oman

USE OF OSSUARY PITS DURING THE UMM AN NAR PERIOD:

Tirage à part uniquement destiné à une utilisation privée. De Boccard conserve le copyright sur l’article, qui ne peut donc être mis en accès libre sur quelque base de données ou par quelque portail que ce soit.

Aux marges de l’archéologie. Hommage à Serge Cleuziou, TAP, Éd. De Boccard, 2012

MEP_Cleuziou_Intérieur 21/02/13 15:34 Page451

NEW INSIGHTS ON THE COMPLEXITY OF BURIAL PRACTICES FROM THE SITE OF RA’S ALJINZ (RJ1), OMAN Olivia MUNOZ , Royal Omar GHAZAL and Hervé GUY*

Abstract This paper provides new insights of mortuary practices during the Umm an-Nar Period (c.2700-2000 BC), with a focus on burial practices as evidenced from osteological analysis, artifact study and 14C dates from the site of RJ-1 in Northeastern Oman. A holistic research approach to the mortuary record must include not only the excavation of tombs, but the areas surrounding them. Such an approach has led to the recent discovery of ossuary pits at a growing number of sites, including RJ-1. These pits have been discovered near Umm an-Nar type tombs and suggest that pit deposits were a more common feature of burial practices in this period than was previously understood. Failing to identify these subsurface pits, archaeologists risk not only misunderstanding the funerary practices but also biasing their analysis of Minimum number of individuals (MNI) and the demographic structure of the population under observation. Keywords: Oman peninsula, Bronze Age, Umm an-Nar, collective burial, burial practices, ossuary. Résumé Cet article apporte un nouvel éclairage sur les pratiques funéraires au cours de la période d’Umm an-Nar (ca. 2700-2000 BC), avec une attention particulière à l’analyse ostéologique, l’étude des artefacts et les dates 14C issus des travaux menés sur le site de Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-1, à la pointe orientale du Sultanat d’Oman. Une approche holistique des espaces sépulcraux doit inclure non seulement la fouille des tombes, mais également de

*

O. Munoz, UMR 7041 ArScan, équipe ‘Du village à l’État au Proche et Moyen-Orient’, Nanterre and Dept of Archaeology, University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne [oliviamoz@aol.com]; R. O. Ghazal, Dept of Anthropology, University of Chicago [Omar1@uchicago.edu]; H. Guy, INRAP (Institut National de Recherches Archéologiques Préventives) - UMR 8562, Centre Norbert Elias, Marseille [herve.guy@inrap.fr]. Acknowledgments This work could not have been achieved without the support of our dear professor, mentor, colleague and friend, Serge Cleuziou. Like others in this volume, we dedicate this work to the continuing legacy of his teaching; for what is past is never truly gone so long as we keep it present in our memory. In addition, the authors are grateful to Serge’s long-time collaborator Maurizio Tosi and the Joint Hadd Project. We would also like to thank the personnel of the Ministry of Heritage and Culture of Oman, and especially Ms. Byubwa Ali Al-Sabri, director of the Department of Excavations and Archaeological Research. We also wish to thank the Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-1 research team without whom this research could not have been carried out, C. Monchablon, and particularly all persons who participated in the pit excavations: Fatima Chaoui, Marianne Cotty, May Coussirat, Matthieu Gaultier, Guillaume Gernez, Estelle Herrscher, Stefan Naji, Catherine Rigeade, Michel Signoli. The results presented here could not have been possible without their support. We would also like to thank INRAP archaeological research center at Pantin for the use of their facilities in the anthropological study. We thank Anne-Marie Lézine (LSCE, CNRS UMR 1572 CEA Gif-sur-Yvette), Jean-François Saliège (LOCEAN, CNRS UMR 7159 - IRD - Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris), and Antoine Zazzo (CNRS UMR 5197) for the dating, and Christophe Moreau and Jean-Pascal Dumoulin (LMC14, Saclay) for the very efficient handling of the radiocarbon measurements. Mr. Ghazal’s assistance in the publication of the pottery in this article was made possible by a generous grant from the François Furet and Orin Williams Funds. And finally, we would like to thank Luana Cenci for providing the pottery drawings from Tomb 1 and Pit 3, Sophie Méry for her comments, and Maureen Marshall, Elizabeth Fagan and Victoria de Castéja for their assistance in editing portions of this article.

Aux marges de l’archéologie, GIRAUD J. ET GERNEZ G., ÉD., 2012, p. 451467 (TRAVAUX DE LA MAISON RENÉGINOUVÈS, 16)


Use of ossuary pits during the Umm an Nar period

leur périphérie. Une telle démarche a conduit à la découverte récente de fosses contenant des ossements humains en position secondaire sur un nombre croissant de sites, incluant RJ-1. Leur présence près de plusieurs tombes de type Umm an-Nar suggère que les dépôts secondaires en fosse étaient une pratique plus courante que ce que l’on pensait antérieurement. A défaut d’identifier ce type de structure, on court le risque non seulement d’ignorer les modalités des pratiques funéraires mises en œuvre au cours de la vie du site, mais également de faire une évaluation biaisée à la fois du Nombre Minimum d’individus (NMI) et de la structure démographique de la population observée. Mots-clés : Péninsule d’Oman, âge du Bronze, Umm an-Nar, tombes collectives, pratiques funéraires, ossuaire. Tirage à part uniquement destiné à une utilisation privée. De Boccard conserve le copyright sur l’article, qui ne peut donc être mis en accès libre sur quelque base de données ou par quelque portail que ce soit.


452

S rchaeological fieldwork in the peninsula of Oman has highlighted the adaptation of societies peopling A this region since the establishment of its current arid climate about 4500 years ago. Major cultural transitions are notably mirrored by changes in the funerary practices of these societies. During the 5th and 1

2

4th millennia BC, small groups of hunter-fisher-gatherers generally buried their dead in pit graves, often located in the vicinity of domestic structures within their seasonal settlements.3 At the end of the 4th millennium BC began a period of profound social and economic transformation, marking the shift from a subsistence economy to one based on food production, and setting regional and trans-regional systems of exchange. Over the course of the 3rd millennium BC, the archaeological record witnesses the development of oasis agriculture, the development of permanent architecture, the intensification of fishing, copper exploitation, the first manufacture of locally produced pottery, and cultural integration of coastal and oasis populations in a system of regional exchanges.4 In and by themselves any one of these developments would be significant, but taken together they made up a profound transformation in the social organization of every aspect of ancient Omani society. These developments were accompanied by changes in mortuary practices such as burials in tower-like single chamber graves (‘Hafit’ type graves) located on high terraces or hills overlooking the village settlements and territorial resources.5 Around 2700 BC the Hafit type tombs were gradually replaced by a new type of collective grave (‘Umm an-Nar’ graves). While significant mortuary research has been carried out throughout the Umm an-Nar cultural area, intramural spaces within the tombs were typically privileged rather than their surroundings. Recent excavation of an Umm an-Nar graves from RJ-1, as well as other sites throughout the Omani peninsula, have revealed a complexity of burial practices beyond the simple primary placement within the tombs. In this paper, we provide elements from recent excavation and argue that detailed subsurface survey around the tombs is a necessary component of any research strategy involving excavation of these tombs.

Umm an-Nar type graves Umm an-Nar type graves were first excavated in the 1950’s by Danish archaeologists in the Island of Umm an-Nar, near Abu Dhabi6 (fig. 1). To date, more than 100 of these graves have been surveyed, and about a third have been excavated.7 Archaeological survey shows that Umm an-Nar graves are distributed in a wide territory, from Abu Dhabi to the easternmost cape of the peninsula of Oman. They occur in various environments, including the coast, desert oases, hilly piedmont, and mountains. Compared to Hafit type graves, their number and location suggests a social change, linked to a different relationship between the living and the deceased: while the former graves were numerous, mostly located on high terraces, and

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

LÉZINE et al. 2002. CLEUZIOU and MUNOZ 2007. SANTINI 1987; CHARPENTIER et al. 2003; GAULTIER et al. 2005; KIESEWETTER 2006; SALVATORI 2007; MUNOZ et al. 2010. TOSI 1986; CLEUZIOU 2002a; POTTS 1990, 1997; WEEKS 2003. CLEUZIOU 2002b; GIRAUD et al. 2005. FRIFELT 1991. For a review: BLAU 2001.




