Mesopotamian Ceramics from the Burial Mounds of Bahrain, C.2250–1750 BC

Mesopotamian ceramics from the burial mounds of Bahrain, c.2250–1750 BC

Among the ceramic vessels recovered from the burial mounds of Bahrain, a small Steffen Terp Laursen percentage represents Mesopotamian imports or local emulations of such. In this Aarhus University, Section for paper two overall horizons are distinguished in these Mesopotamian ceramics. These Archaeology, Institute of are significant because both coincide with major stages in Mesopotamia’s interaction Anthropology, Archaeology and with the populations of the ‘Lower Sea’. The first import horizon is comprised of a Linguistics, University of Aarhus vessel type found exclusively in the scattered mounds of Early Type which pre-date & Department of Oriental the rise of the Dilmun ‘state’ proper. The distribution of these vessels outside their Archaeology, Moesgaard areas of production demonstrates how they circulated widely in a network elsewhere Museum, Højbjerg 8270, considered to reflect the orbit of Mesopotamia’s late third-millennium ‘Magan trade’. Denmark Here it is consequently concluded that this particular type represents an important fossile directeur of the ‘Magan trade’ and pre-Dilmun florescence. The vessels that make up the subsequent horizon of Mesopotamian imports are found exclusively in the compact mound cemeteries and thus coincide with the heyday of Dilmun. On these grounds it is argued that the two horizons are the product of, respectively, the Ur III network of ‘Magan trade’ and the contracted Isin-Larsa network of ‘Dilmun trade’.

Keywords: Magan trade, Third Dynasty of Ur, Dilmun, Tilmun, Bahrain, trade, burial mounds, Early Dilmun e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction1 burial custom in Bahrain that followed the emergence of a The present article is the second of a pair of ceramics Dilmun state proper. studies, the first of which is entitled ‘The decline of Magan From stratified deposits at Qala’at al-Bahrain — the and the rise of Dilmun: Umm an-Nar ceramics from the ‘capital of Dilmun’—it has been demonstrated that burial mounds of Bahrain, c.2250–2000 BC’ (Laursen Mesopotamian pottery imports were relatively popular in 2009). The latter was written to shed new light on period Ia (Akkadian), Ib (Late Akkadian–early Ur III) and ‘Dilmun’s’ eastward contact with ‘Magan’ on the basis of IIa (Late Ur III) (10%, 19% and 6%),2 only to become pottery from the Umm an-Nar culture. This second article much less frequent in periods IIb (Isin-Larsa) and IIc (Old seeks to investigate some of the same aspects but from the Babylonian) (0.8% and 0.4%) (Højlund 1994: fig. 390). opposite end of the ‘Dilmun orbit’—namely by exploring A considerable but not quantified amount of South her north-westward relations through the ceramics im- Mesopotamian pottery has also been uncovered as grave- ported from South Mesopotamia. Both studies are goods in the Early Dilmun burial mounds. The situation in designed to improve the archaeological understanding of the mounds is different from that of Qala’at al-Bahrain and the chronological relation between changes in Dilmun’s instructive in its own right because, although the range of position in the Gulf trade and those major changes in the

2 Højlund has argued that since the numbers are based on counts of rim sherds, this introduces a bias in the record; therefore the 1 I would like to thank Dr Flemming Højlund for reading and actual percentages of Mesopotamian vessels in periods Ia and Ib commenting on earlier versions of this manuscript. are more likely to be as high as 18% and 31% (1994: 130). 32 MESOPOTAMIAN CERAMICS FROM THE BURIAL MOUNDS OF BAHRAIN

Mesopotamian types is narrower in the tombs, the imports Hamad Town campaigns represent the largest archaeolog- are often available in their complete state. This material is ical operation undertaken in the Gulf and the main also of interest because the gradual substitution of excavation site of burial mounds dating to the Early imported types allows a correlation between the major Dilmun period (2300–1700 BC). changes in the Early Dilmun burial custom and Dilmun In the collection of the Bahrain National Museum sherds interactions with southern Mesopotamia. and very fragmented vessels have for many years been inaccessible for study. Consequently, it is to be expected that the present collection of twenty-one vessels could be Mesopotamian pottery from the burial mounds biased by an under-representation of fragile vessel types. The recorded collection originates in the excavations of The vessels were included in the sample either because the Bahrain National Museum in the area of present-day they can be identified immediately as Mesopotamian Hamad Town and comprises twenty-one more or less imports or because they appear to represent local imita- complete vessels (Table 1). The area from which the tions of such vessel types. The collection has been divided sample has been selected roughly corresponds to the map into five types on the basis of morphological variation. shown in Figure 6 (see below), but to date the re- identification of many of the more that 4000 mounds excavated in the area is still ongoing. The insecurities stem Type definitions from the fact that one is principally dealing with a series of Type 1 (Figs 1/1–11, 2/1–11) ill-coordinated but very large-scale rescue campaigns This type is represented by eleven wheel-made vessels launched after the founding of the new city ‘Hamad ranging in height from 10 to 20 cm (ave. 13 cm) and Town’, which ran from 1980 to 2002. Collectively, the displaying maximum diameters ranging between 9.1 and

Table 1. The near-complete Mesopotamian vessels found in the Hamad Town area. Recorded from the collection in store in the Bahrain National Museum collection and fragmented ones mentioned in reports. The BBM number (Bahrain Burial Mound in GIS) has been listed in those cases where the vessel can be linked to a speciﬁc mound in the Geographic Information System of the Bahrain Burial Mounds project. Bahrain Burial Mound Mound ‘Mesopotamia’ A number Illustration no. (BBM no) Season(s) Area/site no. Chamber Type (temp) Old series 472-2-88 Fig. 1/1 35076 1983–84 BNE 148 Main Type 1 19072 Fig. 1/2 35076 1983–84 BNE 148 Main Type 1 N/A ‘Lowe 1986’ N/A 35076 1983–84 BNE 148 Main Type 1 4599 Fig. 1/3 N/A 1986–87 BNN N/A 9 Type 1 17368 Fig. 1/4 27095 1984–85 BS 94 main Type 1 6144 Fig. 1/5 N/A 1983 BN 68 Type 1 19075 Fig. 1/5 27104 1984 BS Banoco 102 Main Type 1 Station (?) 4747 Fig. 1/7 21590 1982–83 BS 541 or 591? Type 1 (Atypical) 19068 Fig. 1/8 37583 1996–97 Riff’a 7 _ Type 1 6153 Fig. 1/9 19066 1982–83 BS 1684 1 Type 1 (Globular) N/A Fig. 1/11 N/A 1981–82 New City N/A N/A Type 1 N/A Fig. 1/10 N/A 1982–83 B 1 48 (?) N/A Type 1 N/A ‘Lowe 1986’ N/A 32635 1982–83 BN 77 Main Type 1 771 Fig. 3/1 23092 1998–99 Alozi 316 Main Type 2 156 Fig. 3/2 14864 1999–00 Alozi 2 1183 Main Type 2 3297 Fig. 3/3 20886 1991–92 BS3 95 Main Type 2 (Local) 4301 Fig. 3/4 23152 1998 Alozi 179 Main Type 3 19065 Fig. 3/5 18943 1983–84 BS1 1773 Type 4 102 Fig. 3/6 15543 1999–00 Alozi 800A Sub1 Type 5 461 Fig. 3/7 19192 2000–01 Alozi 2 613 Main Type 5 4740 Fig. 3/8 N/A 1987–88 N.B.H.4 156 Main Type 5 10482 Fig. 3/9 N/A 1994–95 8 37 Type 5 (Local) 855 Fig. 4/10 14617 1999–00 Alozi 2 1296 Main Type 5

