Arab. arch. epig. 2003: 14: 196–202 C 2003 Blackwell MunksgaardPrinted in Denmark. All rights reserved

ISSN 0905-7196

Perforated shell and stone objects fromSharm

DIANE BARKERSchool of Archaeology, University of Sydney, Australia

A group of six shell and four stone perforated objects is examined with a viewto determining their function. Several possibilities are suggested as a result ofa number of parallels in southeastern Arabia.

IntroductionA number of objects manufactured fromshell and stone were recovered as part ofthe assemblage from tomb I at Sharm(Table 1). The function(s) of this eclecticgroup of objects is unclear, although thecommon defining feature, apart from thematerials from which they are manufac-tured, is the presence of one or more per-forations through the object. The perfor-ation may be linked to the function of eachartefact, and it is possible that many arependants of one form or another, or poss-ibly net sinkers or spindle whorls. The fol-lowing is a brief description of each object,which includes parallels, evidence fordating and suggestions as to the possiblefunction(s). The assemblage is divided ac-cording to the distinction between stoneand shell objects.

Perforated shell objectsS-88It is likely that S-88 (Fig. 1 (centre)) is madeof shell given its pasty texture and thethickening of the interior lip at one end(Fig. 2.2.). This thickening may indicate the

196

area joining two halves of a bivalve shell(1). The object is convex in shape with oneend thicker and wider than the other. Theperforation, which is 4 mm in diameter, isfairly well centred, and the hole itself hasslightly bevelled sides (Fig. 2.2, cross-sec-tion).

S-145S-145 (Fig. 3) may be an operculum of ashell (2). Originally, it would have been

Fig. 1.Perforated stone and shell objects from Sharm: S-245(left); S-88 (centre); S-105 (right).

PER

FOR

AT

ED

SHE

LL

AN

DSTO

NE

OB

JEC

TS

FRO

MSH

AR

M

Table 1. Registration database for the perforated shell and stone objects from Sharm.

Perforation:Reg dimensionsNo Date Tomb Square Layer Easting Northing Level Object Material Dimensions (mm) (mm)

69 30/01/ I 02/14 5 2.26 14.34 8.65 pendant stone (?) c. 25 (irreg. D)¿20 (H) 8–997 ¿5.5 (T)

88 1/02/97 I 02/13 5 2.10 13.83 8.66 pendant (?) bivalve shell 41 (L)¿32 (W)¿8 (H) 4¿3 (T)

105 3/02/97 I 01/13 7 1.38 13.15 8.43 pendant, spindle stone 34 (D)¿5.5 (H) c.5 (broken)whorl or

net sinker (?)132 4/02/97 I 01/04 3 1.70 4.74 8.93 button or stone (?) 28 (BD)¿16 (H) 6.5 and 7

pendant (?)145 5/02/97 I 00/05 3 0.30 5.90 8.89 pendant (?) shell (operculum) 32 (D)¿3.5 (T) 9 (min)–12 (max)160 7/02/97 I 00/04 3 0.96 4.90 8.81 pendant (?) shell (operculum) 34 (D)¿6 (T) 11162 7/02/97 I 01/14 7 01 14 8.50–8.40 pendant (?) shell 15 (D)¿3 (T) 7.5–8163 7/02/97 I 01/09 4 01 09 8.70 pendant (?) shell (Conus sp.) 17 (D)¿5.5 (T) 7.5–8168 7/02/97 I 01/12 7 01 12 8.50–8.35 pendant (?) shell 11.5 (L)¿17 (MD) 6.5

¿9 (D)245 8/02/97 I 01/05 5 1.65 5.02 8.66 pendant, spindle soft stone 28.5 (D) ¿5.5 (H) 5

whorl ornet sinker (?)

Abbreviations:BD: Base diameter. D: Diameter. H: Height. MD: Maximum diameter. T: Thickness. W: Width.

