Your search

In authors or contributors
  • The following evaluates 778 tombs surveyed, 295 from the BEW salvage excavations in the Bāṭina, and 361 excavated from Samad/al‑Muyasser. We entered long‑known and also new sites into an open-source database known as ‘Ent’ – an ongoing effort. Two issues arise for the hut tomb chronology: to determine a more specific nomenclature of the tomb shapes and to date by means of contexted finds. To the extent possible, we disambiguate hut tombs from other burial structures. Specific stone structures previously identified as ‘cairns’ can be more closely typologised. Dating tombs more finely than to the Early Iron Age or late pre‑Islamic period is rarely realistic. Excavated, poorly preserved tombs shed little light on the dating of well‑preserved hut tombs.

  • In 2023, the author’s gazetteer of Iron Age sites joined as a source in the Digital Atlas of Ancient Arabia. It provides basic data regarding EIA and late pre-Islamic sites in SE Arabia, such as their location, character, discovery date, and bibliography, which were previously difficult to overview. The number of documented SLIA (Samad Late Iron Age) sites has increased to 114, with 78 in Sharqiyah, 33 in Dakhiliya, and 5 in Muscat governorates. The vast majority are funerary. The largest of these, Mahaliya, has the potential to challenge the dominance of the type-site, Samad/ al-Muyassar, as the primary source of information. Artefact classes serve as the method to progress the study of SE Arabian prehistory. Recently, seven stratified 14C determinations of charcoal came to light in the Mahaliya settlement. In combination with previous datings, they bolster the beginning of the period to 300 BCE. Another novelty is the study of imported glazed vessels in some of the graves, which indicates the isolation of this assemblage from centres to the north and south. The Heidelberg project solidifies the typological and spatial definition of the SLIAn (Samad Late Iron Age, near), related to both the SLIA and the PIR. Finally, the different SLIA sites had little contact each other, to judge from the heterogeneity of their find-repertories. This notion is bolstered by the strong individuality of grave structures. While many of the finds were already published, re-examination emended many pottery descriptions. One result is new evidence for a break between EIA and SLIA pottery and other finds.

Last update: 4/28/26, 8:04 AM (UTC)