33 STEFFEN TERP LAURSEN

Fig. 1. Drawings of Mesopotamian vessels of Type 1: 1. ‘Old system’ no. 472-2-88; 2. A19072; 3. A4599; 4. A17368; 5. A6144; 6. A19075; 7. A4747; 8. A19068; 9. A6153; 10. N/A; 11. N/A.

15.2 cm (ave. 10.9 cm). Typically the vessel body is The vessels of Type 1 can generally be ascribed to two distinctly heart-shaped with a base that terminates in a different wares, the most common of which is light red- point. The neck is cylindrical to concave and ends in a brown to creamy white in colour occasionally with a slight moderately to sharply ledged shoulder. The rim, which greenish tone. This ware has a chalky feel with sand and typically represents the largest diameter of the vessel, is possible fine straw tempering. The other ware is more hard flaring and usually has a characteristic double or triple rib. fired and distinguished from the first by its greenish colour In the vessels with double rib the rim is horizontally and glossy vitrified surface suggesting a difference in protruding in a sharp triangular profile (Fig. 1/ 1–4, 8–9, firing. The paste of the two wares appears to have been 11, Fig. 2/1–4, 8–9), whereas the rim on the triple-rib similar but with a possible absence of vegetal temper in the vessels is rounded and similar to the two lower ribs (Fig. paste of the hard-fired vessels. All vessels show traces of a 1/5–6, 10, Fig. 2/5–6). The type appears in a small and a cream slip and two also exhibit faint traces of red paint large edition. The smaller vessels (Fig. 1/1–6, 10–11, Fig. (Fig. 1/1, 3). 2/1–6) are remarkably homogeneous in size, with heights Another small vessel undoubtedly also of Mesopota- and rim diameters that range from 12.2 to 10 cm and mian origin (Figs 1/7, 2/7), which does not formally 10.7 to 9.2 cm. Two larger vessels are 20.2 to 15.6 cm correspond to the above-mentioned criteria but which high. The largest of these (Figs 1/8, 2/8) is morpholog- appears to be functionally and chronologically similar to ically identical to the smaller vessels with double vessels of Type 1, has been included for convenience. In rim, whereas the other represents a rounded base variant addition to the ones illustrated in this paper another vessel (Figs 1/9, 2/9). of Type 1 (not illustrated) was reportedly found together 34 MESOPOTAMIAN CERAMICS FROM THE BURIAL MOUNDS OF BAHRAIN

Fig. 2. Photographs of Mesopotamian vessels of Type 1: 1. ‘Old system’ no. 472-2-88; 2. A19072; 3. A4599; 4. A17368; 5. A6144; 6. A19075; 7. A4747; 8. A19068; 9. A6153. with the two vessels (Fig. 1/1–2, Fig. 2/1–2) in the same tamian model made of the characteristic local paste with burial chamber (Lowe 1986: 79). inclusions of white grits and ochre incrustations often used Functionally, the narrow neck and multiple ribs found for funerary vessels (Figs 3/3, 4/3). The vessel body on Type 1 seem to have been purposely added to ranges from cylindrical to slightly sagging with a rounded accommodate the secure fastening of some type of lid base. The shoulder has a sharp ledge that continues into a cover of a perishable material in combination with either a more or less cylindrical neck with a variety of protruding piece of cloth or leather and a strap. The rim of Type 1 is rims. The possible imitation in local ware (Figs 3/3, 4/3) identical to Højlund’s rim type M11 from Qala’at al- has a more squat body and has its widest point located just Bahrain (1994: 105, ﬁgs 257–261) and to McMahon’s rim below the shoulder ledge. type C-13 from Nippur (2006: pl. 106). Type 3 (Figs 3/4, 4/4) Type 2 (Figs 3/1–3, 4/1–3, 10) Type 3 is represented by a 17 cm-high wheel-made This type is represented by four wheel-made vessels that, canister of a light orange ware with surface scrapings and even if somewhat dissimilar, share some rough overall lines after production on a potter’s wheel. It has a high and similarities. The vessels all exhibit a sharply ledged wide shoulder, short neck and slightly protruding triangu- shoulder and more or less cylindrical neck but the rim and lar rim. The vessel narrows in at the base, which is marked body shapes show variations. One vessel was not available by a small ring-base. There is a lump of bitumen sticking for drawing (for photograph see Fig. 4/10) and another is to the bottom of the vessel, seemingly associated with the undoubtedly a Bahraini imitation, possibly of a Mesopo- repair of a small fracture. 35 STEFFEN TERP LAURSEN

Fig. 3. Drawings of Mesopotamian vessels. Type 2: 1. A771; 2. A156; 3. A3297 (local imitation); 10. A855; Type 3: 4. A4301; Type 4: 5. A19065; Type 5: 6. A102; 7. A461; 8. A4740; 9. A10482 (local imitation).

