Ubaid pottery in the eastern Gulf ? new evidence from Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.)

Arab. arch. ppig. 1996: 7: 125-139 Printed 111 Denmnrk. All rights reserved

C o p y r i g h t 0 M u n k s g a a r d 1996

Arabian archaeology and epigraphy

lSSN 0905-7196

'Ubaid pottery in the eastern Gulf - new evidence from U r n al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.) MARGARETHE UERPMANN AND HANS-PETER UERPMANN

Introduction The occurrence of 'Ubaid pottery at sites on the Arabian Gulf coast has stimulated scientific discussion for almost two dec- ades. As typical pottery of one of the major phases of the Final Neolithic or Chalco- lithic period in Mesopotamian prehistory, the 'Ubaid ware has been considered as allochthonous on the Arabian shores of the Gulf by most scholars. The hypotheses developed by Joan Oates that seafaring merchants from Mesopotamia left their wares at coastal sites along the Gulf coast (1) or that seafarers from the Gulf shores went to Mesopotamia to bring back the pottery as part of an exchange system (2) are still considered the most likely explanations of the phenomenon by many colleagues (3). As an alternative Masry formulated the idea that the peoples around the upper Gulf, including the Mesopotamian 'Ubaid population, had a common origin (4) and that, therefore, the 'Ubaid pottery in Arabia was not really allochthonous, but the ex- pression of long-standing relations. In a more complex approach Cleuziou (5) broadened this idea. The exchange of goods, including 'Ubaid pottery, over a large area is set into the context of a detailed hypothesis about the economic development of eastern Arabia during the

fifth and fourth millennia BC. Like Masry, Cleuziou postulates ancient ethnic and cultural connections between the peoples of the Upper Gulf.

Although there is disagreement between the different explanations with regard to the ethnicity of the people who carried the 'Ubaid pottery from its place of origin to the sites along the Arabian coast of the Gulf, they all agree on the fact that economic reasons must have lain behind the pottery's movement (6) .

The discussion summarised above was based on finds of 'Ubaid pottery at sites in northeastern Saudi Arabia, on Bahrain and in Qatar. In recent years discoveries on islands in the southern Gulf (7) and along the Gulf coast of the Oman Penin- sula considerably extended the geo- graphic scope of the phenomenon. 'Ubaid pottery in small quantitites was found (Fig. 1) at sites in the Emirates of Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al-Qaiwain and Ra's al- Khaimah (8). The present authors have discovered a new site with this ware in the Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain. It is the aim of this paper to describe the sites in Umm al-Qaiwain and to discuss the economic background of the 'Ubaid sites in the Emirates with regard to the hypotheses mentioned above.

125

M. UERPMANN AND H.-P. UERPMANN

0

Arabian Gulf 0 Gulf of

Oman

Fig . 1. Location of Umm al-Qaiwain and sites with 'Ubaid pottery on the eastern Gulf coast.

Prehistoric research around the lagoon of Umm al-Qaiwain During the 1992 season of excavations at Tell Abraq, and within the context of that project (9), the present authors carried out sondages and systematic surface collections at several shell middens along the ancient shorelines of the Umm al-Qaiwain lagoon (10). This research was undertaken in an effort to clarify further the pre-Bronze Age history of the area. Earlier results with regard to this question were obtained by a French team directed by R. Boucharlat, which conducted surveys in the northern part of the Sharjah Emirate reaching the area west and south of Tell Abraq (11). One of the sites discovered by the French survey (S 69) was actually on Umm al-Qai-

wain territory and was later revisited several times by various members of the teams excavating at ed-Dur and Tell Abraq. The discoveries at this site included 'Ubaid pottery and some bifacially flaked flint objects (12). A radiocarbon determination on shells gave a date of 5890k170 yBP (Ly-3280). As the finds link the site to both the Mesopot- amian chronology and one of the most widespread Arabian flint industries (13), it was chosen as a starting point for more detailed investigations into the prehistory of the area. Unfortunately it was highly disturbed through bulldozing during the late 1980s.

The local name of the flat hill called 'site 69' by the French survey is al-Madar. It is situated on the Urnm al-Qaiwain peninsula

126

’UBAID POTTERY IN THE EASTERN GULF

which separates the lagoon from the open Gulf to the west. The present shoreline of the open sea is about 1 km west of the site. In the other direction the shoreline of the lagoon is far away from the site today. This does not always seem to have been the case, however. As shown on the 1970 UK defence ministry map 1:lOO.OOO of ’Umm al-Qaywayn’, which was compiled from air photographs of 1957, a small embayment of the lagoon extended close to al-Madar. For the palaeo-ecology of the site the lagoonal environment seems to have been more important than the open sea.

As described by Boucharlat et al. (14) the core of the al-Madar hill is a consolidated ’fossil’ dune dating to the late Pleistocene. There is a thick layer of sterile light and unconsolidated dune sand between this fossil dune and the occupation layers. Most likely the site was a low, wind-flattened mound above the surrounding sabkhahs (mudflats) and mangrove areas at the time of its prehistoric occupation.

Several test squares were opened at the highest point of the part of the mound which survived the bulldozing. Although the shell layers seemed intact at the surface, the sand underneath was clearly fur- rowed by bulldozer teeth. There may have been patches of undisturbed shell-midden sediment, however, but compared to the original extent of the site they seemed to be minimal. A series of corings was made in order to determine whether there might be places where enough shell-midden sediment was left to be worth systematic exca- vation. Apart from areas where the bulldozer had visibly taken away the old surface completely, the shell layer could be observed over the whole surface of the mound. In some areas it was buried under a thin layer (up to 20 cm) of recent dune sand, but normally it was right at the surface. Apart from the shell contents, the ‘cultural’ layer was recognisable by its slightly

darker colour compared to both the over- lying recent dunes and the more com- pacted sand underneath. However, the typical dark grey, ashy shell-midden sediment was not found anywhere along the coring lines. The thickness of the ‘cultural’ layer varied from between just a trace of brown sediment up to about 20 cm of shell deposit. According to Shirley Kay (pers. comm.) who had seen the bulldozing, the major occupation zone of the site was completely destroyed.

