-
West & East 331 Monografie, 4
Abstract
This paper presents the case study of a third millennium BC
grave in Al-Arid, Ibri, Oman.The excavation and the analysis of the
grave have been carried out during the archaeological rescue
excavation project, directed by Dr. Sabatino Laurenza for the
Ministry of Heritage and Culture of Oman, related to the works for
the duplication of the road between Ibri and Yanqul, in Northern
Oman.Controversial and interesting is the dating of the tomb: the
structure is close to Umm an-Nar type (2600-2000 BC), while the
only element found inside it is a biconical small jar ascribable to
Jemdet Nasr, Mesopotamian culture (3100-2900 BC). While the
contacts between Jemdet Nasr culture and Hafit culture (3200-2800
BC) are already well known, our case study seems to represent a
transitional moment between Hafit and Umm an-Nar cultures.
Extremely interesting, at the same time, is the presence of
skeletal remains only inside of the biconical small jar, while
funeral chambers are completely empty.
Keywords
Al-Arid, Oman, grave, Hafit, Umm An-Nar, Jemdet Nasr, Bat-Type,
Age of Bronze
A transitional model between Umm An-Nar and Hafit cultures: the
case study of Grave 4 of Al Arid*
MASSIMILIANO GHIRO*, SABATINO LAURENZA**, ENZO COCCA**
* University of Udine, ** Independent Researcher
* This paper is taken from bachelor’s thesis of Massimiliano
Ghiro (2017).
-
West & East 332 Monografie, 4
Massimiliano Ghiro, Sabatino Laurenza, Enzo Cocca
results, Kondo proposes the hypothesis that those two terraces
were formed during the humid period of the early Holocene (10.5–6
kya).2
2. Archaeological settings
The area interested by the archaeological rescue ex-cavation has
a rectangular shape with a width of 60 m and a length of about 2 km
(fig. 2). Arbitrarily subdivided in 7 sectors, the site is
configured like a typical example of settlement slope, with in the
back-ground, outside the investigated area, on the top of a hill,
several visible 12 Hafit beehive graves. On the lowest part of the
terrace A and widespread down to the plain, there is a total of
around 25 archaeological features: structures including probably
the remain-ing traces of platforms and Pre-Islamic towers, stone
footings of dwellings, falaj and other irrigation works, traces of
copper slag indicating the possible presence of smelting kilns,
some scattered Islamic graves and an Islamic cemetery, a little bit
outside the respect area of the alignment.
2 Kondo et Al. 2014, p. 229.
1. Geographical and geomorphological settings
The site of Al-Arid, in the north-western Omani region of
Ad-Dhahirah, is located between the modern cities of Yanqul,
approximately 20 km North, and Ibri, about 30 km South.
Geographi-cally speaking, Al-Arid lies at the interface be-tween
Al-Hajar Mountains, North East, and Rub ‘al-Khali desert, South
West, area that plays a key role for internal trade routes of
Arabian Peninsu-la.1 From a geomorphologic point of view the area
is basically an alluvial plan flooded and bounded by two main
wadis: Wadi al-Khubayba and Wadi al-Kabir. The plain is located
between the limestone massif of Hawrat al-Arid, Jabal Wabah, and
Jabal Wahrah to the South.
The area has an altitude comprised between 900 m and 400 m and
presents two main alluvial depos-its that form terraces A and B
(fig. 1). Both are more than 1 or 2 m high above the present level
of the wadi’s watercourse. Terrace A is higher than terrace B and
antecedent to it. Based on the preliminary
1 Frifelt 1975, p. 383; Williams-Gregoricka 2013, p. 134.
Figure 1Geomorphological and archaeological features in the Wadi
al-Kabir basin (Kondo et Al. 2014, p. 228)Al-Arid=ARS01
-
West & East 333 Monografie, 4
A transitional model between Umm An-Nar and Hafit cultures: the
case study of Grave 4 of Al Arid
graves were completely covered by debris and were not
investigated. However, apparently, they appear to be circular in
shape, despite the collapse compro-mising the interpretation, and
all the structures, like the Grave G4, were built with irregular
local lime-stone stones, medium and large sized (20-60 cm), and
light grey in color.
The Grave G4 (fig. 4-5), excavated following the stratigraphic
method, has a circular shape of ap-proximately 8 m diameter.
