Slag

Copper

Bronze Age

1

080207

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

30

092215

Slag

Copper

Bronze Age

2

080400

Metal Debris

Copper

Mixed

31

092218

Tool

Copper

3

080811

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

Hafit (2nd phase)

4

080812

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

32

092607

Metal Debris

Copper

5

081006

Metal Debris

Copper

Mixed

Hafit (1st phase)

6

081402

Metal Debris

Copper

Mixed

33

093205

Mold

??

Iron Age?

7

081601

Metal Debris

Copper

Mixed

34

093209

Metal Debris

Copper

8

090406

Pin

Copper

Bronze Age– Iron Age

Hafit (2nd phase)/Early Umm an-Nar

35

093212

Slag

Copper

9

090410

Metal Debris

Copper

Hafit (1st phase)

Hafit (2nd phase)

36

100403

Ornament

Copper

10

090411

Pin

Copper

Hafit (1st phase)

Pre-Islamic (Destruction level)

11

090413

Metal Debris

Copper

Hafit (1st phase)

37

101205

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age– Iron Age

12

090416

Pin

Copper

Hafit (1st phase)

38

101407

Pin

Copper

Mixed

39

101410

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

13

090621

Metal Debris

Copper

Medieval

40

101411

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

14

090627

Pin

Copper

Medieval

41

101415

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

15

090802

Metal Debris

Copper

Pre-Modern

42

101420

Metal Debris

Copper

16

090805

Pin

Copper

Medieval

Early Umm an-Nar

17

090807

Metal Debris

Copper

Post-Bronze Age

43

101423

Metal Debris

Copper

18

090809

Tool

Copper

Bronze Age

Hafit (2nd phase)/Early Umm an-Nar

19

090812

Tool

Copper

Bronze Age

44

101602

Metal Debris

Copper

20

090813

Slag

Copper

Bronze Age

Pre-Islamic (Destruction level)

21

090818

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

45

102602

Metal Debris

Copper

22

090819

Metal Debris

Copper

Hafit (2nd phase)

Hafit (2nd phase)/Early Umm an-Nar

23

090831

Crucible

Copper

Hafit (2nd phase)

46

102603

Metal Debris

Copper

24

090833

Metal Debris

Copper

Medieval

Hafit (2nd phase)/Early Umm an-Nar

25

091202

Ring

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

47

102604

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

48

102610

Metal Debris

Copper

Mixed

26

091203

Crucible

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

49

110211

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

27

092205

Metal Debris

Copper

Islamic

50

110542

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

28

092212

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

51

111401

Metal Debris

Copper

Mixed

Fig. 11.2 Metal and metallurgical artifacts from T. 1147: A) lot 093205; B) lot 091202; C) lot 100403; D) lot 090812; E) lot 091128; F) lot 090406; G) lot 090824; H) lot 101407; I) lot 090416; J) lot 090427; K) lot 090831.

235

metal

Table 11.4 Metal and metallurgical artifacts found at T. 1156. No.

Lot No.

Object

Metal

Period

1

070070

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

2

101301

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

3

101303

Arrowhead

Copper

Wadi Suq

4

101305

Arrowhead

Copper

Wadi Suq

5

101306

Arrowhead

Copper

Wadi Suq

6

101502

Crucible

Copper

Bronze Age

7

101905

Crucible

Copper

Bronze Age

8

11SS116

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

9

1255144

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

10

1255148

Crucible

Copper

Late Umm an-Nar

11

1255156

Crucible

Copper

Late Umm an-Nar

12

1255166

Metal Debris

Copper

Late Umm an-Nar

13

1255176

Metal Debris

Copper

Late Umm an-Nar

14

1255205

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

15

1255209

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

16

1255209

Slag

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

17

1255210

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

18

1255213

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

19

1255216

Metal Debris

Copper

Bronze Age

20

1255228

Crucible

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

21

1255228

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

22

1255229

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

23

1255251

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

24

1255251

Crucible

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

25

1255261

Metal Debris

Copper

Early Umm an-Nar

cible (lot 071004), and crucible fragments (e.g., lots 070143 and 070508) from the preliminary excavations at Operation A highlight the importance of copper smelting in this area of Bat.

Summary It is evident that the Bat metal assemblage included a fair amount of artifacts associated with copper production. This included a sizable number of copper fragments, copper prills, slags, and furnace/ crucible fragments, all of which are waste products in the smelting or reworking of copper. As mentioned above, both T. 1156 and Operation A/B appear to have been areas of intense metallurgical production, given the copious copper-slagged crucible fragments and prills from these sites. Only T. 1156, however, has in situ firepits with associated crucible fragments, slags, and prills, dated to the Early Umm an-Nar periods. The entire corpus of Umm an-Nar metallurgical production is deserving of greater study and laboratory analysis. The presence of Umm an-Nar metallurgical remains from Bat conforms to our understanding that copper production played an important role in the local and interregional economies of the region during the Bronze Age (Weeks 2004). However, the discovery of metallurgical remains from Hafit levels—including crucibles, slags, prills, and even ore— was a pleasant surprise, as it opens up an entirely new chapter on the early period of copper production in ancient Magan (Giardino 2015). Of particular importance, is the fact that the Bat metallurgical assemblage covers almost the entire Bronze Age, thereby providing the only diachronic view of the development of Arabian copper production anywhere in Oman or the UAE. Surprisingly, the number of metal artifacts from Bat is small and mostly unimpressive. It is unclear whether this is due to the fact that these excavations focused on monumental contexts without significant artifactual deposits, or because the Bronze Age people of Bat did not utilize a significant amount of metal in their daily lives. Only future excavations of domestic contexts at Bat will be able to answer that question.