Tiny chips of flint appeared rarely in the material from our cores. There were also very few archaeological objects in the squares opened or on the surface of the site. Obviously, repeated visits by archaeol- ogists have left the site almost completely bare of any finds that could have given a hint as to its dating. Therefore, the note by Boucharlat et al. will remain a more com- prehensive source with regard to the archaeology of al-Madar than our report.

As already mentioned by Boucharlat et al. there are indications of disturbed burials at al-Madar. We found parts of a human skeleton on the surface and in the surface layer of an area close to the southeastern edge of the shell midden. There is no indication whether this skeleton belongs to the Stone Age occupation or represents a later burial. The bones are similar in preservation to the few faunal remains from the shell midden. They are quite hard and look almost fossilised. The lack of animal bones at al-Madar is certainly not the result of bad bone preservation.

Some unidentifiable longbone splinters of mammals are mentioned in the note by Boucharlat et al. A few additional fragments came from our test squares. These could only be identified as coming from small ruminants (sheep, goat or gazelle). Small fish vertebra and the tooth-bearing bones of small Sparidae and/or Lethrinidae were the most common vertebrate remains,

127


but their total number will hardly exceed a dozen. Apart from the ubiquitous shells of bivalves and gastropods, only crab claws were found in some quantity in the layer and on freshly-exposed surfaces. Obviously, mammals or birds were not eaten to any great extent at the site. Shellfish, crabs and some few small fish seem to have been the regular diet of the ancient inhabitants (15).

Almost two thirds of the 12kg of mollusc shells from our soundings and corings came from oysters. Several other species were also of economic importance (Table 1).

Among the 'other species' Turbo covo- izatus was dominant with 2% of the shell weight. Other gastropods occured sporadi- cally and did not contribute to the normal subsistence of the inhabitants. The same is true for bivalves like Anadara cf. ehvenbevgi and Bavbatia sp. Shell fragments of pearl oysters (Fam. Pteriacea) were present in our samples and at other areas of the site but quantitatively speaking they were insig- nificant. A high percentage of the oyster shells bear root-impressions of mangrove trees, indicating that a lagoonal environment was exploited.

Similar observations were made at sites on the western shore of the peninsula which juts out from the mainland into the Umm al-Qaiwain lagoon (Fig. 2). This peninsula of high sand dunes is locally called Ramlah. The shell middens discovered along its ancient shorelines were numbered in the sequence of their discovery. Two fragments of 'Ubaid pottery (16) (Fig. 3 )

Table 1. Relative shell weight of mollusc species from al-Madar fS 691.

Species YO present

Terehralia palustris 3 Yo Murex (Hexaplex) kuesterianus 21%

Other species 3%

Ostrea (Saccostreu) cuculata 63% Marcia cf. hiantinu 10%

were found at the site called Ramlah 3 (RA 3). Like al-Madar the site RA 3 is largely destroyed, but at least some peripheral areas of the occupation layer have re- mained intact.

RA 3 seems to have been a mound of some 50 m in diameter with a height of more than 6 m, sitting on a little peninsula jutting out into the sabkhah which marks the former extent of the lagoon. Most of this mound, with the prehistoric site on top of it, was quarried away. The slightly lower saddle-ridge connecting the mound to the dunes of Ramlah peninsula is preserved but also severed by a bulldozer trench. If nothing else, the bulldozed sections provide a view of the stratigraphy of the site. A core of consolidated fossil dune is visible at the base of the mound. Apparently it ex- tends under the present level of the surrounding sabkhah, which corresponds to the high tide level of the lagoon. It stands to about 1.5 m above the present surface. On its fairly horizontal surface is a mound of unconsolidated dune sand reaching a thickness of more than 2 m under the preserved part of the shell midden. There is no obvious difference between the sterile dune sand underneath and the matrix of the shell-bearing layers on top of the mound. The topmost layer is a horizon of accumulated mollusc shell which forms a 'veneer' protecting the underlying layers from further erosion. Estimated from the density of shells in the upper part of the dune, the shell concentration of the superficial veneer would be equivalent to at least 50 cm of original mixed dune and shell- midden deposit. Thus, the shell veneer in- dicates the subsequent loss of more than half a metre of dune sand which had orig- inally accumulated during the period(s) of occupation of the site.

As at al-Madar, the shell-midden layer is very poor in artefacts or other occupational debris, with the exception of mollusc

128

'UBAID POTTERY IN THE EASTERN GULF

Fig. 2. Present and former extent of the Umm al-Qaiwain lagoon with the location of sites mentioned in the text.

Arabian Gulf

present extent

0 ;~:,Bz::fmer extent of laooon - w Tell Abraq

I

shells. A few small bone splinters of me- dium-sized mammals and several fish vertebra indicate that bone preservation is good and that the rarity of bone finds must

Fig. 3. Fragments of 'Ubaid pottery from site RA 3.

t -

be a primary feature of the site. The claw fragments of crustaceans are common. These come mainly from small spider crabs, but very large crabs were also

Table 2. Relative shell weights of mollusc species from Ramlah 3 (RA 3) .

-10 to Species surface -25 cm

Terebralia palustris 1% 10% Muyex (Hexaplex) kuesterianus 7% 22% Ostrea (Saccostred cuculata 49% 17% Marcia cf. hiantinu 40% 36% Other species 3% 15%

129


present. Some of the fragments are burnt. Lenses of brown sand with a slight increase in the density of finds around them indicate fireplaces.

Various types of mollusc fauna are represented at the site. The superficial shell veneer close to the bulldozer trenches is dominated by oysters, which make up almost half of the total shell weight.

From about 10 cm below the present surface to the base of the shell-bearing layers at about -25 cm the shell composition changes to more than 30% of gastropods, one third of them Terebralia and two thirds Hexaplex. Oysters make up only 17% of the shell weight, which is now dominated by venerids, of which Marcia is the most important species, although less so than in the layer above. Pearl oysters are present in both assemblages (Table 2).

