Arab.
arch. epig. 1993: 4: 107-125 Arabian
archaeology
And epigraphy
Palaeogeography
of an ‘Ubaid archaeological site, Saudi Arabia
H. A.
McCLURE AND N. Y. AL-SHAIKH
Natural
History Museum, London, UK and BBC Brown Boveri, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Palaeogeographic analysis and radiocarbon dating
indicate that sometime in the second half of the fifth millennium BC a
sea-level rise occurred along the coast of the western side of the Arabian
(Persian) Gulf. Cultural remains of the ‘Ubaid archaeological period are
intimately associated with the event and the palaeogeographic environment that
accompanied it. The sea-level rise appears to have had a catastrophic effect on
habitation sites.
Within Holocene time, in addition to the availability
of resources for exploitation, other important natural constraints that may be
assumed to have controlled ancient human populations living along the western
coast of the Arabian (Persian) Gulf are accessibility and quality of
ground-water, local spring discharge, and sea-level fluctuation.
Sea-level fluctuation can obviously affect
littoral populations dependent on shoreline activities such as fishing and
maritime trade.
Inundation of habitation or activity sites in the case
of sea-level rise can obliterate such populations or force movement inward.
Shoreline may be especially at risk even in the case
of minor sea level fluctuation.
This paper documents the palaeogeographic
environment of the time and effect of a minor sea-level rise on what is figured
to have been a prehistoric population of ‘Ubaid cultural period living along the western coast of the
Arabian Gulf sometime in the latter half of the fifth millennium BC (1).
The area studied is located about 10 km
south of Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, on the south side of the Dammam structural
dome. A group of five more or less separate but apparently related
archaeological sites occur in the area, aligned in a west to east strike on a
traverse of about 6 km width along an approximate latitude of 26 13 N. For the purposes of this paper, the sites are designated,
west to east, A, F, B, C, and D. The easternmost site, D, is considered to have
been a principal

