Pittman and Potts 2009 Cylinder Seal Dj Nasr Abu Dhabi

The earliest cylinder seal in the ArabianPeninsula

IntroductionOn 10 June 2008, Mr Kim Burke, the head of a teamfrom GRM International undertaking a soil surveyfor the Environmental Agency (Abu Dhabi), discov-ered a cylinder seal c.3 km east of Medinat Zayed inthe Western Region of Abu Dhabi. The seal wasfound on the surface of an area (Fig. 1) that had beenbadly disturbed by temporary camps for herdersand animal pens (Fig. 2). The locale ‘is in a dunefieldarea on undulating plains on a deflation crust that issoft but has pockets of lithified sand dunes nearbywith approx. 3% slope. This area is well drainedwith wind erosion and barren — except for 2%Cyperus conglomeratus — and is used for keepinganimals. The parent material is Aeolian depositionand the soils are fine sandy loams to a depth of 5metres.... There are 10% mixed surface rocks.... Thewhole area has gatch [calcareous sand] and gravelsthat have been carted in for tracks and animalyards.’ (K. Burke, personal communication). Nofeatures of any sort, which might indicate pre-

modern habitation were observed, and neither wereany sherds found on the surface.

DescriptionThe seal is 2.4 cm in height and 2.1 cm in diameter.Carved of a greenish, grey stone that has theappearance of limestone, the seal is pierced verti-cally for suspension (Figs 3–6). The Abu Dhabi findrepresents a well-known Mesopotamian type, a‘drilled style’, schematic cylinder seal of the sortfound in large numbers at sites in greater Mesopo-tamia. It carries on its side figural imagery carvedwith a drill and a graver. The scene consists of twofemales with pigtails facing each other. Each of themis seated on a low platform, extending both arms,bent upward at the elbow, towards a spider-likefigure. Behind the right-facing female (in the impres-sion) is a headless quadruped oriented verticallywith its legs bent inwards, accompanied on the leftby a second spider-like figure.

A cylinder seal of Late Uruk (late fourth millennium BC) type from AbuDhabi is presented and analysed. Comparisons with excavated finds fromelsewhere in the Near East are discussed. An inventory of cylinder seals fromsites in the UAE and the Sultanate of Oman shows that cylinder seal use,while not unknown in the region, was never very great. The ways in whichthe seal may have arrived at its eventual place of discovery are described andthe significance of the seal is assessed.

Keywords: cylinder seal, glyptic, Late Uruk, Jamdat Nasr, Abu Dhabi,archaeology

Holly Pittman1 andD.T. Potts2

1Dept. of the History of Art,203 Jaffe Building, 3405Woodland Walk, Universityof Pennsylvania, PhiladelphiaPA 19104, USAe-mail: [email protected]

2Dept. of Archaeology, TheUniversity of Sydney, SydneyNSW 2006, Australia

e-mail: [email protected]

Arab. arch. epig. 2009: 20: 109–121 (2009)

Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved

109

The type has several distinct attributes. Mostexamples are around 2.2 cm tall (range = 1.6–2.7cm). The diameter-to-height ratio is consistently c.1:1and thus seals of this type are squat and fat. Inprofile, the sides of these seals are most commonlystraight, as is the case with the Abu Dhabi seal, orslightly concave (Buchanan 1966: no. 18b, pl. 2).

Like the Abu Dhabi seal, cylinder seals of this sortfound in southern Mesopotamia and Khuzestan are

drilled vertically for suspension. Some examplesfrom western Syria either have a projection that isdrilled for suspension, or a V-shaped hole drilled onthe top (Braidwood & Braidwood 1960: figs 382 ⁄ 1and 3). For the most part, seals of this type are madeof pink, red, grey, green, or black limestone or

Fig. 2.

The sandy spot where the seal was found, marked by a pair of

boots.

Fig. 3.

Exterior surface of the cylinder seal from Abu Dhabi, showing

the drilled and engraved forms of pigtailed women.

Fig. 1.

Map showing the approximate location of the find spot of the cylinder seal.

HOLLY PITTMAN AND D.T. POTTS

110

marble. More rarely they may be made of chlo-rite ⁄ steatite, serpentine or even rock crystal.

DiscussionThere are dozens of close parallels from excavatedcontexts for this type of seal, as well as many

comparable, unprovenanced examples in museumsand private collections. A comprehensive survey ofthis type of cylinder seal appeared in a study ofwomen in the Sumerian period where all examplesknown up to 1985 were catalogued (Asher-Greve1985). Apart from its proportions, the style ofcarving of these seals is its most consistent attribute.It seems certain that the pigtailed-lady seals devel-oped out of the stylistically and iconographicallyrelated, earlier seals known as the ‘baggy style’ thatfirst appeared in the Middle Uruk levels of Tell Brakand Susa. This style is characterised by figures thatare constructed by drillings of different sizes,resulting in large, rounded forms. This massivestyle developed into the more delicately modelledstyle that is characteristic of ‘classic Late Uruk’glyptic in which we find the manufacturing scenesdepicting the production of textiles. Invariably, themain masses of the figures are cut by a rotating drillwhose cutting marks are often clearly visible, as onthe Abu Dhabi seal. These drilled forms make up thehead, body and tucked-up legs of the pigtailedfigures in an L-shaped composition. In contrast, thepigtail, the bent arms and the platform were cutusing a graver.

