Arab. arch. epig.

2004: 15: 240–252 (2004)

Printed in Denmark. All rights reserved

An analysis of Late Pre-Islamic copper-base

artefacts from Ed Dur, U.A.E.
The article presents the analytical results of a study of copper-base artifacts Lloyd R. Weeks
from ed-Dur, a large site in the United Arab Emirates which was occupied University of Nottingham,
principally during the 1st century A.D. In addition to identifying a number of U.K.
pieces with high lead content, the analyses have contributed to an
understanding of brass and brass distribtion in the Roman Near East. Department of Archaeology
University of Nottingham
University Park
Nottingham NG7 2RD
UK
E-mail: lloyd.weeks@
nottingham.ac.uk

Introduction clustered a number of substantial stone-built dwell-

This article presents the results of the compositional
analyses of thirty-three copper-base objects from
funerary and settlement contexts at the Late Pre-
Islamic site of Ed Dur in the U.A.E. (1). An
examination of the copper-base metallurgy of Ed
Dur is of interest in the light of the importance that
primary copper extraction had to the prehistoric
societies of southeastern Arabia. In the Bronze and
Iron Ages, large-scale copper smelting in southeast-
ern Arabia co-existed with the use of entirely foreign
copper-base metal alloys, at least in the north of the
Oman Peninsula (2). In contrast, Ed Dur offers the
potential of studying a period of time in southeast-
ern Arabia’s metallurgical history when trade con-
nections remained extensive, whilst local copper
smelting appears to have been extremely limited (3).
The site of Ed Dur
Ed Dur stretches for 3 to 4 km along the sandy
dunes overlooking Umm al-Qaiwain lagoon and as
much as 1 km inland. It is dominated by a square
fort or fortified house with round corner towers that
was built of dressed beach rock, around which were
ings (4). Excavations indicate that stone-built houses
in other areas of the site were widely separated from
each other, and simple one-room structures with
beach-rock foundations and organic (palm frond)
superstructure may have been the most numerous
type of dwelling at the site (5). Religious architecture
at Ed Dur is represented by a temple in Area M,
which appears from an inscribed basin to have been
dedicated to the sun god Shamash (6).
The most commonly excavated structures at Ed
Dur are graves, more than 90% of which are
rectangular, stone-lined cists with capping stones
that were probably used for single inhumations. The
larger semi-subterranean, stone-built chambers with
a dromos or shaft entrance, and corbelled or vaulted
roofs resemble Parthian tombs from Assur in
northern Mesopotamia (7), and were clearly used
for multiple burials (8).
Ed Dur flourished in the late first and early second
centuries CE as a trading port, perhaps the only and
certainly the largest on the southern shores of the
Gulf (9). The enormous variety of foreign material
found at the site testifies to the focus on trade (10),
and it has been suggested that Ed Dur may be one of

240
 AN ANALYSIS OF LATE PRE-ISLAMIC COPPER-BASE ARTEFACTS

the important Gulf trading ports, such as Omana or Table 1. Objects from Ed Dur analysed by PIXE.
Batrasavave, mentioned in two first-century CE Reg. No. Area Locus No. Object
historical references to the region: Pliny’s Natural sAT365 AT G5153 flat fragment
History and the anonymous Periplus of the Erythraean sAT374 AT G5154 flat fragment
Sea (11). sAV410 AV G5156 flat fragment
sAV626 AV G5156 flat fragment
sBC593 BC G6082 flat fragment
sBI624 BI G6103 flat fragment
Copper-base samples from Ed Dur and their sBM680 BM G6130 flat fragment
archaeological contexts sBO705 BO G6154 flat fragment
The analysed samples from Ed Dur, a subset of the sBO1127 BO (dump) curved fragment
total assemblage in storage at the University of sBQ1005 BQ G6276 pin/awl
Ghent, Belgium, are listed in Table 1. A variety of sBQ856 BQ G6270 flat fragment
sBQ865 BQ G6272 ring
samples have been analysed, although thin flat
sBQ899 BQ G6272 rough lump
fragments and flat fragments predominate, and all sBQ992 BQ G6275 flat fragment
are fragmentary. The majority of analysed samples sBR1046 BR UF6065 folded sheet
are from funerary contexts (indicated by a ‘G’ before sBR1176 BR (dump) horse bit (?)
the locus number in Tab. 1), although occupation sBR776 BR G6219 flat fragment
contexts and pits/dumps are also represented (12). In sBR836 BR G6307 flat fragment
sBR970 BR G6311 curved flat fragment
the following paragraphs, the archaeological contexts
sBS1147 BS (dump) chisel/nail (?)
of the analysed samples are described in detail. sBS1151 BS G7041 flat fragment
The copper-base objects from Area AT, ca.100 m sBS1181 BS UF6533 chisel/nail (?)
north of the temple, come from two plundered cist sBS1244 BS UF6620 flat fragment
burials in an area which also contained a bronze sBS1326 BS UF6641 flat fragment
cauldron handle and dagger loop, a pillar-moulded sBS1487 BS UF6727 chisel/nail (?)
sBS1488 BS (dump) folded sheet
glass bowl and some spindle whorls (13). The objects
sN152 N G3831 flat fragment
from Area AV come from the large, semi-subterra- sN253 N G3836 flat fragment
nean vaulted tomb G5156, which had remained sN255 N G3831 flat fragment
un-robbed prior to excavation (14). At least fifteen sN290 N G3839 flat fragment
individuals were buried in the tomb (15), along with sN316 N G3832 flat fragment
nineteen glass vessels, fifteen bone plaques, gold sN317 N G3831 flat fragment
sN344 N G3849 flat fragment
jewellery, stone vessels, iron objects and fragments,
two ceramic vessels and numerous beads (16).
Additionally, several bronze objects such as bowls,
a ladle and a strainer were found in the tomb (17). figurine were also found in the graves (23). Material
One fragment was obtained from Area BC, which from four graves in area BQ, which contained a total
included a group of disturbed tombs near the temple of eighteen graves, was also analysed. A small
area (18). These tombs produced beads, spindle number of objects were recovered during excavation
whorls, iron fragments and little else (19). A copper- of this area, including large iron nails, bone combs
base fragment was also analysed from the large, and needles, spindle whorls, soft-stone vessels (24),
disturbed, multiple-interment grave G6130 in Area a glazed lamp and incense burner and nine coins, all
BM (20). Excavation of the tomb produced a number of which were debased Alexander imitations of local
of spindle whorls and sword fragments, in addition southeastern Arabian manufacture (25). A copper-
to some worked bone (21). base chape, a spatula and a decorated bowl fragment
Two objects were analysed from Area BO, which were also found (26).
contained a number of mud-brick platforms of Five objects from Area BR were analysed,
uncertain function and a possible sheep or goat including material from three graves. Grave
pen (22), in addition to two looted graves. A number G6219 is a cist burial with a stone slab at the
of soft-stone bowl fragments, a glass beaker, a base which contained two people (27). Iron arrow-
pottery incense burner and a terracotta horse/camel heads, ivory objects, beads, glass vessel fragments