Fig. 1.
Index map, showing locations of sites mentioned in text.
occupation site. It is situated north, slightly east,
of ‘Ain as-Sayh, a spring located at the head of the embayment complex of sites
are indicated on USGS Map I-208A (2). The group of sites is referred to in this
paper as the “Ain as-Sayh complex”.
Fig. 1 is a location map.
Palaeogeography
The sites presently occupy a series of shallow
depressions and indentations cut by natural erosion of wind deflation and
recent human industrial activity into sandy silt flats and low dunes a few
kilometers inland from the present shoreline at an elevation of about 1.2 m above high-water. The sites
are bordered inland by a discontinuous line of low rolling dunes partly
stabilized by scrub palm clusters and sparse grass cover. Further north, rock
outcrops of the Dammam structural dome comprise the main landscape feature.
The present silt and sand flats on which
the sites are situated represent fossil remnants of a former higher sea level
at a time when sheltered, shallow-water lagoons or inlets and tidal flats were
the main features of the area. Diagnostic sub-fossil marine shell species
constituting the dominant element of the biotope occupying this former marine
environment, some still occurring in situ in growth position, include: Circe
Arabica (common), Sanguinolaria ?cumingiana (common), Cerithidea
cingulata (common), Pinctada radiate (rare), serpulids, and other
rarer small gastropods. The barnacle, Balanus amphitrite, occurs along
what would have been the high-water line where a splash zone was present
adjacent to land. An open beach line with abundant whole and comminuted shells
of diverse species and derivation from a mixture of deeper water biotopes was
not present.
The sand containing the shells is only a few
centimeters thick, indicating that deposition was of short duration. It
overlies biologically and culturally sterile sand.
In addition to occupying a significant
niche in the fossil biotope by serving to indicate the former high-tide line,
the other significance of the barnacles is that they adhere to the objects they
serve to date. In the particular case at hand, as will be seen, they encrust
cultural remains considered to be of the ‘Ubaid archaeological period and, in
addition to providing an absolute time framework, also furnish an important
clue in decipherment of natural events that drastically affected human
populations living in the area (3).
The area of ‘Ain as-Sayh, the spring,
would have been a marsh, as it is today, fringed with Typha and Phragmites
reeds.
The ‘Ubaid populations lived along the
edge of a palaeoenvironment of lagoons, tidal flats, and inlets (at the time
occurring a little further seaward), evidently exploiting marine life (fish and
shellfish) and boating and maritime facilities. They were already precariously
perched only a bit above the high-tide line. This environment was then
displaced further inland by the sea-level rise, resulting in inundation of
habitation and activity sites. The high sea-level need not have lasted very
long, perhaps as only a few years.
Chronology
McClure and Vita-Finzi established a shoreline
chronology based on radiocarbon analyses to evaluate a neo-tectonic deformation
along the littoral of the western side of the Arabian Gulf (4). They dated
Holocene palaeo-shorelines over a distance of 350 km from the Lawdhan Peninsula
in the north to the base of the Qatar Peninsula in the south. Dates on a
similar shoreline of Holocene age along the coast of the United Arab Emirates
(Trucial Coast) had already been reported (5). The chronology established by
McClure and Vita-Vinzi was refined by additional radiocarbon and
palaeogeographical analyses by the same two authors (6). In this second study,
first-order dating (7) and additional conventional radiocarbon dating were
applied to more mollusks and barnacles associated with the same section of
palaeo-shoreline originally reported near Dhahran, but extended on a traverse
eastward to Site D. The close agreement obtained between ages for the barnacle,
Balanus amphitrite, adhering to cultural remains of the ‘Ubaid
archaeological period, Circe Arabica in growth position, and Cerithidea
cingulata , showed that a wide
range of shell material and species could be used for reconstructing the nature
and age of the former shoreline and high-tide line. Ages obtained on a number
of conventional and first-order analyses were in very close agreement, within
limits of the radiocarbon dating technique. At Site F, ages in years BC (uncalibrated
conventional) are: Circe Arabica 4320 + 80; Cerithidea
cingulata 4380 + 70; and Balanus amphitrite 4430 + 90.
All three ages may be taken, within limits, as representing the same event, the
sea-level rise, accompanied by changes in geography and environments that
affected sites documented in this paper (8).
The archaeological sites (described west to east)
Site A, a minor site from the standpoint of cultural remains
(9), yielded a few fragments of hard, gray, lime plaster, impressed with a
pattern of twisted and bound reeds on one side, smooth, pink washed, and
barnacle encrusted on the other. The plaster fragments are considered to
represent remains of some kind of building. Similar remains from ‘Ubaid
excavations in southern Mesopotamia were called “huts” (10). It is important to
note that the barnacles encrust pieces that are found presently smooth face
down in the sand. Considering the living habits of barnacles – they do not
burrow, for one thing – the walls of the “huts” from which the plaster pieces
derive can be assumed to have been standing at the time of encrustation.
Barnacles encrusting outside surfaces (i.e., where the bound reeding is assumed
to have been exposed) would have disassociated quickly due to rapid decay of
the reeding. Lots of barnacles lying around loose may be the product of this
process. As such flimsily constructed structures can hardly be expected to have
stood long after abandonment due to any other reason, it is reasonable to
assume that abandonment was due to events of which the barnacle encrustation
was a by-product, i.e., sea-level rise, rapid marine inundation, and presence
within a high-tide zone.
The reeding of which the “hut” walls were
constructed very likely was derived from twisted leaves and bound stems of the
common Middle Eastern brackish water reed, Phragmites communis (11).
Several pieces of light red, coarse
pottery were present at the site. Only one “hut” seemed to be represented.
At Site F, a cluster of 5 or 6 more or less distinct sand
mounds, each about 0.5 m high and about 1.5 m in diameter, contains abundant
large and small fragments of the same kind of plaster that is present at Site
A. A number of the fragments, as at Site

