ORE Open Research Exeter

TITLE Bilad al-Qadim revisited: recent archaeological research at the Al-Khamis Mosque, Ain Abu Zaydan and Abu Anbra, Bahrain

AUTHORS Insoll, T; Almahari, S; MacLean, R; et al.

JOURNAL Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

DEPOSITED IN ORE 14 March 2017

This version available at

http://hdl.handle.net/10871/26557

COPYRIGHT AND REUSE

Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies.

A NOTE ON VERSIONS

The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

Bilad al -Qadim Revisit ed: Recent Archaeological Research at the Al-Khamis Mosque, Ain Abu Zaydan, and Abu Anbra, Bahrain

For Review Only Journal: Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

Manuscript ID AAE-0497.R1

Wiley - Manuscript type: Original Article

Date Submitted by the Author: n/a

Complete List of Authors: Insoll, Timothy; University of Manchester, Archaeology Almahari, Salman; Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities, Directorate of Archaeology and Heritage MacLean, Rachel; University of Manchester, Archaeology Priestman, Seth; University of Edinburgh, School of History, Classics, and Archaeology Al-Mearaj, Muhammad; Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities, Directorate of Archaeology and Heritage Overton, Nick; University of Manchester, Archaeology

Keywords: Bahrain, Bilad al-Qadim, Al-Khamis, Abu Anbra, Abu Zaydan

In comparison to our understanding of pre-Islamic occupation and land use on Bahrain that of the Islamic period has remained less well known. In connection with the building of a visitors centre at the Al-Khamis Mosque and the planning of an associated heritage trail, renewed archaeological research has taken place in Bilad al-Qadim, an archaeologically important Abstract: area of Islamic settlement in the northeast of the main island of Awal. This has involved excavations in the Abu Anbra cemetery, at Ain Abu Zaydan, and at the Al-Khamis Mosque. The results of these excavations are reported here and these contribute to our understanding of Islamic settlement on Bahrain in supporting the interpretation that Bilad al-Qadim was the main centre of Islamic settlement in the 11th-13th centuries AD.

Page 1 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 Context Description Date 6 AZ14-2 Common Ware (CW) body sherd with handle stump and 11 th to mid 12 th 7 decorated with incised wavy lines ( Figure 14.1 ). Comparable to centuries 8 example illustrated by Carter (2005: fig. 4.2: 31) dated to 11 th to 9 mid 12 th centuries 10 AZ14-3 Chinese Dusun stoneware body sherd (Figure 14.2 ) 8th to 10 th 11 centuries 12 AZ14-3 Chinese white ware body sherd with vegetal pattern on interior 11 th to 13 th 13 (Figure 14.3 ) centuries 14 AZ14-3 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd with brick red fabric and traces of 11 th to 13 th 15 cream slip and glaze (hatched) ( Figure 14.4 ) centuries 16 AZ14-4 CW rim sherd. Simple unincised rim from a small bowl ( Figure 11 th to 12 th 17 14.5 ) comparable to example illustrated by Carter (2005: fig. 4.2: centuries 18 13) datedFor to 11 th to Review12 th centuries Only 19 th th 20 AZ14-5 3 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherds, 2 with pale pink fabric and 11 to 13 21 green glaze (Monochrome), one with pinky red fabric and brown centuries 22 and yellow glaze (Hatched) AZ14-5 CW vertical rim with orange/brown glaze on the interior and Possibly late 23 th th 24 incised horizontal lines on the exterior ( Figure 14.6 ). It is similar 12 to 14 25 but not identical to ribbed and incised CW vertical jar forms centuries 26 illustrated by Carter (2005: 428, fig. 4.4: 1-10) and dated to the th th 27 late 12 to 14 centuries th 28 AZ14-4 CW handle formed of twisted ropes of clay ( Figure 14.7 ) Late 12 to th 29 comparable to example illustrated by Carter (2005: 435, fig. 4.4: 13 centuries th th 30 29) and dated to the late 12 to 13 centuries 31 AZ14-7 Eroded Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd with pale pink fabric and 11 th to 13 th 32 glaze missing centuries 33 AZ14-7 Turquoise glazed body sherd of probable Iraqi provenance (cf. 8th to 10 th 34 Mason and Keall 1991: 57-61; Carter 2005: 409) centuries 35 AZ14-7 CW body sherd with incised wavy line decoration ( Figure 14.8 ) 11 th to 12 th 36 comparable to example illustrated by Carter (2005: fig. 4.2, 31, centuries AD 37 32) and dated to the 11 th to 12 th centuries 38 AZ14-8 4 Frit body sherds with cobalt blue glaze and dark blue incised 11 th century 39 lines on interior of 3 sherds ( Figure 14.9 ). Comparable to wares (possibly to 40 described by Carter (2005: 422) as from “delicate, thin-walled 13 th century) 41 bowls” with a “pinkish-white and slightly grainy” body that 42 appears in the 11 th century in Bilad al-Qadim, and is dated 43 through to the late 13 th century at Siraf (ibid; Tampoe 1989: 73, 44 79) 45 AZ14-8 Sirafi bowl rim sherd. Simple slightly out-turned rim in pink 8th to 10 th 46 fabric with pale yellow brown slip (Figure 14.10 ) centuries 47 AZ14-8 Sirafi storage jar body sherd with incised decoration ( Figure 8th to 10 th 48 14.11 ). “Lower Gulf Red Ware” (Carter 2005: 403), or Large centuries 49 Incised Storage Vessel (Kennet 2004). 50 AZ14-9 2 Sirafi storage vessel body sherds. Fine pink brown fabric with 8th to 10 th 51 pale cream slip and incised line decoration on exterior ( Figure centuries 52 14.12 ) 53 th th 54 AZ14-9 2 Turquoise glazed body sherds 8 to 10 centuries 55 th th 56 AZ14-9 2 Iranian Sgraffiato rim sherds, both in pale pink fabric 1 lacking 11 to 13 57 glaze, the other with green, brown and cream glaze ( Figure centuries 58 14.13 ) 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 2 of 61

1 2 3 AZ14-9 1 abraded Iranian Sgraffiato base sherd with brick red fabric and 11 th to 13 th 4 green glaze (Monochrome?) centuries 5 AZ14-9 2 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherds in pale pink fabric with light 11 th to 13 th 6 and dark green glaze, possibly Monochrome Sgraffiato centuries 7 8 Table 1. Diagnostic sherds from AZ14 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 3 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 Context Description Date 7 AZ15-2 Iraqi early polychrome splashed glazed ware rim sherd in pale 9th to 10 th 8 pink fine fabric. Green mottled glaze on interior and exterior centuries 9 (Figure 15.1 ) 10 AZ15-2 Turquoise glazed body sherd of probable Iraqi provenance 8th to 10 th 11 centuries 12 AZ15-4 CW rim sherd. Simple out-turned rim with light brown glaze on Mid-11 th to 12 th 13 interior and exterior and cross hatched incised decoration on centuries 14 exterior ( Figure 15.2 ). Similar to examples described by Carter 15 (2005: 429, Fig.4.3, 22-25) 16 AZ15-4 Chinese Blue and White body sherd ( Figure 15.3 ) 13 th -14 th 17 centuries 18 For Review Only th th 19 AZ15-5 Iranian Hatched Sgraffiato rim sherd from a bowl in mid pink 11 to 13 20 fine fabric. Green, brown, grey and cream linear glaze on centuries interior, patchy glaze on exterior. Repair hole ( Figure 15.4 ) 21 th th 22 AZ15-5 CW rim sherd. Pale yellow fabric. Brown slip in horizontal 11 to 12 23 channeling towards rim. From a vertical sided jar comparable to centuries 24 an example illustrated by Carter (2005: Fig. 4.2, 1-5) ( Figure 25 15.5 ) th th 26 AZ15-6 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd. Pale pink fabric with traces of 11 to 13 27 yellow glaze on exterior centuries 28 AZ15-6 Iranian Sgraffiato rim sherd. Pinky red fabric. Green glaze on 11 th to 13 th 29 interior, green and yellow glaze on exterior ( Figure 15.6 ) centuries 30 AZ15-6 Sirafi storage jar body sherd. Red brown fabric with incised line 8th to 10 th 31 decoration on exterior ( Figure 15.7 ) centuries 32 AZ15-6 Chinese white ware body sherd, probably from southern China. 10 th to 12 th 33 Undecorated centuries 34 AZ15-6 Sirafi storage jar body sherd. Dark red brown fabric with 8th to 10 th 35 incised line decoration on exterior ( Figure 15.8 ) centuries 36 AZ15-6 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd. Pinky red fabric with traces of 11 th to 13 th 37 green glaze on interior centuries 38 AZ15-7 Iranian Hatched Sgraffiato body sherd possibly from Makran 11 th to 13 th 39 coast area. Pinky brown fabric with olive green and brown centuries 40 glaze on interior and light green and yellow glaze on exterior 41 (Figure 15.9 ) 42 AZ15-7 Chinese Longquan Celadon body sherd 13 th to 14 th 43 centuries 44 AZ15-7 Abraded Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd. Pinky brown fabric and 11 th to 13 th 45 traces of green glaze centuries 46 th th 47 AZ15-7 Abraded Chinese Dusun body sherd ( Figure 15.10 ) 8 to 10 centuries 48 th th 49 AZ15-7 Southern Iranian Coarse Ware body sherd. Coarse dark red 9 to 10 50 fabric with dark grey brown slip and ribbed decoration on centuries 51 exterior. “Lower Gulf Red Ware” in Carter (2005: 404) ( Figure 52 15.11 ) th th 53 AZ15-7 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd. Pinky red fabric with traces of 11 to 13 54 yellowish glaze on the exterior ( Figure 15.12 ) centuries th 55 AZ15-7 Frit body sherd with cobalt blue glaze. Fine white fabric 11 century th 56 (possibly to 13 57 century) 58 AZ15 -7 Abbasid Tin Glaze white ware with cobalt blue decoration base 9th century 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 4 of 61