Fig. 11.3 Metal and metallurgical artifacts from T. 1156: A) lot 1255229; B) lot 101303; C) lot 101305; D) lot 101306; E) lot 1255228.

237

metal

Table 11.5 Metal and metallurgical artifacts found at Operation A/B. No.

Lot No.

Object

Metal

Period

25

070128

Crucible

Copper

Surface

1

070101

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

26

070133

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

2

070101

Pin

Copper

Surface

27

070135

Crucible

Copper

Surface

3

070101

Slag

Copper

Surface

28

070142

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

4

070102

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

29

070143

Crucible

Copper

Surface

5

070102

Crucible

Copper

Surface

30

070144

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

6

070103

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

31

070145

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

7

070107

Ornament

Copper

Surface

32

070148

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

8

070108

Slag

Copper

Surface

33

070202

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

9

070109

Slag

Copper

Surface

34

070204

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

10

070110

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

35

070407

Slag

Copper

Umm an-Nar

11

070111

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

36

070415

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

12

070112

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

37

070416

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

13

070113

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

38

070501

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

14

070114

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

39

070505

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

15

070115

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

40

070508

Crucible

Copper

Umm an-Nar

16

070115

Pin

Copper

Surface

41

070800

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

17

070116

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

42

070803

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

18

070117

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

43

070900

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

19

070118

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

44

070903

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

20

070119

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

45

071002

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

21

070120

Slag

Copper

Surface

46

071004

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

22

070121

Metal Debris

Copper

Surface

47

071204

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

23

070121

Slag

Copper

Surface

48

071206

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

24

070125

Crucible

Copper

Surface

49

071207

Metal Debris

Copper

Umm an-Nar

Fig. 11.4 Metal and metallurgical artifacts from Operation A/B: at left, various metal fragments (lots 070900 and 070142), a pin (lot 070900), and a crucible fragment (lot 070102); at right, crucible fragment lot 070125.

238 the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

12 Preliminary Report on Ground Stone Artifacts from Bat Teresa Costa

Introduction

Definitions and Methodology

rchaeological excavations undertaken in the first phase of the Bat Archaeological Project (2007–12) brought to light a groundstone assemblage from excavated contexts. The analysis of the material began in 2009 and the assemblage consists of groundstone tools such as hammerstones and querns, but does not include the by-products of their manufacture (e.g., flakes). The study of Bat´s groundstone artifacts follows a contextual perspective, aiming to not only understand their technological characteristics (raw materials, manufacture, consumption, and discard) but also to investigate their role within archaeological contexts. A preliminary spatial study has provided a plan of groundstone distribution at Bat and tests the possibility of specific activity areas at the site (in situ) as well as their eventual secondary or tertiary function as tower fill or part of the stone walling. This spatial analysis was complimented through the application of a macroscopic study of the stones themselves to look at raw material, residue, and use-wear. Basic petrographic analysis is included in this preliminary report, but it is desirable that a final study will include more robust data to produce insights into possible resource exploitation, as well as assessing material of manufacture. Stones used in tomb architecture matched quarries found on mountains north and northwest of Bat, so the possibility of local exploitation should be considered (Böhme et al. 2008).

As the general system of groundstone classification tends to be non-standardized, this chapter uses Wright´s classification system for the Levant (K. Wright 1991, 1992, 2008) and Davis’s report on groundstone tools from Muweilah, UAE (Davis 1998:209) as a basis for terminology and typology. Hammerstones, pestles, and grinding stones are the upper, active components of the lower and stable grinding slabs (or querns), mortars, and anvils, used together for the processing of various substances, such as grain or pigments (Adams 2002). Querns (or grinding slabs), anvils, and mortars are passive, lower stones with parallel and perpendicular wear consistent with a forward/backward motion of use or evidence of pecking from vertical percussive force. Hammerstones and pestles use percussive force, while grinding stones use abrasive force. Many groundstone tools at Bat display both percussive and abrasive features. All groundstone artifacts from Bat were given a lot number, following the system applied across the project’s excavations. This information was entered on lot sheets in the field and then transferred to an Excel spreadsheet with various fields relating to groundstone description. Artifacts were photographed digitally (face, base, and profile), examined in the laboratory with the naked eye, measured, weighed, described, and sketched. Special attention was paid to the working surfaces of the tools. Archaeological context and associated finds were also considered in order to establish the nature of the deposits.

A

240

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

The following measurement data were collected: maximum length of groundstone tool, maximum width, maximum thickness, and weight. Less frequent features, such as cupmarks, were measured and described separately. Object type was established based on the typological and morphological elements. Typology is based upon morphology (shape and tool dimensions) and technology, i.e., the manufacture of the item emphasizing the working surface (e.g., flaked, pecked, coarse or finely ground, abraded surface) and its use-wear (e.g., battered, pecked, finely ground, striations). The conservative nature of these tool types over thousands of years makes it difficult to assign chronological periods or function of the objects without context. Most groundstone tools served mainly as a means of processing subsistence resources. The dating of such artifacts also poses several issues: if sealed by sediments for a long duration, one is only able to infer the context of its discard, not its actual use unless found in situ. This report presents the main technological characteristics of the groundstone artifacts from Bat. This is achieved using the elements listed in the database, such as: place of collection, evidence for usewear, and contextual processing. Use-wear analysis is designed to determine the direction and motion of use. Abrasive use-wear is caused when harder, elevated grains present in the surface matrix press into the softer material of the opposing contact surface (Davis 1998:222). In terms of archaeological context, studying these artifacts requires taking into consideration whole systems of organization. The interpretation of groundstone assemblages also requires analyzing raw materials, residues, experimental studies, sources, quarrying, etc.—aspects to expound upon in future studies.

