Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXII, 1997 THE IRANIAN IRON AGE AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SETTLEMENT IN SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA BY Peter MAGEE University of Sydney Introduction1 Within West Asian archaeology, research into the Iron Age of South- eastern Arabia (or Oman Peninsula) has recently emerged as an area of interest. From tentative beginnings in the 1960s, a wealth of archaeological material now exists that allows an understanding of the processes of domestic cultural change in this region. From the beginnings of research the influence of Iran on the material culture of this region was recognised, as was the chronological importance of these contacts. The purpose of this paper is to focus on cross-Gulf contacts in the Iron Age and their impor- tance in dating the recently re-dated Rumeilah assemblage (Boucharlat and Lombard 1991). It must be emphasised that research into this region is still at a formative stage; if this paper generates further discussions and even contradictions to the ideas presented here, it will have achieved its purpose. Rumeilah and the Iron Age of Southeastern Arabia Since 1985, archaeologists working in Southeastern Arabia have bene- fited greatly from the evidence uncovered by the French Archaeological 1 The term “Southeastern Arabia” is used here to denote the area sometimes referred to as the Oman Peninsula. In essence, this area is the modern countries of the Sultanate of Oman and the United Arab Emirates. This paper grew out of the author’s Phd dissertation (Magee 1995). I would like to take the opportunity to thank Professor D.T. Potts (Sydney) who, in addition to introducing me to the archaeology of Southeastern Arabia and provid- ing me with complete access to the material from Tell Abraq, kindly read drafts of this article. Professor C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (Harvard) kindly provided full access to the unpublished Iron Age material from Tepe Yahya in Iran, some of which is published here, as well as generously providing for my stay in Cambridge, Mass. A complete study of the material from Tepe Yahya II and III is in progress and a final publication is forthcoming. 92 P. MAGEE Fig. 1. Map Showing Principal Sites in Iran and Southeastern Arabia. THE IRANIAN IRON AGE AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA 93 Mission’s excavations at Rumeilah (Boucharlat and Lombard 1985) (fig. 1). Although Iron Age remains in this region are widespread, there was, until the excavation of Rumeilah, no excavated stratified site which would permit material collected on survey and excavated from single period sites to be dated to a period within the Iron Age. Two major periods of occupa- tion were attested at Rumeilah. These are called Rumeilah I and II and each is characterised by certain ceramic wares, decoration and shapes (Boucharlat and Lombard 1985: 53-60). Excavations since 1985, particu- larly at Tell Abraq, have reinforced the notion of a Rumeilah I and II assemblage (Potts 1990b, 1991; Magee in press). In the case of Tell Abraq and Shimal (Velde 1992) archaeological investigations have suggested that a pre-Rumeilah element is present and that occupation at Rumeilah does not cover the entire Iron Age (Magee 1994). The chronology of the Rumeilah I and II assemblages has changed from the time they were first isolated. Using radiocarbon dates, the Rumeilah I assemblage was initially dated from 1000/900 B.C. to 800/700 B.C. while the Rumeilah II assemblage was dated from 800/700 B.C. to 500/400 B.C. (Boucharlat and Lombard 1985: 50-51). These dates were radically altered with the publication of new calibration curves in 1986 (Stuiver and Pear- son 1986). Period I at Rumeilah was re-dated from 1350/1300 B.C. to 1000/950 B.C. and Rumeilah Period II was re-dated from 1000/950 B.C. to 350/300 B.C. (Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: Tab. 4). In this paper we would like to explore the basis for this dating and suggest, on the basis of a re-examination of foreign parallels and C-14 dates, that preference should be given to a lower dating for both assemblages. The Chronology of Rumeilah I In addition to C-14 data (which is discussed below), several finds from Rumeilah and other sites provide evidence on the chronology of this cul- tural horizon. In the absence of any well dated historical fix-point in Southeast Arabian prehistory, the search for external parallels to date local assemblages is a necessary exercise. The influence of Iranian Iron Age ceramics on the ceramic corpus of Southeastern Arabia has been recog- nised since the culture came to light (Humphries 1974: 49-53; Lombard 1985: 178; Kroll 1991). Contrary to Lombard (1985: 178), we