The Origins of Agricultural Settlement in the al-Ḥajar Region

The Origins of Agricultural Settlement in the al-Ḥajar RegionAuthor(s): Jocelyn OrchardSource: Iraq, Vol. 57 (1995), pp. 145-158Published by: British Institute for the Study of IraqStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200407 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 22:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British Institute for the Study of Iraq is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIraq.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:37:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bisi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200407?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


145

THE ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURAL SETTLEMENT IN THE

AL-HAJAR REGION

By JOCELYN ORCHARD

Introduction

The earliest agricultural settlements in the al-Hajar region of southeastern Arabia were large, well-

planned centres with a sophisticated and varied architecture.1 Because of their close environmental

relationship with the al-Hajar mountain range and in order to distinguish them from the late 3rd

millennium buildings and tombs of the type initially discovered and excavated on the island of Umm

an-Nar, I have named these first settlements the al-Hajar oasis towns.2 To date, al-Hajar oasis towns

have been identified at the sites of al-Khashbah, Firq, Bisy?, al-Ghubra, cAml?, B?t, Hili and Bidya, but there is every reason to believe that they also existed at Tawi Sim and Maysar, and at locations in Wadi Jizzi, Wadi Tayin, Wadi 'And?m and Wadi Halfayn (Fig. 1).

The Beehive Cemeteries

Associated with the ruins of the al-Hajar oasis towns are extensive cemeteries of Beehive tombs. These well-built funerary structures, usually circular or oval in plan, have a single, paved, corbelled

chamber, encompassed by one or two contiguous walls of carefully selected, skilfully laid, flattish

limestones. Their beehive shape is formed by spanning the gap at the top of the corbelling with large, flat stones and piling more flat stones on top of these to form a domed superstructure (Fig. 2a-b). While generally similar in appearance as a class, the Beehive tombs may nevertheless vary in size, in the number of their walls, in the shape of the entrance (which may be triangular, wedge-shaped or

rectangular) and in whether features such as external plinths or kerbstones are present. It remains to be determined whether these variations have any social, regional or chronological significance.

At Bisy?, the impressive Beehive necropolis on the Jabal B? Rz?z, opposite the al-Hajar oasis

town, not only penetrates deep into the Jabal, but also extends the full length of the town and

beyond it. The tombs are arranged in organised rows which run along the ridges of the Jabal and down its slopes (Fig. 2c).3 There is a similar lay-out at 'Amia, where the Beehive cemetery, comprising at least 86 tombs, is located southwest of the settlement on the ridges and slopes of the hills on the west bank of the Wadi al-'Ayn.4 At Bat, the Beehive cemetery, with tombs

comparably aligned, is situated on Jabal Shuw'i and extends the full length of the al-Hajar settlement. The cluster of Beehive tombs on a terrace at the foot of the Jabal,5 is merely a part of this extensive necropolis. At Hili, the Beehive cemetery which is laid out along the ridges and

slopes of the nearby al-Hajar range to the east, within easy walking distance of the site, also extends the full length of the al-Hajar settlement.6 At Firq, the Beehive cemetery is sited on low

gravel hills which run parallel with the lower part of the al-Hajar oasis town and continue

beyond it, and at al-Khashbah, the Beehive cemetery is sited on the Jabal al-Khashbah and on the smaller outcrops that extend from there into the Wadi Mlh.

1 Orchard and Stanger, 1994: Part I. 2 Ibid. Because the traits that distinguish the al-Hajar oasis

towns are very different from those that characterize the Umm an-Nar settlements, it has to be recognised that we are dealing with two different kinds of settlement (ibid). Therefore the circular structures of the al-Hajar oasis towns cannot represent the settlements of the Umm an-Nar tombs as stated by Cleuziou and Potts (Cleuziou, 1989: pp. 67, 83; Potts, 1990: pp. 101-102). Non-funerary, manifestly Umm an-Nar buildings have been excavated on Umm an-Nar island and at the sites of Maysar and Asimah (respectively, Bibby, 1965: pp. 108-109 and Frifelt, 1995; Weisgerber, 1981: pp. 191-196, Figs. 14-16, 18 and 20; Vogt, 1994: pp. 153, 155, Figs. 55-56 and Pis. 21a-d.). One building and traces of buried walls have been located at Bisy? (Orchard and Orchard, Forthcoming) and there are remains of Umm an-Nar buildings at other sites. The plan of the

Umm an-Nar settlements has yet to be determined, but they display a ribbon development which may be up to 7 km in length. Evidence from Hili and Bisy? indicates that Umm an-Nar settlement took place following the abandonment of the al-Hajar oasis towns. At Hili, Umm an-Nar tombs cut a great swathe through the site, occupying what would have been precious, cultivated land in the middle of the al-Hajar town, while at Bisy?, where Umm an-Nar remains occupy agricultural land south of the al-Hajar settlement, a single Umm an-Nar tomb has been erected on top of the slumped core of a ruined al-Hajar structure, namely, Jabal Sulaym?n 'Ali (b) (Orchard and Stanger, 1994: Part I). 3 Orchard and Orchard, Forthcoming. 4 De Cardi, Collier and Doe, 1976: p. 165 (Site 40). 5

Frifelt, 1975: pp. 67,69, Figs. 21-23 and Pis. 8-11; idem, 1985: Figs. 2 and 6.

6 al-Tikriti, 1981.

Iraq LVH (1995)



146 J. ORCHARD

Strait of Hormuz

Arabian Gulf

Gulf of Oman

Muscat

? 3rd Millennium site ? Currently inhabited Oasis Town

kilometres 50 100

j_?

miles

1 Umm an-Nar Island

2 Ghanadha Island

3 Bidya 4 Hili 5 Bat

6 cAmla 7 Al-Hamra

8 Al-Ghubra 9 Bahia

10 Bisy? (site and inhabited town) 11 Nizw?

12 Firq 13 Maysar 14 Al-Khashbah (Lakhsheba) 15 TawTSI?m

Fig. 1 Map of the al-Hajar Region.



