A First Definition of the Dhofar Coastal Culture
Archaeological Exploration on the Inqitat Promontory
in the Khor Rori Area (Dhofar, Sultanate of Oman)
Silvia Lischi

ABSTRACT
Archaeological investigations in coastal Dhofar, southern Oman, have extensively documented thepresence of South Arabian occupation, but local settlements during the Iron Age remain poorly understood. Recent surveys and excavations along the Dhofar coast have revealed a site that could provide
significant data on the Iron Age in the region. On the Inqitat promontory, in the area of Khor Rori,archaeological investigations have revealed continuous human settlement from the 8th-7th century BC
to the 1st-2nd century AD. The stratigraphic evidence highlighted climatic changes and different uses ofthe promontory during its occupation. In particular, a previously unattested indigenous tradition witha specific material culture and socio-economic organisation —­ labelled Dhofar Coastal Culture —­ hasbeen documented at the Iron Age site Al Hamr al-Sharqiyah 1 (HAS1), which partially overlapped withthe occupation of the nearby South Arabian city of Sumhuram.
KEYWORDS
Pre-Islamic Arabia, Iron Age, Dhofar, Khor Rori, Inqitat, HAS1, Dhofar Coastal Culture

INTRODUCTION

sible a site of fundamental interest for the historyof Dhofar. The Inqitat promontory is located in

The Inqitat promontory, which began to be ex-

the archaeological park of Khor Rori, part of theplored under the Italian Mission to Oman (IMTO)Land of Frankincense UNESCO property in Dho-

in 2016 and 2017 from University of Pisa, has be-far, southern Oman, about 2 km south of the South

come the focus of the newborn DhofarMap & In-

Arabian city of Sumhuram (Fig. 1; Albright 1982;

qitat Archaeological Project (DHOMIAP), directed

Avanzini 2002, 2008, 2011, 2014). The promontory

by the author under the auspices of the Ministry

consists of a rocky hill about 30 m above mean sea

of Heritage and Tourism of the Sultanate of Omanlevel (AMSL). Its summit is characterised by two

with the aim of understanding and making acces-

plateaus of about 600 x 120 m each, separated by anAncient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

Available online July 2023

S. Lischi

it possible to date the settlement between the 10thand 11th centuries AD (Rougeulle 2008). Moreover, the quality and variety of the pottery recoveredsuggest that the site, although it does not seem tocorrespond to any mention in the historical sources, was actively involved in maritime trade (Fig. 2).
According to A. Rougeulle, the modest size andbasic urban organisation of HAS2 suggest that itwas not a fully developed settlement but rather asmall entrepôt that served only as a transit depot forgoods along the maritime trade route. This would
also explain the massive fortifications and the great
variability in the pottery found. It has also beenargued that HAS2 had direct trade contacts with
Sharma, a similar site on the Yemeni coast that isFig. 1. Location of the areas mentioned in the text(© DHOMIAP Project).
A: Satellite image of Dhofar coastline showing the Khor

also unreported in the sources (Fig. 2; Avanzini etal. 2001: 49-58; Rougeulle 2008, 2015).
The new archaeological investigations on Inqi-

Rori area and the city of Salalah, and the study area

tat carried out in the framework of the DHOMIAP

in relation to the Arabian Peninsula (low­er left box),

Project, including both surface surveys and exca-

B: Satellite image of the Khor Rori area with the Inqitat

vations, have interested the entire promontory but

promontory, the city of Sumhuram, and Wadi Darbat.

have concentrated outside the area of HAS2. This
paper summarises the results of survey and exca-

intermediate valley running east-west.

vation activities on Inqitat, focusing on the mostThe area was the subject of repeated surface

important discovery: the HAS1 (Al Hamr al-Shar-surveys from 1996 to 1998 and again in 2006

qiyah 1) settlement, the first site of the Dhofar(Cremaschi and Negrino 2002; Morandi Bonacossi

Coastal Culture to be discovered.

2002; Cremaschi and Perego 2008). The promontory was also mentioned by Zarins (2001: 150),
who noted the presence of an Islamic settlement.