197

D. BARKER

Fig. 2.Perforated stone and shell objects. 1: S-245; 2: S-88; 3:S-105.

round, although erosion and disintegrationhave reduced it to an extremely chippedand abraded state. It has a convex obverseand a flat reverse. There are still faint tracesof a naturally occurring spiral pattern oneach side of the object. The perforation iswell centred with a maximum diameter of12 mm.

S-160S-160, which is very similar to S-145 mayalso be the remains of an operculum (3). Itis a circular shell disc with a hole spirallingthrough the centre of the object (Fig. 3). Thelatter feature is 11 mm in diameter. The ob-verse is slightly concave in profile with aradiating spiral pattern emanating from the

198

perforation (Fig. 4.1). It is in generally poorcondition, with chipped edges and abradedsurfaces. A very similar shell was recov-ered from Tell Abraq (4). However, becauseof its flat reverse, a feature also shared byS-160, and because of the absence of the in-dentations necessary to produce a sealingon a flat surface, Potts rejected the possi-bility of the item being comparable to theshell seals of Bahrain. It is however, com-pared to various artefacts from Shimaltomb SH 102, Dibba and Cairn 6 at JabalHafit (5). The T-shaped tomb at Bithnahproduced a comparable object made froma Conus shell with its apex removed (6).

S-162S-162 is a badly-preserved shell pittedfrom predators and natural water erosion(Fig. 3) (7). It has a flat base and apexwith a deep spiral that cuts into the sub-stance of the shell and which forms theirregular perforation through its centre. Ithas a very rough texture and is similar tothe valves found in the settlement areasat Shimal (8).

S-163S-163 appears to be the apex of Conus sp.(9). It is round in shape with a convex pro-file and a slightly irregular perforationwhich cuts deep into the substance of theshell with a series of spirals radiating fromthe hole (Fig. 3, Fig. 4.3). The spirals occuron the underside (interior) of the shell, al-though there is a single spiral on the ob-verse surface. It has a very smooth textureand it appears that it may have beenpolished. It remains in excellent conditionwith no chipped or worn edges. Apartfrom the Shimal parallel, a comparableartefact, classified as a perle en coquillage,was recovered from Bithnah (10). S-163,and the other artefacts carved from shell inthis group, have not been classified asbeads. Their comparatively larger size sug-

PERFORATED SHELL AND STONE OBJECTS FROM SHARM

Fig. 3.A selection of perforated shellobjects from Sharm. Left toright: Top: S-145, (N/A), S-160.Bottom: S-162, S-168, (N/A),(N/A), S-163.

gests that they are more suitably labelledpendants.

S-168S-168 is the apex of a gastropod, the tip ofwhich has been cut to form the perforationthrough the body (Fig. 3) (11). It is the

Fig. 4.Perforated shell objects. 1: S-160; 2: S-168; 3: S-163.

199

shape of a truncated cone pierced by a nat-urally occurring spiralled perforation,which is slightly off-centre (Fig. 4.2). Thesurfaces are pitted and abraded. A numberof similar shell artefacts from southeasternArabia are comparable to S-168. The firstexamples come from Site 2 at Shimal. How-ever, they appear to lack the characteristicspiral perforation of S-168 (12). Theseartefacts are thought to be manufacturedfrom Conus sp. (13). Another very similarperforated shell artefact from Shimal Site 6appears to be a comparable species, al-though it too lacks the spirals whichcharacterise the perforation of S-168 (14).

Perforated stone objectsS-69S-69 is a rounded object of unusual shapewhich is apparently made of an unidenti-fied brown stone (Fig. 5 (right), Fig. 6.2). Itis pierced by a large hole which is approxi-mately 8–9 mm in diameter. It appears tohave been bored straight through the objectand, as a result, it is somewhat misaligned.The surface texture is quite smooth al-though it is pitted in some areas. S-69 is

D. BARKER

Fig. 5.Perforated stone objects. S-132 (left); S-69 (right).

similar in shape to an Iron Age conoidstone seal with a perforation close to theapex, found at Tell Abraq (15). However,the absence of any decoration on the baseof the Sharm object makes it unlikely tohave been a seal, although the possibilitythat a shallow engraving has eroded off thebase over several thousands of years ofburial must not be discounted. Indeed, butfor the absence of the decoration on thebasal surface, S-69 is remarkably similar tothe Tell Abraq seal.