In a separate area some 30 m farther southeast towards the slope of Ramlah peninsula there are surface-shell concentrations dominated by Terebralia, representing a third type of mollusc fauna. These assemblages probably represent different stages in the geomorphic and vegetational history of the lagoon. The third type of fauna should, therefore, reflect a different chronological phase, presumably a re-occupation of the site during a later period.

One of the fragments of 'Ubaid pottery was found on the undisturbed surface not far from the edge of the bulldozer trench. It may therefore be correlated with the oyster- dominated surface layer of shells. Actually, the radiocarbon date of 5620 yBP was obtained from oyster shells of this layer, which thus seems to represent the mollusc fauna corresponding with the 'Ubaid period. The mollusc fauna of al-Madar is also dominated by oysters, but al-Madar is on the other side of the lagoon and might even have been oriented towards a separate small coastal lagoon opening to the west (17). Nevertheless, environmental conditions in

the two areas may have been similar enough if fluctuations of the sea level were the major cause for changes in the extent of oyster banks, mudflats, mangrove stands and other collecting grounds for shell-har- vesting populations.

There is no radiocarbon date for the lower mollusc fauna of RA 3 with its dom- inance of gastropodes representing different environmental conditions. An even higher proportion of Hexaplex shells was found at RA 6, which gave a date of 5713 yBP for Ostrea shells and a date of 6181 yBP for Terebralia.

The third mollusc assemblage from the slope just east of the disturbed shell mound of RA 3 gave a date of 5371 yBP based on Terebralia, while oysters from there were dated to 5285 yBP. The marine reservoir effect is generally more marked in Terebralia than in Ostrea shells, often resulting in differences of more than 400 radiocarbon years. The third shell assemblage from RA 3 may be about half a millennium younger than the 'Ubaid period.

The site RA 6 represents at least one more fifth-millennium site on Ramlah peninsula, although 'Ubaid pottery could not be found there. Several pieces of bifacially

1 1

Fig. 4.

I '

Bifacial arrowhead from site RA 6.

130


flaked flint objects, among them an almost complete tanged arrowhead (Fig. 4), give a clear chronological indication. Flint objects of the 'Arabian bifacial tradition' (18) are generally found at the sites with 'Ubaid pottery on the eastern Gulf coast, such as al-Zuhra in Ajman (19), al-Madar (20), or Jezirat al-Hamra in Ra's al-Khaimah (21). No such pieces were discovered at RA 3, but this is certainly due to the fact that this is a conspicuous site searched by dozens of visitors every weekend. The waste flakes from RA 3, however, provide sufficient evidence for pressure flaking. They can clearly be attributed to the same kind of Late Stone Age industry.

The context of 'Ubaid sites in the eastern Gulf There are two archaeological elements which catch our attention at the sites mentioned so far in this article. The first is the 'Ubaid pottery with its assumed origin in southern Mesopotamia some 1000 km across the Gulf (22). Quantitatively speaking this is only a 'trace element'. The second element is the flint industry which forms part of a widespread complex, the so-called Arabian bifacial tradition. Al- though finished and complete objects are rare, the flint remains representing this tradition are significantly more numerous than the 'Ubaid sherds. Whereas related industries are also found at the sites with 'Ubaid pottery in Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia (23), this is not the case in southern Mesopotamia itself. The flints from typical Mesopotamian 'Ubaid sites reflect a different techno-tradition. They belong to the highly-refined blade industries which developed during the Levantine and Irano- Turanian Neolithic. Their raw material often includes imported obsidian. Never- theless, some bifacially-retouched pieces occur there too (24).

On the other hand the Arabian Bifacial Tradition (ABT) is not confined to sites with 'Ubaid pottery. There are many more sites of this tradition in eastern Arabia which have not yielded any pottery at all. The co-occurrence of the two elements is restricted to the sites on the Arabian Gulf coast. Only in eastern Saudi Arabia, where - closer to its origin - 'Ubaid ware is much more numerous on coastal sites, did some vessels make their way inland (25). For the time being, with so little background information available, only a straightforward interpretation of the distribution pattern of the two elements is possible: the bifacially flaked flint industry represents the local population, the 'Ubaid sherds are an intrusive element which only reached sites in a particular geographical position.

For the sites on the coast of the Emirates a local embedding of the flint industry is expressed in the raw materials used for the production of the bifacials. Dark red and green radiolarian chert comes from the main Omani mountain chains in the hinter- land. The light brown chert, whose cracks are 'healed' with white or translucent quartz, is common in many areas of the piedmont ridges on both sides of the main mountain chain. A source for the fine- grained yellow material is not yet known. This material is common to the sites with 'Ubaid pottery in Umm al-Qaiwain and Ajman/Sharjah (26). In addition, it occurs at coastal sites of the bifacial tradition in Sharjah without pottery. It is not restricted to the coast, however, but is also common at the inland site of Mleiha (27). There is a second inland site of the bifacial tradition near Khatt in Ra's al-Khaimah (unpub- lished) where the red radiolarian chert was particularly favoured. In terms of their industries the inland and coastal sites of the northern Emirates, with or without 'LJbaid pottery, form a unit which may probably

131


be differentiated as a special facies of the larger complex of the ABT. Compared to the Saruq facies of this tradition in the Muscat area of northern Oman (28)’ there is a slightly stronger leptolithic tendency in the industries from the Emirates. Core re- duction is also a more common feature here. Since a group of shell middens near Jezirat al-Hamra in Ra’s al-Khaimah were the first sites of this facies to come to our attention (29)’ we propose the term ‘Ra’s- al-Khaimah-Facies’ for this particular flint industry. The two radiocarbon dates for the Jezirat al-Hamra sites seem to have es- caped most of the researchers in the area. They are listed here together with those obtained by the French Team (30) for sites with bifacially retouched flint objects, and with the corresponding dates of sites RA 3 and RA 6 of our survey.

