Prehistoric and Ancient Historic Interactions
5
At both sites it was assumed that the remains were of C. mydas . At Ra’s al-Hadd
cut marks on “both shell and bone” were evidence of butchery; much of the material
was reportedly burned and it was hypothesized that the burning resulted from
cooking and also rubbish disposal, and that both turtles and dolphins were taken,
not only for the meat, but also as sources of fat, possibly used for protecting boats
made from reed bundles (Mosseri-Marlio, 1998; 2000).
At Umm an-Nar, a site on a small island off the coast of Abu Dhabi that may
date back as late as 2700 B . C . E ., more than 4000 bones of marine turtles showed
variation in body size, indicating that some turtles were not adult and were thus
captured in the water, and not on nesting beaches. On the basis of present-day
distributions it was assumed that the turtles were C. mydas (Hoch, 1979; 1995).
Farther north along the coast of Abu Dhabi, the settlement at Tell Abraq, dated
at 2200–300 B . C . E ., has also yielded a significant amount of marine turtle bone (some
3107 identified fragments). As usual, most of the fragments are from carapace or
plastron bones, so they are difficult to identify to species, but in a few cases the
imprints of edges of keratinous scutes or suture patterns provided evidence of C.
mydas (Stephan, 1995: 58; Potts, 2000: 60–61; Uerpmann, 2001). Also in the UAE,
turtle bones were reported to be one of the most common animal remains from
Ghanda Island, a site dating from the second half of the third millennium (Yasin
Al-Tikkriti, 1985).
On the island of Bahrain, the site of Qala’at al-Bahrain dates to the period
2150–1900 B . C . E . This Dilmun 3 capital had diverse and abundant faunal remains, of
which bones of marine turtles were especially numerous. C. mydas and Eretmochelys
imbricata , hawksbill turtle, were identified, and a humerus of the latter had cut marks
indicating butchery. Bones from individuals smaller than adults indicated that turtles
were hunted in the water. Turtle bones were encountered in strata spanning nearly
two millennia, and there was an increase in the ratio of turtle to fish remains at the
transition from Period I to Period II (between 2150 and 1900 B . C . E .), which was
thought to be from changes in bone deposition, rather than from changes in turtle
exploitation (Uerpmann and Uerpmann, 1994; 1997). However, in a related study
of fish bones from this site, it was suggested that the relative differences in the
abundance of remains of certain fish species at different periods at Qala’at al-Bahrain
might relate to changes in fishing techniques to be more effective in deeper waters
(Van Neer and Uerpmann, 1994: 450 f.f.). If this change did occur, it could also
explain differences in relative abundance of turtle bones over time.
Seven kilometers southwest and inland of Qala’at al Bahrain is another Dilmun
settlement at Saar, which is thought to have been contemporaneous. At both sites fish
bones were abundant, showing a heavy and consistent dependence on marine resources,
but very few marine turtle remains were found at Saar (Killick et al., 1991: 134). It was
suggested that the lack of turtle remains was because slaughtering was done at the coast,
and only meat was transported inland (Uerpmann and Uerpmann, 1999: 639). The fact
3 The term “Dilmun” (or “Tilmun”) comes from Sumerian texts, and was originally a geographic reference
to present-day Bahrain and adacent parts of the Arabian Peninsula; it is also used to refer to the period
of about 2000-1000 B . C . E . in Bahraini archaeology (Potts, 2000: 119; Postgate, in litt. 4 June 2002).
1123_C01.fm Page 5 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM
5
At both sites it was assumed that the remains were of C. mydas . At Ra’s al-Hadd
cut marks on “both shell and bone” were evidence of butchery; much of the material
was reportedly burned and it was hypothesized that the burning resulted from
cooking and also rubbish disposal, and that both turtles and dolphins were taken,
not only for the meat, but also as sources of fat, possibly used for protecting boats
made from reed bundles (Mosseri-Marlio, 1998; 2000).
At Umm an-Nar, a site on a small island off the coast of Abu Dhabi that may
date back as late as 2700 B . C . E ., more than 4000 bones of marine turtles showed
variation in body size, indicating that some turtles were not adult and were thus
captured in the water, and not on nesting beaches. On the basis of present-day
distributions it was assumed that the turtles were C. mydas (Hoch, 1979; 1995).
Farther north along the coast of Abu Dhabi, the settlement at Tell Abraq, dated
at 2200–300 B . C . E ., has also yielded a significant amount of marine turtle bone (some
3107 identified fragments). As usual, most of the fragments are from carapace or
plastron bones, so they are difficult to identify to species, but in a few cases the
imprints of edges of keratinous scutes or suture patterns provided evidence of C.
mydas (Stephan, 1995: 58; Potts, 2000: 60–61; Uerpmann, 2001). Also in the UAE,
turtle bones were reported to be one of the most common animal remains from
Ghanda Island, a site dating from the second half of the third millennium (Yasin
Al-Tikkriti, 1985).
On the island of Bahrain, the site of Qala’at al-Bahrain dates to the period
2150–1900 B . C . E . This Dilmun 3 capital had diverse and abundant faunal remains, of
which bones of marine turtles were especially numerous. C. mydas and Eretmochelys
imbricata , hawksbill turtle, were identified, and a humerus of the latter had cut marks
indicating butchery. Bones from individuals smaller than adults indicated that turtles
were hunted in the water. Turtle bones were encountered in strata spanning nearly
two millennia, and there was an increase in the ratio of turtle to fish remains at the
transition from Period I to Period II (between 2150 and 1900 B . C . E .), which was
thought to be from changes in bone deposition, rather than from changes in turtle
exploitation (Uerpmann and Uerpmann, 1994; 1997). However, in a related study
of fish bones from this site, it was suggested that the relative differences in the
abundance of remains of certain fish species at different periods at Qala’at al-Bahrain
might relate to changes in fishing techniques to be more effective in deeper waters
(Van Neer and Uerpmann, 1994: 450 f.f.). If this change did occur, it could also
explain differences in relative abundance of turtle bones over time.
Seven kilometers southwest and inland of Qala’at al Bahrain is another Dilmun
settlement at Saar, which is thought to have been contemporaneous. At both sites fish
bones were abundant, showing a heavy and consistent dependence on marine resources,
but very few marine turtle remains were found at Saar (Killick et al., 1991: 134). It was
suggested that the lack of turtle remains was because slaughtering was done at the coast,
and only meat was transported inland (Uerpmann and Uerpmann, 1999: 639). The fact
3 The term “Dilmun” (or “Tilmun”) comes from Sumerian texts, and was originally a geographic reference
to present-day Bahrain and adacent parts of the Arabian Peninsula; it is also used to refer to the period
of about 2000-1000 B . C . E . in Bahraini archaeology (Potts, 2000: 119; Postgate, in litt. 4 June 2002).
1123_C01.fm Page 5 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM