Arab. arch. epig. 1998: 9: 112-117 Printed in Denmark. All rights reserved

Copyright 0 Munksgaard 1998

Arabian archaeology and epigraphy

ISSN 0905-7196

New Evidence of the Initial Appearance of Iron in Southeastern Arabia PETER MAGEE University of Sydney, Australia

The third season of excavations at Muweilah in the United Arab Emirates has revealed new evidence of the initial use of iron in southeastern Arabia. The evidence is contextualised within existing evidence of iron use in this region and some tentative interpretations of the importance of the find are presented.

Introduction (1) Despite the wealth of evidence accumu- lated by researchers on the southeast Ar- abian Iron Age, it has remained aphoristic that the term ‘Iron Age’ is a misnomer. As noted by Lombard (2), this cultural horizon is a ’Age du fer sans fer’; the term ’Iron Age’ being a mere convenience which re- flects the Iranian background of both the material culture of the region and, to some extent, the archaeological background of those who study it. The purpose of this brief communication is to present evidence for the earliest iron object so far recovered in southeastern Arabia and to locate it within regional developments.

Existing evidence Lombard has noted the scattered occur- rences of iron in the southeast Arabian Iron Age (3). These include two pieces from tombs excavated by Phillips in the Wadi al- Qawr; a fragment coming from the latest level at Rumeilah and a fragment from the graves at al-Qusais. To these should be added the fragment from Bithna, recently published by the Swiss-Liechtenstein Ar-

chaeological Mission (4). In examining the chronology of these objects several points come to the fore. The Bithna fragment comes from a tomb which contains exten- sive evidence for post-Iron Age burials. Al- though the piece in question is illustrated as coming from a level of discrete Iron Age use of the tomb (5), it is difficult to ignore the possibility that the fragment is in- trusive from the later burials in which iron was very common. The al-Qusais example remains largely unpublished so it is diffi- cult to assess fully the exact chronology of this piece (6). The preliminary report of one of the Wadi al-Qawr tombs provides no exact provenance for one of the iron objects (7) within the tomb and when this is con- sidered in light of the fact that glazed pot- tery was also found, uncertainties con- cerning an Iron Age date certainly arise. It is worth noting, however, that Lombard comments, based on Phillips’ presentation of other Wadi al-Qawr material at the 1987 Gottingen conference, that a dating to the end of the Iron Age is preferred (8). A similar dating is suggested for the frag- ment from Rumeilah. This piece, although unillustrated, is said to come from Period

112

INITIAL APPEARANCE OF IRON IN SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA

Alluvial Gravel PI

Alluvial Grabel Plan

I al-Hajar Mountain Range

0 Km 1W Km I

Fig. 1. Location of the Iron Age settlement of Muweilah.

I1 at Rumeilah (9) or the Iron Age I11 period (c.600-300BC) (10). Based on this knowl- edge it was safe to conclude, therefore, that iron did not make its appearance in south- eastern Arabia until the Iron Age I11 period, and even then the evidence was extremely limited.

Evidence from Muweilah The third season of excavations at Muweilah, Sharjah Emirate (UAE) (Fig. l), brought to light new evidence on the ap- pearance of iron in southeastern Arabia (11). Excavations in the western extent of the Area C complex revealed a series of small rectangular rooms characterised by mud-pis6 walls and hardened sand-earth floors overlaid with burning and debris from the destruction of the building (12). In one of these rooms, lying directly on the floor and overlaid by c.80cm of mudbrick collapse and ash, an iron dagger was recov- ered (Fig. 2). This piece (M-988) (13), al- though heavily corroded, displays a simple

Fig. 2. Iron dagger from Muweilah. Scale: 1/1. Length: 113mm, max. width: 24mm, max. thickness: 14mm

tang and a leaf-shaped point. The corrosion is such that details of the presence of a mid-rib etc. are impossible to ascertain.

Chronology In the last report on the excavations at Muweilah, the chronological implications of the I4C data were not fully discussed as the dates were received after the article was submitted (14). It is necessary, therefore, to

113

P. MAGEE

Table 1. Six 14C determinations from Area C, Muweilah. Calibrated BC 2 Relative

Calibrated Age sigma range contribution to Lab # Material I4C Age Error BC (probability method) probabilities

OZB802 Date seed 2406 134 408 808-188 1.00 OZB803 Wood Charcoal 2427 78 475,460,418 778-386 1.00 OZB804 Date seed 2488 67 757, 681,545 782413 1.00 OZB805 Wood Charcoal 2943 182 1126 1604-1558 0.01

1538-790 0.99 OZB806 Wood Charcoal 2334 116 394 779-154 0.99

142-122 0.01 028807 Wood Charcoal 2885 144 1029 1407-804 1.00

explore here the implications of that data in so far as they relate to M-988. Six I4C dates from the Area C complex support an upper limit for the destruction of the settle- ment of about 800BC (Table 1 and Fig. 3). Although two of the I4C determinations (OZB805, OZBS07) suggest an earlier date, these samples are of wood charcoal and were taken from the same deposits as the date seeds (OZB802, OZB804) which sug- gested a post-800BC date. Not only do the date seeds provide the latest and, therefore, most relevant date, but they are also not affected by the old-wood problem; an issue relevant in the hyper-arid climate of a site such as Muweilah where reuse of wood is

I I t

r Wood 1028807

I Wood 1028806

01 Wood 1028805

1- 028804

I Woodl 028803 I Date Seed I028802

I , , , , I , , , , I , , , , I , , I I I , I , , I , , , , I , , , , I I I I '

1800 1550 1300 1050 800 550 300 50 200 4

cal BC cal A0

Fig. 3. Six 14C determinations from Area C, Muweilah

almost certain (15). The complete lack of distinctive Iron I11 material culture at the site confirms a lower date of before 600BC thus supporting an Iron Age I1 date for the Area C complex.

Reinforcing the opinion that an Iron Age I1 date is relevant to M-988 is the recovery of typical Iron I1 vessels on the same floor as the object. A sherd with applique snake decoration is of particular importance (Fig. 4). This sort of distinctive decoration is found on vessels in secure Iron I1 contexts at Tell Abraq and Rumeilah (16).

The local and regional context Lombard has thoroughly reviewed the po- tential for iron production in the southeast Arabian Iron Age (17). He argues that iron was not only available in the al-Hajjar mountains but that local craftspeople must have been familiar with it since it played a part in copper and bronze production. This is certainly borne out by recent analysis of bronzes from the Iron Age levels at Tell Abraq from where over 50% of the ana- lysed samples contained iron as a major component (>1.0%) (18). Lombard sug- gests that the absence of iron-working was attributable to the technological and labour investment involved in its production being much greater than that involved in

214

INITIAL APPEARANCE OF IRON IN SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA

I

I

Fig. 4. Vessel fragment with applique snake motif from Muweilah. Scale 1 /2.

bronze production for which copper was more readily and easily available (19).

Given these conditions and the complete absence of local parallels it is unlikely that the Muweilah dagger was produced within southeastern Arabia. Rather, the strong in- fluence which appears to be exercised on this region from western Iran (20) suggests that area as a possible origin. The fullest discussion of the introduction of iron in west Iran is provided by Pigott (21) who documents a flourishing iron industry from the Iranian Iron Age I1 period (c.1100- 800BC) onwards (22). Pigott points to the

emergence of large-scale, socially complex polities and interaction with Assyria as the fundamental mechanisms for the massive iron production which is documented at Hasanlu and other sites (23). He argues that such polities not only had the socio- political means to organise large-scale iron production but they also contained elites for whom iron was both a prestige and a luxury item.

The existence of iron daggers at nu- merous Iranian sites of this time is noted by Pigott (24). Although the corroded state of many of the examples cited by him makes comparison to the Muweilah ex- ample near impossible, parallels can be made to Iron I1 period daggers from Tepe Sialk (25). Unfortunately, the largest single collection of Iron Age I1 weapons from any site, 1,311 from Hasanlu (26), remains largely unpublished; the only comprehen- sive report being the catalogue of 140 ob- jects from all periods of the site presented by Muscarella (27).