In the Gulf area radiocarbon dates obtained from marine shells produce fairly consistent results (31). Nevertheless, their interpretation needs some care (32). Cali- brated with the curve for marine radiocarbon dates (33) the Ostrea-date of 5620250 for RA 3 falls between 4200 and 3965 BC with more than 95% probability. When using the terrestrial calibration curve (34) the span is between about 4660 and 4360 BC. As Terebralia-dates are often about 400 radiocarbon years older than corresponding Ostrea-dates, the real ages of the Jezirat al-Hamra samples may actually be

younger than the date for the shell veneer of RA3. No information is given on the mollusc species dated at al-Madar. There- fore the calibrated probability range (2 CT) of this date is very large, extending from 5220 to 3580 BC (35). An absolute date somewhere in the second half of the fifth millennium BC is most likely for the occurrence of the ’Ubaid ware at sites in the northern Emirates.

Palaeo-economic considerations Theoretical considerations about the later phases of southeast Arabian prehistory have largely been based on models of the economic situation, although very little is really known about the subsistence and exchange systems of prehistoric groups in the area. Some of the concepts introduced into the discussion by Tosi and accepted by later writers (36) need critical reconsider- ation. The concept of the ’(specialized) hunter-gatherers’ is one of those notions which has particular relevance to the questions dealt with in this paper.

The hunter-gatherer background of Ar- abian prehistory is generally seen as being represented by the populations which left the sites of the ’Qatar-B’ techno-tradition. To the knowledge of the present authors none of these sites has yielded biological remains which could justify connecting this techno-tradition with a hunting-gathering

Table 3. Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates for ABT sites in the northern Emirates. Site Dated material I4C-vBP Lab no. ‘Ubaid ware ar-Ramlah 3 (RA3) point 70 ar-Ramlah 6 (RAh) a1 Qassimiya (c. sup.) Jezirat al-Hamra 2 al-Madar (point 69) Jezirat al-Hamra 1 al-Qassimiya (c. inf.) ar-Ramlah 6 (RA6)

Ostrea shell 0 s t rca shell Terebralia shell Terebralia shell Terebralia

5620250 56802160 5713250 5800+110 5845 2 105 5890 r+_ 170 59552100 5960+-120 6181?50

Bln4732 ++ Ly-3551 Bln4735 Ly -3954 Hv13191 ( + + I Ly-3280 ++ Hv13192 ( + + I Ly -3953 Bln4735

132

‘UBAID POTTERY IN THE EASTERN GULF

subsistence strategy. If the assumption is correct that the Qatar-B techno-tradition derives from the pre-pottery Neolithic of the Levant, then it seems more likely that its carriers penetrated the Arabian deserts as pastoralists, herding sheep, goats and perhaps cattle. The domestication and ex- ploitation of these animals was the economic reason for population growth in the Fertile Crescent and for the Neolithic ex- pansion (37). A hunter-gatherer subsistence base cannot be attributed to a population connected through its techno-tradition to the early Neolithic of the Fertile Crescent without any archaeobiological evidence. As long as the contrary cannot be proved, they must be considered pastoralists if the general environment of their sites makes it unlikely that they were full farmers. As demonstrated by the site of Basta in southern Jordan, the high amount of projectile points in the stone industry (38) has no direct relation to a hunting economy. Most of the meat consumed at Basta was produced by domestic animals (39). Con- versely, there are no projectile points at the Halafian site of Shams ed-Din where two thirds of the meat consumed came from wild animals (40).

The carriers of the ABT are then considered as ’specialised’ hunter-gatherers (41) based on the faunal determinations of Zeder for Ain Qannas in Saudi Arabia (42). This fauna is seen as dominated by equids and is compared (43) to Umm Dabagiyah in northern Mesopotamia where more than 18 000 bones could be evaluated (44). In actual fact the sample from Ain Qannas fits into a shoe box (45). The bones are highly corroded and the predominance of ass teeth may be the result of extremely poor bone preservation rather than an indication of the subsistence strategy of the people who left these bones behind. In general, the economic situation of the equid hunters in the Neolithic of Mesopotamia is far more

complex than the term ’specialised hunters’ implies. The concept of ’hunting farmers’ may be much more applicable to an oasis situation such as Ain Qannas (46).

Although the archaeobiological evidence for the subsistence of the carriers of the ABT is scanty, a bit more than the sample from Ain Qannas does exist. It must be mentioned, however, that the bones of cattle and sheep/goat were also found at Ain Qannas. These represent domesticates because the range of their wild ancestors did not extend into the Arabian Penisula (47). Domestic sheep, goat and cattle were also found at the coastal site of Dosariyah. These animals were not confined to eastern Saudi Arabia. They make their first appear- ance in Oman at one of the Ra’s al-Hamra sites (48) during a phase which still seems to correlate with the Saruq facies of the ABT (49). There are indications for animal husbandry during this period from the Yemen (50). Domesticates were also found at sites with ‘Ubaid pottery on Bahrain and in Qatar (51).

What can only be assumed for the Qatar- B is definitely true for the ABT their carriers had domestic ruminants and seem to have been able to herd them throughout the Arabian Peninsula. One might argue that the contribution of the domesticates to human subsistence was small or even in- visible at some sites - including those dealt with in this paper. However, the acqui- sition of ’wild’ food is the only choice for a hunter-gatherer society senso stricto, whereas the motivation of herders for hunting and gathering is completely different. A herder saves his own animals if he can make use of a wild source of protein, thereby increasing his wealth and se- curity. He will take into consideration whether the effort of hunting, fishing or shell collecting is in good counterbalance with the value of his domesticates. In a difficult environment, like most of Arabia, the

133


value of domestic animals will always have been high. Thus, great effort was made to obtain protein from other sources, and the assurance of a continued supply of food was generally much greater than in pure hunter-gatherer societies. Therefore, there is a fundamental difference in ecological behaviour, population dynamics and social structure between classical hunters and gatherers and hunting herders or farmers.