THE ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURAL SETTLEMENT IN THE AL-HAJAR REGION 147

?st? Eg 3

t~ S ? O.H -

?c

sil

s ^ >

ce ? fit <u

?i

ICS (D

cd o

??S PQ

CN ? S S

fc N-O l ?p:



148 J. ORCHARD




Beehive cemeteries also occur at two other sites where failure to locate an al-Hajar settlement may be due to to a need for more intensive field survey or to demolition of the town in antiquity. Thus, at

the site of Tawi Sim, despite the presence of a large number of Beehive tombs on the ridges and

slopes of nearby Jabal al-H?ra and Jabal al-Hammah, an al-Hajar settlement has yet to be found.7

At Maysar, a settlement with several Umm an-Nar features, the presence of Beehive cemeteries and

Hafit burials8 suggests that this was originally an al-Hajar oasis town which was overlaid or rebuilt

during the late 3rd millennium b.c.

The Origins of the al-Hajar Settlements in Southwest Arabia

The al-Hajar oasis towns were founded during a period of transition from a totally arid climate to

a wetter one and so had to contend with severe environmental constraints including infrequent and

unreliable rainfall, potentially damaging flash-floods and no permanent surface flow.9 Nevertheless,

despite being totally reliant on groundwater from a complex aquifer, the al-Hajar farmers

successfully established mature oases of perennial and annual crops, irrigating these by employing

ingenious sub-surface to surface channel systems to bring water from reliable sources to the areas

under cultivation.10

Clearly, the farmers possessed all the knowledge required to survive in the testing transitional

climate and must have been skilful at divining for water, at extracting groundwater by tunnelling through rock, at achieving the correct gradient for water-flow over long distances,11 at farming (including the pollination of the date-palm and the breeding of a variety of domesticated animals), and at monumental stone construction. However, the advanced maturity of their irrigation techniques, husbandry and architecture shows that they cannot have been indigenous to the al-

Hajar region since the hostile, arid conditions preceding the transitional phase would have militated

against a long period of cultural development. Consequently, they must have mastered their above listed skills in some other place.

At this early stage of investigation into the archaeology of the Arabian peninsula, attempts to locate the homeland of the al-Hajar settlers must inevitably be speculative. However, a case can be made for suggesting as their place of origin the area east of the Yemen Highlands and north of the Hadramawt Arch (Fig. 3). There are in particular two reasons for selecting this area: First, tombs of Beehive type have been discovered in the Sayh?d region and second, it has been suggested that the Yemen Highlands was a centre of origin for sorghum, the same plant which, by the early centuries of the 3rd millennium b.c., was being cultivated at the site of Hili in the quite different environmental conditions of the al-Hajar region.12

Virtually nothing is known about the climate of these southern borderlands of the Rub' al-Kh?l?

during the Holocene, but current theories favour alternating wet and dry periods, although the dates and time-spans proposed tend to vary.13 An integrated lithostratigraphic scheme, similar to that compiled by Stanger for the al-Hajar region,14 would be useful in this regard, but to date no such sedimentary sequence has been assembled for the southern region; the few studies of post- Pleistocene and Recent sediments being largely localised and related to individual sites. However, in the distribution of Neolithic and post-Neolithic sites throughout the area, three patterns of settlement can be detected ? certainly sequential but clearly separated by intervening stages ?

each of which displays a different relationship with the surface drainage systems and the

groundwater network. In the differing responses of the three groups of sites to their environmental constraints, it is possible to recognize local changes in climatic conditions during the Holocene.

7 De Cardi, Collier and Doe, 1976: p. 154 (Site 9); Doe, 1977: pp. 52 (Sites 51-52), 54 (Sites 59-62), 56 (Sites 66 and

*Doe, 1977: p. 46 (Sites 28a, 29 and 30); Weisgerber, 1981: pp. 176-180 and 198-200.

9 Orchard and Stanger, 1994: Part I and Part II. 10 Ibid.

11 For a description of the techniques required for groundwater extraction, see Birks and Letts, 1976: pp. 93-100.

12 Costantini, 1984: pp. 107-115; idem, 1990: pp. 187-204. 13 H?tzl et al., 1984; For a useful summary of the various

arguments see Potts, 1990: pp. 16-24. 14 See Orchard and Stanger, 1994: Part II for a lithostrati-

graphic scheme for sediments in the South Akhdar area.



150 J. ORCHARD

The wetter conditions proposed for the mid-Holocene by H?tzl et ai,15 may well have led to

precipitation in the Yemen and 'Asir Highlands but, as Edens comments, scarcely to the point of

reactivating the surface drainage network.16 However, some recharge of the Arabian palaeodrai-

nage system seems to have occurred at this time and Edens has observed that the distribution of the

Neolithic sites in the extreme southwestern corner of the Rubc al-Kh?li is very closely tied to the

subsurface flows of the Wadi Daw?sir and Wadi Najr?n drainages.17 In view of this, it is highly

probable that Neolithic sites will also be found in the area north of the Hadramawt Arch where even

today, in the upper reaches of many wadis, waterholes dug into wadi-beds after floods may contain

enough water to supply animals for up to one year (J. Ellis, personal communication). In the Nejd and gravel plains of Zufar, north of the Qara mountains, contemporary, if dissimilar, Neolithic

assemblages have been found beside wadis, wells and water holes, all fed by the important Umm ar-

Radhuma aquifer, the groundwater source for that region.18 All these Neolithic sites are associated with a hunting/gathering economy, but Edens has

commented on the considerable behavioural variety throughout the Peninsula at this time. In this

regard, a degree of sedentariness is observable in the cooler, wetter highlands to the northwest, west

and southwest and in the foothills of the Qara mountains, while at Jabal Qutran in the Yemen

domesticated animals are present.19 Edens also draws attention to the inter-regional exchange of

raw materials, noting the appearance of obsidian, chlorite, marine shell, sandstone and granite at

sites outside their respective source areas.20

The second group of sites comprises the extensive cemeteries of Beehive-type tombs on the

outcrops of cAlam Abyadh, cAlam Aswad and Ruwayk, in the now arid landscape north of the

lowest reaches of Wadi al-Jawf .21 These tombs are laid out in exactly the same kind of formation

that one finds at Bisy? and cAml? in the al-Hajar region, that is, they are spread out in long lines

along the ridges of the jabais and form more or less parallel rows down their slopes. Apart from their

close resemblance to the Beehive tombs of the al-Hajar region ? which suggests a 4th millennium

b.c. date for their foundation ? their presence in a dessicated landscape indicates that they were

constructed at a time when water was more abundant locally. To judge from the location at the base

of the wetter Yemen Highlands of ancient South Arabian settlements such as M?rib and Shabwa, the earliest known phases of which are dated respectively to the middle-to-late 3rd and early 2nd

millennium b.c.,22 that period would have been pre-2500 b.c.

