Prehistoric Tower Tombs at Shir/Jaylah, Sultanate of Oman · Prehistoric Tower Tombs at...

Paul Yule and Gerd Weisgerber

Prehistoric Tower Tombs at Shir/Jaylah, Sultanate of Oman

The discovery of the towers

The brief 1995 campaign of the German Ar-chaeological Mission to the Sultanate ofOman took place with the purpose of moni-toring the degree of danger and damage toarchaeological monuments, as a first step intheir protection. The work centred on thetower tombs at Shir (Wil yat r), withinthe greater area of Jaylah. The next largesttown, Ibr , lies 50 air km to the west-south-west (Fig. 1). But other ruins of differentperiods were recorded as well. These includethree Early Iron Age forts, two at Isma yahand one at Maq a ah, as well as a burialground of the same age at a place calledMaq a ah hail. A limited amount of excava-tion was necessary in order to get an idea ofthe characteristics of selected structures andtheir dating.

About 1985 the first track was bulldozedfrom the valley below up to the village ofJaylah. This allowed the transport of child-ren to the school in Isma iyah and for basicnecessities such as water to the mountainvillages. The track also meant that the areawith its monuments would be exposed tomany visitors, which is exactly what hashappened since. For obvious reasons someform of protection for the monuments musttake place or at least there should be somerecord of their present condition. Therefore,first measures were taken to protect the

#

#

#

#

1

monuments. First the towers were mapped(Fig. 1–3) and described by G. Weisgerber andthe other members of the team Three of thetowers were excavated, Shi1, Shi2, and Shi23 .

.2

3

1

2

3

The present report appeared in the Beiträge zur allgemeinen und

vergleichenden Archäologie 18, 1998, 183–242, ISBN 3-8053-2518-

5. According to some of the locals the mountainside settlement is

1500 years old.

National Survey Authority, negative numbers OM

81 78 015, 017, 019; OM81 78 115, 117, 119; OM81 78 154, 155, 156.

The map is based on Sheet NF 40-8B, scale 1:100,000 supplemented

by terrestrial survey: M. Eichholz, Th. Klaus 3/95. Cartography: M.

Eichholz, Th. Klaus 5/95. Owing to the partly extreme wide distanc-

es measured and the collapsed stone around the towers, an accur-

acy in the measurement of the diameter measured in decimeters

is the maximum which seems reasonable. In the individual des-

criptions of the tombs measured dimensions are recorded. Here a

centrally located and elevated point 1790 m altitude was identi-

fied from which most of the tombs could be surveyed directly.

The tombs of the lower plateau were surveyed three dimensional-

ly from a secondary lower point. In order to render a better im-

pression of the valleys deeply cut into the layered landscape, aer-

ial photos obtained from the National Survey Authority were

joined by means of computer. After the identification of certain

tombs in the aerial photos, the remaining surveyed tombs, walls

and the track were adapted. The entrances of the tombs Shi1 and

Shi2 were measured more carefully and recorded stereoscopical-

ly.

Shi1 was excavated by J. Schreiber, Shi2 by C. Falb, and Shi23

by P. Yule. On the average some seven locals worked as labourers.

The name of Shir was abbreviated in "Shi" and a number in order

to incorporate this and other sites in our data base for all archae-

ological sites and excavations in Oman. Other examples in this

study are "Ism" for Isma iyah, "Maqt" for Maq ah, and "Sha" for

al-Sh riq.

Prehistoric Tower Tombs at Shir/Jaylah, Sultanate of Oman 185

The first two are in excellent condition onlysurpassed by that of Shi10. Two signs wereplaced near Shi1 to inform visitors first of theantiquities law and second of the historicalimportance of the site . Other local monu-ments in this still partly inaccessible areawere recorded preliminarily .

In 1991 the German Mission concluded itsfinal campaign of fieldwork for the Samad

Project . At the end of the season the book ofJohn Nowell, A Day Above Oman, came to theauthors' attention. One of the towers (Shi10)was reproduced in Nowell's book which gaveno clear idea of the nature, location or totalnumber of the structures. Attempts to reachthe towers first from the east then from thewest side were hindered owing to a lack oftime. Departing from the W d y n/Khab-bah on the 29th of August in 1991 P. Yule gotas far as the village of Maq a ah (Fig. 5),partly by foot, and then turned back. Thereason is that the villagers, upon beingasked, did not know that the structures be-ing sought were tombs. They call them "tow-ers" ( abr j). Thus, when asked if towertombs existed in the area, they replied thatin the area only watchtowers were to befound. Later J. Nowell agreed to show P. Yulea track leading to the tombs. In a brief firstvisit on 1 November 1991 it was possible toenter a tomb and sketch the interior (Shi2) .A few days later Dr Al b. A med b. Bakhital-Sh nfar was brought to the site. Aerialphotos of the towers became available to theauthors (Fig. 9). During a third visit in 1992it was possible to clear some of the rubblefrom the tomb Shi1 . At this point the poten-tial of this archaeological monument andthe meaning of the towers to the local pop-ulation became clear.