Initially covered almost
3. The Grave G4
The Grave G4 is part of a group of six graves (fig. 3) that look
similar for size, material and location. All of them are standing
on a natural terrace sloping down towards the wadi. The Grave G4 is
the closest to the wadi bed (approximately 50 m from it) and it is
distanced about 50/60 m from the concentration of four graves on
the South East side. Around 70 m East there is also a sixth smaller
grave. The other
Figure 2Archaeological investigated area(Photo Archeological
Rescue Excavation Team)
Figure 3The group of six tombs in Sector 1, Al Arid (Photo
Archeological Rescue Excavation Team)
-
West & East 334 Monografie, 4
Massimiliano Ghiro, Sabatino Laurenza, Enzo Cocca
(SU408), 2 m long and adjacent to the entrance. On the East
side, between the Internal Wall (SU404) and the Dividing Wall
(SU408) there is a space oc-cupied by an Inner Obstruction (SU407),
seriously damaged by the collapse. The entrance is blocked by local
unworked limestone stones. From the point of view of the
construction techniques, the External Wall (SU402) and the Internal
Wall have a dou-ble row of stones spaced out by a small filling (25
cm) of small stones and sand without an ordered arrangement. The
Internal Wall measures 1,10 m
entirely by the collapse, the grave appears well pre-served in
the lowest rows. The removal of the layer of collapsed stones
started from the Northern side, where it was possible to recognize
an alignment of 8 stones at the ground level. Following it, this
alignment turned out to be the profile of the Ex-ternal Wall
(SU402), which has a width of 80 cm. From the top, the circular
structure consists of two concentric Walls (SU404, 402) and a
Filling layer (SU403), with a central chamber divided in north
chamber and south chamber by a Dividing Wall
Figure 4Plan of Grave G4 (Photo Archeological Rescue Excavation
Team)
Figure 5The Grave G4 (Photo Archeological Rescue Excavation
Team)
-
West & East 335 Monografie, 4
A transitional model between Umm An-Nar and Hafit cultures: the
case study of Grave 4 of Al Arid
which presents peculiarities ascribed to the tombs both of the
Hafit period and Umm an-Nar period.
In regards to the peculiarities Hafit we can consider: 1. use of
local unworked stones;4 2. absence of the plinth as basis of the
grave; 5 3. single entrance at ground level;6 4. blockage of the
entrance with unshaped stones;7 5. absence of bones;8 6. very poor
grave goods;9
4 Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, p. 112; Potts 2012a, p. 36, 2012b, p. 372;
Williams-Gregoricka 2013, pp. 141, 146; Yule-Weisgerber 1998, p.
192.
5 Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, p. 125; Munoz-Ghazal-Guy 2012, p. 453;
Potts 2012b, p. 372.
6 Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, p. 125; Potts 2012b, p. 372;
Yule-Weisgerber 1998, p. 192.
7 Bortolini-Munoz 2015, p. 67; Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, p. 112; Potts
2012a, p. 36; Williams-Gregoricka 2013, pp. 141, 143; Vogt 1985, p.
103.
8 “The cairns are often found empty or with few bones and
objects inside.” Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, p. 112; Frifelt 1970, p. 377;
Williams-Gregoricka 2013, p. 147.
9 Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, pp. 112, 114; Williams- Gregoricka 2013,
p. 147.
and is enlarged slightly near the entrance up to a width of 1,40
m, probably to ensure major stabili-ty to the weakest part of the
structure. The Filling between the External Wall and the Internal
Wall, wide around 70 cm, consists of medium stones and sand. The
Dividing Wall is interconnected to the Internal Wall on the West
boundary and is orient-ed approximately 20° North of the entrance.
Exter-nally the Filling between the External Wall and the Internal
Wall leans both towards the Blockage of the Entrance (SU410) and
towards the Threshold of the Entrance (SU412), suggesting that the
Exter-nal Wall and the Filling were completed when the grave had
already been closed.
Although the Omani Bronze Age is divided into three main periods
(Hafit, Umm an-Nar, Wadi Suq), in keeping with the literature,
there is a series of tombs that do not have all the canonical
peculiar-ities expected and cannot be classified as belonging,
unambiguously, to a specific period. It is therefore possible that
Hafit and Umm an-Nar may be part of a single evolutionary process
and not of two distinct periods3. This is the case of the Grave G4
of Al-Arid,
3 Potts 2012b, p. 372.
Figure 7Section and plan of grave 603, Bat, Grid 1 m. (Böhme
2011, fig. 2)
Figure 6Grave 603, Bat (Böhme 2011, fig. 4)
-
West & East 336 Monografie, 4
Massimiliano Ghiro, Sabatino Laurenza, Enzo Cocca
2. dimensions.17 Cleuziou and Tosi18 notice an in-crease in
complexity and size of the tombs Umm an-Nar over time, «from 7-8
metres at the be-ginning, the diameter reaches 10-12 metres by the
end of the third millennium BC».