Olivia MUNOZ, Royal Omar GHAZAL and Hervé GUY

453

seemed to be set up close to resources zones, the larger Umm an-Nar graves are less abundant and are built in the plains close to settlements. Despite their wide distribution and some chronological variation, the Umm an-Nar type tombs share many common features attesting a strong cultural homogeneity. Common features include monumentality, circular shape, an internal partition in multiple rooms, their funerary deposits, and the collective nature of the burials. They are usually, but not always, divided into two parts on both sides of an east-west diameter. Almost all excavated monuments possess a plinth protruding a Fig. 1 - Location of RJ-1 in the Ja’alān region (Oman), and other sites in few centimetres from the bottom of the the Arabian Peninsula mentioned in the text (map O. Munoz). surrounding wall. Such regular construction features provide evidence of general cultural homogeneity. The main variations observed include size, external decoration, number of rooms, presence of a floor, use of fire, and minimum number of individuals (MNI). At Hili, Gagnaison et al.8 suggested a chronological evolution of the tomb architecture towards greater monumentality over time. The burial customs in Umm an-Nar tombs are complex mortuary deposits reflecting an equally complex set of funerary practices. Unlike their Hafit predecessors, whose small single chambers contained few individuals,9 the Umm an-Nar type tombs usually contain a large number of individuals (e.g. more than 400 at Shimal, Unar 1 and Unar 2),10 who were deposited in the course of multiple successive interments. Indeed, the related pottery assemblages suggest that the tombs were in use for two to three centuries. Initially, deceased individuals appear to have been deposited in the tomb with their attendant funerary goods. In several cases where complete skeletons have been discovered, individuals were usually lying in a lateral flexed decubitus position, with variable orientation and side (Hili Tomb A,11 Umm an-Nar,12 al-Sufouh,13 Shimal Unar 214, Tell Abraq 15). The long period of use of funerary monuments and the large number of deceased no doubt necessitated the occasional cleaning-out of deposits, including the handling of both partially and totally decomposed human remains, in order to make space for the newly deceased.16 Despite the large size of the tombs, bodies could not have been deposited over time without disturbing previous internments. Indeed, several excavations have revealed that the remains and associated artifacts have clearly been systematically moved around within the tomb or relocated in particular chambers or floors. In several excavated graves there is evidence of burning of the remains, always in a secondary position, and overlaying the unburnt deposits (Hili Tomb A,17 al-Sufouh Tomb I,18 Shimal Unar 2).19 While we do not disregard that the burning of remains might have had some ritual or symbolic significance, it might also have been related to the maintenance of the tomb – perhaps in order to both purge it of bad odours, and to accelerate decomposition.

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

GAGNAISON et al. 2004. Less than a dozen individuals were usually buried in the Hafit type graves, but it was estimated that over 30 individuals were buried in some graves from Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-6, excavated by G. Santini (SANTINI 1992; anthropological study by O. Munoz in progress). BLAU 2001. CLEUZIOU and VOGT 1983; EL-NAJJAR 1985; B ONDIOLI et al. 1998; CLEUZIOU et al. 2011. FRIFELT 1991. BENTON 1996. BLAU and BEECH 1999. POTTS 2000. MASSET 1997; CHAMBON 2003. CLEUZIOU and VOGT 1983. BENTON 1996. BLAU 2001.



Some areas within the tombs may have served specialized functions. The case of Tomb A at Hili provides evidence of a multiple storey tomb, in which primary burials were carried out in the basement level, while burning or possible cremation took place in the upper storey.20 Despite some minor variations, the traditional models of Umm an-Nar mortuary practices has until recently reflected the following pattern of internment: (1) initial placement of the body, (2) full or partial decomposition of its remains, (3) cleaning/redistribution of the bones and artifacts, and (4) in some instances, cremation, within the tomb itself. New discoveries surrounding the tombs from RJ-1 and elsewhere are challenging these assumptions.

Structures around the graves Tirage à part uniquement destiné à une utilisation privée. De Boccard conserve le copyright sur l’article, qui ne peut donc être mis en accès libre sur quelque base de données ou par quelque portail que ce soit.


454

The pattern of mortuary interment discussed above has been taken to represent the entire mortuary practice of the Umm an-Nar period. However, research at several sites has revealed a new aspect of Umm an-Nar mortuary practices, suggesting that there was greater complexity in the post-mortem treatment of the deceased. During the excavation of some Umm an-Nar type graves, archaeologists have fortuitously uncovered structures containing human bones and grave goods around the monumental tomb. These extra-mural structures have been generally interpreted as ossuaries. These ossuaries are either simple pits, such as those at al-Sufouh (Tombs II, III, and IV),21 Shimal (close to Unar 2),22 Bahla23 and Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-1 (pits 1, 2 and 3),24 or stone built pits,25 such as those in Moweihat (Tomb B)26 and Hili (Tomb N).27 Based on the osteological materials occurring in these ossuaries and those remaining in the main tombs, one likely interpretation is that during the interment of a new individual in the main tomb, older, fully decayed individuals, were repositioned within the tomb, and/or moved outside of the tomb altogether in order to make room for new individuals. While most pits do not hold primary deposits, some pit graves, such as those at Hili N, show clear evidence of both primary and secondary deposition of the human remains. In keeping with these new discoveries, work at the site of RJ-1 suggests that following the initial placement and decomposition of the corpse within the grave, the remaining skeletons (both partially and fully decomposed) not only underwent periods of rearrangement within the tomb but were also removed to secondary ossuary pits adjacent to the tomb.

Ra’s al Jinz: RJ-1 Tomb 1 and its associated bone pits Located at the eastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, RJ-1 is a coastal site situated on a limestone terrace at the centre of the Ra’s al-Jinz embayment. During the early campaigns of the Joint Hadd Project,28 surveys and cartography of the terrace were carried out.29 Based on these surveys the occupation and use of the site extends from the late Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age (or Wadi Suq).30 Tomb 1 is located in the central part of the site (fig. 2), just east and above the contemporaneous Bronze Age settlement of RJ-2.31 C. Monchablon directed Tomb 1 excavation from 2002 to 2003 over two seasons with the Joint Hadd Project. During the cleaning of the outer part, approximately two meters to the

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

CLEUZIOU and VOGT 1983; B ONDIOLI et al. 1998; CLEUZIOU et al. 2011. BENTON 1996. BLAU 2001, p. 558. MUNOZ and CLEUZIOU 2008, p. 628, n. 9. MUNOZ and CLEUZIOU 2008. At Moweihat Tomb B, the basal layers contain human remains in secondary position, probably transferred from Tomb A. However the most recent layers included both fully and partially articulated skeletons, which are interpreted as primary deposits (HAERINCK 1991; PHILLIPS 2007). At Hili, the apparent lack of articulated bones led to the initial conclusion that the pit was an ossuary, but recent research led by S. Méry on a section from Tomb N, revealed several partially articulated skeletons, and hundreds of small body parts in anatomical connection in all levels, suggesting that the grave was a place of primary burial for most individuals. According to the authors, ‘disarticulation and fragmentation is most likely believed to have occurred during subsequent rearrangement of the remains’ (MCSWEENEY et al. 2008). HAERINCK 1991; PHILLIPS 2007. MÉRY et al. 2001, 2004; GATTO et al. 2003; MCSWEENEY et al. 2008. Initiated in 1985, the Joint Hadd Project is an international archaeological research program, co-directed by Serge Cleuziou and Maurizio Tosi. MARIANI 1985. BIAGI et al. 1989; CLEUZIOU and TOSI 2000; MONCHABLON et al. 2003. CLEUZIOU and TOSI 2000.