In 1990 at the conference "Arabia Anti-qua" in Rome Paolo M. Costa showed slidesof the tower tombs photographed from theair. The authors were not present at his talk,and it was unclear where the monumentswhich he talked about were located, not tomention their exact appearance. In 1992 onviewing photos, Costa confirmed that thetowers were those to which he referred in

his talk. The photos were made by Alan Shut-tleworth in 1977.

#

186 Paul Yule / Gerd Weisgerber

4

5

6

7

8

4

5

678

The towers are located in a very remote partof the Sultanate. Well above the W d Khab-bah (500 m elevation) occasional small settle-ments such as Maq a ah (900 m) exist wherefalaj irrigation, date farming and herding arepossible. Above this area (1400 m) on thehighest rocky platform only the latter can bepracticed. On the uppermost escarpment thetombs which are the subject of this paperwere built (1600 m). Here is hardly any soil.Nonetheless temporary and permanent smallsettlements, the largest of which is Jaylah,exist. Near the tombs lie the still smallersettlements of Qarun, Fa ehi and Habil hais.They are built in caves which have beenwalled in with the help of mudbrick, andmore recently with concrete blocks. Owingto the scarcity of water, agriculture is notpossible aside from Maq a ah and Jaylah.

Using in 1995 the settlement Mant q t al-Bed in al-Sh riq as our base, twice daily wecovered a distance of 26 km and more than1300 m in altitude. We considered the partialrestoration of tomb Shi1 as a first step in or-ganizing an archaeological park. The debrisfrom inside and immediately outside the con-struction was to be placed on top of the tombin order to give an idea of the original form.But in this way we also would falsify the ap-pearance since there was no guide as to theoriginal height other than the amount of fal-len stone. Instead of piling the debris on top,we laid the stones on the ground 5.00 m northof the tower in the same diameter (3.80 m) asits uppermost. The stones reached a height of0.50 m in addition to the 5.47 m of the pre-served

#

#

~

The first was provided by the Department of Antiquities andthe second was financed by the Deutsch-Omanische Gesell-schaft e.V., Berlin.P. Yule/G. Weisgerber 1996, 137–142. Among the most impor-tant of these are several pottery workshops to the north of Is-ma iyah which were in production into the 1950's.P. Yule 1998.P. Yule 1992, 279 Fig. 14.I thank I. Guba, P. Millns, and Mu ammad b. Salim al-Wadhahifor their assistance during this visit.

height of the actual monument. Presumablythe crown originally was flat.

Observations on the archaeology of the area

To investigate the history of settlement withregard to the necropolis at Shir we surveyedthe surrounding area. Time did not allow forintensive or extensive survey, and thus wecan only report those sites close to the road.A fort of Early Iron Age date on Qarn Su-waich (Ism1), a hill in Isma iyah, just southof the track to Ibr , is the most importantruin in the immediate area. The structuralremains extend over a steeply inclined hillwhich on one side is abruptly cut by theW d Khabbah. From this side the fort is in-accessible. The steep slope is defended by awall which cuts across it. The remains offoundation walls are visible. As with mostIron Age sites, large quantities of pottery

#


Fig. 4. Village and oasis at Maq a ah seen from the direction of the Iron Age (?) fort.#

occur. On the hills the remains of severalHafit tombs are visible.

present-day Maq a ah is the closest villageto the necropolis at Shir (Fig. 4). Its develop-ment is hindered by the remote position, thesteepness of the landscape, and the limitedamount of water available. Today it consistsonly of a few houses. These are built of localrounded weathered limestone, some wallsare plastered with clay. The village has awatchtower of no great antiquity. Owing tothe limited amount of cultivateable land, thefarmers garden tiny terraced fields whichare watered by a small falaj (channel) thesource of life for this village. Only a few palmtrees can grow here. In the prehistoric agethe plateau Maq a ah hail south-western andabove the village must have played a greaterrole than today; presumably it could be gar-dened without irrigation. Only here gravescan be dug into the otherwise rocky ground.Therefore it serves as the cemetery for the

#

#

–

village. On the erosion fan bordered by lowhills lay the ruins of tombs of the Early IronAge. The remains of houses here may be old-er.

Even a village of such modest size pos-sessed a fort, presumably of Early Iron Agedate. It is located east of the valley whichcuts into the plateau, atop a gabbro hill. Itslimestone walls are readily visible (Maqt4).