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL NOTESDuring the IMTO activities, several architectural structures were documented, including a long

Inqitat is a mesa part of the marine erosional ter-wall running along the entire northern cliff of therace extending from Taqah to Wadi Hinna (Fig. 3),

promontory (Avanzini et al. 2001: 49), and the Is-

which ranges from 30 to 100 m AMSL and consists

lamic settlement already mentioned by Zarins, now

of Oligocene-age bioclastic and micritic limestonelabelled HAS2 (Al Hamr al-Sharqiyah 2) by the

belonging to the Ashawq Formation. Pleistocene

DHOMIAP Project (Fig. 2). In order to gain a better

erosion has cut through the strata to form the flat

understanding of its chronology, a small excavation

surface of the Inqitat promontory, the geologicalcampaign was carried out with the aim of clarifying

bedrock basement which is displaced by direct

three structures within the walled area. This madefaults, increasing the effect of the erosional process-24

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

A First Definition of the Dhofar Coastal Culture

Fig. 2. Some details about the HAS2 settlement.
A: Fragments of Abbasid blue ware (above) and fragments of sgraffiato ware (below) (after Rougeulle 2008), B: Simplified planof the HAS2 settlement (after Rougeulle 2008), C: Aerial view of the archaeological site of Sharma (after Rougeulle 2015).

Fig. 3. Coastal features between Salalah and Mirbat.
A: Map showing the location of the town of Taqah and the mouth of Wadi Hinna in relation with Inqitat (© DHOMIAP Project),
B, C: GoogleEarthTM and DEM images of the area to the north of the Khor Rori archaeological park
(after Zerboni et al. 2020: Fig. 2).

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

25

S. Lischi

es that broke up the Pleistocene marine terrace into

activity overlying the paleosol. The intermediate

separate mesas. Inqitat is divided by an east-west

valley is almost completely covered with anthro-valley formed by the same erosional processes. In

pogenic debris forming high dumps to the north,some parts of the promontory, a paleosol was foundand has several small natural shelters created byto have developed on the marine abrasion terrace

various forms of erosion along the southern slope

during Marine Isotope Stage 5 (MIS5), indicating(Cremaschi 2017).

a long history of climatic change. At the base of
Inqitat, there is evidence of a sea level + 5 m above
the present level, dating back to the early Holocene.
As a result of wind erosion, the surface of In-

THE DISCOVERY OF HAS1:
THE FIRST TRENCH

qitat is covered by a stone pavement. The geoarchaeological survey has divided the promontory

The decision to excavate a test-trench in theinto different areas defined by specific geologicalnorth-eastern sector (NE-S1) of the Inqitat prom-

characteristics and archaeological features. The

ontory was dictated by the presence of two parallel

southern plateau is characterised by a surface con-megalithic stones protruding from the surface andcentration of marine molluscs and denticulate/mi-

several megalithic stones all around them, which

crolithic assemblages, while the northern plateau

seemed to define a structure of pseudo-circular

has a thicker stratigraphy generated by humanshape (Fig. 4; Lischi et al. 2016).
The stratigraphy revealed in this trench wascharacterised by a surface layer devoid of fine sediments, which were removed by wind action, in
which stones and small-to-medium-sized material
had accumulated densely over the entire surface.
This setting allowed the preservation of the underlying layers. In fact, the upper layer covered a
relatively soft reddish layer with sporadic anthropogenic material, which overlaid a layer of aeolian deposits completely devoid of anthropogenic
material. This latter layer is probably evidence ofan abandonment phase of the area. In turn, it covered and preserved the earliest occupation phasesin the area under exploration, eventually found tobe associated with the settlement HAS1 (Al Hamr
al-Sharqiyah 1).
Once the upper layers had been removed, theperimeter of the structure appeared to be circular,

Fig. 4. The first circular structure explored prior to
excavation (above) and the same structurewith the two megalithic stones in parallel position
defining an entrance. Excavation of the interior re-during excavation with some archaeologicalvealed a collapse caused by a fire that affected thematerial still in place (below) (© DHOMIAP Project).

entire structure. The stratigraphy of the collapse

26

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

A First Definition of the Dhofar Coastal Culture

can be summarised as follows, and can be used as aoccupied by the Islamic settlement HAS2 (Fig. 5).

reference for most of the excavated contexts in theIt has been possible to identify the remains of

HAS1 settlement area (Fig. 4):

about seventy structures on the surface, but it is like-—­The upper layer was rather compact and dark

ly that surface sediments entirely or partially cover

brown and included numerous small-and-many more. They are generally irregular in shape,

medium-sized stones and many fragments ofvarying from almost perfectly circular to semi-cir-charcoal. No artefacts were found.

cular or sub-rectangular (Fig. 5). The diameter is—­Beneath this is a layer consisting of reddish,generally between 3.0 and 4.5 m. The construction

crumbly-fired clay mixed with sandstone

technique involved the use of megalithic undressedslabs, interspersed with charcoal and ash.