Fig. 2 - RJ-1, location of Tomb 1, and other structures (after topographic map by J. M. Chofflet, and rectified kite photography by Y. Guichard) (map O. Munoz).

455

Fig. 3 - RJ-1, map of Tomb 1 and the three pits (map O. Munoz).

south of Tomb 1, three pits filled with human bones and grave goods were discovered. Their excavation was finally completed in 2004.32 Many structural details and a description of artifacts from Tomb 1 and Pit 1 were published in 2003, before Pits 2 and 3 were discovered. The present paper intends to bring this work up to date using the osteoarchaeological evidence, and to present considerations and questions arising from these new pit structures. For instance, are the remains in the tomb and pits primary or secondary deposits? Does the osteological evidence show a functional link between both types of structures? Is it possible to determine the chronology for their use? Tomb 1 is a circular monument about eight meters in diameter, divided into eight compartments arranged around a central partition wall running roughly from east to west (fig. 3). Reconstruction of the tomb suggests that it was a two storey structure – a common feature of many Umm an-Nar type tombs.33 The lower floor was carved 40 cm down through the surrounding sediment into the underlying bedrock. The upper floor of the tomb was constructed from large flat pavement slabs framed over the chamber partition walls of the subfloor. The function of this subfloor is difficult to ascertain given its shallow height and the lack of passages between the chambers.34 A similar tomb with a shallow subfloor has been excavated at Maysar 4.35 Three parallels elongated pits were discovered 2 m to the south of Tomb 1 (fig. 3). The pits extend just below the surface of the terrace, some 30 to 40 cm down into the bedrock, and were covered with scattered stones. They held a large quantity of bones and grave goods. We were able to observe lined standing slabs a few centimetres to the south-west of Pit 1 (fig. 3, 5), recalling those mentioned at Hili near Tomb A.36 Two hearths were discovered less than 1 m to the south of Pit 1 and 3; a smaller pit containing mussels was found to the north of Pit 3, cut by the digging of the pit (fig. 3, 4). It is impossible to say whether these linear stones and hearths were linked to the burial complex or not, but considering their vicinity we have to mention them. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

MONCHABLON et al. 2003; MUNOZ 2004; MUNOZ and CLEUZIOU 2008. CLEUZIOU and TOSI 2007, p. 125. MONCHABLON et al. 2003, p. 37. WEISGERBER 1980, pp. 92-93. CLEUZIOU et al. 2011, fig. 87-88, p. 76.




456


Fig. 4 - RJ-1, schematic map and sections of the three pits (map O. Munoz).

Age (yrs)

0

1-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20+

MNI

6

6

6

4

5

47

Table 1 - MNI ranged by age including Tomb 1, Pits 1, 2 and 3, following the hypothesis of their complementarity (table O. Munoz).

Stratigraphy RJ-1 is continually subject to aeolian action resulting in a succession of deposits and removal of sediment. This phenomenon results in a lack (not absence) of sedimentation, except in the spaces where windblown deposits can be trapped. Thus, when preserved by stones, the remains of several millennia are concentrated in a few centimetres, and it is often difficult to determine the stratigraphical relationships between different structures. However, several remarks can be made concerning Tomb 1 and the pits. The north-eastern part of Tomb 1 was constructed on top of a structure dated from Period I (structure 21, excavation conducted by Gaëlle Bruley-Chabot)37 (Table 1). The south-eastern part of Tomb 1 was re-used to build a house during the 2nd millennium BC (Structure 2).38 The stratigraphy illustrated by the section profile of each pit suggests that they were originally dug from the same hard grey layer (fig. 4). However, we were unable to follow the chronological sequence of these diggings and deposits. All the pits were covered by scattered stones and aeolian deposit. Erosion has affected the upper layer of the deposits (bones are more fragmented and weathered in the upper layers), but Pit 3 is the most eroded. In all three cases, it was observed that the limit of the bone and artifact deposits never corresponded with the limit of the pit, but rather that black sediment rich in organic compounds seemed to constitute the wall of the deposits. This fact suggests that, following the digging of the pits the remains were placed within a perishable container whose decomposition resulted in this organic lens. 37. MONCHABLON et al. 2003, pp. 41-42. 38. Ibid., pp. 36-37.



457

Conservation More than 18,600 pieces were studied,39 including all the remains from Tomb 1, Pits 2 and 3, and about 70% from Pit 1. These remains are generally poorly preserved, more than 80% are fragmented. As we might anticipate, some disparity in the fragmentation40 is evident between the different structures: the bones from Tomb 1 (77.2%) and Pit 2 (77.1%) are less fragmented than those from Pit 1 (86%) and Pit 3 (84%). The poor state of preservation can be attributed to a number of factors including natural processes (erosion, weathering, burrowing) and anthropogenic causes (handling, burning, etc.). Tirage à part uniquement destiné à une utilisation privée. De Boccard conserve le copyright sur l’article, qui ne peut donc être mis en accès libre sur quelque base de données ou par quelque portail que ce soit.


Analysis of human remains

Distribution of human remains in Tomb 1 and the pits In a collective grave where the remains of several individuals are dislocated and mixed up analysis of the mechanisms that led to the dislocation of anatomical connections (first-rate link)41 plays a crucial role for understanding the management of the grave. According to Henri Duday, ‘this approach presupposes that it is possible to identify each skeleton, or at least part of it, whatever the complexity of the site’.42 In such complex contexts, one cannot rely on anatomical connections, and other laboratory techniques must be used to analyse second-rate links.43 In Tomb 1, bones found in the preserved layers as well as in the subfloor space underneath the slabs did not show any anatomical connections, suggesting that this level was not intended to receive primary funerary deposits, unlike other tombs of the same type (e.g. Tomb A Hili North and Bisiyah). However, the reconstruction/detection of some second-rate links in the laboratory indicates that primary deposits did occur, but probably above the pavement of the grave. This suggests that the bones found in Tomb 1 were originally laid above the slabs, with anatomical connections still present, and that they fell or were moved over the course of use (or destruction) of the tombs. In the pits, the deposits first appeared to be totally disorganized, consisting of a heap of dislocated bones in secondary position. Yet, during excavation, several clues indicated that the making of these bone deposits followed a more complex scheme. Indeed, in Pits 1 and 2, we observed some anatomical connections of human remains indicating that the deposit had been made at a time when a few ligaments from persistent joints still existed.44 Moreover, some beads in connection were found, suggesting that they had been deposited while still connected. This could be evidence for primary deposits in the pits, but one should consider that these connections involved less than 1% of the human remains in the pits, and that the remaining bones were dislocated. Rather, this suggests that some body parts has not been entirely skeletonized when they were placed in the pits. Furthermore one should take into consideration that partial mummification can occur under dry climates45 maintaining joints connection which are usually reputed to be least enduring or unstable.46 We were able to reconstruct only a few second-rate links due to the high fragmentation of the remains and consequently a lesser degree of observation. Some organization in the positioning of the bones was observed in Pits 1 and 2, consisting in arrangements of selected bones (skulls, and long bones from upper and lower limbs). In Pit 1 a group of 28 skulls was uncovered in the southern part of the unit, and to the north many long bones were arranged underneath a hearth (fig. 4, 5), while in Pit 2, two groupings of long bones were also found (fig. 4). In addition, in each of these two pits, groups of bones from stillborn babies were discovered but it is unclear whether they belong to a primary deposit. The bones of these babies may have been gathered together, perhaps contained in a perishable material, or the pits may have served as the primary place of deposit, which was later disturbed.

