Arab. arch. epig.

2005: 16: 67–78 (2005)

Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved

In the beginning: Marhashi and the origins of

Magan’s ceramic industry in the third
millennium BC
Ceramics from the Jiroft plain in southeastern Iran are compared with D.T. Potts
material of Umm an-Nar-type dating to the mid- and late third millennium University of Sydney,
BC in the Oman Peninsula. Technological and stylistic comparisons suggest Australia
the strong possibility that potters from the Iranian side of the Straits of
Hormuz may have been the instigators of Magan’s earliest ceramic industry.
Department of Archaeology, Univer-
Keywords: Iran, Oman, Ceramics, Bronze Age, Umm an-Nar
sity of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
e-mail: dan.potts@arts.usyd.edu.au

Introduction the geographical name Marhashi, denoting south-

Several years ago, while conducting fieldwork in the
Jaz Muriyan basin of southeastern Iran, Hamideh
Choubak of the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organiza-
tion (now Iranian Cultural Heritage & Tourism
Organization) first uncovered the systematic looting
of a cemetery in the Jiroft plain (Fig. 1) which has
since attracted headlines around the world (1). Her
perseverance led to the surrender by local residents
of large quantities of already looted objects—alabas-
ter, ceramic and metal vessels, stamp seals, and
above all the elaborately carved série ancienne or
‘intercultural style’ soft-stone vessels—which were
published last year in a catalogue by Y. Majidzadeh
(2). Comparable material was already well known
from excavations at Tepe Yahya (3), from numerous
sites outside Iran (4) and from the art market (5). The
massive quantity from the Jiroft, and the proximity
of the latter plain to Tepe Yahya, the only produc-
tion centre yet identified (6), strongly suggests that
the industry was indigenous to this region. But we
can go further and use this material to identify the
ancient name of this corner of southeastern Iran.
Twenty years ago the Sumerologist Piotr Steinkeller
suggested that the stone known in cuneiform
sources as marh ašu/marh ušu took its name from
6 6
east Iranian soft stone (7). Moreover, he pointed to
the presence of two carved soft-stone vessel frag-
ments—one of unknown provenance in the Perga-
mon Museum, Berlin (8) (Fig. 2) and one from
Woolley’s excavations at Ur (9) (Fig. 3)—which were
inscribed by the Old Akkadian king Rimush with
the text: ‘Rimush, king of Kish, the slayer of Elam
and Marhashi’ (Fig. 4). At the time Steinkeller raised
the very likely possibility that both vessels had been
taken as booty from Marhashi, and this inference is
almost certainly confirmed by the shared decoration
on the Berlin fragment and on numerous pieces from
the Jiroft (Fig. 5). Southeastern Iran—at least that
part as far west as Tepe Yahya and as far east as the
Jiroft plain—can therefore be identified with ancient
Marhashi (10). How far to the north, south, east and
west Marhashi may have extended is unknown at
this time.
Of course it has long been recognised that large
numbers of similar soft-stone vessels circulated in
the Gulf region as well. By far the greatest concen-
tration comes from Tarut island in eastern Saudi
Arabia (11). In contrast, just a few pieces have turned
up over the years in the Oman peninsula. These
include one fragment from a third-millennium
67
D.T. POTTS
Fig. 1.
Map showing southeastern Iran and the Oman peninsula with
the main sites mentioned in the text. A ¼ Jiroft plain. B ¼ Tepe
Yahya. C ¼ Tell Abraq. D ¼ Umm an-Nar. E ¼ Hili/Jabal Hafit.
Fig. 2.
VA 5298 in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin showing a snake
entwined around and attacking a feline, facing right (after
Klengel & Klengel, Zum Fragment: Abb. 1.
grave on Umm an-Nar island (12) (Fig. 6) and six
fragments (five of which come from one vessel)
from a second-millennium grave at Sharm in the
Emirate of Fujairah (13) (Fig. 7). Additionally, two
68
Fig. 3.
U.231 from Ur (after Woolley L. The early periods. Philadelphia:
Ur Excavations, 4: 1956: Pl. 36).
very fine, complete vessels were discovered on
Bahrain in tombs at Saar (14) (Fig. 8) and al-Hajjar
(15) (Fig. 9). Yet if the distribution of soft-stone
vessels in the Oman peninsula and northeastern
Arabia attests to relations between Marhashi, Magan
and Dilmun (of which Tarut was almost certainly a
part), then it is equally true that the distribution of
ceramics does as well. The ceramic evidence, more-
over, points in the direction of an unexpected
insight.
Ceramic problems
Ceramics have been interpreted as indicators of ties
between southeastern Iran and southeastern Arabia
ever since Knud Thorvildsen recognised the striking
similarities between black-on-grey ware vessels
from the tombs on Umm an-Nar island and material
excavated and collected on survey in Iranian
Baluchistan by Sir Aurel Stein during the early
 MARHASHI AND THE ORIGINS OF MAGAN’S CERAMIC INDUSTRY
Fig. 4.
Text of Rimush inscribed on VA 5298 (after Klengel & Klengel,
Zum Fragment: Abb. 3).
1930s (16). To that extent, the discovery of yet more
material in the Jiroft with obvious parallels in the
Oman peninsula could be said to merely add to an
already extant body of material illustrative of this
fact. What I wish to do here, however, is to
reconsider the entire topic of ceramic origins in
southeastern Arabia in light of these strong parallels,
asking the question, why do such strong parallels
exist between the ceramics of the Umm an-Nar
period and those of southeastern Iran? And what
is their particular significance in light of the
well-known archaeological record of ties between
Fig. 5.
Complete soft-stone vessel from the Jiroft showing a snake
attacking a feline, facing left (after Majidzadeh, The earliest
Oriental civilization: 80; height 10 cm, rim dia. 16.5 cm).
Fig. 6.
Mat-weave soft-stone fragment from tomb IX on Umm an-Nar
island (after al-Tikriti, Reconsideration of the late fourth and third
millennium BC.: Pl. 154B).
southeastern Arabia and other regions? To begin
with, however, a brief review of what we know
about ceramic origins in the region is necessary.
The prehistoric occupation of both coastal and
inland southeastern Arabia has been investigated for
roughly thirty years. Excavations at Ras al-Hamra
(17); investigations around Al Ain (18) and in the
Wadi Wutayya (19); survey and sondage on the
U.A.E. coast and offshore islands (20); and ongoing
work at Jabal Buhays (21) in the interior of
Sharjah—to name just a few of the more prominent
69
D.T. POTTS
Fig. 7.
Soft-stone vessel from Sharm, emirate of Fujairah (after
Ziolkowski. The soft stone vessels: Fig. 1.
Fig. 8.
Soft-stone vessel from Saar, Bahrain (after Ministry of Informa-
tion. Calendar 1993. State of Bahrain, December).
projects—have given us a wealth of data on life in the
sixth and fifth (and less so the fourth) millennia BC.
As the Uerpmanns have stressed, the earliest, mid-
dle-Holocene inhabitants of the region arrived