1 2 3 sherd ( Figure 15.13 ) 4 AZ15-8 2 Southern Iranian Coarse Ware body sherds. Coarse red brown 9th to 10 th 5 fabric. Undecorated centuries 6 AZ15-8 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd. Brick red fabric with green glaze 11 th to 13 th 7 on interior and exterior centuries 8 AZ15-8 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd. Pale pink fabric with light and 11 th to 13 th 9 dark green glaze on interior and exterior centuries 10 AZ15-8 Chinese Dusun body sherd 8th to 10 th 11 centuries 12 AZ15-8 Chinese Longquan Celadon body sherd. 13 th to 14 th 13 centuries 14 th th AZ15-8 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd. Pinky red fabric with olive green 11 to 13 15 glaze on interior centuries 16 AZ15-8 Turquoise monochrome Iranian Frit body sherd 11 th to 13 th 17 centuries 18 For Review Only th th 19 AZ15-9 Iranian Monochrome green glazed body sherd (Figure 15.14 ) 11 to 13 centuries 20 th th 21 AZ15-9 Iranian Monochrome green Sgraffiato rim sherd 11 to 13 22 centuries th th 23 AZ15-9 3 Iranian Monochrome green Sgraffiato body sherds 11 to 13 24 centuries th th 25 AZ15-9 Turquoise monochrome Iranian Frit body sherd 11 to 13 26 centuries 27 AZ15-9 Iranian Monochrome green Sgraffiato body sherd with kiln spur 11 th to 13 th 28 and repair hole centuries 29 AZ15-9 Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd. Brick red fine fabric with cream 11 th to 13 th 30 glaze on interior centuries 31 AZ15- Iranian Sgraffiato body sherd. Pale pink fine fabric with cream 11 th to 13 th 32 10 and green glaze on interior and olive green and brighter green centuries 33 glaze on exterior 34 AZ15- Abraded Iranian Sgraffiato base sherd. Pale pink fine fabric 11 th to 13 th 35 10 with traces of cream and light brown glaze on interior ( Figure centuries 36 15.15 ) 37 38 39 Table 2. Diagnostic sherds from AZ15 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 5 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 Context Description Dimensions 6 AZ14-2 Fragment of clear green glass vessel 1.6 mm thick 7 AZ14-3 Fragment of clear light green glass vessel 2 mm thick 8 AZ14-4 Rim fragment of moulded clear glass vessel with 2.5 mm tapering to 1.3 9 vertical ribbing on exterior ( Figure 16.1 ) mm thick 10 AZ14-6 Rim fragment of thin eroded clear yellow glass 0.4 mm thick 11 vessel ( Figure 16.2 ) 12 AZ14-7 Cylindrical (neck?) fragment of clear pale blue glass 0.4 mm thick 13 vessel ( Figure 16.3 ) 14 AZ14-7 Fragment of clear blue glass vessel 2.8 mm thick 15 AZ14-9 Rim fragment of clear glass vessel containing a lot of 2.2 mm thick 16 air bubbles ( Figure 16.4 ) 17 AZ15-4 Degraded clear glass vessel fragment 0.8 mm thick 18 AZ15-7 Base Forfragment of clearReview glass vessel. Dimple inOnly centre 3.8 mm tapering to 1.8 19 of base ( Figure 16.5 ) mm thick 20 AZ15-8 5 fragments of vessel glass too small or degraded to NA 21 be identifiable 22 AZ15 -8 Fragment of light green clear glass vessel 1.3 mm thick 23 AZ15-9 Fragment of a large clear glass vessel handle. Glass 47.5 mm (length) x 12.3 24 contains several air bubbles. An additional piece of mm (width). Decoration 25 applied pointed decoration projects vertically from 18.3 mm (length) x 17.3 26 the surface. Flattened semi-circular cross section mm (width) 27 (Figure 16.6 ) 28 29 AZ14-2 Degraded fragment of monochrome blue glass 30.4 mm (length) x 2.4 30 bracelet with a flat interior and semi-circular cross mm (depth) x 3.1 mm 31 section ( Figure 16.7 ) (width) 32 AZ14-7 Fragment of monochrome red twisted pattern glass 21.1 mm (length) x 5.2 33 bracelet with a circular cross section ( Figure 16.8 ) mm (diameter) 34 AZ15-4 Fragment of a blue/black monochrome ridged glass 40.5 mm (length) x 7.1 35 bracelet with a semi-circular cross section and mm (depth) x 7.3 mm 36 degraded surface ( Figure 16.9 ) (width) 37 AZ14-3 Crudely made orange carnelian bead. Surface pitted 4mm (length) x 6.2 mm 38 and short barrel shape is distorted ( Figure 16.10 ) (diameter). 1 mm 39 (perforation diameter) 40 AZ14-7 Slightly flattened green glass long cylinder bead with 17.1 mm (length) x 4.4 41 an iridescent surface ( Figure 16.11 ) mm (diameter). 1.5 x 1 42 mm (perforation diameter) 43 AZ15-8 Small green/blue glass cylinder bead ( Figure 16.12 ) 7.4 mm (length) x 1.7 mm 44 (diameter). 0.2 mm 45 (perforation diameter) 46 47 48 Table 3. Glass vessel fragments, glass bracelet fragments and beads from AZ14 and 49 AZ15 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 6 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 Context Material Quantity Description 6 AZ14-3 Bitumen 10 g 2 pieces of bitumen. Larger piece was applied to a 7 stick or reed 8 AZ14-3 Haematite 4 g 1 small unmodified piece 9 AZ14-6 Copper 1 Small, eroded piece. 10 x 10.9 x 4.8 mm maximum 10 alloy dimensions 11 AZ15-2 Copper 1 Tarnished copper alloy coin of recent date with 12 alloy “United Arab Emirates” on one face 13 AZ15-8 Crucible 1 Rim fragment from a large grey clay crucible with 14 fragment vitreous deposits on exterior. 11.6 to 9.8 mm thick x 15 15 cm diameter ( Figure 16.13 ) 16 17 18 Table 4. Metal, Forbitumen, and Review miscellaneous artefacts fromOnly AZ14 and AZ15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 7 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 Site and Context Frequency of Specimens 6 AZ15-9 35 7 AZ15 -7 23 8 AZ15-2 4 9 AZ15 -5 11 10 AZ15-6 15 11 AZ15-4 13 12 AZ15-8 74 13 AZ15 Total 175 14

15 Table 5. Frequency of specimens recorded 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 8 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 Species NISP MNI 6 Cow 13 1 7 Goat 4 1 8 Sheep 7 1 9 Sheep/Goat 21 2 10 Horse 3 1 11 12 Total 48 6 13 14 Ovicaprid 32 2 15