39. All the fragments have been integrated into a database, ranged by structure, position, bone, side, age range, conservation, etc. For all details about the osteological study, MUNOZ 2004. 40. Extension of fragmentation in a collection = 100 - (N complete bones/ N total fragments) *100 (LYMAN 1994). 41. DUDAY and GUILLON 2006, p. 152. 42. DUDAY 1995, p. 55. 43. Second-rate links – by contrast with first-rate links which are the connections observed on the field – include links by assembling fragments of the same bone, by articular contiguity, by age at death, by pathological identification, and by pairing (DUDAY 1987; DUDAY et al. 1990; DUDAY and GUILLON 2006, p. 152). 44. DUDAY and GUILLON 2006, p. 146. 45. MAUREILLE and SELLIER 1996; GUY et al. 1991. 46. DUDAY 1987, 1995; DUDAY et al. 1990.



Within this complex context, no second rate links could be detected/reconstructed between Tomb 1 and the pits. However, some primary deposits were probably made in the Tomb, above the pavement slabs, while secondary ones were made in the three pits, presenting some kind of organization for specific bones. On rare occasions these secondary deposits may have included parts of bodies that were not completely defleshed, suggesting that the use of pits and tomb were not very distant chronologically. The following analysis of osteological profiles confirms the predominant nature of the deposits in each structure, and throws light on the functional link connecting them.



458

MNI, osteological profiles and bioarchaeological data In a context where thousands of bone fragments pertaining to several individuals are mixed, the study of human remains implies a determination of the MNI47 contained in each structure. This calculation is made by counting the minimum number of individuals represented by all types of bones. We wish to insist on the highly informative potential of small bones from hands and feet in such contexts (they are often absent from MNI assessments), as they most often remain in the place of the primary deposit,48 and are often less subject to alterations than other bones (e.g. scapula, or hip).49 As we could not reconstruct second-rate links between each structure, the MNI was determined for each structure, with no presupposition of possible relationships. The synthesis of MNI determination (fig. 6) shows an imbalance between skulls and long bones from upper and lower limbs, and small bones from hands and feet. Indeed, small bones are better represented

Fig. 5 et Fig. 6 - RJ-1, Pit 1 view from east, showing groups of selected bones, lined stones and hearth eastward (photo O. Munoz) ; RJ-1, MNI of Tomb 1, Pits 1, 2 and 3, by age range (0-19 years old, more than 20 years old) regrouped by anatomical part of the body (for each part, the best score of the bones which compose it has been kept) (graph O. Munoz).

than large bones in Tomb 1, while the opposite occurs in Pits 1 and 3. In Pit 2, the long bones of the lower limbs are the best represented, other types being almost equal. This suggest that: (1) we are seeing an open system50 involving inlets and outlets of bones between the structures; (2) Tomb 1 has a typical profile for the location of primary deposition wherein selective cleaning or removal (mostly of skulls and long bones) took place; (3) Pits 1 and 3 have a typical profile for a secondary deposit, where some specific bones (skulls and long bones) have been preferentially deposited, i.e. an ossuary; (4) The profile of Pit 2 shows that long bones from lower limbs were deposited preferentially, and that they were associated with a batch made of all types of bones, perhaps resulting from a draining. Despite the fact that redistribution of burial remains and the resulting admixture of skeletons prevent us from running a number of tests that would help us

47. 48. 49. 50.

Minimum number of individuals. DUDAY 1995. CHAMBON 1995, p. 74. According to Gallay and Chaix (1984), an open system is opposed to a closed system, which does not present an imbalance between small and large bones.


459


Date (BC)



identify individual skeletons, we were able to demonstrate the complementarity of osteological profiles between the tombs and the pits. This led us to a re-assessment of the represented MNI, and we consider all remains from Tomb and pits as a whole. Based on current analysis, the funerary complex contained the remains of at least 74 individuals of various ages51 (Table 2) and both sexes.52

Historical Mesopotamian sequence

Indus sequence

Oman Archaeological Omani sequence

Hili 8

3500 3300 3100 2900

V

Uruk

VI VII

Jemdt Nasr ED I ED III A ED III B

Early Harappan

Hafit horizon

a I

2100

a-b

Early-Mid Harappan

c1 c2

Akkad

Middle Harappan

Umm an-Nar

II

Isin-Larsa

1700

Old Babylonian

d e

RJ-2 PII RJ-1 Tomb 1

f g

Ur III

1900

1500

RJ-2 PI

b c

2500 2300

Ra’s al-Jinz

IV

ED II 2700

Ra’s alHamra

RJ-2 PIII RJ-1 RJ-21

Posturban Harappan

Wadi Suq

III

Middle Babylonian

1300

Table 2 - Bronze Age regional chronology of the Gulf region (table R. O. Ghazal and O. Munoz, after MÉRY 1995, p. 202).

Fig. 7 - Mortality curve showing the distribution of subadults individuals from RJ-1 assemblage compared to an archaic mortality according to Ledermann (1969), with life expectancy at birth from 25 to 35 years [e°(0) = 25-35 years (q ± 2SE)] (graph O. Munoz).

When comparing the age distribution of the RJ-1 samples with the mortality curves of archaic populations, some anomalies can be observed (fig. 7). There appears to be a deficit of children under five years of age in the tomb and pit assemblages. We do not know if this is the reflection of an intentional discrimination by the community, or a difference in the retention of skeletal remains due to relative fragility.53 It is worth noting that at least five very young children were found buried underneath the floors of Houses I and II at the nearby settlement site of RJ-2. These child burials are contemporaneous with Tomb 1

51. For subadult age estimation, several methods were used: dental development (UBELAKER 1999, p. 64), length of long bones (FAZEKAS and KOSA 1978; TELKKÄ et al. 1962; VIRTAMA et al. 1962; SEMPÉ et al. 1979), and union of epiphysis (BIRKNER 1980). Subadult individuals overlapping several age ranges were distributed into age ranges following the principle of minimizing abnormalities (SELLIER 1996). 52. Based on the morphology of the preserved hip bones (BRUZEK 2002), at least 20 women, 16 men, and 15 children under the age of 15 years were deposited in Tomb 1 and the pits. While women seem to be slightly better represented than men in the sample, the difference is not significant. 53. BELLO et al. 2002.




460


and other Umm an-Nar period structures at RJ-1, but they may date to the beginning of Period III (see Table 1).54 In addition, Gatto et al.55 have also observed a deficit in children under one year of age in Tomb N at Hili, as compared to expectations based on pre-industrial mortality. This suggests that not all children were subject to collective burial in monumental graves. Concerning bioarchaeological data, we briefly summarize here some preliminary results concerning stature, pathologies and activity markers. The average estimated stature56 of adults was 1.58 m ± 3.71 cm. No symptomatic trace of violence was found; consolidated fractures are few and relate almost exclusively to the bones of the hand and feet. Observed diseases are rather indicative of physical activities and nutritional deficiencies. We found 11 cases of ante-mortem tooth loss indicative of oral pathologies, corresponding to approximately 15% of individuals in the studied population. 30% of the adult tibiae examined notably exhibit a ‘squatting facet’ at the distal end, resulting from habitual adoption of this posture.57

