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 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 . 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 Professor C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (Harvard) kindly provided full access to the unpublished Iron Age material from Tepe Yahya in Iran, some of which is published here, as well as generously providing for my stay in Cambridge, Mass.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 (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, 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. to c. 600 B.C. for Rumeilah I runs contrary to that suggested by Boucharlat and Lombard (1991). According to their scheme, Rumeilah I extends from 1350/1300 B.C. to 1000/950 B.C. and can be split into two phases: 1A and 1B (Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: Tab. 4). The authors note, however, that these new phases were based exclusively upon radiocarbon determinations (Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: 312). We would argue, therefore, that these phases must be considered a single and discrete material culture assemblage. As the cited foreign parallels indicate a date 300 years later than the dates arrived at by Boucharlat and Lombard, an examination of the C-14 dates used to date this assemblage is necessary. In Table 1 the radiocarbon determinations used for Rumeilah I (Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: Tab. 1) are seen. The redating of Period I is obviously based on the highest possible date for three of the samples: Ly 3783, 3078 and 3784. The notion that these dates represent a possible range for each sample, rather than the possible duration of occupation, has been overlooked. The only sample that could support a 1300 B.C. to 1000 THE IRANIAN IRON AGE AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA 97

B.C. date for Rumeilah I is Ly 3076. It would seem injudicious to base the dating of an entire phase on one single date when other, more reliable, dates are available. Particular attention must be paid to Ly 3782, the only date seed used for radiocarbon analysis3. This not only gives the latest date for Rumeilah I, but must surely be used to date the entire phase since Boucharlat and Lombard note that the internal dating of Rumeilah I is based on radiocarbon determinations alone (i.e there is no material cul- ture difference within Rumeilah I). Furthermore, and most importantly, samples such as date seeds are much more reliable indicators of chronol- ogy as there is not the problem of the material being kept and used sev- eral hundred years after it was initially collected. The importance of this phenomenon was first recognised by Johnson over 30 years ago who cautioned that a C-14 date “…does not date a site or building, or a grave or a level. The date is that of the sample and it is the task of the archae- ologist to discover the true relationship between the sample and the area or place it came from” (Johnson 1965: 776). A relevant archaeological parallel is the dating of the Umm an-Nar tower at Tell Abraq (Potts in press). Three radiocarbon samples were taken from the same deposit in

3 The stratigraphic position of Ly. 3782 is critical to the arguments that follow. The sample was recovered from Chantier 4. This Chantier is attributed solely to Rumeilah I and consisted of one house which “seemed to have been used during Period I” (Bouchar- lat and Lombard 1985: 49). In their discussion of the radiocarbon samples from Chantier 4, Boucharlat and Lombard state that two wood samples (Ly 3783 and 3076) came from “l’intérieur d’un foyer construit (Ly 3076) et à l’exterieur de celui-ci (Ly 3783)” both belonging, however, to “une même couche attribué au deuxième état de la construction”, the third sample, the date seed (Ly 3782), was found “sur un sol situé à l’opposé du foyer précédent, et à l’extérieur de la maison” (Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: 306). They then conclude, in reference to the provenance of Ly 3782, “En l’absence de relation strati- graphique directe, la succession des constructions et l’altitude relative du sol nous avaient incités à attribuer également ce niveau à la phase 2 du bâtiment” i.e the same building phase as Ly 3783 and 3076. However “La datation obtenue (from Ly 3782) beaucoup plus récente que les deux autres, infirme cette hypothese. Il faut sans aucun doute dissocier ce secteur extérieur du bâtiment lui-même et l’associer au complexe du chantier 2” (i.e a Rumeilah Period II deposit) (Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: 306). These arguments are clearly circular, rather than accepting that Ly 3782 gave a date relevant to Chantier 4 (from where it came) and thus dating the Rumeilah I context, they have placed Ly 3782 into a later context because it gave a later date than the other two samples from Chantier 4. Unless one is to accept that radiocarbon samples should be stratigraphically placed according to their age, Lombard and Boucharlat’s comments must be rejected. Ly 3782 provides, therefore, a valid date for Rumeilah Period I. 98 P. MAGEE the tower. One sample, from a piece of wood charcoal, gave a determi- nation of 2570-2510 B.C. (K 5582) while two date seeds, from the same deposit, gave determinations of 2190-2140 B.C. (K5577) and 2170-2140 B.C. (K5578). Potts concluded that “whereas wood can be several hun- dred years old before it is burnt (i.e. timbers from a boat or building) date stones are much more likely to give one a date of great immediacy, given that the dates in question had probably been eaten and their stones thrown directly into a fire or burned shortly thereafter” (Potts in press). To this example can be added the observations of Moore et al. concern- ing the C-14 dating of Abu Hureyra; an Epipaleolithic site in Syria. Einkorn grains from that site gave much later dates than wood charcoal samples taken from a contemporary deposit (Moore et al. 1986: 1072- 1074). The same principle can be applied to the determination provided by Ly 3782. It is not only the most reliable C-14 sample for dating Rumeilah I, but also provides the latest date for that phase. The c. 860- 780 B.C. date provided by Ly 3782 is in complete accordance with the Iranian parallels suggested above and the chronological scheme sug- gested here. For the reasons stated above, Boucharlat and Lombard’s re-dating of Rumeilah I must be rejected. The most reliable radiocarbon date from Rumeilah I supports the dating provided by the cited parallels. Conse- quently, a date of c. 1100/1000 B.C. for the beginning of Rumeilah I is maintained. By suggesting a date of 1100/1000 B.C. to 600 B.C. for Rumeilah I, it is necessary to re-examine the chronology of Rumeilah II, since if a lower date for Rumeilah I is accepted, a lowering of the Rumeilah II date must follow.