16 17 Table 6. Frequency of species within the AZ15 assemblage, quantified as the number of 18 identified specimensFor (NISP) Review and the minimum number Only of individuals (MNI), based on 19 landmark data (cf. Dobney and Reilly 1988). Note the ‘Ovicaprid’ totals, calculated by 20 combining sheep, goat and sheep/goat quantification data 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 9 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 Context and Species NISP MNI 6 AZ15-2 7 Ovicaprid 1 1 8 AZ15 -4 9 Ovicaprid 2 1 10 AZ15-6 11 Ovicaprid 3 1 12 AZ15-7 13 Ovicaprid 8 1 14 AZ15-8 15 Cow 8 1 16 Ovicaprid 12 1 17 AZ15-9 18 For Review Only 19 Cow 5 1 20 Horse 3 1 21 Ovicaprid 6 1 22 Total 48 9 23 24 25 Table 7. NISP and MNI frequencies of identified species from each context within the 26 AZ15 assemblage 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 10 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 Context Skeletal Proximal Distal Age 6 Element Epiphyses Epiphyses 7 AZ15-2 Calcaneous Fused Fused >2.5-3yrs 8 AZ15-6 Humerus n/a Fused >10 months 9 AZ15-7 Femur n/a Unfused <3-3.5 years 10 AZ15-7 Phalanx I Fused Fused >13-16 months 11 AZ15-7 Phalanx I Fused Fused >13-16 months 12 AZ15-7 Phalanx II Fused Fused >13-16 months 13 AZ15 -8 Metatarsal n/a Fused >20 -28 months 14 AZ15-8 Humerus n/a Fused >10 months 15 AZ15-8 Humerus n/a Fused >10 months 16 17 18 Table 8. EpiphysealFor fusion dataReview for ovicaprid specimens Only within the AZ15 assemblage 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 11 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 Longbone Context and Tibiotarsus Ulna Total 7 Fragment Species 8 Left Right Left Right Unsided 9 AZ15-4 10 Bird 2 2 11 Chicken 1 1 12 AZ15-5 13 14 Chicken 1 1 15 AZ15-7 16 Bird 4 4 17 Chicken 2 2 18 AZ15 -9 For Review Only 19 Chicken 1 1 20 Total 1 1 1 2 6 11 21 Table 9. NISP frequencies of bird remains from AZ15. For specimens identified to 22 element each specimen represents an individual element; therefore the NISP figures for 23 tibiotarsus and ulna can also be read as MNE 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 12 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 Site/Context and Species 6 Skeletal Element Fish Scaridae Scombridae Sparidae Total 7 AZ15 -4 8 9 Basipterygium 1 1 10 Premaxilla 1 1 11 Dentary 1 1 12 AZ15-6 13 Lower Pharyngeal 1 1 14 AZ15-7 15 Caudal Vertebra 1 1 16 AZ15-9 17 Abdominal 18 Vertebra For Review Only 1 1 19 Caudal Vertebra 2 2 20 Total 2 1 4 1 8 21 22 23 Table 10. NISP frequencies of fish remains within the AZ14 and AZ15 assemblages 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 13 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Figure 1. The location of Bilad al-Qadim in Bahrain 296x419mm (300 x 300 DPI) 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 14 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Figure 2. 1996 aerial photograph of Bilad al-Qadim with locations of Abu Anbra, Al-Khamis Mosque and Ain 43 Abu Zaydan marked (courtesy, Ministry of Housing, Kingdom of Bahrain) 208x218mm (300 x 300 DPI) 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 15 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Figure 3. Abu Anbra mound with grave markers (photo. T. Insoll) 30 327x219mm (300 x 300 DPI) 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 16 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Figure 4. Al-Khamis market, meat section, 1928. Note mound in background (photo. Dr Louis and Mrs 28 Elizabeth Dame, courtesy, Archives of the Reformed Church in America) 29 63x36mm (300 x 300 DPI) 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 17 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Figure 5. 1966 aerial photograph of Bilad al-Qadim with Abu Anbra mound clearly visible where marked 41 (courtesy, Ministry of Housing, Kingdom of Bahrain) 42 239x237mm (300 x 300 DPI) 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 18 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Figure 6. The tomb wall recorded in the Abu Anbra mound (photo. T. Insoll) 30 327x219mm (300 x 300 DPI) 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 19 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Figure 7. Ceramics from ABN15. Top. CW jar (ABN15-4). Bottom left. Turquoise Glazed ware (ABN15-1). 38 Bottom right. Cobalt Blue Frit (ABN15-1) 39 268x242mm (300 x 300 DPI) 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 20 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Figure 8. Plan of the Ain Abu Zaydan site complex after survey by Marzooq al-Afoo 32 288x204mm (300 x 300 DPI) 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 21 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Figure 9. Ain Abu Zaydan. Left. The pillar incorporating re-used masonry, including an upturned altar slab. 33 Right. Monumental masonry in the pool wall (photos. T. Insoll) 34 219x163mm (300 x 300 DPI) 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 22 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Figure 10. Ain Abu Zaydan, 1928 (photo. Dr Louis and Mrs Elizabeth Dame, courtesy, Archives of the 29 Reformed Church in America) 30 83x53mm (300 x 300 DPI) 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 23 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Figure 11. Base of AZ14-9 with, left, rubble fill/wall and, right, plastic water pipe (photo. T. Insoll) 914x1365mm (72 x 72 DPI) 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 24 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Figure 12. AZ15, stratigraphic profile, eastern face 864x1041mm (72 x 72 DPI) 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 25 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Figure 13. AZ15-10, channel, at centre, between two slight raised banks (photo. T. Insoll) 30 327x219mm (300 x 300 DPI) 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 26 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Figure 14. Diagnostic sherds from AZ14 31 414x287mm (300 x 300 DPI) 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 27 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Figure 15. Diagnostic sherds from AZ15 27 420x240mm (300 x 300 DPI) 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 28 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Figure 16. Glass vessel and bracelet fragments, beads, and crucible fragment from AZ14 and AZ15 27 419x238mm (300 x 300 DPI) 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 29 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Figure 17. Plan of the Al-Khamis Mosque site indicating the areas of recent Bahraini excavation (courtesy, Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities) 32 398x279mm (300 x 300 DPI) 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 30 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Figure 18. Al-Khamis Mosque site. Left. The well (Area B) with fallen column base in-situ. Right. The multi- roomed building (Area D), after conservation. Bottom. The collapsed shrine (Area A), after conservation 48 (photos. T. Insoll) 49 193x268mm (300 x 300 DPI) 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 31 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 Bilad al-Qadim Revisited: Recent Archaeological Research at the Al- 4 Khamis Mosque, Ain Abu Zaydan, and Abu Anbra, Bahrain 5 6 Timothy Insoll (1), Salman Almahari (2), Rachel MacLean (1), Seth Priestman (3), 7 Muhammad Al-Mearaj (2), and Nick J. Overton (1) 8 9 (1) Department of Archaeology, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Corresponding 10 author: [email protected] 11 12 (2) Directorate of Archaeology and Heritage, Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities 13 14 (3) School of History, Classics, and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, UK 15 16 17 18 Abstract. In comparisonFor to ourReview understanding of pre-Islamic Only occupation and land use on 19 20 Bahrain that of the Islamic period has remained less well known. In connection with the 21 building of a visitors centre at the Al-Khamis Mosque and the planning of an associated 22 23 heritage trail, renewed archaeological research has taken place in Bilad al-Qadim, an 24 25 archaeologically important area of Islamic settlement in the northeast of the main island of 26 Awal. This has involved excavations in the Abu Anbra cemetery, at Ain Abu Zaydan, and at 27 28 the Al-Khamis Mosque. The results of these excavations are reported here and these 29 30 contribute to our understanding of Islamic settlement on Bahrain in supporting the 31 interpretation that Bilad al-Qadim was the main centre of Islamic settlement in the 11 th -13 th 32 33 centuries AD. 34 35 36 37 38 39 Keywords. Bahrain, Bilad al-Qadim, Al-Khamis, Abu Zaydan, Abu Anbra. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 1 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 32 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 Introduction 6 7 In comparison to our understanding of pre-Islamic occupation and land use on Bahrain (e.g. 8 9 Højlund and Hellmuth Andersen 1994; Lombard 1999; Hellmuth Andersen and Højlund 10 2003; Killick and Moon 2005; Højlund 2007) that of the Islamic period has remained less 11 12 well known. In connection with the building of a visitors centre at the Al-Khamis Mosque and 13 14 the planning of an associated heritage trail (MacLean and Insoll 2014), renewed 15 archaeological research has taken place in Bilad al-Qadim, an archaeologically important area 16 17 of Islamic settlement in the northeast of the main island of Awal ( Insert Figure 1 here ). 18 For Reviewth th Only 19 Although occupied from at least the 8 /9 centuries AD, Bilad al-Qadim seems to have been 20 a particularly important area of settlement on Bahrain between the 11 th -13 th centuries AD (all 21 22 dates are AD unless otherwise specified). It then declined to a village level of occupation 23 th 24 from the 14 century (Insoll 2005a: 100-101). 25 26 Central within Bilad al-Qadim, the Al-Khamis Mosque is the most prominent Islamic 27 28 archaeological site in Bahrain. The Mosque was partly excavated by a French team in the 29 30 1980s (cf. Kervran and Kalus 1990) and has generated discussion about its architectural form, 31 phasing, and chronology (e.g. Kervran and Kalus 1990; Whitehouse 2003; Potts in press). 32 33 Three construction phases were proposed for the mosque by Kervran and Kalus (1990: 7), 34 th 35 first Umayyad, apparently represented only by the qibla wall and mihrab, second, mid-11 36 century represented by ashlar construction of a prayer hall and courtyard, and third, mosque 37 th 38 enlargement during the Uyunid dynasty in the mid-12 century. This Mosque sits within an 39 40 area of archaeological importance formed of different sub-surface site components including 41 an extensive cemetery, and remnants of housing and workshops. Surviving in small pockets 42 43 of undeveloped land in Bilad al-Qadim are further archaeological indications of its former 44 45 significance. Both the area surrounding the Al-Khamis Mosque and various other sites in 46 Bilad al-Qadim were the focus of archaeological research in 2001 (Insoll 2005a). 47 48 49 As part of the preparatory work for the visitors centre, renewed excavations were completed 50 at the Al-Khamis Mosque site by a Bahraini team directed by Muhammad Al-Mearaj in 2012 51 52 (Al-Mearaj 2012) for which Timothy Insoll acted as an advisor, and three of the authors 53 54 (Timothy Insoll, Salman Almahari, Rachel MacLean) completed two seasons of fieldwork at 55 other sites in Bilad al-Qadim in April 2014 and February-March 2015. These had the aims of 56 57 investigating two sites previously identified as important, the spring of Ain Abu Zaydan, and 58 59 60 2 Page 33 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 a large mound in the Abu Anbra cemetery (Insoll 2005a: 24-31) (Insert Figure 2 here ). 4 These sites were test excavated to assess their chronology and to provide further information 5 6 for their inclusion in the heritage trail. The results of these excavations are reported here. Seth 7 8 Priestman examined the ceramics from these excavations in London in June 2015 and the 9 identifications arising from this formed the basis of the expanded ceramic analysis 10 11 subsequently completed by Timothy Insoll, and rechecked by Seth Priestman. Nick Overton 12 13 analysed the faunal remains. A third research aim was the compilation of an inventory of all 14 known Islamic funerary inscriptions dating to before AD 1900 in Bilad al-Qadim, and 15 16 elsewhere in Bahrain (Insoll, Almahari, and MacLean in preparation). Although some of the 17 18 epigraphic data is drawnFor upon, Reviewthis aspect of the research Only is not a focus of discussion here. 19 20 21 22 23 Abu Anbra Trial Excavation 24 25 i) Site Background. 26 27 The existence of a mound described, as measuring “47.4 m length x 34 m width” was first 28 29 recorded in the Abu Anbra cemetery in 2001 (Insoll 2005a: 31). It is located at the southern 30 end of the cemetery and rises to some 3-4 m above the surrounding ground surface (Insert 31 32 Figure 3 here ). Initially it was thought that this was a settlement mound (ibid), based upon its 33 34 size and the presence of five large blocks of limestone aligned approximately north to south 35 on the summit. These seemed to be structural remains for they differed from the crudely cut 36 37 limestone grave markers otherwise scattered across the mound surface (Insoll 2005a: 31) 38 39 (Figure 3). To assess the validity of this hypothesis and to gain an understanding of 40 chronology, permission was gained to excavate a 2 x 2 m unit near the summit of the mound 41 42 in February 2015 (N26.20976˚ E050.55068˚). 43 44 Understanding the Abu Anbra mound chronology is significant for reconstructing the history 45 46 of Bilad al-Qadim. Durand (1879: 3), writing in the 1870s, refers to the large mounds in 47 “Bilad-i-Kadim”, the residue of “the ancient city, where, probably from time immemorial, 48 49 building has been piled upon building”. Mackay, in 1925, also mentions the existence of low 50 51 mounds of “late date”, as well as large tumuli, which had been “rifled” (Mackay et al. 1929 52 cited in Rice 1984: 159). A photograph taken by the American Reformed Church medical 53 54 missionaries Dr Louis and Mrs Elizabeth Dame in the ‘Suk al Khamees Meat Market’ 55 56 adjacent to the Al-Khamis Mosque in 1928 shows in the background one of these mounds, 57 possibly, though this is unproven, the Abu Anbra mound itself ( Insert Figure 4 here ). The 58 59 60 3 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 34 of 61