Fig. 5.

Photograph of a modern impression of the seal from Abu Dhabi (H. Pittman).

Fig. 6.

Drawing of the scene on the seal from Abu Dhabi (H. Pittman).

Fig. 4.

Exterior surface of the cylinder seal from Abu Dhabi, showing

the drilled and engraved form of a spider-like creature.

THE EARLIEST CYLINDER SEAL IN THE ARABIAN PENINSULA

111

Because a number of examples (Fig. 7) were foundat the single-period site of Jamdat Nasr in southernIraq (Mackay 1931; Matthews 2002) where, early inthe excavation, E.J.H. Mackay found over a dozenseals associated with tablets and sealings, this typewas originally associated with the ‘Jamdat Nasr’horizon (c.3100–2900 BC) in Mesopotamia. RogerMatthews has suggested that because there weretwo unfinished seals within the group discovered byMackay, the Jamdat Nasr examples may have comefrom a seal workshop (Matthews 2002: 17). How-ever, it has long been recognized that, as a type, thepigtailed-lady seals first appeared during the LateUruk period. At Nippur, three squat cylinder sealscarrying images of pigtailed ladies were found inLate Uruk Levels XVI (Fig. 8) (7N718 red stone, dia.2.0 cm, ht. 2.1 cm) and XV (7N720 grey stone, dia. 2.2cm, ht. 2.2 cm; 7N719 pink stone, dia. 2.1 cm, ht. 2.0cm). Interestingly, this type does not appear in thelater Jamdat Nasr-period levels at Nippur (Wilson1986: 60). In southern Iraq other examples are knownfrom Telloh (de Genouillac 1934–1936; Parrot 1948),Fara (Martin 1988) and Ur (Legrain 1951). Seals of

this type were also common at Susa in south-western Iran. Unfortunately, most of these werediscovered during the early years of excavationthere and are poorly stratified (Amiet 1972). Noexamples were found in the later, well-excavatedAcropole sounding at Susa of the late 1960s and1970s. Elsewhere in Khuzestan examples are knownin Late Uruk levels at Chogha Mish (Delougaz &Kantor 1996: pl. 146e).

Further confirmation of a Late Uruk date for thisseal type comes from Habuba Kabira and JebelAruda in Syria where examples were foundtogether with typical Late Uruk type pottery. AtHabuba Kabira, a single-period site of the LateUruk period, seven seals of this type (Figs 9–10)were found along with other seals and sealimpressions of the Late Uruk period (Hammade1994: nos. 296, 298–303). At nearby Jebel Arudaboth seals and seal impressions of this type werefound (Hammade 1994: no. 305; Van Driel 1983:nos. 21–23). A similar seal with pigtailed ladieswas found in Late Uruk levels at Tell Afis, also inSyria (Hammade 1994: no. 306).

Fig. 7.

Photograph of a seal and modern impressions from Jamdat Nasr (after Buchanan 1966: pl. 2 ⁄ 14a-d).

Fig. 8.

Drawing of a seal from Inanna Temple XVI at Nippur (after Porada et al. 1992: fig. 8 ⁄ 1).


112

Donald Matthews has identified a variety of thepigtailed-lady seal called ‘the Aleppo group’ that heconvincingly argues was made in the Amuq region.This type is characterised by a distinct mechanism ofsuspension through either a perforated handle or aV-shaped hole on the top of the seal. He has alsoargued, less convincingly, that the type of suspen-sion was meant to indicate the status of the ownerwithin the Late Uruk administrative hierarchy (1997:59). The distinctive styles of carving on seals fromwestern Syria and the Amuq Valley demonstratethat that these seals were not used together withseals made in southern Mesopotamia but ratherwere variations of a seal type that was locallyproduced and used (Pittman 2007: 297). Amiet(1980) has noted that, in contrast to the drilled LateUruk glyptic of Mesopotamia, domestic scenes andanimals can appear together on the seals of this typein Syria. This may reflect differences between theadministrative systems of Mesopotamia and Syriawithin which these seals were used. In Sumer, Amietsuggested, animal herding was organised separatelyfrom the wool industry (hence the segregation ofanimals and domestic scenes there), while in Syriaherding and the textile industry were organizedtogether (hence the co-occurrence of animals anddomestic scenes).