would argue that the clearest evidence of this influence is seen in bridged and 94 P. MAGEE Fig. 2. Painted Bridged Spouted and Plain Spouted Vessels from Southeastern Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. A = Hasunlu IV (after Dyson 1964: fig. 4.12). B, C, E, G = Rumeilah I (after Boucharlat and Lombard 1985: Pl. 51.3, Pl. 50.2, pl. 50.1, Pl. 49.12). D, F = Sialk (after Ghirshman 1939: Pl LXXVII. s975, Pl. LXXXVII. s1421, H = Isa Town, Bahrain (after Lombard and Kervran 1989: No. 95). THE IRANIAN IRON AGE AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA 95 unbridged spouted vessels. These distinctive forms have been found in Rumeilah I (fig. 2b, g), Hili 2 (Rahman 1980: 18) and Lizq (Kroll 1991: fig. 1) in Southeastern Arabia, as well as on Bahrain (fig. 2h). Comparison to bridged spouted vessels in Iran, as seen in Figure 2, is persuasive evi- dence of Iranian influence on Southeast Arabian Iron Age ceramics. Although the painted schemes found on Southeast Arabian examples are locally inspired, the distinctive bridged spout and globular form (e.g. fig. 2b. Cf. fig. 2a) betray clear evidence of Iranian inspiration in their design. Although these comparisons have been generally recognised by schol- ars (e.g. Kroll 1991; Potts 1990a: 378), their chronological importance has not been fully noted. In Cuyler Young’s seminal treatment of the chronol- ogy of the West Iranian Iron Age, bridged spouted vessels were consid- ered distinctive to Hasanlu IV and part of the Late Western Grey Ware Horizon (Cuyler Young 1965: fig. 6.8) or Dyson’s Iron II period (Dyson 1964, 1965, 1989: 5)2. Excavations by Muscarella at Dinhka Tepe rein- forced this conclusion. Bridged spouted vessels were completely absent from the Dinkha III (Iron I), but plentiful in the Dinkha II (Iron II) assem- blages (Muscarella 1974: 37, 58). As bridged spouted vessels are unknown prior to the Rumeilah I horizon in Southeastern Arabia, a cross- Gulf synchronisation of Rumeilah I with the Iranian Iron II period is strongly suggested. Painted simple spouted vessels have also been recovered from Rumeilah I (fig. 2c, e). The painted schemes on these vessels closely par- allel those found in West Iran in the Iron II period. Particular attention can be drawn to the “eye” motif recovered on several vessel spouts (fig. 2c, e). This decorative scheme has exact parallels in Necropolis B at Sialk (or Sialk VI) (fig. 2d, f) where the motif is found on a number of examples recovered from Tomb 15 (Ghirshman 1939: Pl. LIV.s800, s804). Metal objects from this tomb have been discussed by Dyson and Muscarella 2 The position of bridged spouted vessels within the IVA, IVB and IVC sequence sug- gested for Hasanlu (Dyson 1989) is unclear. One may presume that as bridged spouted vessels were considered part of the assemblage from the level which was destroyed in 800 B.C. that they belong to the IVB assemblage. The arguments presented by Medvedskaya (1988, 1991) on the destruction of Hasanlu IV and argued against by Dyson and Mus- carella (1989) are not directly relevant here. If Hasanlu IV was destroyed in the late eighth century B.C., as suggested by Medvedskaya, or around 800 B.C., as maintained by Dyson and Muscarella, it does not change the chronological significance of bridged spouted ves- sels in the Rumeilah I horizon. 96 P. MAGEE (1989: 16) with a view to establishing their relationship with Hasanlu IVB. They suggested a date in the ninth or eighth centuries B.C. for the tomb (Dyson and Muscarella 1989: 16). Boehmer (1966: 804-5) has com- pared the metal objects found in this tomb to objects illustrated in the reliefs of Tiglathpileser III (745 B.C.-727 B.C.) and Sargon II (712 B.C.- 705 B.C.), thus supporting an eighth century date. More generally, Cuyler Young considered Sialk VI to be roughly contemporary with Hasunlu IV on the basis of ceramics (Cuyler Young 1965: fig. 14); a dating followed by Medvedskaya (1986: 89) who suggested a broad dating of 1000 B.C. to 700 B.C. The above ceramic comparisons suggest a chronological synchronism between the Iron II period in Iran and Rumeilah I. In absolute terms the beginning date for this horizon can be set at c. 1100/1000 B.C. (Dyson 1989: 5). The end-date of Rumeilah I is provided by the stratigraphic sequence at Rumeilah. As there was no break between Periods I and II, it can be assumed that the beginning date for Rumeilah II operates as the end date for Rumeilah I (Boucharlat and Lombard 1985: 50). Similarly, at Tell Abraq, the Rumeilah II deposits, although much disturbed, were located directly above the Rumeilah I deposits (Magee 1995). Therefore, the beginning date of the Rumeilah II (c. 600 B.C., below) operates as the end date for Rumeilah I. The suggested chronology of c.1100/1000 B.C.