Entrance facing West. About this, following the study of
Belmonte and González-García (fig. 10A-10B), the Hafit tombs have
their single entrance localized on the third quadrant (West, South
and South-West), while the Umm an-Nar tombs have usually two gates
with opposite direc-tions on the cardinal points, concentrated
especially on North, West and South.19 The almost totally ab-sence
of East gates is explained by the existence of Umm an-Nar tombs
with a single West entrance. It is legitimate to suppose that these
tombs with a sim-pler plan are the most ancient of the Umm an-Nar
period and also suggest continuity with the previous Hafit
period.
17 Frifelt 1975a, p. 389; Yule-Weisgerber 1998, pp. 192,
194.
18 Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, pp. 127-128.19 Belmonte-González García
2014, pp. 240-241.
7. Jemdet Nasr jar;10 8. external podium, therefore the grave
was con-
ceived and constructed as a central body and an external body,11
like grave 603 of Bat (fig. 6-7).
On that last point, since the Hafit tombs were not collective in
synchronic sense but diachronic, and not all Hafit tombs have the
external podium, it is possible to advance the interpretation of
the exter-nal podium as an element that marks the end of the use of
the tomb. If this is true, can be the closure of the graves be
connected with the extinction of the family branch, for which the
tombs were intended?
The Umm an-Nar elements are: 1. tomb location on the alluvial
terrace;12 2. subdivision of the chamber by a dividing wall;13
3. chambers size: 2,60 m for the northern chamber, 2,30 m for
the southern.14
Finally, as transitional elements between the two periods we can
consider: 1. construction techniques: double curtain of
stones with filling, visible always in Hafit graves15 and in
some Umm an-Nar graves16 (fig. 8-9);
10 Bortolini-Munoz 2015, p. 67; Cleuziou-To-si 2007, p. 114;
Frifelt 1970, 1975a, p. 375, 1975b, Méry-Schneider 1996, p. 81;
Potts 1986, p. 129, 2009, p. 32, 2012a, p. 42; Williams-Gregoricka
2013, pp. 141, 143-145, 147.
11 Böhme 2011, p. 26; Bortolini-Munoz 2015, p. 67; Potts 2012a,
p. 36; Yule-Weisgerber 1998, p. 192.
12 Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, pp. 124-125; Condolu-ci-Degli Esposti
2015, p. 11; Frifelt 1975a, p. 374; Potts 2012b, p. 372;
Yule-Weisgerber 1998, p. 194. Generally, the Hafit graves were
positioned on the rocky ridg-es, crests and hills, or mountains.
Bortolini-Munoz 2015, p. 67; Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, p. 107;
Munoz-Ghazal-Guy 2012, pp. 452-453; Potts 2012a, p. 37, 2012b, p.
372; Yule-Weisgerber 1998, pp. 191-192; Williams-Grego-ricka 2013,
p. 146; Vogt 1985, pp. 70-71.
13 Bortolini-Munoz 2015, p. 71; Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, p. 125;
Döpper 2017, p. 205; Munoz-Ghazal-Guy 2012, p. 453; Potts 2012a, p.
46, 2012b, p. 372; Vogt 1985, p. 110.
14 These measures can be considered related to the Umm an-Nar
graves, whereas the internal diameters of Hafit graves are 2 m, or
less. Döpper 2017, p. 205; Vogt 1985, p. 103.
15 Cleuziou-Tosi 2007, p. 112.16 Böhme-Al Sabri 2011, pp.
114-115; Döpper 2017,
p. 191.