Basic observations of the types of tombs

Five types of tombs can be observed at Shir.The first are simple conical towers with acorbel vault (Fig. 5). The incline of the wallsis steeper in the case of taller towers. Moreelaborate are those of a second type with aninner wall and a facade (Fig. 6). The stonesof this type are more carefully dressed.Some of them are double vaulted, one atopthe other, as in the case of Shi2, Shi6, Shi9,

and Shi10. A third type is igloo-shaped andhas a clearly triangular entrance (Shi51). Afourth type (Fig. 7) has no entrance, is squat,and has a vertical wall (Shi14, Shi16, andShi30). Since Shi14 is partly built from thedressed stones of Shi13, this type is later indate than the main series. A fifth type is acairn represented by a low heap of stones(Shi54, Shi56). The locals explain yet anothertype of structure (Fig. 8) to be wolf traps(hadar m l s b) . Such are about 1.80 m inlength and 0.50 m in height. They are desig-nated with the additional letter "a" in thecatalogue.

The majority of the tomb entrances facethe east, but not perfectly so (Fig. 22).Unfortunately none of the skeletons werepreserved so that their positions could not be

9

9


Al b. A med b. Mah sh al-Sha r explained that they are not totrap wolves, but rather to protect the small children of the herd-ers from wolves (orally expressed information). But by virtue ofthe position of these traps in isolated points, this seems unlikely.

Fig. 5. Tower tomb Shi17 was built in the single wall construction.


Fig. 6. Tower tomb Shi8 shows the construction of an inner wall and a facade.

Fig. 7. Tomb Shi16 belongs to the rare cylindrical type.

noted. The tombs are positioned not instraight rows but rather on the edges ofbluffs in order to be seen from a maximaldistance. One of the largest tombs, Shi10, oc-cupies the highest point. Several tombsstand aligned 30 m off on the southeast edgeof a deep gully (Fig. 9).

At first the existence of a permanent mo-dern settlement on the upper escarpmentwas unknown to us, and the question arosewhether this site anciently was a burialground for the inhabitants in lower areas tothe west. It remains undecided whether thenumerous tombs were built by a local popu-lation or by people coming from somewhereelse.

The chronology of the tombs has two as-pects: first the internal chronology, andsecond the dating of the entire complex interms of the archaeology of south-easternArabia. Finds were of little help in dating thetowers. In and around some of the towerspotsherds of the Early Iron Age lay scattered.


Fig. 9. Helicopter view of tower tombs Shi10 (above)

to Shi13 on the High Plateau (Photo N. Mylne).

Fig. 8. Entrance of a "wolf trap" with vertical

slabs Shi18a.

However, the reuse of Pre-Islamic tombs ofall periods in Oman, is well attested to. Theevidence for the dating therefore must de-rive from the tombs themselves. Comparabletombs are known in and outside of the Sul-tanate; they are difficult to discuss becausethey are in a poor state of preservation orbecause they contain no datable finds. Othertower tombs exist outside the area which wemapped, for example in the direction to r .In this respect the following question arises:What exactly is a tower tomb and how doesit compare with other kinds of free-standingtombs?

A tower tomb is a memorial building forone, two, or possibly even more prominentdeceased individuals. These buildings wereintended to be landmarks visible from afar.They were positioned on the ridges and crests

10

10Personal communication, J. Reade.

of plateaus, hills, or mountains. Tower tombsdiffer in size, height, and manner of con-struction. They may have single or doublewall construction, finely dressed or un-worked stone slabs. On the other hand Hafittombs are not tower tombs, nor do the largeUmm an-Nar communal tombs fit the towertomb definition. The poor state of preserva-tion of most of the Umm an-Nar tombs ob-scures their original appearance. Neverthe-less it is assumed that most of the smallUmm an-Nar tombs belong to the usual typedefined above, and should be dated to thesecond half of the 3rd millennium BC. It isthe unusually good preservation which givesimportance to the tower tombs of Shir. Theygive an impression of how most of the ruinsover the countryside once appeared.

58 tombs were visited and a small numbersubjected to detailed investigation. Most ofthem were tower tombs, and in their appear-ance and building technique they revealshared and differing attributes. Common tomost tombs at Shir are that all of the towersare circular in plan. All entrances lie atground level. All tomb chambers are built bymeans of a false (corbel) vault. No tomb hasa supporting vault-wall. No tomb is dug intothe bedrock. All of the tombs are built of loc-al limestone.