Fig. 2.
Smooth, pink-washed, barnacle-encrusted inside surface of a piece of
reed-impressed lime plaster. Site F.
A, retain a pink wash on the smooth side, in addition
to being encrusted with barnacles. Pieces of the plaster are illustrated in
Fig. 2 and 3. One pieces of painted pottery was found at the site, along with
several pieces of plain, coarse, red pottery. A few flint chips and one piece
of tile flint were present. No other

Fig. 3.
Piece of lime plaster showing reed-impressed outer surface. Site F.
occupational debris was obvious, though proper
archaeological examination might reveal such. The “hut” appear not to have been
utilized very long. Fig. 4 depicts several of the sand mounds with fragments of
plaster weathering out.

Fig. 4.
Sand mound with pieces of reed-impressed lime plaster weathering out.
Site F. (15 cm scale in lower left).
Some stratification is evident at the
site. A thin, lightly calcreted, soft sandstone crust bearing possible root or
stem casts caps some of the remains, in turn overlain by present mobile,
sterile dune sand.
Site F occurs at the edge of an artificial hollow where bulldozers have
removed material for construction purposes and recent wind deflation has been
active. The remains of two other “hut”, indicated by pieces of plaster scree
and barnacles weathering from the dune sand, occur at the south side of the
hollow. Other such remains may be present in immediate nearby areas underneath
undisturbed dune sand.
The relationship of the “hut” –bearing
sites of A and F to other sites of the ‘Ain as-Sayh complex, especially the (assumed)
main occupation site of D, discussed below, may be subject to future
archaeological interpretation, but the two sites, probably task oriented, were
apparently co-eval with the other sites, all of which display evidence of
barnacle encrustation.
At Site B, small
pieces of reed-impressed plaster and a number of pieces of painted pottery
considered to be of ‘Ubaid typology occur in a debris pile dredged and scraped
out of a thin

Fig. 5.
Debris pile, about 2m high, which yielded painted pottery sherds and
lime plaster fragments. Exposed crust (white horizontal patch) in upper right
background. Site B.
crust and overlying dune sand by bulldozer activity
(Fig.5). One piece of painted pottery, however, the cross-hatch patterned one
of Fig. 6, occurred still embedded in a patch of undisturbed crust. One piece
of the pottery had small barnacles encrusted on it, barnacles being otherwise
very rare at the site. A few flint chips and one piece of tile flint were
found.
A substantial part of a large building of
rough faroosh blocks (12), Plastered on the inside, with a height of more than
a meter, occurs at a higher elevation on a small sand hillock at the site. It
seems likely to be of later date, but serves to mark Site B. The

Fig. 6.
Patterned and painted sherds of ‘Ubaid typology. Cross-hatched sherds of
far middle right occurred in situ in the crust. Site B.
site, unlike the others of the complex, is otherwise
unstructured, significant mostly for the painted pottery that occurs there. The
pottery sherds and plaster pieces have a re-worked
aspect. (Could Site B be an earlier site abandoned for another reason, then
reworked and barnacle encrusted by the sea-level rise documented in this paper
?) Fig. 6. illustrates some of the sherds (13).
More significant structured remains may
lurk underneath overlying sand terrain surrounding the dredged hollow. As at
Site D, described below, lagoon shells do not occur in the immediate vicinity.
The barnacles, though few and small, indicate that, like Site D, it was
nevertheless within the high-tide zone, perhaps elevated a bit above what
became lagoon level when the sea-level rise occurred.
Site C can be characterized mainly by the occurrence of
moderately coarse, red and pink, large fragments of round-bottomed pottery,
some of which are bitumen coated and barnacle encrusted. The bitumen is the
most interesting and probably most significant item at the site. It occurs as a
thick coating, which may be on the order of half a centimeter thick or more, running
down the sides and covering the bottoms of some of the vessels (Fig. 7 and 8).
Bitumen was evidently the bulk product contained and processed in the pottery
and not a simple coating to render it impervious.
Scattered gray low humps of sand containing
blackened and feature of the area.
Another interesting item at the site
comprises flat bitumen

Fig. 7.
Inside surface of a large fragment of a round-bottomed, bitumen-coated
and barnacle encrusted pot. Site C.

