an analysis of the architecture of the tomb at sharm, fujairah, u. a. e

A r b . arch epig. 1999: 10: 1W189 Printcd in Dmncark All rights rescronl

Copyright 0 Munbxaard 1999

An analysis of the architecture of the tomb at Sharm, Fujairah, U.A.E. MELISSA RILEY AND CAMERON A. PETRIE University of Sydney Australia

Editor's note: Excavations at S h a m were undertaken in 1997 by a teamfrom the University of Sydney which comprised part of the Australian Archaeological Expedition to the United Arab Emirates under my overall direction. Field direction during the S h a m excavations was largely the responsi- bility of Lloyd Weeks, the most experienced of the p u p , but it must be said that the entire team of Diane B a r b , Toby Hartnell, Ruth Kaye, Kate Masia, Cameron Petrie, Melissa Riley, Lloyd Weeks and Michele Ziolkowski worked remarkably well together as a team and deserve equal credit for executing the excavation of this important monument and for car- rying out the bulk of subsequent post-excavation analysis. On behalf of the entire team I should like to thank HH Shaikh Hamad bin Muhammad A1 Sharqi, Supreme Council Member and Ruler of Fujairah, f ir the oppor- tunity to work in his beautiful emirate; Mr. Ahmed Khalifa Al-Shamsi, Director of Antiqui- ties in Fujairah, f i r all his invaluable support; Mr. Salah 'Ali, archaeologist in the Fujairah Museum,fir constant help in the field; and Mr. Muhammad, secretary of the Museum, for in- numerable kindnesses. Furthermore, Mr. Peter Hellyer (Abu Dhabi) helped us on numerous occasions in a variety of ways. Many local resi- dents of Fujairah also made our stay in the

emirate a pleasant as well as a scientifically profitable one.

Following the fieldwork at Sharm I decidid to try to involve all of the team in the analysis of the results, and to edit the report as a series of discrete articles to be published in A A E . I am also delighted to acknowledge the further contributions of several students not involved in the excavation, particularly Soren Blau, Katia M. Davis and George Susino, whose studies are also presented in thefiamework of this series of reports.

For editorial reasons it is not practical to re- peat all of the many acknowledgements which I know each author would like to record in every article, but I should like, on beharf of Diane Barker, whose work on the ceramics forms one of the centrepieces of this report, to record here her particular thanks to M. Ziolkowski fbr taking all the photos which appear in her various contributions; K. and J. Barker for tech- nical assistance, particularly with respect to scanning and editing; C. Petrie, for preparing the plans of Tomb I in MapInfi; and E. Thompson,jbr ident9cation.s and advice in all things malacological.

As Director of the Australian Archaeological Expedition to the United Arab Emirates and as editor of A A E it gives me great pleasure to present the results of the S h a m excavations in

180

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE TOMB AT SHARM, FUJAIRAH, U.A.E.

this journal and to thank all of my University of Sydney students without whose hard work neither our excavations in the U A E nor our subsequent efforts to give those excavations meaning would have been possible. - DTP.

Introduction The tomb at Sharm, located in a modem Islamic cemetery, was first identified in 1987 by members of the Swiss Liecht- enstein Foundation for Archaeological Re- search Abroad, as a Wadi Suq tomb of Shimal type, approximately 20 m in length (1). Prior to excavation by the team from the University of Sydney in 1997 (2), the tomb was confirmed as bearing a super- ficial resemblance to certain funerary structures from the Shimal cemetery (Fig. 1).

Fig. 2. The tomb looking north, at the completion of ex-- vation. To the right can be seen the southern wall of the 'mosque' struclure abutting the tomb.

However, at the completion of excavation, it was clear that the architectural influences on the Sharm tomb were very diverse. It represents a conglomeration of structural elements seen in a number of different tomb types of the Wadi Suq period. When this observation is combined with the analysis of the finds presented elsewhere in this issue, it is apparent that the nature and the history of the use of this distinct tomb is complex.