stones for the inner perimeter and medium to large—­After this layer was removed, the presencestones for the outer perimeter, which is often poorly

of loose stones suddenly decreased. A benchpreserved. The filling, where preserved, consisted

began to emerge, built with stone slabs laidof incoherent material mixed with earth. The use ofhorizontally on the upper surface and medi-

binders has not been found, but the presence of anum to large unworked stones forming its pe-earth mortar that has degraded over time cannot be

rimeter. This bench ran around much of the

excluded. The entrance consisted of two parallel,

inner perimeter of the circular structure. The

upright megalithic stones with flat stones variously

layer also contained many charred fragments

arranged between them to form a threshold (Fig. 6).

of wooden beams of various sizes, ashes and,The average width of the entrances is between 0.45

closer to the floor, anthropic materials suchand 0.60 m. Usually, one or more steps lead down toas pottery, stone tools, and objects of various

the floor of the structures. This arrangement seems

uses. It is interesting to note that much of theto indicate a difference in height between the out-material was found directly on the floor orside and the inside of the structures. This possibility

on parts of the collapsed structure. This ar-

could be explained by the need to dig a few tens ofrangement suggests that the materials were

centimetres into the ancient surface to stabilise thefound as they were arranged immediately be-

megalithic stones that formed the structure.

fore the fire caused the structure to collapse(Crippa et al. 2023).

The natural surface of the bedrock, which was
generally relatively flat, was used as the floor. Oc-—­ The floor was set directly on the originalcasionally, stone slabs of different sizes were usedsurface of the bedrock, with packed clay soil

to level it (Fig. 6). The upper part of the structures

filling some natural depressions to form a

was not preserved. However, from the structurallevelled surface.

remains and the evident similarities with the traditional architecture used by the shepherds of thearea to this day, it was probably made of wooden

HAS1: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SETTLEMENT

beams, covered with light organic material (such as
straw) and the whole covered with clay. The excavated structures were all destroyed by a major fire

Settlement HAS1 occupied the central-western

event. The collapse of the organic cover made itpart of the northern plateau and covered an area of

possible to document an undisturbed stratigraphy

about 2 ha, without overlapping with the area laterwith objects and materials still in their primary

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

27

S. Lischi

Fig. 5. General map of the Inqitat promontory (above), aerial view of the NW-S1 area (bottom left), and the plan of thesame area highlighting the morphological variability of the structures (bottom right) (© DHOMIAP Project).

28

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

A First Definition of the Dhofar Coastal Culture

Fig. 6. Some examples of the most common architectural features of HAS1 structures (© DHOMIAP Project).
A: Entrance to one of the circular structures in the HAS1 settlement,
B: Part of a stone slabs floor with two cup marks made by beating or grinding on one of the larger slab,
C: Top view of one of the circular structures excavated with a bench running around the perimeter.

context. The interior was generally equipped withtensive surveys were carried out in the intermedi-

benches running around the inner perimeter of theate valley between the two plateaus that form thestructure (Fig. 6). They varied in size but consist-

Inqitat promontory. It soon became clear that theed of an upper surface made of slabs lying over ageological characteristics of the cliffs marked a

low wall built using medium-sized stones running

different use of the northern and the southern sides

parallel to the perimeter of the building, with the(Fig. 5).

space between them filled with incoherent material

The northern side was characterised over much

mixed with earth. Cup marks were often found onof its length by a series of dumps or middens, offlat surfaces inside the structures, suggesting thatwhich at least seven were clearly distinguishable. A

they were created by grinding and crushing house-

trench of 29 x 13 m was dug in the best-preserved

hold products. Although less common, the presence

midden to understand their nature and chronology

of variously structured fireplaces and small walls(Fig. 7). The excavation made it possible to identify

delimiting areas for specific activities is also to be

numerous layers that composed three main phases.

noted.