Each of these very large cemeteries must represent a substantial settlement with an active

population in need of copious supplies of water for domestic, industrial and, above all, agricultural

purposes. However, it is clear that these settlements did not depend on flash floods (sayls) for their

subsistence since, not only are there no reports of alluvial deposits in the area of the tombs but, as

the evidence from the highland village sites of Hawl?n at-Tiy?l and al-Had? demonstrates (see note

28 below), violent sayls resulting from tectonic uplift only began to occur towards the end of the 3rd

millennium b.c.

The desert settlements, then, would appear to have been dependent on groundwater and it seems

to have been available. Certainly claims that Wadi al-'Abr to the northeast was formerly watered by

up to 200 wells plus actual traces of fields in the region of the Abtar dunes near the A'falil rocks23

suggest that the southwestern borderlands of the Rubc al-Kh?li were once favoured by a large and

active aquifer. Nor should the groundwater sources of the areas north of the Hadramawt Arch and

the Qara Mountains be forgotten. No archaeological or hydrogeological surveys have taken place at

eAlam Aswad, 'Alam Abyadh and Ruwayk, so it is difficult to say exactly what kind of system for

extracting the groundwater was in use. However, if the aquifer was in any way complex, some form

of sub-surface to surface channel system would have been required to direct base-flow from the

various sources to the areas under cultivation.

15 H?tzl et al., 1984. 16 Edens, 1988: p. 35. 17 Ibid.: pp. 34-35. 18 Ibid.: pp. 30-34; See Pullar, 1985: Fig. 1 which shows the

relationship between sites and drainage patterns in ?ufar. 19 Edens, 1988: pp. 34-39 and Bibliography; Pullar, 1974:

p. 35 and Figs. 2 and 3. 20

Edens, 1988: pp. 37-38.

21 Philby, 1939: pp. 367-379; Groom, 1981: pp. 224-225.

22 Brunner, 1983: pp. 65-66, 71-72; Schmidt, 1987: p. 59; Hehmeyer, 1991: pp. 11-12; Badre, 1991: pp. 233-234 (uncalibrated date of 1550?60bp corrected to 19th/18th centuries b.c. by J.-Fr. Breton in a paper (in press) presented at the Arabia Antiqua Congress in Rome, May 1991).

23 Philby, 1939: pp. 63-64, 363-364.




The third group of sites consists of the settlements of the ancient South Arabian kingdoms which

tend to be situated in the middle reaches of the wadis that flow out of the Yemen Highlands towards

the Sayh?d. All these settlements were supported by flash-flood (sayl ) irrigation and ancient M?rib, in the middle reaches of Wadi Dhana, is of particular importance to this discussion since it has been

calculated, on the basis of the rate of alluviation, that rain-fed sayl irrigation began here in

approximately the middle-to-late 3rd millennium b.c.24 From the early 3rd millennium b.c., a

number of simple settlements in the areas of Hawl?n af-Tiy?l and al-Had?, in the highlands above

M?rib, were successfully practicing agriculture as a result of the optimum conditions produced by a

high water-table and fertile soils, and sites of a similar kind have been located in the region of Wadi

Hir?b, Wadi Sadb? and Jabal al-Lawdh, north of Wadi al-Jawf.25 However, the culture of these

highland villages was so undynamic ? displaying virtually no development throughout the

thousand years of their existence ? that it is highly unlikely that they were the ancestors of the South Arabian settlements, although they may have played a part in the agricultural history of the

region.

Drawing together all this evidence, I should like to propose the following scenario. In the 5th millennium b.c., during the wetter conditions of the mid-Holocene, Neolithic hunter/gatherers were active throughout the Arabian peninsula, displaying a variety of subsistence patterns, but also involved in various exchange networks. At some point a sedentary lifestyle including animal

husbandry, already occurring in the wetter uplands, also began to be practiced in the areas

bordering the Rub' al-Kh?li. Simple agriculture (perhaps including sorghum) then followed, in order to keep both humans and animals fed throughout the year.

At first, access to the recharged aquifer by means of shallow waterholes was easy but, probably in the second half of the 5th millennium b.c., a climatic change introducing drier conditions led to

falling water-tables and the settlers were obliged to evolve more sophisticated systems in order to maintain their water supply. In the al-Hajar region, the change to an arid climate appears to have been swift, leading to the abandonment of the interior,26 but in the lowlands east of the Yemen

Highlands and possibly extending as far as the Qara mountains, I suggest that due to a larger groundwater storage capacity, the transition was more gradual and settlements like those at 'Alam

Aswad,cAlam Abyadh and Ruwayk were able to mature and improve agricultural and groundwater irrigation skills already attuned to hard desert conditions. Perhaps it was during this period that the exchange networks of the Neolithic period were expanded to include commodities such as frankincense.

I propose that around the final quarter of the 4th millennium b.c., in response to an increasingly arid climate, decreasing groundwater storage capacity and salinity, the countryside surrounding the

Sayh?d and along the northern edge of the Hadramawt Arch began to deteriorate and the inhabitants started to migrate. Certainly, movement into the inland-flowing wadis of the Yemen

Highlands is signalled by the presence of Beehive tombs in the M?rib region.27 On the basis of what was happening at Hawl?n at-Tiy?l and al-Had?,28 it seems likely that at first what the migrants encountered in these wadis were relatively high water-tables, gentle, seasonal runoff and rich soils which enabled easy irrigation based on simple dams. At some point during the latter half of the 3rd millennium b.c., however, surface run-off became more violent ? a result of tectonic movements

producing an increase in the altitude gradient29 ? and the need to develop irrigation systems to control the sayl became paramount.30 In view of the dangers of flood risk and the regular need to move the take-off point of each irrigation system further upstream as alluvium accumulated,

24 Brunner, 1983: pp. 65-66, 71-72; Schmidt, 1987: p. 59;

Hehmeyer, 1991: pp. 11-12, 92. 25 De Maigret et al., 1990; Fedele in ibid.: pp. 213-230. In

his discussion of the results from Hawl?n at-Tiy?l/al-Had?, Fedele refers to Cleuziou, Inzan and Robin, 1988.

26Orchard and Stanger, 1994: Parts I and II for the relationship of the al-Hajar oasis towns to the sediments of the arid phase (Unit 4) which preceded them; Uerpmann, 1992: pp. 88-91 for the dating of the Late Stone Age Saruq- facies to the first half of the 5th millennium b.c., pp. 102-104 for the apparent lack of settlements in the interior of the al- Hajar region between the second half of the 5th millennium

b.c. and the establishment of the al-Hajar (called Bronze Age) settlements.