—and it is fairly clear they cannot have been
indigenous as there is no Palaeolithic or early
Holocene evidence of occupation—from another part
of the Near East, bringing with them domesticated
sheep and goat (22). Similarities between the Qatar B
blade-arrowhead industry and Levantine lithic types
first suggested to Peder Mortensen many years ago
70
Fig. 9.
Soft-stone vessel from al-Hajjar, Bahrain (after Lombard, ed.
Bahrain, the civilisation of the two seas: 93, no. 88.
that a connection with the North Arabian-Syrian
desert region was likely (23), and indeed the Uer-
pmanns continue to see the southern Levant as the
most likely source of the core population that arrived
with domestic ovicaprids, stressing the fact that
eastern Arabia lies well outside the natural habitat of
the wild progenitors of either sheep or goat and that
both species must therefore have been introduced.
Yet if a broadly Levantine/North Arabian origin
for the earliest population of southeastern Arabia is
correct (24), that population is unlikely to have been
made up largely of town dwellers. Rather, they are
much more likely to have been aceramic herders and
hunter-gatherers. This is likely if only because, by
6000–5000 BC, the use of ceramics was widespread
in the Levant. Yet it is clear that the vast majority of
middle-Holocene sites in southeastern Arabia are
aceramic. No Levantine Chalcolithic ceramics have
appeared on sites anywhere in eastern Arabia.
Having said that, a small number of sites do show
evidence of ceramics, albeit imported from southern
Mesopotamia rather than the southern Levant. The
pottery in question is of so-called Ubaid type, as first
defined in southern Iraq (25).
A sizable literature has grown up in recent years
which examines and seeks to explain the diffusion of
Ubaid pottery from sites like Ur and the eponymous
al-Ubaid in southern Iraq to sites in Kuwait, eastern
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the islands and
coast of the U.A.E. (26) Leaving aside the underlying
 MARHASHI AND THE ORIGINS OF MAGAN’S CERAMIC INDUSTRY
reasons for this diffusion, several points which relate
specifically to ceramics and ceramic manufacture are
of particular interest. First, whenever analyses have
been undertaken, the result has always been the
same: the well-(often over)fired pottery with its clear
parallels to Ubaid 2–4 material from southern
Mesopotamia is not just similar, rather it is compos-
itionally identical to material from sites in Iraq,
suggesting that all of it was imported (27). Second,
only in northeastern Arabia (Eastern Province of
Saudi Arabia) and Kuwait do we find sherds of a
coarse red ware which are compositionally distinct
from the imported pottery with which it is associ-
ated (28). Given the fact that this type of coarse red
ware is unknown in southern Iraq, and that kiln
wasters of this red ware were found at Dosariyah
(29), it is safe to assume that this pottery was
made locally (30). That it was made by visiting
Mesopotamians seems unlikely, particularly given
the ceramic technology employed, strikingly differ-
ent from what we find in contemporary southern
Mesopotamia. That it was possibly made by indi-
genous, east Arabians (descendants of the earlier
Levantine migrants), seeking to make ceramic con-
tainers using local clays that would be functionally,
if not stylistically, similar to the foreign Ubaid
vessels which reached the area, seems prima facie
more likely. However, the small quantity of such
material and its very restricted distribution obliges
one to draw two conclusions: 1) contact between
aceramic east Arabians and their ceramic-using
Mesopotamian neighbours did not result in technol-
ogy transfer; 2) the experimental attempt to produce
ceramics (coarse red ware) locally was not sustained
and did not lead to the burgeoning of a local
industry. Thus, the first episode of ‘ceramic contact’
between eastern Arabia and the outside world was,
from an evolutionary perspective, unproductive.
Chronologically, the second episode of ‘ceramic
contact’ involving southeastern Arabia is probably
indicated by the discovery, at Ras al-Hamra in the
capital area of Muscat, of a fragmentary, carinated
vessel of burnished grey ware, fragments of which
were recovered between 1982 and 1985. Although I
originally queried whether this should indeed be
dated to the fourth millennium BC, as suggested by
the excavators (31), let us assume for the sake of
argument that it is correctly dated. More than two
decades after its discovery, this vessel remains the
sole example of its kind. As in the case of the Ubaid
contact, the presence of the burnished grey ware at
Ras al-Hamra led nowhere from an evolutionary
point of view. It could well be that, unlike the Ubaid
diffusion which probably involved the actual move-
ment of people, the burnished grey ware vessel was
not brought by someone from southeastern Iran who
understood ceramic manufacture. It may have been
acquired by a native of coastal Oman, by whatever
means, arriving as a curiosity in an aceramic
community incapable of reproducing it or of recon-
structing either the ceramic technology behind its
manufacture or the pyrotechnology involved in its
firing. Again, we seem to be faced with an evolu-
tionary cul-de-sac, at least as far as ceramics go.
The third ‘ceramic contact’ episode occurred at the
end of the fourth millennium BC. Tombs of Hafit
type, principally around Jabal Hafit but also at Jabal
al-Emalah in the interior of Sharjah, have yielded a
number of squat, carinated jars which have long
been compared with finds of Jamdat Nasr date from
southern Mesopotamia (32). Compositional analyses
by Sophie Méry have confirmed that each of the
vessels analysed is in fact of Mesopotamian origin
(33). As no non-local ceramics co-occur with these
finds in the Hafit graves (contemporary settlement
sites are still lacking), it must be concluded that this
third episode of ceramic contact was, like the first
two, unproductive in an evolutionary sense.
Finally, the fourth ‘ceramic contact’ episode which
we can identify dates to the middle of the third
millennium BC. Typical southern Mesopotamian
storage jars of Early Dynastic III type appear on
Umm an-Nar island (34) and, with lugs, at Hili 8
(35). Most probably they were sent to southeastern
Arabia containing a liquid, perhaps oil, after which
they were discarded. Neither from the perspective of
shape nor through the technology of manufacture
did these vessels make an impact locally. Further-
more, the fact that some ended up in graves is
intriguing. This may be an indication of the fact that
once emptied of their original contents they were
considered unsuited to local utilitarian functions
and yet too exotic or symbolically valuable to simply
throw away.
On Umm an-Nar the Mesopotamian storage
jars occurred together with a range of other pot-
tery vessels. These included material which
compositional analyses suggest was imported from
71
D.T. POTTS