The differences among the tombs aremore noticeable: The external walls of manytaper toward the top; others are ogival. Cer-tain tower tombs have two false vaults, oneabove the other but most have only a sin-gle one. Many tower tombs are built fromcarefully dressed stone slabs, others with un-worked stones. Most tower tombs have roomenough only for a single burial, others havemore room. There are also low tombs with anearly cylindrical exterior wall.

Discord results if one correlates the attri-butes of the tower tombs with the defini-tions of tombs in Oman . Structures such asthose at Shir were previously not availablefor comparison, including e.g. the piggyback vaults. The towers differ from classicalUmm an-Nar ossuaries: They have neithertwo stories nor subterranean galleries .

–


1112

13141516

11

12

13

14

15

16

B. Vogt defines the third millennium tombtypes of Oman in the following manner: Hafittombs reach a diameter of 4 8 m. The 1.02.5 m diameter is enclosed by one or two con-centric so-called ring walls pierced by the en-trance passage. The chamber is roofed by acorbel vault. The entrance is rectangular ortrapezoidal seen from the front. Its lintel con-sists of one or more stone slabs. The entrancewas sealed by the outer wall. The tombs layon the open w d terraces, on the outlyinghill slopes, or more rarely on hill and moun-tain summits .

Beehive tombs measure as much as 8 9 min diameter, and 3 4 m in height. Typical is asingle chamber built of two or more concen-tric walls, an entrance at ground level, mostlyonly through the inner wall, and an igloo-likeexterior form. The entrance passages are tri-angular. The entrance was sealed by one ormore walls. The tombs lay primarily in highplaces .

B. Vogt arrives at the conclusion that bothkinds of tombs, their architectural concep-tion, the means of burial, and the tomb equip-ment seldom differ sharply from each other.Therefore he defines to the Hafit Beehivetombs as, "...freestanding tomb structureswith a chamber, the diameter of which maynot exceed 2 m, the lack of internal partitionwalls (not support walls), the constructionmostly of more than one ring wall, the sealingof the tomb entrance, and the interment withat least one and maximally four to five indiv-iduals..." . These tombs date generally to thefirst half of the third millennium BC. To theHafit Beehive tombs belong those cataloguedbelow for Isma iyah, Sh riq, and Maq a h aswell as the ruin of Shi24.

– –

––

# #~

B. Vogt 1985, 58–131.The distinguishing of free-standing pre-Iron Age tombs intothree types hearkens back to the work of K. Frifelt (K. Frifelt1975a, 371–373).B. Vogt 1985, 61–62.B. Vogt 1985, 70–71.B. Vogt 1985, 103.B. Vogt 1985, 103.


Fig. 10. Foundation of aHafit tomb, al-Maysar M317.The entrance is visible in theinner wall but the outer wallsseal and mask it.

Fig. 11. Ruin of the Umm an-Nar tomb M402 at al-Maysar.Different in relation to the con-struction are only the plinthat al-Maysar and the entranceson the ground level at Shir.


Fig. 12. Diagramm of the diameters of the tombs (grey: tower tombs; white: other kinds of tombs) at Shir (graphic

G. Steffens).

The tombs of the Umm an-Nar Period be-long in the second half of the third millenni-um. B. Vogt defines them as circular build-ings which normally are divided by partitionwalls into two or more chambers. Their di-ameter ranges from 5 to 12.5 m. Two-storeystructures are likely with one of the storiessunk into the ground. The exterior wall con-sists of a facade which frequently is facedwith carefully dressed stones. One or two en-trance-like stones above ground level allowaccess into the interior. The collective ossu-aries of the Umm an-Nar Culture are usuallyfar larger than the Hafit Beehive tombs, andmay contain over 100 individuals . The tombsare located on flat terraces, never on moun-tains. But Vogt also mentions about smallUmm an-Nar tombs with partition walls .Other examples, such as al-Maysar tombM402 (ø 5.4 m) and M403 (ø 5.1 m), show that

there are also Umm an-Nar tombs withoutpartition walls (Fig. 11). These examplescontained Umm an-Nar pottery. The cham-bers of the Shir towers belong to this smallersize. They hardly could have been collectivetombs.

At first glance several of the tower tombscan be assigned to the Hafit/Beehive type,But none at Shir had more than an inner andan outer wall. Other tower tombs look likeUmm an-Nar tombs, but none has interiorpartition walls or an elevated entrance .

Tomb Shi51 (Fig. 57) comes close to theclassical Beehive tomb no. 1137 in B t (Fig.13): The external igloo form, nearly man-sized triangular entrance, remains of a plinth

17

18

19

17

1819

G. Weisgerber 1980, 90–93 fig. 51–56; S. Cleuziou/M. Tosi 1989,17; K. Frifelt 1991, 16–19; D.T. Potts 1992 I, 96 fig. 12.B. Vogt 1985, 110.Time allowed only for the drawing of two cross sections throughthe towers. In their place photos must serve.