27 Finster and Schmidt, 1982: pp. 171-175 and Pl. 67-c. 28 De Maigret et al, 1990. See in particular, Marcolongo

and Palmieri in ibid.: pp. 137-143; Costantini in ibid.: pp. 187-204.

29 De Maigret, 1984: pp. 105-106; Marcolongo and Pal- mieri in De Maigret et ai, 1990: p. 137; Fedele in ibid.:p. 217.

30 For studies of sayl irrigation systems in southwest Arabia see Bowen, 1958: pp. 43-88; Brunner, 1983; Schmidt, 1987: pp. 57-83; Hehmeyer, 1991; Gentelle, 1991: pp. 5-54.



152 J. ORCHARD

I would expect the pre-sayl and early sayl settlements to be located well downstream of the currently visible settlements, buried beneath subsequently deposited alluvium.31

The other direction the migrants took was towards the inland-flowing wadis of the al-Hajar mountain range which, at least by the last quarter of the 4th millennium b.c., were beginning to

experience a transition towards a wetter climate.32 Employing the desert-zone skills they had

acquired in the south and southwest (including a knowledge of groundwater irrigation), they settled

in the foothill zone of the al-Hajar range during the final centuries of the 4th millennium b.c. and

established oases where they cultivated the plants they were familiar with, such as the date palm and

sorghum. I suggest that, at least for a time, the al-Hajar region maintained contacts with Zufar and

the Sayh?d region. The hypothesis outlined above draws together a number of disparate facts into a logical argument

and suggests not only a homeland for the al-Hajar settlers, but also a developmental sequence for

southwestern Arabia. It also suggests that in the 4th millennium b.c. exchange networks were

maintained between the al-Hajar, Zufar and Sayh?d regions along which commodities (perhaps

including frankincense), plants, animals and ideas were able to travel. However, with so much

speculation involved, this can only be a working theory until tested by survey and excavation. It is to

be hoped that systematic investigation of the areas north of the Sayh?d and the Hadramawt Arch

will be undertaken in the near future.

A Terminus Post Quern for al-Hajar oasis settlement

My proposal that agricultural settlement in the al-Hajar region took place during the last quarter of the 4th millennium b.c. is based on two factors which together provide a terminus post quern for

the founding of the oasis towns. The first of these is the secure carbon-14 date of 4,400 ? 100 bp

(Samples MC 2266 and MC 2267) which has been obtained from two temporary hearths used

during the construction of Building III (Period I) on Mound 8 at the site of Hili.33 This would place the construction of Building III at approximately 3100 b.c. and makes it the earliest known al-Hajar

building. Building III predates even the earliest ceramics found at Hili (including two jars that have

been compared with Early Dynastic I and II ceramics from the Diyala region)34 since these occur in

a stratigraphically later context; namely the mixed rubbish tip that forms the upper fill of the ditch

(Trench ? 1) which appears to have surrounded Building III.35

The position of the Jemdet Nasr in the al-Hajar Region The second factor providing a terminus post quern for the founding of the oasis towns is the

discovery in the al-Hajar region of late 4th millennium Jemdet Nasr jars in contexts which

demonstrate that their arrival in the area must postdate the establishment of the al-Hajar settlements. However, since Potts has questioned the attribution of most of these wares to the

Jemdet Nasr period and since the term "Jemdet Nasr" itself has recently been subjected to

considerable debate, a brief discussion of these matters is necessary before we can proceed to

consider the chronological position of the Jemdet Nasr in Oman and the UAE.

Defining the term "Jemdet Nasr" is an issue of particular concern to archaeologists interested in

the prehistory of Mesopotamia. On the one hand there is the dilemma of deciding whether the

Jemdet Nasr is merely a cultural phenomenon or exists as a period in its own right interposed between Late Uruk and Early Dynastic I, and on the other hand there is the problem of identifying

31 For burial of settlements under alluvium see Orchard, Jocelyn, 1982: pp. 1-21.

32 Orchard and Stanger, 1994: Part I and Part II. 33 Cleuziou, 1978/79: pp. 20, 32 and 68 (Table 1); idem,

1989: p. 64. 34 Idem, 1989: pp. 74-75; Potts, 1990: p. 80 and Note 86. 35

Cleuziou, 1989: pp. 65-66 and Pl. 19. The intrusive position of the Umm an-Nar remains in the middle of the older al-Hajar town (see footnote 2) probably explains why several sherds of late 3rd millennium b.c. black-on-red ware, comparable with types from Tepe Yahya (Iran) and Bampur (Baluchistan), have also been found in the upper fill of Trench Tl. That these sherds ? already in a secondary position ?

are intrusions from an Umm an-Nar surface is highly likely since, not only does the drawn east-west section through Trench Tl show seepage downwards of decaying mudbrick and sand from old spoil heaps and buildings at the top of the trench but, to judge from the published plans of Hili 8, the site of the rubbish strata (Squares C-D/3-4) remained in part open ground throughout the occupation of the mound (Cleuziou, 1989: pp. 66, 74-75, Pis. 12-19). Soil disturbance is a hazard encountered on all sites in the al-Hajar region, and at the highly disturbed site of Hili, intrusions of later objects into earlier levels occurred frequently (see, for example, the mixed sherds of Phases IIcj, Hc2, Hd and lie. Cleuziou, 1989: pp. 70, 76).




the specific artefacts by which this period or cultural phenomenon may be recognised. At a

symposium held in T?bingen in November 1983, entitled Jemdet Nasr: Period or Regional

Style?36 the concensus of opinion was that, in what appeared to be a time of considerable regional flux following the end of the Uruk period, the term "Jemdet Nasr" could safely be applied only to

the tablets ascribed to Stage III 2 of the Uruk Eanna terminology37 and to the distinctive painted wares which occur almost exclusively at sites in southern Mesopotamia.38