241
L. WEEKS
and a copper-base ring were found in the tomb
(28). A total of eighteen graves were excavated in
Area BR, mostly for single interments, however
there is one larger corbelled grave (G6311) of
dromos type (29). Decorated bone plaques, four-
teen iron arrowheads, an iron knife and spearhead
and sword fragments were recovered from this
tomb, in addition to a dark-green glazed jug with
a strap handle (30). Sparse settlement occupation
was also recorded in Area BR, in the form of
numerous pottery sherds, fireplaces, storage ves-
sels and numerous shells and animal bones (31).
Iron, lead and copper-base objects were recovered
from such contexts, in addition to items such as
glass and soft-stone vessels and terracotta figurines
(32).
Seven objects from Area BS were analysed, at least
one of which is from a funerary context (grave
G7041). The majority of samples, however, come
from occupation deposits such as a collapsed house,
hearths and shell accumulations (33). Thirty-five
coins of local manufacture were recovered in the
area, in addition to a number of foreign issues,
numerous lead fragments, a large collection of soft-
stone vessel fragments, glass fragments, stone
querns and pestles and numerous pottery sherds.
A bun-shaped mass of ‘metal slag’ was also found,
along with some bronze objects such as an animal
figure and the lid of a box (34).
Seven flat fragments from Area N were analysed,
including objects from five tombs. A total of nine-
teen tombs were found in this area, almost all of
which were oriented north-south and located to the
east or west of the large, corbelled tomb G3831 (35).
Objects from the tomb include decorated bone/ivory
plaques, weaving implements, spindle whorls, large
iron nails and numerous beads, in addition to an
agate intaglio bearing a depiction of Athena (36).
The remainder of the analysed material from Area N
is from smaller looted tombs, including grave G3849,
an adult burial which contained bone/ivory pla-
ques, tanged trilobate arrowheads, dagger and
sword fragments and green-glazed amphora sherds
(37).
The results of compositional analyses
The thiry-three copper-base samples from Ed Dur
discussed in this study were analysed using proton-
242
induced x-ray emission (PIXE) analysis, at the
Australian Institute for Nuclear Science and Engin-
eering, Lucas Heights, New South Wales (38).
Details of sample preparation and instrumentation
can be found in Weeks (39). The PIXE data for Ed
Dur samples are given below in Table 2. All data are
in weight percent or parts per million (ppm) and
have been normalised following processes outlined
in Weeks (40). Elemental concentrations are presen-
ted for sulfur (S), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni),
copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), arsenic (As), selenium (Se),
silver (Ag), tin (Sn) and lead (Pb). Antimony (Sb),
gold (Au) and bismuth (Bi) concentrations were
sought, but were found to be at or below instru-
mental detection limits (800 ppm, 150 ppm and
600 ppm respectively) in all objects. All objects
discussed in this article are copper-base alloys,
although iron, lead and silver objects have also been
found at the site (41). Frequency histograms of the
compositional data are illustrated in Figure 1.
The concentrations of sulfur, iron and cobalt in
the Ed Dur samples are similar to levels recorded in
copper-base objects from contemporary (42) and
earlier archaeological contexts in southeastern Ara-
bia. The highest S concentrations are seen in the
four objects with the highest Pb concentrations
(SBR1176, SBS1151, SBS1326, SBS1487). Future ana-
lyses of the lead objects from Ed Dur will play an
important role in determining whether such high S
concentrations could have been introduced into the
copper-base objects through the lead alloying pro-
cess. In general, however, sulfur, iron and cobalt
are present in the copper-base objects from Ed Dur
as contaminants as a result of the use of copper
ores that were high in these elements, and which
carry through to the finished objects due to the
smelting and refining technologies employed in
their production (43).
The same conclusion can be drawn regarding the
concentrations of arsenic and nickel in the Ed Dur
samples, which are generally below 1%. Two objects
(SBS1181, SN255) have nickel concentrations in
excess of 1%, however such concentrations are still
likely to indicate the smelting of Ni-bearing copper
ores rather than the intentional production of a
nickel-bearing alloy (44). Objects with significant
concentrations of Ni and As are characteristic of the
metallurgy of Bronze Age southeastern Arabia, and
are thought to represent the smelting of locally-
 AN ANALYSIS OF LATE PRE-ISLAMIC COPPER-BASE ARTEFACTS

Table 2. PIXE compositional data for all analysed Ed Dur objects.

Reg. No. Object S (%) Fe (%) Co (%) Ni (%) Cu (%) Zn (%) As (%) Se (ppm) Ag (ppm) Sn (%) Pb (%)
SAT365 flat fragment 0.25 1.06 0.04 0.66 69.7 7.70 0.10 1200 19.0 1.34
SAT374 flat fragment 0.88 0.05 0.40 80.4 5.24 0.09 1250 12.3 0.51
SAV410 flat fragment 0.17 0.24 0.12 0.21 63.8 0.18 0.40 450 33.8 0.94
SAV626 flat fragment 0.28 0.19 0.11 0.08 78.0 0.17 0.28 750 20.1 0.67
SBC593 flat fragment 0.36 0.02 89.3 10.0 0.05 50 350 0.05 0.09
SBI624 flat fragment 0.17 0.03 74.9 0.11 500 24.4 0.27
SBM680 flat fragment 0.15 0.40 0.02 98.8 0.15 0.33 0.11
SBO705 flat fragment 0.38 0.87 0.05 0.09 81.1 0.69 0.08 1450 15.4 1.20
SBQ1005 pin/awl 0.29 0.93 0.03 98.2 0.09 0.05 80 950 0.21
SBO1127 curved fragment 1.06 1.77 0.07 0.02 78.7 0.13 0.15 450 13.1 4.94
SBQ856 flat fragment 0.64 0.97 0.08 0.02 89.8 0.09 0.14 850 6.43 1.76
SBQ865 ring 0.83 0.40 0.07 0.06 86.6 0.09 0.06 900 7.74 4.03
SBQ899 rough blob 0.80 1.08 0.08 60.7 0.16 0.28 1100 35.9 0.88
SBQ992 flat fragment 0.49 0.42 0.04 97.8 0.11 50 300 1.09 0.02
SBR1046 folded sheet 0.54 0.19 0.05 0.05 89.1 0.12 0.04 650 5.49 4.34
SBR1176 horse bit? 2.95 0.15 0.02 0.01 66.5 0.19 700 9.52 20.6
SBR776 flat fragment 1.40 0.26 0.03 0.01 88.0 0.11 0.07 650 9.73 0.37
SBR836 flat fragment 0.15 0.03 99.6 0.09 0.05 0.11
SBR970 curved fragment 0.51 0.23 0.04 91.5 0.29 0.02 7.36 0.08
SBS1147 chisel/nail? 0.29 0.16 98.9 0.09 0.40 60 250 0.04 0.06
SBS1151 flat fragment 2.67 0.07 0.01 73.0 0.12 600 11.4 12.6
SBS1181 chisel/nail? 0.14 0.04 0.12 1.27 97.6 0.08 0.33 160 100 0.31 0.04
SBS1244 flat fragment 0.32 0.03 99.1 0.09 0.04 80 300 0.21 0.12
SBS1326 flat fragment 4.23 0.04 0.03 0.05 71.3 0.13 0.04 1100 7.82 16.3
SBS1487 chisel/nail? 2.22 0.05 0.01 69.8 0.14 600 6.62 21.1
SBS1488 folded sheet 0.98 0.03 0.17 91.2 0.94 0.03 450 5.89 0.70
SN152 flat fragment 0.60 0.99 0.10 0.18 67.5 0.16 0.52 1800 25.5 4.26
SN253 flat fragment 0.38 0.59 0.04 0.16 78.2 0.36 0.08 300 18.1 1.97
SN255 flat fragment 1.14 0.09 1.11 82.8 13.7 0.04 1.08 0.13
SN290 flat fragment 0.35 0.64 0.04 98.5 0.13 0.04 0.32
SN316 flat fragment 0.01 0.03 99.3 0.10 0.02 0.41 0.14
SN317 flat fragment 0.59 0.34 0.07 0.19 75.8 0.13 0.28 650 18.8 3.66
SN344 flat fragment 0.28 0.43 0.09 0.37 49.5 0.09 0.51 1450 47.1 1.54
Average MDL 0.10 0.007 0.015 0.012 0.005 0.04 0.018 60 220 0.06 0.02

