Arab. arch. epig.

2013: 24: 73–78 (2013)

© 2013 John Wiley and Sons

Neolithic material cultures of Oman and the Gulf

seashores from 5500–4500 BCE
The coastal sites of the UAE and the Sultanate of Oman in the sixth–fifth millennia Sophie M
ery1 and Vincent
BCE share a number of features in their material culture. In addition to lithic tech- Charpentier2
niques, the populations shared particular technologies, such as architecture using 1
CNRS, UMR 7041 –
equipe
load-bearing pots or the production of specific fishing material and ornaments in shell Asie centrale, 21 all
ee de
and mother-of-pearl. This corresponds to populations that were already Neolithic, l’Universit
e – 92023, Nanterre,
with domestic animals and practising intensive fishing, which was sometimes specia- cedex-France
lised. Is it possible at this stage in our understanding, to assert that this assemblage is 2
Inrap, UMR 7041 –
equipe Asie
both well differentiated from those of Qatar and the northern Arabian Gulf and cultur- centrale, 21 all
ee de l’Universit
e
ally homogeneous? Some answers are provided in this note. – 92023, Nanterre, cedex-France

Keywords: Neolithic, Arabia, chronology, material culture, Ubaid pottery e-mail: sophie.mery@mae.u-paris10.fr

Introduction Levantine herders is far from proven, as shown by the

Across the world, the process of Neolithisation has taken a
variety of routes. Should we consider that the Neolithic is
indicated merely by the association, in any order, of seden-
tism, ceramic tableware, livestock farming and agriculture,
as proposed by O. Aurenche (2009: 36) for the Near East?
Many cases have demonstrated the variability and non-lin-
earity of these associations over a long period and the bor-
der is often vague, in archaeological terms, between
hunter-gatherers who were small-scale producers and fully
Neolithised populations (Testart 2012).
Clearly different from that of the Near East, even if we
accept a flexible definition, the Neolithisation of the east
of the Arabian Peninsula has also followed its own path
(Cleuziou 2005). Effective in the sixth–fifth millennia
BCE, the Neolithic is characterised by the absence of agri-
culture, which only becomes certain in the early Bronze
Age around 3000 BCE (in the UAE), while livestock farm-
ing is attested considerably earlier, from 6100 cal BCE in
Yemen (McCorriston, this volume) and 5500 cal BCE in
the UAE and the Sultanate of Oman. Except for the dog,
whose origin is perhaps the Arabian wolf, no domestic
animal (sheep/goats, most cattle) is descended from local
wild fauna, the main area of origin being the south-west
of the Fertile Crescent (Uerpmann & Uerpmann 2003).
Their dissemination by PPNB (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B)
recent study of the Fasad points dated from the ninth–eighth
millennia BCE (Charpentier & Crassard, this volume).
From the sixth–fifth millennia BCE, fishing diversified
and became more specialised (e.g. shark fishing at Su-
wayh, Sultanate of Oman, Fig. 1), and was carried out on
the Arabian Gulf coast, the Arabian sea and the Gulf of
Oman. Sedentism became more marked, as did the
increasing density of exchanges, which must in part have
taken place by boat. In the Gulf, direct evidence for boats
is known only from as-Sabiyah in Kuwait (Carter & Craw-
ford 2010). Masirah Island, 20 km off the coast of Oman
in the Arabian Sea (Fig. 1), was reached at the very begin-
ning of the sixth millennium BCE.
Within the vast geographical area represented by the
eastern Arabian Peninsula, regional variations and adapta-
tions have naturally occurred, and these are far from being
characterised. Some populations of the central Gulf region
produced pottery from at least the fifth millennium BCE,
while it is not until two millennia later that local pottery
production developed in the Oman peninsula.
The Arabian Neolithic
As mentioned in the introduction, agriculture was not for-
mally present in Arabia at this time, despite the discovery

73


S. MERY AND V. CHARPENTIER

Shimal
Jazirat al-Hamra
Uaq-2 Shobeka
Akab
Umm al-Quwain 69
ARABIAN GULF al-Zuhra
Jebel Faya