The earliest consisted of two layers of considerable
thickness with an anthropic presence attested byfood remains and lithic industry. It has been dated

THE INTERMEDIATE VALLEY:
EVIDENCE OF VOLUNTARYSPATIAL DIFFERENTIATIONby radiocarbon analysis to 2600 ± 45 BP (843-739
cal BC) (Lischi 2019). The second phase, which
was the largest in number of layers and thickness,
was characterised by an alternation between lay-

In order to gain a better understanding of theers very rich in anthropic material, mainly foodland use and extension of the HAS1 settlement, in-remains, and layers composed almost exclusively

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

29

S. Lischi

dry-stone walls, when well preserved, are characterised by one or two small openings in the upper
part of the wall (Fig. 8). The excavation of someof these structures has revealed the presence of an
extremely thin stratigraphy, consisting mainly oflayers of fine wind deposits. In other cases, they
were instead characterised by a dark and fibrouslayer of caprid droppings. Their use, therefore, remains uncertain, also because the size of some ofthem does not allow them to be used as shelters foranimals. Unfortunately, no dating material has beenfound and it is, therefore, difficult, at the present
stage of research, to establish a date for the use of
these structures.
Fig. 7. The main midden (© DHOMIAP Project).
A: Eastern section of the excavated midden,
B: Aerial view of the entire trench excavated in the midden.

THE MATERIAL CULTURE
A preliminary overview of the material cul-of aeolian deposits without significant anthrop-

ture recovered during the fieldwork on the Inqitat

ic traces. The radiocarbon analyses of two layers

promontory, both survey and excavation, is sum-that are not directly contiguous date this phase tomarised in the following paragraphs to highlightat least 2390 ± 25 BP (702-397 cal BC) and 2319

certain chronological aspects fundamental to un-± 45 BP (515-349 cal BC) (Lischi 2019). The lat-derstanding the settlement history of the area. The

est phase was composed mainly of cemented ash,material found during the excavations consists ofhearths, charcoal, and traces of burning, mixed withpottery, lithics, metal, bone, glass, and shell arte-food remains in smaller quantities than in the layers

facts. It should be noted that the surface distributionof the previous phase. The analysis of the sectionof the archaeological material was considerable on

showed that at some point in the occupation of thethe northern plateau, while it was sporadic on the

promontory, the top of the midden belonging to thesouthern plateau.

second phase was cut horizontally to create a large
flat area on which production activities were later
carried out, leaving behind residues of charcoal,ash, and slag.

The Pottery Assemblage
The surface distribution of pottery sherds on

The southern cliff of the valley, on the otherthe promontory was relatively homogeneous on

hand, is characterised by a rather steep slope ofthe northern plateau, while it was rather poor on

rocky outcrops interspersed with small terraces, inthe southern plateau. This is consistent with the hy-

which numerous rock shelters of varying depths

pothesis that the two plateaus had different func-

and heights open up, often surrounded by curving

tions during the occupation of the area. So far, we

dry-stone walls of clearly anthropic origin. These

have documented over two-thousand diagnostic

30

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

A First Definition of the Dhofar Coastal Culture

Fig. 8. Details of the rock shelters that characterized the southern slope of the valley (© DHOMIAP Project).
A: Rock shelters in the central part of the southern slope of the intermediate valley,
B, C: Frontal view of a rock shelter with a closing dry wall before (B) and after (C) the archaeological exploration,
D, E: Images of the same rock shelter from the west (D) and from the east (E),highlighting the small openings at the top of the dry wall.

and non-diagnostic pottery sherds and about ten

divided chronologically into two well-definedcomplete or nearly complete vessels. It is imme-

macro-phases: the Late Iron Age/Classical Period

diately apparent that the ceramic material can be(ca. 1st cent. BC - 2nd cent. AD) and the Islamic

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

31

S. Lischi

Period (ca. 10th - 11th cent. AD).

of smoothing and sometimes simple decoration on

As for the pottery group attributed to the Latethe shoulder, rim, and outer surface. The decora-

Iron Age/Classical Period, mainly found in contexts

tion may consist of red painted lines or fingerprints

related to the HAS1 settlement, a first main distinc-and various incised or impressed motifs. This pot-tion has to be made between local and imported

tery appears to have been used rather sporadicallyceramics. The local pottery (Fig. 9), which is dis-throughout the occupation of HAS1. Remarkably,

cussed in detail in a dedicated publication (Lischi

it is not comparable to any of the types found in

et al. 2022), has very distinctive characteristics. It

the nearby city of Sumhuram (Pavan 2017; Lischi

consists mainly of hand-made containers, including

et al. 2022).

open and closed forms of various sizes, to be used

Imported pottery, on the other hand, was largely

as kitchen ware. Their surface often shows traces

reused. It consists mainly of Mediterranean and In-

Fig. 9. Selection of ceramics mentioned in the text (© DHOMIAP Project).
A: Amphora Dressel 2-4, B: Indian cooking pot, C: Handmade coarse ware pot, D: Handmade coarse ware pot
with red fingerprints decoration, E, F: Sgraffiato ware, G: Glazed ware. A, B, and C are out of scale.