Type 4 (Figs 3/5, 4/5) neck that terminates in a much everted rim. Surprisingly, Type 4 is represented by a wheel-made bowl with a the rim does not directly compare to any types from diameter of 18 cm. The bowl, which is very irregular, has Qala’at al-Bahrain. The ware is orange to red-brown with a a vertically upturned and everted rim which, in combi- cream-brown to cream-orange slip that is burnished on one nation with a marked shoulder, creates a concave groove vessel (Figs 3/7, 3/7). between the shoulder and the rim. The base is asym- One vessel is morphologically similar to Type 5 (Figs 3/ metrical and appears to have been string-cut while 9, 4/9) but is distinguished by an attached ring-stand and spinning on a fast turning wheel. The ware is light darker surface colour. This vessel, of light brown ware cream with a chalky feel with sand and ﬁne straw with characteristic exploding white grits covered with a tempering. Fragments of similar bowls are well known coarse brown-grey slip, appears to be a local imitation of a from Qala’at al-Bahrain (Type M15) (Højlund 1994: 106, Mesopotamian model. A similar local vessel with ring ﬁgs 266–268). stand, also of brown ware with white grits and darkened surface is known from the Aali cemetery (Mackay 1929: Type 5 (Figs 3/6–9, 4/7–10) pl. VIII/12; Reade & Burleigh 1978: 82, pl. 34a, back row, This type is represented by four wheel-made vessels with left). Vessels identical to Figure 3/7–8 have been published cylindrical (and one sack-shaped) bodies. The vessels have in much higher numbers from the Aali cemetery (Mackay a sharp shoulder with a short ledge and a short concave 1929: pl. VIII/6, 8, 16; Reade & Burleigh 1978: 82, pl. 36 MESOPOTAMIAN CERAMICS FROM THE BURIAL MOUNDS OF BAHRAIN

Fig. 4. Photographs of Mesopotamian vessels. Type 2: 1. A771; 2. A156; 3. A3297 (local imitation); 10. A855; Type 3: 4. A4301; Type 4: 5. A19065; Type 5: 6. A102; 7. A461; 8. A4740; 9. A10482 (local imitation).

34a, back row, right; Højlund 2007: ﬁgs 100, 137–138, can also be derived from various sites in the Arabian Gulf 141, 145–151, 182).3 where imported Mesopotamian vessels have been discovered.

Chronology of Mesopotamian imports and imitations Type 1 Even if present knowledge of the ceramic development in Type 1 is the most informative Mesopotamian import late third- and early second-millennium BC Mesopotamia found in Bahrain. To the present author’s knowledge there leaves much to be desired, the existing chronology offers is currently no evidence from Mesopotamia to suggest that some important overall dating categories for the vessels the variation between two and three ribs is chronologically discovered in the burial mounds of Bahrain. The local related. It is interesting to our case from Bahrain that while ‘Early Dilmun’ chronology developed from ceramics vessels similar to Type 1 in Mesopotamia are found in found in stratiﬁed contexts at Qala’at al-Bahrain (Højlund settlement contexts, they also frequently appear in graves. 1994) is equally of relevance. Some valuable information At Umm el-Jir, three complete vessels of Type 1 with the characteristic pointy base were found together in Level 5,

3 Floor 4, which marks the transition to Ur III (Gibson The present author has made additional cursory examinations of ﬁ the material from this cemetery in store at the Bahrain National 1972a: gs 5, 42/j). The vessels (1972a: nos. 10, 11 and 55) Museum, which have revealed that an equally high number of from Umm el-Jir are, respectively, of buff ware with cream the type remains unpublished. slip, ﬁne red ware with cream slip and red ware with red 37 STEFFEN TERP LAURSEN

Fig. 5. The vessels of Type 1 found outside Mesopotamia and Bahrain. 1. Tomb N Hili (Al-Tikriti & Méry 2000; Méry et al. 2004: 174, fig. 15); 2–4. Al- Rafi’ah, Tarut (Burkholder 1984: no. 30; Zarins 1989: fig. 6/22–24); 5–6. F6, Failaka (unpublished material by kind permission of F. Højlund); 7. F6, Failaka (Pic 2008: 109, fig. 15/75); 8. Tell Abraq (Potts 1990: 94, fig. 115); 9. Unar 2 (Carter 2002: fig. 4/109); 10. Munayi (Phillips 1997: fig. 2/1); 11. Kalaba 4 (by kind permission of C. Phillips and D. Eddisford). slip and darker red wash. The latter is interesting because Mackay’s mound no. 18 (Mackay 1929: pl. VII/15). Six its red surface colour is paralleled in a couple of the rim fragments corresponding to those found on Type 1 vessels found in Bahrain (see above). Type 1 also appears vessels have been recovered from Qala’at al-Bahrain at Nippur (McCown & Haines 1967: pl. 80/18) where the (Højlund 1994: 105). The diameter of the rims (Type M11) type (McMahon’s C-13) appears in levels XVII to VI, found at Qala’at al-Bahrain varies from 11 to 14 cm and corresponding to the Akkadian period through to the Ur thus falls perfectly within the 9.2–14.5 cm range of the III/Isin-Larsa transition (McMahon 2006: pl. 120, table rims of the smaller category of Type 1 vessels, and 56). The Type also appear at Kish (Gibson 1972b: fig. 34/ suggests that the fragments derive from vessels of identical G); Isin (Hrouda 1977: Tafel 27/IB 264, 276a); Uruk (Van size. At Qala’at al-Bahrain the type, with a single earlier Ess 1988: Abb. 12/102; Boehmer, Pedde & Salje 1995: exception, is exclusively found in period Ib (c.2100–2050 tables 5/a, 9/c, 16/b, 17/e); Ur (Woolley 1934: pl. 254, BC/early Ur III). type 44a; Pollock 1985: fig. 2); Eshnunna (Delougaz 1952: From Tarut Island, also within the Dilmun sphere, come pl. 160/B.556.540, pl. 163/B.645.540a); Girsu (Genouillac three vessels of Type 1 (Fig. 5/2–4). They originate from 1936: pls 30/3769, 33/606, 31/2403); and in Iran at Susa chance discoveries by gardeners at the site of Al-Rufai’a (Gasche 1973: pl. 16, group 15b). The evidence from these but their complete state and that of other objects from the sites for dating the vessel type is of varying quality but site suggest they derive from burials (Burkholder 1984: concentrates on a late Akkadian to Ur III time frame no. 30; Zarins 1989: fig. 6/22–24). (c.2250–2000 BC). The globular variant of Type 1 (Figs 1/ Two- and three-rib rim sherds corresponding to Type 1 9, 2/9) possibly represents a late development of the vessels (Fig. 5/5–7) have been recovered from Tell F6 on pointy-based type for which parallels can be found at e.g. Failaka Island, in Kuwait. The rim with two ribs (Fig. 5/7) the Royal Cemetery of Ur (Woolley 1934: pl. 253, type was found during the 1984–88 French excavations in 44b). Level Vc, Locus 340 (Pic 2008: 109, fig. 15/75), which the From Bahrain the round-based variant is also known excavators date to the Ur III period (2008: 64). Two from the Aali cemetery where it was discovered in additional rims corresponding to Type 1 vessels of the 38 MESOPOTAMIAN CERAMICS FROM THE BURIAL MOUNDS OF BAHRAIN

