Arab. arch. epig. 2000: 11: 199–203 Copyright C Munksgaard 2000Printed in Denmark. All rights reserved

ISSN 0905-7196

Notes on the shell and bone rings fromSharm

DIANE BARKERSchool of Archaeology, University of Sydney, Australia

A group of thirteen fragmentary and complete shell and bone rings was exca-vated at Sharm, including one example likely to be a bracelet. The function ofthe objects as rings is undisputed. A number of the rings appear to be manufac-tured from Conus sp., whereas the remainder are apparently made from bone.

IntroductionA small selection of shell and bone rings,consisting of two complete artefacts andnine fragmentary specimens, was recov-ered exclusively from Tomb 1 at Sharm(Fig. 1). Little variation in style and shapeis evident in this simple assemblage. Thegreatest variable factor is size, although the

Fig. 1.A selection of shell and bonerings from Tomb 1. Left to right:Row 1: S-250, 254. Row 2: S-144,355, 227, 232, 175, 308, 244, 176.

199

range in diameters is relatively small,measuring between 18.5 mm (S-232) and 22mm (S-144). The one exception is S-56 withits 45 mm diameter.

Each ring appears not to have been ex-tensively worked or refined, with the sur-faces being angled and faceted (1). Since al-most the entire collection is fragmentary,

D. BARKER

little information can be gleaned from theartefacts. For this reason, only a brief in-ventory of each piece is provided in ad-dition to some parallels from the OmanPeninsula and further abroad. Unfortu-nately, the homogeneity of these objectslends little support to any firm conclusionsregarding their date. A complete databaseof the rings is also provided in Table 1.

Parallels and discussionSimilar rings, ostensibly made from shelland bone, have been found at several othersites in and around the Oman Peninsula.A number of rings from Qidfa tomb I aredisplayed in Fujairah Museum and aredated to the second half of the second mil-lennium BC (ie. Wadi Suq III/IV-Iron I) (2).Further examples are also found amongstthe collections from Shimal. The shell ringsfound at Shimal Site 1, a second-millen-nium BC site (3), are comparable in bothsize and appearance to the Sharmexamples. The five examples from this siteare made from Conidae (Conus sp.) and arethought to have been either finger rings orpart of a necklace (4).

A further assemblage of rings and ringfragments, again made from Conus sp. wasalso recovered from Shimal Site 2. Anumber of these rings are directly compar-able to the Sharm pieces in terms of the ex-ternal diameters, which cluster between 21and 23 mm. The nature of the rings fromSite 2, with their naturally occurring spiralgrooves and brownish-yellow colour, sug-gests that the Sharm shell rings are alsomanufactured from Conus sp. (5). Site 2 isdated to the first quarter of the first millen-nium BC (6). Several more shell rings werealso found during the excavations of tombSH 99, which is dated to the early secondmillennium BC (7).

Bone finger rings were also not un-known in the Oman Peninsula. Several

200

such rings from Jabal al-Buhais are dis-played in Sharjah Archaeological Museumand are dated to c.1000 BC (8). Two boneexamples were also found in the over-ground-subterranean tombs in the Samadcemetery in Oman. However, these ringsare comparatively later in date than theparallels already cited, and form part of afourth-third century BC assemblage (9).This range of dates suggests a second-firstmillennium chronology within which theSharm artefacts may be placed. A laterdate, however, is not necessarily incon-gruous in the context of Sharm, given thatpottery, which postdates both the Wadi Suqand Iron Age periods, was also found atthe site (10).

Less concrete are the parallels from Ba-lakot and Shahr-i Sokhta in Iran. Althoughfar removed in both time (11) and place,the so-called shell bangles shed some lighton S-56 (12). This artefact may in fact have

Fig. 2.A shell bracelet fragment and two complete bonerings from Sharm. 1: S-56; 2: S-250; 3: S-254.

NOTES ON THE SHELL AND BONE RINGS FROM SHARM

Table 1. Registration database of the shell and bone rings from Sharm.