The iconographic range of this seal type is quitenarrow, consisting overwhelmingly of pigtailedladies, characterised by the distinctive, long pigtail

that descends from the back of the head. Theidentification of this figure as a female is based oncomparisons with small sculptures from Susa of thesame period, which show females with prominentbreasts and long pigtails (Asher-Greve 1985). Judg-ing by the infrequency of figures without the pigtail,males were rarely shown on this type of seal.

The pigtailed ladies are most often shown seatedon a low platform supported by vertical slats,working with vessels or perhaps horizontal looms.They also appear wearing flaring robes and walkingin processions carrying standards. Sometimes theyare associated, as on the Abu Dhabi seal, with aspider-like form to which they raise their bent arms.Whether this is a gesture of adoration or labour isunclear. Rarely, only the spider is represented,probably as shorthand for the entire scene. On someseals of this type the imagery is divided into panelsby vertical dividers, while others show multiplefigures in one or two registers, sometimes reversedin a tete beche composition (Buchanan 1966: nos. 14,15).

While the meaning of these images is uncertain,Asher-Greve (1985) made a compelling case for theidea that these images are references to the impor-tant role of females in the religious and productivesectors of the economy during the proto-literateperiod in greater Mesopotamia. There is a consensusamong scholars that the juxtaposition of spiders andfemales is a visual pun on one of the spider’s chief

Fig. 9.

Photograph of a cylinder seal from Habuba Kabira South (after Hammade 1994: 32, no. 299).

Fig. 10.

Photograph of a cylinder seal from Habuba Kabira South (after Hammade 1994: 32, no. 300).


113

activities, namely spinning, and as such provides aparallel to women shown weaving. This is basedmost securely on the more explicitly carved imagesof the Middle (as well as Late) Uruk period,especially from Susa, which show kneeling femaletextile workers associated with skeins of thread,woven textiles or supervisors. In these earlier scenes,men as well as women are involved in textileproduction (e.g. Amiet 1972: nos. 673, 674, 676).

The first pigtailed-lady seals discovered werefound alongside other seals having similar pro-portions that show rows of horned quadrupeds,either alone or with vegetation, or more rarelywith architecture, rows of fish, or other simpleforms (Matthews 2002: pls 12–18; de Genouillac1934–1936: pls 39–42). The mode of carving isinvariably schematic, employing the drill or slowcutting-wheel. H.J. Nissen suggested that, becausethey show no iconographic differentiation, suchschematic seals belonged to offices or institutionsrather than individuals holding personal power.For this reason they did not need to be as highlyindividualised as seals associated with specificpersons (1977). Asher-Greve (1985) agreed thatthese seals were associated in some way withfemale labour within the temple or the manufac-turing sector, and probably belonged to individu-als who had some level of administrativeresponsibility.

However, the actual function of such schematicseals in the administration of greater Mesopotamiais uncertain. Unlike other types of seals used duringthe Late Uruk and Jamdat Nasr periods, they wererarely used to impress either tablets or sealings.Most are known as actual seals (e.g. at Chogha Mish[Delougaz & Kantor 1996: pl. 152g] and Susa [Amiet1972: no. 729]) and when their context is docu-mented, it is interesting that they were most com-monly found in caches, as at Tello (de Genouillac1934–1936; Parrot 1948), or in houses, as on theDiyala sites (Frankfort 1955). E. Douglas Van Buren(1957) was the first scholar to suggest that these sealswere less important as administrative tools than asemblems of status or badges of office within thetextile industry.

Although both the Late Uruk classic style and theschematic glyptic styles continued throughout theJamdat Nasr ⁄ Uruk III period in southern Mesopo-tamia, both styles disappeared in Syria after the

collapse of the Late Uruk colonies, though notwithout leaving behind some traces of stylisticinfluence (Pittman 2001).

Cylinder seals in ArabiaThe Abu Dhabi seal published here is not merely theearliest cylinder seal yet found in the U.A.E. It is theoldest seal of any type ever found in the ArabianPeninsula. From the mid-fourth to the mid-firstmillennium BC, cylinder seals were used widely inthe Near East, from Anatolia, Cyprus, the southernLevant and Egypt in the west to the Iranian Plateauin the east and Failaka and Bahrain in the south.Even though these latter two islands — the historicregion of Dilmun in the cuneiform sources — aremore commonly associated with circular stamp seals(‘Persian Gulf’ and ‘Dilmun’ style), it is nonethelesstrue that over eighty cylinder seals have been foundon them as well.

Beyond the cylinder seal-using area just describedwe enter zones in which only very small numbers ofcylinder seals have been found. Such is the casebeyond the Iranian Plateau in Margiana (easternTurkmenistan), or to the south in eastern SaudiArabia, the Oman peninsula and the Indus Valley.As the cylinder seals found elsewhere in the ArabianPeninsula will be dealt with in a separate publication(Potts n.d.), our remarks in the present instance willbe confined to cylinder seals and seal use in south-eastern Arabia.