Burnt bones As in other sites such as Hili Tomb A,58 Hili Tomb N,59 al-Sufouh Tombs I to IV,60 Shimal Unar 2,61 many of the bones exhibit some degree of burning. In the pits burnt bones were found almost in the upper layer of the fill. To the north of Pit 1, a hearth appears to have been set in the upper part of the filling, resulting in the deep burning of many of the remains in the upper portion of the fill. Indeed, more than half of the fragments studied in Pit 1 (50.4%) show signs of cremation, and were related to the northern area in the upper part of the fill, while the deeper ones appear to have had limited contact with heat. Burnt bones show traces of rapid stoking (40.1%) to long duration heating at high temperature (59.9%).62 Among those bones exposed to high temperature, only 1.7% exhibit transverse cracks and/or strains suggesting that they were green or fleshed when fired. Another evidence of fleshed burnt bones was found in the same pit, consisting of four thoracic vertebrae still in connection. Only 1.6% of the remains from Pit 2 show signs of burning, but they appear to have been submitted to low-temperature, or to have been burnt over a short period. Similarly, only 1.6% of the assemblage from Pit 3 was burnt. In Tomb 1, less than 1% of the bone fragments were burnt, but they bore traces of intense cremation (heating above 600°C). Most of these fragments notably occurred in Chamber 3 of Tomb 1. We can only say, about Tomb 1 and pits 2 and 3, that fire was used, but the process remains unclear. Nevertheless, to the north of Pit 1, we identified the presence of a hearth on top of a group of long bones and skulls, an indication that fire took place after their secondary deposition. As almost all bones were burnt dry, we can argue that fire was not used as a body treatment practice in the pit, but rather occurred once the individuals were skeletonized and mixed. The significance of this process is somewhat unclear (utilitarian, symbolic) but evidence of this practice at other sites (Hili Tomb A, Tomb N, Shimal, al-Sufouh, Bahla), always occurring as a secondary treatment of the remains, suggests that burning was a common component of the funerary practices of this period.

Chronology: funerary artifacts and 14C dates The pits being a secondary inhumation of the remains, it is difficult to determine clear stratigraphic separation of the associated artifacts and the precise sequence of construction and use of the three pits. The majority of the pottery and artifacts were recovered from the base layers and upper edges of the three pits, suggesting that most of the fragments were deposited first. Fine black-on-red wares indicative of funerary deposits for this period, some with intact painting of typical Umm an-Nar design, were evidenced in all four structures. There are clear diagnostic similarities between the pottery and other grave goods from the tomb and the pits, suggesting that these were roughly contemporaneous (fig. 8, 9). Moreover, small discoid

54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

CLEUZIOU and TOSI 2000, p. 32. GATTO et al. 2003. CLEUVENOT and HOUËT 1993. About activity markers in other sites from the Arabian Peninsula, see BLAU 1996; COPE et al. 2005. CLEUZIOU and VOGT 1983; EL-NAJJAR 1985; B ONDIOLI et al. 1998; CLEUZIOU et al. 2011. GATTO et al. 2003; MCSWEENEY et al. 2008. BENTON 1996. BLAU 2001. SHIPMAN et al. 1984; WALKER et al. 2008.





461

Fig. 8 - Mixed assemblage of Umm an-Nar period fine black-on-red wares and other pottery from RJ-1 Tomb 1, RJ-1 Pit 1, RJ-1 Pit 2 and RJ-1 Pit 3 (drawing by R. O. Ghazal).

beads of Indus type were recovered in Pit 2; they are believed to have been imported to Oman and eastern Iran after 2500 BC. These beads do not appear in Tomb 1 or Pits 1 and 3,63 and would therefore suggest that remains in Pit 2 are later than those from other structures. 63. Serge CLEUZIOU, personal communication.




462


Fig. 9 - Calibrated age ranges for Tomb 1, and three pits, according to the proportion of marine resources in the diet (graph O. Munoz).

Several micaceous red ware fragments of likely Indus origin were found amongst the assemblage.64 No Mesopotamian or Iranian samples could be clearly identified, but there are a few anomalous sherds that are untypical of the local pottery types. A single example of a painted body sherd from a suspension vessel was recovered just below the surface of Pit 1, but the fragment is burnt, which impedes any clear identification based on fabric (see fig. 8, Pit 1A). Whereas lugged suspension vessels, bearing both isolated and serpentine lugs, with cross-hatched painted design were recovered from Tomb A at Hili and from other Umm an-Nar sites,65 these vessels are not usually found in tomb assemblages. Based on the partial excavation of Tomb 1 and Pit 1,66 it has been suggested that the grave assemblage dates to the third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC, between the interval 2550 to 2350 BC. The later excavation of Pits 2 and 3 would seem to concur with this assessment. The construction, use, and destruction of the tomb are from Period II, which corresponds to the occupation of the northern building complex at the nearby mud brick settlement of RJ-2.67 Around 2350 BC, the northern complex appears to have fallen out of use, while Tomb 1 was purposely dismantled, filled with fine yellow clay from the surrounding plain, and levelled to the ground.68 It remains somewhat unclear from artifactual analysis alone, how the pits relate to this sequence. Were the pits used successively over the entire two hundred year interval, or were the remains deposited in each of the pits when use of the monument came to end? Osteological evidence shows that the pits were functionally related to the use of the tomb, and the few still preserved anatomical connections in the pits testify that the time elapsed between the last deposit of bodies in the Tomb and the secondary deposit in the pits could not have been very long. Radiocarbon dating of human remains69 from each feature might shed further light on the sequence of use of the Tomb and pits. Nevertheless, absolute dating of human bones from this collective context raises several problems: (1) Dating displaced bones will not inform on the time of re-burial, but on the time of death.70 (2) As there is no stratigraphic evidence allowing a rational sampling of bones for the purpose of dating, sampling was carried out at random among all individuals that were potentially first buried in the Tomb, e.g. samples taken from each structure might belong to the same individual, whose remains were redistributed in all structures. (3) The likelyhood that RJ-1 individuals included a significant portion of marine resources in their diet does not make it possible to translate this 14C age directly into an exact date, and the calibrated age range would be considerable. Nevertheless, according to data, the period over which Tomb 1 and the pits were in use would span the 3rd millennium BC. Samples from Pits 1 and 3 seem to belong to the same interval as Tomb 1 (SacA11380,

MONCHABLON et al. 2003, p. 35. Serge CLEUZIOU, personal communication; FRIFELT 1991. MONCHABLON et al. 2003. CLEUZIOU and TOSI 2000. MONCHABLON et al. 2003. Like collagen, the organic portion of bone is not preserved in Oman for this period; 14C age was measured on the mineral fraction of bone (bioapatite), for which A. Zazzo demonstrated that it was not diagenetically altered at RJ-1 (see MUNOZ et al. 2008). Samples were dated using AMS technique. The powdered bone was pretreated and CO2 was extracted following previously published protocols (see e.g. SERENO et al. 2008) by J.-F. Saliège at LOCEAN (UPMC, Paris, France). Radiometric dating was carried out at LMC14 (Saclay, France). 70. DUDAY and GUILLON 2006, p. 149. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.



463

Ras al’Hadd (HD-7) Tirage à part uniquement destiné à une utilisation privée. De Boccard conserve le copyright sur l’article, qui ne peut donc être mis en accès libre sur quelque base de données ou par quelque portail que ce soit.


Pit 3: 4160 ±30 BP; SacA11375, Tomb 1: 4135 ±30 BP; SacA11370, Pit 1: 4105 ±30 BP), while the sample from Pit 2 suggests a somewhat later relative date (SacA11376: 4015 ±30 BP). Figure 10 indicates calibrated71 1σ age ranges according to various proportions of marine resources in the diet (0-100%; 20-80%; 40-60%), taking into account the local marine reservoir effect (ΔR= 210 ± 15).72 While there is considerable overlap once calibrated, the radiocarbon dates give support to the idea that the pits relate to different periods in which the tomb was used – with Pit 2 relating to the final phase.