Note: blank squares indicate concentrations below the minimum detectable level (MDL).

available As- and Ni-rich ores (45). However, a
number of important copper ore deposits in south-
eastern Arabia are poor in As and Ni (46), so the low
concentrations of As and Ni in the majority of Ed
Dur samples are not necessarily indicative of a
foreign provenance.
The silver and lead concentrations seen in the Ed
Dur samples are commonly much higher than seen
in copper-base objects from other archaeological
contexts in southeastern Arabia. In particular, the Ed
Dur samples have much higher Ag and Pb concen-
trations than analysed Iron Age copper-base objects
from the Ibri-Selme hoard, Bithnah, Muweilah and
Qidfa (47). The data for Ag and Pb concentrations
from Ed Dur are illustrated in Figure 2, in compar-
ison to data for objects from Ibri-Selme and Bithnah.
Whilst the silver concentrations in the Ed Dur
samples are in all cases less than 1% and indicative
of contamination from smelting, refining or alloying
processes, the very high lead concentrations are in a
number of cases almost certainly indicative of
intentional alloying practices. The same can be said
for the concentrations of zinc and tin in the Ed Dur
samples.
The analyses of material from Ed Dur have thus
revealed a number of alloy types not found in earlier
periods of southeastern Arabian history. In contrast
to material from Bronze and Iron Age contexts,

