they are not as well-fired, they are hand made, and they often have much coarser fabrics
(Frifelt 1970 , 1975 ; Thornton pers. obs.). Arguably, these “Hafit” ceramics may be local
imitations of Mesopotamian forms, although this awaits empirical documentation.
Recent excavations at the Hafit–early Umm an-Nar period site of Matariya (Tower
1147 ) at Bat in northwest Oman have uncovered both wheel-made, greenish-buff
JN/ED I-style jar fragments as well as sherds from a hand-made jar of identical form
but with a coarse, poorly fired fabric and a crude buff slip (Possehl et al. 2009 ). The
chemistry of the clays used to make these ceramics is currently being compared to the
clays used in mud-bricks from Matariya to determine possible origins for these vessels.
The chronology of the succeeding Umm an-Nar Culture (c. 2700 – 2000 BC) has
never been defined through systematic, stratigraphic excavation, but relies instead on
the contents of large, multiple-use tombs for relative dating. Until such a chronology
is established, the period can be divided roughly in half. The early Umm an-Nar period
(c. 2700 – 2300 BC) is defined by large settlements in the Omani highlands and tombs
utilizing small, well-cut “sugarlump” stones. The late Umm an-Nar period (c. 2300 –
2000 BC) is defined by the growth of settlements on the Emirati coast and tombs
utilizing large, well-cut white stones, gutters, and carved doorways. The early Umm
an-Nar period is distinguished from the late Hafit period by the presence of locally
made Black-on-Red ceramics and larger, multiple-use tombs. Mesopotamian imported
vessels all but disappear from the archaeological record in the early Umm an-Nar
period. With the exception of Umm an-Nar island, where hundreds of ED II-III vessel
fragments were present (Frifelt 1991 : 50 , 1995 : 121 – 188 ), only a few examples of
Mesopotamian-style storage and transport jars have been found at coastal sites from
Abu Dhabi (e.g., al-Tikriti 1985 : 12 ) to R’as al-Jinz (Cleuziou and Tosi 1994 : 757 ). Even
fewer such imports have been uncovered from inland settlements (e.g., at Bisya;
Thornton pers. obs.), suggesting that their presence in the interior was minimal.
By the Akkadian period, Mesopotamian imported vessels are practically non-
existent in Magan. Instead, the late Umm an-Nar burials contain mostly locally made
painted pottery as well as imported wares from Iranian Baluchistan (mostly Emir Grey
Wares and Incised Grey Wares) and Harappan fine painted wares (Edens 1993 : 341 ;
Méry 1996 : 170 ). Examples of Barbar pottery from Dilmun can also be found among
the sites of the Emirati coast (Méry et al. 1998 ), although such pottery is unknown in
the interior. After the collapse of the Umm an-Nar Culture and the rise of the
enigmatic Wadi Suq Culture (c. 2000 – 1500 BC), Mesopotamian and Dilmun ceramics
are found almost exclusively on the Emirati coast (e.g., at Tell Abraq; T.F. Potts 1993 :
429 – 433 ) while Late Harappan wares are mostly restricted to the east coast of Oman
(e.g., at R’as al-Jinz; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007 : 272 ) and to sites in Bahrain (Carter 2001 ).
EVIDENCE OF MELUHHAN RELATIONS WITH MAGAN
Although it is unclear when Magan and Meluhha first established contact, it seems
likely that intensive interaction did not occur until the second half of the third
millennium (see Cleuziou 1992 ). This supposition is supported by two lines of
evidence. First, the prevalence of Jemdet Nasr/ED I-style ceramics from Mesopotamia
in early third millennium tombs and settlements of Magan as far to the east as R’as al-
Hadd without corresponding materials from Early Harappan cultures (with the
possible exception of fired steatite beads) suggests a strong Mesopotamian influence on–– Christopher P. Thornton ––