Archaeological contexts and artifacts The artifacts studied were collected from mainly from excavated archaeological contexts from towers, T. 1146 (Kasr al-Khafaji), T. 1147 (Matariya), T. 1156 (Settlement Slope), and Operation A, as well as surface collection around Bat and Al-Khutm. The total assemblage comprises 121 artifacts. Most recorded groundstone artifacts (78.5%) come from Ma-

tariya (T. 1147), followed by the Settlement Slope tower (T. 1156) with 8.2%, Operation A with 7.4%, and Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) with only 4.1% (the remaining 1.8% come from nearby sites such as alKhutm).

Operation A Grinding stones and hammerstones were found both on the surface and during excavation of Operation A. The same lots contained ceramics including fine red wares, black on red Harappan wares, and painted coarse wares suggestive of the Umm an-Nar and early Wadi Suq periods (Possehl et al. 2007: figs. 17, 18). Five grinding stones were collected in this context (070415, 070306, 070127, 070040, and 070041). Only one (070041) is complete, oval in shape (26.5 cm length x 14.7 cm width), with a concave face and convex base. All show unifacial usewear surfaces and abundant pecking remains. The six hammerstones from Operation A (070702, 071006, 070305, 071007, 070609, and 070124) are complete and have 3 or 4 use-wear surfaces (Fig. 12.1). Two of the hammerstones were exposed to very high temperatures and have evident cracks (070702, 071006). They are circular in shape, but due to use-wear, present flat “surfaces.” Diameter varies from 13.5 to 6.6 cm and both hammerstones display pecking.

Kasr al-Khafaji (T. 1146) At Khafaji, artifacts were collected from Trench (Tr.) 46173 (080310), Tr. A (090124, 090132, 090139), and Tr. B (090319). Artifact 080310 was found amongst fallen debris in the northeast corner of Tr. 46173, between the extension wall and tower wall, used as part of the building material for the tower (Fig. 12.2). It is rectangular in shape, with a concave face and convex base. The sides were presumably cut in order to make new edges for the grinding tool. From Tr. A, two partial querns (090124 and 090132) were found together in the Hafit levels along with a complete and multipurpose groundstone tool (artifact 090139) (Figs. 12.3 and 12.4). Made of a hard stone, 090139 is oval shaped (13 cm length) and has a groove on one short side, while one

preliminary report on ground stone artifacts from bat

241

Fig. 12.1 Hammerstones (lots 070305 and 071000) from Operation A.

large side is completely flat with a round central depression. This object, unique in the Bat assemblage, was probably used for several purposes, perhaps as a drill-base and an anvil. This tool has been used one or more times for the same purpose or for different functions (reused tool), namely processing all sorts of materials, other than cereal (Eitam 2009:90). In Tr. B, two groundstone tools were found in the fill of Structure 1 (dated 2460–2270 cal. BCE). Artifact 090319 is circular in plan, with slightly convex faces and abundant linear striations (Fig. 12.5). The flattest side has a round central depression caused by pecking, suggesting its use as an anvil. Artifact 090324-A was found in the same context and appears to be a whetstone, with the short sides smoothed from use (Fig. 12.6). It appears to be made

from some sort of serpentine schist, although that requires proper identification through future analyses.

Matariya (T. 1147) Surface strata inside the tower Five groundstone fragments were found on the tower surface (without lot numbers) and one on the surrounding slope (100002). All were very fragmented, making it difficult to infer certain main morphological features. Twenty-eight groundstone items were collected within the surface stratum, composed of loose, sandy silt frequently mixed with tower rockfall, sun-burnt wadi-cobbles, and small- to

242

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 12.2 Quern (lot 080310) found in the tower wall fill of T. 1146.

preliminary report on ground stone artifacts from bat

Fig. 12.3 Quern (lot 090132) from the Hafit period levels found underneath T. 1146 in Tr. A.

243

244

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 12.4 Multipurpose hammerstone/anvil (lot 090139) from the Hafit period levels found underneath T. 1146 in Tr. A.

preliminary report on ground stone artifacts from bat

Fig. 12.5 Multipurpose hammerstone/anvil (lot 090319) found inside Structure 1 amongst Middle Umm an-Nar fill in Tr. B at T. 1146.

245

246

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 12.6 Whetstone (090324-A, left) and possible chert core (090324-B, right) found inside Structure 1 amongst Middle Umm an-Nar fill in Tr. B at T. 1146.

medium-sized stones (Fig. 12.7). This stratum also contained pottery, mostly from the Islamic Period, bones, burned date pits, metal fragments, and small shells. In terms of morphology, all items except two (092201A, 092202A) display a high degree of fragmentation. Of the observed use-wear surfaces, twenty-three were unifacial and five bifacial. The majority are oval in shape, with 18 having concave faces and 15 having flat bases. All the use-wear surfaces contain abundant pecking and occasionally striations (092201, 101614).