southeastern Iran—incised grey ware and black-on- conclude that the ceramic industry of the Umm
grey ware—as well as typical ‘Umm an-Nar-style’ an-Nar period was started by migrant potters from
sandy reddish/orange and fine black-on-orange southeastern Iran. Moreover, I believe that the recent
wares. Méry’s analyses have shown that the latter discoveries in the Jiroft lend this conclusion addi-
two categories were made of local clays. Thus, all tional, robust support.
indications are that by the middle of the third
millennium—ED II-III times in Mesopotamian chro-
nological terms—a local ceramic tradition had Jirofti ceramics and the Umm an-Nar tradition
emerged in southeastern Arabia. As noted above, the very close similarities between
What do these observations mean? In essence, finds from the Umm an-Nar graves and sites in
they mean that over 2000 years of contact between southeastern Iran were first noted over forty years
the peoples of southeastern Arabia and the ceramic- ago. These correspondences, by themselves, may
using societies around them had failed to effect indicate nothing more than trade. After all, Méry’s
either a transfer of technology to locals interested in analyses have shown that the black-on-grey and
ceramic manufacture or the immigration and settle- incised grey vessels found at a number of sites in
ment of foreign potters capable of starting a ‘new’ southeastern Arabia were all, in fact, manufactured
tradition in what was otherwise an aceramic part of in southeastern Iran. Indeed, the material published
the Near East. The arrival of Ubaid ceramics, by Majidzadeh includes three black-on-grey canis-
burnished grey ware from southeastern Iran, Jamdat ters of ‘Bampur’ type (Figs 10–12) which display
Nasr pottery and Early Dynastic storage vessels all decorative elements (stylised palm trees, hatched
failed to kick-start a local ceramic industry. I shall Ms, vertically hatched isosceles triangles) all found
not speculate on why this was the case, but clearly on a vessel from the late Umm an-Nar tomb at Tell
there must have been no need for the sorts of fired Abraq (Figs 13–14) and although the Tell Abraq
containers then current in other parts of the Near exemplar has not been analysed, it is difficult to
East. What sorts of containers made of perishable avoid the conclusion that it was an import (38).
materials—perhaps of basketry or wood—may have
existed we do not know.
At any event, the failure of these early instances of
ceramic contact to spark a local industry means that
when the earliest Umm an-Nar ceramics, which we
see clearly in the graves and settlement on Umm
an-Nar itself (36), were produced, this production
occurred in a cultural milieu which, although
exposed to Mesopotamian shapes and ceramic tech-
nology in the form of the Early Dynastic storage jars,
had no history of ceramic manufacture. In many
other parts of the Near East one can clearly chart the
evolution of ceramics from the Neolithic onwards.
Not so in southeastern Arabia. I submit that the
shapes, decorations and manufacturing techniques
of the earliest Umm an-Nar ceramic repertoire
presuppose an experienced and knowledgeable
community of potters. It is hardly credible that they
represent the first efforts of local potters and it is
indefensible as an hypothesis when we consider
again just how close the technical, formal and
decorative resemblances are with the ceramics of Fig. 10.
southeastern Iran where ceramics had been made Black-on-grey canister from Jiroft (after Majidzadeh, The earliest
since the Neolithic (37). In short, I believe we must Oriental civilization: 162; height 10.8 cm, rim dia. 9.2 cm).