In actual fact, sites like the ones described above are much easier to explain in an economic context based on pastoralism than as camps of hunters and gatherers. ’Normal’ hunters and gatherers would have exploited all the resources available in the catchment area of their respective camp-sites. On the coast of the Emirates these would have included terrestrial inammals like gazelles, oryx and wild dromedaries. Dugongs, cormorants and turtles are vertebrates that could be taken at sea. All these animals were extensively used in the Bronze Age (52). At fifth-millennium sites hardly any bones of higher vertebrates are to be found. While occu- pying these sites on the coast, their inhabitants lived almost exclusively on shellfish. Such behaviour is easier to imagine for pastoralists who knew that they could have meat if they wanted it. As long as oysters and/or other molluscs were easy to get, people usually did not want to kill any of their domesticates which were needed for reproduction later during the seasonal cycle. And the effort to hunt one of the fast- running wild beasts in the area was not considered worthwhile either. Obviously, such behaviour can only be seen as a seasonal part of a life cycle that also included other patterns of subsistence. Most of the year these people will have been in the in- terior, developing the basics of what is now seen as desert pastoralism in Arabia, and perhaps also the beginnings of oasis farming as its necessary complement (53).

The productivity of this early desert pastoralism was low because of the absence of the dromedary which only became dom- esticated much later. The use of coastal resources during the lean season - probably late winter - may have been compulsory. In addition, this economic system de- pended on good pastures in the desert (54) and climatic deterioration after 4000 BC seems to have put an end to it. Judging from the number of known sites, the population shrank considerably at this time and became concentrated in the few parts of Arabia which offered greater ecological di- versity (55).

The use of coastal resources by the fifth- millennium population in the Gulf area also needs more detailed consideration. The fish remains from our sites in Umm al- Qaiwain clearly indicate coastal fishing in shallow water. Tooth-bearing skull parts are mainly those of sea breams (Lethrinidae and Sparidae). All the fish remains, cranial and postcranial, represent small fish. Sea breams are still common in the Gulf. While young, they are known to live in shallow waters and estuaries (56). There is no indication that boats or any refined technology were used for fishing. The only artefacts related to this activity are the typical net sinkers of this period. These are made of small pebbles and are characterised by a pecked waistline (57). One of these net sinkers was found at al-Madar (58). At the Ramlah sites only pebbles and other stones with shallow, natural constrictions in the middle were found. Since no stones at all occur naturally in that sandy area, they must have been brought by man and may well have been used as net sinkers.

The same type of net sinkers was found at the contemporary site of Saruq near Muscat on the coast of the Gulf of Oman. An evolution of net sinkers and fishing technology is visible there from the Saruq- to the Ra’s-al-Hamra-Facies of the Late

234


Stone Age (59). The use of hand-cast nets from the shore or in shallow water is assumed for the earlier phase, whereas fishing with nets and lines in deep water is attested for the later phase (60) dated to the fourth millenium BC. Thus, the available evidence suggests that the populations of the fifth millennium on both the north and the west coast of the Oman Peninsula exploited the rich fish fauna of the area only marginally. The assumed seasonal pattern of coastal life might explain the lack of seagoing vessels and more refined fishing technology. Boats and large nets etc. would have had to remain on the coast and would have required year-round attention.

It is difficult to interpret the evidence from the central Gulf area where fish seems to have been more important and where fish may even have been dried for pro- longed use (61). But again, the fish used at the sites of Khor were mainly sea breams. Small fish are also reported from site 4 of Ra's Abaruq (62). At al-Da'asa, only a few fish bones and crab claws are mentioned (63). Here the situation seems to have been quite similar to that of our sites in the Emirates.

At al-Markh on Bahrain there is evidence for an evolution from the use of small sea breams and porgies in the early phases to the fishing of larger species in the later phase (64). It is not clear when this change occurred. Although some 'Ubaid pottery seems to have been found in the upper layers it is considered to be intrusive (65). The general development of al-Markh re- calls the situation in northern Oman as mentioned above. Without radiocarbon dates at hand, traditional archaeological dating would link the change in subsistence at al-Markh to the economic shifts at the transition from the Saruq- to the Ra's- al-Hamra-Facies in Oman (66). No clear evidence for deep-water fishing during the 'Ubaid period can thus be extracted from

the sources available for Qatar and Bahrain (67). In any case the particular hydro- graphic situation of each site must be taken into account when comparing the fish remains found there with the potential of the surrounding waters (68). It seems prema- ture to take for granted that the inhabitants of the sites with 'Ubaid pottery in the central Gulf had an advanced fishing technology, and it is quite unlikely that the sites represent landing points of maritime fishermen coming from Mesopotamia with seagoing vessels.

Molluscs and crustaceans did not require much technology, and their shells are obviously the most important residues of subsistence activities at the sites discussed here. Collecting shellfish seems to have been opportunistic, as indicated by the shifting composition of the shell spectra. Among the reasons discussed for the oc- curence of 'Ubaid pottery around the Gulf there is one item that is related to shell- fishing: the shells of pearl oysters occur at all the shell middens, and pearls seem to have been precious enough to stimulate long-distance trade, particularly if they could be exchanged for simple painted pots (or their contents?).

Whether it was for pearls or something else, 'Ubaid pots must have arrived on the Emirates coast quite regularly, although not as frequently as on the Saudi coast. Given the hazards of archaeological preservation, the two handfuls of sherds from the strip between Ajman and Ra's al-Khaimah are just the tip of an iceberg. More sites will surely be discovered in the area between ed-Dur and Jezirat al-Hamra. Unless all of these sites received their pots from one single shipload (69) that reached the area by chance, this 'trade' must have had some organization and regularity. The arrival of the pots must have been timed with the coastal interval of the annual life cycle of the locals. The participants in this exchange

235


system from the northern part of the Gulf area, where seafaring was more developed, must have been aware that there was a coast at the lower end of the Gulf, that people lived there during certain periods of the year, that these people were likely to have found a few pearls in the course of their subsistence activities, and that they were willing to give them away for foreign goods - like painted pots made in Mesopo- tamia (70).