243
L. WEEKS
Figure 1.
Frequency histograms of the Ed Dur PIXE compositional data. White bars indicate the number of samples with elemental concentrations
below the minimum detectable level.
Figure 2.
Lead and silver concentrations in the analysed Ed Dur samples,
in comparison to Iron Age copper-base objects from the Ibri-
Selme hoard in Oman and the collective tomb at Bithnah in
Fujairah, U.A.E.
copper alloys incorporating significant amounts of
zinc and lead are found at Ed Dur, in addition to
alloys incorporating tin which are familiar from
244
earlier periods. The proportions of the different alloy
types used at Ed Dur are illustrated in Figure 3,
which indicates that unalloyed copper, tin-bronze
and leaded tin-bronze (containing more than 5% Sn
and 2% Pb) were the predominant alloys used at Ed
Dur. Brass (containing more than 5% Zn) and
gunmetal (containing more than 5% Sn and 5%
Zn) appear to have been used less frequently at the
site (48).
The relationships between the chief alloying ele-
ments tin, zinc and lead are also important in
assessing the alloying procedures that were used to
produce the copper-base objects found at Ed Dur.
The relationships are illustrated in Figure 4, and
demonstrate the strong negative correlation between
Pb and Zn concentrations, i.e. Pb is only used in low-
zinc objects and vice versa. The absence of leaded
brass and leaded gunmetal at Ed Dur is interesting,
as these alloys are known from other metal
assemblages in Western Asia and the Mediterra-
nean, and from Late Pre-Islamic sites in the U.A.E.
 AN ANALYSIS OF LATE PRE-ISLAMIC COPPER-BASE ARTEFACTS
Figure 3.
Copper alloy types used at Ed Dur. Alloy definitions are:
Cu-Sn(>5) ¼ tin-bronze; Cu-Sn(>5)-Pb(>2) ¼ leaded tin-bronze;
Cu-Sn(>5)-Zn(>5) ¼ gunmetal; Cu-Zn(>5) ¼ brass.
Figure 4.
Zinc, lead and tin concentrations in the Ed Dur samples.
(49). In contrast, there is a positive correlation
between Sn and Pb concentrations, which might
indicate that some Pb was introduced into the
copper along with the Sn. This correlation is only
clear for objects which are not intentionally leaded,
i.e. those with less than c.2% Pb. A correlation
between tin and silver is also seen, and it seems that
the alloying practices used to create the Ed Dur tin-
bronzes may have introduced not only Pb into the
objects, but also small quantities of Ag.
Discussion
Early brass production
Isolated examples of copper-base objects with signi-
ficant Zn concentrations are known from the Early
Bronze Age (50), and zinc-bearing copper-base
objects have been recorded in southeastern Arabia
at the third-millennium BCE site of Umm an-Nar
Island (51). Brass has generally been regarded as a
‘Roman’ alloy which first appeared in significant
quantities in the last centuries of the first millennium
BCE and gained in popularity over the early centur-
ies of the first millennium CE (52). The occasional
appearance of brass in the Bronze and early Iron
Ages is likely to be a result of the inadvertent
production of low-zinc brass through the co-smelting
of copper- and zinc-bearing ores in highly reducing
conditions (53), although a recent overview of the
issue in the Near East has suggested some degree of
intentionality in the production of copper-zinc alloys
as early as the mid-second millennium BCE (54).
Analyses of early brass finds suggest an origin for
brass technology (i.e. cementation) in the region of
Anatolia, although early brass production is also
likely to have occurred in India (55).
Brass has similar physical properties to the other
main alloy of copper, tin-bronze. Zinc in concentra-
tions of greater than 5% improves the castability of
the metal (to an even greater extent than tin), allows
for significant strength and hardness increases and
imparts a golden colour to the alloy (56). However,
unlike tin-bronze, the vast majority of brasses are
likely to have been produced by cementation rather
than the addition of two metallic components. This
is because zinc boils at a temperature significantly
below the melting point of copper, and the direct
mixing of the two metals (known as ‘speltering’) is a
difficult process.
245
L. WEEKS
Furthermore, as zinc smelting requires tempera-
tures of c.1000
C, the production of metallic zinc
requires distillation in order to solidify the zinc
vapour produced during smelting before it oxidises
(57). While such an operation is not beyond the
technology available to ancient metalworkers, the
earliest archaeologically-attested intentional produc-
tion of metallic zinc is in the twelfth century CE in
India (58). In contrast, Indian textual sources and
analyses of early brasses from the region indicate
that metallic zinc may have been produced as early
as the fourth century BCE (59). Examples of the
inadvertent production of metallic zinc are also
given by some Classical authors in the fourth
century BCE (60), and although such production
must have been on a very small scale, it may account
for some early objects of brass and the rare appear-
ance of metallic zinc in contexts as early as the
Hellenistic period (61). Craddock (62) envisages
such inadvertently-produced metallic zinc as having
played a role in the discovery of the technique of
cementation.
The process of cementation has been described by
numerous authors (63), and remained the standard
way of producing brass from the Roman period until
the late eighteenth century CE (64). In the cementa-
tion process, finely divided copper is packed into a
closed crucible with charcoal and zinc carbonate
(ZnCO3, calamine or smithsonite) and heated to a
temperature of between 920–1000
C, i.e. hot enough
to vaporise the zinc but not hot enough to melt the
copper. The zinc vapour readily dissolves into the
copper, and at the end of the process the tempera-
ture is raised to melt the alloy, and the molten metal
is stirred to homogenise it. Metallurgical experi-
ments indicate that the brass produced by such a
process could not have contained more than c.28%
Zn, and ‘fresh’ cementation brass is likely to contain
between c.22–28% Zn (65). The presence of even
small quantities of tin or lead in copper used to
produce brass by cementation reduced the amount
of zinc that could be absorbed from the vapour (66),
so fresh brass is also likely to have low levels of tin
and lead (67).
It has been suggested that compositional differ-
ences might exist between brass produced in Europe
and the Mediterranean and in the Near East (68). In
the west, smithsonite was common, and was the
basis of the cementation process (69). In the Near
246
East, however, sphalerite (ZnS, also called zinc
blende) was much more common, and is likely to
have provided most of the zinc used for brass
production. The sphalerite required roasting before
it could be used in cementation, during which
zinc was vaporised and quickly oxidised, before
being deposited on the walls of the roasting oven
through sublimation. During this roasting stage, the
zinc ore is likely to have been purified to a certain
extent, as only the other volatile metals (such as
lead) would have been collected with the zinc (70).
Thus, brass produced in the Near East using
sphalerite is likely to have lower levels of impurities
such as iron and, in particular, manganese (71).
Unfortunately, the detection limit for manganese in
the PIXE analyses of Ed Dur material is approxi-
mately 100 ppm, meaning that potential provenance
information cannot be determined for the Ed Dur
brasses.
Economic reasons are likely to have been import-
ant in the initial rise of brass as a common copper
alloy, as zinc ores were generally much more
common than those of tin and copper, and brass
was therefore a much cheaper metal than tin-bronze
or pure copper (72). The loss of the tin-producing
regions of the western Roman Empire in the late
fourth and fifth centuries CE is also seen as a major
reason for brass replacing tin-bronze as the major
European and Near Eastern copper alloy in the
medieval and Islamic periods (73). Brass was
mostly used in Imperial Rome for the production
of coinage and military equipment in the first
century CE (74), and fresh brass (with 22–28% Zn)
was increasingly rare from the second century
onwards (75). Ponting and Segal (76) note that
relatively clean brass was used for Roman dec-
orative metalwork and military material from
Europe, but highlight a dearth of information on
Roman metals in the Near East. Their analyses of
Roman metalwork from the site of Masada, Israel,
dating to c.74 CE suggest the use of smithsonite
brass and the possibility of a European origin for
the metal (77).
Ed Dur brass and gunmetal
Significant levels of Zn are reported in four flat
fragments from Ed Dur, two of which also contain
significant amounts of tin. The two brass samples
(SBC593, SN255) have the highest Zn concentrations
 AN ANALYSIS OF LATE PRE-ISLAMIC COPPER-BASE ARTEFACTS
recorded from Ed Dur, with between c.10 and 15%
Zn. These zinc concentrations are relatively low in
comparison to ‘fresh’ Roman Period brass produced
by the cementation process. As Zn concentrations in
brass are known to decrease with remelting (78), this
might reflect the fact that the brass used at Ed Dur
was repeatedly remelted and refashioned into new
objects. Alternatively, the absorption of Zn in the
original cementation process may not have been as
efficient as commonly achieved in the Roman
Period, or the fresh brass may have been diluted
by the addition of copper (79).
Lower Zn concentrations of c.5–8% are seen in the
two objects made of gunmetal (SAT365, SAT374).
Other studies of Roman period metallurgy have also
shown a negative correlation between zinc and tin
levels in bronzes (80). This is most likely a reflection
of the addition of scrap bronze or metallic tin to
fresh cementation brass (81), although it may also
indicate the use of scrap tin-bronze for the cemen-
tation process, which would have drastically
reduced the amount of Zn absorbed (82).
The presence of brass and gunmetal at Ed Dur is
almost certainly linked to the significant contacts
which existed between Ed Dur and the Roman
world, although the ultimate point of manufacture
of these alloys is uncertain. As noted above, little
analytical work has been undertaken on early brass
in Western Asia. Given the large amount of Roman
glass at Ed Dur which was probably manufactured
in the eastern Mediterranean, a similar provenance
for the brass and gunmetal of Ed Dur is also
possible. One of the brass fragments (SN255)
came from the large corbelled grave G3831 which
also contained an agate intaglio bearing a depic-
tion of Athena, whilst the fragments SAT365 and
SAT374 came from a group of disturbed tombs
which also produced Roman pillar-moulded glass
vessels.
However, whether the brass from Ed Dur was
produced in the eastern Mediterranean or traded
there from further to the west is not clear (83).
Haerinck (84), for example, has stressed the potential
complexity of the mechanisms by which Western
material may have reached the Gulf, noting the
possibility that ‘Roman goods were first unloaded in
India, from where they could then be re-exported to
the Persian Gulf, passing through the hands of Arab,
Persian, or Indian merchants’.
Alternatively, as brass was probably being made
in India by this time, an eastern origin for the brass
from Ed Dur is feasible. The evidence for contact
with India at Ed Dur is minimal in comparison to the
amount of eastern Mediterranean glass at the site,
comprising a small number of sherds of Indian red-
polished ware. Although a northwestern proven-
ance for the Ed Dur brass seems much more likely
than an Indian one, the potentially complex move-
ment of goods outlined by Haerinck must be
considered, including the possibility that material
of Mediterranean origin at Ed Dur may be an
indicator of trade between the Gulf and the east.
The local production of brass in southeastern
Arabia is another possibility which must be con-
sidered, given the known occurrence of lead-zinc
ores in the region (85). However, there is currently
no evidence for the exploitation of these deposits.
In fact, there is little evidence for the primary
extraction of even copper in southeastern Arabia in
the Late Pre-Islamic Period (86). Evidence from the
site of Mleiha (87) indicates that crucible smelting
may have been practised on a small scale within
Late Pre-Islamic southeastern Arabian settlements,
but such evidence as exists at Ed Dur for these
processes has not yet been studied. Some late
Sasanian period exploitation of the ‘Arja, Bayda
and Raki deposits has been hypothesised (88), as
a prelude to the well-documented large-scale pri-
mary copper extraction of the ninth and tenth
centuries CE, although such Sasanian workings are
much later than the archaeological contexts at Ed
Dur from which the objects analysed in this study
came.
The unusual composition of some Bronze Age
objects from Umm an-Nar Island (89) suggests the
possibility of the inadvertent production of low-zinc
brasses in the region. However, the objects (which
contained 2–10% Zn) are highly unusual in the early
metallurgy of southeastern Arabia, and separated
from the Ed Dur material by more than two
millennia. A small number of other copper-base
objects with high zinc concentrations have been
found in southeastern Arabia. Qualitative analysis of
a ring from Shimal Site 5 excavated by P. Donaldson
demonstrated the presence of substantial amounts of
tin, lead and zinc, i.e. the object was of leaded
gunmetal (90). The composition of the ring was in
fact used to date the burial in which it was found, to
247
L. WEEKS
approximately the first century CE (91). A ring from
the Iron Age tomb at Bithnah contains 13.1% Zn and
5.6% Pb (in addition to 2.2% Ni), and most probably
belongs to the Late Pre-Islamic reuse of the structure
in the first centuries BCE or CE (92). A. Hauptmann
has suggested that the piece is likely to have been
imported from the Mediterranean region (93). Over-
all, given the extensive trade contacts witnessed at
Ed Dur, the importation of brass would seem to be a
much more likely explanation than postulating local
brass production for which there is no archaeologi-
cal evidence.
Leaded Objects
Very high lead levels of c.12–21% are found in
four objects from Ed Dur, including two flat
fragments, a chisel/nail and a fragment tentatively
designated as a horse bit. Although the lead levels
in the Ed Dur material are very high in compar-
ison to prehistoric periods in southeastern Arabia
(94), small numbers of leaded objects are known
from Iron Age contexts (95), and ternary Cu-Sn-Pb
alloys are also reported from the Late Pre-Islamic
settlement of Mleiha (96). In most of the analysed
Ed Dur copper samples, however, lead levels are
relatively low (generally <2500 ppm), particularly
in comparison to much metalwork of the Roman
period. Analyses of Mediterranean metalwork
indicate that alloying with lead reached a peak
in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, with lead
contents in excess of 15% recorded in numerous
objects (97).
The lead was used to improve the fluidity of the
alloy for casting purposes and to add ‘weight’ to the
alloy, and the abundance of lead meant that it was
relatively inexpensive in comparison to copper and
tin (98). Philip (99) has noted that lead levels in
copper alloys are fairly random in the Near East and
Mediterranean until the end of the Roman period,
‘suggesting that lead consumption may be more
closely tied to local availability than to technical
requirements’. Certainly, large numbers of lead
objects (including ingots) and fragments have been
recovered from Ed Dur (100), indicating that local
alloying with lead would have been possible.
The investigation of the sources of lead used for
the lead objects and leaded copper alloys using a
technique such as lead isotope analysis would be a
worthwhile research programme, particularly with
248
regard to determining the local production of copper
alloys at Ed Dur. The scientific determination of
provenance for unleaded bronze and brass objects is
more problematic, given the overwhelming evidence
for recycling and mixing of fresh and scrap metals
by Roman times, the use of metal from multiple
sources and the inapplicability of the lead isotope
technique for the examination of brass provenance
(101).
Conclusions
The PIXE compositional analyses presented in this
article demonstrate that the inhabitants of Ed Dur
used a number of copper alloy types, including
relatively pure copper, tin-bronze, leaded tin-
bronze, brass and gunmetal. Of these alloys, only
copper and tin-bronze were utilised with any
frequency in southeastern Arabia prior to the Late
Pre-Islamic Period, demonstrating that the reper-
toire of copper-base alloys used at Ed Dur is
substantially broadened from earlier periods in the
region. Alongside this new range of copper-base
metals, metallic lead and iron also appear abun-
dantly at Ed Dur, in contrast to their exceeding rarity
in Bronze and Iron Age southeastern Arabia (102).
This abundance of metals, particularly of copper-
base alloys, is interesting when the limited evidence
for contemporary copper extraction in southeastern
Arabia is considered.
Given the preliminary nature of this study, it is
difficult to draw strong conclusions regarding the
nature of metalworking activities at Ed Dur itself. It
is possible that some of the alloys used at Ed Dur
were manufactured on-site, albeit from metal impor-
ted from the mountainous interior of southeastern
Arabia or, more likely, further afield. Local alloy
manufacture seems most likely in the case of copper-
base alloys incorporating lead, given the significant
number of metallic lead objects found at Ed Dur.
However, it is at present not possible to prove or
disprove such a hypothesis.
In other cases, the composition of the Ed Dur
copper-base alloys indicates the use of foreign
metallic resources and, possibly, foreign manufac-
ture of the alloy (if not the objects themselves). The
zinc-bearing alloys from Ed Dur fall into this
category and were almost certainly produced out-
side southeastern Arabia, probably in the eastern
 AN ANALYSIS OF LATE PRE-ISLAMIC COPPER-BASE ARTEFACTS