1 2 3 Abu Anbra mound can also be clearly seen at the centre of an aerial photograph from 1966 4 (Insert Figure 5 here ). 5 6 7 8 9 ii) ABN15. Excavation Methodology and Stratigraphy. 10 11 The excavation was given the code ABN15 (Abu Anbra 2015). All deposits were sieved 12 through a 3mm mesh and arbitrary levels of 10cm depth were removed where natural levels 13 14 or archaeological features could not be discerned. The initial 10 cm of deposits were of sterile 15 16 yellow sand containing no artifacts (ABN15-1). At the base of this level, though the pale 17 yellow sand continued (ABN15-2), sherds of pottery and a fragment of white lime plaster 18 For Review Only 19 were recorded. The same yellow sandy deposit continued to a depth of c. 40cm (ABN15-3 20 21 and 4), but a small lens of organic material was encountered, slightly darker brown and 22 containing some bone, in the southwestern side of the unit. Large fragments of plaster as if 23 24 from a building collapse were also recorded in the northeastern side of the unit associated 25 26 with darker sandy deposits containing degraded bone (ABN15-4). The darker deposits 27 extended down, giving way to a stone rubble spread in the northeastern corner (ABN15-5), 28 29 with the remainder of the deposits in the unit being the same sandy yellow matrix (ABN15-6 30 31 and 7). After cleaning it was evident that the rubble formed part of a wall running north to 32 south for approximately 1m, part of a tomb structure overlying a human burial ( Insert Figure 33 34 6 here ). The wall then continued in the form of an area of further rubble, bitumen and plaster 35 36 at a depth of 65-70cm from the surface. This was sampled for C14 dating (ABN15-7), but, 37 unfortunately, the AMS date of Cal BC 26790 to 26395 (Cal BP 28740 to 28345, 2 sigma 38 39 calibration, Beta 409134) has to be discounted as it was obtained from bitumen (originally 40 41 thought to be charcoal) and thus dates the material and not the context. 42 43 The tomb and rubble/bitumen was left in-situ and another 10cm of sandy yellow deposit 44 45 excavated (ABN15-8) containing fragmentary bone, the remains of disturbed burials, and an 46 area of organic staining, possibly the residue of a textile or matting shroud. Further removal 47 48 of the same yellow sand (ABN15-9) indicated that the bitumen/rubble was a continuation of 49 50 the tomb wall running north south. Four other human burials were encountered west of the 51 tomb wall (ABN15-10), which ran almost continuously across the unit (Figure 6). Two of 52 53 these were left in-situ, and two fragmentary burials removed (ABN15-11). Again, the former 54 55 presence of textile or matting shrouds was suggested by black staining associated with the 56 human remains. Because of the three burials left in-situ (the tomb overlying one), the 57 58 available excavation area was reduced in size, but a further 30 cm depth of sterile yellow 59 60 4 Page 35 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 sandy deposits were excavated from the area below where the burials had been removed 4 (ABN15-12, 13, and 14). Excavation was halted at a depth of 122 cm from ground level, as it 5 6 was apparent that only natural deposits remained. The homogeneity of the stratigraphic 7 8 profile rendered its recording irrelevant and the unit was backfilled. 9 10 11 12 Abu Anbra Artifacts Analysis 13 14 Other than pottery, artifacts were rare in ABN15. No faunal remains or shell were recovered 15 16 despite the use of sieving. Human remains were present but these were left undisturbed 17 wherever possible. Where removed, this was under the supervision, and with the permission 18 For Review Only 19 of the Shia Jaffaria Waqf Authority. They were removed only temporarily to the safekeeping 20 21 of the cemetery caretaker, were not studied, and were carefully reburied again under the 22 supervision of the Jaffaria prior to backfilling. 23 24 25 26 27 i) Ceramics . 28 29 The ceramics from the units are not analyzed in detail here as they will form the subject of a 30 31 dedicated doctoral research project, focusing in particular upon the predominantly unglazed 32 presumably Bahraini made Common Wares (cf. Carter 2005: 425-435) that form the vast 33 34 majority of the pottery found. Instead the emphasis for chronological purposes was placed 35 36 upon the diagnostic sherds identified by Seth Priestman. 37 38 90 sherds of pottery were recovered from ABN15 and the majority (87 sherds) were unglazed 39 wares or locally produced Bahraini Common Wares where the glaze has degraded, of types 40 41 recorded in previous excavations in Bilad al-Qadim (cf. Carter 2005: 129). These, excluding 42 43 one base fragment and one part of a rim, were body sherds. All the Common Ware fabric 44 types noted by Carter (2005: 426) were present including the most common “medium-fine, 45 46 pale brown, cream or buff in colour”, along with “brick red” and “pale grey”. Decoration, 47 48 present on the exterior of 11 sherds was confined to incised parallel lines, usually fine, and in 49 one instance crossing (ABN15-9). The single reconstructed vessel form was a large jar with a 50 51 flat top (ABN15-4) (Insert Figure 7 here ) (Figure 7.1 ). Comparable forms first appeared in 52 th 53 the Al-Khamis mosque excavations in the 11 century AD (Carter 2005: 434, fig. 4.2: 21). 54 The sole diagnostic imports were 2 sherds of Turquoise glazed ware of 8 th to 10 th centuries 55 56 date (ABN15-1) (Figure 7.2 ) and 1 sherd of cobalt blue frit of 11 th to 13 th century date 57 58 (ABN15-1) (Figure 7.3 ). 59 60 5 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 36 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 ii) Metals. 6 7 Two corroded and otherwise unidentifiable scraps of iron were recovered from ABN15-2 and 8 9 1 flat-headed iron nail from ABN15-3 (24.4 mm L x 19.6 mm W at head). 10 11 12 13 iii) Bitumen. 14 15 48 g of bitumen was recovered from ABN15-7. Five fragments of this had impressions on one 16 17 side caused by a matting-type material of palm leaf or reeds that the bitumen had been applied 18 to. One fragment ofFor bitumen weighingReview 4 g was also rOnlyecovered from ABN15-9, again with 19 20 matting impressions on one side. The precise use of the bitumen is not known but it is likely 21 22 to have functioned as a sealant. Similar mat/reed impressed bitumen was found at the Al- 23 Khamis Mosque site and Al-Hassan Mosque mound (Insoll 2005a: 325-26). The source of the 24 25 bitumen is also unknown, though Connan et al. (1998: 178) have indicated that archaeological 26 th th 27 bitumen from Qala’at al-Bahrain, dated to the 13 to 16 centuries, was imported from Iran 28 and Iraq, whereas local sources such as the surface seepages south of Jebel Dukhan seem not 29 30 to have been utilized (ibid: 175). Whether similar patterns existed in the 9 th -13 th centuries 31 32 merits future investigation. 33 34 35 36 Ain Abu Zaydan Trial Excavation 37 38 39 i) Site Background. 40 41 Historically, Ain Abu Zaydan is significant as the location of a spring that seems to have been 42 one of the sources of water used during the Early (c.8 th -10 th centuries) and Middle Islamic 43 44 (c.11 th -14 th centuries) periods in Bilad al-Qadim. Al-Idrisi, writing in the mid-12 th century, 45 46 refers in his book Nuzhat al-Mushtaq to the spring of Abu Zaydan (Al-Doy 1993: 159). Ain 47 Abu Zaydan was possibly also utilized in the pre-Islamic period. The incorporation of four 48 49 large stone drums within the central pillar that supports the upper mosque from the pool floor 50 51 suggest this inference, and potentially indicates the existence of a pre-Islamic temple, possibly 52 Dilmun in date (c.2500-400 BC), in the vicinity (Insoll 2005b) ( Insert Figures 8 and 9 here ). 53 54 The types of masonry present in the column, which include an upturned altar, or libations 55 56 table similar to examples from Barbar Temples I and II (cf. Hellmuth Andersen and Højlund 57 2003: 60-62), suggest this. Further blocks of monumental masonry also form part of the walls 58 59 60 6 Page 37 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 of the pool towards the spring mouth where these are now covered in modern white glazed 4 tiles ( Figure 9). 5 6 The Ain Abu Zaydan site complex is formed of a modern tiled pool accessed from ground 7 8 level by a short flight of steps. At the northern end of the pool is the spring mouth. Above the 9 10 spring mouth and the northern section of the pool is a small mosque partly supported by a 11 column embedded in the floor of the pool. South of the pool and mosque is an open sided 12 13 pavilion ( Figure 8 ). West of the pool is a pump house that was apparently used to supply the 14 15 pool with water once the aquifer supply from the spring had been disrupted (see below). 16 Unfortunately, the site is structurally unsound. Deterioration is evident with the eastern pool 17 18 wall partly collapsingFor and exfoliation Review of large pieces ofOnly concrete from the underneath of the 19 20 floor of the upper mosque structure occurring, with these falling into the pool and spring 21 mouth. The Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities intends future restoration of the 22 23 structure and the inclusion of the site in the Bilad al-Qadim visitors trail. 24 25 To assess the chronology of the site, initially Ain Abu Zaydan was made the focus of survey 26 27 and trial excavation in 2001 (Insoll 2005a: 24-30). Excavation of the deposits in the pool 28 29 yielded only modern material (plastic, glass fragments, coke bottles, a newspaper from 1993, 30 a child’s marble), and excavation in the spring mouth itself provided a few water worn 31 32 potsherds of indeterminate date (Insoll 2005a: 27). Thus subsequent excavation was focused 33 34 on the area surrounding the spring. A 2 x 2 m unit, AZ14 (Abu Zaydan 2014), was completed 35 in April 2014 (N28.20673˚ E050.54709˚) to examine whether there was any archaeology in 36 37 the vicinity. When this was confirmed, a second 2 x 2 m unit, AZ15, was excavated in March 38 39 2015 (N28.20679˚ E050.54705˚) (Figure 8). Fortuitously, the two units were placed on the 40 far bank of the spring fed pond that can be seen in another of the Dame’s photos in Figure 10 41 42 (Insert Figure 10 here ), rather than in the pond itself, which like the spring mouth was 43 44 potentially periodically cleaned. Ultimately, the flooded area appears to have been 45 significantly reduced with the construction of the tiled pool that acted to contain it. 46 47 48 49 50 ii) AZ14. Excavation Methodology and Stratigraphy. 51 52 The deposits removed were homogenous in colour and consistency and formed of a grayish 53 brown sandy matrix that was differentiated by the amount of modern rubbish apparent in the 54 55 upper part of the sequence, and by cleaner sand at the base. The absence of stratigraphic 56 57 differentiation again made the provision of a profile drawing impractical. The top 23 to 26 cm 58 59 60 7 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 38 of 61