Fig. 13. Beehive tomb 1137 at B t.

(not simply the lowermost course ofstones), and the original height are nearlyidentical. Both tombs show interior andfacade walls. But closer inspection of theentrance reveals differences in the mannerof construction. While in B t the interiorand exterior heights of the entrance are i-dentical, in Shir the entrance is reduced instages from 1.9 m to 1.3 m. In B t there is asmall pillar to support the vault, but not inShir. The chamber of Shi51 measures 1 m indiameter, enough room for a single indiv-idual. That of B t 1137 is twice as wide.Aside from these observations in terms ofits appearance, its type, and preservationShi51 is unique. It shows the closest resem-blance to the Hafit Beehive tombs.

With their carefully bevelled stones tombsShi1, Shi2, and Shi10 bear the closest sim-ilarity to Umm an-Nar ossuaria at B t, al-

~

~

~

Khashbah, or those on the island of Umm an-Nar in Ab bi. Of the latter the most prom-inent and also the largest (e.g. Umm an-Narand Hili) show the intention of the builders toerect facades with tightly fitting large blocksof white limestone. By means of extremelyfine picking the blocks are formed with con-vex faces. In some cases silhouette-like reliefsalso were sculptured (Fig. 14). The largeblocks derive from the locally available whitelimestone of the "Oman Exotics". Where lime-stone was available only in small blocks orboulders within a reasonable distance thefacade stones were fashioned into small pyr-amidal stones, so-called "sugar lumps", theouter face carefully dressed by picking. Such


stones occur for example in a tomb at B t , butthere they are rare. Smoothly dressed lime-stone blocks from these tombs are sometimesreferred to as "sugar lump stones". Few of thetombs at B t have stones with picked sur-faces. They are built of limestone slabs to befound within the immediate area. In certaincases they are dressed differently (Fig. 15).The stone slabs were laid in horizontal con-centric courses of the same thickness . All ofthe tombs which K. Frifelt recorded on the is-land of Umm an-Nar and at B t evidence in-terior partitioning walls which divided theossuaries into several smaller areas . Thetower tombs of Shir differ from these in theconsequent lack of partition walls. These alsoare lacking in some of the tombs at al-May-

sar M4 .The study of masonry techniques provides

further chronological information. The dres-sing of the facade stones by means of bevel-ling is characteristic of the Umm an-Nar per-iod, as witnessed by tombs and profane build-ings. Well aimed striking with heavy hammer


Fig. 15. "Normal" facade of an Umm an-Nar tomb with inner partition walls at B t. Surfaces of the blocks

are fashioned by flaking.

~

24252627

24

25

26

27

Fig. 14. Closeable entrance of a large communal

tomb at Hili (H1159), United Arab Emirates. The

megalithic block shows a relief of oryxes, and

two human individuals.

K. Frifelt 1975a, fig. 80.K. Frifelt 1975a, fig. 61, 78, 79.K. Frifelt 1991, fig. 258, 260, 261.G. Weisgerber 1981, 205, 204 Fig. 33.

stones (Fig. 16) forms the exterior surface ofthe clinky hard facade stones so that the hori-zontal and the vertical dimension wereslightly curved. In order to achieve this, itwas necessary to strike the outer face of theslabs from all four directions. Flaking marksof this kind are visible on the exterior of thetombs Shi1, 2, 10, 13, and 41 (Fig. 17).

This masoning method is used on thelarge stone blocks of the conical tombswhich were discovered in Y nq l (NorthOman) in 1997 (Fig. 18). These tombs containdiagnostic Umm an-Nar sherds (Fig. 19).Here, thickly layered limestone is depositedand tomb A is built partly on top of it. Thestone may have been used for building ex-actly as quarried, which forms the majority


of the cases of tower tombs in Oman. In thetowers at Y nq l, however, the blocks wereconvexly bevelled. Where the result was notsatisfactory to the builders, protrusions onthe surface were evened by picking (Fig. 20).The working of the stone by flaking is a me-thod which is in Oman only known from theUmm an-Nar Period.

The existence of two-storey double vault-ed tombs are not unique at this time. Largertombs of the Umm an-Nar Period occasionallyhave two storeys. On the island of Umm an-Nar itself both storeys were above ground. Asecond floor made of large slabs resting eitheron the partition walls or on the circumferencewalls and on the partition walls served for

~ ã


Fig. 18. Tower A at Y nq l in the northern part of the Sultanate is built on a cliff which yields the

building material.

Fig. 17. The dressed stones

of Shi2 show traces of flaking

their outer edges.