Mediterranean if the abundant evidence from the Ed
Dur glass vessels is any guide. The mechanisms of
their trade to the Gulf remain obscure, but could
have incorporated direct contact between Ed Dur
and more northerly regions such as the Kingdom of
Characene (103), or a more roundabout route
whereby putative Western materials such as Medi-
terranean glass and metals were obtained through
contacts with India. Likewise, tin is clearly a non-
local resource in southeastern Arabia, and the
absence of metallic tin at Ed Dur suggests that pre-
alloyed tin-bronze was probably imported to the
site.
With regard to the fabrication of objects rather
than alloys, there is some evidence for copper
metalworking at Ed Dur itself (104). The few
metallurgical slags that have been recovered remain
unstudied, and it is therefore uncertain whether they
represent the residues of primary or secondary
extraction operations, i.e. the smelting of copper
ore or the refining of impure raw copper. Neverthe-
less, the slags indicate that some metalworking was
being undertaken at Ed Dur, even if its exact nature
remains uncertain. Overall, it seems likely that a
significant proportion of the metal used at Ed Dur
was in fact produced elsewhere and traded to the
site in the form of ingots or, more likely, finished
objects. Imported finished objects could have been
utilised in their unmodified state, but could also
have been recycled to produce objects of local
typology. The extent to which either of these
scenarios was enacted remains uncertain, but will
be clarified by future work on the metal assemblage
from the site (105).