1 2 3 of deposits were contaminated with modern rubbish (AZ14-1, and 2). Below this the modern 4 material ended and some plaster fragments were found in the darker, softer deposits recorded 5 6 (AZ14-3). The plaster fragments formed part of a fill that bisected the unit north to south. It is 7 8 uncertain if this was part of a wall or merely rubble fill. The small size of the unit made clear 9 distinction of the purpose of this feature impossible. 10 11 As a significant part of the original unit was composed of the rubble fill/wall the unit 12 13 boundaries were extended with a strip of 1 x 2 m to the east, and excavation was concentrated 14 15 on this eastern section. Underneath the same modern contaminated surface fill encountered 16 previously, a grey plastic water pipe was found at a depth of 26 cm below ground level 17 18 running north to south.For This hadReview been used to supply waterOnly to the pool once the spring had 19 20 dried up (see below). Below the water pipe undisturbed deposits, indicated by an absence of 21 modern contamination, were apparent (AZ14-4). No discernible trench for the pipe was seen 22 23 (Insert Figure 11 here ). At a depth of between 41 to 48 cm only the area between the 24 25 western edge of the plastic pipe and the eastern edge of the rubble fill/wall was excavated 26 27 (AZ14-5). Some loose pieces of rubble and a large piece of worked stone were recorded 28 (AZ14-6). The stone rubble continued down into the next level (AZ14-7), but was only one 29 30 course thick suggesting it was not part of a structural feature. At a depth of 108 to 115 cm the 31 32 quantity of stone rubble lessened, and there was an increase in potsherds and faunal remains 33 (AZ14-8). The final 10 to 20 cm of deposits removed (AZ14-9) continued to be materially 34 35 rich, but artifact density soon reduced and clean natural beach type sand was encountered. 36 37 Excavations were stopped at a depth of 126 to 145 cm ( Figure 11 ), and the unit backfilled. 38 39 40 41 iii) AZ15. Excavation Methodology and Stratigraphy. 42 43 In contrast to the exploratory nature of AZ14, the excavation and sieving methodology 44 45 employed in AZ15 was the same as at Abu Anbra with all archaeological material (pottery, 46 faunal remains, shell, other small finds) kept, and all deposits sieved through a 3 mm mesh. 47 48 The deposits in AZ15 were much less homogeneous than AZ14 ( Insert Figure 12 here ). The 49 50 top 10 cm was of dusty grey modern rubbish filled sand (AZ15-1). The next 10 cm removed 51 revealed a hard lens of clay in the southern half of the unit, with softer dusty deposits in the 52 53 remainder and a spread of lime plaster below giving way to patches of charcoal (AZ15-2). 54 th 55 This layer contained a copper coin of later 20 century date and very little pottery and it is 56 possible that the clay was debris from the type of materials used or even resulting from the 57 58 59 60 8 Page 39 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 demolition of the earth and stone wall surrounding Ain Abu Zaydan shown in the Dame’s 4 photo (Figure 10 ). 5 6 Beneath the clay and plaster (AZ15-3, and 4) was an orangey brown deposit across the unit 7 8 that yielded to a more dusty friable grayish brown matrix similar to that recorded in AZ14. 9 10 This continued to a depth of between 87-93 cm (AZ15-5, 6, and 7) with increasing fragments 11 of lime plaster and stone and clay rubble found toward the base of the layer. A small pit filled 12 13 with organic sediment was recorded in the northeastern corner of the unit. A sample of the 14 15 sediment was taken for C14 dating (AZ15-8), and gave an AMS date of Cal AD 885 to 995 16 (Cal BP 1065 to 955, 2 sigma calibration, Beta 411340). 17 18 For Review Only 19 The pit was then emptied (AZ15-8), and 20 cm depth of darker brown deposits containing 20 roots and charcoal that continued across the unit removed (AZ15-8). This darker brown 21 22 organic layer gave way to stone rubble associated with the bedrock and the quantity of pottery 23 24 decreased (AZ15-9). Ultimately, the bedrock formed two slight raised banks, one running 25 along the east of the unit and between 117-128 cm below the ground surface and the other 26 27 along the west and between 118-120 cm below ground level. Between these was a channel of 28 29 approximately 80 cm maximum width and 7-18 cm depth below the banks (AZ15-10) ( Insert 30 Figure 13 here ). It is not known if this was a natural channel or cut into the bedrock, but a 31 32 potential water association makes sense in the context of the adjacent well. A charcoal sample 33 34 was taken from the channel fill for C14 dating (AZ15-10). This provided an AMS date of Cal 35 BC 800 to 755 (Cal BP 2750 to 2705, 2 sigma calibration, Beta 409135). Excavation was 36 37 ceased at a maximum depth of 135 cm below ground level and the unit was backfilled. 38 39 40 41 Ain Abu Zaydan Artifacts Analysis 42 43 The exploratory nature of the archaeological research at Ain Abu Zaydan dictated different 44 45 collection strategies at AZ14 and AZ15. As AZ14 was focused on understanding 46 47 archaeological potential the ceramics were sampled with emphasis placed on selecting 48 chronologically significant potsherds. All glass fragments, beads, and coins were also 49 50 collected. Other potsherds and faunal remains and shell were discarded. All materials 51 52 recovered from AZ15 were kept. Soil sampling for archaeobotanical remains was not 53 completed in this phase of research but will be included as a component of excavation that 54 55 will be completed when the building is restored as a component of the heritage trail in the 56 57 future. 58 59 60 9 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 40 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 i) Ceramics. 6 7 AZ14. 115 sherds were kept from AZ14 of which 28 were diagnostic ( Insert Figure 14 and 8 9 Table 1 here ). These indicate that the chronology of the test excavation primarily 10 encompasses the period between the 8 th to 13 th centuries, but with the greatest density of 11 12 diagnostic ceramics dating from the 11 th to 13 th centuries (Table 1). 13 14 All the ceramics found are of types recorded previously in Bilad al-Qadim (cf. Carter 2005). 15 16 They attest international contacts with Iran, Mesopotamia, the Lower Gulf, and Indian Ocean 17 trade networks. The results also indicate that there is some residuality or mixing evident in the 18 For Review Only 19 deposits and the terminal end of the ceramics chronology is more difficult to reconstruct. This 20 th 21 appears to be the 14 century, but with the possibility of some later locally produced 22 Common Ware also present. These local wares will be a particular focus of the doctoral 23 24 research. 25 26 AZ15. 1152 sherds were recovered from AZ15. The 38 diagnostic sherds ( Insert Figure 15 27 28 and Table 2 here ) indicate an overall chronology of the 8th to 14 th centuries but again, as with 29 th th 30 AZ14, primarily between the 11 to 13 centuries. Also as in AZ14 some residuality or 31 mixing of deposits has occurred. It is interesting that the frequency of imports (36 sherds) in 32 33 the assemblage is low, constituting just 3.30%. This is in contrast to other littoral sites in 34 35 southern Iran or Arabia, which – in cases where suitable information exists – typically 36 provide assemblages in which 30-40% of the ceramics are derived from non-local sources 37 38 during a period equivalent to the occupation of AZ15 (Priestman, 2013: table 6.5). At the time 39 40 it is important to acknowledge that the overall sample size of the AZ15 is small compared 41 with other equivalent assemblages and this could have a significant influence on the reliability 42 43 of the information provided. 44 45 46 47 ii) Glass and Beads. 48 49 In total 16 glass vessel fragments, 3 glass bracelet fragments, and 3 beads were recovered 50 51 from AZ14 and AZ15 ( Insert Figure 16 and Table 3 here ). Some parallels are apparent with 52 53 the glass vessel and bracelet fragments and beads previously recovered from Bilad al-Qadim. 54 Vessel fragment AZ14-4 is similar but not identical to a ribbed moulded glass fragment from 55 56 the Al-Khamis Mosque site (unit KHA01- [A]) dated to the 12 th to 14 th centuries AD (cf. 57 58 Insoll 2005a: Fig. 7.5). The glass vessel handle is comparable in its form to material 59 60 10 Page 41 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 th 3 illustrated by Whitehouse (2010) as, for example, with the handles on a ewer dated to the 9 4 to 10 th centuries and a cup and pitcher dated to the 10 th to 11 th centuries (ibid: 73-74, 100-101, 5 6 142-43). Both glass bracelet fragments from AZ14 are comparable to examples previously 7 8 excavated in Bilad al-Qadim where monochrome twisted and plain examples were dated to 9 between the late 12 th to 14 th centuries (Insoll 2005a: 485-89). Twisted black or green glass 10 11 bracelets were also the earliest types recovered from Qala’at al-Bahrain and dated to the 12 th 12 th 13 to 13 centuries (Frifelt 2001: 163). The orange carnelian bead from AZ14-3 is identical to an 14 example from unit KHA01- (D) dated to the late 12 th to 13 th centuries (Insoll 2005a: 491). In 15 16 contrast, the glass bracelet fragment from AZ15-4 is a unique type not previously recorded in 17 18 Bilad al-Qadim orFor Qala’at al-Bahrain Review (cf. Frifelt 2001: Only 164-65). Similarly, the other two 19 beads found are unparalleled at either of these sites. 20 21 22 23 24 iii) Metals, Bitumen, and Miscellaneous Artefacts. 25 26 Few other artefacts were recovered ( Insert Table 4 here ). The purpose of the haematite from 27 AZ-14 is unknown. Unmodified pieces of haematite, and a haematite bead, were recorded 28 29 during the previous excavations in the Al-Khamis Mosque precincts (Insoll 2005a: 295-96, 30 31 514). Besides as beads, the uses of haematite recorded in Islamic contexts on Bahrain include 32 for pearl weights and touch stones for testing gold at Qala’at al-Bahrain (Frifelt 2001: 151). 33 34 The function of the crucible, whether for glass making or metalworking is unknown, and is a 35 36 unique find. Vitrified ceramics of a greenish colour were previously recovered from the MOS 37 (Al-Hassan Mosque) site in Bilad al-Qadim. These were interpreted as from the lining of a 38 39 smith’s furnace rather than crucible fragments (Kostoglou 2005: 509-510). 40 41 42 43 iv) Faunal Remains. 44 45 46 a) Mammalian Remains: Species Frequency, Skeletal Elements and Population 47 Dynamics. A total of 175 fragments were recorded from AZ15 ( Insert Table 5 here ), and 48 48 49 identified to species by Nick Overton. The dominance of sheep/goat indicated by NISP 50 51 quantification is reflected in the minimum number of individual (MNI) figures (Insert Table 52 6 here ), derived from landmark data and minimum number of element (MNE) frequencies. 53 54 Whilst Table 6 shows the general species representation across the whole assemblage, the 55 56 faunal material is derived from multiple contexts; therefore, producing cumulative MNI 57 figures from multiple contexts assumes the material from potentially temporally separate 58 59 60 11 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 42 of 61

1 2 3 contexts originate from the same individual(s). Thus, Table 7 presents NISP and MNI 4 frequencies for each species within each context. 5 6 7 The species frequencies ( Insert Table 7 here ) suggest a consistent presence of ovicaprids 8 throughout the contexts; the assemblage is too small to comment on any potential differential 9 10 frequencies of sheep and goat between the contexts. Inter-context species frequencies might 11 12 suggest cow and horse are only present in the lower contexts (AZ15-8 and 9), however, due to 13 the extremely small size of the assemblage such patterns must be viewed with extreme 14 15 caution. The skeletal element frequency of ovicaprids within the AZ15 assemblage shows no 16 17 clear patterning or focus on any one part of the body, or groups of elements that indicate 18 specific practices. ForThe cow and Review horse sub assemblages Onlyfrom contexts AZ15-8 and 9 are also 19 20 too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. 21 22 A single ovicaprid mandibular tooth row from AZ15-7 was aged according to tooth wear (cf. 23 24 Grant 1982, Greenfield and Arnold 2008), returning a broad age range of between 16-22 25 26 months to 3-4 years of age, due to the advanced stage of wear. The two horse premolars from 27 AZ15-9 were from the deciduous dentition; identified as either pm 3 or pm 4, these teeth are 28 29 present at birth, and replaced by 3½ years of age (Silver 1969: 291). However, based on the 30 31 lack of wear on these teeth, they may be from a very young individual, perhaps even neonate 32 or newborn. Epiphyseal fusion data from ovicaprid specimens ( Insert Table 8 here ) indicate 33 34 all individuals were over 10 months of age, and a number significantly older, over 20-28 35 36 months and over 3-3½ years of age. 37 38 b) Non-Mammalian Species: Birds, Reptiles, and Fish. A total of 11 specimens were 39 identified as bird; of these, five were attributed confidently to species. All identified 40 41 specimens were chicken. Based on size, the long bone fragments could also originate from 42 43 chicken. However, it was not possible to confirm this through morphological identification. A 44 summary of the distribution across contexts and the skeletal element frequencies is presented 45 46 in Table 9 (Insert Table 9 here ). All of the species identified as chicken, whilst 47 48 morphologically chicken, were notably small; some are the same size as the Bantum hen 49 illustrated in Cohen and Serjeantson (1986), but others were slightly smaller. 50 51 52 A total of 16 specimens were identified as fish (Insert Table 10 here ). 11 were identifiable to 53 general element, however, due to post-depositional damage, a number lacked the diagnostic 54 55 features necessary to attribute specimens to particular families/species. A total of six 56 57 specimens were identified to family, four from the Scombridae family, which based on size 58 are most likely tuna, and single specimens from the Scaridae family, most likely to be 59 60 12 Page 43 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 parrotfish, and Sparidae, most likely to be seabream. A single specimen was identified as 4 reptile (AZ15-4), the proximal 50% of a right humerus of a tortoise. Based on size and 5 6 morphology, this has been tentatively identified as Testudo graeca , or spur thighed tortoise. 7 8 The 19 fragments of shell from AZ15 await analysis pending access to a suitable comparative 9 reference collection. 10 11 12 13 14 Al-Khamis Mosque Site 15 16 Additionally, further excavations to identify and display archaeological features associated 17 18 with the Al-KhamisFor Mosque siteReview have been completed. Only Three features of particular interest 19 were exposed, which await final publication (cf. Al-Mearaj 2012). The first (area A) is an 20 21 artificially dug well of 3.2 m depth directly north of the mosque and accessed by three walled 22 23 staircases made of stone and gypsum running approximately from the south for 2.8 m, east for 24 5.05 m, and west for 3.9 m (Area A, Insert Figure 17 here ). A further northern entrance 25 26 appears to have been associated with water supply or disposal. At the base of the western 27 28 staircase a stone and gypsum bench was recorded that might have been used when drawing 29 water. Three parts of cylindrical stone columns were found in the base of the well, including 30 31 one with a square shaped base (Al-Mearaj 2012: 6-7) (Insert Figure 18 here ). Kervran and 32 33 Kalus (1990: 25) excavated a passage of approximately 10 m length leading to the well, but 34 not the well itself, which they suggested was 30 or 40 m north of the mosque. In reality it was 35 36 2 m further north from their excavated passage (Figure 17 ) suggesting the well is 37 38 contemporary with the mosque and was used for ablutions. 39 40 Ablutions areas have been excavated in other mosques in Bahrain and the wider region but 41 42 these differ in form. For example, cement basins of 30-40 cm diameter and 20-30 cm depth 43 44 were used for ablutions in the courtyard of the mosque recorded at Barbar South, Bahrain. A 45 site dated on the basis of the ceramics recovered to between the 12 th -13 th and 18 th centuries 46 47 (Salles et al 1983: 89, 158). At Qalhat in Oman, where the Great Mosque was built c. 1300 48 49 and destroyed by the Portuguese in 1508, what seems to have been a water tank was recorded 50 in the mosque basement, which was possibly used for collecting rainwater, thus also differing 51 52 from the well at the Al-Khamis site. Ablutions rooms appear to have been located on both 53 54 sides of the tank in the Qalhat Great Mosque (Rougeulle et al. 2012: 347). The ablutions area 55 in the Period 2 (c. 850-1100) Congregational Mosque at Siraf on the Iranian shore of the Gulf 56 57 also differs to the Al-Khamis example. This was outside the main area of the mosque and 58 59 60 13 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 44 of 61