The Chronology of Rumeilah II.

Wheel-made bowls with vertically offset rims, tulip bowls and bowls with “s” carinated rims (fig. 3) are considered leitfossils for the Rumeilah II assemblage (Boucharlat and Lombard 1985: Pls. 57-58). The normal decoration for these types from Rumeilah is a dark red, highly burnished slip (Lombard 1985: 180). Examination of published and unpublished Iron Age assemblages in Iran suggests that parallels to these forms — in shape and decoration — are recovered in contexts dated between c. 600 B.C. and 300 B.C. THE IRANIAN IRON AGE AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA 99

Fig. 3. Rumeilah II Forms from Rumeilah (after Boucharlat and Lombard 1985: Pls. 57-58) 100 P. MAGEE

Examples of bowls with vertically offset rims are found in Achaemenid Iran and Bahrain. Multiple examples of the shape have been recovered from Period II at Tepe Yahya in Kerman (fig. 4). A general dating to the Achaemenid period for this period at Tepe Yahya seems likely (Magee n.d.a)4. They have also been found at Qala’at al-Bahrain (Høljund and Andersen 1994: Nos 1164-1165) where two examples were found in Period IVd or the Achaemenid period (Høljund and Andersen 1994: 237-238). Par- allels can also be drawn to the open collared bowls from Mundigak (Vogel- sang 1985: fig. 1) where examples are “…slipped or self slipped mostly plain…generally smoothed especially on the upper part of the exterior” (Vogelsang 1985: 65). Vogelsang attributes them to the Achaemenid period, although he notes that they might have an earlier origin. The earlier exam- ples, however, are handmade as opposed to the fast wheel made examples that date to the Achaemenid period (Vogelsang 1985: 66). The bowl with “s” carinated rim, also a leitfossil for Rumeilah II (fig. 3), is a common form in Achaemenid/Late Iron Age Iran. Numerous exam- ples occur in Tepe Yahya Period II (fig. 5). Similar shaped examples are found at Godin Tepe II (Cuyler Young 1974: fig. 46.2, 11, 20, fig. 47.11) and Baba Jan I (Goff 1978: fig. 4.16-17). At the latter two sites they are dated from the sixth to fifth centuries B.C.5 Limited examples, described as