Jebel al-Buhais Kalba

Dalma
GULF OF OMAN
Umm an-Nar SOHAR
ABU DHABI
Marawah i
Jebel Aqlah Jizz
Jebel Auha adi
w
AL AIN/BURAIMI

Ra’s al-Hamra
MASCATE
RUSTAQ
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Khor Milhk

Wadi Shab
BAHLA IZKI
NIZWA
Lizq SUR
Karimat al-Manahil Ra’s al-Hadd
Ra’s al-Jinz
Khabbah
Ruwayz
SULTANATE OF OMAN Suwayh

ad
i
nd Ra’s Saqqalah

A
3000 m
Ra’s Jibsh

am

A
2000 m

B
I Khuwaymah
H
1500 m A
W
1000 m ARABIAN SEA
500 m Masirah
200 m

100 m Neolithic site (6th - 4th mill. BC.) MASIRAH

Ra’s Dah
0m 0 100 200 km modern city

Fig. 1.
Map of the Neolithic sites in the Oman peninsula (drawing H. David).

of a few kernels of Phoenix dactylifera at Dalma (UAE,
Beech & Shepherd 2001), most probably coming from
Mesopotamia (Tengberg pers. com.) and at as-Sabiyah.
Livestock farming is well attested from the mid-sixth mil-
lennium BCE. The consumption of domestic animals was
not negligible compared to hunting for terrestrial mam-
mals (Uerpmann & Uerpmann 2003). It was even prepon-
derant at Buhais 18, but this very high proportion is
probably related to ritual meals.
There is no local pottery, even though a short-lived
invention of plaster tableware copying Ubaid pottery
seems to be attested in the UAE. This is a marked differ-
ence from the central Gulf, where Coarse Arabian Ware —
the usage and technical characteristics of which are distinct
from Ubaid pottery — was produced from the fifth millen-
nium BCE. What are the possible reasons for the (apparent,
until now) failure to adopt pottery in the UAE: lack of
direct contact with Ubaid fishermen, thus potters, or secrets
carefully preserved by the latter? As was stated as early as
1994 (M
ery 1995: 398, 1995: 1998), we think the Ubaid
populations did not reach the UAE, but their pots were
channelled through the local regions along the Arabian
coast. A technological and economic environment not yet
ready to absorb this new technology? In their technical
practices, the coastal populations do not seem to have had
any of the referents enabling them to reconstruct the chaîne
op
eratoire leading to the production of pottery containers
such as Ubaid vases, which they nevertheless utilised.
We will focus here on the period between the mid-sixth
and the mid-fifth millennium BCE, and uniquely on the
coasts of the Arabian Gulf (UAE) and the Arabian Sea
and the Gulf of Oman. We know of no Neolithic occupa-
tions of these coasts prior to the early sixth millennium
BCE (survey of Ra’s Dah on Masirah Island). The interior
of these regions is poorly known and essentially by means
of surface collections of lithic artefacts.
Two Neolithic lithic techno-complexes have been veri-
fied stratigraphically. The first lasted from 6500 to 4500
BCE and is characterised by trihedral arrowheads. The
second, from 4500 to 3700 BCE, is characterised by
fusiform foliate points. These techno-complexes could
correspond to two distinct periods, the first to the ‘Middle