Tomb architecture The tomb at Sharm is a longchambered,

Fig. 1. semi-subterranean funerary monument, The tomb at Sharm looking south, prior to excavation. with an externd length of approximately

M. RILEY AND C. A. PETRIE

Fig. 3. The tomb looking south, at the completion of excavation. To the left can be seen the northern wall of the 'mosque' structure abutting the tomb.

17.2 m and an average external width of 2.5 m (Figs 2-3). The long axis of the tomb is oriented approximately 20" east of north (Fig. 4). The specific techniques used in the tomb's construction are best understood if it is viewed as being composed of a number of distinct structural elements.

Chamber The tomb's semi-subterranean structure consists of a rectangular, stonebuilt chamber with rounded, apsidal ends. The superstructure of the tomb was constructed of large wadi stones assembled using a dry stone technique, with smaller stones used to fill the interstices. The foundation stones

of the chamber were laid in an ordered linear manner so as to allow a vertical in- terior face, and appear unworked. This lowest course of the chamber wall is comprised of sigruficantly larger stones than those used in the courses immediately above, which themselves provide structural support for the uppermost courses. The chamber walls are preserved in some places up to six courses high.

A differentiation in stone orientation is visible between the lowest and upper courses of the tomb. Generally from the third course upwards, the stones are inserted transversely into the wall, so that their shorter rounded ends form the in- terior face of the chamber. These transversely laid stones are also tilted approximately 45" from the horizontal. While constructed differently to the lower courses, the stones of the uppermost of these comes were not arranged to continue the vertical inner face, but indicate the beginnings of the formation of the roof of the chamber.

Although the heterogeneity of Wadi Suq funerary architecture. renders comparisons difficult, the Sharm tomb is not unparal- leled in length, shape and orientation. Other examples of above-ground and subterranean single-chambered tombs of the Wadi Suq period range in length from 10 to 30 m. The lack of any close consistency in size suggests that this dimension may have been determined by pragmatic con- cerns, including the type and quantity of raw materials available for construction, the ~ t u r e of the local community and the expected number of inhumations to be housed in the tomb. Sites 1 and 6 at Shimal (3) and a tomb at Ghalilah (4) excavated by Donaldson are all very similar in length to the Sham tomb. This could be regarded as coinadence rather than evidence of close architectural influence, but does bespeak similarities in architectural and construc-

282


tion practices on both sides of the Oman Mountains at this time.

In terms of basic construction and de- sign, there are numerous examples of long, rectangular Wadi Suq tombs with rounded ends (5), including both above-ground and subterranean monuments. Like Sharm, the orientation of these tombs is generally north-south, with only minor variation (6).

It has been suggested that subterranean structures are a later development in Wadi Suq funerary architecture (7). In addition to the material remains from Sharm, those from Bithnah 4 also seem to support this hypothesis, with the tomb being character- ised primarily by its late Wadi Suq and Iron Age contents (8). However, while this development in architecture may well be characteristic of the late Wadi Suq period, it is imprudent to use architecture solely as the dating criteria. As cases in point, single and multiple subterranean inhumations have been found dating to the end of the third millennium BC at Ajman (9) and As- imah (10). They have also been found and dated to the so-called 'Classic Wadi Suq' period at sites such as Qattarah (11) and Bidya (12), and in the single graves at Wadi Suq (13). Clearly, caution must be exercised before making a correlation between the depth of a tomb in relation to the sur- rounding ground surface and its relative date.

Roofing Two main hypotheses exist as to the original roofing structure of Wadi Suq tombs. The first, proposed by Donaldson in relation to tombs from Shimal and Ghalilah, is that these graves had a saddleback mf, with successive courses of stone slabs being cantilevered towards the centre of the chamber. Each course of these stones would have projected successively into the tomb chamber, before finally meeting in

Fig. 4. Plan of the tomb. The stones used in the construction of the chamber have been shown in grry. The two ar- rows indicate the location of the entrances to the tomb chamber. The solid black line and the grey shaded area to the east of the tomb indicate the location of the overlying 'mosque' structure. The trench excavated within this strudure is indicated and the walls discovered therein are shown.