Fig. 6. A map of the area around Hamad Town where Mesopotamian pottery has been encountered in the burial mounds. The Type 5 vessel (Fig. 3/8) was found outside the map area. In those cases where the specific mound has not been located, the vessel is mapped inside the respective excavation area with a margin of error of c.100 m. Contours at c.6 m intervals. three-rib variant (Fig. 5/5–6) were found in stratified Vessels equivalent to those of Type 1 have also been context during the Kuwait-Danish excavations in 2009 at reported from no less than five sites on the Oman Tell F6 (personal communication, Flemming Højlund).4 peninsula. Hence, a rim fragment (Fig. 5/8) that corre- These rims came from the lowest level of the tell, which sponds in diameter to the largest vessel of Type 1 from according to Højlund belong to a Mesopotamian Ur III Bahrain (Figs 1/8, 2/8) was recovered in a late third- occupation horizon that pre-dates the establishment of the millennium context at Tell Abraq (Potts 1990: 94, fig. Dilmun colony and its monumental buildings on the Island 115). Fragments of one or more vessels (Fig. 5/9) fully (Højlund 2010). compatible in shape and size to Type 1 have also been recovered in the large Umm an-Nar tomb Unar-2 (Carter 2002: fig. 4/109). Although this tomb must have been 4 I am grateful to Dr Højlund for sharing this information with constructed around 2400 BC it also produced a Dilmun me. burial jar with scored rim (2002: figs 4, 6) of the earliest 39 STEFFEN TERP LAURSEN sub-type (Laursen 2010: 124–126, fig. 11/1–8). This early and Susa (Gashe 1973: pl. 17/3), both of which date to the sub-type of the Dilmun burial jar has on various grounds Isin-Larsa period (c.2000–1750 BC). The imitation in been dated to the later half of Qala’at al-Bahrain period IIa local ware (Figs 3/3, 4/3) has no parallels in Bahrain but is (c.2025–2000 BC/late Ur III) (2010: 132) testifying to the broadly similar to the above-mentioned parallels from fact that the Unar-2 tomb was still open to internments at Mesopotamia. that time. Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests a date before 2000 BC of the Type 1 vessel at Unar-2 (Carter Type 3 2002). A comparable date can also be deduced from a This canister (Figs 3/4, 4/4) finds comparison in a vessel Type 1 fragment (Fig. 5/10) found in a circular Umm an- from Eshnunna of Isin-Larsa date (Delougaz 1952: pl. Nar tomb excavated by Carl Phillips at Munayi near Kalba 121/a) and resemblance in a vessel found in Uruk (Grab (Phillips 1997: fig. 2/1).5 In addition to this fragment, a 13a), dated to Neusumerische Zeit (Boehmer, Pedde & vessel corresponding to Type 1 (Fig. 5/11) has been Salje 1995: table 9/d). recovered at the site of Kalba 4 (personal communication, Carl Phillips).6 Type 4 Finally, a small Type 1 pot (Fig. 5/1) recovered from the The Type 4 bowl (Figs 3/5, 4/5) finds close parallels in pit-grave Hili Tomb N (Al-Tikriti & Méry 2000) is of Mesopotamia in a type that reached immense popularity particular interest to the present analysis because its from the Akkadian throughout the Isin-Larsa periods context is well suited for defining the chronology of the (McCown & Haines 1967: pl. 82/19–20). Similar bowls type. The Hili vessel was found in the very top of the from Qala’at al-Bahrain (M15) appear almost exclusively terminal Layer IV of the pit-grave and must consequently in the period Ib deposits (c.2100–2050 BC/early Ur III) have been associated with one of the very last interments (Højlund 1994: fig. 388). in the tomb. The tomb was sealed with a stone pavement after which it was abandoned. 14C dates of three bone and Type 5 one charcoal sample are available from the top of this Type 5 has an excellent parallel from the Royal cemetery terminal layer and places the abandonment of the grave at of Ur in pottery type 40 (Woolley 1934: pl. 253: 40) the very end of the third millennium BC (McSweeney, which Woolley (erroneously?) ascribed to the Akkadian Méry & Macchiarelli 2008: table 1). The fact that the Type period (1934: 513). It is also known from Girsu where it 1 vessel came from the very top of the layer thus renders it dates to Isin-Larsa (Genouillac 1936: pl. 31/1359). The a likely contemporary with the middle of the Third local vessel with ring stand (Figs 3/9, 4/9) imitates a Dynasty of Ur. Mesopotamian incised grey ware type with white inlays that was very popular during the Isin-Larsa period, e.g. Type 2 at Uruk (Van Ess 1988: fig. 226) and Tell Asmar There is poor evidence from Mesopotamia for dating the (Delougaz 1952: pls 123–125). The imitation goes as far vessels of Type 2, which form a rather heterogeneous as to copy the characteristic dark surface colour of the group. The vessels in Figures 3/1–2 and 4/1–2 are not Mesopotamian grey ware model — a feature that is also easily matched with published ceramics but have some observable on the compatible vessel found by Mackay in similarity with vessels from Girsu (Genouillac 1936: pl. Aali. 30/2242) and another from Uruk that are broadly dated to In conclusion, as regards the chronological issues it the Ur III-Old Babylonian period (Van Ess 1988: Abb. 3/ appears that Type 1 is restricted to the late Akkadian to Ur 2), and in a vessel from Nippur thought to be of Akkadian III period in South and Central Mesopotamia. At Qala’at date (McCown & Haines 1967: pl. 84/1). The vessel in al-Bahrain the type is present in the period Ib layers Figure 4/10, which could be argued to constitute a loose roughly compatible with the early half of the Third typological link between Type 2 and Type 5, has almost Dynasty of Ur, but absent in period Ia believed to be exact parallels from Eshnunna (Delougaz 1952: pl. 119/f) synchronous with the Akkadian period. At Failaka Tell F6 the type’s presence in the late third-millennium ‘Mesopo-

5 tamian’ horizon described by Højlund further demon- I thank Dr Rob Carter for drawing my attention to this rim ‘ ’ fragment. strates that its circulation here pre-dates the Dilmunite 6 I am grateful to Dr Carl Phillips and Dr Dan Eddisford for colonisation of the island. On the Oman peninsula the type sharing this information with me. is present in late Umm an-Nar settlements and grave 40 MESOPOTAMIAN CERAMICS FROM THE BURIAL MOUNDS OF BAHRAIN

Fig. 7. An unusually large mound of Early Type with a large and extraordinary H-shaped chamber mentioned by Lowe (1986: 76). The location of the Type 1 vessel in the north-western alcove is indicated by an arrow (Mound no. 77, Area B-North (BN), season 1982–83). This mound has been designated BBM no. 32635 in the Bahrain Burial Mound projects database. (Drawings courtesy of the Bahrain National Museum.) deposits dating to the very end of the third millennium. As shall be discussed below, this ﬁts perfectly with the The 14C dated top layer of the pit-grave Hili tomb N evidence from Bahrain where the disappearance of Type 1 provides a link between Type 1 and the absolute chronology. in the burial mounds can be intimately connected to the 41 STEFFEN TERP LAURSEN