Other possible reasons for the occurrence of Mesopotamian pottery on the Arabian coast of the Gulf, like the model of 'Ubaid pots being handed down from Mesopot- amia to Oman by multiple group-to-group exchange (71), do not explain the exclusive coastal distribution and would require the existence of an unbroken chain of settlements along the south coast of the Gulf. The explanation favoured by Vertesaly (72) that the pottery marks the routes of herders migrating from the Mesopotamian alluvial plains into the desert also seems unlikely. There is no conceivable reason why these routes should have followed the coastline over the enormous distance between Meso- potamia and Oman and they would not have reached Bahrain or the islands in the southern Gulf without seafaring. In addition it would be difficult to explain why these herders would have changed their flint technology on the borders of the desert. The technological argument also holds against the assumption that the sites with 'Ubaid pottery along the Gulf coast were landing points of Mesopotamian fishermen (73) and that the pottery was not left as exchange goods but rather as debris of the occasional presence of Mesopotamian people.

In any case, the existence of maritime links across the Gulf in the fifth millennium BC is a fascinating phenomenon. This fascination should, however, not distract our scientific attention from the really

interesting questions similarly formulated by Cleuziou (74): what did the fifth- millenium population of southeastern Arabia do during those parts of the year when it was not on the coast? Were they the ones who started cultivation of the date palm in Arabia? Did they have other cultivated plants? Were they able to build wells? Up to now it is only known that they flaked their stone tools and weapons in a special way. The sites to answer our questions must still be found.

References 1. Oates, J. The Gulf in prehistory. B T A A : 79-86, and

Oates J, Davidson T, Kamilli D & McKerrell H. Seafaring Merchants of Ur? Aut iqu i t y 51: 1977:

2. Piesinger, cited after Cleuziou S. Dilmoun-Arabie. In: Salles J-F, ed. L'Arabie et ses mers bordikres. Lyon: TMO, 16: 1988: 33.

3. Potts DT. The Arabian Gulf i n Antiquity, i. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.

4. Masry AH. Prehistory in Northeastern Arabia, the Problem of Interregional Interaction. Coconut Grove: Field Research Projects, 1974.

5. Cleuziou, Dilmoun-Arabie: 41ff. 6. See also De Cardi B. Some Aspects of Neolithic

Settlement in Bahrain and Adjacent Regions. B T A A : 87-93. Tixier J. The prehistory of the Gulf Recent Finds. B T A A : 76-78. Frifelt K. 'Ubaid in the Gulf Area. In: Henrickson EF & Thuesen I, eds. Upon this fouudatiori - The 'Ubaid period reconsidered. Copenhagen: CNIP, 10: 1989: 405417.

7. Flavin K & Shepherd E. Fishing in the Gulf: Preliminary investigation at an 'Ubaid site, Dalma

8. Fig. 1 is based on Al-Tikriti WY. Archaeological Investigations in Ghanada Island, 1982-84: Further Evidence for the Coastal Umm an-Nar Culture. AUAE 4: 1985: 18, n. 15; Haerinck, E. Heading for the Straits of Hormuz, an 'Ubaid site in the Emirate of Ajman (U.A.E.). A A E 2: 1991: 84- 90; Boucharlat R, Haerinck E, Phillips CS & Potts DT. Note on an 'maid-pottery site in the Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain. AAE 2: 1991:65-71; Jasim SA. An 'Ubaid Site in the Emirate of Sharjah (U.A.E). A A E 7: 1996; B. Vogt pers. comm.; and the exhibition in the Ra's al-Khaimah National Museum. According to S. A. Jasim the site located by Haerinck in Ajman is actually on the territory

221-234.

(UAE). P S A S 24: 1994: 115-134.

136


of Sharjah Emirate. It is unclear whether it is identical with the site mentioned by Al-Tikriti.

9. Potts D.T. A Prehistoric Mound in the Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.: Excavations at Tell Abraq in 1989. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1990; Further Excavations at Telf Abraq: The 1990 Season. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1991.

10. This research was funded by the 'Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft', Bonn, and generously sponsored and supported by the Emiri Diwan of Umm al-Qaiwain. The Middle East division of General Motors Corporation, Dubai, provided transportation. Our sincere thanks are due to all those involved in this support. Further members of the team were Andrea Laubheimer and T. Harri Gohlisch, who also produced figures 1, 2 and 4. Figure 3 was drawn by H. J. Frey. I? Vertesalji kindly examined the 'Ubaid sherds from RA3 and gave valuable comments. Radiocarbon dating was done by J. Gorsdorf, DAI Berlin. Many thanks are due to all those who contributed to the project and in particular to Dan Potts and the Tell Abraq team for their excellent collaboration.

11. Boucharlat R, ed. Reports on the archaeological surveys in the Sharjah Emirate. Sharjah: Dept. of Culture & Information, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989.

12. Boucharlat et al, Note on an 'maid-pottery site. 13. Edens C. Towards a definition of the western Rub

al-Khali 'Neolithic'. Atlal 6: 1982: 109-124; Uerpmann M. Structuring the Late Stone Age of Southeastern Arabia. AAE 3: 1992: 65-109.

14. Boucharlat et al, Note on an 'Ubaid-pottery site. 15. Very similar faunal remains were observed by W.

van Neer (pers. comm.) at the al-Zuhra site in Ajman. Cf. Haerinck, Heading for the Straits of Hormuz.