72
 MARHASHI AND THE ORIGINS OF MAGAN’S CERAMIC INDUSTRY

Fig. 11.
Black-on-grey canister from Jiroft (after Majidzadeh, The earliest
Oriental civilization: 162; height 10.8 cm, rim dia. 9.2 cm).
Fig. 13.
Black-on-grey canister (TA 2209) from Tell Abraq (height
10.22 cm, rim dia. 8.04 cm, base dia. 10.134 cm).

Fig. 12.
Black-on-grey canister from Jiroft (after Majidzadeh, The earliest Fig. 14.
Oriental civilization: 162; height 10.8 cm, rim dia. 9.2 cm). Drawing of black-on-grey canister (TA 2209) from Tell Abraq.

On the other hand, the squat canister is a shape carinated, high shoulder and short, everted rim also
which is far from common, generally speaking, appear in the local Umm an-Nar repertoire, but the
across the Near East. The squat body, sharply presumption must be that the direction of influence

73
D.T. POTTS

is from Iran to the Oman peninsula, not vice versa.

This is, moreover, supported by the presence in the
Jiroft collection of black-on-grey jars with short,
diagonal strokes on the shoulder and a wide band of
chevrons between two or three parallel lines on the
upper body of the vessel. One example published by
Majidzadeh (Fig. 15) is virtually identical to fine
black-on-orange examples of Umm an-Nar type
from Jabal al-Emalah (Figs 16–17) and further exam-
ples could be cited as well (39). Moreover, the
chevron pattern occurs on a wide-mouthed bowl
with everted lip (Fig. 18) from the Jiroft which, while
stylistically comparable to Umm an-Nar material,
was produced in a reducing atmosphere and hence
appears black-on-grey. It is therefore highly unlikely
to have been produced in the Oman peninsula
where there is no evidence of firing in a reducing
atmosphere in the indigenous ceramic industry and

Fig. 16.
Black-on-orange jar (SM 3073) from Jabal Emalah (after Benton J
& Potts DT. Jabal al-Emalah 1993/4. Sharjah: Report compiled for
the Dept. of Culture and Information, 1994: Fig. 69; height
12.9 cm, rim dia. 7.05 cm, base dia. 5.4 cm).

hence no indication that black-on-grey pottery was

ever produced locally.
Furthermore, while the decoration of this piece
can be paralleled in Oman, the shape is not one
which occurs commonly in the Umm an-Nar reper-
toire. Two other black-on-orange Jirofti vessels
(Figs 19–20) are similar to what seems to be an
anomalous Umm an-Nar black-on-orange vessel
from Jabal al-Emalah, JE 2523 (Fig. 21), suggesting
the latter may also be an import from southeastern
Iran.

