Valorising the Samad Late Iron Age

Abstract

The Late Iron Age (LIA) in Central Oman is known from the eponymous site of Samad al-Sh an as well as al-Moyassar (formerly al-Maysar), which teams from Bochum and Heidelberg investigated from 1977 to 1996 in twelve campaigns. The chronology of this little known period has evoked much controversy but although this contribution contains critical comments, these regard mostly smaller issues or details and there is a general unspoken agreement about the basic chronological issues. The present study adds both new and old unpublished documentation to the discussion. What follows includes a re-examination of the original documentation of M42 and M43 sites which confirms the excavators' chronology. New LIA sites are added. M. Mouton's attempted deconstruction of the existing chronology and his new combined definition of the PIR and Samad LIA assemblages rest on slight inconsistencies in the original al-Moyassar site report of 1981. Despite the spotty nature of our sources, Oman's latest prehistoric facies shows a distinctive character separate from that known principally in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

A Late Iron Age settlement in Wādī Banī Ḫālid: First season of the joint Omani‐Italian archaeological project

“…31:1) and as a forge at Mleiḥa (Benoist & Mouton, 1997: 60, fig. 19; ‘forge’ is refuted by Yule, 2016: 44–45) falls into the latter category (see also Fig. 27:7), supporting the idea that Wādī Banī Ḫālid, despite its geomorphological features, is by no means an isolated valley in the most eastern part of the al‐Ḥaǧar chain.…”

“…In Figure 22:3, a large jar, defined as a barrel with plug hole in a Samad LIA context (Yule, 2001, II: 265, tomb 10825, taf. 149.3), or a vat (Yule, 2016: 65, fig. 31:1) and as a forge at Mleiḥa (Benoist & Mouton, 1997: 60, fig.…”

“…Bowls with a flat rim protruding to the inner part of the bowls (Fig. 28:2–4) can be compared with al‐Moyassar M34 bowls (Yule, 2016: 57, fig. 15:2–3).…”

“…Five well‐defined artefacts emerged from the surface of houses A/A and B/A, all bowls whose shapes strongly suggest comparisons with PIR.A types from Mleiḥa (Mouton, 2008: 351, fig. 35) and a Samad LIA context (Yule, 2016: 65, fig. 31:2).…”

“…Finally, the already documented sites of the Iron Age were positioned in a high‐resolution geographical information system (GIS) platform in order to record as many archaeological sites as possible (settlements visible remotely). Based on this approach, the following sites were chosen for field survey—three located at a distance of no more than about 40 km from the coastline, and one in the inner part of the mountains: (1) Ǧabal Ṣunṣunah (ʿĀmirat), linked to Yiti and the sea thanks to Wādī Mayḥ, already surveyed, dates to the LIA (Yule, 2016: 59); (2) to the south, a new impressive site was discovered during this remote‐sensing analysis along Wādī Ḫabbah, clearly an imposing Islamic fortified settlement (coordinates 23°2'34.55"N–58°41'35.84"E); (3) Wādī Banī Ḫālid, located in a strategic position between Ṭīwī, Raʾs al‐Ḥadd and the inner eastern al‐Ḥaǧar mountains; and (4) Lizq, the wider inner settlement that, thanks to a previous study (Kroll & Yule, 2013), has direct comparisons with BMH2’s pottery assemblages and can be considered as the most probable starting point of the fishermen communities of BMH2, if Salūt is excluded as a potential partner with the coastline.…”