Fig. 8.
Outside barnacle-encrusted surface of part of a pot similar to that of
Fig. 7. Site C.
fragments about a centimeter or less thick, impressed
with a woven reed pattern, the largest illustrated in Fig. 9. The fabric
represented suggests usage of split lengths of Typha stems (14). The
fragments may have been parts of a bitumen substratum on which woven reed
matting was placed. Another piece of reed-impressed bitumen displays a fabric
indicating bound reeding laced with fine, twisted, double-stranded threading. Still other fragments occurring
as sandstone casts seem to represent coarsely woven cloth. Bitumen fragments
and sandstone casts

Fig. 9.
Large bitumen fragments impressed with a woven reed pattern. The two
pieces fit together at the right ends. Site C.

Fig. 10.
Bitumen fragments impressed with various fabrics. Site C.
displaying fabric impressions are illustrated in
Fig.10 and 11.
A number of pieces and fragments of
faroosh blocks, some smooth on one side, is associated with the humps of sand
mentioned enough to have constituted flooring or building remains, and may have
been simply used as work bases of some kind or in hearths for working with the
bitumen.

Fig. 11.
Impressions of coarse fabric preserved in sandstone casts. Site C.

Fig. 12.
Flint pieces. Upper right-hand 3 specimens appear to be of scraper
typology. Site C.
Some pieces of flint occur at the site,
several possibly retouched for use as scrapers (Fig. 12). They resemble flakes
that might have been derived from deposits of nodular or bedded flint to be
found in Eocene limestone outcrops riming flanks of Dammam dome.
In addition to the red and pink pottery at the site, a
substantial part of a small, light-red, vase-shaped pot with narrow base and
barnacle encrustation was found (Fig. 13). Several of what appear to be the
same type occurred at the main site of D, discussed blow.

Fig. 13.
Large fragment of a small, light-red, vase-shaped, narrow-based. Site D.

Fig. 14.
Surface of Site C showing abundant palaeo-lagoon shells and large piece
of blackened and baked pottery and weathered bitumen.
The barnacle encrustation serves to
indicate it probably not of later intrusion (but see reference 15). One piece
of painted pottery was found at the site.
It is too tempting not to speculate the
Site C may have been used to process bitumen for caulking or otherwise working
with reed boats. The bitumen
fragments impressed with woven reed pattern may indicate matting used for
comfort or linings in boat bottoms. The weave pattern and fabric as well as the
flat shape are suggestive of matting, not basketry work. Some of the other
impressed bitumen fragments at the site may indicate parts or accessories of
reed boats.
No natural bitumen seepage sites are known
to exist on the Arabian Peninsula, Bahrain, or Kuwait that were capable of
producing usable bulk bitumen, the nearest practical source being the Hit area
of southern Iraq on the Euphrates (16).
The area of Site C is now a silty sand
flat, presently profusely covered with the palaeo-lagoon shells described above
(Fig. 14). The cultural remains described here are inconspicuous, requiring
careful scrutiny, study and interpretation.
Site D appears to have been a main habitation site. It has
been exposed in an area presently characterized by low dunes, sand humps, scrub
palm clusters, and evidence of much recent industrial disturbance. It was
formerly covered with Aeolian sand and later occupation debris of abundant
Islamic and other Pre-Islamic, post ‘Ubaid periods (17). Bulldozer operations
of about 20 years ago exposed the site. Lithologically, the occupation level comprises
an indurated, hard, sandy crust roughly 15 cm thick, in which are imbedded
cultural remains.