In addition to the Abu Dhabi seal, fifteen cylinderseals are known from the U.A.E and Oman. Pro-ceeding from the coast of the Northern Emiratestowards the east, these are as follows:

1. Al Sufouh (Dubai, U.A.E.) (Figs 11–12) — adark grey, soft-stone seal (ht. 2.14 cm, dia. 1.18 cm)from tomb III, layer 13 (Benton 1996: fig. 197). Theseal shows a stick-like human figure, the left arm ofwhich forms a continuous line linking it to the leg ofa quadruped (reminiscent of a frog or turtle seenfrom above). A stylised tree is visible as well asanother filler motif. The seal iconography suggeststhat this cylinder seal was locally produced. A closeparallel for it exists at Ras al-Jinz, however, and thesimilarities are so great that the two seals probablycame from a similar area. Chronologically theassemblage from Al Sufouh dates to the earlierUmm an-Nar period, c.2400–2300 BC.


114

2. Mowaihat tomb B (Ajman, UAE) (Fig. 13) — asoft-stone (?) seal (ht. 2.2 cm, dia. 1.7 cm) from arectangular, subsidiary chamber located alongsidethe main, circular one (al-Tikriti 1989: pl. 46a). AsHaerinck noted, ‘The seal is very worn and wasoriginally decorated with a series of incised dots andlines, showing no obvious pattern. Later on somedeep incised lines were added, but these also do notshow an identifiable decoration’ (1990–1991: 16–17).

3. Tell Abraq (Umm al-Qaiwain ⁄ Sharjah, UAE)(Figs 14–15) — this badly worn, white calcite orlimestone seal (TA 75, ht. 4.2 cm, dia. 1.5 cm) showsa horned, seated female deity (?) in front of anoffering table; a tree; and a standing figure, probablyalso female, with arms bent, supporting something

in her left hand. The seal iconography, thoughdifficult to make out, suggests a Mesopotamian orElamite origin, but little more can be said. Althoughfound in a mid-second-millennium BC (Wadi Suqperiod) context, the seal may be older (Potts 1990a:91, figs 109–110).

4. Tell Abraq (Umm al-Qaiwain ⁄ Sharjah,U.A.E.) (Figs 16–17) — a faience seal (TA 12, ht. 4.1cm, dia. 1.2 cm) showing a vertical chevron (stylisedtree?) flanked by vegetal or solar (?) motifs. The top

Fig. 11.

Cylinder seal from Al Sufouh and a modern impression of it.

Fig. 13.

Drawing of the cylinder seal from Mowaihat tomb B (after al-

Tikriti 1989: pl. 46a).Fig. 12.

Drawing of the scene on the seal from Al Sufouh.


115

and bottom of the scene are framed by a train-track-like band and the carving is very crude (Potts 1990a:122–123, figs 150–151). Iconographic parallels atChoga Zanbil and Susa, as well as the material ofwhich the seal is made, strongly suggest it is aMiddle Elamite product from south-western Iran ofthe fourteenth ⁄ thirteenth century BC.

5. Hili North Tomb B (Al Ain, Abu Dhabi,U.A.E.) — an unpublished seal was discovered in1984 during excavations by the late Majid MohsenHaddou, supervised by Dr W.Y. al-Tikriti. Now inthe Al Ain Museum, the seal is cut in a crude, linearstyle, and shows two, long antlered ⁄ horned quad-rupeds (Arabian oryx?) flanking a stylised anthro-pomorph (?).

6. Qidfa (Fujairah, U.A.E.) — a soft-stone cylin-der seal (QDF.1.86.M.104) was excavated in tomb 1

at Qidfa in 1986 by Dr W.Y. al-Tikriti. Now in theFujairah Museum, it was published in 2007 (Ziol-kowski 2007: fig. 67). The side of the seal shown inthe published photograph shows an ‘anthropo-morph with raised arms, claw-like hands and feet,and a curved sword at waist height’ (2007: 237–238,n. 170) which is virtually identical (though not incarving style) to the figure shown on a soft-stoneamulet (TA 440, 3 x 2.2 x 0.6 cm) from Tell Abraq(Potts 1991: 95–96, figs 136–137) of Iron Age date (cf.no. 7 from Kalba below). The same figure has beenfound in at least twenty-six petroglyphs in Fujairah,Dubai, Sharjah and Ras al-Khaimah (Ziolkowski1998: figs 62 and 101; 2007: 222, motif 7, with full refsand figs 52, 65 and 66).