16. The smaller fragment was discovered during our work at the site in square Bcl of RA3. The larger fragment was collected earlier by other members of the Tell Abraq team in the general area of RA3. Its exact location cannot be determined. P. Vertesalji, who studied the two fragments in Tubingen, describes them (in l i f t . ) as follows: 'The two small sherds (44x35 mm and 26x24 mm) can be re-fitted. As there is no rim preserved, it is not possible to tell much about the shape of the vessel. Because the painting is on the convex side, one can assume that they represent a pot rather than a bowl. The colour of the paste is pale yellow (Munsell 2.5Y7/4), that of the pattern is dark grayish brown or olive gray (Munsell2.5Y312 or 5Y3/2) depending on the thickness of the paint. On the painted side there seems to be a very thin slip which makes the colour of the paste a little

brighter (between Munsell 2.5Y8/4 and 5Y8/3). The 8 painted lines belong to a 'lattice design'. Such patterns were common throughout the 'Ubaid period from the later part of the Chalcolithic I C to the beginning of I11 B according to the chronological charts in Henrickson & Thuesen, Upon this foundation: 183, Fig.1 and 229, Fig. 1. Without knowing the shape of the vessel it is difficult to give a more precise date for such a common pattern ... However, the yellowish-buff colour and the supposedly low temperature of baking indicate a date before the transition from I11 A3 to I11 B1. Late 'Ubaid ware in Southern Mesopotamia is almost exclusively dark greenish and clink-hard, often almost baked to glass ...' According to Vertesalji the origin of the pot might be in southwestern Iran rather than in southern Mesopotamia.

17. Boucharlat R, Dalongeville R, Hesse A & Millet M. Occupation humaine et environnement au 5e et 4e millhaire sur la c6te Sharjah-Umm al- Qaiwain (U.A.E.). AAE 2: 1991: 93-106.

18. Edens, Towards a definition; Archaeology of the Sands and Adjacent Portions of the Sharqiyah. JOS Special Report, 3: 1988: 113-130; and The Rub al-Khali 'Neolithic' Revisited, the view from Nadqan. In: Potts DT, ed. Araby the Blest: Studies in Arabian Arclzaeology. Copenhagen: CNIP, 7 1988: 1543.

19. Haerinck, Heading for the Straits of Hormuz, and Millet M. Comments on the lithic material from an 'Ubaid site in the Emirate of Ajman (U.A.E.). AAE 2: 1991: 91-92.

20. Boucharlat et al., Note on an 'maid-pottery site. 21. On display in the National Museum of Ra's al-

Khaimah. 22. Another possible area of origin seems to be on the

Iranian coast of the upper Gulf where the sherds from RA 3, according to Vertesalji (cf. n. 16), are more likely to have been produced than in Mesopotamia itself. Seen from the Arabian coast of the Gulf, this geographical difference is quite irrelevant with regard to the discussions about the movement of pottery in the region.

23. For detailed references see Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity: 37ff.

24. E.g. at Tell al-Oueili. See Inizan M-L & Tixier J. The Lithic Material. Sumer 39: 1983: 62-66; Inizan M-L. Tell el'oueili: the knapped stone finds. Sumer

25. Cf. the site list in Potts, The Argbian Gulf in

26. Millet, Comments on the lithic material. 27. R. Boucharlat, pers. comm. 28. Uerpmann, Structuring the Late Stone Age.

44: 1986: 120-122.

Antiquity: 59ff.

137

M. UERPMANN AND H.-I? UERPMANN

29. In March 1983 one of us (H.-P. U.) visited shell middens near Jezirat al-Hamra together with Walid Y. al-Tikriti and H.-G. Gebel. A few flints and one of the typical net sinkers were collected and two radiocarbon samples were taken to Germany. The sites were included in the respective TAVO map. The occurrence of 'Ubaid pottery in this area was still unknown at that time. We have no information about the exact locations where the shercis were found. Nevertheless, the radiocarbon dates fall in the range of other shell dates for sites with 'Ubaid pottery. They were published in Gebel H-G. S t o w Age Settlcirzerits itz Eastcuil Arabia. Wiesbaden: TAVO Map B I 8.3.1, 1987.

30. Boucharlat et a]., Note on an 'Ubaid-pottery site. 31. Uerpmann H-P. Radiocarbon Dating of Shell

Middens in the Sultanate of Oman. PACT 29: 1990: 335-347.

32. There are differences between the radiocarbon laboratories with regard to 613C corrections and there is also the possibility of different reservoir effects between mollusc species. There are observations which indicate that oysters produce 'younger' dates than other shells. Dates made on oysters may, however, be correct and directly comparable to terrestrial samples because oysters live in the tidal zone and are exposed to the air for most of the time. Reservoir effects do not yet seem to have been determined for the Arabian Gulf. When producing new dates from marine shells, it is important to use monospecific samples and to publish the name of the species together with the dates. It should also be mentioned whether dates are 6I3C corrected or not. The Hv- and Bln-dates in the above list are 6I3C corrected. Stuiver M, Pearson GW & Braziunas T. Radiocarbon age calibration of marine samples back to 9000 cal Yr BP. Radiocarboii 28: 1986: 980- 1021.

34. Pearson GW, Pilcher JR, Baille MG, Corbett DM & Qua F. High-precision decadal calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950-2500 BC. Radiocarboii 28: 1986: 911-934.

35. Maximum age obtained by calibration with the terrestrial curve and minimum with the marine curve and additional reservoir effect of 400-+40 years.

36. Tosi M. The emerging picture of prehistoric Arabia. Annt4nl Review of AiitJivopology 15: 1986: 461-490. Cf. also Cleuziou, Dilmoun-Arabie; Potts, The Arahiaii Gulf in Antiquity

37. Uerpmann H-P. Probletne der Neolithisieruiig des Mittelnieerrauwies. Wiesbaden: Beihefte zum TAVO Reihe B, 28: 1979.

38. H.-G. Gebel, pers. comm. 39. C. Becker, pers. comm. 40. Azoury I & Bergman C. The Halafian Lithic

Assemblage of Shams ed-Din Tannira. Berytus 28: 1980: 127-143; Miller R, Bergman C & Azoury I. Additional note on reconstructing aspects of archery equipment at Shams ed-Din Tannira. Berytus 30: 1982: 53-54.

41. Cleuziou, Dilmoun-Arabie: 38. 42. In Masry, Prehistory iri Northeasterti Arabia. 43. Tosi, The emerging picture: 474. 44. BGktinyi S. The Equids of Umm Dabaghiyah, Iraq.

In: Meadow RH & Uerpmann H-P, eds. Equids iii

the Atzcieiit World, i. Wiesbaden: Beihefte zum TAVO Reihe A, 19/ 1: 1986: 302-317.