Reg. Dimensions Level ofNo. Date Tomb Square Layer East North Level Material (mm) preservation

56 29/01/97 I 00/11 4 00 11 8.80–8.65 shell 45 (D)¿4 (W) fragment¿6 (T)

144 5/02/97 I 02/15 6 02 15 8.60–8.50 bone 22 (D) ¿3.5 fragment(W) ¿3 (T)

175 7/02/97 I 02/16 7 2.12 16.41 8.35 shell 21 (D) ¿3 (W) fragment¿1.5 (T)

176 7/02/97 I 01/16 7 01 16 8.50–8.40 bone 23 (D) ¿3 (W) fragment¿3.5 (T)

227 8/02/97 I 00/05 5 0.66 5.12 8.63 bone 19 (D) ¿2.5 fragment(W) ¿2.5 (T)

232 8/02/97 I 01/03 5 1.53 3.76 8.69 shell 18.5 (D) ¿2 fragment(W) ¿3 (T)

244 8/02/97 I 00/06 4 0.31 6.03 8.77 bone 19.5 (D) ¿2.5 fragment(W) ¿3.5 (T)

250 8/02/97 I 02/17 7 2.24 17.31 8.36 bone 19.5 (D) ¿2.5 complete ring(W) ¿4 (T)

254 8/02/97 I 02/17 7 2.13 17.31 8.30 bone 24 (D) ¿4 (W) complete ring¿3 (T)

308 9/02/97 I 00/04 6 0.75 4.89 8.55 shell 20.5 (D) ¿3 fragment(W) ¿3 (T)

355 10/02/97 I 01/04 7 1.43 4.97 8.41 bone 1.5 (W) ¿2 fragment(H)¿uncertain

diameter

been a bangle for a small wrist, such as achild may possess. Interestingly, S-56 (seeFig. 2.1) bears the same type of ‘decorative’incisions evident on a shell bangle fromShahr-i Sokhta (13), yet little weight shouldbe given to such a geographically and chro-nologically distant parallel.

ConclusionThe closest parallels in relation to the shelland bone rings from Sharm suggest a datecomfortably within the second- to first-mil-lennium BC framework which character-ises the site, as evidenced by the more di-agnostic artefacts, such as the soft stoneand pottery. Although it is likely that theshell rings are of the Conidae species, it wasnot possible to identify the source(s) of thebone rings.

201

Inventory of ArtefactsS-56S-56 (Fig. 2.1) is the largest of the rings inthe assemblage and given its compara-tively large diameter (c.45 mm), it is un-likely to be a finger ring. It is possible thatit may have been a bangle for a small child,or perhaps a pendant or earring. However,the precise function of S-56 is difficult toascertain because, like the majority ofexamples, approximately half of thespecimen is missing. S-56 has an unusualtriangular cross-section, with a distinctapex evident on one surface and a flat base.It was originally quite circular in shape, al-though it is currently in poor conditionwith abraded edges. The surface of the ma-terial is pockmarked with a number of in-cisions on the top surface. The material,which appears to be shell, is very chalkyand worn.

D. BARKER

S-144Less than half of this ring is extant and ithas an estimated diameter of approxi-mately 22 mm (Fig. 1). It is slightly ir-regular in shape, although the base and thetop of the ring are relatively flat. The pro-file is best described as a pentagon that hasbeen rotated 90 degrees. It appears to havebeen manufactured from bone, which of it-self is in good condition.

S-175Again, this specimen is only half pre-served, with an approximate diameter of21 mm (Fig. 1). The laminated breaksaround the edges preclude an exact de-scription of the profile, although it appearsto be somewhat rectangular with slightlycurved edges. The material is very chalky,with several shiny patches suggesting thatit may be mother-of-pearl. This outer sur-face has broken off in some areas, particu-larly around the breaks, to reveal thechalky shell underneath.

S-176S-176 (Fig. 1) represents one of the morecomplete fragments of the assemblage,with just over half of the ring remainingand an external diameter of 23 mm. It hasa barrel-shaped cross-section, with a flattop and base and convex sides. The surfaceis slightly abraded but is otherwise wellpreserved. It appears to be manufacturedfrom bone.

S-227Less than half of S-227 is extant and ithas an external diameter of approxi-mately 19 mm (Fig. 1). The profile issomewhat unusual with the slanted sidesand flat top and base forming a parallelo-gram. This particular ring is manufac-tured from bone and remains in a goodstate of preservation, despite some sur-face abrasion.

202

S-232Once again, this shell ring is representedby less than half of its original form, whichis approximately 18.5 mm in diameter (Fig.1). It has a rectangular cross-section, butwith a slightly convex inner edge. The topand base of the ring are marked by nat-urally occurring spirals. The material itselfis chalky and abraded.

S-244S-244 (Fig. 1) has an external diameter ofapproximately 19.5 mm with little less thanhalf remaining. The cross-section is some-what unusual, with concave sides thatangle outwards. The result is that the ex-ternal diameter of the base of the ring isnarrower than the top. It is manufacturedfrom bone and remains in a relatively goodstate of preservation.