The dating of the pits and tomb suggest that their mutual use occurred early after the transition from Hafit to Umm an-Nar style, rather than around the end of the Umm an-Nar sequence. Indeed, the use of extramural space may not be limited to the Umm an-Nar type. Not far from Ra’s al-Jinz, more deposits were observed around a grave at Ra’s al-Hadd during an emergency excavation of HD-7 – a site which consisted of a group of 5 Hafit type cairns and one Umm an-Nar type grave. Unlike the example of RJ-1, however, where the surroundings of the grave seem to have been used for maintenance of the tomb, those from Ra’s al-Hadd show no obvious practical function. The most interesting case observed concerns Grave 4. Its architecture is typically Hafit, and the chamber contained a few beads, and bone splinters from which a sample was dated to the beginning of the 3rd millennium. In the southern part of the grave, a rectangular area had been cut into the bed rock, where two copper ‘razors’ were discovered. Many more objects were found around the grave, lying on the ground underneath the collapsed external wall, all belonging to the end of the 3rd millennium BC. Several deposits of shells, corals, and even some human bones were recovered all around the structure, probably associated with the disturbance and re-use of this space. Moreover, a soft-stone vessel associated with a pebble, perhaps a mortar and pestle, were discovered in the collapsed access to the grave. All these finds suggest that the surroundings of an ancient grave were re-used at the end of the 3rd millennium BC, for social or ritual purposes. By carefully applying research protocols and systematically recording and analysing data, we were able to determine that Tomb 1 at RJ-1 and the three adjacent pits were not independent structures, but rather that they made a complementary and functionally linked system. In this mortuary system, the monumental tomb acted as the locus of primary deposition after death, while the pits were constructed to receive the burial remains after some period of decomposition, and grave goods. It is difficult to determine whether the two types of structures were strictly contemporaneous, or whether the pits were related to the possible destruction or dismantling of the tomb. In the former case, the pits would have been built successively according to need over the course of the tomb use, and most likely up to the time of its destruction. In the latter case, the pits would have been constructed and filled with cultural material at, or near the same time – perhaps when the tomb was destructed or dismantled. The authors are in favour of the former hypothesis. Many extra-mural deposits of human bones were discovered around Umm an-Nar type tombs, more often fortuitously, and they are generally interpreted as ossuaries. Indeed, successive deposits of hundreds of individuals in a single monument would certainly necessitate several phases of cleaning and manipulating to accommodate new burials. These operations could involve the use of fire. Maintenance of the tomb was not limited to the interior of the tomb only, in some instances the outright removal of the remains and their relocation in extramural subsurface pits were necessary. To date, we have examples of this practice at Ra’s al-Jinz (Oman), Al-Sufouh,73 Shimal (Unar 2),74 Bahla.75 It is also the case at Moweihat and Hili N, where the stone built pits found close to the monumental tombs had first received secondary deposits from the tombs, and may have been used as proper graves once the tombs were no longer in use.76

71. Calibration was undertaken using the Calib Rev 5.0.1, marine04.14c Calibration data set (HUGHEN et al. 2004) and intcal04.14c Calibration data set (REIMER et al. 2004). 72. SALIÈGE et al. 2005. 73. BENTON 1996, pp. 170-171. 74. BLAU 2001. 75. CLEUZIOU and MUNOZ 2007; MUNOZ and CLEUZIOU 2008. 76. HAERINCK 1991; MCSWEENEY et al. 2008




464


Our analysis relies principally on osteological evidence of the removal of selected human remains and artifacts from a monumental tomb to surrounding pits. This can be easily explained by the need for more space in the tomb – and thus highlights the utilitarian character of these practices. However, we do not have access to the thoughts that accompanied these gestures: did they assume a role in the mortuary ritual, performing the passage from individual bodies to a collective entity of ancestors ?77 Or were they devoid of any funerary signification, remains having lost their symbolic character? The widespread prevalence of such a system suggests that it was a common component of mortuary practices in the Umm an-Nar period. Future research on cemetery complexes from this period must implement some degree of areal subsurface survey to check the presence of associated structures, or else we are in danger of ignoring an important component of the mortuary practices and their alterations over the life of a site. Moreover, there is a risk of drastically biasing our analysis of MNI and the demographic structure of the population under observation. Given the already highly fragmentary nature of the bones at a site like RJ-1 (80%), we inevitably underestimate significantly the number of buried individuals. Only by taking into account the complementary nature of the tomb and pit structures can we determine a coherent approximation of the MNI originally buried in the tombs.

Bibliography BELLO S., SIGNOLI M., RABINO MASSA E. and DUTOUR O. (2002), ‘Les processus de conservation différentielle du squelette des individus immatures. Implications sur les reconstitutions paléodémographiques’, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 14, pp. 245-262. BENTON J. (1996), Excavation at al-Sufouh. A third millennium site in the Emirate of Dubai, Abiel I, Turnhout, Brepols. BIAGI P., JONES D. A. and NISBET R. (1989), ‘A Preliminary Report on the Excavations of Structure 5 at Ra’s al-Junayz 1 (Sultanate of Oman)’, Rivista di Archeologia, 13, pp. 19-30. BIRKNER R. (1980), L’Image radiologique typique du squelette, Paris, Maloine. BLAU S. (1996), ‘Attempting to identify Activities in the Past: Preliminary Investigations of the third millennium BC Population at Tell Abraq’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 7, pp. 143-176. — (2001), ‘Fragmentary Endings: a Discussion of 3rd millennium BC Burial Practices in the Oman Peninsula’, Antiquity, 75, pp. 557-570. BLAU S. and BEECH M. (1999), ‘One Woman and her Dog’, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, 10, pp. 3442. BONDIOLI L., COPPA A. and MACCHIARELLI R. (1998), ‘From the Coast to Oasis in Prehistoric Arabia: What the Skeletal Remains tell us about the Transition from a Foraging to exchange Economy. Evidence from Ra’s al-Hamra (Oman) and Hili North (UAE)’, in TOSI M., ed., Proceedings of the XIII Congress 8-14 september 1996, International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, vol. 5, Forli, Abaco, pp. 229-234. BRUZEK J. (2002), ‘A Method for Visual Determination of Sex, Using the Human Hip Bone’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 117, pp. 157-168. CHAMBON P. (1995), ‘L’ossuaire du Néolithique récent à Berry-au-Bac (Aisne): une structure postfunéraire’, Revue archéologique de Picardie, 1 (1), pp. 61-81. — (2003), Les Morts dans les sépultures collectives néolithiques en France. Du cadavre aux restes ultimes, XXXVe supplément à Gallia Préhistoire, Paris, CNRS Editions. CHARPENTIER V., MARQUIS P. and PELLÉ E. (2003), ‘La Nécropole et les derniers horizons Ve millénaire du site de Gorbat al-Mahar (Suwayh, SWY-1, Sultanat d’Oman): premiers resultants’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 33, pp. 11-19. CLEUVENOT E. and HOUËT F. (1993), ‘Proposition de nouvelles équations d’estimation de stature applicables pour un sexe indéterminé, et basées sur les échantillons de Trotter et Gleser’, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, n.s., 5, pp. 245-255. CLEUZIOU S. (2002a), ‘The Early Bronze Age of the Oman Peninsula from Chronology to the Dialectics of Tribe and State Formation’, in CLEUZIOU S., TOSI M. and ZARINS J., eds, Essays of the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula, Serie Orientale Roma XCIII, Rome, IsIAO, pp. 191-236.