S-105S-105 is a perforated stone disc made of adark brown-red wadi stone, of which littlemore than half is extant (Fig. 1 (right)). Ithas a slightly convex obverse and concavereverse (Fig. 2.3.). Originally, the artefactwould have been circular in shape, al-though its present state is quite poor, witha number of chipped, broken and wornedges. The main break cuts through thecentral perforation, which is approximately5 mm in diameter. In cross-section, the per-foration has an hourglass shape, with theperforation coming to a sharp point in thecentre. The stone is still quite smooth, al-though the reverse is marred by four (?)discernible gouges near the perforationwhich may have occurred during the

200

manufacturing process. Several possibil-ities exist with respect to the function ofthis object. It may have been a pendant, aspindle whorl, a loom weight (16) or evena net sinker. An almost exact shape par-allel, even in terms of the concavo-convexprofile and the shape of the break, isevident in a soft stone ‘button’ from ShimalSite 2, which is dated to the first quarter ofthe first millennium BC (ie. Iron II) (17).The resemblance between the Sharm pieceand the Shimal object is uncanny, even de-spite the obvious difference in materials.

S-132An even more striking resemblance to theabove-mentioned Iron Age Tell Abraq sealcomes in the form of S-132 (Fig. 5 (left), Fig.6.1). It has the same pointed, conoid shapeof TA 299 (18). However, there are severalimportant differences. Firstly, rather thanhaving one perforation through the apex ofthe object, S-132 has a double perforationthrough the base. Furthermore, there is noevidence of any form of engraving whichwould indicate that the object is a seal. Al-though the resemblance to the Tell Abraqseal is uncanny it is more likely that, in theabsence of any seal-like decoration, this ob-ject is either a pendant or even a button(19).

S-245S-245 consists of a soft stone disc with a flatbase and a convex obverse (Fig. 1 (left)).Although it is slightly chipped and worn,it remains in good condition. The centralperforation, which is 5 mm in diameter, ismisaligned and slightly stepped. A numberof very visible manufacturing marks ap-pear on the surface of the obverse (Fig. 2.1)which reduces the smoothness of the tex-ture. Several parallels for this object exist insoutheastern Arabia which allow a generaldate to be attributed to the artefact.Similar-looking ceramic loom weights were

PERFORATED SHELL AND STONE OBJECTS FROM SHARM

Fig. 6.Perforated stone objects. 1:S-132; 2: S-69.

recovered from Iron I levels at Tell Abraq(20). A better parallel is the ‘concavo-convex’ soft stone disc fragment whichcomes from Shimal Site 2 and which isdated to the first quarter of the first millen-nium BC (ie. Iron II) (21). Furthermore, softstone spindle whorls from the Samad over-ground graves were given a date corre-sponding to the second quarter or themiddle of the first millennium BC (22),which bolsters the Iron II date for the softstone object from Shimal. A further chloritespindle whorl was found in one of thethree overground-subterranean burialstructures at Samad, which was however,dated to the cusp of the Iron III and pre-Islamic periods (fourth/third century BC)(23). Yet another chlorite spindle whorlcame from a late first-millennium Samadgrave in the same region (24).

ConclusionsThe function of a number of these perfor-ated stone and shell objects is yet to be de-termined, although it appears that the listof potential functions may be narrowed toa small group of possibilities, namely:spindle whorls and loom weights, netsinkers, buttons or pendants. Althoughparallels for many of these objects exist in

201

southeastern Arabia, it is difficult to con-textualise artefacts such as these, particu-larly when they have been found in burialsituations far removed from their originalfunction.