Inside the tower Three hammerstones (100805A, 100806, 100807) were discovered in compact soil with plaster like clumps cut into the foundation trench of the tower wall. They are all complete, with diameters measuring between 5.2 and 7 cm, and they dis-

play multifacial use-wear surfaces. Half of a quern (100805B), found in the same context, has an oval shape, flat face, and convex base (Fig. 12.8). Amongst a large rockfall mixed with loose sediment between the encircling ring wall and the tower wall, a hammerstone (101613) was collected along with Umm an-Nar period pottery and lithics. Half of a grinding stone (090603), displaying a flat face and base with abundant pecking in the visible use-wear surface, was collected among the silty, clumpy sediment with ash, charcoal flakes, animal bone fragments, and a complete Crushed Black Stone Coarse Ware vessel in Tr. 470572. Three grinding stones (090803, 090806, 090809) were identified in sediment containing small rocks as fill and clayey silt between two flat rock structures (Tr. 470612). Of these, the first two are oval shaped; both have flat faces and bases. They were found with non-articulated animal bone fragments, copper prills, a copper chisel, and an Islamic period ceramic base and body sherd. In the same trench, but on the silty clay abutting the well, grinding stone 090809 was found. It is roughly oval (only half complete) and possesses a concave face and convex base. From Trs. 470652 and 470653, six groundstone artifacts were collected (093204A, 093204B, 093204C, 093204D, 091805A, 091805B). One is complete, though fragmented in three pieces (093204C); it is oval shaped and measures 32  cm long by 17 cm wide. All have flat faces, except one that is convex with abundant signs of pecking (091805A); four present convex bases (093204A, 093204B, 093204C, 093204D), while two have flat bases (091805A, 091805B). Those with identifiable features are oval shaped. Two grinding stones from Tr. 470574 were found in silty sand with clumps of clay and decayed mudbrick chunks (092002A, 092002B). These artifacts show the comparison of two distinct shapes, oval (092002A) and circular (092002B), although both present flat surfaces, convex bases, and signs of pecking all over the use-wear surfaces. Artifacts 101204, 101205A, and 101205B from trench 470533 were mixed with the rockfall layers covering the mudbrick structures (part of the foundation trench for the wall inside the tower). Of these, 101204 has an oval shape, concave face, and flat base.

Fig. 12.7 A selection of querns (lot 092201) found on or near the surface amongst tower rockfall around T. 1147.

preliminary report on ground stone artifacts from bat

247

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

248

Fig. 12.8 Hammerstones (lot 100807, left, and lot 101613, right) found amongst the tower rockfall outside of T. 1147.

Tower wall Trench 470611 includes part of the inner tower wall and abundant rockfall. The sediment was clayey and silty, occasionally in small clumps. In this context, nine grinding stones were found, two complete (101403, 101406) and seven in a poor state of preservation (101404, 101405, 101409A, 101409B, 101409C, 101409D, 101417). They were found along with flint flakes, pebbles, and a copper pin. Grinding stone 101417 was included in the inner course of the tower wall (Fig. 12.9). Despite their poor preservation, most shapes appear to be oval or rectangular, surfaces were mostly concave (five) but also flat (two), and all had flat bases. All exhibited unifacial use-wear surfaces and abundant remains of pecking. Artifact 101403 measures 30 cm long by

17 cm wide; 101406 is a cobble with a 7 cm diameter use-wear surface and is 15 cm long by 12.8 cm wide (Fig. 12.10). Its exposure to high temperatures caused cracks and surface marks. Residue analysis may be very relevant in tracing what sort of materials were processed on these grinding stones. From the surface stratum of the tower wall fill in Tr. 470610, a grinding stone (080402) was found with concave face, flat base, and unifacial use-wear surface. Trench 470491 contained silty, loamy soil and rockfall close to a degenerated mudbrick wall, containing two sherds of (intrusive?) Early Iron Age pottery, shells (e.g., a dentalium bead) and lithics. Artifacts 101604 and 101605 both had flat usewear surfaces with abundant pecking and one has a convex base.

preliminary report on ground stone artifacts from bat

249

Fig. 12.9 Quern (lot 101417) found as part of the inner tower wall at T. 1147.

Within the tower: pits and hearths Hammerstone 101420 and grinding stones (091808, 091810, 093202A, 092203A, 092203B) were found in pits inside the tower along with pebbles, sandy clay sediment, and abundant stones varying from small to large in size. Four grinding stones are complete with lengths varying from 36.8 cm to 24.5 cm, all are oval shaped with concave surfaces. Three have convex bases and one has a flat base. Fragments 092203A and 092203B come from a big, irregularly shaped pit (3.5 m in length) filled

with smooth wadi stones, decayed mudbricks, a few pottery fragments (Wadi Suq and Islamic periods), small shells, and copper prills. The first object (092203A) is complete, measuring 29.2 cm long by 15 cm wide, and oval shaped, with a concave face and convex base. The object has abundant pecking signs on the use-wear surface. Two groundstone artifacts were identified next to mudbrick walls (091808 and 091810), in a semicircular pit abutting the tower wall containing stones, wadi cobbles, mudbrick chunks, and a single sherd of imported Mesopotamian pottery of the Hafit peri-

250

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 12.10 Mortar stone (lot 101406) found as part of the inner tower wall at T. 1147.

od (Fig. 12.11). Quern 091808 is complete, 24.5 cm in length by 11.3 cm in width, and oval shaped with a concave face and convex base. Three grinding stones (093202A, 093202B, 093202C) were collected from a pit filled with pebbles and scarce, sandy silt containing small shells and stones. Their length varies between 29.2 and 36 cm; widths range from 15.3 to 17.1 cm, and thickness from 3.3 to 3.7 cm. Object 093202C exhibits a circular 6.5 cm diameter concavity (Fig. 12.12). Two items were found in hearths within the surface strata (090801, 090802). Both hearths seem recent and were filled with rocks, ashes, and silty sediment containing copper prills. The grinding stones were included in the surrounding circle of stones forming the hearths.

Another pit abutting the tower wall and over the mudbrick compartments contained small shells and copper prills. Hammerstone 101420 was complete with one notably flat surface caused by a particular use-wear.