References
1. I would like to thank Prof. E. Haerinck
(University of Ghent) for the
opportunity to study the Ed Dur
material, and for providing instructive
comments on a draft of this paper.
My thanks also to Prof. G. Weisgerber
(German Mining Museum, Bochum)
for reading and commenting on a draft
of this article, and to Prof. D.T. Potts
(Sydney University) for supervising
the research presented in it. Any
remaining errors of fact or omission are
the responsibility of the author.
2. Weeks LR. Early metallurgy of the
Persian Gulf: Technology, trade, and the
Bronze Age world. Boston: Brill, 2003.
3. See e.g. the reconstruction of metal
production (Abb. 1) in Hauptmann A.
5000 Jahre Kupfer in Oman. Band 1. Die
Entwicklung der Kupfermetallurgie vom.
3 Jahrtausend bis zur neuzeit. Bochum:
Der Anschnitt Beiheft, 4: 1985. See also
the evidence for small scale, ineffi-
cient crucible smelting of copper at
Mleiha in Ploquin A, Orzechowski S
& Biand B. Paléométallurgie à Mleiha:
une première approche. In: Mouton
M, ed. Mleiha I. Environnement, straté-
gies de subsistence et artisanats. Lyon:
TMO, 29: 1999: 171–190.
4. Following early excavations by an
Iraqi team and a study of surface
finds, Ed Dur was excavated between
1987 and 1990 by an international
expedition of archaeologists from
France, Belgium, Denmark and
Britain, with further seasons of
excavation by the Belgian team from
1991–1994. General references for this
research include: Salles J-F. Cérami-
ques de surface à ed-Dour, Émirats
Arabes Unis. AOMIM 1984: 115–46;
Haerinck E, Phillips CS, Potts DT &
Stevens KG. Ed Dur, Umm
al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.). In: Finkbeiner U,
ed. Marterialien zur Archäologie der
Seleukiden- und Partherzeit in südlichen
Babylonien und im Golfgebiet.
Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth, 1993:
183–194; Haerinck E. The seventh and
eighth Belgian archaeological
expeditions to ed-Dur (Umm
al-Qaiwain, UAE). AAE 7: 1996: 69–74.
Haerinck et al., Ed Dur, Umm
al-Qaiwain: 183–4; Potts DT. Before
the Emirates: an archaeological and
historical account of developments in
the region ca. 5000 BC to 676 AD.
In: Ghareeb E & Abed IA, eds.
Perspectives on the United Arab
Emirates. London: Trident Press, 1997:
Fig. 20b.
5. Haerinck et al., Ed Dur, Umm
al-Qaiwain: 184.
6. Haerinck E, Metdepenninghen C &
Stevens KG. Excavations at Ed Dur
(Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) – prelim-
inary report on the second Belgian
season. AAE 2: 1991: 31–60; Haerinck
E, Metdepenninghen C & Stevens KG.
Excavations at Ed Dur (Umm
al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) – preliminary
report on the third Belgian season
(1989). AAE 3: 1992. Haerinck E.
Excavations at Ed Dur (Umm
al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) – preliminary
report on the fifth Belgian season
(1991). AAE 4: 1993: 210–225.
7. Potts, Before the Emirates: 62.
8. E.g. Haerinck et al., Ed Dur, Umm
al-Qaiwain: 183; Haerinck et al., The
third Belgian season: Figs 17–18.
9. A chronological range entirely within
the first century CE has been
proposed for the many Western or
Roman type glass vessels and
fragments from Ed Dur. Ceramic
typologies and coins suggest a
slightly wider date range. See
Whitehouse D. Excavations at Ed Dur
(Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab
Emirates). Vol. 1. The Glass Vessels.
Leuven: Peeters, 1998: 64; Haerinck
et al., Ed Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain:
186–7; Potts, Before the Emirates: 62
and Fig. 19.
10. Chemical analyses of the glass sup-
port a Western origin, probably in the
eastern Mediterranean. Other western
imports include terra sigillata pottery
and metal objects such as bronze wine
sets, statuettes and lamps which have