74
 NEOLITHIC MATERIAL CULTURES OF OMAN AND THE GULF SEASHORES
Neolithic’ and the second to the ‘Late Neolithic 1’
(Charpentier 2008). This provisional chronology cannot,
of course, be based exclusively on the morphology of
projectile points, and many issues remain to be clarified in
terms of the economic particularities and material cultures
of the coastal and inland societies.
We have limited ourselves to a study of the material cul-
ture of the coasts of the UAE and Oman. We seek to high-
light production which was both culturally complex (in
terms of technology, chaîne op
eratoire and object styles)
and for which we are certain that the items were manufac-
tured in the two regions, while simultaneously attempting
to make a distinction between functional and/or environ-
mental adaptations and identifying factors within the
assemblages. We will also examine the categories of arte-
facts for which we have no evidence of production in these
two regions and which may also have circulated here.
Finally, the main differences between the regional assem-
blages will be emphasised.
Fishing tools
On the coasts of the UAE and the Sultanate of Oman,
the diversity of fish catches implies that various fishing
techniques and equipment were used in the sixth–fifth
millennia BCE: both net fishing and line fishing, and
most probably fish traps. Fishing with nets is attested
on all sites. Even though this production was not highly
complex in technological terms, we can observe that
the techniques were the same in the two regions: the
pebbles selected had the same dimensions, and the
same techniques of notching and grooving were
employed. These tools are not sufficiently characteristic,
however, truly to differentiate between trends and der-
niers degr
es du fait (Leroi-Gourhan 1945).
The production of fishhooks in mother-of-pearl of
Pinctada margaritifera, attested both in the Sultanate of
Oman and the UAE, is more complex on the technological
and cultural levels: materials, chaîne op
eratoire, style and
use are shared (M
ery, Charpentier & Beech 2008). The
earliest examples of this type of object have been dated at
Suwayh SW-1 to 5300 BCE (Fig. 2) and an outline of a
mother-of-pearl hook was found at SW-11 in a level dated
to the end of the sixth millennium BCE. It is also attested
at Ra’s al-Hamra RH-6 (Biagi 1999). For the end of the
middle Neolithic, there is evidence for the same types of
fishhooks on most of the sites. On the Arabian Gulf side,
some hooks in different stages of fabrication were found at
Akab (Charpentier & M
ery 2008). Are similarities in this
Fig. 2.
Fishhook of mother-of-pearl of Pinctada margaritifera, 5300 cal BCE,
Suwayh SWY-1 (Sultanate of Oman) (ª V. Charpentier).
fishing technology the result of social or environmental
adaptations? The chaîne op
eratoire and knowledge
involved are the same on both sides of the Strait of
Hormuz, as are the dimensions, morphology and fixing
method of the fishhooks: this is clearly more a cultural
than a functional feature.
Other tools
Various technologies, in clastic rock and osseous materi-
als, are attested in the Oman peninsula.
In terms of lithics, the trihedral character, fluting and use
of pressure retouching are the main technological features.
The trihedral arrowheads are attested on numerous sites
(Charpentier 2008), together with points retouched by pres-
sure, but bifacial daggers, micro-drills on bladelets or
flakes, side scrapers and end scrapers on flakes, and chipped
pieces: these require well-developed expertise and complex
implementation. The trihedral arrowheads are absent from
the Qatar peninsula and to the west. Marawah, in the Abu
Dhabi Emirate, is the only site having produced both these
characteristic armatures and armatures specific to Qatar
and to the west of the Arabian Gulf (stemmed points and
side-notched ailerons). Other types of armatures were pro-
duced in the UAE and in Oman, but we will not describe
them here as they are not well attested in the stratigraphy.
Tile knives are an element that differentiates the Gulf,
as they are present in the UAE, in Qatar and in Saudi Ara-
bia, but not in the Sultanate of Oman. This is a particularly
important tool as we have not yet identified a flat cutting
tool in the material culture of the Sultanate of Oman.
75


