Aside from the lexical lists, several badly preserved protoliterate economic texts
(numbering 9 or 11 according to different authors) mention Dilmun (Green and Nissen
1987 : 186 , Sign 77 ; D.T. Potts 1990 : 86 ). One has the sign for Dilmun in contact with
the sign for copper; three concern textiles and Dilmun, one of which is perhaps a
reference to ‘ 1 bale of Dilmun garment’; one refers to the disbursement of thirty
Dilmun-items to an official (the type of item cannot be read); and one records the
disbursement of milk-fat to an official known as the NUN.É.DILMUN(Nissen 1986 :
338 – 339 ; Englund 1983 : 35 , and Notes 4 , 5 ; D.T. Potts 1990 : 86 – 87 ). All the relevant
protoliterate texts date to the Uruk III (Jamdat Nasr period) except for one mention
of the enku-Dilmun, which is thought to be Uruk IV. Because of the existence of
officials with Dilmun in their name, Nissen considers that something more than
simple trade in copper and textiles was occurring at the time, involving much closer
mutual contacts than those which would be sustained by occasional trade, and that
‘these relations had existed long before the existence of writing’.
Bahrain was very lightly settled at this time compared to the Eastern Province of
Saudi Arabia, where mound fields and settlement sites indicate significant late fourth
to mid-third millennium occupation (see below). Evidence is limited to two, perhaps
three, Jamdat Nasr-style pottery vessels from tombs at Hamad Town, as well as a sherd
of Jamdat Nasr polychrome ware at the Barbar temple, and a re-used Jamdat Nasr
period seal from the al-Hajjar cemetery (Vine 1993 : 16 ; Crawford 1998 : 35 ; D.T. Potts
1990 : 63 – 64 ).
In contrast, the adjacent portion of the Arabian mainland and the island of Tarut (i.e.
the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia) were relatively densely occupied from the Late
Uruk period onwards, and in close contact with southern Mesopotamia. Potts reports the
presence of serrated sickle blades in the area, and it seems likely that an agricultural
package derived from Mesopotamia took root in the region during the fourth
millennium, potentially involving the movement of people as well as techniques and
cultivars. An extensive mound field at Abqaiq contained tombs with Late Uruk and Early
Dynastic material derived from Mesopotamia. Piesinger considered that the early phase
of tomb construction peaked in the ED I period, but the earliest tombs went back to the
Late Uruk. Surface and redeposited ceramics at the Dhahran tumuli field also belonged
to this broad date range, and although the tombs there appear to be later (Early Dilmun
period), she believed that there may have been a Late Uruk–ED I cemetery in the area.
Settlement sites with Mesopotamian pottery of Late Uruk to ED I date were also
frequent, albeit none of great size, most notably Umm ar-Ramadh in the al-Hasa oasis,
Umm an-Nussi in the Jabrin oasis, Al-Rufayah (Ar-Rafi’ah) on Tarut (next to a mound
with Early Dynastic period graves), ‘Ubaid Sites’ 31 and 10 near Dhahran, and site AS 27
in the Abqaiq area, along with approximately fifteen others observed from survey around
the Abqaiq area (Piesinger 1983 : 71 – 220 , 473 , 483 – 503 ; D.T. Potts 1990 : 65 ). Potts
considers some of the material identified as Late Uruk to be ED I in date, but notes the
presence of a Late Uruk droop-spouted jar from Dhahran, as well as a clay bullafound
near Dhahran airport, of presumed late fourth millennium date (D.T. Potts 1990 : 63 ; D.
Potts 1986 b: 123 , pl. 1 b; Schmandt-Besserat 1980 : 362 – 363 , n. 21 ).
Regarding Tarut, Potts reports that the graves at Al-Rufayah contained complete
ED I–II pottery vessels, while this site yielded more than 300 pieces of carved soft-
stone vessels in the série ancienneor ‘intercultural’ style (D.T. Potts 1990 : 66 – 68 ; Zarins
1978 ). It is now known that some varieties of série anciennesoftstone continued to be
–– The Sumerians and the Gulf ––