249
L. WEEKS
parallels in eastern Mediterranean/
Roman contexts. ‘Thaj ware’ from
northeastern Arabia, Indian red-pol-
ished ware and Namord ware from
southeastern Iran/Baluchistan are
also found at the site. See Brill R.
Appendix. Chemical analyses of
selected fragments. In: Whitehouse,
The Glass Vessels: 71; Haerinck E. The
shifting pattern of overland and sea-
borne trade in SE-Arabia: foreign pre-
Islamic coins from Mleiha (Emirate of
Sharjah, U.A.E.). Akkadica 106: 1998:
22–40; Haerinck et al., Ed Dur, Umm
al-Qaiwain: 185–7.
11. See Potts DT. The Arabian Gulf in
antiquity, vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1990: 306–310; Whitehouse, The
Glass Vessels: 65–68.
12. See e.g. Haerinck E. Excavations at Ed
Dur (Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) –
preliminary report on the sixth
Belgian season (1992). AAE 5: 1994:
184–197.
13. Haerinck et al., The third Belgian
season: 49–53, Figs 11–13 and Haer-
inck E. Excavations at ed-Dur (Umm al-
Qaiwain, United Arab Emirates), Vol. II.
The tombs. Leuven: Peeters, 2001: Pls
170–172; In the following notes ref-
erences will be made both to the
original publication of an artefact in
AAE and to Haerinck, The tombs.
14. Haerinck et al., The third Belgian
season: Figs 15, 16.
15. Haerinck E. Excavations at Ed Dur
(Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) – prelim-
inary report on the fourth Belgian
season (1990). AAE 3: 1992: 191. For
the human remains see Stone PK.
Human remains from Area AV G
5156. In: Haerinck, The tombs: 57–64.
16. Haerinck, The fourth Belgian season:
193. For a listing of the complete
inventory of the tomb see Haerinck,
The tombs: 50–54.
17. Haerinck et al., The third Belgian
season: Fig. 22; Haerinck, The fourth
Belgian season: Figs 15–20.
18. Haerinck, The fourth Belgian season:
201.
19. Haerinck, The fourth Belgian season:
201 and Fig. 34; Haerinck, The tombs:
Pls 185 and 187.
20. Haerinck, The fifth Belgian season:
1993: 215–6, Figs 6, 7.
21. Haerinck, The fifth Belgian season:
216.
250
22. Haerinck, The fifth Belgian season:
218.
23. Haerinck, The fifth Belgian season:
218–9; Haerinck, The tombs: Pls 212–
213, 215, 219–221.
24. Haerinck E. Un service à boire décoré.
A propos d’iconographie arabique
préislamique. In: Gasche H, Tamet M,
Janssen C & Degraeve A, eds. Cin-
quante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-
Orient ancien: Offertes en hommage à
Léon De Meyer. Louvain: Peeters, 1994:
Figs 9.1, 9.3–6; Haerinck, The tombs:
Pls 236–237, 239–247 and 249.
25. Haerinck, The sixth Belgian season:
190–92.
26. Haerinck, The sixth Belgian season:
190, Figs 14, 15.
27. Haerinck, The fifth Belgian season:
221, Fig. 15.
28. Haerinck, The fifth Belgian season:
221–2; Haerinck, The tombs: Pls 259–
261.
29. Haerinck, The sixth Belgian season:
185, Fig. 1.
30. Haerinck, The sixth Belgian season:
185–8; Haerinck, The tombs: Pls 284–
287.
31. Haerinck, The sixth Belgian season:
188.
32. Haerinck, The sixth Belgian season:
188.
33. Haerinck, The seventh and eighth
Belgian expeditions: 72.
34. Haerinck, The seventh and eighth
Belgian expeditions: 72–3, Figs 9, 10.
35. Haerinck et al., The second Belgian
season: 45; Haerinck et al., The third
Belgian season: 50.
36. Haerinck et al., The second Belgian
season: 41, Figs 20.2, 21; Haerinck, The
tombs: Pls 56–61.
37. Haerinck et al., The third Belgian
season: 50, Fig. 9; Haerinck, The tombs:
Pls 32–33.
38. PIXE analyses were supported by a
grant from the Australian Institute for
Nuclear Science and Engineering, and
conducted with the friendly and
expert assistance of Dr. G. Bailey,
Mr. P. Johnson and Mr. E. Stelcer.
39. Weeks, Early metallurgy of the Persian
Gulf: App. 1.
40. Weeks, Early metallurgy of the Persian
Gulf: App. 1.
41. E.g. Haerinck, The fourth Belgian
season: Figs 14–21.
42. Corboud P, Castella A-C, Hapka R
&Im-Obersteg P. Les tombes protohis-
toriques de Bithnah, Fujairah, Emirats
Arabes Unis. Mainz: Phillip von
Zabern, 1996: 59; Pedersen CH &
Buchwald VF. An examination of
metal objects from Tell Abraq, U.A.E.
AAE 2: 1991: 1–9.
43. Weeks, Early metallurgy of the Persian
Gulf: Ch. 5.
44. Weeks, Early metallurgy of the Persian
Gulf: Ch. 5; Prange MK, Gotze H-J,
Hauptmann A & Weisgerber G. Is
Oman the ancient Magan? Analytical
studies of copper from Oman. In:
Young SMM, Pollard AM, Budd P &
Ixer RA, eds. Metals in Antiquity.
Oxford: Archaeopress, 1999: 187–192.
45. Prange et al., Is Oman the Ancient
Magan?; Weeks, Early metallurgy of the
Persian Gulf: Ch. 5.
46. Weeks, Early metallurgy of the Per-
sian Gulf: 110–11.
47. Hauptmann A. Kupfer und Bronzen
der Südostarabischen Halbinsel. Der
Anschnitt 39: 1987: 209–218; Prange M
& Hauptmann A. The chemical com-
position of bronze objects from ‘Ibri/
Selme. In: Yule P & Weisgerber G,
eds. The Metal Hoard from ‘Ibri/Selme
Sultanate of Oman. Stuttgart: Prähis-
torische Bronzefunde, 20/7: 2001: 75–
84; Corboud et al., Bithnah: Fig. 59.
Weeks L. Prehistoric Metallurgy of
the Gulf. Unpublished PhD disserta-
tion, Dept. of Archaeology, Sydney
University, 2000.
48. The use of 5% as the cut-off content of
zinc for the use of the term ‘brass’ is
arbitrary, as is the use of 2% Pb as a
mark for defining intentionally-
leaded copper-base objects. Although
other scholars have used 5% Pb as the
minimum content for a leaded object,
2% is used in discussing the Ed Dur
material as there seems to be a signi-
ficant break in lead concentrations at
about this point (see Fig. 1). See e.g.
Hook DR & Craddock PT. The scien-
tific analysis of the copper-alloy
lamps: aspects of Classical alloying
practices. In: Bailey DM, ed.
A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British
Museum IV: Lamps of Metal and Stone,
and Lampstands. London: British
Museum Press, 1996: 144. See also
Ponting MJ. East meets West in
post-Classical Bet She’an: the