45. One of us (H.-P. U.) had the possibility of studying the faunal samples from Ain Qannas, Dosariyah and Abu Khamis in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., during several visits between 1983 and 1990. Many thanks are due to Melinda Zeder for the opportunity to study this material. Specific identifications of the equid material are published in Uerpmann H-P. E9u11"s africunus in Arabia. In: Meadow RH & Uerpmann H-P, eds. Eqztids in the Ancient World, ii. Beihefte zum TAVO Reihe A, 19/

46. Cf. Uerpmann H-P. Faunal Remains from Shams ed-Din Taiinira, a Halafian Site in Northern Syria. Ber!ytus 30: 1982: 3-52.

47. Uerpmann H.-P. The Aizcieiit Distribution of Uiiyiilate Mariziizals i n the Middle East. Wiesbaden: Beihefte zum TAVO Reihe A, 27: 1987.

48. At RH 6, H.-P. Uerpmann, in prep. 49. Uerpmann, Structuring the Late Stone Age. 50. Fedele FG. Fauna of Wadi Yana'im (WYi), Yemen

51. See Potts, The Arabiaii Gulf in Ant iqui ty: 53 for refs. 52. Hoch E. Reflections on Prehistoric Life at Umm

an-Nar (Trucial Oman) Based on Faunal Remains from the Third Millennium BC. In: Taddei M, ed. South Asinn Archaeology 1977. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale Seminario di Studi Asiatici Series Minor, 6: 1979: 589-638. Cf. also al- Tikriti, Archaeological investigations in Ghanada Island.

2: 1991: 12-33.

Arab Republic. E W 34: 1984: 117-125.

53. Cleuziou, Dilmoun-Arabie: 42. 54. There is agreement that the 'Ubaid period fell into

a climatic optimum with moister conditions than today. See Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Aiztiquity, and Uerpmann, Structuring the Late Stone Age for refs.

55. E.g. the mountainous coast of northern and eastern Oman. Cf. Uerpmann, Structuring the Late Stone Age.

138

’UBAID POTTERY IN THE EASTERN GULF

56. Relyea K. Inshore Fishes of thf Arabian Guy.

57. See illustrations in Haerinck, Heading for the

58. Potts, pers.comm. 59. Uerpmann, Structuring the Late Stone Age. 60. Biagi P, Torke W, Tosi M & Uerpmann H-P.

Qurum, A Case Study of Coastal Archaeology in Northern Oman. World Archaeology 16: 1984: 43- 61.

61. Desse J. Etude de l’ichthyofaune et des ma- CroinaminifCres du site Khor F.B. (Qatar, Goye Arabique): Mithodologie et risultats prdiminaires. Valbonne: RCP 476 rapport d’activiti. (juillet 1979), 1979: 44-80; Desse J. Khor ’I”, Khor ’F.B.‘ et ’Shagra’, les faunes: Le r81e de la p@che. In: Inizan M-L. Pdhistoivr u Qatar. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988: 157-165; Tixier J. The prehistory of the Gulf: Recent Finds. BTAA: 77.

62. Smith GH. Two Prehistoric Sites on Ras Abaruk, Site 4. In: De Cardi B, ed. Qatar Archaeological Report. Excavations 1973. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978: 80-106.

63. Smith GH. Al-Da’asa, site 46: An Arabian Neolithic Camp Site of the fifth Millennium. In: De Cardi, Qatar Archaeological Report: 53-75.

64. S. Payne cited in Roaf M. Excavations at A1 Markh, Bahrain. PSAS 6: 1976: 150.

65. Roaf, Excavations at A1 Markh: 160. 66. Uerpmann, Structuring the Late Stone Age. 67. Kay S. Bahrain Islarid Heritage. Dubai: Motivate

Publishing, 1989:33 describes traditional fishing in the waters around Bahrain as follows: ’Perhaps the most lasting impression of Bahrain’s fisheries, however, is also that on the smallest scale. All around the coast men wade out in the shallow waters to catch the shell fish, crabs, shrimps and other small fish which come close inshore. They carry small nets of one kind or another to make their catch ... So shallow are the in-shore waters that they may wade out half a kilometre or so and still have water only up to their waists’. This type

London: Allen & Unwin, 1981.

Straits of Hormuz: Figs 6-7.

of fishing would be sufficient to explain most of the findings from the ’Ubaid period.

68. See for example Uerpmann H-P, Gebel HG, Klein E, Torke W, Tosi M & Uerpmann M. S t o w Age Settlements on the Coast of RaS al-Hamra (Masqat, Oman), Topograpplzy and Ecology. Wiesbaden: TAVO map B 18.4.1, 1988.

69. This possibility seems unlikely but cannot be ruled out completely. The available “C-dates do not exclude absolute contemporaneity of all sites.

70. It is obvious that pearls are only one of the possible exchange goods, and that the countervalue may rather have been the contents of the ‘Ubaid pots. Both terms are used here in a metaphoric sense because the real merchandise cannot yet be determined. Dried fish - discussed as one of the possibilities - can be excluded in the case of the Umm al-Qaiwain sites because there are no indications of fish butchering. Another product of Oman good enough for export could have been date preserves (transported in baskets or goat skins), but this is pure speculation so long as there is no positive evidence for the existence of the date palm in Oman in the fifth millennium, either wild or cultivated. Incense as the third traditional product of eastern Arabia could also be mentioned in this context.

71. Haerinck, Heading €or the Straits of Hormuz. 72. See discussion to Frifelt, ’Ubaid in the Gulf Area:

73. Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity: 57-58. 74. Cleuziou, Dilmoun-Arabie: 37.

416.

Address: M. and H.-P. Uerpmann Institut fur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte Eberhard-Karls-Universitat Tubingen Eugenstr. 40 D-72072 Tubingen

139

Ubaid pottery in the eastern Gulf ? new evidence from Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.)

Documents

Transcript of Ubaid pottery in the eastern Gulf ? new evidence from Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.)