32

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

A First Definition of the Dhofar Coastal Culture

dian wares. The Mediterranean pottery is currently

tion of HAS2. The presence of sherds from Africa,

all attributed to amphorae of the Dressel 2-4 Cam-India, and the Far East confirms the idea of Rou-

panian type made of the typical black-sand fabricgeulle that the settlement was linked to long-dis-characterised by abundant black inclusions (Fig. 9;tance maritime trade routes across the Indian Ocean

Tomber 2017: 350). Many complete amphorae were

(Lischi and Strolin 2018).

found inside the houses of HAS1, suggesting afunctional reuse of these vessels. Moreover, in atleast two cases, the presence of reworking traces

Lithic Tools Assemblageon the shoulder probably testifies to their prolonged

The complexity of the lithic industry found on

use over time. In any case, they define a terminus

the Inqitat promontory has been extensively dis-post-quem for the destruction of the settlement. In

cussed in a dedicated paper (Hilbert and Lischi

fact, this event can be placed in the period follow-2020). Therefore, only a general overview of theing the distribution of this specific type of amphoracharacteristics defining the lithic production of theafter the 1st century BC (University of Southamp-

Dhofar Coastal Culture is presented here. Indeed,

ton 2014; Tomber 2017: 350). Ceramics from India

the surface of the promontory is covered with lith-

are also abundant (Fig. 9). Many fragments haveic artefacts and flakes from the processing of raw

been found, as well as a complete vessel, consistingmaterials. This data is particularly noteworthy as it

almost exclusively of cooking pots and only spo-

contrasts sharply with the situation defined at Sum-

radically of transport vessels such as jars or dolia.

huram.

The presence of Indian pottery is not surprising as

No intensive surface sampling was conducteda considerable amount has also been found at Sum-

because the continuity of use of the promontory

huram (Pavan 2017). However, it shows that HAS1

resulted in the lithic material being evenly distrib-

was also involved in long-distance commercial ac-

uted over its entire surface. This seems to indicate

tivities through contacts with Sumhuram or directthat the lithic material has been accumulated over a

trade with merchants from overseas.

long period of time and certainly reflects numerous

The Early Islamic pottery is only briefly men-human activities, which are difficult to identify andtioned here as its detailed description is beyond

distribute over time without the chronological clues

the scope of this paper. It comes mainly from theof stratigraphy.

surface collection, with only occasional finds fromApproximately 60 % of the lithic material foundcontexts related to this period outside the HAS2

during the excavations consists of flakes and debris,settlement. Early Islamic pottery was distributed on

while cores are rare and often in an advanced state

the surface of the northern plateau and only quiteof reduction. Most of the cores appear to be mul-rarely on the southern plateau. Although the assem-

ti-plate with a reduction sequence aimed at maxim-

blage is limited in quantity, it mirrors the previous

ising the number of fragments produced, regardlessdetailed analysis by A. Rougeulle (2008). The Is-of size and morphology. The production of blades

lamic ceramic assemblage is mainly represented byis rare. Tools such as scrapers and perforators areglazed pottery, among which sgraffiato wares andpresent, but most are simply retouched fragments

alkaline blue glazed wares were also found (Fig. 9).

(Fig. 10). The most interesting tools found are the

These two pottery types contribute to confirming

microliths with a geometric, lunate, or rectangular

the chronology previously attributed to the occupa-

shape, retouched at one of their long ends (Fig. 10).

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

33

S. Lischi

Fig. 10. Lithic tools from sector NE-S1 including retouched flakes (left), and microliths found during excavation
including trapezoidal, rectangular, and circular shapes (right) (© DHOMIAP Project).

They were usually part of composite instruments

Cypraea sp. (Fig. 11), while other species are lesssuch as harpoons.

common. Many of these specimens show clear trac-

The lithic assemblage from Inqitat includes aes of polishing and drilling, suggesting their use asvariety of raw materials such as flint, obsidian, andbeads (Lischi 2020b). Positive comparisons canquartzite. There do not appear to be any nearby out-

be made with the beads found at Sumhuram (Lis-

crops of such raw materials that could have been

chi and Pavan 2012; Lischi 2018). In the layers ofused for this purpose. The flint probably came fromthe Late Iron Age/Classical Period, some Mima-

the Nejd area, some 15-20 km inland, while thechlamys townsendi with traces of combustion werequartzites were most likely collected near Mirbat,

also found (Fig. 11), suggesting that they were usedsome 30-40 km to the east. The obsidian came fromas oil lamps, like those found at Sumhuram (Lom-further afield, and more detailed studies are under-

bardi et al. 2008: 397). Flywheels or spindle whorls

way to determine its origin.