archaeometallurgy of culture change.
Journal of Archaeological Science 26:
1999: 1311–1321.
49. Corboud et al., Bithnah: Fig. 59; Crad-
dock PT. Technical appendix 1. The
composition of the metal artefacts. In:
Donaldson P, ed. Prehistoric Tombs of
Ras al-Khaimah. OrAnt 24: 1985: 98
and Tab. 10.
50. E.g. Müller-Karpe M. Neue Forsc-
hungen zur frühen Metallverarbei-
tung in Mesopotamien. Jahrbuch des
Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum
36: 1989: Tab. 1. Begemann F, Schmitt-
Strecker S & Pernicka E. The metal
finds from Thermi III-V: a chemical
and lead-isotope study. Studia Troica
2: 1992: 219–239; Caley ER. Orichalcum
and related ancient alloys. New York:
The American Numismatic Society,
1964: 3–7; Coghlan HH. Some reflec-
tions on the prehistoric working of
copper and bronze. Archiv für ur- und
frühgeschichtliche Bergbauforschung
Mitteilung 39: 1972: 101; Craddock PT.
The first brass: Some early claims
reconsidered. MASCA Journal 1: 1980:
131–133; Craddock PT. Early metal
mining and production. Washington
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press,
1995: 293; Thornton CP & Ehlers CB.
Early brass in the ancient Near East.
IAMS Journal 23: 2003: 3–8.
51. Frifelt K. The Third Millennium Graves,
the Island of Umm an-Nar. Aarhus:
JASP, 36/1: 1991: 100.
52. E.g. Hook & Craddock, The copper-
alloy lamps: 148; Craddock PT. The
composition of the copper alloys used
by the Greek, Etruscan and Roman
civilizations 3. The origins and early
use of brass. Journal of Archaeological
Science 5: 1978: 1–16.
53. Caley, Orichalcum: 10–11; Craddock,
Early metal mining: 293.
54. Thornton & Ehlers, Early brass: 7.
55. Craddock PT, Freestone IC, Gurjar
LK, Middleton A & Willies L. The
production of lead, silver, and zinc in
early India. In: Hauptmann A,
Pernicka A & Wagner GA, eds. Old
World Archaeometallurgy. Bochum:
Deutsches Bergbau-Museums, 1989:
51–69. Craddock PT. Zinc in Classical
antiquity. In: Craddock PT, ed.
2000 years of zinc and brass. London:
British Museum, 1990: 1–6; Craddock
AN ANALYSIS OF LATE PRE-ISLAMIC COPPER-BASE ARTEFACTS
PT. Zinc in India. In: Craddock,
2000 years of zinc and brass: 29–72.
56. Craddock, The composition of the
copper alloys, 3: 11.
57. Craddock, The composition of the
copper alloys, 3: 7.
58. Craddock, Zinc in India: 49.
59. Craddock, Zinc in India: 29–33.
60. Caley, Orichalcum: 18; Craddock, Zinc
in Classical Antiquity: 3–5.
61. Caley, Orichalcum: 15–16; Craddock,
The composition of the copper alloys,
3: 6–7; Craddock, Zinc in Classical
Antiquity: 5.
62. Craddock, Early metal mining: 295–6.
63. E.g. Craddock, The composition of the
copper alloys, 3: 9–10.
64. Craddock, Early metal mining: 301–2;
Day J. Brass and zinc in Europe from
the Middle Ages until the 19th cen-
tury. In: Craddock, 2000 years of zinc
and brass: 123–150.
65. Craddock, The composition of the
copper alloys, 3: 10.
66. Hook & Craddock, The copper-alloy
lamps: 151; Ponting MJ & Segal I. ICP-
AES analyses of Roman military
copper-alloy artefacts from the exca-
vations of Masada, Israel. Archaeome-
try 40: 1998: 115.
67. Craddock, The composition of the
copper alloys, 3: 10–11 and Fig. 5.
68. Craddock, Early metal mining: 297–8.
69. Ponting and Segal, Roman military
artefacts: 117; Ponting, East meets
west: 1317–1318.
70. Craddock, Early metal mining: 298.
71. Ponting, East meets west: 1317–8.
72. Craddock, The composition of the
copper alloys, 3: 11; Ponting, East
meets west: 1319.
73. Craddock PT, La Niece SC & Hook D.
Brass in the medieval Islamic world.
In: Craddock, ed. 2000 years of zinc and
brass: 73.
74. Caley, Orichalcum: 92; Ponting, East
meets west: 1316.
75. Craddock, The composition of the
copper alloys, 3: 13–14 and Tab. 1.
76. Ponting & Segal, Roman military
artefacts: 115.
77. Ponting & Segal, Roman military
artefacts: 117–8.
78. Ponting MJ. Roman military copper
artefacts from Israel: Questions of
organization and ethnicity. Archaeom-
etry 44: 2002: 559.
79. Cf. Hook & Craddock, The copper-
alloy lamps: 151; Craddock, The
composition of the copper alloys, 3:
12.
80. E.g. Hook & Craddock, The copper-
alloy lamps: Fig. 1; Craddock, The
composition of the copper alloys, 3:
Fig. 7.
81. Hook & Craddock, The copper-alloy
lamps: 150–51; Craddock, The com-
position of the copper alloys, 3: 12.
82. Ponting, Roman military copper arte-
facts: 560.
83. Cf. Ponting & Segal, Roman military
artefacts.
84. Haerinck, The shifting pattern of
trade: 26.
85. Batchelor DAF. Styles of metallic
mineralization and their tectonic set-
ting in the Sultanate of Oman. Trans-
actions of the Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Section B – Applied Earth
Sciences 1992: 101: B118.
86. Mouton M. Mleiha: environnement,
stratégies de subsistence et artisanats.
In: Mouton, Mleiha I : 275–6.
87. Ploquin et al., Paléométallurgie à
Mleiha: 179–80; Ploquin A & Orze-
chowski S. Palaeo-metallurgy at
Mleiha. Preliminary notes. In: Mouton
M, ed. Archaeological Surveys and
Excavations in the Sharjah Emirate, 1993
and 1994. A Seventh Interim Report.
Sharjah: Joint Archaeological
Expedition to the Sharjah Emirate,
1994: 30–32.
88. Weisgerber G. ‘‘…und Kupfer in
Oman’’ – Das Oman-Projekt des
Deutschen Bergbau-Museums. Der
Anschnitt 32: 1980: Tab. 2; Weisgerber
G. Archaeological evidence of copper
exploitation at ‘Arja. In: Costa PM &
Wilkinson TJ, eds. The Hinterland of
Sohar. Archaeological Surveys and
Excavations within the Region of an
Omani Seafaring City. JOS 9: 1987:
148–9 and Tab. 14; Yule P. The 1995
German archaeological mission to the
Sultanate of Oman. PSAS 26: 1996:
176.
89. Frifelt, The Third Millennium Graves:
100.
90. Craddock, Technical appendix I: 98
and Tab. 10.
91. Donaldson P. Prehistoric tombs of Ras
al-Khaimah. OrAnt 24: 1985: 133 and
Tab. 18.
251
L. WEEKS
92. Corboud et al., Bithnah: Fig. 59.
93. Corboud et al., Bithnah.
94. E.g. Weeks, Early metallurgy of the
Persian Gulf: Table 4.22.
95. Prange & Hauptmann, The Chemical
Composition: Tab. 9.
96. Ploquin et al., Paléométallurgie à
Mleiha: Pl. 8; Mouton, Mleiha: envi-
ronnement, stratégies de subsistence
et artisanats: 275.
97. E.g. Hook & Craddock, The copper-
alloy lamps: 148 and Figs. 2, 7 and 8;
also Craddock PT. The composition of
the copper alloys used by the Greek,
Etruscan and Roman civilizations 2.
The Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic
Greeks. Journal of Archaeological Science
4: 1977: 103–123.
252
98. Hook & Craddock, The copper-alloy
lamps: 148.
99. Philip G. Tin, arsenic, lead: alloying
practices in Syria-Palestine around
2000 B.C. Levant 23: 1991: 99.
100. Haerinck, The seventh and eighth
Belgian expeditions: 72; Haerinck E.
More pre-Islamic coins from South-
eastern Arabia. AAE 9: 1998: 294 and
Fig. 2.
101. Hook & Craddock, The copper-alloy
lamps: 152.
102. E.g. Magee, P. New evidence of the
initial appearance of iron in south-
eastern Arabia. AAE 1998: 9: 112–117.
103. Potts, Before the Emirates: 63–4. Such
a trade route is further supported by
the Characene iconography of the
stamp on a lead ingot from Ed Dur, as
illustrated in Haerinck, More Pre-
Islamic Coins: Fig. 2.
104. Haerinck, The seventh and eighth
Belgian expeditions: 72.
105. Further analyses of the lead and
copper-base objects from Ed Dur are
being undertaken by P. Delrue of the
University of Ghent, as a component
of his PhD research project that
focuses principally upon the evidence
for iron working at the site.