Outside the tower In the surface stratum of Tr. 470609, two spherical hammerstones (081201, 081202) were collected with respective diameters of 6.7 and 5.2 cm. An identical object (080210) was found on the clayey loam sediment of Tr. 470569, with a 5.5 cm diameter and multifacial use-wear surfaces. From the same archaeological context, a grinding stone (080216) was recovered. Trench 470608 provided another half grinding

preliminary report on ground stone artifacts from bat

251

Fig. 12.11 Quern (lot 091808) found next to Hafit period mudbrick walls along with an imported Mesopotamian sherd at T. 1147.

stone (80609), rectangular shaped, with a concave face, and flat base, located close to the outer wall. Outside the tower, from Tr. 470567, grinding stones 080808 and 080813 were amongst the tower wall fall along with Umm an-Nar pottery, lithics, and copper prills. These artifacts were oval shaped when originally complete, both with current dimensions of 15.6 cm long by 9.6–9.4 cm wide. They are flat in plan and with a slightly convex bases. Next to the

aforementioned trench, Tr. 470568 contains a grinding stone (081008) made of sandstone or quartzite with a unifacial use-wear surface, flat base, and signs of pecking and striations. Grinding stone 080609 was collected between the retaining walls (Trs. 470608/470609) along with hammerstones 081201 and 081202. The grinding stone is concave in plan and the base is flat, with a unifacial use-wear surface.

252

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 12.12 Quern fragments (lot 093202) found inside T. 1147 within a pit of likely prehistoric date; the top near-complete quern (093202C) has a small circular depression on the left side.

Mudbrick compartments Grinding stone fragments 090822A, 090822B, and 090822C from Tr. 470612 were inside mudbrick walled compartments, whose sediment contained mudbrick chunks, pebbles, and animal bone. All had flat working surfaces. All show pecking and one has striations (090822B). Artifact 080825 (Fig.  12.13) was found in packed mud along with non-articulated animal bone fragments. This hemispherical tool is probably a hammerstone having been exposed to high temperatures.

Trenches 470693 and 470694 are outside and south of the tower. A complete hammerstone (111602), diameter 4.7 cm, was found inside a mudbrick compartment. The re-use of groundstone tools such as querns, mortars, and pestles as construction material occurs predominantly at Matariya, but perhaps also at Kasr al-Khafaji.

Tower 1156 and the Settlement Slope The following objects were collected during the excavation of T. 1156 and may date to the tower con-

preliminary report on ground stone artifacts from bat

253

Fig. 12.13 Groundstone tool (lot 080825) found inside a mudbrick compartment outside T. 1147.

struction (Early Umm an-Nar) or to the period of habitation (Late Umm an-Nar/Wadi Suq). Three grinding stone fragments (101301A, 101301B, 101301C) and a hammerstone (101301D) were identified along with mixed pottery, lithics, and copper from a surface stratum. The grinding stones are highly fragmented, oval shaped, and possess flat faces and bases. The hammerstone is complete with a diameter of 6 cm and multifacial use-wear surfaces. Artifact 101307 is the most complete anvil stone found thus far at Bat and may relate to the processing of copper ores or slag, given the high density of copper prills found nearby (Fig. 12.14). Other groundstone finds from T. 1156 include: •

•

Hammerstones 11SS110, 11SS116, and 11SS127 are spherical in shape, presenting multifacial use-wear and polished surfaces. They have diameters ranging from 6 to 10 cm. Artifact 11SS101 is an unusual mortar made of porous limestone, similar to the fossilized corals found along the Oman coastline (Fig. 12.15).

•

•

This object is broken in half and was found on the surface. Artifact 101908 was collected amongst the rockfall and silty sediment from the double wall of T. 1156 and is half of a quern stone. One side is flat while the other is concave. Hammerstone 1255144 was found in the fill of the upper ditch surrounding T. 1156. It is roughly 6 cm in diameter and has at least one flattened working surface.

Artifacts Technology Based on their technological characteristics, the groundstone tools from Bat have been classified into the following categories: grinding tools (including querns and rollers) and percussion tools (hammerstones, pestles, mortars, and anvils). Artifacts in an extremely fragmented state (one-half to one-quarter complete) represent most of the assemblage (70.2%), although many allow for the identification of diagnostic features such as face and base typology. Each

254

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Fig. 12.14 Hammerstone (lot 101301) and anvil (lot 101307) found among surface debris and rockfall at T. 1156.

category is further divided into smaller groups, according to similarities in the morphological or functional features of the artifacts such as shape and usewear surfaces.

Grinding Stones The dominant category of the assemblage is that of grinding stones (81.9%). These quern stones would remain stable during use. In Bat, they were made of coarse- or fine-grained sandstone/quartzite, limestone, or harder metamorphic stones (e.g. 101406) that would easily pulverize the working materials. In the future, data regarding the petrographic

identification of the assemblage will be included, allowing for a more a quantitative approach. Actions like flaking and pecking were extensively used for creating the broad, unbounded work faces of the tools. Pecking was also applied in order to rejuvenate the work faces when they became dull. The same techniques were used, when needed, for the shaping of the base in order to increase the tool’s stability on the ground or at the user’s lap (Tsoraki 2007). Pecking marks, almost eliminated by successive grinding wear, were also located on the sides of a few specimens. The purpose of this procedure could be to allow easier storage while not in use. Most of the stable grinding stones have an open, broad, and

preliminary report on ground stone artifacts from bat

255

Fig. 12.15 Fossilized coral (?) mortar (lot 11SS101) found among surface debris at T. 1156.