Parallels for the Muweilah dagger can also be found in Grave 519 at Qala’at al- Bahrain (28). This piece, which Lombard and Kervran date from the seventh to the fifth centuries BC is, however, also almost certainly imported from Iran, contact with which is no more clearly illustrated than by the presence of painted, bridged-spouted vessels of Sialk type on that island (29).

Summary and discussion Lombard’s appellation ’Age du fer sans fer’ is not seriously challenged by the new find from Muweilah. In so far as the term ’Iron Age’ reflects the manufacturing of iron implements, the use of the term for the late second and early first millennium BC in southeastern Arabia still remains er- roneous. The significance of M-988 lies in what it tells us about social and economic developments within southeastern Arabia.

225

P. MAGEE

The recovery of an iron object at a desert settlement confronts those assumptions concerning the role that settlements in so- called marginal areas played in the econ- omic and social developments which were taking place in southeastern Arabia at this time. As elsewhere in ancient western Asia, in its initial appearance iron assumes an important role as a status and prestige item, not only because of its rarity but also because of its strength over existing metals (30). The presence of such an item at Muweilah, a settlement with little agricul- tural potential and located in the most arid of all the geographical zones of south- eastern Arabia, suggests that the inhabi- tants of this settlement were certainly not marginalised by the agriculturally-rich oasis settlements which flourished at this time and on which so much of our knowl- edge of the Iron Age is based (31). Rather, it seems the inhabitants of Muweilah played an important, if not primary, role in the social and economic milieu of the Iron Age I1 period.

References 1. My thanks to Mr. Eric Smekens who inked the

drawings of the dagger and snake-decorated sherd. The originals were drawn by Ms. Anne Mackay. Research for this paper was conducted while the author was a Funds for Scientific Re- search-Flanders (Belgium) Visiting Postdoctoral Fellow at The State University of Gent, Belgium.

2. Lombard P. Ages du fer sans fer: Le cas de la p6- ninsule d’Oman au 1“ millhaire avant JC. In: Fahd T, ed. L’Arabie priislamique et son environne- ment historique et culturel. Lyon: CNRS, 1989: 25.

3. Lombard, Ages du fer sans fer: 32. 4. Courboud P, Castella A-C, Hapka R & im-Ober-

steg I? Les tombes protohistoriques de Bithnah, Fu- jairah, Emirats Arabes Unis. Mainz: Phillip von Za- bern, 1996: 77, P1. 25.12.

5. Courboud et al., Les tombes protohistoriques: Fig. 58. 6. For a brief illustration of some of the al-Qusais

material see Taha MY. Discovery in the Iron Age in UAE. Basrah University: Centre for Arab Gulf Studies, 1989. Since this has been published a

great quantity of material has been excavated from the site by Mr. Hussein Qandil, archaeologist with the Dubai Museum (UAE). The awaited pub- lication of this material will undoubtedly shed more light on this issue.

7. Phillips CS. Wadi al-Qawr, Fasgha 1. The excavation of a prehistoric burial structure in Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E., 1986, Edinburgh Department of Archae- ology, 1987: Fig. 38.15.

8. Lombard, Ages du fer sans fer: 32. 9. Boucharlat R & Lombard P. The oasis of al-Ain in

the Iron Age: Excavations at Rumeilah, 1981-1983, Survey at Hili 14. AUAE 4: 1985: 60.