77. HERTZ 1907.





465

— (2002b) ‘Présence et mise en scène des morts à l’usage des vivants dans les communautés préhistoriques: l’exemple de la péninsule d’Oman à l’âge du Bronze ancien’, in MOLINOS M. and ZIFFERERO A., eds, I primi popoli d’Europa, Florence, All insegna del Giglio, pp. 17-31. CLEUZIOU S. and MUNOZ O. (2007), ‘Les morts en société: une interprétation des sépultures collectives d’Oman à l’âge du Bronze’, in BARAY L., BRUN P. and TESTART A., eds, Pratiques funéraires et société, Dijon, Presses universitaires de Bourgogne, pp. 293-317. CLEUZIOU S. and TOSI M. (2000), ‘Ra’s al-Jinz and the Prehistoric Coastal Cultures of the Ja’alan’, Journal of Oman Studies, 11, pp. 19-73. — (2007), In the Shadow of the Ancestors: the Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization in Oman, Muscat, Ministry of heritage and culture of the Sultanate of Oman. CLEUZIOU S. and VOGT B. (1983), ‘Umm an-Nar burial customs, new evidence from Tomb A at Hili North’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 13, pp. 37-52. CLEUZIOU S., MÉRY S. and VOGT B., eds (2011), Protohistoire de l’oasis d’al-Aïn, Travaux de la Mission archéologique française à Abou Dhabi (Émirats arabes unis). Les sépultures de l’âge du Bronze, Maison René-Ginouvès, Archéologie et Ethnologie, Nanterre/Abou Dhabi, Authority for Culture and Heritage (ADACH), BAR International Series, 2227. COPE J. M., BERRYMAN A. C., MARTIN D. L. and POTTS D. T. (2005), ‘Robusticity and osteoarthritis at the trapeziometacarpal joint in a Bronze Age population from Tell Abraq, United Arab Emirates’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 126, pp. 391-400. DUDAY H. (1987), ‘Contribution des observations ostéologiques à la chronologie interne des sépultures collectives’, in DUDAY H. and MASSET C., eds, Anthropologie physique et archéologie. Méthodes d’études des sépultures, Paris, Éditions du CNRS, pp. 51-59. — (1995), ‘Anthropologie “de terrain”, archéologie de la mort’, in JOUSSEAUME R., ed., La Mort, Passé, Présent, Conditionnel, Actes du Colloque de la Roche-sur-Yon - juin 1994, La Roche-sur-Yon, Groupe Vendéen d’Études Préhistoriques, pp. 33-75. DUDAY H. and GUILLON M. (2006), ‘Understanding the Circumstances of Decomposition when the Body is skeletonized’, in SCHMITT A., CUNHA E. and PINHEIRO J., eds, Forensic Anthropology and Medicine: Complementary Sciences from Recovery to Cause of Death, Totowa, Humana Press Inc., pp. 117157. DUDAY H., COURTAUD P., CRUBÉZY E., SELLIER P. and TILLIER A.-M. (1990), ‘L’anthropologie de terrain: reconnaissance et interprétation des gestes funéraires’, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, n.s., 2 (3-4), pp. 29-50. EL-NAJJAR M. Y. (1985), ‘An anthropological study on skeletal remains from Tomb A at Hili North’, Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates, 4, pp. 39-43. FAZEKAS I. G. and KOSA F. (1978), Forensic fetal osteology, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiado. FRIFELT K. (1991), The Island of Umm an-Nar, vol.1. Third Millenium graves, Aarhus Jutland Archaeological Society Publications XXVI, 1. GAGNAISON C., BARRIER P., MÉRY S. and AL-TAKRITI W. Y. (2004), ‘Extractions calcaires éocènes à l’âge du Bronze et architecture funéraire à Hili (Émirat d’Abou Dhabi)’, Revue d’Archéométrie, 28, pp. 97108. GALLAY A. and CHAIX L. (1984), Le site préhistorique du Petit-Chasseur (Sion, Valais), 5 et 6, le dolmen M XI, Cahiers d’Archéologie Romande 31-32, Lausanne, Bibliothèque Historique Vaudoise. GATTO E., BASSET G., MÉRY S. and MCSWEENEY K. (2003), ‘Étude paléodémographique et utilisation du feu à Hili N, une sépulture collective en fosse de la fin de l’âge du Bronze ancien aux Émirats arabes unis’, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, n.s., 15 (1-2), pp. 25-47. GAULTIER M., GUY H., MUNOZ O., TOSI M. and USAI D. (2005), ‘Settlement Structures and Cemetery at Wadi Shab-GAS1, Sultanate of Oman: Report on the 2002 and 2003 Field Seasons’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 16, pp. 1-20. GIRAUD J., BERGER J.-F., DAVTIAN G. and CLEUZIOU S. (2005), ‘L’espace social des sociétés de l’âge du Bronze au sultanat d’Oman (région du Ja’alan, IIIe millénaire av. J.-C.)’, in BERGER J.-F., BERTONCELLO F., BRAEMER F., DAVTIAN G. and GAZENBEEK M., eds, Temps et espaces de l’homme en société, Analyse et modèles spatiaux en archeologie, Actes des XXVe rencontres internationales d’archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, Antibes, APDCA, pp. 305-314. GUY H., GUILLOT H. and GUILLON F. (1991), ‘Putréfaction à l’air libre ou en atmosphère confinée: quelles différences ?’, Méthodes d’étude des sépultures, compte rendu de la table ronde des 8, 9, et 10 mai 1991 à Saintes, Talence, Éditions du CNRS, pp. 29-36.