Fig. 15.
Faroosh (walling ?) blocks with barnacle encrustation. Site D.

Fig. 16.
Crust with faroosh flooring ? stones and pot sherds embedded. Site D.
(Lens cap for scale).

Fig. 17.
Vertically set rows of faroosh slabs possibly comprising floor
foundation. Patches at lower right hand corner and at upper left. Considerably
more might be revealed under the loose sand scree presently covering the area.
Site D. (Paint brush about 9 cm width for scale).
The crust
is probably a product of cementation due to sea-water inundation at high-tide,
plus perhaps some compaction due to former human occupation activity. It is
underlain by unconsolidated, culturally and biologically sterile fine sand and
silt, evidently representing the initial level and substratum on which the
original population set up habitation and lived until catastrophic sea-level
rise. Much of the crust is now covered by a light, thin scree of loose sand
blown in after originally bulldozer exhumation and still mobile over the area.
Large patches are prominently exposed, though, and the rest is easily uncovered
with brush or broom.
Most important at the site are building
remains, exposed by the bulldozer activity. Fig. 15 illustrates faroosh blocks
(walling ?) with barnacle encrustation. Fig. 16 illustrates some of the crust
with slabs of faroosh flooring ? stones and pot sherds imbedded. Nearby are tow
patches several square meters in size (or very possibly more when properly
exposed) of what appears to have been a floor foundation composed of uniformly
thin

Fig. 18.
Close-up of vertical foundation slabbing (at middle right), with partial
covering of flooring slabs apparently in situ in foreground. Site D. (15
cm scale in middle right).

Fig. 19.
Mosaic of pottery sherds (all of same pot) imbedded in crust of Site D).
faroosh slabs vertically set, firmly and evenly
spaced, in the sand substratum (Fig. 17 and 18). The supposed flooring, wall
portions, and foundation stones all occur close together, suggesting the base
of a single, substantial building of careful workmanship (18).
Light brown or red pottery sherds are
frequent in the crust. Painted sherds are rare, but much of a large, globular,
round-bottomed, cream-coloured pot, painted with closely spaced diagonal
stripes and horizontal banding, can be reconstructed from pieces apparently
randomly but deliberately laid after breakage in a sort of mosaic, possibly to
form a working base of some kind (Fig. 19 and 20). Several specimens of a
particular kind of small, brown vase or cup, very much like the one of Site C
(Fig. 13), were noted, in addition to some short, brown, straight pot spouts.