Fig. 20. The large blocks

from tower A at Y nq l

were flaked and picked

(left of the scale).

both served for depositing the dead intwo storeys. In al-Maysar M401 thelower floor was sunk into the ground. Themain floor, built of heavy slabs, was incorpor-ated both in the circumference wall and onepartition wall . Similar constructions seemto have existed at Hili . It is, however, un-likely that the double vault construction atShir should enlarge or secure the space forthe dead since there was no entrance to the"second floor". Instead the double vaultconstruction at Shir saved building material,labour, and time, as well as lending morestability to the structure.


The mapping of tower tombs with single or

double wall construction (Fig. 21) revealsthat while most of the tombs were built in

the more elaborate manner, only five were offine and smoothly dressed stone. Tombs with

double walls are grouped together on the

Main, High, and Lower Plateau, whereas thesingle wall tombs are grouped in general to

the north and especially on the NorthernRidge. The two types are spatially separated,

29

30

282930

28

B . V o g t 1 9 8 5 , 1 2 5 – 1 2 7 .G. Weisgerber 1980, 92, 94 fig. 57.S. Cleuziou/B. Vogt 1985, 250.


but not strictly so. There is one double-walled, elaborate tomb in the north, a single-walled one on the High Plateau, and threesingle-walled ones on the Lower Plateau.Lacking datable artefacts for a fine chronolo-gy by no means we can determine that thetwo types follow each other. However, ano-ther fact may have a special significance:The four groups of tombs are topograpicallymore distant from each other than the mapsuggests. Each of the four groups has at leastone tower tomb of a higher quality: On theMain Plateau these are Shi1 and Shi2, on theHigh Plateau Shi10 and Shi13, on the LowerPlateau Shi41. These tombs stand out be-cause of their dressed stone. On the NorthRidge the outstanding tomb shows a doublewall construction whereas the rest werebuilt with single walls. This does not looklike an accidental distribution. It could be de-bated if these four tomb-groups, each with abuilding of outstanding quality among itsnext neighbours may represent a kind of so-cial grouping such as families, kinship groupsor clans.

The orientation of the tomb entrances

The graphic Fig. 22 shows the orientation ofthe entrances of the tower tombs. The ma-jority have an entrance toward the east(n=13). Certain of the entrances point towardthe east-north-east (n=4), or the east-south-east (n=7). The deviation from true east maybe connected with the azimuth of the sunrisewhich differs at different times of the year.It varies in Oman ±30 .

Further comparable structures

Two sites show concentrations of tombscomparable with the tower tombs. The first,made public in the late 1970's, is located inthe northern part of the Sultanate in theW d al- Ain (496120; 2567250=N23 12' 03.1";E 56 57' 43.6") (Fig. 23) . Here a row of 21tower tombs graces the crest of a mountain.Some of these measure nearly 5 m in height.Triangular door openings all face eastward

E

E

E

#

to slightly varying degrees. Only few of the

slabs are worked. A dating for these and thefollowing tombs rests exclusively on the ar-chitecture.

A second site (N23 34' 42.8"; E58 02'31.7") discovered in 1993 is located 500 m

south-east of the village of alb n, 11 kmwest of the Sultan Qaboos University at thenorthern end of the Sam il Pass . The ceme-tery is separated from the present-day vil-lage by a w d , which was converted into agarden in 1996. In a rocky area, the ruins ofsome 35 tower tombs are visible (Fig. 24).They are constructed with an inner and afacade wall with a rubble filling between. Insection the bases of the tombs are far widerthan at Shir. The local soft and amorphouslimestone is badly eroded; traces of dressingare not preserved (Fig. 25). But certain tombshave facade stones carefully dressed as withthe most elaborate towers at Shir. Whitelimestone shims serve to even out the

E E

§

31

32

31

32

B. de Cardi/S. Collier/D.B. Doe 1976, 168–169, 185 pl. 22, 186 pl.23.Topographic map "Seeb". I. Guba pointed this site out.


Fig. 25. Masonry of one of the towers at alban.

Fig. 23. Tower tombs at al- Ain in al- hirah (northern Sultanate of Oman).

courses formed by the somewhat irregularfacade stones. One of the tombs (Hal30) mea-sured originally 4.0 m in height (Fig. 26).These tombs have been largely pulled down.The position of the entrances is hidden fromview since the east side is generally thatmost damaged. In other words the entranceis to be sought on this side, as in the case ofthe tombs at Shir. The edge of the rock out-cropping is the preferred place for the tombs(Fig. 27). The only finds visible on the surfaceare potsherds of Lizq/Rumaylah type whichevidence the reuse of the tombs.