Fig. 15.
Black-on-grey jar from Jiroft (after Majidzadeh, The earliest
Oriental civilization: 162; height 10.8 cm, rim dia. 9.2 cm).
Conclusion
The striking similarity between ceramics from
southeastern Iran and Umm an-Nar-style pottery
has long suggested to me that an actual influx of
potters from the former region was responsible for
the inception of the ceramic industry in the latter
area. However, it was not until the realisation that

74
 MARHASHI AND THE ORIGINS OF MAGAN’S CERAMIC INDUSTRY

Fig. 17. Fig. 19.

Black-on-orange jar (SM 3072) from Jabal Emalah (after Benton & Black-on-orange jar from Jiroft (after Majidzadeh, The earliest
Potts, Jabal al-Emalah: Fig. 70; height 10.8 cm, rim dia. 6.2 cm, Oriental civilization: 163; height 12.2 cm, rim dia. 6.2 cm).
base dia. 4.5 cm).

Fig. 18.
Black-on-grey jar from Jiroft (after Majidzadeh, The earliest
Oriental civilization: 161; height 7 cm, rim dia. 7.4 cm).

some of the recently published material from the Fig. 20.

Jiroft closely paralleled Umm an-Nar vessels, and Black-on-orange jar from Jiroft (after Majidzadeh, The earliest
that the Jirofti specimens were made of what Oriental civilization: 163; height 10.8 cm, rim dia. 5 cm).

75
D.T. POTTS

Fig. 21.
Black-on-orange jar (JE 2523) from Jabal Emalah (after Benton &
Potts, Jabal al-Emalah: Fig. 61; height 11.6 cm, rim broken, base
dia. 4.3 cm).

analyses of comparable pieces have shown was a
local black-on-grey tradition, that the likelihood of
Marhashi being the source of Magan’s (at least
western Magan’s) ceramic industry became virtually
unavoidable. We can see, moreover, that in addition
to potters moving into southeastern Arabia, trade
must have continued across the Straits of Hormuz,
for there are more and more vessels which seem to
be southeast Iranian imports in Umm an-Nar con-
texts, not to mention of course the smaller numbers
of série ancienne or intercultural style soft stone
found in the Gulf region. At the same time, a vessel
such as Figure 22, a fine orange canister on which
the original black decoration has been almost totally
effaced, looks very much like an Umm an-Nar type
which has travelled in the opposite direction, from
Magan to Marhashi (40). Naturally only analyses
Fig. 22.
Orange (black paint no longer visible) canister from Jiroft (after
Majidzadeh, The earliest Oriental civilization: 163; height 12.8 cm,
rim dia. 5.7 cm).
will tell if these attributions are correct. The main
point of this article, however, has been to under-
score the observation that a ceramic industry of the
sort we see in the Umm an-Nar period in the Oman
peninsula does not spring sui generis where little
exposure to foreign ceramic imports and no evi-
dence of a prior industry exist. An external stimu-
lus—in the form of potters from southeastern Iran
settling in the region—seems the best explanation
for the technological and stylistic sophistication seen
in the Umm an-Nar ceramic repertoire from its
inception.

References
1. See e.g. Lawler A. Rocking the cradle.
Smithsonian 35/2: 2004: 40–48;
Covington R. Iran’s archeological
Renaissance. Saudi Aramco World Sept/
Oct: 2004: 8–11.
2. Majidzadeh Y. Jiroft: The earliest Orien-
tal civilization. Tehran: Printing and
Publishing Organization of the
Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guid-
ance, 2003.
3. See particularly Lamberg-Karlovsky
CC. The ‘Intercultural Style’ carved
vessels. IrAnt 23: 1988: 45–95.
4. E.g. Kohl PL. The balance of trade in
southwestern Asia in the mid-third
millennium BC. Current Anthropology
19: 1978: 463–492; Potts TF.
Mesopotamia and the East: An archaeolo-
gical and historical study of foreign rela-
tions 3400–2000 BC. Oxford: Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology
Monograph, 37: 1994, both with
extensive earlier bibliography.
5. E.g. Pittman H. Art of the Bronze Age:
Southeastern Iran, Western Central Asia