7. Qidfa (Fujairah, U.A.E.) — a faience (?) seal,unpublished, was excavated in tomb 1 at Qidfa in1986 by Dr W.Y. al-Tikriti. It is now in the FujairahMuseum (M.C. Ziolkowski, personal communica-tion).

8. Qidfa (Fujairah, U.A.E.) — a faience (?) seal,unpublished, was excavated in tomb 1 at Qidfa in1986 by Dr W.Y. al-Tikriti. It is now in the FujairahMuseum (M.C. Ziolkowski, personal communica-tion)

9. Kalba (K4) (Kalba, Sharjah, U.A.E.) — anunpublished, pale green crystalline stone seal ondisplay in the Sharjah Archaeological Museum wasexcavated at the multi-period site of K4 by C.S.Phillips. The decoration on the seal (K-45, ht. 3.7 cm,dia. 0.8 cm) consists of a stick-figure anthropomorphwith upraised arms, bent at the elbows, and splayed,three-toed feet. A curved object at its waist is

Fig. 14.

Drawing of a badly worn cylinder seal (TA 75) from Tell Abraq (H.B. Potts).

Fig. 15.

Photograph of a modern impression of TA 75.


116

comparable to that seen on no. 6 from Qidfa and theamulet from Tell Abraq referred to above. A secondanthropomorph (?) with downward angling arms(or zoomorphs?); a stylised tree; six dots; and astandard or offering table (?) can also be seen.

10. Kalba (K4) (Kalba, Sharjah, U.A.E.) — anunpublished, soft-stone seal (K4-43, ht 2.3 cm, dia.0.85 cm) was also found at K-4 by C.S. Phillips. Alarge, cruciform rosette is preserved, as well as twopairs of limbs (?).

11. Rafaq 2 (Ras al-Khaimah, UAE) — anunpublished stone seal (RAK ⁄ 97 ⁄ 334, ht 2.3 cm,dia. 1.4 cm) excavated by C. Phillips in 1989 anddisplayed in the Ras al-Khaimah National Museum(room 47, showcase 3) in the early 1990s. The seal

dates to the Iron Age (D. Kennet, personal commu-nication). The seal is badly worn and it is notpossible to identify the scene on it.

12. Rafaq 2 (Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E.) — anunpublished stone seal (RAK ⁄ 97 ⁄ 335, ht 1.8 cm, dia..9 cm) excavated by C. Phillips in 1989 anddisplayed in the Ras al-Khaimah National Museum(room 47, showcase 2) in the early 1990s (D. Kennet,personal communication). The seal has incised,linear decoration in the form of two diamondshapes, one above the other; a wavy, vertical line(snake?); and a possible anthropomorph holding aspear or standard (?).

13. Baat (Oman) — a chlorite seal was found inGrave 154, excavated by the German MiningMuseum (Bochum) in 2008 (G. Weisgerber, personalcommunication). The seal shows two files of long-horned caprids, moving in opposite directions, oneabove the other in horizontal rows. Judging by theirlong tails, these are almost certainly Arabian oryxand as such the likelihood that this is a local productis extremely high.

14. Baat (Oman) — a second, fragmentary, frit orfaience seal shows the lower half of a long-skirtedmale whose lower legs and feet are visible, in frontof an offering table. It was also found in Grave 154 inassociation with second-millennium BC metal ob-jects (G. Weisgerber, personal communication).

15. Ras al-Jinz (Oman) (Fig. 18) — a badly wornseal of unidentified stone (no dimensions published)was found in Building II, period II, at Ras al-Jinz, a

Fig. 16.

Drawing of a Middle Elamite cylinder seal (TA 12) from Tell Abraq (H.B. Potts).

Fig. 17.

Photograph of a modern impression of TA 12.


117

context dated by the excavators to c.2500–2250 BC(Cleuziou & Tosi 2007: 218, caption to fig. 222). Theseal depicts an abstract anthropomorphic figure witharms shown dangling vertically from broad shoul-ders and wavy lines reminiscent of snakes, as well asa symbol that may represent some sort of vegetation.The anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures, inlinear style, recall the figures on the seal from AlSufouh, with which this find is broadly contempo-rary.

To these finds may be added a cylinderseal-impressed sherd from Umm an-Nar island(Figs 19–20). The impression shows an animal

(lion?) with a somewhat distorted head attacking ashort-horned and short-tailed caprid, possibly agazelle, accompanied by a flower or large rosette.The closest parallels for the impression come fromSyria (Ebla, Tell Chuera, Hama), suggesting that thevessel of which this is a fragment was an importedstorage jar (Amiet 1975). It could have come fromSyria, down the Euphrates, via one of the southernMesopotamian cities, or alternatively, but perhapsless probably, it could have come overland throughthe Syrian and Arabian deserts. Chronologicallyspeaking, the Syrian parallels suggest a date around2500–2250 BC and this is consistent with the early

Fig. 18.