Other tombs also can be described as tow-ers, removing them from the nominal des-cription of "beehives", "cairns", or even"pillboxes". To these belong the stately butruined towers near Zukait (Fig. 28) . Whilethe distinction between towers and bee-hives is often moot, owing to the preserva-tion and shape, the tombs at alban and Zu-kait can be ascribed more fittingly to theformer than the latter group.

33

33

B. de Cardi/S. Collier/D.B. Doe 1976, 159 fig. 32.


Fig. 26. Attempted visual reconstruction of tomb Hal30.

Fig. 24. Part of the site of the tower tombs at Halban (Sultanate of Oman)..


Fig. 27. Sketch plan of the tower site at alban.

Fig. 28. Tower tombs at Zukait near Izk . (Photograph R. Löbbecke).


Outside of Oman tower-like tombs areknown but so far have received little atten-tion. Striking are the so-called "naw mis" inSinai which are attributed to the Late Chal-colithic/Early Bronze Age (3500-2500 BC) .Well preserved examples (Fig. 29) lie to thenorth-east of the St. Catherine cloister onthe road to Ain Kh ra. These tombs reacha height of 2.0 m and a diameter of 4.0 m.The entrance lies on the west side. They are,however, dissimilar in size and in shape incomparison with the the tower tombs ofShir.

Further comparisons are known north-east of Marib (N 15 55' 00.6"; E 46 09'08.8") in Yemen at a place called Mak ber al-Aqz m, north of the Ramlat al-Sabatain (Fig.34, 35) . Those on the Jabal Balaq al-Awsaand in other places have been dubbed "tur-ret graves" . Built on the sides of a hill at thissite some 200 of such tombs are visible com-bined with alignments of stones. The tombs

#

E E

Fig. 29. "Naw mis" near Ain Khu ra/Sinai. (Photograph R. Löbbecke).

are formed like a truncated cylinder all ba-sically of the same type. Sometimes one ortwo stones project from the roofs of thetombs. More tombs exist in the vicinity, andin all up to 4000 have been estimated . Thelargest have a diameter of 6 m and a maxi-mum height of 3 m. The entrances consis-tently point to the west, and often are about1 m above the ground level. These tombs arefound together with alignments of stones in-cluding triliths, which to judge from theirpreservation, span a considerable time. Thealignments of slim stacks of stones ("rays")are in a better condition than the triliths,and therefore may be later in date.

34

35

36

37

34

35

3637

O. Bar Yosef et al. 1986, 121–167; O. Bar-Yosef 1977, 65–88; N.Schmidt 1993, 12–13. "Nam s" (sing.) means "moskito".Cemetery of the short people. This place is also called al-Ru-waik, al-Abyad and dishma by the Bedouins. This particular cem-etery does not seem to have been mapped by de Maigret on p.334 of his article.M. Gerig 1982, 43, pl. 23; A. de Maigret 1996, 321–337.A. de Maigret 1996, 333.


Fig. 30. Tombs at Makaber al-Akzam (Yemen).

For the age of the "turret graves" in Yemen

there are few points of references. They

must not all have been built at a limited per-

iod. A. de Maigret published three 14C assays

for such tombs at al-Ma darah (830, 630, and

60 BC), and noted that the more recent in-

terments bore traces of beads, bronze and

iron fragments . On the other hand, B. Vogt

has noted the occurrence of partially pol-

ished chert axes in one of the tombs, which

raises the date perhaps into the 4th or 3rd

millennium BC. Curiously, the tombs are nei-

ther concentrated near an obvious settle-

ment, nor do they seem to relate to an activ-

ity which might take place in the desert,

such as mining.

A. de Maigret suggests a theoretical datingfor the tombs coeval with the rise of the greatSouth Arabian states in the first millenniumBC. But he also compares the turrets with thecairns at Ra s al-Jins in Oman. Here, however,the similarity is of a general nature . Thecairns, for example, in RJ6 are in a very badstate of preservation and stand only c. 50 cmhigh. In any case, they seem to date to theHafit Period. To their dissimilarities belongsthe position and the orientation of the en-trance, and the constructional details of thewalls. Essentially closer is the resemblance

between these tombs and the naw mis of Si-

3839

38

39

A. de Maigret 1996, 324.

A. de Maigret 1996, 328 referring to G. Santini 1985, 27–34 and

idem. 1987, 33–40.


Fig. 31. Tombs and other structures at Makaber al-Akzam.

nai. The similarity lies in the size, proportionof the height and width of the tombs, theway in which the walls are constructed, andthe position of the entrance. Here the cor-respondence is essentially closer than thatwith the tombs in Central Oman. It cannotbe profitably discussed on present evidencewhether a relation, affinities, or convergenceexists between the free-standing tombs ofwestern and eastern Arabia.