10. For the absolute chronology of the southeast Ar- abian Iron Age see Magee P. The chronology of the southeast Arabian Iron Age. AAE 7: 1996: 240- 252; Magee P. The Iranian Iron Age and the chron- ology of settlement in southeastern Arabia. lr An t

11. The excavations at Muweilah are carried out under the auspices of the Australian Archae- ological Expedition to the United Arab Emirates. This work is generously sponsored by General Motors (Dubai) who have supplied financial as- sistance and vehicles. Without their assistance the work would not be possible. Without the kind permission and generosity of the Sharjah Direc- torate of Antiquities and Heritage, under the patronage of His Highness Sheikh Sultan bin Mo- hammed al-Qassimi, the work would have been impossible to carry out. The Sharjah Archae- ological Museum staff, and in particular Dr. Sabbah Jasim (Head, Local Archaeological Ex- pedition) and Mr. Ali al-Marri (Curator, Sharjah Archaeological Museum), were always of assist- ance. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Professor D.T. Potts who has supported the work at Muweilah and who has provided funds for the excavation and airfares to and from Aus- tralia. For a report on the first two seasons at the site see Magee P. Excavations at Muweilah. Pre- liminary report on the first two seasons. AAE 7:

12. Magee P. Preliminary report on the third season of excavations at Muweilah, Sharjah, UAE. AAE 9: 1998: in press.

13. All objects at Muweilah are located within a three- dimensional grid. M-988 is located at East 87.35, North 212.9 at a level of -361.5 within Locus 6113.

14. Magee, Excavations at Muweilah: 208-209, 213. 15. For a discussion of this issue within the southeast

Arabian context see Magee, The Iranian Iron Age:

16. Magee P. The Iron Age settlement at Tell Abraq. Turnhuot: Abiel, IV forthcoming. Boucharlat & Lombard, The oasis of al-Ain: P1. 51.7.

XXXII: 1997 91-109.

1996: 195-213.

97-98.

11 6

INITIAL APPEARANCE OF IRON IN SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA

17. Lombard, Ages du fer sans fer: 33. 18. Weeks LR. Prehistoric metallurgy at Tell Abraq,

19. Lombard, Ages du fer sans fer: 35. 20. Magee, The Iranian Iron Age: 91-109. 21. Pigott VC. The adoption of iron in western Iran in the

early first millennium B.C.: A n archaeometallurgical study. Thesis submitted to the University of Pennsylvania, 1981: 180-182.

22. We have adopted here the Iron Age chronology suggested by Pigott and followed with a few modifications by most researchers in the field. For a completely untenable revision of Iron Age chronology see Whittaker CM. The absolute chronology of Mesopotamian archaeology and Iron Age Iran. Mesopotamia XXIV 1989: 73-117.

23. Pigott, The adoption of iron in western Iran: 214-222. 24. Pigott, The adoption of iron in western Iran: Tables

4-13. 25. Ghirshman R. Fouilles de Sialk pr2s de Kashan. Vol

11. Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1939: Pls. LXXI.d, LIX.s642, LVII.sB20, XXXIX: s458.

26. Pigott, The adoption of iron in western Iran: Table 10. 27. Muscarella OW. Bronze and iron. Ancient near

eastern artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988:

28. Lombard P & Kervran M. Bahrain National Mu- seum. Archaeological Collections. Vol I. Bahrain: Ministry of Information, 1989: Fig. 143.

UAE. AAE 8: 1997 51-52,6142.

21-80.

29. Lombard & Kervran, Bahrain National Museum, No. 95. For a comparison between the examples from Bahrain and the west Iranian examples see Magee, The Iranian Iron Age: Fig. 2.

30. Maxwell-Hyslop KR. Assyrian sources of iron. A preliminary survey of the historical and geo- graphical evidence. Iraq XXXVI: 1974: 139-154 e.g. the use of iron together with gold and silver in the wedding dowry of Tahuhepa, daughter of Tusratta.

31. e.g. Rumeilah Boucharlat & Lombard, The oasis of al-Ain. al-Thuqaibah: Cordoba JM & Mouton M, La cultura del hierro en la peninsula de Oman. Excavaciones hispano-francesas en el emirato de Sharjah. Revista de Arqueologia XVI: 1995: 16-25, Hili 17: Yasin W, Magee P & Haddau S: Exca- vations at Hili 17, al-Ain, UAE. AUAE: forth- coming.

Address: Peter Magee School of Archaeology A14 University of Sydney 2006 New South Wales Australia Email: PeterGerard.Magee@allserv.rug.ac.be

117