Drawing and photograph of a cylinder seal and modern impression from Ras al-Jinz (after Cleuziou & Tosi 2007: fig. 265).

Fig. 19.

Photograph of a cylinder seal-impressed sherd from the settle-

ment on Umm an-Nar Island (after Frifelt 1995: fig. 255).

Fig. 20.

Drawing of a cylinder seal-impressed sherd from the settlement

on Umm an-Nar Island (after Frifelt 1995: fig. 255).


118

Umm an-Nar date for the settlement on Umm an-Nar Island (Potts 1990b: 113).

The fifteen cylinder seals just described thus spanthe period extending from the middle or thirdquarter of the third to the early or mid-firstmillennium BC. The stylistic and iconographicparallels adduced above confirm that the region’ssixteenth seal, from Abu Dhabi, is older still andbelongs to a well-defined category of Late Urukglyptic dating to the later fourth millennium BC.The material of the seal, its dimensions and itsiconography all suggest that there is absolutely noreason to doubt its authenticity. The provenance ofthe seal, however, does raise questions about thedate of its arrival in the area. Bearing in mind thatthe site of the seal’s discovery has not beenthoroughly investigated, no evidence of pre-mod-ern human settlement was noted in the area. Howlong the area has been used to keep livestock isunknown, and certainly considerable damage mayhave been done to what may only ever have beenan ephemeral habitation with a scatter of surfaceremains. On the other hand, if the seal reached AbuDhabi during the Late Uruk period, in Mesopota-mian terms, perhaps between 3400 and 3100 BC,then it was almost certainly brought by a north-erner (Mesopotamian or Susian) to the region. Sealuse was, by then, relatively common within thelarge agro-pastoral-industrial administrative unitsof sites like Susa and Uruk.

The local populations of the south-east Arabianlittoral at this time were herders of sheep, goat andcattle who supplemented their diet with fishing,hunting and shellfish-gathering. Sites of this period,all of which are aceramic, are rare, prompting onescholar to refer to this as the ‘Dark Millennium’(Uerpmann 2003). Far more sites date to the sixthand fifth millennia BC, but one site, on Akab Islandin the lagoon of Umm al-Qaiwain, does date to thefourth millennium (Jousse et al. 2002; Mery, Char-pentier & Beech 2008). It would seem unlikely,however, that the communities of the coast had anyfunctional need for a seal at this time.

Alternatively, the seal may have come to AbuDhabi at almost any time subsequent to its manu-facture. It could have been brought to the region,and lost, by someone in the nineteenth century,perhaps used as a bead or exotic trinket, and thesame is true of the earlier centuries of the second and

first millennia AD, or for that matter, the third,second and first millennia BC. Ample evidenceexists in the U.A.E. of maritime trade contact withsouthern Mesopotamia in all periods. This began notlong after the period in which the Abu Dhabi sealwas manufactured and is first attested by the modestnumbers of squat, polychrome jars of Jamdat Nasrtype found in the tombs at the base of Jabal Hafitnear Al Ain (Potts 1986; Carter & al-Tikriti 2004), atJabal Emalah in the interior of Sharjah (Potts 2001:37), at Zukayt in Oman (Cleuziou & Tosi 2007: figs102–103) and elsewhere (Mery 2000: table 46). Ascompositional analyses have shown, these vesselswere manufactured in southern Mesopotamia (2000:185–188) during the Jamdat Nasr period, c.3100–2900BC. By this time the Abu Dhabi seal was probablyalready a century or more old. It has been speculatedby many scholars that Mesopotamian contact withsouth-eastern Arabia at this time was stimulated bya desire to acquire copper, and that objects such asthe Jamdat Nasr style jars found in the U.A.E. andOman may have been exchanged for copper ingots(e.g. Potts 1990b: 89–92). If the Abu Dhabi seal wasnot transported to its final resting place thousands ofyears after its manufacture, it may well have beenamongst a range of goods brought by traders fromsouthern Mesopotamia desirous of obtaining copperto take back to their homeland. Seasonal migrationbetween the mountainous interior and the coast hasbeen well documented for the earlier fifth-millen-nium BC population of BHS 18 at Jabal Buhais in theinterior of Sharjah. The excavators ‘consider BHS 18a ‘‘base camp’’ where the nomadic population spentthe spring part of its yearly cycle before moving tothe Hajar Mountains in summer and to coastal sitesin winter’ (Kiesewetter 2006: 115). Despite theforbidding nature of the desert of western AbuDhabi, this kind of movement could well account forthe deposition of a cylinder seal in such a sandyenvironment, far from the sites where other evi-dence of contact between Mesopotamia and thecommunities of south-eastern Arabia c.3000 BC hasbeen found.