S. MERY AND V. CHARPENTIER
On the Oman peninsula, other productions are charac-
teristic of general trends — crushing, scraping, cutting —
while being neither complex in technological terms nor
stylistically distinctive, i.e. crushing stones, knives in Ven-
eridae shell or points in sheep bone.
Containers
As mentioned above, pottery from Mesopotamia was used
on many coastal sites of the UAE but not inland or in the
Sultanate of Oman. One of the oldest attestations of Ubaid
pottery is the vessel from Marawah MR-11 (Beech et al.
2005) (Fig. 3), dated to around 5500 BCE. At Umm al
Quwain UAQ2, 250 Ubaid sherds were found in the level
dated from the second part of the sixth millennium BCE.
While the arrival of Ubaid pottery in the sixth–fifth mil-
lennia BCE has had repercussions in the UAE in the techni-
cal sphere (plaster vessels imitating Ubaid pottery at MR11
and Dalma), it had no definite effect in the symbolic and/or
ritual sphere. The pottery is not reused in the funerary
context at Buhais, even though the inhabitants of this site
lived seasonally on the coast and transported their dead.
Moreover, no pottery is clearly associated with the skele-
tons at UAQ2, only sherds in the surrounding sediment.
Containers made from other materials were also used
and there is nothing to indicate that they were not locally
manufactured.
The stone vases (UAQ2, Umm az-Zumul, Ras’ al Khabah,
Ruwayz RW-1) do not, however, demonstrate any techni-
cal characteristic features. Other types of containers in
shell (Lambis truncata sabae, Fasciolaria trapezium) are
only attested in the Sultanate of Oman, at RH-6 (Biagi
Fig. 3.
Ubaid pot from Marawah MR-11 (UAE), around 5500 BCE (ª S. M
ery,
courtesy M. Beech/ADIAS).
76
1999) and SWY-1 and 11, but this is a type of shell that
does not exist in the Arabian Gulf. This is also the case
with the coral containers at Masirah.
Personal ornaments
We will only take into account here some individual orna-
ments that may, due to their specific characteristics, indi-
cate the sharing of references among the coastal
populations of the UAE and the Sultanate of Oman.
Fishing for pearls is in evidence from the last third of
the sixth millennium BCE at UAQ2 (Charpentier, Phillips
& M
ery 2012). In the fifth–fourth millennia BCE, pearls
occupied a special place in funeral rites. At Buhais 18,
semi-pierced pearls were associated with men, and com-
pletely pierced ones with women (de Beauclair 2008). The
partial piercing of fine beads, also attested at SWY-1, is a
characteristic that we consider to be strongly cultural.
Small stone balls (Fig. 4) which occasionally show par-
tial piercing, are also found at UAQ2, Yarmuk (Sharjah),
Hamriyah, Buhais 18 and Faya NE15 (e.g. Kiesewetter,
Uerpmann H-P. & Jasim 2000; Uerpmann H-P. et al.
2012). They are also present at RH-6 (Biagi 1999). They
are not, however, specific to the Oman peninsula because
parallels exist at as-Sabiyah (Carter & Crawford 2010).
Ornaments in mother-of-pearl developed strongly in
Oman in this period, with the fabrication of laurel-leaf-
shaped pendants, full or hollow, sometimes decorated with
incisions, of which many examples are known at Ruwayz
3 (Fig. 5) and RH-5 and 10 (Salvatori 2007; Cleuziou &
Tosi 2007). Laurel-leaf-shaped pendants are also found in
the UAE, at the inland sites of Al-Hair and Buhais 18
(Stoel 1990; Kiesewetter et al, 2000). These ornaments
Fig. 4.
Cornelian stone ball, c.5300 cal BCE Umm al Quwain 2 (UAE) (ª G. Dev-
ilder-French archaeological mission to the UAE).
 NEOLITHIC MATERIAL CULTURES OF OMAN AND THE GULF SEASHORES
are of a particular type (fusiform, sometimes of openwork
design, with incised decoration of alternate points or lines)
and standardised (morphology, technique), but no remains
of any manufacturing workshop have been found in the
UAE where their remains are few compared to the Sultan-