Fig. 20.
Close-up of imbedded pottery sherds of Fig. 19. Site D.
Though remains of later cultural period
along with ‘Ubaid mixed in as part of the bulldozer disturbance can be found in
humps of disturbed sand and debris, the crust is important as containing in
situ remains.
No reed-impressed plaster fragments were
noted at the site, the faroosh blocks being the only indication of building,
highly important as they are. Absence of the plaster, so ubiquitous at sites
elsewhere, must have a significance, assuming true contemporaniety of the
sites. A possible clue to how ‘Ubaid communities were structured may be
provided.
Only a few small pieces of reed-impressed
bitumen occur. Flint tools of definite typology and arrow points, so prominent
on other Arabian ‘Ubaid sites, appear conspicuously absent, though some flint
chips and flakes occur, similar to those of Site C.
Other occupation items, not investigated
much but readily observable in the crust, in addition to the pottery sherds and
faroosh blocks, include a string of beads, fragments of several small alabaster
jars, copper tools (several awls and razors ?), pounding stones, spindle whorls
?, perforated discs, common fish bones and spines, articulated vertebrae,
bovid? Teeth, tusks of some sort, and mollusk shell fragments. A number of the
shell fragments scattered in the crust are of Pinctada radiata and a
large muricid gastropod, probably food sources (19).
No lagoon shells occur in situ at
the site, possibly indicating it was originally at a slightly higher elevation
than the other sites (with the possible exception of Site B), not surprising
considering it appears to have been the main habitation of the complex. The splash
zone of high-tide clearly occurred her, though, evidence being the barnacle
encrustation on the building blocks.
The fresh-water supply to support local
populations and provide reeding surely derived from ‘Ain as-Sayh, located to
the immediate south of the site. It is still flowing, but is heavily sanded
over and now discharges as seepage into the Gulf and adjacent sabkhas.
Site D is presently located at the side of
a major carriageway and is subjected to heavy local recreational activity. It is
consequently rapidly deteriorating as an archaeological site.
Conclusions
Anything but tentative conclusions at this stage of
the study of the ‘Ain as-Sayh sites as well as other ‘Ubaid sites in Arabia
would be premature. The ‘Ain as-Sayh complex of sites clearly should be
subjected to proper archaeological investigation, detailed, and interpretation
in the future. It therefore seems best as final conclusion to this paper simply
to pose some questions that future studies and analyses may elucidate.
1.
Can
the usage of bulk bitumen at Site C be taken as evidence for a maritime
connection with southern Mesopotamia during ‘Ubaid times?
2.
What role did the reed-impressed plaster “huts” play in ‘Ubaid cultural
activity.
3.
Can Site D be taken as evidence for truly permanent habitation, perhaps
the only such ‘Ubaid site known along the Arabian coast ?
4.
Why do sites such as ad-Dossariyah contain much abundance of ‘Ubaid
painted pottery and the ‘Ain as-Sayh sites so relatively little ?
5.
Why are flint tools of definite typology such as tile flint knives and
scrapers and bifacial arrow points as found at other ‘Ubaid sites not prominent
at the complex ?
6.
Does the complex represent a one-time attempt, comparatively brief and
abortive, to occupy and exploit this part of the Arabian Gulf coast ?
7.
What was the relation of the complex of sites to other known sites of
the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula ?
8.
How do pottery typologies and other features compare with other Saudi
sites and Mesopotamian, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain sites ?
9.
Masry indicates with an “X” a site characterized by flint tools to the
east of ‘Ain as-Sayh and east of Site D, approximately between ‘Ain as-Sayh and
the present coast (20). This was assumed to be an ‘Ubaid site because of the
presence of abundant tile flint tools and arrow points, a common feature of
other Saudi ‘Ubaid sites. No other clearly characteristic ‘Ubaid remains
apparently occurred at the site. Is this previously reported site part of the
complex further to the west, perhaps in some way another task-oriented site ?
10.Can the complex of sites,
possibly including the tile flint site of 9 above and possibly excluding Site B
(as perhaps older), be taken to indicate a single structured ‘Ubaid community ?
References
1.
Enough
is known about ‘Ubaid archaeological remains to separate them out from other
bodies of remains in time and space and to ascribe them to a particular group