4 The dating of Tepe Yahya period II to the Achaemenid period is based on examina- tion of the material stored in the Peabody Museum, Harvard University. In addition to forms which are paralleled in Achaemenid deposits elsewhere in Iran, a socketed trilobate arrowhead was also recovered (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1970: 22). However, a problem exists when we consider how late the period II assemblage at Tepe Yahya continues. Not only is the stratigraphic analysis of period II incomplete, but many parallels exist between period II material and material from (as noted by Lamberg-Karlovsky 1970: 22, note 8). Due to the 280 B.C. destruction it cannot be stated with certainty which material at Pasargadae dates to the Achaemenid or post-Achaemenid periods; in fact it was difficult to separate the material dated to Pasargadae period II (520-280 B.C.) from material dated to period III (280-180 B.C.) (Stronach 1978: 183). More recently Taddei has suggested a low- ering of the date of Pasargadae period II based on the recovery of a stone lid at the site (Taddei 1994). Despite these problems in ascertaining the end-date for period II at Tepe Yahya, there is little doubt that it does not start before the sixth century B.C. at the earliest. 5 A sixth to fifth century B.C. date for the relevant Godin Tepe assemblage is sug- gested by Goff in her examination of the material from Baba Jan I (Goff 1978: 5). In sug- gesting, however, that the relevant shapes from Godin Tepe date to the fifth and sixth cen- turies I am not suggesting that the entire Godin II assemblage can be dated similarly. It is clear from the work in Ingraham cited in Brown (1990) that the Godin II structure has a “a complex evolution probably spanning a considerable length of time” (Brown 1990: 67). THE IRANIAN IRON AGE AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA 101 Fig. 4. Bowls with vertically offset rims from Tepe Yahya (unpublished) 102 P. MAGEE

Fig. 5. “S” carinated rim bowls from Tepe Yahya. unpublished

“Red brown slip on both surfaces. Highly burnished” and “Red slipped on both sides. Highly polished”, have also been recovered in the Bakhtiari Mountain region in Iran (Zagarell 1982: 45, fig. 8.2, 5). Zagarell considers these examples as part of his Burnished Red Ware Group and, based on comparison to material from Zendan-i Suleiman, Tureng Tepe, Baba Jan and Ziwiye, dates the material from “the 6th (to) early 5th century of the region” (Zagarell 1982: 46). Examples are also known from Achaemenid and post-Achaemenid deposits at Pasargadae (Stronach 1978: fig. 107.8- 10). Limited examples of the shape have also been found at Tal-i Zohak in the Fasa plain of Southern Iran from where Hansman describes two exam- ples as “red/brown, fine; surface same, burnished” and “reddish brown, fine; surface same with reddish brown slip” (Hansman 1979: fig. 3.3, 4). Hansman dates both examples to the Achaemenid period (Hansman 1979: 299-301). A single example of the shape with a “brown wash” came from the Eastern Fortification of Schmidt’s excavations at (Schmidt 1957: Pl. 74.1) and in the north of Iran, examples have been recovered THE IRANIAN IRON AGE AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA 103 from the German team’s work at Tepe Halaqu (Kroll 1984: Abb. 3.8-9) where they are dated to the Achaemenid period. Despite the fact that the distribution of these two types is widespread in Iran, the chronology and decoration of all known examples is extremely similar; particularly in the use of a burnished red-brown slip. Considera- tion of the shapes, coupled with the distinctive decoration in which they are found, suggests that the comparable examples recovered in Rumeilah II (fig. 3) fall into this ceramic complex and are thus indicative of con- temporary Iranian influence. Taken as a ceramic complex indicative of a defined period of time, these types appear chronologically limited from the 6th to the 4th centuries B.C., or in historical terms, the Achaemenid period. Importantly, this date is based not just on the appearance of exam- ples at Iranian sites which are dated by ceramic comparisons to other sites, but also on their appearance at sites such as Persepolis which are dated to the Achaemenid period on independent grounds.

Fig. 6. Socketed Trilobate Arrowheads. A, B = Rumeilah II (after Boucharlat and Lombard 1985: Pl. 62.9-10). C = Persepolis (after Schmidt 1957: Pl. 76.7).

The evidence from Iran suggests, therefore, that the forms considered dis- tinctive to Rumeilah II by Boucharlat and Lombard do not date earlier than 600 B.C.6 Non ceramic finds confirm this date. Socketed trilobate arrow- heads have been recovered from Period II deposits at Rumeilah (fig. 6a, b).

6 The position of these Rumeilah II leitfossils within the IIA, IIB and IIC sequence suggested by Boucharlat and Lombard is of obvious importance. The re-periodisation for Rumeilah II was based on stratigraphic evidence (Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: 312). If, of course, it could be demonstrated that these leitfossils were limited to the later phases of Period II, then the arguments presented here concerning the dating of Period II would be less effective. This is not the case. In Benoist’s examination of the pottery from Rumeilah (Benoist 1991: Vol. 2: 53) it is clear that the shapes under discussion are found as early as Period IIA. 104 P. MAGEE