76

and the Indus Valley. New York: Met-
ropolitan Museum of Art, 1984.
6. Despite the analyses of material from
Tarut (Kohl PL, Harbotte G & Sayre EV.
Physical and chemical analyses of soft-
stone vessels from Southwest Asia.
Archaeometry 21: 1979: 131–159), I am
not convinced that it was a production
centre of série ancienne soft stone during
the third millennium. To begin with, a
glance at the catalogue of soft-stone
finds from Tarut (Zarins J. Steatite
vessels in the Riyadh Museum. Atlal 2:
1978: 65–93) shows that the bulldozing
and sand mining on Tarut which ori-
ginally brought the soft-stone finds
there to light revealed a large amount
of later third-millennium ‘Omani’ (série
récente) as well as ‘Hellenistic’ material.
Just as the Omani material is demon-
strably imported from the Oman pen-
insula, where production was
prodigious, I cannot see that the série
ancienne, so strikingly similar to the
Tepe Yahya and Jiroft material, could
be anything but southeast Iranian in
origin. The alleged semi-finished and
raw pieces of soft stone could well be of
Hellenistic date. Furthermore, the x-ray
diffraction analyses of Kohl, Harbottle
and Sayre really only tell us about
compositional groups, not about pro-
duction centres. In this regard, the fact
that a Susa-Adab-Persian Gulf group
was distinguished in no way necessi-
tates the hypothesis of an Arabian
manufacturing centre on Tarut. Rather,
it simply indicates that some vessels at
Susa, Adab and Tarut may have come
from a common source, wherever that
may be. Given the small size of Masry’s
soundings in the fort on Tarut, one
should not read too much into the fact
that, ‘No steatite objects were recov-
ered from any stratum of the main test
trench’ (Masry AH. Prehistory of north-
eastern Arabia: The problem of interre-
gional interaction. Coconut Grove: Field
Research Projects, 1974: 145). On the
other hand, I think it very likely that
Tarut was a production centre of
pseudo-série ancienne using the inferior
muscovite schist which has a pale
brown or sandy colour.
7. Steinkeller P. The question of Marhaši:
A contribution to the historical geo-6
graphy of Iran in the third millennium
BC. ZA 72: 1982: 251.
MARHASHI AND THE ORIGINS OF MAGAN’S CERAMIC INDUSTRY
8. Klengel E & Klengel H. Zum Fragment
eines Steatitgefäßes mit einer Inschrift
des Rimuš von Akkad. Rocznik Orien-
talistyczny 41: 1980: 45–51 (VA 5298).
9. Gadd CJ. Ur Excavations Texts. London:
British Museum, 1: 1928: 3 and Pl. II.9;
Woolley CL. Ur Excavations.
Philadelphia: British Museum, 4: 1956:
51, Pl. 36 (U.231).
10. Cf. Steinkeller P. Contacts between
Babylonia, Makkan and southeastern
Iran (Marhashi) during the second half
of the third millennium BC. In press.
My thanks to Prof. Steinkeller for
providing me with a copy of this paper
prior to its publication.
11. In chronological order, see Burkholder
G. Steatite carvings from Saudi Arabia.
Artibus Asiae 33: 1971: 306–322; Porada
E. Excursus: Comments on steatite
carvings from Saudi Arabia and other
parts of the Ancient Near East. Artibus
Asiae 33: 1971: 323–331; Zarins, Steatite
vessels in the Riyadh Museum: 65–93;
Burkholder G. An Arabian collection.
Boulder City: GB Publications, 1984;
Potts DT. Miscellanea Hasaitica.
Copenhagen: CNIP, 9: 1989, with earlier
bibliography.
12. al-Tikriti WY. Reconsideration of the late
fourth and third millennium B.C. in the
Arabian Gulf with special reference to the
United Arab Emirates. Cambridge:
Unpubl. PhD dissertation, 1981: Pls.
130.I and 154.B. I am not including a
bell-shaped bowl from Al Sufouh or an
undecorated canister from the Danish
excavations on Umm an-Nar as these
do not have the typically naturalistic
decoration of the Jirofti examples.
13. Ziolkowski MC. The soft-stone vessels
from Sharm, Fujairah, United Arab
Emirates. AAE 12: 2001: Figs 1–2.
14. Crawford H & Al Sindi K. A ‘hut pot’
in the National Museum, Bahrain. AAE
7: 1996: 140–142.
15. Lombard P, ed. Bahrain, the civilisation
of the two seas: From Dilmun to Tylos.
Paris: Institut du Monde Arabe, 1999:
93, no. 88.