183


the middle to form a massive cantilevered roof strudure (15). The second, proposed by Vogt (16), reconstructs the tomb roof as a deck, with only enough corbelled cou~ses of projecting/cantilevered slabs being used to enable the roof to be spanned by flat slabs (17).

With the uppermost stones of the Sham tomb chamber, each successive course dis-

Fig. 5. The northern entrance to the tomb showing the threshold and jamb stones.

plays the beginnings of cantilevering. Al- though the superstructure of the chamber has not been completely exposed, it does not appear to extend substantially beyond the visible chamber lining of stones. This is yet to be proven by excavation, but the limited size of the strudure and the prox- imity of the upper courses to one another serve to emphasise the presumed aim to

Fig. 6. The southern entrance to the tomb showing the threshold and jamb stones.

184


Fig. 7. The three benches at the north end of the tomb.

minimise the required span of the roofing slabs. The highest preserved stones come to within 70 cm of each other (see Fig. 4). However, as is typical of most Wadi Suq tombs, no roofing slabs were found in situ at Sharm. Considering that two horizontal roofing slabs were however found in situ at DH2 at Dhayah (18), and that the methods of construction discussed here for Sharm

and those of the Dhayah tombs are similar, then Vogt’s hypothesis seems the more plausible for Sharm.

A number of large slabs, now thought to have origmally been roofing stones, had been reused in the construction of a sub- rectilinear structure abutting the eastern side of the tomb (see Fig. 10). This structure was identified by locals as being a

Fig. 8. The two benches at the south end of the tomb.

285


’mosque’ of relatively recent manufacture (see Figs 2-3). The remainder of the sup- posed roofing stones lay against and around the tomb.

Floor The floor of the Sharm tomb was not paved, but was formed by a bed of nat- urally hadpacked gravel. Paved floors are not generally characteristic of this type of Wadi Suq tomb, although they have been reported at Bidya, 3 km south of Sharm (19).

Tomb entrances The Sharm tomb has two entrances, both of which are situated in the eastern chamber wall. The entrances are spaced an equal distance from each end of the tomb, one entrance being 4.4 m from the northern end of the tomb (Fig. S), the other 4.4 m from the southern end of the tomb (Fig. 6). The entrances are each comprised of a threshold stone, measuring approximately 0.6 m across, with vertical stones func-

tioning as door jambs laid perpendicular to the line of the long eastern wall. One jamb stone is missing from the northern entrance. The entrances are set approximately 1 m above the tomb floor.

The occurrence of two entrances is un- paralleled in other Shimal-type or long subterranean Wadi Suq tombs. The entrances to Wadi Suq tombs of this type are also commonly in the western side of the tomb. The only other contemporary tomb with an entrance on the eastern side is Bithnah 4, where access is via a sloping cor- ridor (20).

With the presence of two entrances pro- viding differential access, we may have the beginnings of a particular division of space within the chamber (Fig. 4). This particular use of space is further emphasised by the elements of the final structural feature of the tomb chamber.

Benches At each end of the chamber and at a point almost midway along its length, a number of ‘benches’ were constructed. The benches

Fig. 9. The central bench shown to the left of centre, at the completion of excavation. The crack in the stone can be seen.

186


Fig. 10. The trench excavated within the ‘mosque’ structure abutting the tomb. Within the trench can be seen the remains of the two walls running east west. The entrance to the ’mosque’ structure can be seen to the east and the reuse of large stones here is clearly visible.

are made from large stones similar to those used for the upper layers of the chamber corbelling. They sit approximately 0.5 m above the ground and are supported by suitably-sized wadi boulders. The three benches at the extreme northern end of the tomb (Fig. 7) and the two at the southern end (Fig. 8) are also structurally built into the tomb chamber. This method of incor- poration indicates that these benches were a part of the original conception for the tomb, and neither an afterthought nor an addition in a later period.

The bench at the midpoint of the chamber (Fig. 9) appears to have been broken in an- tiquity. The placement of this bench in combination with the presence of two entrances would seem to imply the division of the one tomb chamber into two useable spaces, each with independent access.

