Arab. arch. epig. 2000: 11: 204–206 Copyright C Munksgaard 2000Printed in Denmark. All rights reserved

ISSN 0905-7196

Notes on a decorated spiny oyster fromSharm

DIANE BARKER AND TOBY HARTNELLSchool of Archaeology, University of Sydney, Australia

S-305 is the worked remnant of one half of a spiny oyster which exhibits drillmarks consistent with single and double dot-in-circle motifs. The object isbriefly described with a view to determining its function. The manufacturingmarks are analysed elsewhere in this volume by Katia Davis.

Description of S-305 (Notes by D. Barker)S-305 has been identified as a spiny oyster,which is a species of bivalve (1). Originallythe object was rounded with a central per-foration measuring approximately 4 mm indiameter (Table 1). The edges of the objectare now quite worn, and a large slit is evi-dent on the right side of the exterior of theshell (Fig. 1). Interestingly, the base of theslit bears evidence of several grooves,which suggest that this feature may havebeen created during the manufacturingprocess. These grooves are also apparent ina corresponding position on the reverse(interior) of the shell, although they aremore pronounced. The interior lip of S-305

Table 1. Registration information for S-305 from Sharm.

Dimens-Dimens- ions of

Reg North- ions perforationNo Date Tomb Square Layer Easting ing Level Object Material (mm) (mm)

Decorated Shellattach- (spiny 55 (D)¿12

305 9/02/97 I 01/08 6 1.58 8.27 8.56 ment (?) oyster) (H)¿2.5 (T) 4

204

is noticeably thickened and corresponds tothe original join between the two halves ofthe bivalve.

The decoration and function of S-305(Notes by D. Barker and T. Hartnell)The object is decorated with at least fivedouble dot-in-circle motifs, and one singledot-in-circle motif (Fig. 2). It is uncertainwhether there were originally more indi-vidual motifs on the exterior of the artefactsince the surface is now badly pitted andworn. Indeed, it was very difficult toidentify the six circles depicted in Figure 2.The artist’s intent with respect to the single

NOTES ON A DECORATED SPINY OYSTER FROM SHARM

Fig. 1.The exterior of S-305.

dotted circles is lost here and it may be thatthey were originally double concentriccircles (2).

The perforation through the centre of theobject suggests that it may have been in-tended for use as a pendant, or perhapseven a belt buckle or button. The latter sug-gestion is consistent with the explanationgiven by Frifelt in relation to an ornamentfrom the cairns at Quarn Bint Sa’ud, whichis undecorated (3). In contrast, one of the‘shell buttons’ found at Dibba is, like S-305,decorated with a dotted-circle ornamentand is dated between 1000 and 500 BC, orthe Iron II period (4). Shimal tomb SH 102,which dates from the second half of thesecond millennium until the end of the

Fig. 2.Detail of S-305 depicting the ex-terior surface, decorated withsingle and double dot-in-circlemotifs, the interior, and thecross-sections of the object.

205

Wadi Suq horizon (ie. Wadi Suq III/IV) (5),also produced comparable artefacts. Theseare described as ‘belt buckles’ which aresimilarly decorated with dotted-circle mo-tifs (6). The German team maintains thatthe Dibba examples mentioned above arein fact second-millennium artefacts mixedwith first-millennium objects (7). Further-more, first-millennium examples from al-Qusais are displayed in Dubai Museum.They have single dot-in-circle motifs only.In addition, the T-shaped tomb at Bithnah,which contained material datable to theWadi Suq, Iron I and II and late pre-Islamicperiods, also produced a Conus shell decor-ated with eight double dot-in-circle motifs(8). Lastly, a shell from Qidfa tomb, dis-played in Fujairah Museum, represents aslightly different example, which is piercedby a series of holes ringed by concentriccircles.

Examples from Nimrud were found withnails driven through the perforation (9)and it has been suggested that they mayhave decorated battering rams or chariots,although the precise function of theNimrud examples is conjectural (10). Theseobjects, which have been dated to theeighth century BC (ie. the Iron II period)(11), provide the best chronological evi-dence for this type of artefact. The metalassemblage from Sharm contains a numberof bronze rivets, ranging in diameter from

D. BARKER AND T. HARTNELL

2.5 to 4.5 mm, with at least three havingthe same diameter as the perforationthrough S-305 (12). It is possible, therefore,that at least one of the rivets may havebeen intended to perforate S-305, in orderto serve as an attachment to some otheritem.

References1. The artefact was identified by Emma Thompson.2. K. Davis, elsewhere in this volume, examines the

manufacturing process of these motifs.3. Frifelt K. Jamdat Nasr fund fra Oman (Jamdat

Nasr finds in Oman). Kuml 1970: 1971: 365, 378,Fig. 11C.

4. Frifelt, Jamdat Nasr: Fig. 11A. Cf. Bibby G. Arab-iens Archæologi (Arabian Gulf Archaeology).Kuml 1965: 1966: 151, 152.

5. Vogt B & Kastner J-M. Tomb SH 102. In: Vogt Band Franke-Vogt U, eds. Shimal 1985/1986: Exca-vations of the German Archaeological Mission in Ras

206

al-Khaimah, U.A.E.: A Preliminary Report. Berlin:BBVO, 8: 1987: 35–36. Cf. the four Wadi Suqphases identified in Magee P, Mortensen A-M,Potts DT & Velde C. Preliminary Phasing of TellAbraq. Unpubl., 1994. Wadi Suq III spans theperiod 1600 to 1400 BC and Wadi Suq IV runsfrom 1400 to 1300 BC.

6. Vogt and Kastner, Tomb SH 102: 32, Fig. 18.3, 4.7. Vogt and Kastner, Tomb SH 102: 32.8. Corboud P, Castella A-C, Hapka R & im-Obersteg

P. Les tombes protohistoriques de Bithnah, Fujairah,Emirats Arabes Unis. Mainz: von Zabern, 1996: 106,160, Pl. 27.1.

9. Mallowan MEL. Nimrud and its Remains. Vol. I.London: Collins Publishers, 1966: 125, Fig. 66.

10. Mallowan, Nimrud: 125.11. Mallowan, Nimrud: 125.12. S-3, S-9 and S-155.

Address:Diane Barker & Toby HartnellSchool of Archaeology A14The University of SydneyNSW Australia 2006