As Boucharlat and Lombard note (Boucharlat and Lombard 1985: 60), sim- ilar examples are known at Persepolis (fig. 6c) and, according to Cleuziou (1977: 194), the type dates between the 6th and 4th centuries B.C. A date of 600 B.C. for the beginning of the Rumeilah II period runs contrary to the chronology presented by Boucharlat and Lombard (1991). In their revised chronology, Period II was dated from c. 1000/950 to 350/300 B.C. and split into three phases: IIA, IIB and IIC (Boucharlat and Lombard 1985: Tab. 3). This redating and re-periodisation is completely untenable. As evidenced by the discussion of the ceramics, the material from Rumeilah Period II is best paralleled by material dating from c. 600 to c. 300 B.C. in Iran. The socketed trilobate arrowheads, found in Rumeilah II deposits, cannot conceivably date as early as 1000 B.C. according to Cleuziou’s typology and other well dated examples. It is quite clear that Boucharlat and Lombard have redated and re-peri- odised Period II on the basis of radiocarbon data alone. Six radiocarbon samples are relevant (Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: Tab. 1) and these are seen in Table 2. At first glance, the dates from many of the samples appear to confirm the high dating proposed by Boucharlat and Lombard. However, given the com- parisons presented above, a degree of caution appears necessary when inter- preting these high dates. It is important to consider the fact that, by Period II, the site had already been occupied for several hundred years. In an envi- ronment where wood resources are limited the possibility that wood would be re-used must be seriously considered. We have noted above that wood- charcoal radiocarbon dates from Rumeilah I and the Umm an-Nar tower at Tell Abraq are 300-400 years earlier than those of date-seeds. The latest dates for Rumeilah II, Ly 3780 and Ly 3778, appear to conform with the comparandae presented above and it is these dates which, we would argue, give a true indication of the absolute chronology of Period II at Rumeilah.

Conclusions

Southeastern Arabia was never a closed cultural system; interaction with Iran and other parts of Western Asia has provided important archae- ological evidence that not only allows us to document this interaction but also to examine its chronological importance. In this paper, we have been principally concerned with the latter facet of the archaeological evidence. THE IRANIAN IRON AGE AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA 105

The chronological inferences provided by Iranian inspired material are a prime source of evidence for dating the Iron Age in Southeastern Arabia. Other issues, such as the inferences which can be drawn concerning polit- ical relationships between Iran and Southeastern Arabia, have not been fully explored here. A study of such issues is, however, shortly forthcom- ing (Magee n.d.b.). The focus upon the chronological inferences which can be drawn from Iranian parallels has provided new evidence on the dat- ing of the Rumeilah assemblage. While it is undeniable that the use of C- 14 chronology is one of the greatest tools available for archaeologists, it is clear from our examination of the dating of the Rumeilah assemblage that C-14 dates must be used critically if they are to give an accurate chrono- logical assessment. That is not to argue, however, that radiocarbon deter- minations should be discarded if they do not agree with other dating evi- dence. Rather, C-14 dates should be viewed as one of many dating instruments and must be assessed in light of other, and possibly militating, factors. In the evidence presented above, an examination of the possible use and discard of the organic material used to date the Rumeilah assem- blage, supports a chronology much later than that suggested by Boucharlat and Lombard. The suggested chronology sees Rumeilah I extending from c. 1100/1000 to c. 600 B.C. and Rumeilah II extending from c. 600 to c. 300 B.C. This lower chronology is in perfect accordance with other dating evidence, in this case, comparison to the relatively well-dated Iranian archaeological sequence.

References

Benoist, A. 1991, La Céramique de Rumeilah et son Evolution. Contribution à la Définition de l’Age du Fer dans la Péninsule Arabique, Masters Thesis, Uni- versity of Paris I Bibby, G. 1967, Arabian Gulf Archaeology, Kuml 1966, 144-152 Boehmer, R.M. 1966, Zur Datierung der Nekropole B von Tepe Sialk, Archäolo- gischer Anzeiger, 4, 802-822 Boucharlat, R. and Lombard, P. 1985, The Oasis of al-Ain in the Iron Age: Exca- vations at Rumeilah, 1981-1983, Survey at Hili 14, Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates, 4, 44-73 Boucharlat, R. and Lombard, P. 1991, Datations Absolues de Rumeilah et Chron- logie de l’Age du Fer dans la Péninsule d’Oman, in Schippmann, K., Her- ling, A. and Salles, J.F. (eds.) Golf Archäologie, Mesopotamien, Iran, Kuwait, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Oman, Göttingen, 301-314 106 P. MAGEE