More recently, R. J. Matthews has presented a study of the material culture from the site of Jemdet Nasr and has compared it with material from other excavated sites with a view to defining the style of the Jemdet Nasr assemblage and its place within a wider Mesopotamian context.39 He

successfully demonstrates that certain forms and attributes in the pottery corpus excavated in 1926- 28 at Jemdet Nasr are exclusive to a period we can call Jemdet Nasr, but his further conclusion that "... the Jemdet Nasr period is restricted, in so far as it possesses an identifiable material cultural

assemblage, to southern Mesopotamia as far north as the Diyala and Hamrin regions, at most",40 had later to be adjusted in a postscript to take into account discoveries of ceramics with southern

parallels from contexts immediately above Late Uruk levels at the site of Tell Brak in the Syrian Jazirah.41 As a result of the Brak discovery, he concedes that during his defined Jemdet Nasr period certain sites in northern Mesopotamia could have had some southern contact and, since pottery is the main criterion by which he identifies his Jemdet Nasr assemblage, it has to be said that his

proposition regarding contact could equally apply to the al-Hajar region of Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

In the al-Hajar region, ceramics attributed to the Jemdet Nasr period have been found in cairn tombs called "Hafit tombs" after the jabal where they were first excavated. This pottery consists of

jars of which the majority are undecorated, although several have traces of plum-red or black paint and five have recognisable Jemdet Nasr designs. D. T. Potts, who represented the Gulf at the

T?bingen symposium, is reluctant to accept a Jemdet Nasr date for the majority of these vessels, drawing attention to their small number, to variations in form and to the fact that several have features which can be paralleled by Early Dynastic types at Khafaje, Tell Asmar and Tell Agrab in the Diyala region.43

However, in response to such caveats a number of observations can be made. First, the great majority of the Hafit tombs have not been excavated and the small quantity of ceramics and other items extracted from those that have been is easily explained by the fact that all the excavated tombs had been robbed previous to investigation. Second, in view of the uncertainty in defining the Jemdet Nasr that currently obtains in Iraq, we must exhibit caution in assuming that unpainted wares and variant forms are not included in the Jemdet Nasr corpus. The pottery from the 1926 and 1928 excavations at the site of Jemdet Nasr has never been fully published (although a publication is in preparation), and Matthews has pointed out that this includes "a significant collection of undecorated pottery".44 Matthews also assigns to the Jemdet Nasr period a large, painted, ledge-rim jar with ring base (a feature that Potts does not acknowledge as being Jemdet Nasr) and indicates that it is paralleled in the al-Hajar region.45 Third, while Potts is quite right to draw attention to the mixed nature of the Hafit tomb material with its inference of continued use of the tombs throughout the succeeding Early Dynastic period, it is quite reasonable to assume that some ceramic types with both Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic parallels first entered the al-Hajar region during the earlier

period.

Despite his reservations, Potts does not deny the presence of Jemdet Nasr wares in the al-Hajar region and has compared Hafit jars with Protoliterate c and d examples in the Diyala region.46 Matthews has also drawn a direct comparison between the small ledge-rim jars he has assigned to

36 Finkbeiner and R?llig, 1986. 37 Nissen in ibid.: pp. 316-327; Postgate in ibid.: pp. 373-

374. Tablets of this type have also been found at the sites of Tell *Uqair, Tell Asmar and Jemdet Nasr.

38 Ibid.: compare Nissen: p. 367, Wilson: pp. 368-369, Oates: p. 369, Moon and Dittmann: p. 378.

39 Matthews, 1992.

40 Ibid.: p. 24. 41 Ibid.: p. 27; Oates and Oates, 1993: pp. 170-171;

Matthews et al., 1994: pp. 182, 187. 42

Potts, 1986: Figs. 1 and 2. 43 Ibid.: pp. 127-134; Potts, 1990: pp. 74-76 and note 68. "Matthews, 1992: pp. 1,5-6. 45 Ibid.: p. 8 (Ledge-rim jars) and Fig. 3 (10); compare

During Caspers, 1971: pp. 29 and Figs. 5 and 6, 39-viii and Fig. 11, 40-xi and xii and Fig. 13.

46 Potts, 1990: p. 76.



154 J. ORCHARD

XVV

Fig. 4 A painted Jemdet Nasr ware sherd from Bisya in the Wadi Bahia, Oman. Scale 1:1.

(Drawing by H. Buglass.)

the Jemdet Nasr period and Hafit ledge-rim jars published by Potts in his T?bingen article.47 To

these must now be added two rare sherds with representational designs: the first found on the

ground surface amidst the debris of a Hafit tomb on the south slope of Jabal Ghbr? Dhib at the site

of Bisy? in the Wadi Bahia, Oman;48 the second recovered from the rubble of an oval tomb (Kh.

117a), one of an isolated group of three, at the site of al-Khatt in Ras al-Khaimah.49

The Bisy? sherd (Fig. 4), composed of three joined pieces, is a fragment of the body of a globular wheel-made vessel. As preserved, the sherd is 8*4 cm high, 71 cm wide and 0-45-0-55 cm thick. The

ware is a pale, pinkish-brown and is buff-slipped externally. On its exterior the sherd bears a

decoration in a dark chocolate matt paint, which consists of what appears to be a zone of metopic

panels, framed below by a single line (0-3 cm wide) and separated vertically by broad cross-hatched

bands (1 cm wide). The vestiges of two metopes are visible. That on the left contains two caprids, one

above the other, facing right, and that on the right contains, in anti-clockwise order, a scorpion, what appears to be the front part of a bird, and the hindquarters of a caprid female suckling a kid, the forepart of which is just visible.

The sherd from al-Khatt is described as being a fragment of a hand-made jar of dense tan ware, which has a reddish-brown slip externally and which is decorated with a black-painted caprid set in

a cross-hatched panel. The excavators suggest a comparison between the caprid and zoomorphic forms in the Wadi Suq repertoire, but, in fact, it is analogous to the representational designs on

Jemdet Nasr ware. Indeed, not only is the al-Khatt caprid, with its rounded hindquarters and swept back horns, closer in style to the Bisy? caprids than to any Wadi Suq motif, but the metope of

horizontal black lines and vertical cross-hatched bands within which it is contained is also more

typical of Jemdet Nasr design than of Wadi Suq painted decoration which favours patterns laid out

in broad horizontal belts.

The designs on both sherds are characteristic of the representational motifs contained within

metopes, which occur on some Jemdet Nasr jars as a zone of painted decoration above the

carination. Most of these representational designs occur on vessels with four pierced nose-lugs, but

47 Matthews, 1992: p. 8 (Ledge-rim jars) and Fig. 3; Potts,

1986: Figs. 1 and 2. 48 Orchard and Orchard, Forthcoming: Birmingham

Expedition Field Catalogue Number: WB.78.