AcknowledgementsThe cylinder seal from Abu Dhabi was discovered by Kim Burke

(at the time GRM International, currently Agwest International)

who then informed Peter Hellyer (National Media Council, Abu


119

Dhabi, and formerly of the Abu Dhabi Islands Archaeological

Survey) of his discovery. Peter Hellyer in turn reported thediscovery to the Environment Agency — Abu Dhabi (EAD),

whose Secretary-General, H.E. Majid Al Mansouri, kindly gave

permission for it to be photographed, studied and published.

Peter Hellyer very kindly passed on news of this important

discovery to one of us (DTP) shortly after it was made. The

authors would like to express their sincerest thanks to Messrs

Burke and Hellyer, and to H.E. Majid Al Mansouri, for all of the

assistance they have provided in bringing this important find to

the attention of the scholarly community. Thanks also go to Dr

Walid Yasin al-Tikriti (Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture &Heritage) for information on the seal from Tomb B at Hili North;

Dr Derek Kennet (Durham University) and Mr Christian Velde

(Ras Al Khaimah National Museum) for information on the seals

from Rafaq; Dr Gerd Weisgerber (German Mining Museum) for

information on the two seals from Baat; Dr M.C. Ziolkowski

(Fujairah) for information on the Qidfa seals; and Mr Carl

Phillips and Dr Emma Thompson (Sharjah Archaeological

Museum) for information on the Kalba seals.

ReferencesAmiet P 1972. Glyptique susienne des origi-

nes a l’epoque des Perses achemenides.

Paris: Memoires de la delegation

archeologique en Iran 43.

Amiet, P. 1975. A Cylinder Seal Impres-

sion found at Umm an-Nar. EW 25:

425–426.Amiet, P. 1980. La glyptique mesopotamienne

archaıque. 2nd edition. Paris: Editions

du Centre National de la Recherche

Scientifique.

Asher-Greve, J.M. 1985. Frauen in altsu-merischer Zeit. Malibu: Bibliotheca

Mesopotamica 18.

Benton, J.N. 1996. Excavations at Al Sufouh:A third millennium site in the Emirate ofDubai, United Arab Emirates. Turnhout:

Abiel 1.Braidwood, R.J. & Braidwood, L. 1960.

Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: TheEarlier Assemblages Phase A-J. Chicago:

OIP 61.

Buchanan, B. 1966. Catalogue of AncientNear Eastern Seals in the AshmoleanMuseum. Vol 1. Cylinder Seals. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Carter, R. & al-Tikriti, W.Y. 2004. Archae-

ology. Pages 48–64 in Aspinall, S. &

Hellyer, P (eds), Jebel Hafit, A naturalhistory (Abu Dhabi, Emirates NaturalHistory Group).

Cleuziou, S. & Tosi, M. 2007. In the Shadowof the Ancestors. The Prehistoric Founda-tions of the Early Arabian Civilization inOman. Muscat: Ministry of Heritage

and Culture.

Delougaz, P. & Kantor, H. 1996. ChoghaMish. Vol I. The First Five Seasons ofExcavations, 1961–1971. Chicago: OIP

101.

Frankfort, H. 1955. Stratified cylinder sealsfrom the Diyala Region. Chicago: OIP 72.

Frifelt, K. 1995. The island of Umm an-Nar.Vol. 2. The third millennium settlement.Aarhus: JASP 26 ⁄ 2.

Genouillac, H. de 1934–1936. Fouilles deTelloh I, Epoques presargoniques. Paris:

Geuthner.

Haerinck, E. 1990–1991. The rectangular

Umm an-Nar-period grave at Mowai-

hat (Emirate of Ajman, United Arab

Emirates). Gentse Bijdragen tot deKunstgeschiedenis en Oudheidkunde 29:

1–30.

Hammade, H. 1994. Cylinder Seals fromthe Collections of the Aleppo Museum,Syrian Arab Republic. Oxford: BAR Int

Ser 597.

Jousse, H., Faure, M., Guerin, C. & Prieur,

A. 2002. Exploitation des ressources

marines au cours des Ve–IVe mille-

naires: Le site a dugongs de l’ıle

d’Akab (Umm al-Qaiwain, EmiratsArabes Unis). Paleorient 28: 43–60.

Kiesewetter, H. 2006. Analyses of the

human remains from the Neolithic

cemetery at al-Buhais 18 (Excavations

1996–2000). Pages 103–265 in Uerp-

mann, H-P., Uerpmann, M. & Jasim,

S.A. (eds), Funeral monuments and hu-man remains from Jebel al-Buhais (Tub-

ingen, Kerns Verlag).

Legrain, L. 1951. Seal Cylinders. London

and Philadelphia: Ur Excavations 10.

Mackay, E. 1931. Report on Excavations atJemdet Nasr, Iraq. Chicago: Field Mu-

seum of Natural History, Anthropol-

ogy Memoirs Vol. I ⁄ 3.