Fig. 8. Examples of vessels from southern Mesopotamia where the characteristic rim of Type 1 is found in combination with other body shapes not attested in the Gulf. The rim of our Type 1 vessels corresponds to Type C-13 in the typology developed for Nippur (McMahon 2006: pl. 106). 1. & 2. Nippur (McMahon 2006: pl. 150/1–2); 3. Ur (Woolley 1934: pl. 253/44c); 4. Nippur (McCown & Haines 1967: pl. 90/14). emergence of the mound cemeteries from around 2050 Mesopotamian imports became expressed as ‘horizontal BC. In Bahrain, the dating range of Type 1 can accord- stratigraphy’ through the distribution of the vessel types as ingly be established to c.2200–2050 BC even if the type the burial mounds accumulated over time. (at least the rim technology) appeared slightly earlier in In respect of the Late Akkadian and Ur III vessels of Mesopotamia. Type 1 it is evident that their distribution is restricted to an The chronology of Types 2 and 3 is poorly accounted area stretching from the eastern edge of the Buri cemetery for in Mesopotamia but broadly places them in the Ur III down to the borders of the Karzakkan cemetery. This area to Old Babylonian time span. The fact that bowls is synonymous with the distribution of Early Type compatible to our Type 4 cluster at Qala’at al-Bahrain in mounds.7 Importantly Type 1 is consistently found in the period Ib deposits renders an Ur III date (c.2100–2000 chambers of Early Type mounds, the only exception being BC) most likely for the bowl in question, even if the the globular variant (Figs 1/9, 2/9) that comes from a duration of the type was somewhat longer in Mesopota- transitory so-called Radial Wall Type mound (Lowe 1986: mia. Although the mix of vessels described under Type 5 fig. 6; Laursen 2010: 129, figs 15–16). Below we shall is poorly dated in Mesopotamia it can roughly be ascribed look into the wider significance of this vessel type and to the Isin-Larsa period. argue that it represents an important fossile directeur which can be intimately linked to the heyday of Meso- potamia’s late third-millennium ‘Magan’ trade. Spatial distribution of Mesopotamian imports In respect of the vessels of Types 2 to 5 it is significant Essentially, the scattered mound found outside the com- that they have all been found within the compact pact mound cemeteries Buri and Karzakkan all belong to a Karzakkan cemetery. The fact that all three examples of so-called Early Type (c.2250–2050 BC), while the burial Type 5 are found along the western facade of the cemetery mounds found within the dense clusters of these two suggests that they represent the latest imports, but cemeteries are all of the so-called Late Type (c.2050–1800 otherwise the small sample size prevents further infer- BC) (Fig. 6). The two types are physically different and ences. As the chronological evidence implied, the Types primarily dated on the grounds of domestic and imported 2–5 vessels largely date to the Isin-Larsa period possibly pottery and seals found in the chambers. In terms of social with exceptions extending into the late Ur III (Type 4) and organisation the emergence of the mound cemeteries has the Old Babylonian periods (Type 5). been intimately linked to the formation of the Dilmun state proper (Højlund 1989; 2007; Laursen 2008; 2010). Against the backdrop of the burial mound distribution it 7 can be observed that the Mesopotamian vessel types have It should be noted that the Type 1 vessels found along the eastern edge of the Buri cemetery derive from a cluster of Early a vague tendency to cluster and this spatial pattering Type mounds that only later were encroached by Late Type can be correlated with the chronology of the types. mounds and thus clearly pre-date the Late Type burial mounds Consequently, the evidence suggests that changes in the which formed the compact cemetery. 42 MESOPOTAMIAN CERAMICS FROM THE BURIAL MOUNDS OF BAHRAIN

The first horizon — the ‘Magan’ trade This conclusion is of interest in relation to the In the above-mentioned article (Laursen 2009) of which Mesopotamian imports discussed in the present study this paper is a sequel, it was demonstrated that imports of because the distribution exhibited by the vessels of Type 1 late Umm an-Nar Black-on-Red pottery almost exclusively (Fig. 6) is an exact match of the one observed for the Umm appear in the scattered mounds of Early Type only to an-Nar pottery. Based on the corresponding distributions it disappear completely with the emergence of compact would appear reasonable to infer that the first ‘horizon’ of mound cemeteries (2009: fig. 10). In the same article this Mesopotamian imports was synchronous with the influx of distribution was taken to reflect fundamental changes in pottery from the Umm an-Nar culture into Bahrain.8 the relationship between Dilmun and Magan occurring The evidence suggests that the small and sophisticated synchronously with the emergence of compact mound Type 1 vessel was only afforded by those who had enjoyed cemeteries. Principally, the disappearance of Umm an-Nar a relatively prominent rank in life. As noted by Lowe, one Black-on-Red was argued to represent the mercantile of these vessels was found in a large Early Type mound decline of Magan and the consequent demise of the Umm (Rifa’a mound), which had a very unusual H-shaped an-Nar culture. chamber of considerable dimensions (1986: 76) (Fig. 7). Without any further comparison it should be noted that the