unrestricted surface that has been used in a passive abrasive mode. The faces are either flat or slightly concave in transverse cross-section, an attribute strongly affected by the morphology of the upper grinder. The assemblage gathered from several distinct archaeological areas in Bat displays regularity in shape. Among the complete grinding artifacts (lower/passive stones), excluding cobble-made objects, they are all oval shaped. Their profiles are either symmetrical or asymmetrical and the transverse section is plano-convex or rectangular, relating the deepest part of the use-surface to the heaviest grinding wear. Reciprocal movement is usually encountered in the elliptical/rectangular grinders, though a closer observation may provide information on direction. The length of the intact specimens ranges between 15.6–36 cm, widths are 9.4–17 cm, and thicknesses vary between 3.3–4.4 cm. These dimen-

sions indicate the portable character of the passive tools. In other words, it is possible that many of the querns used to build the stone wall at Matariya were brought there from elsewhere, rather than that Matariya was a common place for these grinding activities. Further research at both towers and settlements is required to obtain an accurate distribution map of these artifacts. Artifacts 093202C (Tr. 470652 at Matariya) and 101307 (Tr. SS0761 at T. 1156) are characterized by the presence of cupmarks designated as “small and shallow depressions said to be for seed grinding” (K. Wright 1991:31). On the Matariya example, the cupmark has a 6.5 cm diameter located on one end of the longitudinal axis. On the T. 1156 example, the cupmark (with a 10 cm diameter) exists in the center of a hexagonal shaped stone. Both cupmarks are concave in section. Studies tend to provide evidence of activities other than food preparation (Eitam 2009:97).

256

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

Hammerstones The hammerstones of Bat are mobile handstones of spherical or hemispherical shape that have been used with one, two, or several flat or slightly convex faces, in order to perform percussive actions. On some specimens, the globular shape could be the result of the repeated percussive use, performed with all the faces of the tool (Adams 2002). Hammerstones represent 18.1% of the total assemblage. However, it is highly possible that many percussion tools could have also acted independently of their passive components when needed. Surfaces of the hammerstones also tend to present distinct features like scars and fractures due to use-wear. This category presents an excellent level of completeness. All handheld grinders are of sizes suitable to be manipulated with only one hand, with diameters ranging between 4.7 and 7 cm and an average diameter of 5.8 cm. The smaller specimens are considered to be exhausted since they cannot be held securely in order to perform accurate strokes. In hemispherical hammerstones (090825, 092002C), length varies between 19.2 and 12 cm and thickness ranges from 12 to 8 cm. Due to use-wear, hammerstone 081202 from Tr. 470609 at Matariya presents a cuboid shape.

Contexts of Consumption and Discard This preliminary report presents grinding technologies from Bat´s archaeological sites and provides insights about their use and discard practices. The presence of intact groundstone tools, some of them probably located in situ, provides some indication of the activities that these areas once hosted. Ethnographic and archaeological evidence in 2nd millennium BCE Mesopotamia suggests that grinding tools would process diverse materials in addition to cereal or seeds. Furthermore, cereal consumption always demands dehusking or roasting as part of the grinding process (K. Wright 1991:33–35). In fact, the versatile character of Bat’s assemblage suggests their involvement in a wide range of activities, like processing edible substances such as plant foods (e.g., cereal grains), as well as for copper ore and slag processing. In the future, analysis of starch granules should be considered in order to assess what types of cere-

als were processed at the site. Botanical remains were collected through flotation and manual methods during archaeological excavations. Currently, available archaeobotanical data from Frifelt’s (1995) campaigns provide evidence for a variety of plant species present in the region during the Umm an-Nar period. The most common crops (see Appendix I) were wheat (Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare), a tendency verified in the Gulf specifically at Hili. This latter Umm an-Nar site shares similar characteristics with Bat and provided remains of Hordeum distichum, Hordeum vulgare, Hordeum nudum, Triticum diccocum, and Triticum aestivam (Davis 1998:216–19). The identification of the crops used in the 3rd millennium BCE through botanical analysis is of relevance to understanding the type of activities taking place in the towers. The spatial and chronological analysis of the groundstone tools is still in progress. Complete objects are scarce in this assemblage although contextual data point to the existence of grinding tasks in situ. A proposal advanced for Khirbet Aujah El-Foqa in the Jordan Valley suggests that the absence of intact grinding tools may indicate that the inhabitants took the intact and more portable tools with them when they abandoned the settlement (Eitam 2008). Given their small size, most grinding stones could easily have been transported according to the needs of people in the settlements or towers. Simultaneously, based on the modest size of most passive grinding stones, the amount of processed grain indicates that these were probably used to cover domestic needs and not for communal, large-scale events. To determine the extent of food processed, the ancient tools should be compared with similar implements from domestic habitations of more recent periods. Most of the tools are exhausted, broken, or burned, indicating that they were disposed of during the final stages of their lifecycles and reused in the construction of tower walls as fill in pits and in hearths. A considerable number of implements recovered at Matariya were located in pits and hearths with evidence of burning/exposure to firing (11.5%). Pit 092202 caused the collapse of some mudbrick compartment walls and may have been responsible for the removal of part of the inner tower wall. Besides the quern stone fragments, abundant wadi pebbles, larger stones, deteriorated mudbricks, a few

preliminary report on ground stone artifacts from bat

possible Wadi Suq or Iron Age sherds, a sea shell, and a cuttlefish bone were present in this pit. Only a limited number of groundstone objects (ca. 5%) were found in contexts contemporary with the use of T. 1147. In the interior of the mudbrick compartments, several broken querns were found in combination with sub-angular stones, wadi cobbles, chunks of mudbrick, and disarticulated faunal remains suggesting that they were deliberately filled or possibly over-filled. A charcoal sample from the fill provided a date from the early 3rd millennium BCE (see Chapter 4). A rim sherd of imitation Mesopotamian ware (lot 090827) was collected along with groundstone fragments from compartment 090819 inside the tower. In Bat, grinding implements are present in several tombs, such as in Umm an-Nar tomb 401 (2400– 2200 BCE) which provided evidence of two reddish limestone groundstone fragments collected outside the structure from the surface (Böhme and Al-Sabri