16. Thorvildsen K. Burial cairns on
Umm-en Nar. Kuml 1962: 1963: 219.
17. See e.g. Biagi P. The prehistoric fish-
ermen settlements of RH5 and RH6 at
Qurum, Sultanate of Oman. PSAS 17:
1987: 7–31; Salvatori S. Death and
ritual in a population of coastal food
foragers in Oman. In: Afanas’ev E,
Cleuziou S, Lukacs JR & Tosi M, eds.
The prehistory of Asia and Oceania. Forlı̀:
ABACO Edizioni, 1996: 205–222.
18. Copeland L & Bergne P. Flint artifacts
from the Buraimi area, Eastern Arabia,
and their relations with the Near
Eastern post-Palaeolithic. PSAS 6: 1976:
40–61.
19. Uerpmann M. Some remarks on Late
Stone Age industries from the coastal
area of northern Oman. In: Costa PM &
Tosi M, eds. Oman Studies: Papers on the
archaeology and history of Oman. Rome:
Serie Orientale Roma, 63: 1989: 169–
177.
20. E.g. Popescu ES. The Neolithic settle-
ment sites on the islands of Dalma and
Marawah, U.A.E. In: Potts D, Al
Naboodah H & Hellyer P, eds.
Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates:
Proceedings of the First International
Conference on the Archaeology of the
U.A.E. London: Trident, 2003: 46–54;
Beech, M. The development of fishing
in the U.A.E.: A zooarchaeological
perspective. In: Potts, Al Naboodah &
Hellyer, eds. Archaeology of the United
Arab Emirates: 290–308, with biblio-
graphy.
21. E.g. Uerpmann M, Uerpmann H-P &
Jasim SA. Stone Age nomadism in SE
Arabia—Palaeo-economic considera-
tions on the Neolithic site of Al-Buhais
18 in the Emirate of Sharjah, UAE.
PSAS 30: 2000: 229–234; Kiesewetter H.
The Neolithic population at Jebel
Buhais 18: Remarks on funerary prac-
tices, palaeodemography and palaeo-
pathology. In: Potts, Al Naboodah &
Hellyer, eds. Archaeology of the United
Arab Emirates: 36–43.
22. Uerpmann, Uerpmann & Jasim, Stone
Age nomadism; cf. Uerpmann M &
Uerpmann H-P. Faunal remains of
al-Buhais 18, an aceramic Neolithic site
in the Emirate of Sharjah (SE-Arabia):
Excavations 1995–1998. In: Mashkour
M, Choyke AM, Buitenhuis H & Poplin
F, eds. Archaeozoology of the Near East
IVB. Groningen: ARC-Publicatie, 32:
2000: 40–49.
23. Apud Kapel H. Atlas of the Stone Age
cultures of Qatar. Aarhus: JASP, 6: 1967:
18.
24. There is Palaeolithic occupation much
further south in Oman, but to date
there is no evidence of population
continuity between the Palaeolithic/
77
D.T. POTTS
Pleistocene population and the mid-
Holocene occupants of the region. For
the Palaeolithic in southern Oman see
e.g. Biagi P. An early Palaeolithic site
near Saiwan (Sultanate of Oman). AAE
5: 1994: 81–88.
25. For a recent summary of the state of
knowledge on southern Mesopotamian
Ubaid, see Oates J. Ubaid Mesopota-
mia revisited. In: von Folsach K,
Thrane H & Thuesen I, eds. From
handaxe to Khan: Essays presented to
Peder Mortensen on the occasion of his
70th birthday. Aarhus: Aarhus Univ.
Press, 2004: 87–104, with extensive
bibliography.
26. Uerpmann M & Uerpmann H-P.
‘Ubaid pottery in the eastern Gulf—-
new evidence from Umm al-Qaiwain
(U.A.E.). AAE 7: 1996: 125–139, with
earlier bibliography.
27. Although Roaf M & Galbraith J. Pot-
tery and p-values: ’Seafaring mer-
chants of Ur?’ re-examined. Antiquity
68: 1994: 770–83 concluded by noting
that the composition of the sherds
analysed originally by Kamilli,
McKerrell and Davidson ‘might be
compatible with a range of alternative
origins’, they admitted that most of the
Ubaid pottery found on the Gulf sites
‘could have been imported from
southern Mesopotamia’. For addi-
tional, more recent analyses, see Méry
S & Schneider G. Mesopotamian pot-
tery wares in Eastern Arabia from the
fifth to the second millennium BC: A
contribution of archaeometry to the
economic history. PSAS 26: 1996:
79–96.
28. Masry, Prehistory in northeastern
Arabia: 123, ‘pale-reddish standard
straw-tempered coarse type, normally
with a blackened core occurring on
very irregularly shaped vessels. This
kind represents the bulk of this ware,
approximately 80%’. In fact, Masry
also distinguished a second coarse
ware, ‘light to dark brownish, straw
and chaff tempered type with a dis-
tinct basket mark impression on the