466


HAERINCK E. (1991), ‘The rectangular Umm an-Nar Period Grave at Moweihat (Emirate of Ajman, United Arab Emirates)’, Gentse Bijdragen tot de Kunstgeschiedenis en Oudheidkunde, 29, pp. 1-30. HERTZ R. (1907), ‘Contribution à une étude sur la représentation collective de la mort’, Année sociologique, première série, t. X, pp. 48-137. HUGHEN K. A., BAILLIE M. G. L., BARD E., BECK J. W., BERTRAND C. J. H., BLACKWELL P., BUCK C. E., BURR G., CUTLER K. B., DAMON P. E., EDWARDS R. L., FAIRBANKS R. G., FRIEDRICH M., GUILDERSON T. P., KROMER B., MCCORMAC F. G., MANNIN S, BRONK RAMSEY C., REIMER P. J., REIMER R. W., REMMELE S., SOUTHON J., STUIVER J. R., TALAMO S., TAYLOR F. W., VAN DER PLICHT J. and WEYHEMMEYER C. E. (2004), ‘Marine04 marine radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP’, Radiocarbon, 46, pp. 1059-1086. KIESEWETTER H. (2006), ‘Analysis of the Human Remains from the Neolithic Cemetery at al-Buhais 18 (Excavations 1996-2000)’, in UERPMANN H. P., UERPMANN M. and JASIM S. A., eds, Funeral Monuments and Human Remains from Jebel al-Buhais, The archaeology of Jebel al-Buhais, Sharjah, UAE, vol. 1, Tübingen, K. Verlag, pp. 106-380. LEDERMANN S. (1969), Nouvelles tables-types de mortalité, Travaux et Documents, cahier n°53, INED, Paris, PUF. LÉZINE A.-M., SALIÈGE J.-F., MATHIEU R., TAGLIATELA T.-L., MÉRY S., CHARPENTIER V. and CLEUZIOU S. (2002), ‘Mangroves in Oman during the late Holocene: Climatic Implications and Impacts on Human Settlements’, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 11, pp. 221-232. LYMAN R. L. (1994), Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. MARIANI L. (1985), ‘Surface study of Settlement Site RJ-1’, The Joint Hadd Project, 1, Summary report of the first season, pp. 36-41. MASSET C. (1997), Les Dolmens: sociétés néolithiques et pratiques funéraires, Paris, Éditions Errance. MAUREILLE B. and SELLIER P. (1996), ‘Dislocation en ordre paradoxal, momification et décomposition: observations et hypothèses’, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 8, pp. 313-327. MCSWEENEY K., MÉRY S. and MACCHIARELLI R. (2008), ‘Rewriting the end of the Early Bronze Age in the United Arab Emirates trough the Anthropological and Artefactual Evaluation of two Collective Umm an-Nar graves at Hili (eastern region of Abu Dhabi)’, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, 18, pp. 1-14. MÉRY S. (1995), ‘Archaeology of the Borderlands: 4th Millennium BC Mesopotamian Pottery at Ra’s alHamra RH-5 (Sultanate of Oman)’, Annali Istituto Universitario Orientale, 55, pp. 193-206. — (2000), Les Céramiques d’Oman et l’Asie Moyenne. Une archéologie des échanges à l’âge du Bronze, Paris, CNRS Editions. MÉRY S. and CHARPENTIER V. (2009), ‘Rites funéraires du Néolithique et de l’âge du Bronze ancien en Arabie orientale’, in GUILAINE J., ed., Sépultures et sociétés. Du Néolithique à l’Histoire, Paris, Éditions Errance (coll. des Hespérides), pp. 11-40. MÉRY S., MCSWEENEY K., VAN DER LEUW S. and AL-TIKRITI W. Y. (2004), ‘New approaches to a collective grave from the Umm an-Nar Period at Hili (UAE)’, Paléorient, 30 (1), pp. 163-178. MÉRY S., ROUQUET J., MCSWEENEY K., BASSET G., SALIÈGE J.-F. and AL-TIKRITI W. Y. (2001), ‘Re-excavation of the Early Bronze Age collective Hili N Pit-grave (Emirate of Abu Dhabi, UAE): Results of the First Two Campaign of the Emirati-French Project’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 31, pp. 161-178. MONCHABLON C., CRASSARD R., MUNOZ O., GUY H., BRULEY-CHABOT G. and CLEUZIOU S. (2003), ‘Excavation at Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-1: Stratigraphy without tells’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 33, pp. 31-47. MUNOZ O. (2004), Étude anthropologique des tombes Umm an-Nar (Âge du Bronze, Sultanat d’Oman). L’exemple de la tombe 1 de RJ-1, Mémoire de DEA d’archéologie, Université de Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne, Unpublished. MUNOZ O. and CLEUZIOU S. (2008), ‘La tombe 1 de Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-1: une approche de la complexité des pratiques funéraires dans la péninsule d’Oman à l’Âge du Bronze ancien’, in CORDOBA J. M., MOLIST M., PÉREZ M. C., RUBIO I. and MARTÍNEZ S., eds, Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE), Madrid, 3-8 April 2006, vol. 2, Centro Superior de Estudios sobre el Oriente Próximo y Egipto, Madrid, UAM Ediciones, pp. 627-644. MUNOZ O., ZAZZO A., SALIÈGE J.-F. and CLEUZIOU S. (2008), ‘Reconstructing the Diet of Ancient Fishermen of Ra’s al-Hadd and Ra’s al-Jinz (Sultanate of Oman) using Radiocarbon Dates’, Poster presented at the ‘Désert d’Afrique et d’Arabie: Environnement, climat et impact sur les populations’ conference held at the Académie des Sciences, Paris, September 8th-9th 2008.





467

MUNOZ O., SCARUFFI S. and CAVULLI F. (2010), ‘The Burials of the Middle Holocene Settlement of KHB-1 (Sultanate of Oman)’, in WEEKS L., ed., Death and Burial in Arabia and Beyond, Oxford, BAR International Series 2107, pp. 25-32. PHILLIPS C. (2007), ‘The third-millennium Tombs and Settlement at Moweihat in the Emirate of Ajman, UAE’, Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, 18, pp. 1-7. POTTS D. T. (1990), The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, vol. 1, From Prehistory to the Fall of the Achaemenid Empire, New York, Clarendon Press. — (1997), ‘Before the Emirates: an archaeological and historical account of developments in the region c.5000 BC to 676 AD’, in GAREEB E. and AL-ABED I., eds, Perspectives on the United Arab Emirates, London, Trident Press, pp. 36-73. — (2000), ‘Ancient Magan. The secrets of Tell Abraq’, London, Trident Press. REIMER P. J., BAILLIE M. G. L., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BECK J. W., BERTRAND C., BLACKWELL P., BUCK C., BURR G., CUTLER K., DAMON P., EDWARDS R., FAIRBANKS R., FRIEDRICH M., GUILDERSON T., HOGG A., HUGHEN K., KROMER B., MCCORMAC G., MANNING S., RAMSEY C., REIMER R., REMMELE S., SOUTHON J., STUIVER M., TALAMO S., TAYLOR F., VAN DER PLICHT J. and WEYHENMEYER C. (2004), ‘Intcal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP’, Radiocarbon, 46, pp. 10291058. SALIÈGE J.-F., LÉZINE A.-M. and CLEUZIOU S. (2005), ‘Estimation de l’effet réservoir 14C marin en mer d’Arabie’, Paléorient, 31 (1), pp. 64-69. SALVATORI S. (2007), ‘The Prehistoric Graveyard of Ra’s al-Hamra 5, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman’, The Journal of Oman Studies, 14, pp. 5-202. SANTINI G. (1987), ‘Site RH-10 at Qurum and a preliminary analysis of its cemetery: an essay in stratigraphic discontinuity’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 17, pp. 179-198. — (1992), Analisi dei caractteri dominanti per la definizione dei rituale nelle necropoli preistoriche e protostoriche della Penisola di Oman, Napoli, Dottorato di ricerca in Archeologia. SELLIER P. (1996), ‘La mise en évidence d’anomalies démographiques et leur interprétation: population, recrutement et pratiques funéraires du tumulus de Courtesoult’, in PININGRE J.-F., ed., Nécropoles et société au premier âge du Fer: le tumulus de Courtesoult (Haute-Saône), DAF n° 54, Paris, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, pp. 188-202. SEMPÉ M., PÉDRON G. and ROY-PERNOT M. P. (1979), Auxologie. Méthodes et séquences, Paris, Laboratoire Theraplix. SERENO P. C., GARCEA E. A. A., JOUSSE H., STOJANOWSKI C. M., SALIÈGE J.-F., MAGA A., IDE O. A., KNUDSON K. J., MERCURI A. M., STAFFORD T. W., KAYE T. G., GIRAUDI C., MASSAMBA N’SIALA I., COCCA E., MOOTS H. M., DUTHEIL D. B. and STIVERS J. P. (2008), ‘Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change’, PLoS ONE, 3(8): e2995. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002995. SHIPMAN P., FOSTER G. and SCHOENINGER M. (1984), ‘Burnt bones and teeth: an experimental study of color, morphology, crystal structure and shrinkage’, Journal of Archaeological Science, 11, pp. 307-325. TELKKÄ A., PALKAMA A. and VIRTAMA P. (1962), ‘Estimation of stature from radiographs of long bones in children – I, Children aged from one to nine’, Annales Medicinae Experimentalis et Biologiae Fenniae, 40, pp. 91-96. TOSI M. (1986), ‘The Emerging Picture of Prehistoric Arabia’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, pp. 461-490. UBELAKER D. H. (1999), Human skeletal remains: excavation, analysis, interpretation (3rd ed.), Washington D.C., Taraxacum. VIRTAMA P., KIVILUOTO R., PALKAMA A., and TELKKÄ A. (1962), ‘Estimation of stature from radiographs of long bones in Children – III, Children aged from ten to fifteen’, Annales Medicinae Experimentalis et Biologiae Fenniae, 40, pp. 283-285. WALKER P. L., MILLER K. W. P. and RICHMAN R. (2008), ‘Time, temperature and oxygen availability: an experimental study of the effects of environmental conditions on the colour and organic content of cremated bone’, in SCHMIDT C. W. and SYMES S., eds, The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, Academic Press, pp. 129-136. WEEKS L. (2003), Early metallurgy of the Persian Gulf. Technology, Trade and the Bronze Age World, Boston, Brill Academic Publisher. WEISGERBER G. (1980), ‘…und Kupfer in Oman’, Der Anschnitt, 32, pp. 62-110.