257

2011). Other researchers propose that burial rites or practices taking place outside the monument could explain their presence (Böhme and Al-Sabri 2011, K. Wright 1991). Deposits of grinding stones are often recorded from Umm an-Nar monuments, both inside and outside, and limestone itself is extremely pertinent to Umm an-Nar tomb architecture (Frifelt 1991, Böhme et al. 2008). Furthermore, groundstone is evidenced at numerous sites of various periods in Oman and in the UAE (Davis 1998). The preliminary results of the groundstone assemblage coming from distinct archaeological sites in Bat denotes the dynamic and versatile character of the material under study. Archaeological research at this site is ongoing and the assemblage of groundstone tools is ever-growing. A more detailed and contextualized study of these artifacts is required to understand the lifecycles of these tools, approach their social meanings and investigate their role in ancient Oman society.

13 Conclusion Charlotte M. Cable and Christopher P. Thornton

Between Two Civilizations (redux)

T

his book began by placing ancient Oman between the great powers of Mesopotamia and the Indus Civilization. Studies of ancient “Magan”—particularly the Omani side—have been far more limited than in these two areas, and the now-defunct core-periphery narrative that has pervaded archaeological research in the Arabian Peninsula and Southern Iran for decades is a reflection of that lacuna. As numerous scholars have noted, we must first understand the local and regional situation before we can truly understand interregional dynamics. To do so, however, we must have a cultural and chronological baseline and a basic understanding of the types of monuments that define these archaeological periods. The excavations carried out by the Bat Archaeological Project between 2007 and 2012 were meant to address this lack of knowledge by expanding upon Karen Frifelt’s seminal work on the Bat towers using updated archaeological techniques and radiocarbon dating. This research has provided a few key contributions to our knowledge of Bronze Age Bat: 1. Not all towers were in use at the same time, which calls into question the assumption that sites with multiple towers were larger or more important settlements (e.g., Cable and Thornton 2013), as opposed to just settlements with a continuous history of occupation over the 3rd millennium BCE.

2. Towers tended to be used for only a few hundred years or less and then abandoned (in the case of T. 1156) or significantly altered (in the case of T. 1147 and perhaps T. 1146). In their abandoned states, many were reused in later periods as middens, as places for displaying rock art, or for their wells. 3. The earliest (Hafit) towers were made of mudbrick while later (Umm an-Nar) towers were made of stone, but the transition from mudbrick to stone happened locally and organically, without significant changes to the style of the monuments or the material culture enclosed therein. 4. Frifelt’s hypothesis that many (if not all) of the towers at Bat were somehow related to water management appears to be true, as best demonstrated by the ditch, retaining wall, and well at T. 1147 and by the ditch and cistern complex outside of T. 1156. 5. Although the modern landscape of Bat appears static, given the numerous Bronze Age monuments still on the surface in various areas, it was in fact an incredibly dynamic landscape over the past few millennia, accruing and then often losing meters of deposit through erosion and deflation. Thus, T. 1147 today stands a meter or so above the modern alluvial plain, while contemporaneous levels at T. 1146 lie buried under two meters of this same alluvium. 6. The controlled silting of the landscape, as seen in unit 2.21 in the roadcut section (S1), may have begun in the Omani interior as early as the

260

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

mid-4th millennium BCE, long before settled agricultural villages and Hafit monuments were erected. Our evidence for this, as presented in Chapter 2, must remain preliminary at this stage and should be checked by future investigations of the Bat alluvial plain. However, if proven by later studies, it suggests an early control of water resources, presumably for pasture cultivation, which may have led to the irrigation agriculture of the 3rd millennium BCE. 7. The appearance of rare imported Mesopotamian ceramics to Bat in the late Hafit period is accompanied by what appears to be the local or regional creation of imitations. If this proves to be the case, this may represent the earliest known evidence for local pottery production on the Oman Peninsula. 8. The widespread usage of pottery does not appear until after 2500 BCE, when Umm an-Nar ceramics dominate the assemblage. However, mixed in with these local ceramics are a significant number of Indus-style ceramics, including storage vessels, cooking pots, and other utilitarian kitchen wares, which appear to be locally produced. 9. Bat has the largest diachronic assemblage of metallurgical materials ever found in the 3rd millennium BCE of Oman or the UAE, including crucibles, slags, and finished metal artifacts from the Hafit to the mid-late Umm an-Nar levels.

The Uniqueness of Bat Since its earliest research, there are only a handful of archaeological sites in Oman that have received the kind of in-depth studies that have been given to Bat. Of these, Bat stands out both as an oasis site of the Omani interior and due to its prevalence of 3rd millennium BCE towers. These investigations have provided archaeologists with a partial chronology for the towers and, thus, a potential formula for understanding technological and morphological differences between towers across the Oman Peninsula. The continued attention on Bat is not misplaced. Since its first mention in archaeological circles it has been clear that, while today only a small community, Bat in the 3rd millennium BCE was a major center of ancient Magan. It should come as little surprise then to consider that the origins of the oasis at Bat

