Page 19 - DILMUN 11

m

that there was no gap in occupation on the island. As we enter the latest phase of the Early Dynas­
But whether or not such was the case, there can be tic period (IIlb), the Akkadian era, and subse­
quently the Ur HI and Isin-Larsa periods, the situ­
no denying that archaeological material from east­ ation changes considerably. City I remains on m
ern Arabia, especially around Abqaiq and on
Tarut, is far more substantial than anything of Bahrain are not suggestive of a great trading pow­
contemporary date on Bahrain, and is, further­ er. Yet this does not alter the fact that City I aa
more, very illustrative of contact with Early pottery — the well-known chain-ridged ware —
Dynastic Mesopotamia. turns up along the whole length and breadth of the
Large pottery storage jars from tombs near Arabian coast from Dhahran to Jinnah island
(Golding 1974 : 29). This in itself suggests that
Abqaiq on display in the National Museum in connections between Bahrain and the mainland w
Riyadh bear witness to contact with southern
Mesopotamian during ED I and II, and parallels became closer by the end of the Early Dynastic and
can be drawn with pieces from the Jamdat Nasr Akkadian eras. With City II wc see yet a further
cemetery at Ur, and from Khafajah in the Diyala development: the appearance of the distinctive
region (Potts n.d. : 11). Moreover, approximately seal form which was to remain in use in the Gulf for
314 plain steatite or chlorite bowls from Tarut nearly 800 years. Both the simpler “Persian Gulf'
show clear parallels to material of ED II date from seals and the finer “ Dilmun" seals appear together II
the Jamdat Nasr cemetery at Ur. Perhaps more for the first time in the lowest City II level in the
well-known are the marvelous carved chlorite jars sounding on Qal'at al-Bahrain (P. Kjaerum, per­
sonal comm.), and their appearance there around
of Tarut, numbering around 323 (Zarins 1978) 2000 - 1900 B.C. can be well dated by the pres­ n
which have their closest Mesopotamian analogs in
ED II and Ilia at Nippur, Ur, Khafajah, and Mari. ence of an Isin-Larsa type tablet in the same level.
Significantly, none of this sort of material has This is the era in which Ea-nasir of Ur traded with
turned up on Bahrain, an indication of either an Dilmun, and the fact that the impressions of Dil-
absence of occupation there at this time, or else, if mun seals are found on tablets from Susa (Lambert
the hunter-fisher-gatherer population of the late 1976 : 71) as well as Ur (?) (Hallo and Buchanan ■
fourth millennium did survive into the third 1965 : 203), and that the Dilmun seal appears to
millennium, a very poor and insignificant one. The have originated on Bahrain, makes it most proba­
fact that this material is well-dated in ble that the center of Dilmun in the late third and
Mesopotamia need not necessarily ensure that the Does this mean that eastern Arabia, which I have ■
early second millennium B.C. was on Bahrain.
Tarut material of similar style is of the same date.
Yet, such a conclusion is reasonable in this particu­ suggested was Dilmun for the Early Dynastic
lar case since other artifacts with strong Early Sumerians, was no longer Dilmun ? It does seem to ■
Dynastic character, such as a limestone statue of a have lost its prominence, but it is also possible that
naked male Sumerian (Rashid 1972 : 162), and a culturally the eastern Arabian region was now
lapis figurine of a male (Golding 1974 : 26), have incorporated into a community whose center was
been found on Tarut. on Bahrain. I have already mentioned the wide­ M
What then of the Ur-nanSe inscription which spread presence of City I chain-ridged pottery in
records the import of wood to Lagash on a the Arabian coastal region. City II red-ridged ware
Dilmun ship, or the references to Dilmun in the was no less abundant, and about half a dozen Dil­ a
Early Dynastic lexical lists of Fara and Ebla? Do mun and Persian Gulf seals have been found in the
these refer to a sparsely populated or as yet region as well (on Tarut : Zarins 1978 : PI. 70;
unimportant Bahrain? The material from eastern north of Dhahran : Barger 1969 : 139; south of
Arabia with its strong Mesopotamian connections Nadqan : Golding 1974 : 29). All of this suggests M
— pottery from Abqaiq, chlorite from Tarut, the that al-Hasa was well-within the cultural boundary
“Fara* style statue from Tarut, the lapis figurine of late third/early second millennium Dilmun. At
this time, however, the heart of Dilmun seems
— all suggest that if Bahrain was unimportant at definitely to have shifted to Bahrain. Whether this -a
this time, not yet the great emporium it was to
become in later years, eastern Arabia was far from was for reasons of commercial convenience, or
insignificant. I would suggest that during the Early perhaps due to the rise of a powerful family or a
Dynastic period, and perhaps also in the Jamdat group of merchants on Bahrain who managed to
Nasr and Late Uruk era, the Mesopotamian refer­ make Bahrain more important than the mainland,
ences to Dilmun apply to eastern Arabia, and not we do not know. That a shift occurred, however,
seems fairly clear. a
to Bahrain.
a

16