made from shell have also been found (Fig. 11).
Once again there are parallels with this type of ar-

Miscellanea
The assemblage of materials found mainly dur-

tefact at Sumhuram (Lombardi et al. 2008: 357).
The spindle whorls from later contexts were instead
made by reusing pottery sherds.

ing the excavations is very heterogeneous, demon-

Numerous fragments of vitrified clay crucibles

strating the complexity of the area under study. Fin-were found on the surface of the middens along theished objects were found alongside raw materials

northern edge of the intermediate valley (Lombardi

and semi-finished products.

et al. 2008). The inner surface of some of these is

Seashells are one of the most common materials

covered with copper or bronze residues, confirming

found in all stratigraphic contexts. Many of thesethat they were used to melt small quantities of theseare food remains, but others show traces of anthro-materials in order to cast small objects.

pogenic modification. Molluscs are represented byMany stone tools dedicated to various activities,

large quantities of Conus sp., Oliva bulbosa, andsuch as pestles, mortars, grindstones, hand tools

34

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

A First Definition of the Dhofar Coastal Culture

Fig. 11. Some of the artefacts described in the text (© DHOMIAP Project).
A: clay spindle whorl, B: shell spindle whorl, C: shell beads, D: iron nail, E: iron rods,
F: clay crucible fragments with copper/bronze residues, G: oil lamp, H: stone tool.

and multi-purpose tools, have been consistently

present throughout the stratigraphy of HAS1. Sea-

found in contexts associated with HAS1. Most ofshells were the primary raw material exploited forthese tools were found in domestic structures. A

making beads. However, there are also numerous

detailed description of their individual uses is notbeads made from semi-precious stones such as car-provided here. However, their frequency and com-

nelian and agate (Lischi 2020b), and others frombination seem to describe the use of such structures

glass paste, including a fine example of luxury mo-

by a family unit.

saic flower bead most likely produced in Alexan-

Some less common, but still frequent, objects

dria (Egypt) (Lischi 2020a).

are made of sandstone. The most interesting are the

The discovery of metallic materials is unusual,

two conical bases for the wooden pillars that sup-possibly because the state of preservation of metals

ported the roof of one of the structures in HAS1.

is generally poor due to the proximity to the sea

They were arranged with the conical part facing

and the climatic characteristics of the area. Copper

downwards, wedged into a depression of the bed-

artefacts include coins from South Arabian and In-

rock that served as floor. The flat part facing up-

dian mints, fish hooks, and other small objects such

wards formed the base for the poles that support-

as hair ornaments (Fig. 11). Iron objects compriseed the structure, which were found burnt over thenails, rods, and other fragments that are difficult tosandstone bases.

identify but are probably fragments of tools. The

Another group of very interesting stone tools

discovery of iron rods next to charred wooden

was found in an open area between several struc-beams suggests that their use was somehow relat-tures of HAS1. These stones show deep abrasioned, such as reinforcing the roof structure or hanging

marks along their edges, most likely resulting fromobjects.

the polishing of beads (Lischi 2020b). Beads are
Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

35

S. Lischi

grazing (Lischi 2022).

CONCLUSIONS

It is evident at this point that several questions
have been raised about the distribution of this cul-

Excavations by the DHOMIAP Project on theture, but also about the possible relationships that

Inqitat promontory are attempting to define andexisted between HAS1 and the nearby port city ofclarify the characteristics of the newly discovered

Sumhuram. Of course, this is only the beginning ofIron Age Dhofar Coastal Culture. The continuity

a long-term research that will have to be extend-of use of the promontory is most likely favoured

ed and deepened in order to answer the numerous

by its natural defensive characteristics and strategic

questions raised about the chronology and distribu-

location, which made it easy to control the mouthtion of the Dhofar Coastal Culture, and its relationsof Wadi Darbat.

with the Ancient South Arabians and the other in-

The material recovered highlights two main

ternational players involved in long-distance tradeperiods of occupation during which the promon-

across the Indian Ocean. However, it is clear fromtory appears to have been heavily frequented: thethe data presented that the end of the settlement’s

Iron Age and the Early Islamic period. This paper

history is due to a destructive fire (Crippa et al.

focuses on the Iron Age occupation and only mar-2023). Understanding the nature and consequences

ginally mentions the evidence associated with theof this event will form the basis of future research.

