The Iranian Iron Iii Chronology at Muweilah in the Emirate of Sharjah*†

chapter ten

THE IRANIAN IRON III CHRONOLOGY AT MUWEILAH IN THE EMIRATE OF SHARJAH*†

Abstract: The site of Muweilah in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, has been published by its excavator Peter Magee over a number of years as having ourished during the Iron II period of the UAE/Oman, Arabian chronological system, ca. 1100/ 1000–600bc. He has further asserted that within this long period, Muweilah’s existence can be dated to the time of the north-western Iranian Iron II period, which terminated ca. 800bc, dating his site speci cally to ca. 920–770bc. Evidence used to a rm the Iranian Iron II chronology includes Iranian and local architecture and pottery parallels, and C 14 data. I rejected the viability and relevance of these parallels in print in 2003, to which Magee responded, rea rming his 10th-early 8th- century bc chronology.Here I respond to the excavator’s ongoing defence, and argue for a considerably later north-western Iranian Iron III date for Muweilah.

The Background

Reacting to two of Peter Magee’s articles (of 1997 and 2001) about his site Muweilah in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, I challenged the chronology he presented, claiming it was too high, and disagreed with his cultural/histori- cal conclusions relating to the nature and date of the pottery and architecture recovered.1 Magee responded to my challenge,2 vigorously defending (appropriately) his position. Here I ofer my response to his 2005 defence: I have not changed my mind regarding his dating of Muweilah and present

* This article originally appeared as “The Iranian Iron III Chronology at Muweilah in the Emirate of Sharjah,” Ancient West and East 7 (2008): 189–202. † I want to thank Ernie Haerinck and Dan Potts for making suggestions, suggesting bibliography, and sharing their views with me. And Peter Magee for graciously allowing me to publish photographs from his publications. 1 Muscarella 2003, 249–250, n. 102. My critique was presented briey in a footnote in an article a new C 14 date recently proclaimed by the excavators of Gordion in Anatolia, arguing that it was too high. The footnote was presented to give another example of a C 14 date that I believed to be incorrect. I rst encountered Muweilah at a Bryn Mawr lecture by Peter Magee in October 2002, where I rst expressed (verbally) my disagreements about the chronology he assigned to Muweilah’s and architecture. 2 Magee 2005a. 352 chapter ten my arguments for rejection here. Beginning with his rst reports Magee has continuously reported that Muweilah came into existence during the UAE/Oman, Arabian Iron II period, which he dates from ca. 1100/1000 to 600bc.3 The reader must understand from the beginning of the discussion that this chronological period, Iron II, is alleged to have lasted for 500 years; and that in Iran this same 500-year time-span encompasses two separate and distinct cultural and chronological periods, Iron II and Iron III—crucial issues not articulated by Magee. Within that broad Arabian Iron II time frame he speci cally situates Muweilah’s construction and existence con- temporary with the chronology of the Iranian Iron II period, with Hasanlu Period IV, which terminated ca. 800bc (i.e. 200 years earlier than the appar- ent termination of the Iron II period in Arabian terminology).4

The Ceramics

One signi cant component of the collective evidence he presents is that Muweilah has vessels with ‘bridged spouts’ (bridged describes the unit that connects the spout to the rim), which to him are forms typical of the Iranian Iron II period (Fig. 1).5 However, vessels with a bridged horizontal spout are a classic characteristic form of the Iranian Iron II period (Fig. 3). And although many of the spouts of the published Muweilah examples are broken-away, some are intact and reveal, not a horizontal but an upright, vertical spout— a characteristic not of the Iranian Iron II period, but of Iron III. He states that some Muweilah examples have a short bridge, others have no bridge. But Muweilah has no typical Iranian Iron II-form horizontal spouts. Magee also presents references and drawings of vessels from Rumeilah, a nearby site, as relevant comparanda for his asserted UAE and Iranian Iron II chronology there also.6 None has a bridged horizontal spout, and the examples presented are painted (as at Muweilah7—Fig. 2), which decoration is a

3 Magee 1996a, 208; 1996b, 246, 249; 1997, 96; 1999, 44; 2002, 161; 2004, 32; 2005a, 161; 96. 4 I am not a scholar of Arabian archaeology and I found it confusing that the very same terminology used in Iranian archaeology, Iron I, II, III, is employed in Arabia. For a discussion of the Iranian/Hasanlu Iron Age terminology and problems, see Muscarella 2006. 5 Magee 1996a, 203, 205–206, gs. 16–17; 1999, 45, gs. 5–6; 2001, 121, 123, g. 12; 2002, 164– 165, g. 2; 2005a, 165, g. 1, right (compare the Hasanlu vessel at the right); 2005b, 99, 112, gs. 5 (Fig. 1 in this paper), 20; Magee et al. 2002, 141, g. 13. 6 Magee 1996a, 208; 1996b, 246–248, g. 7.B, C, E, G; 1997, 93–95, g. 2; 2005a, 165, g. 1, centre; see also Boucharlat and Lombard 2001, 218, g. 11. 7 Magee 1999, 45, g. 5; 2005b, 100, g. 6.