appear to be relatively early (at least the mid-4th millennium BCE) and consistent for the next few thousand years. Despite its distance from the critical sea trade along the coast, Bat was no backwater. Instead, it probably functioned as one of the crucial nodes in a network of pastoral, agricultural, and specialized mining settlements along the interior (overland) trade route from the Arabian Sea to the Persian Gulf. Bat’s position and size made it not only a key player in long-distance trade and exchange with Mesopotamia and the Indus Civilization, but also no doubt an important nexus of social and economic power within ancient Magan itself. The early development of Bat as an agricultural oasis in the 4th millennium BCE makes it possible (for the first time) to study the transition from Neolithic pastoralism to Hafit villages to complex Umm an-Nar period oasis towns. Similarly, the complex construction sequences of the towers currently excavated make Bat a key location for understanding the origin and function of these important Bronze Age monuments and their role in the broader Bronze Age social and cultural landscape. In addition, current work on the domestic structures at Bat (to be presented in future publications), in combination with the tower excavations presented here, will allow for the first radiocarbon-dated ceramic sequence to be constructed for the 3rd millennium BCE in the interior of Oman. Such a sequence is currently lacking, and makes the dating of surveyed sites and even excavated graves somewhat difficult. We may never know precisely what the Bronze Age towers of Bat were used for. All of the towers currently excavated at Bat, with the possible exception of T. 1145, have been reused in later periods, thereby obscuring whatever sat on top of these mudbrick and stone platforms. Until a tower is excavated in which the superstructure is intact, the function (or functions) of these monuments will remain uncertain. It is important to remember too that not all towers would have had the same function—some were clearly associated with water and irrigation practices in the alluvial plain, while others sit atop rocky outcrops with little chance of supporting agriculture. Although unsuccessful in our original goal to understand the exact function of the towers, the excavations carried out by the Bat Archaeological Project have significantly changed the way we understand

conclusion

Bronze Age monuments of ancient Magan. As such, it is our hope that future scholars will be inspired to seek out other towers that might answer some of the remaining questions, or will return to Bat in the

261

future to expand upon our work with new methods and new ideas. Such is the nature of archaeology, and a superb UNESCO World Heritage Site such as Bat cannot and should not remain dormant for long.

Appendix I Archaeobotanical Studies at Bat. A Short Summary and Recommendations Margareta Tengberg

Introduction

T

he participation of an archaeobotanist in the 2011 excavation season at Bat, directed by G. Possehl from the University of Pennsylvania, had several purposes. First, samples collected at the site since the beginning of the American excavations in 2007 needed to be inventoried and examined in order to evaluate their potential for archaeobotanical analysis. Secondly, discussions with the archaeological team were aimed at establishing a sampling strategy befitting the nature of excavated contexts and features. Finally, the fieldwork allowed observations of the present-day vegetation growing spontaneously around Bat as well as of traditional cultivation practices in the local date palm garden. During botanical excursions, samples of modern wood and seeds/ fruits were collected in order to complete reference collections used for the identification of archaeobotanical material. The archaeobotanical study conducted at Bat in 2011 is not the first at the site. During the Danish excavations carried out in the 1970s and 1980s under the direction of Karen Frifelt, George Willcox from the French national research center (CNRS) participated in the fieldwork at two occasions, in 1986 and 1989. Thirty samples were then recovered from different contexts associated with the monumental Bronze Age towers 1145 (1 sample), 1146 (19 samples), 1147 (9 samples) and 1167 (1 sample). Archaeobotanical remains were of two types:

carbonized seeds, fruits, and wood, on the one hand, and plant impressions left on mudbricks, on the other. The former were recovered either manually by handpicking during excavation or in the form of sediment samples that were subsequently treated by bucket flotation in order to extract the charred plant material. The results from a preliminary analysis of the plant remains were presented in a report (G. Willcox n.d.). A more detailed study of the same samples was later carried out in the framework of a PhD thesis (Tengberg 1998).

Results of the analysis of samples collected in 2008–2011 A total of 40 samples have been collected during the American excavations of Bat from 2008 to 2011. They come from the operations related to Tower (T.) 1146 (11 samples) and T. 1147 (29 samples). A large part of the samples result from the handpicking of either charcoal fragments, intended for C14 dating, or pieces of mudbricks. The remaining samples consist of archaeological sediments. Fifteen supplementary samples were recovered by flotation during the excavation season in 2012 and are included in the study below. These supplementary samples all came from the excavation of T. 1156 and correspond to a large extent to the charred plant remains (charcoal and seeds/fruits) contained in the fill of hearths within or associated with this building.

the bronze age towers at bat, sultanate of oman

264

Plant Impressions on Mudbrick Pieces of mudbrick, some of which were burnt, were first examined visually in order to detect possible plant impressions. When such impressions were present, fragments were chosen for further analysis with the help of a binocular microscope. Plant impressions are frequently attested in the mudbricks from Bat reflecting the widespread use of a vegetal temper. To judge from the samples at hand, this temper consisted usually of the by-products of cereal processing: i.e., stems, leaves, and chaff recovered from different stages of the treatment of crops after harvest, in particular from threshing and winnowing. While cereals were attested in most samples, diagnostic remains were rarely observed and only a few fragments allowed us to determine more precisely which cereal taxa had been used (Table 1). Two species of free-threshing cereals were identified on the basis of their glume morphology: naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var. nudum, Fig. I.1) and naked wheat (Triticum aestivum type). These results are similar to those obtained by earlier studies at the site that, besides the above-mentioned species, also noted an impression of a date stone (Tengberg 1998:189).

Study of Carbonized Seeds and Fruits A few carbonized date stones, collected manually during excavation of the upper layers of T. 1147, were excluded from the study as they may have resulted from secondary deposits of uncertain date,

Fig. I.1 Impressions of cereal chaff on mudbrick (T. 1147, lot 101206); to the right is the impression of an inner glume (palea) of barley (Hordeum vulgare).

perhaps much later than the original occupation. Other seed/fruit remains were extracted from sediment samples by manual bucket flotation carried out at the dig house in Bat in January 2011. The volumes of archaeological soil were in general limited (