Early Islamic period. The characteristics of the

The stratigraphic excavations conducted by the

HAS1 settlement make it a site of critical impor-

DHOMIAP Project will be able to provide chrono-tance for understanding the cultural and socio-eco-

logical and cultural data of critical importance fornomic organisation of the indigenous inhabitants ofobtaining a clearer and more complete picture of

the Dhofar coast during the Iron Age, the so-called

the human occupation in the Khor Rori area. The

Dhofar Coastal Culture.

definition of this indigenous culture is also funda-

In fact, this is the first time that a settlement

mental to understanding some of the particularities

belonging to an Iron Age culture indigenous ofthat distinguished Sumhuram from its motherland

Dhofar has been systematically and comprehen-in the Hadramawt. It may also be significant in re-sively explored and documented. Previous research

constructing the historical process of endogenous

on the subject, which has been entirely sporadic

cultural development that eventually blossomed(Newton and Zarins 2019), has not succeeded in

into the Islamic cities mentioned by medieval trav-

systematically collecting data that would allow aellers, so crucial to the Indian Ocean trade routes

sufficiently detailed characterisation. In addition,of the time.

the materials collected during the excavation of themiddens have made it possible to highlight the social and economic complexity of this culture, which

Acknowledgements

is also reflected in a specialised use of space: theI would like to express my gratitude to the Minis-

northern plateau was reserved for the settlement,

try of Heritage and Tourism of the Sultanate of Oman

the northern slope of the intermediate valley was

and the Land of Frankincense Museum for generously

used for dumping waste (the middens), the southern

granting the DHOMIAP Project a long-term researchslope was probably used for animal shelter, and thepermit and access to the materials presented in thissouthern plateau was probably primarily used for

paper, as well as for their invaluable support during

36

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

A First Definition of the Dhofar Coastal Culture

our archaeological explorations in Dhofar over several

Affairs and Uni­versity of Pisa, Salalah.

years. I would also like to sincerely thank Dr YamandùCremaschi, M. and F. Negrino 2002. The Frankin-

H. Hilbert for his study of the lithic industry and Prof.

cense Road of Sumhuram: Paleoenvironmental andMauro Cremaschi for the work he conducted during his

Prehistorical Background. In A. Avanzini (ed.), pp.

first visits to Inqitat. His presence was sometimes en-

325-348.

lightening. Many of the results achieved here would not

Cremaschi, M. and A. Perego 2008. Patterns of Land

have been possible without him sharing his experience.

Use and Settlements in the Surroundings of Sumhuram: An Intensive Geo-archaeological Survey atSilvia Lischi

Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies,
University of Oxford

Khor Rori: Report of Field Season February 2006.
In A. Avanzini (ed.), pp. 563-608.
Crippa, G., S. Lischi, A. Chiari, M. Dapiaggi and M.
Cremaschi 2023. Discovering Fire Events in the
HAS1 Settlement on the Dhofar Coast (Oman) bya Multi-methodological Study of Mollusk Shells.

REFERENCES

Quaternary Research 113: 105–121.
Hilbert, Y. H. and S. Lischi 2020. The Lithic Industry

Albright, F. P. 1982. The American Archaeological Ex-

from the Iron Age Coastal Settlement HAS1 (In-pedition in Dhofar, Oman: 1952-1953. Publications

qitat), Southern Oman. In K. Bretzke, R. Crassardof the American Foundation for the Study of Man,

and Y. H. Hilbert (eds.), Stone Tools of Prehistoric

Washington, D.C.

Arabia, pp. 177-191. Supplement to Volume 50 of

Avanzini, A. (ed.) 2002. Khor Rori Report 1. Edizioni
Plus, Università di Pisa, Pisa.

the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies.
Archaeopress, Oxford.

Avanzini, A. (ed.) 2008. A Port in Arabia between Rome

Lischi, S. 2018. Macroscopic Analysis of the Beadand the Indian Ocean (3rd C. BC - 5th C. AD). Khor

Assemblage from the South Arabian Port of Sum-

Rori Report 2. ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider, Rome.

huram, Oman (Seasons 2000-2013). Arabian Ar-

Avanzini, A. 2011. Along the Aroma and Spice Routes:

chaeology and Epigraphy 29: 65-92.

the Harbour of Sumhuram, Its Territory and the

Lischi, S. 2019. Risultati preliminari delle ricerche ar-

Trade between the Mediterranean, Arabia and India.

cheologiche presso l’insediamento HAS1 di Inqitat,

Bandecchi & Vivaldi, Pontedera.