References1. Thompson E. pers. comm. 13/2/98.2. Thompson E. pers. comm. 13/2/98.3. Thompson E. pers. comm. 13/2/98.4. Potts DT. Further Excavations at Tell Abraq: The 1990

Season. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1991: Fig. 213–214.

5. Potts, Further Excavations: 121.6. Corboud P, Castella A-C, Hapka R & im-Obersteg

P. Les Tombes protohistoriques de Bithnah, Fujairah,Emirats Arabes Unis. Mainz: von Zabern, 1996: 162,Pl. 28.1. A similar situation was noted with respectto Shimal tomb SH 102 and the settlement whereshell artefacts were created by piercing or re-moving the apex. See Vogt B & Kastner J-M. TombSH 102. In: Vogt B and Franke-Vogt U, eds. Shimal1985/1986: Excavations of the German ArchaeologicalMission in Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E.: A PreliminaryReport. Berlin: BBVO, 8: 1987: 31. Velde C, Franke-Vogt U & Vogt B. Area SX. In: Vogt & Franke-Vogt,Shimal: 81.

7. Thompson E. pers. comm. 13/2/98.8. Velde & Franke-Vogt, Area SX: Fig. 48.7–9.9. Artefacts, also manufactured from Conus sp. were

recovered from Site 2 at Shimal and are compar-able to S-163 in terms of their ‘pale brownish-yel-low...colour, with the natural spiral grooves oftenstill being visible.’ See Donaldson P. Prehistoric

D. BARKER

Tombs of Ras al-Khaimah. OA 23: 1984: 267, Fig.29.80.

10. Corboud et al., Les Tombes: 162, Pl. 28.2.11. Thompson E. pers. comm. 13/2/98.12. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: Fig. 29.76–77.13. Smythe KR. Technical Appendix 5: Mollusca. In:

Donaldson P. Prehistoric Tombs of Ras al-Khaimah. OA 24: 1985: 127.

14. de Cardi B. The Grave Goods from Shimal Tomb6, Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E. In: Potts DT, ed. Arabythe Blest: Studies in Arabian Archaeology. Copen-hagen: CNIP 7: 1988: Fig. 14.11, 70.

15. Potts, Further Excavations: 95, Fig. 135.16. Cf. the loom weight from Shimal. Kastner J-M &

Vogt B. The ring-chambered tomb SH 99. In:Vogt & Franke-Vogt, Shimal: 54, Fig. 35.5. Whilstthis object is perforated, it is not particularly com-parable to S-105 in terms of shape. Ceramic loomweights were also found at Tell Abraq. See PottsDT. A Prehistoric Mound in the Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.: Excavations at Tell Abraq in 1989.Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1990: 124, Fig. 155.

17. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: 1984: 267–268, Fig.30.97. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: 1985: 131.

18. Potts, Further Excavations: 95, Fig. 135.

202

19. See Fig. 5 (left). Here, the object looks quite similarto a button.

20. Potts, A Prehistoric Mound: 124, 156, Fig. 155. Thedate is derived from the Tell Abraq registration (p.156) and the periodisation of the site presented inMagee P, Mortensen A-M, Potts DT & Velde C.Preliminary Phasing of Tell Abraq. Unpubl., 1994.

21. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: 1984: 267–268, Fig.30.97. Donaldson, Prehistoric Tombs: 1985: 131.

22. Vogt B. 1st Mill. B.C. Graves and Burial Customsin the Samad Area (Oman). In: Boucharlat R &Salles J-F, eds. Arabie orientale, Mesopotamie et Iranmeridional de l’age du fer au debut de la periode isla-mique. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civili-sations, Memoire 37, 1984: 272.

23. Vogt, 1st Mill. B.C. Graves: 273, 274.24. Vogt, 1st Mill. B.C. Graves: 276.

Address:D. BarkerSchool of Archaeology A14The University of SydneyNSW 2006Australia