Brown, S.C. 1990, Media in the Achaemenid Period: The Late Iron Age in Cen- tral West Iran, in Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H. and Kuhrt, A. (eds.) Achaemenid History IV. Centre and Periphery, Leiden, 63-76 Cattenat, A. and Gardin, J.C. 1977, Diffusion Comparée de Quelques Genres de Poterie Caractéristiques de l’Époque Achéménide sur le Plateau Iranien et en Asie Centrale, in Deshayes, J. (ed.) Le Plateau Iranien et l’Asie Centrale, des Origines à la Conquête Islamique, Paris, 225-248 Cleuziou, S. 1977, Les Pointes de flèches “Scythiques” au Proche et Moyen Orient, in Deshayes, J. (ed.) Le Plateau Iranien et l’Asie Centrale, des Ori- gines à la Conquête Islamique Paris, 187-199 Cuyler Young, T. 1965, A Comparative Ceramic Chronology for Western Iran, 1500-500 B.C., Iran, III, 53-87 Cuyler Young, T. 1969, Excavations at Godin Tepe: First Progess Report, Ontario Cuyler Young, T. 1974, Excavations at Godin Tepe: 2nd Progess Report, Ontario Dyson, R. H. Jr. 1964, Notes on Weapons and Chronology in Northern Iran around 1000 B.C, in Mellinck, J. (ed.) Dark Ages and Nomads, Istanbul, 32-46 Dyson, R.H. Jr. 1965, Problems of Protohistoric Iran as seen from Hasanlu, Jour- nal of Near Eastern Studies, XXIV, 193-217 Dyson, R.H. Jr. 1989, Rediscovering Hasanlu, Expedition, 31(2-3), 3-12 Dyson, R.H. Jr. and Muscarella, O.W. 1989, Constructing the Chronology and Historical Implications of Hasanlu IV, Iran, XXVII, 1-27 Ghirshman, R. 1939, Fouilles de Sialk, Vols. I and II, Paris Goff, C. 1978, Excavations at Baba Jan: The Pottery and Metal from Levels III and II, Iran, XVI, 29-67 Goff, C. 1985, Excavations at Baba Jan: The Architecture and Pottery of Level I, Iran, XXIII, 1-21 Goff-Mead, C. 1970, Excavations at Baba Jan, Iran, VIII, 141-156 Hansman, J. 1979, An Achaemenian Stronghold, Acta Iranica, 6, 289-309 Høljund, F. and Andersen, H.H. 1994, Qala’at al-Bahrain. Vol. 1. The Northern City Wall and the Islamic Fortress, Jutland Humphries, J.H. 1974, Harvard Archaeological Survey in Oman 1973, II: Some Later Prehistoric Sites in the Sultanate of Oman, P.S.A.S, 4, 49-77 Johnson, F. 1965, The Impact of Radiocarbon Dating upon Archaeology, in Chat- ters, R.M. and Olson, E.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference Radiocarbon and Tritium Dating, Virginia, 762-780 Kroll, S. 1984, Archäologische Fundplätze in Iranisch-ost-Azarbaidjan, Archaeo- logische Mitteilungen aus Iran, 17, 13-131 Kroll, S. 1991, Zu den Beziehungen Eisenzeitlicher Bemalter Keramikkomplexe in Oman und Iran, in Schippmann, K., Herling, A. and Salles, J.F. (eds.) Golf Archäologie, Mesopotamien, Iran, Kuwait, Vereinigte Arabische Emi- rate und Oman, Göttingen, 315-320 Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1970, Excavations at Tepe Yahya 1967-1969, Progress Report I, Cambridge, Mass. THE IRANIAN IRON AGE AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOUTHEASTERN ARABIA 107