of people. In the sense of a population group being defined by such remains
where cultural attributes can be implied, it seems acceptable to use the term
“’Ubaid culture”. The date is based on uncalibrated conventional radiocarbon
analysis. Calibration indicates an earlier period, the latter half of the sixth
millennium-see reference 8 below.
2.
Steineke
M, Harris TF, Parsons KR & Elberg EL Jr. Geologic map of the Western
Persian Gulf Quadrangle, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Washington, DC,: Miscel.
Geol. Invest. Map I-208A, U S Geol. Surv., 1958.
3.
Balanus amphitrite occurs sporadically along the present open shoreline at the high-water
level where beachrock patches or debris dumped at the water’s edge afford a
solid attachment not otherwise available on the smooth, sandy, shallow-water
substratum. Barnacles can become established in a very short time- a month or
so; lagoon mollusks such as the assemblage described above may require only a
few seasons.
4.
McClure
H & Vita-Finzi C. Holocene shorelines and tectonic movements in eastern
Saudi Arabia . Tectonophysics: 85: 1982: 37-43.
5.
Taylor
JCM & Illing LV. Holocene intertidal calcium carbonate cementation in
Qatar, Persian Gulf. Sedimentology 12: 1969: 29-107.
6.
Vita-Finzi
C & McClure HA. High resolution C-14 dating of an uplifted Holocene
shoreline in eastern Saudi Arabia. Tectonophysics 194: 1991: 197-201.
7.
Vita-Finzi
C. First order C-14 dating of Holocene mollusks. Earth and Planetary Science
Letters 65: 1983: 389-392.
8.
Calibrated
true calendric date ranges, calculated from tables of klein et al. (klein J,
Lerman J, Damon P & Ralph E. Calibration of radiocarbon dates: tables based
on the concensus data of the Workshop on Calibrating the Radiocarbon
Time Scales. Radiocarbon 24: 1982: 103-150, are: for the uncalibrated
date of 4320 BC, 5475-4965 BC ; for the date of 4380 BC, 5520-5065 BC; for the
4430 BC date, 5590-5070 BC. The ranges are broad, reflecting the present state
of the art, but certainty within the ranges is considered to be on the order of
95%.
9.
Called
site 4 in McClure & Vita-Finzi, Holocene shorelines.
10.
Woolley
CL. Ur excavations, IV. Philadelphia: Univ. Museum, 1955. The
Mesopotamian plaster is apparently of mud, a product readily available in the
area. Suitable mud would have been less available at the ‘Ain as-Sayh sites,
but marine shells for lime plaster would have been plentiful. Woolley presents
a cross-section drawing of a piece of the Ur plaster (p. 7, Fig. 2).
11.
Barnacle-encrusted
plaster is also reported at ad-Dossriyah, an ‘Ubaid site further to the north.
(Bibby TG. Preliminary survey in Eastern Arabia, 1968. Aarhus: JASP,
XII: 1973; Burkholder G. ‘Ubaid sites and pottery in Saudi Arabia. Archaeology
25: 1972: 264-269).
12.
Faroosh
– a well-cemented beachrock, composed of a coquina of small, whole and
fragmented shells. Used locally as building stone until recently.
13.
The
sherds are illustrated, described in detail and typologically analyzed in a
separate paper in this volume by B. Hermansen.
14.
Typha
would be more appropriate for matting. Not being a grass, as Phragmites,
its stems do not have nodes to hinder lengthwise splitting.
15.
Hermansen,
this volume, considers this piece of pottery (his type 10) to be typologically
within the Jamdat Nasr-ED chronological range. There is thus a discrepancy
between the absolute chronological scheme based on shell dating and contexts
and Hermansen’s typological chronology. This is obviously a problem to be
resolved in the future when more detailed analysis of the sites can be
undertaken.
16.
Zarins
J, Mughannum AS & Kamal M. Excavations at Dhahran South. Atlal 8:
1984: 36.
17.
A
cylinder seal found at the site has been tentatively identified as of Warka
style. Hermansen, this volume, documents later post-‘Ubaid evidence.
18.
Possibly
non-secular. It is tempting to wonder if the remains of a temple may be
represented.
19.
Pinctada margaritifera, the larger, deeper-water, “Pearl Oyster” of the Gulf
(not really an Oyster), does not seem to be represented. There is no obvious
indication that pearling was a part of the activity of the population.
20.
Masry
AH. Prehistory in Northeast Arabia: the problem of interregional interaction.
Miami: Field Research Projects: 1974: 79, map 7.
Addresses:
H. A. McClure
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London SW7 5BD
UK
N.Y.AL-SHAIKH
BBC Brown Boveri
Dammam, Saudi Arabia
New addresses:
Nabiel Y. al Shaikh
Dammam Regional Museum
Gen. Directorate of Education in the Eastern Province
Dammam 31158
Saudi Arabia
Telephone: 00 9663 8266056
E-mail: nabielalshaikh@yahoo.com