flat bases of vessels. This makes up the
remaining part of the coarse ware’.
Overall, these coarse wares account for
78
45–50% of the total surface ceramic
inventory.
29. Roaf & Galbraith, Seafaring merchants:
4 (preprint pagination). Joan Oates has
noted, ‘Coarse chaff-tempered cooking
ware is found on all prehistoric sites in
Mesopotamia, but the distinctively red
Arabian ware would seem to be of
local manufacture’. See Oates J. Pre-
history in northeastern Arabia. Anti-
quity 50: 1976: 26.
30. If similar wares existed in another
neighbouring region, e.g. in the south-
ern Levant or across the Gulf in Iran,
then of course this conclusion would
not be so inevitable, but such is not the
case.
31. Potts DT. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity,
i. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990:
69–70. The main reason for my mis-
givings was largely the fact that the
excavators were pointing to parallels
with burnished grey ware in south-
eastern Iran (e.g. at Tepe Yahya), but
there is none that dates to the fourth
millennium. Rather, it is a product
solely of the third millennium BC. See
Potts DT. Excavations at Tepe Yahya,
1967–1975: The third millennium. Cam-
bridge: Bulletin of the American School
of Prehistoric Research, 45: 2001: 199.
32. For an overview of the material from
the tombs at Jabal Hafit, see Potts DT.
Eastern Arabia and the Oman
peninsula during the late fourth and
early third millennium BC. In: Fink-
beiner U & Röllig W, eds. Ǧamdat Nas@ r:
Period or regional style? Wiesbaden:
TAVO Beiheft B, 62: 1986: 121–170,
with earlier bibliography.
33. Méry S. Les céramiques d’Oman et l’Asie
moyenne: Une archéologie des échanges à
l’Âge du Bronze. Paris: Éditions du
CNRS, 2000: 169–189.
34. E.g. Frifelt K. The island of Umm an-Nar,
vol. 1. Third millennium graves. Aarhus:
JASP, 26/1: 1991: Figs 86–89, 125;
Frifelt K. The island of Umm an-Nar, vol.
2. The third millennium settlement. Aar-
hus: JASP, 26/2: 1995: Figs 164–188.
35. Méry, Les céramiques d’Oman: Fig. 105.
36. As it happens, the graves on Umm an-
Nar were not only the first archaeolo-
gical findspots of the Umm an-Nar
culture/period to be discovered and
explored, they also appear to have
been the earliest, chronologically
speaking. For a tentative internal
chronology of the Umm an-Nar period
tombs excavated to date, see Benton
JN. Excavations at Al Sufouh: A third
millennium site in the Emirate of Dubai.
Turnhout: Abiel, 1: 1996: 88–89.
37. E.g. at Tal-i Iblis and Tepe Yahya. See
Caldwell JR, ed. Investigations at Tal-i-
Iblis. Springfield: Illinois State Museum
Preliminary Reports, 9: 1967: 111ff;
Beale TW. Excavations at Tepe Yahya,
Iran, 1967–1975: The early periods.
Cambridge: Bulletin of the American
School of Prehistoric Research, 38:
1986: 39ff.
38. The Tell Abraq vessel is discussed
in extenso in Potts DT. Tepe Yahya,
Tell Abraq and the chronology of the
Bampur sequence. IrAnt 38: 2003: 1–11.
39. For example, Frifelt, Third millennium
graves: Figs 59, 63, 67, 93, 96, 97; Méry,
Les céramiques d’Oman: Figs 49.5, 50.2,
52.7 (all tomb A at Hili North) and 55.1
(tomb M at Hili).
40. To the ceramic evidence we can also
add later third-millennium soft-stone
which moved in both directions. See
e.g. Potts DT. A soft-stone genre from
southeastern Iran: ‘Zig-zag’ bowls
from Magan to Margiana. In: Potts T,
Roaf M & Stein D, eds. Ancient Near
Eastern culture through objects: Festschrift
for P.R.S. Moorey. Oxford: Griffith
Institute, 2003: 77–91. Série récente and
tardive soft-stone vessels with single or
double dotted-circle decoration, a
hallmark of the Umm an-Nar and early
Wadi Suq periods (late third/early
second millennia BC) in the Oman
peninsula, has also been found on sites
in southeastern Iran, such as Tepe
Yahya (Lamberg-Karlovsky CC. Urban
interaction on the Iranian Plateau:
Excavations at Tepe Yahya, 1967–1973.
Proceedings of the British Academy 59:
1973: Fig. 5F) and Shahdad (Hakemi A.
Shahdad: Archaeological excavations of a
Bronze Age center in Iran. Rome: IsMEO,
1997: 617, Fm. 2 and 695, Ra. 4).