S-250S-250 (Fig. 1, 2.2) is the smaller of the twocomplete rings in the assemblage, with anexternal diameter of 19.5 mm. It is imposs-ible to describe the cross-section of the ringwith any accuracy because of the mannerin which it has been carved and the factthat there are no broken edges to determinethe profile. It is ‘twisted’, with a numberof different angled surfaces. The bone fromwhich it is made is very badly abraded de-spite the completeness of the ring itself.

S-254S-254 is the larger of the two completerings with a diameter of 24 millimetres(Fig. 1, 2.3). Once again, the completenessof the ring and the irregularly carvedfaces of the artefact render it impossibleto determine the exact shape of the cross-section. It does however appear that thebase is approximately 0.5 mm wider thanthe top with the result that the profile isangled inwards. The ring, which is madeof bone, is in good condition, with

NOTES ON THE SHELL AND BONE RINGS FROM SHARM

slightly abraded edges and severalpolished areas.

S-308The small extant portion of S-308 suggestsit once had an external diameter of ap-proximately 20.5 mm, although it is diffi-cult to ascertain with any certainty giventhe fact that less than half of the originalring remains (Fig. 1). It has a simple tri-angular cross-section, with a pointed tiprunning along the top surface of the ringand a flat base. It is made from shell, whichis now quite chalky and easily scratched.

S-355The small size of this ring fragment makes itdifficult to ascertain a firm external diam-eter (Fig. 1). It has a rectangular cross-sec-tion at the point of breakage, and althoughthe base is flat, the top surface is character-ised by some angled surfaces. It appears tohave been manufactured from bone, and re-mains in a fairly good state of preservation.

References1. A similar conclusion was made regarding the

rings in the Shimal settlement where, ‘(s)hapingand polishing were done with a minimum of ef-fort and labour.’ See Velde C, Franke-Vogt U &Vogt B. Area SX. In: Vogt B and Franke-Vogt U,eds. Shimal 1985/1986: Excavations of the GermanArchaeological Mission in Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E.: APreliminary Report. Berlin: BBVO, 8: 1987: 81, Fig.48.4–5.

2. For the dating of the Wadi Suq period see MageeP, Mortensen A-M, Potts DT and Velde C. Prelimi-

203

nary Phasing of Tell Abraq. Unpubl., 1994. For theIron Age chronology, see Magee P. The Chron-ology of the Southeast Arabian Iron Age. AAE 7:1996: 240–250, and Magee P. The Iranian Iron Ageand the Chronology of Settlement in SoutheasternArabia. Iranica Antiqua 32: 1997: 91–105.

3. Donaldson P. Prehistoric Tombs of Ras al-Khaimah. OA 24: 1985: 132, Table 18.

4. Donaldson P. Prehistoric Tombs of Ras al-Khaimah. OA 23: 1984: 213, 218, note 4, Fig. 13.26–27.

5. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: 1984: 267, Fig.29.78–79. The shell rings must be made from gas-tropods since they are rounded objects. E.Thompson, pers. comm. 13/2/98.

6. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: 1985: 132, Table 18.7. Kastner J-M & Vogt B. The ring-chambered tomb

SH 99. In: Vogt & Franke-Vogt, Shimal: 544, Fig.36.5–7.

8. Display case 15, no. 11.9. Vogt B. 1st Mill. B.C. Graves and Burial Customs

in the Samad Area (Oman). In: Boucharlat R &Salles J-F, eds. Arabie orientale, Mesopotamie et Iranmeridional de l’age du fer au debut de la periode isla-mique. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civili-sations, Memoire 37, 1984: 273, 274.

10. See the article by C. Petrie, elsewhere in thisvolume, on the pre-Islamic and Islamic ceramicsfrom Sharm.

11. The parallels in question from these two sites aredated to the fourth-third millennia BC. Durante S.Marine Shells from Balakot, Shahr-i Sokhta andTepe Yahya: Their Significance for Trade and Tech-nology in Ancient Indo-Iran. In: Taddei M, ed.South Asian Archaeology 1977. Vol. I: Naples: Isti-tuto Universitario Orientale, 1979: 317.

12. Durante, Marine Shells from Balakot: Fig. 2, 3.13. Durante, Marine Shells from Balakot: Fig. 6, 7.

Address:Diane BarkerSchool of Archaeology A14The University of SydneyNSW Australia 2006