The preservation of the tombs

Most of the towers at Shir are in a poor stateof preservation in spite of their sturdy man-ner of construction. All but two of the towers(Shi6 and 17) have an oculus at the top. A

part of the damaged condition may resultfrom weathering, but weathering generally isusually limited to superficial erosion. Moreplausible, however, is destruction by pious i-conoclastic Muslim visitors who understoodthe towers to be religious monuments fromthe "time of darkness". It is difficult to datetheir activity, since the local population seemsto be ignorant of it. But a wild guess in thepast century rests on the amount of silt de-posited in and around the tombs and the pa-tina of the stones still in situ and those whichhave fallen.

Conclusions

A distinction between Hafit and Umm an-Nartomb architecture has eluded archaeologists


in individual cases until now. Two maintypes of tombs are the well-known: HafitBeehives and Umm an-Nar tombs. In the dis-cussion of the towers at Shir, the degree ofelaborateness and the manner of dressingthe stone serve as guides to the chronolo-gy. The shape of the stones of Umm an-Nartombs ranges from dressed blocks ("sugarlumps") to slabs with bevelled edges. Alltombs with dressed stones can be attributedto this period . Others with unworked edgesor sides may belong to this period if thecourses are carefully laid. Only a few of thetowers at Shir combine characteristics of theHafit and the Umm an-Nar. The examplesdiscussed here show that the material basisavailable is lacunose and that every largernew complex is likely to change the pictureof these standing tombs. It also shows thatarchitectural typologising without a firmchronology is destined to fail. Only furtherexcavations of Chalcolithic and Bronze Agetombs can lead to the desired clarity.

40

40

Square "sugar lump" stones are not universally distributed inOman. They are known for example at al-Akh ar gr. A3, Hafit,Ibr /Selme and Umm an-Nar. Stone nominally in the shape ofa truncated pyramid came to light at B t.

Expressions such as "pill-boxes", "turrets",

"beehives" and "hut tombs" first arose as

simple descriptive appellatives. But it is desir-

able to use them now more discriminantly if

they are to serve as chronologically diagnos-

tic tomb forms. Moreover, it is clear that

these respective names describe groups of

tombs which in certain cases turn out to be

morphologically heterogeneous. It is desir-

able to redefine them. Perhaps the most dif-

fuse of all are "pill-boxes" which can have

any shape whatever. In the post-war world a

more suitable alternative may be "cairn",

simply a heap of stones. Tombs such as those

at Zukait and the W d al- Ain can be des-

cribed aptly as tower tombs, bringing them

in line with those at Shir.

#

Catalogue

Structures along the track from Shir to al-Sh riq

The elevated plateau of Shir appears on a map (scale1:100,000); the position of the road was determined bymeans of a GPS. The same holds for the position of thetombs and forts near Maq ah and al-Sh riq (Fig. 32). TheHafit tombs along the track into the mountains show thatthese ways are far older than one might think at firstglance. Even prior to the time of the tower tombs it existed.They seem to reflect old donkey trails which as early as thethird millennium BC were well-travelled. Otherwise itwould not have made sense to build tombs there. Thus thecatalogue begins with selected tombs from al-Sh riq.Without the help of datable small finds, the suggestedsequence Hafit, and Umm an-Nar tombs is hypothetical.

Fort Ism1, "Qarn Suwaich"Position: 692822; 2534733

On the elevated corner between the road from Ibr andthe W d Kabbah lies a fort of Iron Age date. The bank ofthe w d is steep and inaccessible. Walls seal all of thecrevices in the rocks. The slope to the road is barricaded bya large wall. Housing took place on artificial terraces thusforming additional hindrances to potential invaders. Walls

of buildings were constructed of rocky stones and still standsometimes to more than 0.60 m height. On the surface largequantities of Early Iron Age pottery (Lizq/Rumaylah) are vis-ible.

ombs Ism2Position: 693077; 2534912On the mountain crest ending at the edge of the fort Ism1some Hafit tombs are visible.

Tomb Maqt1Position: 703710; 2526600, altitude: c. 980 m

Located above the black w d terrace at 980 m height, thisHafit cairn is built from round stones with an inner and out-er wall. The outer one measures 0.80 m in its thickness at thebase, and is preserved to a height of 0.55 m. The northernside is 0.55 m high. Also here the outer facing is recognisable.The west side stands 0.80 m high in several courses. Here adouble wall construction is readily recognisable. Rubble isfallen into the centre of the tomb.

T

Prehistoric Tower Tombs at Shir/Jaylah, Sultanate of Oman · Prehistoric Tower Tombs at...

Documents

Transcript of Prehistoric Tower Tombs at Shir/Jaylah, Sultanate of Oman · Prehistoric Tower Tombs at...