49 De Cardi, Kennet and Stocks, 1994: pp. 45 (Fig. 6. No. 11), 47, 74 (No. 11) and PI. Vllb.



THE ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURAL SETTLEMENT IN THE AL-IJAJAR REGION 155

some motifs, especially stars and trees, are also found on ledge-rim and spouted jars. Although the

repertoire is small, depictions of the same motif can vary from site to site and this, together with the

crude execution and unbalanced designs typical of the style, suggests that each pot was decorated by an individual to whom iconography was more important than either appearance or technique.

The naturalistic repertoire includes: trees (Jemdet Nasr, Tell Uqair, Khafaje, Tell Asmar,

Nippur); palm fronds (Jemdet Nasr, Tell Uqair, Ur, Khafaje); superimposed birds, probably intended to be standing side by side (Jemdet Nasr, Tell Agrab); an individual bird, sometimes with a

fish or serpent held in its beak (Jemdet Nasr, Tell Uqair, Khafaje, Nippur, Bisy?[?]); snakes (Jemdet Nasr, Tell Uqair); a pair of fish on a line (Jemdet Nasr, Tell Uqair); scorpions (Jemdet Nasr,

Khafaje[?], Fara, Bisy?); individual quadrupeds (Khafaje, Fara, al-Khatt); superimposed caprids,

probably intended to be standing side by side (Bisy?); a female caprid suckling a kid (Jemdet Nasr,

Bisy?); eyes (Jemdet Nasr); five-pointed stars (Jemdet Nasr); six- and eight-pointed stars (Khafaje); a rectangular structure!?] (Nippur); and what appears to be a shrine (Jemdet Nasr).50

These Jemdet Nasr vessels decorated with powerful talismanic charms, such as as the eye and the

scorpion, were clearly intended for ritual purposes, although their discovery in Mesopotamia in domestic contexts, as well as in temples and graves, suggests that their ritual use was of a wide-

ranging character. One might hope to understand the nature of the rituals by identifying the magical powers of each charm, but assigning symbolic values to individual emblems is problematic, even

controversial, and no such attempt will be made except to note that the overwhelming emphasis appears to be on (a) protective magic (scorpions, eyes), (b) fertility (suckling caprids, trees, snakes), (c) astral symbolism (stars) and, (d) a general beneficence (fish, birds, plants).

The presence in Hafit tombs of ritual jars such as these indicates that they played a part in burial

observances, which strongly supports the argument that during the Jemdet Nasr period there were

people from Mesopotamia in the al-Hajar region. What is to be doubted, however, is the current

general assumption that these Mesopotamians were settled in the area before the arrival of the founders of the al-Hajar oasis towns. There can be no question of this. Not only would the

Mesopotamians have lacked the techniques for extracting groundwater, essential to survival in the testing conditions of the Transitional climatic phase, but also, despite the post-Jemdet Nasr use of plano-convex bricks at Hili,52 there is no evidence that they imported their material culture into the al-Hajar region. Their Hafit tombs, for example, are not Mesopotamian in style but merely poor imitations of the better built Beehive tombs associated with the al-Hajar oasis towns. Both types of tomb share a certain structural style and plan including exterior stone kerbing on some structures, but while both have a single paved chamber with a false dome, the corbelling of the roughly constructed Hafit tombs is irregular, and while the well-made contiguous walls and superstructure of the Beehive tombs form a tall, elegant profile, the Hafit tombs have a contrastingly squat shape which is created by unfashioned, uncoursed stones being piled up against and on top of the inner

structure, completely covering the entrance to the chamber.53 Hafit tombs have been found throughout the al-Hajar region and invariably occur in small

groups or straggling lines which are sited on low ridges or on terraces at the foot of jabais in areas unsuitable for agriculture. No Hafit settlements as such have been discovered and the isolated locations of many of the tombs suggests that they are related to hamlets or to camp sites rather than to towns. Hafit tombs occur in small numbers at some but not all al-Hajar sites. They have not been

reported at Bat or at Firq, and in the area of Al-'Ayn, Abu Dhabi, they are sited well away from

Hili, at the Southern end of Jabal Haqla, on Qarn Bint Sa'?d and on the Jabal Hafit. When Hafit tombs do occur on al-Hajar sites, their small number suggests that the Mesopotamians who built them were merely temporary residents in the already established oasis towns, and when one

50 Jemdet Nasr: Mackay, 1931: Pl. 68 (1, 2, 8, 11); Field and Martin, 1935: Pis. 31, 33 (3, 4, 5), 34 (3, 4, 5, 10), 35 (5, 9); Matthews, 1989: Fig. 3 (21-23); idem, 1992: Figs. 4 (5), 5 (3), 6(1). Tell Uqair: Lloyd and Safar, 1943: Pis. 23 (a and b), 24 (a and b), 27 (1, 3, 4). Khafaje, Tell Asmar and Tell Agrab: Delougaz, 1952: Pis. 3 (As. 34: 246), 4 (Kh. IX 198), 28 (b), 29 (a), 30, 31 (a, b, c, c',

d), 35(b), 133 (i), 134 (c,d). Nippur: Wilson, 1986: Fig. 9 (3, 5, 6). Ur: Woolley, 1955: Pl. 26 (b). Fara: Martin, 1988: 48, 49, 174 and 175 (18, 22, 24). 51

Goff, 1963; Black and Green, 1992. 52

Cleuziou, 1989: pp. 67, 70, 71. 53 See, for example, de Cardi, Bell and Starling, 1979:

Fig. 5, Pis. 33a-b and Pl. 34.