8 uncommon H-shaped chambers continued as the standard Taken as a whole, the evidence of the Mesopotamian vessels ‘ ’ and the late Umm an-Nar Black-on-Red pottery raises some in the largest aristocratic mounds often as the lower interesting questions about the nature of Dilmun’s cultural chamber in two-tiered constructions with a shaft entrance, affiliations in the late third-millennium world. When accessing and in many of the ‘Royal’ mounds of Aali (Mackay 1929; the small absolute number of Type 1 vessels, it should be re- Højlund 2007: fig. 91). Lowe further mentions that three called that the quantities of pottery recovered from the scattered vessels of the type were found in a large Early Type Early Type mounds are generally much smaller that those un- 9 earthed from the Late Type mounds, and as a result the eleven mound with a T-shaped chamber (1986: 79). In both cases ‘complete’ Type 1 vessels in reality make up a significant part of the large chamber size and multiple alcoves together with the early ceramic inventory. Most significant is the fact that in large mound diameters suggest that the interred individ- the Early Type mounds the ratio of Mesopotamian vessels to uals were of high rank in late third-millennium Dilmun Umm an-Nar Black-on-red pottery is approximately 1:8. The society. number is based on the data presented in this paper, Laursen 2009 and pottery drawings kept at the Bahrain National Mu- The apparent exclusivity associated with Type 1 raises seum, i.e. fine ware of ‘Magan’ affinity occurs eights times more questions about the intrinsic and symbolic value of this frequently as grave-goods than vessels of South Mesopotamian particular vessel as well as the substance it originally origin. In the contemporary settlement deposits at Qala’at al- contained. As previously mentioned, the vessels found in Bahrain this picture is contrasted by the direct opposite ratio. the burial mounds (esp. Fig. 1/1–6, 10–11) are strikingly Hence, in periods Ib and IIa, 19% and 6% of all rims sherds are classified as Mesopotamian while the percentages for Umm an- homogeneous in terms of both shape and size. In order Nar only reach 2.8% and 0.4% (Højlund 1994: fig. 390). properly to appreciate the homogeneity of the collection The asymmetric occurrence of imported pottery can be ex- that reached Bahrain, it should be noted that in southern plained by the dissimilar nature of the two contexts. It is Mesopotamia the vessels with rims equivalent to those on apparent that among the Mesopotamian ceramics found at Type 1 also appear in a number of dissimilar shapes and Qala’at al-Bahrain both the larger containers used to ship cargo to Dilmun as well as types that clearly functioned as tableware sizes (Fig. 8). The fact that the distinctive rim technology are represented. The wide adaptation of Mesopotamian table- (Nippur C-13) (McMahon 2006: pl. 106) was employed ware in the households of the central settlement at Qala’at al- on a much wider range of functional types than those Bahrain could be accounted for if one considers the circum- known from Bahrain clearly testifies to the highly selective stances that surrounded its adaptation. During a time of rising nature of the extant collection — possibly a function of a social complexity a new ‘class’ of more cosmopolitan Dilm- unites must have emerged under the influence of, among others, morphological standardisation over time. Furthermore, the the dining habits and sophisticated lifestyle of the metropolitan fact that all other vessels of Type 1 found in the Arabian citizens of South Mesopotamia. However, large ceramic vessels Gulf (see Fig. 5) (in all those cases where the complete used to carry bulk goods from South Mesopotamia probably did not convey this refined lifestyle and were perhaps for that reason excluded from the funerary assemblage. Conversely, a very 9 According to the records this corresponds to Mound 148, area uniform selection of luxurious Mesopotamian imports (Type 1 B-North East (BNE), season 1983–84, located on the western and possibly their intended content) accompanied late third- edge of the Buri cemetery. The mound has been designated millennium Dilmunites in death. BBM no. 35076 in the Bahrain Burial Mound projects database. 43 STEFFEN TERP LAURSEN

Fig. 9. Distribution of vessels of Type 1 found outside the region traditionally associated with its production and consumption. Based on the distribution of this fossile directeur export vessel, a dotted line running from South Mesopotamia down the Arabian Gulf and into the Arabian Sea indicates the route travelled by the Mesopotamian Magan merchants operating the má-má-gan boats. Tell Abraq (1) (Potts 1990: 94, fig. 115); Tomb N Hili (1) (Al-Tikriti & Méry 2000; Méry et al. 2004: 174, fig. 15; Munayi (1) (Phillips 1997: fig. 2/1); Unar 2 (1) (Carter 2002: fig. 4, 109); Tarut (3) (Burkholder 1984; Zarins 1989: fig. 6/22–24); Failaka (3) (Pic 2008: 109, fig. 15/75; unpublished material by kind permission of F. Højlund); Bahrain (15) (Højlund 1994: 105; this paper Fig. 1/10 (11); Kalba 4 (1) (by kind permission of C. Phillips). vessel profile can be determined) are of exactly the same From the distribution of Type 1 vessels down the shape as those from Bahrain, leaves the distinct impression Arabian Gulf it can be observed that these objects that the contained export was standardised in terms of circulated in a network, the furthest extension of which substance and volume. The general regularity in the shape lay at least a 1000 km beyond the urban centres of South of this ‘Gulf sample’ further suggests that the rims sherds Mesopotamia (Fig. 9). It is important to note that these of Type 1 vessels (Type M11) found at Qala’at al-Bahrain, vessels occur on sites such as Tarut, Qala’at al-Bahrain, which exhibit the same range of rim diameters (11–14 cm), Tell Abraq and Kalba, which are believed to have can safely be attributed to the same restricted morphological functioned as vital nodes in the network of the late category (Højlund 1994: 105, figs 257–261). This regularity third-millennium Gulf trade. should possibly be seen as a product of specialised potters It has been documented that while the more or less affiliated to the temple and palace economies of the Ur III regular dealings that existed during the Sagonic period state (Steinkeller 1996; Wright 1998). with distant Meluhha in the Indus Valley ceased, right The evidence is significant because collectively it from the onset of the Ur III period Magan was established supports the assumption that all these vessels were as an important supplier of copper to Mesopotamian designed to contain the same substance and its occasional merchants (Heimpel 1987). This status is clearly expressed long-distance shipment. Judging from the slim evidence, by Ur-Namma (2113–2095 BC) who claims to have re- this substance appears to have been some luxury product established the Magan trade during his reign, and by his of Mesopotamian manufacture dispatched in a fairly contemporary Gudea (c.2100 BC) who, in his famous standardised quantity, which was desired by the population dedicatory inscriptions, proclaims that Magan provides along the Arabian Gulf. Alternatively, one cannot reject Lagash with diorite for the carving of statues (Steinkeller, outright the fact that the vessels were primarily desired in in press: 23). the Gulf due to some intrinsic value as exotic fine Foreign trade of the Ur III period appears to have tableware. generally entailed large-scale enterprises orchestrated by 44 MESOPOTAMIAN CERAMICS FROM THE BURIAL MOUNDS OF BAHRAIN traders such as Pu’udu who according to Steinkeller was introduced unequal access to exotic imports and their of ‘exceedingly high standing’ and ran an institution elusive but doubtless luxury contents in death. The equivalent to a modern foreign-trade ministry (2004: 104). observed frequencies in the burial mounds thus also Textural references dating to the Ur III period show that in reflect a situation where the generally lower social status Girsu the building of boats destined for the Magan route of the population interred in the Buri and Karzakkan was placed in the hands of large and highly organised cemeteries resulted in more limited access to exotica than, ‘dockyard’ institutions (Zarins 2008). A contemporary text for example, was the case for the clearly more high- discloses that the construction of a Magan boat in Girsu ranking individuals entombed in the very large burial was a matter of such importance that its supervision was mounds near the ‘royal’ mounds in the Aali cemetery. That placed ‘under the ensi’ (Postgate 1992: 218). individuals interred in the Aali cemetery were accompa- The large scale of long-distance trade ventures in the Ur nied by more Mesopotamian pottery is clearly demon- III period is also testified in the Ur temple accounts, which strated in the material from the Danish expedition’s mention ships of an astonishing 300 gur (90,000 litres) excavation of large mounds in ‘Group A’ in 1961 (Højlund capacity. The grand vessels of the Third Dynasty of Ur III are 2007: 67–93). Here the abundant presence of Mesopota- contrasted with the typical 40 gur (12,000 litres) capacity of mian pottery in the extraordinarily large chambers strongly boats known from the mercantile enterprises of the post-Ur indicates that the Aali ‘population’ had more ample access III trade (Oppenheim 1954: n. 8; gur conversions in brackets to Mesopotamian exotica than the lower-ranking ‘popu- after Postgate 1992: 218). lation’ represented at the more humble Buri and Karzak- The contrast between the ‘Magan boats’ of Ur III and kan cemeteries. A similar pattern can be deduced from the succeeding ‘Dilmun boats’ is further underscored by Mackay’s excavations of the ‘royal’ mounds in Aali where the fact that, although apparently still seagoing, one of the Mesopotamian pottery was encountered in disproportion- latter is recorded to have had a capacity of merely 20 gur ally larger quantities than observed in the Karzakkan and (6000 litres) (Vosmer 2008: 230). However, it is a distinct Buri cemeteries (Mackay 1929). This general impression possibility that the appearance of ‘Dilmun ships’ of this was reaffirmed by the author through an inspection of ‘undersized’ hull capacity can simply be explained by the pottery from the Aali cemetery excavated by Bahraini fact that they were only destined for Failaka Island which archaeologists and stored at the Bahrain National Mu- from this time (c.2000 BC) served a Dilmun northern seum, which shows that vessels such as Type 5 were far outpost less than 200 nautical miles from the ancient more frequent here than at any of the ‘lower-ranking’ Mesopotamian shoreline. cemeteries, including Buri and Karzakkan.