Figure 8Grave 401, Bat (Böhme-Al Sabri 2011, fig. 26)
-
West & East 337 Monografie, 4
A transitional model between Umm An-Nar and Hafit cultures: the
case study of Grave 4 of Al Arid
Figure 10 A-10 BOrientation diagrams of Hafit (a) and Umm en Nar
(b) type tombs in ancient Magan (Belmonte González-García 2014,
fig. 10)
Figure 9Plan of grave 401, Bat (Böhme-Al Sabri 2011, fig. 4)
-
West & East 338 Monografie, 4
Massimiliano Ghiro, Sabatino Laurenza, Enzo Cocca
collapse of the structure, not by anthropic violations. The
vessel was filled with soil mixed with patinated, blackened and
rounded, bones fragments of an adult individual. The sex is not
determinable. This kind of fragments has been linked to multiple
reworking of bones inside funerary structures. All this evidence
substantiates the hypothesis that we are dealing with fragments
that were already in secondary deposition: indeed, no fragment can
be associated with the sur-rounding ones. This means that the
fragmentation occurred outside of the jar before the fragments were
collected. We cannot propose strong hypotheses on the origin of the
fragment, but the lack of bones in the grave and of sign of
manumission, together with the position of the jar in the grave
suggest that the place of first inhumation of these human remains
is another one than the Grave G4.
4. Jemdet Nasr Jar
A fragment of small bronze pin and a small undec-orated pottery
jar were found near the entrance (fig. 11A-11B). The vessel has an
everted lip and rim with triangular section and a pointed profile.
The neck is trunk-conical, while the body is biconical with a
rounded shoulder. The bottom is concave. Its height measures 13.2
cm, while the rim diameter is 6.8 cm, the maximum diameter is 15.2
cm, and the base diameter is 6.7 cm. The fabric is very fine, with
microscopic mineral inclusions. The jar is very well preserved. It
was found in standing position, with a single fragment of the neck
with rim broken in situ. The standing position of the jar and its
location near the entrance and its optimal state of preservation
suggest its primary deposition, disturbed only by the
Figure 11 A, BJar from Grave G4, Al Arid (Photo Archeological
Rescue Excavation Team)
-
West & East 339 Monografie, 4
A transitional model between Umm An-Nar and Hafit cultures: the
case study of Grave 4 of Al Arid
was dated to 2880–2670 BC (cal. 2s), and the charcoal was dated
to 2600-2480 BC (cal. 2s).30
However, the most punctual comparison is giv-en by the grave 602
(ex 1138) from Bat (fig. 13). It presents, in fact, an identical
plan to Grave G4 in regards to the orientation of the entrance, the
po-sition of dividing wall and their alignment. More-over, there is
a rim fragment (fig. 12D) from this grave that looks similar to
G4’s jar.
The jar can be compared with exemplars from two Oman sites:
according to the parallels, the ves-sel can be attributed to the
Jemdet Nasr period (3100-2900 BC).
Figure 12 AJar from Jebel Hafit, cairn 2, height 12.5 cm, rim
diameter 9 cm, base diameter 7.5 cm (Potts, 1986, fig. 4:5 =
Frifelt, 1970, fig. 13A) Scale 1:3
Figure 12 BJar from Jebel Hafit, cairn 22, height 10.5 cm, rim
diameter 8.5 cm, base diameter 6 cm (Potts, 1986, fig. 1I =
Frifelt, 1970, fig. 21C) Scale 1:3
30 “While some overlap between these samples is pres-ent, the
more recent date from the wood charcoal may indi-cate tomb reuse
for the interment of later occupants.” Wil-liams-Gregoricka 2013,
p. 145.