156 J. ORCHARD

examines the marginal position of the Hafit tombs relative to the Beehive Cemeteries, these social

and chronological positions become apparent. At Bisy?, where the direction of settlement is from northeast to southwest, one of two small

groups of Hafit tombs on the site is strung out along a couple of terraces on the southern edge of the

massive al-Hajar necropolis.54 These Hafit tombs provide a terminus post quern for the founding of

the necropolis, since their secondary position at its most southerly extent indicates that even the

earliest Hafit tombs were constructed after many of the Beehive tombs in the necropolis. At this site, the Hafit tombs share one of their terraces with some of the tombs from the later Umm an-Nar

cemetery which is also situated south of the al-Hajar oasis town, occupying the low ground all the

way down to Bisy?.55 At other sites which have not been subjected to intensive field-walking and

where the direction of settlement is not yet established, the situation is less clear. However, a similar

positioning of Hafit tombs, marginal to the Beehive cemetery and close to later Umm an-Nar

tombs, can be observed at Tawi Sim ? where, at the southern foot of the Beehive-covered Jabal al-

H?ra, Hafit tombs (see Cairn 4) share a terrace with some Beehive tombs (see Cairn 1) and part of

an Umm an-Nar cemetery (see Cairns 2 and 3)56 ? and at al-Khashbah, where Hafit tombs are not

found alongside the Beehive tombs to the northeast, but are reported by Weisgerber to occur,

together with Umm an-Nar tombs, southwest of the al-Hajar settlement.57

The rough-and-ready style of the Hafit tombs and their location in isolated places or on the

edge of major Beehive cemeteries implies not only that the people who built them were visitors to the

al-Hajar region rather than long-term agricultural settlers, but also that these visitors did not belong to an upper class, but were simple folk such as prospectors, itinerant workers and peripatetic traders. Indeed, it is tempting to see the Mesopotamians as pioneering individuals involved in

seeking out new sources of potentially wealth-making, essential commodities ? such as copper and

hard stone ? which by the end of the Uruk period they could no longer reliably obtain from

northern Syria, southeastern Anatolia and Iran.

In entering the al-Hajar region, these Mesopotamian pioneers inevitably came into contact with

the al-Hajar agriculturalists who had preceded them there, and what is apparent from their ongoing construction of Hafit tombs, the presence of Early Dynastic wares in those tombs and on some al-

Hajar sites, the presence of faience beads at Tawi Sim59 and the introduction of plano-convex bricks

to Hili, is that during the Jemdet Nasr period a link, however tenuous, was established between

Mesopotamia and the al-Hajar region, which continued throughout the Early Dynastic Period and

was maintained even after the al-Hajar oasis towns were replaced by Umm an-Nar settlements

sometime during the later centuries of the 3rd millennium b.c.60

Acknowledgements I should like to thank J. N. Ellis, for sharing his vast knowledge of the Sayh?d and Hadramawt

with me. My grateful thanks are also due to J. J. Orchard who took the photographs and to H.

Buglass who drew the maps of the al-Hajar and Sayh?d/Hadramawt regions and the painted sherd

from Bisy?.

Bibliography al-Tikriti, W. Yasin, 1981. Reconsideration of the Late Fourth and Third Millennium B.C. in the Arabian Gulf

with special reference to the United Arab Emirates. University of Cambridge Ph.D. Thesis

(unpublished). Badre, L., 1991. Le Sondage Stratigraphique de Shabwa 1976-1981. Syria 68: pp. 229-271. (Reprinted in

Breton, J.-Fr. et al. 1992. Fouilles de Shabwa 2. Geuthner, Paris).

54 Orchard and Orchard, Forthcoming. 55 Ibid. 56 De Cardi, Collier and Doe, 1976: p. 154 (Site 9); de

Cardi, Doe and Roskams, 1977: pp. 18-25 (Cairn 1); Doe, 1977: p. 52 (Site 51); de Cardi, Bell and Starling, 1982: pp. 63-84, Fig. 2 and Pis. 30b (Cairn 2), 32b (Cairn 3), 33 and 34 (Cairn 4). 57

Weisgerber, 1981: p. 180. 58The low status of the Mesopotamians in the al-Hajar

region may explain why in Mesopotamia there are appar-

ently no textual references to Magan previous to the Akka- dian period. 59 De Cardi, Bell and Starling, 1982: pp. 73-78.

60 In a lecture entitled "C?ramiques m?sopotamiennes d'Oman: Contributions de rarch?om?trie ? Phistoire ?cono- mique de G Arabie pr?historique et protohistorique" delivered at the Seminar for Arabian Studies, July 1995, G. Schneider and S. M?ry demonstrated that the clays used to make the Hafit jars are of Mesopotamian origin, thus confirming that these wares are imports from southern Mesopotamia.




Bibby, T. G., 1965. Arabian Gulf Archaeology. Kuml 1964: pp. 108-109. Birks, J. S. and Letts, S. E., 1976. The cAw?mr: Specialist Well- and Falaj- Diggers in Northern Interior Oman.

The Journal of Oman Studies 2: pp. 93-100. Black, J. and Green, ?., 1992. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary.

British Museum Press. Bowen, R. L. Jr., 1958. Irrigation in Ancient Qataban (Beihan). In Albright, W.F. (ed.) Archaeological

Discoveries in South Arabia. Baltimore: pp. 43-88. Brunner, U., 1983. Arch?ologische Berichte aus dem Yemen 2. (Deutsches Arch?ologisches Institut San'?'). Cleuziou, S., 1978/79. The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations at Hili 8. Archaeology in the United Arab

Emirates II/III: pp. 19-29 (French), 30-45 (English). Cleuziou, S., 1989. Excavations at Hili 8: a preliminary report on the 4th to 7th campaigns. Archaeology in the

United Arab Emirates V: pp. 61-87. Cleuziou, S., Inzan, M.L. and Robin, C, 1988. Premier rapport sur la prospection des vall?es nord du Wadi al-

Jawf (CNRS: Preliminary Report for internal use). Paris. Costantini, L., 1984. Plant Impressions in Bronze Age Pottery from Yemen Arab Republic. East and ?Vest 34/

1-3: pp. 107-115. Costantini, L., 1990. Ecology and Farming of the Protohistoric Communities in the Central Yemeni Highlands.

In de Maigret, A. et al. The Bronze Age Culture of Hawl?n at-Tiy?l and al-Had?. (ISMEO: Reports and Memoirs xxiv). Rome,

de Cardi, ?., Bell, R. D. and Starling, N. J., 1979. Excavations at Tawi Silaim and Tawi Said in the Sharqiya, 1978. The Journal of Oman Studies 5: pp. 61-94.

de Cardi, ?., Collier, S. and Doe, D. B., 1976. Excavations and Survey in Oman 1974-1975. The Journal of Oman Studies 2: pp. 101-187.

de Cardi, ?., Doe, D. ?. and Roskams, S. P., 1977. Excavation and Survey in the Sharqiyah, Oman, 1976. The Journal of Oman Studies 3/1: pp. 17-33.

de Cardi, ?., Kennet, D. and Stocks, R. L., 1994. Five Thousand Years of Settlement at Khatt, UAE. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 24: pp. 35-95.

Delougaz, P., 1952. Pottery from the Diyala Region. (The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications 63). Clarendon Press.