1 2 3 formed of a rectangular enclosure of 14 m length by 11 m width (Whitehouse 1980: 16). With 4 a paved floor and a rectangular cistern made of bonded rubble, it had a row of three small 5 6 rooms, maximum 3 m length by 180 cm width, that were used for washing (ibid: 19). 7 8 No details on ablutions facilities and the means by which they were supplied with water is 9 10 provided by King (1980) in his review of the last surviving traditional-style mosques in 11 12 eastern Saudi Arabia. Further away from Bahrain, King (1978: 498), in his earlier 13 consideration of mosques in Najd, states that ablution facilities were “situated in various 14 15 places”. These were most frequently near the mosque door, but nothing comparable to the Al- 16 17 Khamis well is mentioned. Precise parallels cannot be drawn with the Omani mosques 18 described by CostaFor (2001) either, Review except that mosqu esOnly were located either a natural water 19 20 source or provided with a water supply through a well or falaj, i.e. a comparable water 21 22 conduit to a qanat. 23 24 25 26 27 Northeast of the Al-Khamis mosque, part of a structure formed of three small, connected 28 rooms measuring 6.45 m east to west and 1.67 m north to south was uncovered (Area B, 29 30 Figure 17 ). These had walls built of stone and gypsum and had gypsum floors (Figure 18 ). 31 32 The western wall of the structure had been partly destroyed by later grave digging (Al-Mearaj 33 2012: 12-13). The function and date of the buildings are not known, but they appear similar to 34 35 structures previously excavated on the opposite, southeast side of the mosque site. These were 36 37 interpreted as potentially serving “contemporaneously as housing, workshops, retail units and 38 storage space” (Insoll 2005a: 68), and were dated on the basis of the ceramic assemblages 39 40 present to between the 8 th or early 9 th and 14 th centuries (Carter 2005). 41 42 43 The third important feature uncovered by the Bahraini team was a shrine that was connected 44 with the later phase of Islamic burial already noted as contributing to the partial destruction of 45 46 the previous structure described. The shrine built of rough blocks of stone and mortar was 47 48 formed of an approximately square room with internal dimensions of c. 4 m x 3.9 m. Attached 49 to this was a rectangular arcade with maximum dimensions of 10.35 m by 3.65 m (Area C, 50 51 Figure 17) (Al-Mearaj 2012: 14-15). Collapsed arches from the roof were preserved where 52 53 they had fallen to the north and east of the shrine room (Figure 18 ). 54 55 The date of this structure has been established from 4 gravestones that were found in and 56 57 around the shrine. Of these, inscription KHA 7 was inside the main room and provides a date 58 of 1105 AH or AD 1694 (Insert Figure 19 here ) (Figure 19.1 ). Two of the other gravestones 59 60 14 Page 45 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 also provided dates of 997 AH or AD 1589 (KHA 5) ( Figure 19.2 ) and 407 AH or AD 1017 4 (KHA 6) ( Figure 19.3 ). KHA 4 is undated (Figure 19.4 ) (Insoll, Almahari, and MacLean, in 5 6 preparation). These three gravestones were found outside the main shrine and one of the 7 8 gravestones, KHA5, was possibly associated with another smaller shrine room (Al-Mearaj 9 2012: 15). KHA 6 is considerably older that KHA 5 and 7 and it is suggested that KHA 5 and 10 11 7 date the period of shrine construction whilst KHA 6 is linked with the earlier occupation of 12 13 the area around the Al-Khamis mosque. It is possible that the shrine was connected with the 14 later funerary commemoration role of the Al-Khamis Mosque within a mashhad type function 15 16 as proposed by Kervran and Kalus (1990: 39). 17 18 Parallels for the shrineFor are scarce Review as this is an understudied Only category of monument. Bibby 19 20 (1996: 154) briefly describes the Shia shrine of al-Khidr on Failaka Island, Kuwait, in the 21 22 context of it being repeatedly pulled down , as the Kuwaiti authorities did not agree with the 23 ritual practices completed there. Survey by an Italian team of the shrine in 1976 indicated that 24 25 it was then roofless but was built on an oblong ground plan with an “egg-shaped dome” 26 27 (Patitucci and Uggeri 1984: 419). They (ibid) describe the shrine as dedicated to the god 28 Khidr as protector of barren women and fishermen. The photograph provided indicates that 29 30 the main part of the shrine is circular in shape on rectangular foundations, built on a low 31 32 mound and accessed by a flight of steps. As such it differs from the Al-Khamis excavated 33 shrine. Archaeologically, the focus at Al-Khidr has been on the Bronze Age (Dilmun) 34 35 occupation in the vicinity (e.g. Barta et al 2008). Similarly, the shrines on the former course 36 37 of the Sat al-Nil in Iraq surveyed by Costa (1994) differ from the Al-Khamis example. These 38 are earlier, dating from the 8 th to 12 th centuries, and although comparable in size (e.g. Umm 39 40 Al Awlad and Abu Hatab), are built of fired brick often finished with elaborate stucco work 41 42 (e.g. Abu Hatab) (cf. Costa 1994: 4-5, plates 1 and 5). 43 44 Elsewhere in Bahrain, a small funerary shrine was excavated in the Abu Anbra cemetery as 45 46 part of the ‘Islamic Funerary Inscriptions’ Project. Measuring 430 cm by 520 cm, as in the 47 48 Al-Khamis structure the roof had collapsed leaving pieces of roofing arches in situ as they 49 had fallen. The shrine contained a gravestone dated, based on a preliminary reading, to 1037 50 51 AH (AD 1627) (Insoll, Almahari, and MacLean in preparation). The remains of a small 52 53 undated shrine formed of two sections of wall and a reused grave marker, measuring c. 246 54 cm by 199 cm, were also excavated at the end of an occupation sequence at the Al-Hassan 55 56 Mosque mound in Bilad al-Qadim (Insoll 2005a: 69, 73). Eight small mosques/shrines were 57 58 also previously recorded at various locations in Bahrain, and four were associated with graves 59 60 15 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 46 of 61

1 2 3 (Insoll 2005a: 35-38). No traces of arched roofs were associated with these shrines. Various 4 other funerary shrines have also been extensively rebuilt and are now modern buildings, as at 5 6 the Amir Zaid Mosque in Malkiya, and the shrines of Shaikh Abdiraf al-Bahraini and Shaikh 7 8 Latfulla in Jidhafs (Insoll, Almahari, and MacLean in preparation). The artefacts from the Al- 9 Khamis excavations have been stored in the Bahrain National Museum and will be the subject 10 11 of future analysis by the Bahraini team. 12 13 The Al-Khamis mosque itself has also been the focus of restoration directed by Salman 14 15 Almahari. As a component of this a sample was taken for C14 dating by Timothy Insoll and 16 17 Salman Almahari from one of the two mosque timbers on display in the Islamic gallery of the 18 Bahrain National Museum.For The Review dated timber formed Only part of the roof structure of the Al- 19 20 Khamis mosque and was recorded in-situ by Diez in 1914 (Diez 1925: 101). He describes the 21 22 roof as supported by two teak columns 4 m in height and 24 x 15 cm diameter (ibid: 103). 23 Kervran and Kalus (1990: 24) note that the timbers in the Bahrain National Museum are the 24 25 ones described by Diez, and the dated timber appears to be one of the saddle beams illustrated 26 27 by Diez (1925: Figure 9), as the carving and position of a hole for a supplementary smaller 28 beam or wooden pin are identical (Insert Figure 20 here ). This beam provided an AMS date 29 30 of Cal AD 1220 to 1280 (Cal BP 730 to 670, 2 sigma calibration, Beta 409133), and thus 31 32 postdates all three phases of Kervran and Kalus’s (1990; 7) suggested chronology for the Al- 33 Khamis Mosque. 34 35 36 37 38 Discussion 39 40 41 i) Abu Anbra. 42 43 The results of the excavation in the Abu Anbra cemetery indicate that the mound was not 44 45 linked with settlement but is a natural dune formation that was used for burial purposes. 46 47 Although not discernible in the aerial photographs (Figures 2 and 5 ), it is one of four mounds 48 in the cemetery, three used for burial, and the fourth formed of the remains of a collapsed 49 50 mosque. The approximately north to south orientation of the burials is the same as that of the 51 52 gravestones recorded in Abu Anbra and the other cemeteries investigated as part of the ‘Early 53 Islamic Funerary Inscriptions of Bahrain’ project (Insoll, Almahari, and MacLean in 54 55 preparation). This indicates that all the burials encountered are likely to be Muslim, as also 56 57 suggested by the absence of grave goods and the possible use of shrouds (cf. Insoll 1999: 170- 58 3). No evidence for pre-Islamic occupation was found. The radiocarbon date has to be 59 60 16 Page 47 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 discounted, as described, and the absence of inscriptions means there is no absolute indication 4 of date. However, the diagnostic ceramics indicate that the chronology, primarily 11 th -13 th 5 6 centuries with some early Islamic residual material of the 8 th -10 th centuries, concurs with the 7 8 broader Bilad al-Qadim sequence. 9 10 ii) Ain Abu Zaydan. 11 12 A comparable ceramics chronology is evident in the units at Ain Abu Zaydan. Overall, most 13 14 ceramics date from the 11 th -13 th centuries, with some earlier residual material of the 8 th -10 th 15 th 16 centuries, and a couple of later intrusive sherds from the 14 century. The radiocarbon date 17 from the base of the unit (AZ15-10) provides the first indication of a possible pre-Islamic 18 For Review Only 19 presence in Bilad al-Qadim, and might be connected with use of the spring at Ain Abu 20 21 Zaydan. However, no artifact correlation for the C14 date has been found as all the ceramics 22 and other materials from the excavations are of Islamic date so this awaits confirmation. The 23 24 second radiocarbon date from AZ15-8 is in accord with the lower end of the ceramic 25 26 chronology, and this date and the ceramics from both AZ14 and AZ15 attest the use of Ain 27 Abu Zaydan during the Early and Middle Islamic periods, but primarily in the latter. The 28 29 amount of material recovered suggests that formerly there was occupation in the vicinity of 30 31 Ain Abu Zaydan rather than it only being generated by the occasional use of the spring. This 32 will be further explored in the future when larger scale excavation will be completed as part 33 34 of the restoration works at the site. 35 36 Although hiatus in the utilization of the spring probably occurred, it continued to be used after 37 th 38 the Middle Islamic period. In the 19 century, Durand (1879: 6) described the spring as 39 serving “as the foundation of part of the walls of a small mosque”. Similarly, Theodore Bent 40 41 (Rice 1984: 78) refers to the well of “Abu Zeidan” as “built round” and “reserved for the 42 43 private use of Sheikh Esau and his family”, with adjacent “a tiny mosque”. Mrs J. Theodore 44 Bent adds further detail in her travel chronicles, writing in February 1889, that she and her 45 46 husband, stopped “near the ‘Thursday Market’ to see the Sheikh’s bath, with a wall round it 47 48 and partly roofed in with a pillar standing in the water, irregular, pretty and rather dirty. Close 49 by was a sort of ‘loggia’ where he prays, takes coffee and spends the day” (Bent 2010: 15). 50 51 Theodore Bent also described the “Madresseh-i-abu-Zeidan” with “its two slender and elegant 52 53 minarets” (Rice 1984: 78). This is of interest, as it appears to be a reference to what is today 54 called the Al-Khamis mosque and its characteristic minarets, rather than a description of the 55 56 small mosque associated with Ain Abu Zaydan itself. It also suggests that Ain Abu Zaydan 57 58 59 60 17 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 48 of 61