5. Discussion
As made evident by the description, the Grave G4 presents
architectural elements related both to the Hafit period and Umm
an-Nar period and a Jemdet Nasr jar. For these reasons the research
of compari-sons has been carried out keeping in mind the
geo-graphical position, the architectural characteristics and their
development and the jar. About the first two elements several
interesting parallels are from Bat20, Jabal al-Emalah,21 Falaj al
Qaba’il,22 Jaylah23, Jebel al-Buhais,24 Umm an-Nar,25
Al-Khubayb.26
The research carried out during the Social, Spatial, and
Bioarchaeological Histories of An-cient Oman (SoBO) project in
north-western Oman is interesting. In particular, the necropolis of
Al-Khubayb presents some sealed tombs des-ignated by Kimberly
Williams and Lesley Grego-ricka as transitional between the Hafit
and Umm an-Nar periods, which share several affinities with the
Grave G4 of Al-Arid. These tombs (S007-001 and S007-003) have, in
fact, the same geograph-ic and geomorphological context, together
with the presence of Jemdet Nasr jars inside the graves and other
nearby tombs.27 There are also similar architectural features such
as their general large size for Hafit tombs, their carefully placed
but unworked stones and, in the case of tomb S007-001, the
beginning of a multiple-chambered buri-al chamber.28 For the tomb
S007-001 the bioap-atite sample from Individual C returned a date
of 2861–2580 BC (cal. 2s) and the charcoal sam-ple returned a
similar date of 2910–2750 BC (cal. 2s),29 while for the tomb
S007-003 the bone
20 Böhme 2011, 2012; Böhme-Al Sabri 2011; Fri-felt 1975a.
21 Potts 2012b.22 Potts 2012b.23 Yule-Weisgerber 1998.24 Jasim
2012a, 2012b.25 Al Tikriti 2012.26 Döpper 2017; Williams-Gregoricka
2013.27 Williams-Gregoricka 2013, pp. 141-142.28 Döpper 2017, p.
205.29 Williams-Gregoricka 2013, p. 143.
-
West & East 340 Monografie, 4
Massimiliano Ghiro, Sabatino Laurenza, Enzo Cocca
6. Conclusions
The dating of the Tomb G4 of Al-Arid is problem-atic and
interesting. From an architectural point of view, it is possible to
contextualize the tomb in a ho-rizon of transition between the
Hafit (3200-2800 BC) and Umm an-Nar (2600-2000 BC) periods,
proposing a reasonable dating between 2800 BC and the 2500 BC.
However, the presence, inside the sealed tomb, of a jar
referable to Mesopotamian culture Jemdet Nasr (3100-2900 BC) poses
a chronological prob-lem for the interpretation of the grave.
In our opinion the asynchronism of this evi-dence can be
explained by formulating two possi-ble hypotheses. In the first
hypothesis, the context could be earlier than the proposed date,
and conse-quently the tomb would belong only to the Hafit horizon.
Moreover, contacts between cultures Jem-det Nasr and Hafit are well
documented in the ar-chaeological record. Anyway, this cannot solve
the problem of architectural elements typical of Umm an-Nar culture
which characterize the tomb (tomb location on the alluvial terrace,
subdivision of the chamber by a dividing wall), unless one
considers them to be anticipations of future architectural can-ons
of Umm an-Nar tradition. While this is possi-ble, it remains in our
opinion highly unlikely.
As for the second hypothesis, if we consider val-id the proposed
dating (2800-2500 BC), it can be assumed that the vessel comes from
a more ancient Hafit-Jemdet Nasr context. This could have been
clearer if it had been possible to date the bone frag-ments in the
jar.
On the basis of the available data, the second possibility seems
to be more plausible.
Figure 13Plan of grave 602 (ex 1138) (Frifelt 1975b, fig.
23)
Figure 12 CJar from Jebel Hafit, cairn 23, height 11 cm, rim
diameter 8 cm, base diameter 4 cm (Potts, 1986, Fig 1F = Frifelt,
1970, fig. 23A) Scale 1:3
Figure 12 DRim from jar, Bat, grave 602 – ex 1138 (Frifelt
1975b, fig. 12)
-
West & East 341 Monografie, 4
A transitional model between Umm An-Nar and Hafit cultures: the
case study of Grave 4 of Al Arid
Jasim S. 2012a, The Necropolis of Jebel al-Buhais – Prehistoric
Discoveries in the Emirate of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates,
Sharjah, pp. 283-289.
Jasim S. 2012b, Jebel al-Buhais 2008: A year in review, in:
Potts D.T., Hellyer P. (eds.), Fifty years of Emirates Archaeology,
Abu Dhabi, pp. 122-131.
Kondo Y., Beuzen-Waller T., Miki, Noguchi A., Desruelles S.,
Fouache E. 2014, Geoarchaeological Survey in the Wadi al-Kabir
Basin, Wilayat Ibri, Oman: A Preliminary Report, «Proceedings of
the Seminar for Arabian Studies» 44, pp. 227-234.
Méry S., Schneider G. 1996, Mesopotamian Pottery Wares in
Eastern Arabia from the 5th to the 2nd Millennium BC: A
Contribution of Archaeometry to the Economic history, «Proceedings
of the Seminar for Arabian Studies» 26, pp. 79-96.
Munoz O., Ghazal R. O., Guy H. 2012, Use of ossuary pits during
the Umm an-Nar Period: New insights on the complexity of burial
practices from the site of Ra’s al-Jinz (RJ-1), Oman, in: Giraud
J., Gernez G., Aux marges de l’archéologie. Hommage à Serge
Cleuziou (Travaux de la Maison Archéologie & Ethnologie,
René-Ginouvès 16), pp. 451-467.