A mix of archaeological material, including bone, pottery., fragments of soft- stone vessels, shell, and other small finds, was found both above and below the benches. The mixed nature of the tomb deposit prevents any determination of the benches’ original use or purpose through the associ- ation of material remains.

A bench was found at the end of the eastern annex of the DH 2 tomb at Dhayah, rising 50 an above the floor (21). Stones also supported this bench, but these stones projected from the chamber walls (22). A subterranean tomb excavated at Asimah contained a bench that was supported by projecting stones and was also inserted partially into the walls of the chamber. However, this bench was situated only 0.15 m above the floor (23). These parallels may represent similarities of purpose where they do not show precise structural consistency. Their use is, however, open to inter- pretation.

External structures, associated material and stratigraphy In addition to the excavation of the tomb, a 6x2 m area was opened inside the ’mosque’ structure, in order to ascertain whether there was any relationship between it and the tomb (Fig. 4). This excavation revealed two walls, running east- west, in near parallel alignments (Fig. 10). The walls were each constructed with an external facing of wadi stones with a

287

M. RILEY AND C. A. PETRlE

rubble core. The northern wall is by far the best preserved of the two, while the southern wall is heavily deflated. In orientation, the northern wall appears to run perpendicular to the orientation of the tomb (see Fig. 4).

The precise relationship between these walls and the tomb structure, if any, has yet to be determined. The presence of the later 'mosque' has prevented further explo- ration, but both walls extend into the western baulk of the trench, toward the tomb. From the edge of the trench to the tomb is a distance of less than 2 m.

In the deposit between the two walls, two pits had been dug. In these pits con- siderable quantities of cultural material were found, including bone, pottery, fragments of soft stone, shell and other small finds. Many of the fragments of pottery and soft stone came from the same vessels as fragments that were found inside the tomb itself. This strongly suggests that this external material was discarded from the main tomb after its initial deposition, PO- tentially indicating a chamber clearance for subsequent inhumations.

Much of this pit material, most of which dates to the Iron Age (24), was found at a lower stratigraphic level than the base of the two walls, some even coming from be- neath the southern wall. This suggests that the walls were erected at a date later than the movement of this material from the inside of the tomb, and certainly later than the construction of the tomb itself. As a re- sult, the function and precise date of these walls is far from clear.

From the limited stratigraphic infor- mation outlined above, it is unlikely that the walls formed part of an entrance cor- ridor for the Wadi Suq/Iron Age use of the tomb, such as the entrance at Bithnah (25). An annexe was found at AlQusais A (26). The exact nature of that structure is not known, but adjoining the eastern wid of

the tomb was constructed a semi-subterranean structure, consisting of a square within an enclosing semi-circular structure (27). The square structure contained two singular burials (28). Although the dating of the tomb at Al-Qusais is contentious, it is clear that material of both the Wadi Suq and Iron Age has been found.

If the walls in the external trench at Sharm are a part of a structure associated with the tomb, it does not seem likely that their construction was contemporary with that of the tomb. However, this does not demand that they were not involved with some later reuse. A definitive explanation of the structures underlying the 'mosque' is dependent upon further excavation.

Conclusion The tomb at Sharm has many structural features that are characteristic of other tombs that have been dated to the second d e n - nium BC. However, the tomb also displays a number of features not common in Wadi Suq burial architecture. These features in- clude two east-facing entrances as well as benches at both ends of the tomb and another in the centre. The reuse pattern visible in the material remains discussed elsewhere in this issue indicates continued interest in the tomb from the later second millennium Bc until the early first millennium AD. The combination of these elements adds new fa- cets to the understanding and knowledge of Wadi Suq period tomb architecture in particular and also of the processes of tomb usage and reuse on the eastern coast of the Oman peninsula.

References 1. Corboud P, Hapka R & im-ObeBteg P. A r c h -

ological Survey of Fujairah 1987. Bern Swiss Liecht- enstein Foundation for Archaeological Research Abroad, 1988: 28.