De Maigret, ?., 1984. A Bronze Age for Southern Arabia. East and West 34/1-3: pp. 75-106. De Maigret, ?., et al., 1990. The Bronze Age Culture of Hawl?n at-Tiy?l and al-Had?. (ISMEO: Reports and

Memoirs xxiv). Rome. Doe, D. B., 1977. Gazetteer of Sites in Oman, 1976. The Journal of Oman Studies 3/1: pp. 35-57. During Caspers, E. C. L., 1971. New Archaeological Evidence for Maritime Trade in the Persian Gulf during

the Late Protoliterate Period. East and West 21: pp. 21-44. Edens, C, 1988. The Rub al-Khali 'Neolithic' Revisited: the view from Nadqan. In Potts, D. T. (ed.), Araby the

Blest. (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 7). Copenhagen. Field, H. and Martin, R. ?., 1935. Painted Pottery from Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. American Journal of Archaeology

39: pp. 310-320. Finkbeiner, U. and R?llig, W., (eds), 1986. ?amdat Nasr: Period or Regional Style? (T?binger Atlas des

Vorderen Orients Supplement 62). Wiesbaden. Finster, ?. and Schmidt, J., 1982. Antike Grabbauten im sab?ischen Gebiet. Arch?ologische Berichte aus dem

Yemen 1: (Deutsches Arch?ologisches Institut Can'?'): pp. 171-175. Frifelt, K., 1975. A Possible Link between the Jemdet Nasr and the Umm an-Nar Graves of Oman. The Journal

of Oman Studies 1: pp. 57-80. Frifelt, ?., 1985. Further Evidence of the Third Millennium BC Town at B?t in Oman. The Journal of Oman

Studies!: pp. 89-104. Frifelt, K., 1995. The Island of Umm an-Nar. Volume 2. The Third Millennium Settlement. (Jutland

Archaeological Society Publications XXVI:2). Jutland Archaeological Society and The Carlsberg Foundation, Moesg?rd.

Gentelle, P., 1991. Les Irrigations antiques ? Shabwa. Syria 68: pp. 5-54. (Reprinted in Breton, J.-Fr. et al. 1992. Fouilles de Shabwa 2. Geuthner, Paris).

Goff, B. L., 1963. Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia. Yale University Press. Groom, N., 1981. Frankincense and Myrrh. Longman. Hehmeyer, I., 1991. Arch?ologische Berichte aus dem Yemen 5. (Deutsches Arch?ologisches Institut San'?1). H?tzl, H., Jado, ?., Moser, ?., Rauert, W. and Z?tl, J., 1984. Climatic Fluctuations in the Holocene. In Jado,

A. and Z?tl, J. (eds), Quarternary Period in Saudi Arabia II. Vienna, Springer-Verlag: pp. 301-314. Lloyd, S. and Safar, F., 1943. Tell Uqair: excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate of Antiquities in

1940 and 1941. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2: pp. 131-158. Mackay, E., 1931. Report on Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. (Field Museum of Natural History,

Anthropology Memoirs 1/3). Chicago. Marcolongo, B. and Palmieri, A. M., 1990. Palaeoenvironment History of Western Al-'Ar?s. In de Maigret, ?.

et al. The Bronze Age Culture of Hawl?n at-Tiy?l and al-Had?. (ISMEO: Reports and Memoirs xxiv). Rome.



158 J. ORCHARD

Martin, H. P., 1988. Fara: a Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian City of Shuruppak. Chris Martin and Associates, Birmingham.

Matthews, R. J., 1992. Defining the Style of the Period: Jemdet Nasr 1926-28. Iraq 54: pp. 1-34. Matthews, R. J., Matthews, W. and McDonald, H, 1994. Excavations at Tell Brak, 1994. Iraq 56: pp. 177-194. Oates, D. and Oates, J., 1993. Excavations at Tell Brak 1992-93. Iraq 55: pp. 155-199. Orchard, Jocelyn, 1982. Finding the Ancient Sites in Southern Yemen. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 41/1,

January: pp. 1-21. Orchard, Jocelyn and Orchard, Jeffery, Forthcoming. Archaeological Survey in the Wadi Bahia (Jawf) and the

Wadi Mlh (Sharq?yya). In Orchard, Jeffery and Orchard, Jocelyn (eds), The University of Birmingham Archaeological Expedition to the Sultanate of Oman: Report No. 1.

Orchard, Jocelyn and Stanger, Gordon, 1994. Third Millennium Oasis Towns and Environmental Constraints on Settlement in the al-Hajar Region. Iraq 56: pp. 63-100.

Philby, H. St. J. B? 1939. Sheba's Daughters. Methuen, London. Potts, D. T., 1986. Eastern Arabia and the Oman Peninsula during the Late Fourth and Early Third

Millennium b.c. In Finkbeiner, U. and R?llig, W., (eds), 1986: pp. 121-170. Potts, D. T., 1990. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity. Volume 1. From Prehistory to the Fall of the Achaemenid

Empire. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Pullar, J., 1974. Harvard Archaeological Survey in Oman, 1973: I ? Flint Sites in Oman. Proceedings of the

Seminar for Arabian Studies 4: pp. 33-48. Pullar, J., 1985. A Selection of Aceramic Sites in the Sultanate of Oman. The Journal of Oman Studies 1: pp.

49-87. Schmidt, J., 1987. Die sab?ische Wasserwirtschaft von M?rib. In Daum, Werner (ed.). 3000 Jahre Kunst und

Kultur des gl?cklichen Arabien. Pinguin-Verlag, Innsbruck: pp. 57-73.

Uerpmann, M., 1992. Structuring the Late Stone Age of Southeastern Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and

Epigraphy 3/2: pp. 65-109.

Vogt, ?., 1994. Asimah. (Department of Antiquities and Museums, Ras al-Khaimah). Shell Markets Middle East, Dubai, UAE.

Weisgerber, G., 1981. Mehr als Kupfer in Oman. Der Anschnitt 33/5-6. Wilson, K. L., 1986. Nippur: The Definition of a Mesopotamian Gamdat Nasr Assemblage. In Finkbeiner, U.

and R?llig, W., (eds), 1986: pp. 59-89. Woolley, Sir Leonard, 1955. The Early Periods. (Ur Excavations 4). British Museum, London.



The Origins of Agricultural Settlement in the al-Ḥajar Region

Documents

Transcript of The Origins of Agricultural Settlement in the al-Ḥajar Region