1 2 3 was of continuing importance as its name was being associated with other buildings in Bilad 4 al-Qadim. 5 6 The use of the spring fed pool at Ain Abu Zaydan continued up until at least the early 1970s. 7 8 Belgrave (1973: 89) refers to the “Abu Zaidan Mosque”, built over the spring of the same 9 10 name, being “much used by the Shia people of Manama, especially by the women during 11 weddings”. When Ain Abu Zaydan finally ceased to be used is not known, though the cause 12 13 was described as due to the water table being disrupted, either by dynamiting carried out in 14 15 connection with the construction of Mina Salman port in the 1960s, or because of similar 16 activity associated with the oil and gas industry (anon pers. comm. 22/4/14). It is possible that 17 18 some of the locallyFor produced CommonReview Ware found is linkedOnly with periods of later use, but the 19 th 20 extent of settlement in Bilad al-Qadim retracted to a low-level village occupation by the 13 21 to 14 th centuries (Carter 2005: 157; Insoll 2005a: 56), suggesting that indicators of later use 22 23 could be marginal. 24 25 26 iii) Al-Khamis Mosque Site. 27 28 The ceramics from the Al-Khamis Mosque site await study but preliminary indications are 29 30 that they do not differ from those previously published from units in the Mosque precincts (cf. 31 Carter 2005) or from the other units described here. As in the previous excavations, the multi- 32 33 functional nature of the site is evident with mixed residential/industrial/commercial use 34 35 represented east of the Mosque, probably the earliest phase, which was cut into by later 36 burials, and ultimately the shrine was constructed. The C14 sample from the carved roof beam 37 38 indicates that parts of the extant Al-Khamis Mosque structure are of 13 th century date or later 39 40 and thus the woodwork is not Abbasid (e.g. Belgrave 1973: 88). Moreover, Kervran and 41 Kalus (1990: 7, 36) suggested that the Al-Khamis Mosque was an Umayyad foundation 42 43 indicated by the presence of a qibla wall with a mihrab in its centre. No comparable 44 45 architectural indication or any evidence for an Umayyad presence was found in the excavated 46 units to support this Early Islamic foundation date for the Al-Khamis Mosque and it must be 47 48 discounted. As such this agrees with Potts (2016: 77) recent refutation of Kervran and Kalus’ 49 50 (1990) Al-Khamis Mosque chronology, though equally the excavation results do not provide 51 the degree of historical specificity Potts (2016: 76-77) suggests as an alternative construction 52 53 sequence for the Al-Khamis Mosque. Whether the woodwork formed part of the original 54 55 mosque or a remodeling of the structure is not known, but currently there is nothing plausible 56 to suggest that the Al-Khamis Mosque predates the 12 th -13 th centuries. 57 58 59 60 18 Page 49 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 Conclusions 6 7 8 The results contribute to our understanding of the Islamic occupation sequence on Bahrain. 9 They support the interpretation that Bilad al-Qadim appears to have been the main centre of 10 11 Islamic settlement in the 11 th -13 th centuries (Insoll 2005). Some imported materials are 12 13 attested, likely glass, and ceramics from Iraq, Iran and, through Indian Ocean trade routes, 14 China. However, the overall picture is of a settlement supplied through local manufacture of 15 16 pottery and imported materials are comparatively rare. Diet appears to have been varied 17 18 including avian, mammal,For fish, Review reptile, and as yet unanalyzed, Only mollusc species, whilst the 19 crucible fragment attests some local industry. 20 21 22 Prior occupation is attested but it is probable that Muharraq eclipsed Bilad al-Qadim in the 23 early Islamic period. Excavations at various sites there (Carter 2011), notably in the 24 25 Mohammed bin Faris parking lot, provided evidence through ceramics (e.g. Turquoise 26 27 Glazed, Honeycomb, and Umayyad White Wares) and C14 dates of Umayyad occupation of 28 7th -8th centuries date so far lacking on Awal. Based on this, Carter (2011: 46) has indicated 29 30 how Muharraq was abandoned at approximately the time that Bilad al-Qadim was founded in 31 th th 32 the 8 -9 centuries, and the results described here support this scenario. Smaller scale early 33 Islamic occupation, though slightly later in date, was also located at A’ali, as indicated by 34 35 imported Iraqi and Chinese ceramics dated to the 8 th -10 th centuries (Sasaki 1990), and 36 37 possibly also in the Barbar area. The latter suggested by an assemblage of Iraqi Samarra 38 Horizon ceramics (9 th -10 th centuries) that had been dumped into a much earlier well 39 40 connected with a temple dated to c. 2000 BC (Frifelt 2001: 13). The excavation results also 41 42 attest that terminal occupation in Bilad al-Qadim, at least on a scale beyond village level, does 43 not appear to postdate the 14 th century, correlating with the previous occupation sequence 44 45 recorded (Insoll 2005a: 55-56). It is probable that the main area of settlement was then 46 47 concentrated around Qala’at al-Bahrain (cf. Frifelt 2001; Kervran et al. 2005: 329-334), 48 where previously there had been a shore fortress (cf. Højlund and Hellmouth Anderson 1994: 49 50 481; Kervran et al. 2005: 284). 51 52 53 The excavations also stress the importance of preserving what remains of the archaeology in 54 Bilad al-Qadim. Archaeology and heritage face various threats. Comparing Figures 2 and 5 55 56 gives an idea of the rate of urban growth in Bilad al-Qadim between 1966 and 1996. For 57 58 example, besides the increase in size of many of the buildings, the gardens north of the Al- 59 60 19 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 50 of 61

1 2 3 Khamis Mosque were lost, as were the open areas adjoining the highway south of the Abu 4 Anbra cemetery. Ain Abu Zaydan is more fortunate, and remains so, through the continued 5 6 survival of the palm gardens west of the site, though the condition of the palms is poor. 7 8 Development has continued apace over the intervening 20 years since the last aerial 9 photograph was taken presenting further challenges for the preservation of archaeological 10 11 sites in Bilad al-Qadim. However, by indicating the value of heritage through the construction 12 13 of the Al-Khamis Visitor Centre and the eventual completion of the heritage trail this is 14 beginning to be redressed through signaling the importance of Bilad al-Qadim within the 15 16 overall history of Bahrain. 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 Acknowledgements 24 25 26 The Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities is thanked for granting permission for the 27 research to proceed. Timothy Insoll is most grateful to Professor Robert Carter (UCL, Qatar) 28 29 for preliminary comments on photos of the pottery from AZ14, and to Mr Russell Gasero, 30 31 Archivist, Reformed Church in America, for permission to reproduce figures 4 and 10. Nick 32 Overton is grateful to Harry Robson (Department of Archaeology, University of York) for 33 34 assistance with the identification of the fish remains. Timothy Insoll, Salman Almahari, and 35 36 Rachel MacLean are grateful to Sheikh Bashar al-Ali and Mr Jassim Al-Abbas for valuable 37 assistance, and to the Jaffaria and Sunni Waqf Authorities for permission to complete aspects 38 39 of the research. Timothy Insoll and Rachel MacLean are grateful to the Court of the Crown 40 41 Prince for logistical support. All the authors are grateful to Professor Dan Potts for comments 42 on the paper. 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 References 51 52 Al-Doy, A. (1993 ). Bahrain According to Arab Geographers and Historians, from the Ninth 53 54 Century AD to Ibn Battuta. In Al-Khalifa, A. K., and Rice, M. (eds.), Bahrain Through the 55 Ages. The History . London: Kegan Paul, pp. 158-67. 56 57 58 59 60 20 Page 51 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 st st 3 Al-Mearaj, M. (2012 ). Excavation Results at Al-Khamis Mosque Site. April 1 -31 August 4 2012 . Unpublished Report. Ministry of Culture, Kingdom of Bahrain. 5 6 7 Barta, P., Benediková, L., Hanalová, M., Miklíková, Z., Belanová, T., and Shehab, A.H. 8 (2008). Al-Khidr on Failaka Island: Preliminary Results of the Fieldworks at a Dilmun 9 10 Culture Settlement in Kuwait. TÜBA-AR 11: 121-134. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from 11 12 https://www.academia.edu/5559092/Al_Khidr_on_Failaka_Island_Preliminary_Results_of_th 13 e_Fieldworks_at_a_Dilmun_Culture_Settlement_in_Kuwait 14 15 16 Belgrave, J. (1973 ). Welcome to Bahrain (8 th edition). London: The Augustan Press. 17 18 Bent, M. V. A. (2010For). (Brisch, Review G. ed.). The Travel ChroniclesOnly of Mrs J. Theodore Bent. 19 20 Volume III: Southern Arabia and Persia . Oxford: 3rdguides. 21 22 Bibby, G. (2006). Looking for Dilmun . London: Stacey International. 23 24 25 Carter, R. (2005 ). The Pottery. In Insoll, T. The Land of Enki in the Islamic Era . London: 26 Kegan Paul, pp. 107-192, 397-451. 27 28 29 Carter, R. (2011 ). Muharraq Excavations 2010 . Unpublished Report, Oxford Brookes 30 31 Archaeology and Heritage for Ministry of Culture, Kingdom of Bahrain (accessed via copy 32 held in Bahrain National Museum) . 33 34 35 Cohen, A. and Serjeantson, D. (1996 ). Manual for the Identification of Bird Bones from 36 Archaeological Sites . London: Archetype Publications. 37 38 39 Connan, J., Lombard, P., Killick, R., Højlund, F., Salles, J-F., and Khalaf, A. (1998 ). The 40 Archaeological Bitumens of Bahrain from the Early Dilmun Period (c.2200 BC) to the 41 42 Sixteenth Century AD: A Problem of Sources and Trade. Arabian Archaeology and 43 44 Epigraphy 9: 141-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0471.1998.tb00116.x 45 46 Costa, P.M. 1994. Islamic Shrines on the Sat al-Nil. In Costa, P.M. Studies in Arabian 47 48 Architecture . Aldershot: Variorum, pp. 1-16. 49 50 Costa, P.M. (2001). Historic Mosques and Shrines of Oman . Oxford: Archaeopress. 51 52 53 Diez, E. (1925 ). Eine Schiitische Moscheeruine auf der Insel Bahrein. Jahrbuch der 54 55 Asiatischen Kunst 2: 101-105. 56 57 58 59 60 21 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 52 of 61