188


2. Our thanks to Michele Ziolkowski for the pho- tography and the final plan of the tomb produced in the field. Our thanks also to Lloyd Weeks and Diane Barker for their assistance and advice during the time that this work was being written, and to Toby Hartnell, Ruth Kaye and Kate Masia for their work on the excavation.

3. Donaldson P. Prehistoric Tombs of Ras al- Khaimah. &Ant 23: 1984: l%.

4. Donaldson P. Prehistoric Tombs of Ras al- Khaimah. OrAnt 24 1985: 95.

5. SH 101: Vogt B & Franke-Vogt U, eds. Shimal 1985/ 1986: Excaoations of the German Archaeolopcal Mis- swn in Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E., A preliminary report. Berlin: BBVO, 81987 21.

Bidya 1: A l - T i t i WY. The excavations at Bidya, Fu- jairah: the 3rd and 2nd Millenium BC culture.

Dhayah 1 & 2 Wtner J-M. Some preliminary Re- marks Conceming ' h o Recently Excavated

!%hippmann K, Herling A & Salles J-F, eds. Golf ArchaeoZogte: Buch-am-Erlbach: Internationale Ar- chiiologie, 1991: Figs 1-2.

Al Quslis: Vogt 8. Zur Chmologie und Entwicklung der Grdber des @ten 4.-2. Jtsd v Chr. auf der Halb insel Oman. mttingen: PhD thesis submitted to the Georg-August University, 1985. Taf. 85.

Qattarah: Cleuziou S. The Oman Peninsula in the Early Second Millenium BC. In: HArtel H, ed. South Asian Archamlogy 1979. Berlin: Reimer, 1981: 284.

6. Corboud P, Castella A€, Hapka R & imUbersteg P. Les tombes pmtohistoriques & Bithnah: Mainz: von Zabem, 1996: Fig. 68.

7. Wtner, Some pn?- Remarks Concerning Tombs in Dhayalx 98.

8. Corboud et al. Les t o m b protohistoriques de Bithnah: 97-98.

9 . M - T i t i WY. Umm an-Nar Culture in the Northem Emirates: the 3rd Millenium BC tombs at Ajman. AUAE 5 1989 96-97.

AUAE 5: 1989: 102-103.

Tombs in Dhayah/Ras al-Khaimah . I n :

10. AS 13: Vogt B. Asimah, An Account ofa 'liuo Months Rescue Excavation in the Mountains of Ras al- Khaimah, United Arab Emirates: Dubai: Shell Mar- kets Middle Fast, 1994 41-44.

11. Courboud et al. Les tombes protohistoriques de Bithnah: 97.

12. Al-Titi, The excavations at Bidya. 13. Frifelt K. On Prehistoric Settlement and Chron-

ology of the Oman Peninsula. EW 25: 1975: 377. 14. Donaldson, Prrhistoric Tombs of Ras al-Khaimah

(1984). 15. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs of Ras al-Khaimah

(1984): 219. 16. Vogt & Franke-Vogt, Shimal. 17. Vogt & Franke-Vogt, Shimal: 22. 18. mtner , Some prehinary Remarks Concerning

19. Al-T~kriti, The excavations at Bidya. 20. Corboud et al. Les tombes protohistoriques de

21. Wtner, Some pre- Remarks Concerning

22. mtner , Some prelmmary Remarks Concerning

23. Vogt, Asimah: 57-58. 24. Barker D. Wadi Suq and Iron Age period ceramics

25. Corboud et al. Les tombes protohistoriques de

26. Vogt, Zur Chmlogre: 192.

28. Vogt, Zur Chronologie: 192.

Tombs in Dhayah: Fig 5.

Bithnah: 21-22.

Tombs in Dhayah: 238.

Tombs in Dhayah: 238.

from Sharm, this issue.

Bithnah: 21-22.

27. Vogt, Zur chmlogie: 192.

Address: Melissa Riley and Cameron A. Petrie

University of Sydney NSW 2006, Australia email: [email protected]

school of Afihaeology

an analysis of the architecture of the tomb at sharm, fujairah, u. a. e

Documents