The second horizon — the ‘Dilmun’ trade Conclusion The date of the Types 2–5 vessels ranges from the end of The distribution of the first Mesopotamian ceramic the Ur III to the Old Babylonian period, which according imports horizon restricted to the burial mounds of Early to the cuneiform texts was the time when Dilmun’s Type consolidates the conclusions made previously (Laur- interaction with Mesopotamia reached its all-time peak sen 2009). While this earlier study concentrated on Umm (Oppenheim 1954). It is therefore surprising that the an-Nar pottery and established that the emergence of the quantity of Mesopotamian vessels in the second horizon is mound cemeteries unfolded in the wake of the decline of extraordinarily limited in relative comparison with the Magan, the new evidence presented here allows us to amounts of contemporary local pottery recovered from the improve our understanding of Dilmun by including its Buri and Karzakkan cemeteries. Contrary to the previous relations with South Mesopotamia. The Type 1 vessels are ‘horizon’ this situation can, however, be paralleled in the argued to be strong archaeological correlates of the long- low frequencies of Mesopotamian pottery (0.8% and distance ‘Magan’ trade of the Ur III state. Judging from the 0.4%) at Qala’at al-Bahrain observed for the contemporary abrupt disappearance of Type 1 at the time of the emerging periods IIb and IIc (Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian period) mound cemeteries, this major change in social organisa- (Højlund 1994: 130, fig. 390). tion in Dilmun (and Magan) was paralleled by a reorga- The situation at Qala’at al-Bahrain must primarily be nisation of South Mesopotamian trade. While one could explained as changes in taste (in the broadest sense of the characterise the position of Dilmun during the first imports word) but it appears that differences in social status still horizon as that of an intermediary node in bipolar network 45 STEFFEN TERP LAURSEN with Magan (and Melluha?) on the one hand and Acknowledgements Mesopotamian on the other, this changed radically after I would like to thank warmly H.E. Shaykha Mai bint Mohammed Al the emergence of the mound cemeteries. The ceramics of Khalifa, Bahrain Minister of Culture, for generously supporting the ‘ ’ the second imports horizon’s testimony of continued Bahrain Burial Mound Project . I also thank Mr Fouad Noor, Director of the Museum, and Dr Abdulla Al-Sulaiti, Director of Archaeology and relations between Dilmun and South Mesopotamia during Heritage, for allowing me to study the collections and providing me with the period of the compact mound cemeteries and the an office at the Bahrain National Museum. On several occasions I stayed heyday of Dilmun’s Gulf trade come as no surprise. in the visiting researchers’ apartment at the Qala’at al-Bahrain Museum However, with the fading of Type 1 vessels and Umm an- and warm thanks are due to its director Dr Nadine Boksmati-Fattouh. I Nar pottery a wide range of foreign pottery appears in the would also like to take this opportunity to thank warmly the Curator, ‘ ’ Mustapha Salman, for his kind assistance during my work in the mound cemeteries, including some Kaftari-related ware storerooms of the Bahrain National Museum. The following colleagues presumably from the Fars province, Emir Grey vessels are kindly thanked for providing valuable academic assistance without from the eastern borderlands, possibly the Bampur Valley, which this manuscript could not have been completed: Dr R. Carter, Dr and a few vessels of possible Indus Valley origin (Laursen F. Højlund, Dr C. Phillips and Prof. P. Steinkeller. Finally, I would like 2010: 129–132). To sum up, the archaeological evidence to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and instructive comments, which allowed me to improve the original manuscript. supports the assumption that a considerable expansion of the ‘markets’ and potential trade partners of Dilmun unfolded synchronously with the emergence of the compact mound cemeteries.