1 2 3 Dobney, K. and Rielly, K. (1988 ). A method for recording archaeological animal bones: the 4 use of diagnostic zones. Circaea 5: 79-96. 5 6 7 8 Durand, Capt. E. L. (1879 ). Report on the Antiquities of Bahrein . Ms. on File, India Office 9 Library, London (accessed via copy held in Bahrain National Museum). 10 11 12 Frifelt, K. (2001 ). Islamic Remains in Bahrain . Moesgaard: Jutland Archaeological Society. 13 14 Grant, A. (1982 ). The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates. In 15 16 Wilson, B., Grigson, C. and Payne, S. (eds). Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites . 17 18 Oxford: BAR Brit. ForSer. 109: 91-109. Review Only 19 20 Greenfield, H.J. and Arnold, E.R. (2008 ). Absolute age and tooth eruption and wear 21 22 sequences in sheep and goat: determining age-at-death in zooarchaeology using a modern 23 control sample. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 836–849. 24 DOI: 25 10.1016/j.jas.2007.06.003. 26 27 28 Hellmuth Andersen, H., and Højlund, F. (2003 ). The Barbar Temples . Moesgaard: Jutland 29 30 Archaeological Society. 31 32 Højlund, F. (2007 ). The Burial Mounds of Bahrain . Moesgaard: Jutland Archaeological 33 34 Society. 35 36 Højlund, F. and Hellmuth Andersen, H. (1994 ). Qala’at al-Bahrain. Volume 1. The Northern 37 38 City Wall and the Islamic Fortress. Moesgaard: Jutland Archaeological Society. 39 40 Insoll, T. (1999 ). The Archaeology of Islam . Oxford: Blackwell. 41 42 43 Insoll, T. (2005a ). The Land of Enki in the Islamic Era . London: Kegan Paul. 44 45 Insoll, T. 2005b. A Dilmun Temple in Bilad al-Qadim, Bahrain: A Preliminary Indication? 46 47 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 16: 79-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0471.2005.00043.x 48 49 Insoll, T., Almahari, S., and MacLean, R. (In Preparation). The Islamic Funerary Inscriptions 50 51 of Bahrain. Pre 1900 CE . (Handbook of Oriental Studies Series). Leiden: Brill. 52 53 54 Kennet, D. (2004 ). Sasanian and Islamic Pottery from Ras al-Khaimah: Classification, 55 Chronology and Analysis of Trade in the Western Indian Ocean . Oxford: Archaeopress. 56 57 58 59 60 22 Page 53 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 Kervran, M., Hiebert, F., and Rougeulle, A. (2005 ). Qal’at al-Bahrain. A Trading and 4 Military Outpost . Turnhout: Brepols. 5 6 7 Kervran, M. and Kalus, L. (1990 ). La Mosquée al-Khamis à Bahrain: Son Histoire et ses 8 Inscriptions. Archéologie Islamique 1: 7-73. 9 10 11 Killick, R., and Moon, J. 2005. The Early Dilmun Settlement at Saar . Ludlow: Archaeology 12 13 International. 14 15 King, G.R.D. (1978). Traditional Najdi Mosques. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and 16 17 African Studies 41: 464-498. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00117562. 18 For Review Only 19 King, G.R.D. (1980). Notes on Some Mosques in Eastern and Western Saudi Arabia. Bulletin 20 21 of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43: 251-276. DOI: 22 23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00115629. 24 25 Kostoglou, M. (2005 ). Results of the Analytical Study of the Metalworking Debris. In Insoll, 26 27 T. The Land of Enki in the Islamic Era . London: Kegan Paul, pp. 508-514. 28 29 Lombard, P. (ed.). (1999 ). Bahrain. The Civilization of the Two Seas . Paris: Institut du Monde 30 31 Arabe. 32 33 Mackay, E., Harding, L., and Petrie, F. (1929 ). Bahrain and Hamamieh. British School in 34 35 Egypt 38. London: University College. 36 37 MacLean, R., and Insoll, T. (2014 ). Islamic Identities and Heritage Presentation in Bahrain. I n 38 39 Exell, K., and Rico, T. (eds.), Cultural Heritage in the Arabian Peninsula . Farnham: Ashgate, 40 41 pp. 129-41. 42 43 Mason, R.B. and Keall, E.J. (1991 ). The Abbasid Glazed Wares of Siraf and the Basra 44 45 Connection: Petrographic Analysis. Iran 29: 51-66. DOI: 10.2307/4299848. 46 47 Patitucci, S. and Uggeri, G. (1984 ). Failakah. Insediamenti Medievali Islamici . Rome: 48 49 “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. 50 51 th 52 Potts, D. (2016). The Shi’a Origins of the 12 Century ‘Uyunid Madrasah Abu Zaidan (Suq 53 al-Khamis Mosque) on Bahrain. International J ournal of the Society of Iranian 54 55 Archaeolog ists 2 (3): 59-79 . 56 57 58 59 60 23 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 54 of 61

1 2 3 Priestman, S.M.N. (2013 ). A Quantitative Archaeological Analysis of Ceramic Exchange in 4 the Persian Gulf and Western Indian Ocean, AD c.400 – 1275 . Unpublished PhD Thesis, 5 6 Centre for Maritime Archaeology, University of Southampton: Southampton. 7 8 9 Rice, M. (1984 ). Dilmun Discovered. The Early Years of Archaeology in Bahrain . London: 10 11 Longman. 12 13 Rougeulle, A., Creissen, T. and Bernard, V. (2012). The Great Mosque of Qalhat 14 15 Rediscovered. Main Results of the 2008-2010 Excavations at Qalhat, Oman. Proceedings of 16 17 the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42: 341-356. Retrieved June 6, 2016 from 18 http://www.jstor.org/stable/41623648.For Review Only 19 20 21 Salles, J-F., Andre-Leicknam, B., Renisio, G., and Vaillant, M-A. 1983. Barbar-Sud, 1982 . 22 23 Unpublished Report. Lyon: MAFRAOPI et GIS Naison de l’Orient Méditerranéen (accessed 24 via copy held in Bahrain National Museum). 25 26 27 Sasaki, T. (1990 ). Excavations at A’ali – 1988/89. Proceedings of the Twenty Third Seminar 28 for Arabian Studies . London: Institute of Archaeology, pp. 111-129. Retrieved February 8, 29 30 2016 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41223263. 31 32 33 Silver, I.A. (1969 ). The Aging of Domestic Animals. (In), Brothwell, D. and Higgs, E. 34 (eds). Science in Archaeology: A Survey of Progress and Research . London: Thames and 35 36 Hudson, pp. 283-302. 37 38 Tampoe, M. (1989 ). Maritime Trade between China and the West . BAR S555. Oxford: 39 40 British Archaeological Reports. 41 42 43 Whitehouse, D. (1980). Siraf III. The Congregational Mosque . London: British Institute of 44 Persian Studies. 45 46 47 Whitehouse, D. (2003 ). The Al-Khamis Mosque on Bahrain: A Note on the First and Second 48 Phases. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 14: 95-102. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600- 49 50 0471.2003.00010.x. 51 52 Whitehouse, D. (2010 ). Islamic Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass. Volume 1 . New York: 53 54 The Corning Museum of Glass. 55 56 57 58 59 60 24 Page 55 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 Figures 4 5 Figure 1. The location of Bilad al-Qadim in Bahrain 6 7 8 Figure 2. 1996 aerial photograph of Bilad al-Qadim with locations of Abu Anbra, Al- 9 10 Khamis Mosque and Ain Abu Zaydan marked (courtesy, Ministry of Housing, 11 Kingdom of Bahrain) 12 13 14 Figure 3. Abu Anbra mound with grave markers (photo. T. Insoll) 15 16 Figure 4. Al-Khamis market, meat section, 1928. Note mound in background (photo. 17 18 Dr Louis and For Mrs Elizabeth Review Dame, courtesy, Archives Only of the Reformed Church in 19 20 America) 21 22 Figure 5. 1966 aerial photograph of Bilad al-Qadim with Abu Anbra mound clearly 23 24 visible where marked (courtesy, Ministry of Housing, Kingdom of Bahrain) 25 26 Figure 6. The tomb wall recorded in the Abu Anbra mound (photo. T. Insoll) 27 28 29 Figure 7. Ceramics from ABN15. Top. CW jar (ABN15-4). Bottom left. Turquoise 30 Glazed ware (ABN15-1). Bottom right. Cobalt Blue Frit (ABN15-1) 31 32 33 Figure 8. Plan of the Ain Abu Zaydan site complex after survey by Marzooq al-Afoo 34 35 Figure 9. Ain Abu Zaydan. Left. The pillar incorporating re-used masonry, including 36 37 an upturned altar slab. Right. Monumental masonry in the pool wall (photos. T. 38 39 Insoll) 40 41 Figure 10. Ain Abu Zaydan, 1928 (photo. Dr Louis and Mrs Elizabeth Dame, 42 43 courtesy, Archives of the Reformed Church in America) 44 45 Figure 11. Base of AZ14-9 with, left, rubble fill/wall and, right, plastic water pipe 46 47 (photo. T. Insoll) 48 49 Figure 12. AZ15, stratigraphic profile, eastern face 50 51 52 Figure 13. AZ15-10, channel, at centre, between two slight raised banks (photo. T. 53 Insoll) 54 55 56 Figure 14. Diagnostic sherds from AZ14 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 56 of 61

1 2 3 Figure 15. Diagnostic sherds from AZ15 4 5 Figure 16. Glass vessel and bracelet fragments, beads, and crucible fragment from 6 7 AZ14 and AZ15 8 9 10 Figure 17. Plan of the Al-Khamis Mosque site indicating the areas of recent Bahraini 11 excavation (courtesy, Bahrain Authority for Culture and Antiquities) 12 13 14 Figure 18. Al-Khamis Mosque site. Left. The well (Area A) with fallen column base 15 in-situ. Right. The multi-roomed building (Area C), after conservation. Bottom. The 16 17 collapsed shrine (Area B), after conservation (photos. T. Insoll) 18 For Review Only 19 20 Figure 19. Plan of the well area (Area A) 21 22 Figure 20. Plan of the shrine (Area B) 23 24 Figure 21. The gravestones associated with the shrine (photos. T.Insoll) 25 26 27 Figure 22. Plan of the multi-room structure (Area C) 28 29 Figure 23. Left. Radiocarbon dated beam in the Bahrain National Museum. Right. 30 31 Beam illustrated by Diez (1925: Figure 9) 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 57 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Figure 19. Plan of the well area (Area A) 32 419x297mm (200 x 200 DPI) 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 58 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Figure 20. Plan of the shrine (Area B) 32 419x297mm (200 x 200 DPI) 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 59 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Figure 21. The gravestones associated with the shrine (photos. T.Insoll) 32 228x163mm (300 x 300 DPI) 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy Page 60 of 61

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Figure 22. Plan of the multi-room structure (Area C) 39 158x150mm (600 x 600 DPI) 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 61 of 61 Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 For Review Only 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Figure 23. Left. Radiocarbon dated beam in the Bahrain National Museum. Right. Beam illustrated by Diez 30 (1925: Figure 9) 31 378x246mm (300 x 300 DPI) 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60