ate of Oman. Is the presence of these objects an indicator
of exchanges? It is probable.
Akab-type beads constitute another case, since they are
known in the UAE and the Sultanate of Oman, but with
the exception of a single attestation in Qatar, they are
unknown elsewhere. They are made from Muricidae colu-
mella or soft stone and demonstrate a particular perfora-
tion technique (angled double distal perforations on fine,
long beads, see Charpentier & M
ery 2008). They were
perhaps produced on both sides of the Strait of Hormuz,
as they are attested in the fifth and fourth millennia BCE
in the two regions (e.g. Biagi 1999).
In addition to the pendants and Akab-type beads, some
ornaments discovered on the coasts of the UAE and the
Sultanate of Oman are stylistically identical, but manufac-
tured in different materials. These are composite bracelets
made of rectangular plaques perforated at the four corners
and cut out of large, thick shells. In Oman these bracelets,
manufactured from Strombidae, are frequent, starting in
the second half of the fifth millennium BCE (SWY-1,
RH-5, etc.). In the UAE pieces with a similar shape are
manufactured from bivalves (Phillips 2002). In light of the
Fig. 5.
Laurel-leaf-shaped pendant, Ruways 3 (Sultanate of Oman) (ª V.
Charpentier).
fact that the larger Strombidae are absent from the Gulf,
here we can see a common cultural characteristic (usage
and style of the ornamental item) that is adapted to local
resources. The element of bracelet in Conidae discovered
at Hili 8, in the interior, demonstrates that there were pos-
sible exchanges with the Oman coast via Wadi Jizzi,
which crosses the Hajar Mountains (Charpentier & M
ery
2008).
We know that beads in Engina mendicaria, a shell not
found on sandy coasts, were also objects of exchange:
these have been found at UAQ2 and Akab, as well as to
the west at Dalma. Spondylus sp. is common on all Ara-
bian coasts. Is the cha^õne op
eratoire of Spondylus beads
shared? It seems to be the case at as-Sabiyah, Akab and
UAQ2 (Charpentier & M
ery 2008; Carter & Crawford
2010) but this is a simple cha^õne op
eratoire, which is per-
haps not significant in terms of the techno-cultural assem-
blage that we are attempting to characterise.
Differences also exist, which we must not neglect. Thus
the bi-perforated buttons in shell, such as MR11 (Beech
et al. 2005) and UAQ2, are not attested in Oman, while
they are known from Khor and as-Sabiyah: these orna-
ments seem to be unique to the Arabian Gulf where they
were perhaps objects of exchange.
Conclusion
The Neolithic of the Sultanate of Oman and the UAE,
between 5500 and 4500 cal BCE, corresponds to societies
in which maritime activity took place, the main technolo-
gies had been mastered and the main animal species
present were domesticates (sheep/goats, cattle, dogs). Both
regions share not only the same techno-lithic facies, but
also the same (or part of the same) halieutic technologies.
This may also the case for some types of ornament made
from a diverse range of materials. In addition, pearl fishing
was practised on both sides of the Straits of Hormuz.
Highly developed local production was thus shared by
the coastal populations of the sixth–fifth millennia BCE,
but notable differences do exist between the two regions.
It appears that the coast of the UAE was a region in which
the characteristic features of the coasts of the rest of the
Gulf overlapped, but excluding the unambiguous case of
Mesopotamian pottery, today we cannot truly differentiate
between the local production of the UAE and that contrib-
uted by Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. For the two sides
of the Strait of Hormuz, it is also difficult to distinguish
local production from the manufactured goods that were
exchanged over medium or long distances. Only a greater
77