Martin, H.P. 1988. Fara: A Reconstruction ofthe Ancient Mesopotamian City of Shu-ruppak. Birmingham: Chris Martin and

Associates.

Matthews, D. 1997. The Early Glyptic of TellBrak. Cylinder Seals of Third MillenniumSyria. Fribourg: Orbis Biblicus et Ori-

entalis 15.Matthews, R. 2002. Secrets of the Dark

Mound, Jemdet Nasr 1926–1928. Lon-

don: British School of Archaeology in

Iraq.

Mery, S. 2000. Les ceramiques d’Oman etl’Asie moyenne: Une archeologie desechanges a l’Age du Bronze. Paris: Col-

lection de Recherches Archeologiques

Monographies 23.

Mery, S., Charpentier, V. & Beech, M. 2008.

First evidence of shell fish-hook tech-nology in the Gulf. AAE 19: 15–21.

Nissen, H. 1977. Aspects of the develop-

ment of early cylinder seals. Pages 15–

23 in Gibson, McG. & Biggs, R.D. (eds),

Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East(Malibu, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 6).

Parrot, A. 1948. Tello. Vingt campagnes defouilles (1877–1933). Paris: Editions Al-

bin Michel.

Pittman, H. 2001. Mesopotamian intrare-

gional relations reflected throughglyptic evidence in the Late Chalco-

lithic 1–5 periods. Pages 403–444 in

Rothman, M (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamiaand its Neighbors: Cross Cultural Inter-actions in the Era of State Formation(Santa Fe, School of American Re-

search Press and Oxford, James Cur-

rey).

Pittman, H. 2007. The Glyptic art from

Arslantepe period VIA: A consider-

ation of intraregional relations as seen

through style and iconography. Pages294–354 in Frangipane, M. et al (eds),

Arslantepe Cretulae, An Early CentralizedAdministrative System Before Writing(Rome, Universita di Roma La Sapi-

enza [= Arslantepe V]).

Porada, E., Hansen, D.P., Dunham, S. &

Babcock, S.H. 1992. Mesopotamia.

Pages 77–121 in Ehrich, R.H. (ed.),

Chronologies in Old World Archaeology,

3rd edition (Chicago, University of

Chicago Press).Potts, D.T. 1986. Eastern Arabia and the

Oman Peninsula during the Late

Fourth and Early Third Millennium

B.C. Pages 121–170 in Finkbeiner, U.,


120

Rollig, W. (eds), Gamdat Nasr: Period orregional style? (Wiesbaden: LudwigReichert Verlag).

Potts, D.T. 1990a. A prehistoric mound in theEmirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.:Excavations at Tell Abraq in 1989.

Copenhagen: Munksgaard.

Potts, D.T. 1990b. The Arabian Gulf inAntiquity, vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Potts, D.T. 1991. Further excavations at TellAbraq: The 1990 season. Copenhagen:

Munksgaard.Potts, D.T. 2001. Before the Emirates: An

Archaeological and Historical Account

of Developments in the Region c. 5000

B.C. to 676 A.D. Pages 28–69 in Al

Abed, E. I., Hellyer, P (eds), United

Arab Emirates: A new perspective (Lon-

don, Trident Press).al-Tikriti, W.Y. 1989. The Excavations at

Bidya, Fujairah: the 3rd and 2nd mil-

lennia B.C. culture. AUAE 5: 101–14.

Uerpmann, M. 2003. The dark millennium —remarks on the Final Stone Age in theEmirates and Oman. Pages 74–81 in

Potts, D.T., Al Naboodah, H. & Hell-

yer, P. (eds), Archaeology of the UnitedArab Emirates: Proceedings of the 1stInternational Conference on the Archaeol-ogy of the U.A.E. (Abu Dhabi, Ministryof Information and London, Trident).

Van Buren, E.D. 1957. The drill-worked

Jamdat Nasr seals. Orientalia 26: 289–

305.

Van Driel, G. 1983. Seals and Sealings from

Jebel Aruda 1974–1978. Akkadica 33:34–62.

Wilson, K.L. 1986. Nippur: The definition

of a Mesopotamian Gamdat Nasr

assemblage. Pages 57–86 in Finkbeiner,

U. & Rollig, W. (eds.), Gamdat Nasr:Period or Regional Style? (Wiesbaden,

Beihefte zum TAVO B 62).

Ziolkowski, M. 1998. A study of the

petroglyphs from Wadi al-Hayl, Fujai-

rah, United Arab Emirates. AAE 9: 13–

89.Ziolkowski, M. 2007. Rock on art: Petro-

glyph sites in the United Arab Emir-

ates. AAE 18: 208–238.


121

Documents

Pittman and Potts 2009 Cylinder Seal Dj Nasr Abu Dhabi