Lombard, P. 1979, Aspects Culturels de la Péninsule d’Oman au début de 1er millénaire, Mémoire de Maîtrise, Master’s Thesis, University of Paris Lombard, P. 1985, L’Arabie Orientale à l’Age du Fer, Phd Thesis, University of Paris Lombard, P. and Kervran, M. 1989, Bahrain National Museum Archaeological Collections, Bahrain Magee, P. 1994, The Iron Age Sequence from Tell Abraq: New Light on the Late Second and First Millenium B.C. in the Oman Peninsula. Paper presented at the Seminar for Arabian Studies, University of Oxford, July 1994 Magee, P. 1995, Cultural Change, Variability and Settlement in Southeastern Arabia, Phd Thesis, University of Sydney Magee, P. in press. ABIEL IV: Excavations at Tell Abraq I. The Iron Age Settle- ment, Leuven Magee, P. n.d.a., The Late Iron Age in Southeastern Iran with particularly refer- ence to Tepe Yahya Magee, P n.d.b., The Incorporation of Southeastern Arabia into the : The Archaeological Evidence Medvedskaya, I.N. 1986, A Study of the Chronological Parallels between the Greek Geometric Style and Sialk B Painted Pottery, Iranica Antiqua, XXI, 89-121 Medvedskaya, I.N. 1988, Who Destroyed Hasanlu IV?, Iran, XXVI, 1-15 Medvedskaya, I.N. 1991, Once More on the Destruction of Hasanlu IV: Problems of Dating. Iranica Antiqua, XXVI, 149-161 Moore, A.M.T. et al. 1986, Radiocarbon Accelerator (AMS) Dates for the Epipa- leolithic Settlement at Abu Hureyra, Syria, Radiocarbon, 28 (3), 1068-1076 Muscarella, O.W. 1973, Excavations at Agrab Tepe, Iran, Metropolitan Museum Journal, 8, 47-76 Muscarella, O.W. 1974, The Iron Age at Dinkha Tepe, Iran, Metropolitan Museum Journal, 9, 35-90 Potts, D.T. 1990a, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, Vols. I and II, Oxford Potts, D.T. 1990b, A Prehistoric Mound in the Emirate of Umm al-Quwain, U.A.E., Munksgaard Potts, D.T. 1991, Further Excavations at Tell Abraq, The 1990. Season, Munks- gaard Potts, D.T. in press, A Discourse on Time, in Kühne, H., Bernbeck, R. and Bartl, K. (eds.) Denkschrift zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Hans Jörg Nissen zum 60. Geburtstag. Berlin Rahman, S. ur. 1980, Report on Hili 2 Settlement Excavations 1976-9, A.U.A.E, 2-3, 7-27 Schmidt, E.F. 1957, Persepolis II. The Contents of the Treasury, Chicago Stronach, D. 1978, Pasargadae, Oxford Stuiver, M. and Pearson, G.W. 1986, High-Precision Calibration of the Radiocar- bon Time Scale, 500-2500B.C., Radiocarbon, 28 (2b), (Calibration Issue), 839-862 108 P. MAGEE

Taddei, M. 1994, A Gandharan Stone Lid and the Chronology of the Tall-e Takht at Pasargadae, in Parpola, A. and Koskikallio, P. (eds.), South Asian Archae- ology 1993, Helsinki, 715-725 Taylor, R.E. 1987, Radiocarbon Dating. An Archaeological Perspective, Orlando Velde, C. 1992, Die Spätbronzezeitliche und Früheisenzeitliche Siedlung und ihre Keramik in Shimal/ (Vereinigte Arabische Emirate). Masters Thesis, Göttingen University Vogelsang, W. 1985, Early Historical Arachosia in South-East , Meeting Place Between East and West, Iranica Antiqua, XX, 55-99 Zagarell, A. 1982, The First Millennium in the Bakhtiari Mountains, Archaeolo- gische Mitteilungen aus Iran, 15, 31-53

Tables:

Sample Sample Level Date Chantier Date (after Name Stuiver and Pearson 1986) Ly 3076 Charcoal 2a 3110± 170 4 1560-1150 B.C. Ly 3783 Charcoal 2a 2970± 150 4 1420-970 B.C. Ly 3782 Date Seed 2a 2610± 90 4 860-780 B.C. Ly 3078 Charcoal “unique” 2860± 150 1 1290-850 B.C. Ly 3784 Shell “unique” 2860± 100 1 1253-910 B.C.

Table 1. (After Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: Tableau 1)

Sample Sample Level Date Chantier Date (after Name Stuiver and Pearson) 1986 Ly 3077 Charcoal 1b 2730± 150 2 1070-800 B.C. Ly 3781 Charcoal 1b or 2a 2660± 120 2 920-790 B.C. Ly 3779 Charcoal 2b 2380± 110 2 760-586 B.C. Ly 3075 Charcoal a 2740± 100 3 1000-810 B.C. Ly 3780 Charcoal a 2580± 110 3 835-550 B.C. Ly 3778 Charcoal a or b 2280± 110 3 405-200 B.C.

Table 2. (After Boucharlat and Lombard 1991: Tableau 1).