Dhofar (2016-2019). Egitto e Vicino Oriente 42: 119-

Avanzini, A. 2014. Un port d’Arabie entre Rome etl’Inde. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie desInscriptions et Belles-Lettres 158: 485-508.
Avanzini, A., V. Buffa, A. Lombardi, R. Orazi and A.

134.
Lischi, S. 2020a. A Mosaic Glass ‘Flower’ Bead from Inqitat, Dhofar. Journal of Indian Ocean Archaeology
15-16: 24-30.

V. Sedov 2001. Excavations and Restoration of the

Lischi, S. 2020b. Beads and Pendants from Inqitat

Complex of Khor Rori. Interim Report (October(Dhofar, Sultanate of Oman). Polish Archaeology in2000 - April 2001). Egitto e Vicino Oriente 24: 5-63.

the Mediterranean 29(1): 337-354.

Cremaschi, M. 2017. A Geoarchaeological Perspec-

Lischi, S. 2022. Settlement Dynamics and Territorial

tive. In Inqitat Archaeological Mission IQM17A and

Organization in Dhofar between the Bronze Age and

IQM17B, Preliminary Report, pp. 25-32. Office of

Late Antiquity: Understanding the Settlement Pro-

the Adviser to His Majesty the Sultan for Cultural

cess of the Khor Rori Area and Development of a New

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University

37

S. Lischi

Regional Cultural Model. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Pisa, Pisa.
Lischi, S. and A. Pavan 2012. Le perle di Sumhuram:Morandi Bonacossi, D. 2002. Excavations at Khor
Rori: The 1997 and 1998 Campaigns. In A. Avanzini(ed.), pp. 29-69.

appunti per una tipologia di vaghi di collana

Newton, L. S. and J. Zarins 2019. Dhofar through thedall’Arabia meridionale. Egitto e Vicino Oriente 35:

Ages: An Ecological, Archaeological and Historical

175-192.

Landscape. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Lischi, S. and L. Strolin 2018. Inqitat ArchaeologicalPavan, A. 2017. A Cosmopolitan City on the Arabian

Mission IQM17C e IQM18A (October 2017 - March

Coast: The Imported and Local Pottery from Khor

2018), Preliminary Report. Office of the Adviser toRori. Khor Rori Report 3. ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider,His Majesty the Sultan for Cultural Affairs and Uni-

Rome.

versity of Pisa, Salalah.
Lischi, S., Y. H. Hilbert and A. Moretti 2016. Inqitat

Rougeulle, A. 2008. A Medieval Trade Entrepôt at Khor
Rori? The Study of the Islamic Ceramic from Hamr

Archaeological Mission IQM16B (September-Decem-

al-Sharqiya. In A. Avanzini (ed.), pp. 645-667.

ber 2016), Preliminary Report. Office of the Adviser

Rougeulle, A. (ed.) 2015. Sharma: Un entrepôt de com-

to His Majesty the Sultan for Cultural Affairs andmerce medieval sur la côte du Hadramawt (Yémen,University of Pisa, Salalah.

ca 980-1180). Archaeopress, Oxford.

Lischi, S., A. Pavan and A. Fusaro 2022. La ceramica
locale in Dhofar (Oman meridionale): tipi, tecnicheTomber, R. 2017. The Late Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. In A. Pavan, pp. 321-391.

produttive e circolazione dall’Età del Ferro al per-

University of Southampton 2014. Roman Amphorae:

iodo Islamico. In S. Granziani and G. Lacerenza

A Digital Resource [Data-set]. Archaeology Data

(eds.), Egitto e Vicino Oriente: antico tra passato e

Service, York.

futuro. The Stream of Tradition: la genesi e il perpet-

Zarins, J. 2001. The Land of Incense: Archaeologicaluarsi delle tradizioni, pp. 169-178. UniorPress, Na-

Work in the Governorate of Dhofar, Sultanate ofpoli.

Oman, 1990-1995. Sultan Qaboos University, Sala-

Lombardi, A., V. Buffa and A. Pavan 2008. Smalllah.

Finds. In A. Avanzini (ed.), pp. 317-476.

38

Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, vol. 1 (2023), pp. 23-38© Institute for the Study of Ancient Civilizations and Cultural Resources, Kanazawa University