Potts D.T. 1986, Eastern Arabia and the Oman pe-ninsula during
the late fourth and early third millen-nium B.C., in: Finkbeiner
U.,Rölling W. (eds), Gamdat Nasr: Period or Regional Style?
(Beihefte zum Tübingen Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B 62),
Wiesbaden, pp. 121-170.
Potts D. T. 2009, The Archaeology and Early History of the
Persian Gulf, in: Potter L.G. (ed.), The Persian Gulf in History,
New York, pp. 27-56.
Potts D. T. 2012a, In the land of the Emirates: the ar-chaeology
and history of UAE, London.
Potts D. T. 2012b, The Hafit-Umm an-Nar Transition: evidence
from Falaj al-Qaba’il and Jabal al-Emalah, in: Giraud J., Gernez
G., Aux marges de l’ar-chéologie. Hommage à Serge Cleuziou (Travaux
de la Maison Archéologie & Ethnologie, René-Ginouvès 16), pp.
371-377.
Potts D. T., Hellyer P. 2012, Fifty Years of Emirates
Archaeology: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
the Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates, Abu Dhabi.
Al-Tikriti W. Y. 2012, Umm an-Nar, an ancient ca-pital of Abu
Dhabi: distribution of a culture and the current state of the site,
in: Potts D.T., Hellyer P. (eds.), Fifty years of Emirates
Archaeology, Abu Dhabi, pp. 86-99.
Belmonte, J. A., González-García, A. C., 2014, On the
Orientation of Early Bronze Age Tombs in Ancient Magan,
«Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry» 14/ 3, pp.
233-246.
Böhme M. 2011, The Bat-Type. A Hafit period tomb con-struction
in Oman, «Arabian archaeology and epi-graphy» 22, pp. 23-31.
Böhme M.2012, The restoration of Tomb 154 at Bat, in: Potts
D.T., Hellyer P. (eds.), Fifty years of Emirates Archaeology, Abu
Dhabi, pp. 112-121.
Böhme M., Al-Sabri B. A. 2011, Umm an-Nar burial 401 at Bat,
Oman: architecture and finds, «Arabian archaeology and epigraphy»
22, pp. 113-154.
Bortolini E., Munoz O. 2015, Life and Death in Prehistoric Oman:
Insights from Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Funerary
Practices (4th-3rd mill. BC), in: Proceedings of the International
Symposium “The Archaeological Heritage of Oman” (UNESCO, Paris,
September 7, 2012, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Sultanate of
Oman), pp. 61-80.
Cleuziou S., Tosi M. 2007, In the shadow of the ance-stors. The
prehistoric foundations of the early Arabian civilization in Oman,
Muscat.
Condoluci C., Degli Esposti M. 2015, High places in Oman: the
IMTO excavations of Bronze and Iron Age remains on Jabal Salut
(Quaderni di Arabia an-tica 3), Roma.
Döpper S. 2017, Rescue excavation of a third-millen-nium BC tomb
at Al-Khubayb, Sultanate of Oman, «Arabian Archaeology and
Epigraphy » 28/2, pp. 190-208.
Frifelt K. 1970, Jemdet Nasr Graves in the Oman, «Kuml», pp.
374-383.
Frifelt K. 1975a, On Prehistoric Settlement and Chronology of
the Oman Peninsula, «East and West» 25, pp. 359-424.
Frifelt K. 1975b, A possible link between the Jemdet Nasr and
the Umm an-Nar grave of Oman, «Journal of Oman Studies» 1, pp.
57-80.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
West & East 342 Monografie, 4
Massimiliano Ghiro, Sabatino Laurenza, Enzo Cocca
Vogt B. 1985, Zur Chronologie und Entwicklung der Gräber des
späten 4.-2. Jtsd.v.Chr. auf der Halbinsel Oman: Zusammenfassung.
Analyse und Würdigung publizierter wie auch unveröffentlichter
Grabungsergebnisse (unpublished dissertation,
Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen), Göttingen.
Yule P., Weisgerber G. 1998, Prehistoric Tower Tombs at
Shir/Jaylah, Sultanate of Oman, «Beiträge zur allgemeinen und
vergleichenden Archäologie» 18, pp. 183–242.
Williams K.D., Gregoricka L.A. 2013, The Social, Spatial, and
Bioarchaeological Histories of Ancient Oman project: The mortuary
landscape of Dhank, «Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy» 24, pp.
134-150.