References Højlund, F. 1989. The Formation of the Dilmun of a proto-cemetery and its genesis, c. Boehmer, M., Pedde, F. & Salje, B. with the State and the Amorite Tribes. PSAS 19: 2050–2000 BC. Pages 115–139 in Weeks, collaboration of Köcher, F. 1995. Uruk: die 45–59. L. (ed.), Death and Burial in Arabia and Gräber. Mainz am Rhein: Deutsches Højlund, F. 1994. Pottery from the Pre-Barbar Beyond: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Archäologisches Institut/Bagdad: Philipp and Barbar periods (I–II). Pages 73–178 in (Society for Arabian Studies Monographs, von Zabern. Højlund, F. & Andersen, H.H. (eds.), 10. BAR International Series, 2107.) Burkholder, G. 1984. An Arabian Collection: Qala’at al-Bahrain — The Northern City (Oxford, Archaeopress). Artifacts from the Eastern Province. Boul- Wall and the Islamic Fortress (Aarhus, Lowe, A. 1986. Bronze Age Burial Mounds on der City, NV: GB publishers. JASP30/1). Bahrain. Iraq 48: 73–84. Carter, R. 2002. Preliminary report on Unar 2 Højlund, F. 2007. The Burial Mounds of McCown, D.E. & Haines, R.C. 1967. Nippur 1: and its ceramics. Bulletin of the Society for Bahrain — Social Complexity in Early Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and Arabian Studies 7/1, no. 1: 5–14. Dilmun. Aarhus: JASP 58. Soundings. Chicago, IL: University of Delougaz, P. 1952. Pottery from the Diyala Højlund, F. 2010. Between the temple and the Chicago Press. Region. (The University of Chicago Or- palace in Tell F6, Failaka, Kuwait: Two Mackay, E.J.H. 1929. The Islands of Bahrain. iental Institute Publications, 37.) Chicago, seasons of excavation by the Kuwait-Dan- Pages 1–30 in Mackay, E.J.H., Harding, L. IL: The University of Chicago Press. ish Mission, 2008–2009. Paper read at the & Petrie, F. (eds.), Bahrain and Hamamieh. Gasche, H. 1973. Mémoires de la Délégation Seminar for Arabian Studies on 23 July (London, British School of Archaeology in Archéologique en Iran. Vol. XLVII. Mis- 2010, The British Museum, London. Egypt). sion de Susiane — Ville Royale de Suse I — Hrouda, B. 1977. Keramik (‘Obed-Neu/ McMahon, A. 2006. Nippur V — The Early La Poterie E´lamite — Du Deuxie`me Spätbabylonisch). Pages 55–63 in Hrouda, Dynastic to Akkadian Transition — The Mille´naire a. J.C. (1st edition.) Leiden: E.J. B. (ed.), Isin-Isan Bahriat 1: Die Ergebnisse area WF Soundings at Nippur. (University Brill. der Ausgrabungen 1973–1974 (Munich, of Chicago Oriental institute publications, Genouillac, H. 1936. Fouilles de Telloh. Sous Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der 129.) Chicago, IL: Oriental institute of the la dir. de H. de Genouillac; Avec la Wissenschaften). University of Chicago. collaboration de A. Parrot. Paris: Paul Laursen, S. 2008. Early Dilmun and its rulers: McSweeney, K., Méry, S. & Macchiarelli, R. Geuthner. new evidence of the burial mounds of the 2008. Rewriting the end of the Early Gibson, M. 1972a. The City and Area of Kish. elite and the development of social com- Bronze Age in the United Arab Emirates Miami, FL: Field Research Projects. plexity, c.2200–1750 BC. AAE 19: 156– through the anthropological and artefactual Gibson, M. 1972b. Umm el-Jīr, a Town in 167. evaluation of two collective Umm an-Nar Akkad. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31/ Laursen, S. 2009. The decline of Magan and graves at Hili (eastern region of Abu 4: 237–294. the rise of Dilmun: Umm an-Nar ceramics Dhabi). AAE 19: 1–14. Heimpel, W. 1987. Das Untere Meer. Zeitsch- from the burial mounds of Bahrain, c. Méry, S., McSweeney, K., Van Der Leeuw, S. rift für Assyriologie 77: 22–91. 2250–2000 BC. AAE 20: 134–155. & Al Tikriti, W.Y. 2004. New Approaches Laursen, S. 2010. The emergence of mound to a Collective Grave from the Umm an- cemeteries in Early Dilmun: New evidence

46 MESOPOTAMIAN CERAMICS FROM THE BURIAL MOUNDS OF BAHRAIN

Nar Period at Hili (UAE). Paléorient 30: Steinkeller, P. 2004. Towards a Deﬁnition of Southwest Asia. Studies in commemoration 163–178. Private Economic Activity in Third of E.C.L. During Caspers (1934–1996). Oppenheim, L. 1954. The seafaring merchants Millennium Babylonia. Pages 91–112 in (Society for Arabian Studies Monographs, of Ur. Journal of the American Oriental Rollinger, R. & Ulf, C. (eds.), Commerce 7. BAR International Series, 1826.) Society 74: 6–17. and Monetary Systems in the Ancient (Oxford, Archaeopress). Phillips, C.S. 1997. The pattern of settlement in World: Means of Transmission and Cul- Woolley, C.L. 1934. Ur Excavations — The the Wadi al-Qawr. PSAS 27: 205–218. tural Interaction. Proceedings of the Fifth Royal Cemetery. Oxford: British Museum/ Pic, M. 2008: La Céramique du tell F6, fouilles Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Museum of the University of Pennsylvania françaises. Pages 33–170 in Calvet, Y. & Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project. to Mesopotamia. Pic, M. (eds.), Failaka fouilles Françaises (Munich, Franz Steiner Verlag.) Wright, R. 1998. Crafting Social Identity in Ur 1984–1988, Matériel céramique du temple- Steinkeller, P. in press. Puzur-Inßußinak at III Southern Mesopotamia. Archaeological tour et épigraphie. (Travaux de la Maison Susa: A Pivotal Episode of Early Elamite Papers of the American Anthropological de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 48.) History Reconsidered. Paper read on the Association 8: 57–69. (Lyon, MOM). 15th December 2010 at the conference Zarins, J. 1989. Eastern Saudi Arabia and Pollock, S. 1985. Chronology of the Royal Susa and Elam – Archaeological, Philo- External Relations: selected ceramic, stea- Cemetery of Ur. Iraq 47: 129–158. logical, Historical and Geographical per- tite and textural evidence — 3500–1900 B. Postgate, J.N. 1992. Early Mesopotamia: Soci- spectives held in Gent, Belgium. C. Pages 74–103 in Frifelt, K. & Sørensen, ety and Economy at the Dawn of History. Al-Tikriti, W.Y. & Méry, S. 2000. Tomb N at P. (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1985 London: Routledge. Hili and the question of the subterranean (Bath, Nordic Institute of Asian Studies). Potts, D.T. 1990. A Prehistoric Mound in the graves during the Umm an-Nar Period. Zarins, J. 2008. Magan Shipbuilders at the Emirate of Umm al-Quiwain U.A.E. — PSAS 30: 205–219. Ur III Lagash State Dockyard (2062– Excavations at Tell Abraq in 1989. Vojens, Van Ess, M. 1988. Keramik von der Ur III- 2025 B.C.). Pages 230–235 in Olijdam, Denmark: Munksgaard. und altbabylonischen Zeit aus dem E. & Spoor, R.H. (eds.), Intercultural Reade, J. & Burleigh, R. 1978. The Aali Suchgraben im Planquadrat P XIII in Relation between South and Southwest Cemetery: Old excavations, Ivory and Uruk-Warka. Baghdad Mitteilungen 19: Asia. Studies in commemorations of Radiocarbon Dating. Journal of Oman 443–463. E.C.L. During Caspers (1934–1996). Studies 4: 75–83. Vosmer, T. 2008. Shipping in the Bronze Age: (Society for Arabian Studies Mono- Steinkeller, P. 1996. The Organization of Crafts How Large was a 60-gur Ship? Pages 230– graphs, 7. BAR International Series, in Third Millennium Babylonia: The Case 235 in Olijdam, E. & Spoor, R.H. (eds.), 1826.) (Oxford, Archaeopress). of Potters. AOF 23: 232–253. Intercultural Relation between South and