S. MERY AND V. CHARPENTIER
number of detailed excavations and technological studies
will provide definite answers.
Even though a certain cultural unity can be perceived,
the societies are by no means the same on both sides of
the Strait of Hormuz, in the same way that we can perceive
References
Aurenche, O. 2009. La n
eolithisation du
Proche-Orient. Pages 33–48 in Demoule,
J-P. (ed.), La r
evolution N
eolithique dans
le monde (Paris, inrap Universcience).
Beauclair, R. de 2008. La parure fun
eraire de
la n
ecropole n
eolithique d’al-Buhais 18


(Emirats Arabes Unis). Pages 39–52 in
Bailly, M. & Plisson, H. (eds.), La valeur
fonctionnelle des objets s
epulcraux (Aix-
en-Provence, Pr
ehistoire Anthropologie
m
editerran
eennes 14).
Beech, M., Cuttler, R., Moscrop, D., Kallweit,
H. & Martin, J. 2005. New evidence for
the Neolithic settlement of Marawah
Island, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian
Studies 35: 37–56.
Beech, M.J. & Shepherd, E. 2001.
Archaeobotanical evidence for early date
consumption on Dalma Island, United
Arab Emirates. Antiquity 75: 83–89.
Biagi, P. 1999. Excavations at the shell-
midden of RH-6 1986–1988 (Muscat,
Sultanate of Oman). Al-R afidan 20: 57–
84.
Carter, R. & Crawford, H. eds. 2010. Maritime
interactions in the Arabian Neolithic.
Evidence from H3, as-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-
related site in Kuwait. Leiden: Brill.
Charpentier, V. 2008. Hunter-gatherers of the
‘empty quarter of the early Holocene’ to the
last Neolithic societies. Proceedings of the
Seminar for Arabian Studies 38: 59–82.
Charpentier, V. & M
ery, S. 2008. A Neolithic
settlement close by the Strait of Hormuz:
Akab Island — United Arab Emirates.
78
differences in the populations located to the west. We must
also investigate the origins of these cultures, namely the
transition between the last hunter-gatherer societies and
the beginning of the Neolithic, which is being discussed
by many scholars today.
Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian
Studies 38: 83–102.
Charpentier, V., Phillips, C. & M
ery, S. 2012.
Pearl fishing in the ancient world: 7500
BP. AAE 23: 1–6.
Cleuziou, S. 2005. Pourquoi si tard? Nous
avons pris un autre chemin. L’Arabie des
chasseurs-cueilleurs de l’Holocene au
^ du Bronze. Pages 123–148
d
ebut de l’Age
in Guilaine, J. (ed.), Aux marges des
grands foyers du N
eolithique: p
eriph
eries
d
ebitrices ou cr
eatrices? (Paris, Errance).
Cleuziou, S. & Tosi, M. 2007. In the Shadow
of the Ancestors: the prehistoric
foundation of the early Arabian
civilisation in Oman. Muscat: Ministry of
Heritage and Culture.
Kiesewetter, H., Uerpmann, H-P. & Jasim,
S.A. 2000. Neolithic jewellery from Jebel
al-Buhais 18. Proceedings of the Seminar
for Arabian Studies 30: 137–146.


Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1945. Evolution et
techniques. Vol. 2. Milieu et techniques,
Paris: Albin Michel.
M
ery, S. 1994b. La c
eramique, t
emoin de la
dynamique culturelle en Arabie durant la
Protohistoire. In Actes du Colloque
international ‘Terre cuite et soci
et
e, la
c
eramique comme document technique,

economique, culturel’ - XIVe Rencontres
Internationales d’Arch
eologie et


d’Histoire d’Antibes, Editions ADCPA,
Juan-les-Pins: 395–406.
M
ery, S. 1995. Archaeology of the
borderlands: 4th millennium BC
Mesopotamian pottery at Ra’s al-Hamra
RH-5 (Sultanate of Oman). Annali 55 (2):
193–206.
M
ery, S., Charpentier, V. & Beech, M. 2008.
First evidence of shell fishhook technology
in the Gulf. Arabian Archaeology and
Epigraphy 19: 15–21.
Phillips, C.S. 2002. Prehistoric middens and a
cemetery from the Southern Arabian Gulf.
Pages 169–186 in Cleuziou, S., Tosi, M. &
Zarins, J. (eds.), Essays on the Late
Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula
(Rome, Serie Orientale Roma 93).
Salvatori, S. 2007. The Prehistoric graveyard
of Ra’s al-Hamra 5, Muscat, Sultanate of
Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 14.
Stoel, P. 1990. Al-Hair Archaeological Site.
Emirates Natural History Group Bulletin
41: 22–24.
Testart, A. 2012. Avant l’histoire. L’
evolution
des soci
et
es de Lascaux 
a Carnac. Paris:
NRF Gallimard.
Uerpmann, H-P. & Uerpmann, M. 2003. The
Capital Area of Northern Oman: Stone
Age sites and their natural environment.
Part 3. (Beihefte zum T€ ubinger Atlas des
vorderen Orient. Reihe A.
Naturwissenschaften Nr. 31/3)
(Wiesbaden, Dr Ludwig Reichert).
Uerpmann, M., Beauclair, R. de, H€andel, M.,
Kutterer, A. et al. 2012. The Neolithic site
FAY-NE15 in the central region of the
Emirate of Sharjah (UAE). Proceedings of
the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42:
385–400.