Archaeological excavations along the route of the Bāṭinah Expressway in Oman, conducted between April and June of 2014, recorded more than 60 archaeological sites over a stretch of the Bāṭinah plain covering some 200km. This work was undertaken by a large team consisting of newcomers to the region and veterans from similar work conducted in the United Arab Emirates. The volume under review presents this work and is attractive, nicely printed on good paper with good contrast. What makes it archaeologically interesting is that the area surveyed lies in the most populous governorate of the sultanate, but one with little published archaeology. The entire chronological range is discussed from the Neolithic through to the Islamic Period, but the distribution is uneven, with a large proportion of Wadi Suq (1900‒1300 BC) and Early Iron Age (1300‒300 BC) tombs but few or no tombs of the Umm an-Nar (2500‒1900 BC) and Samad periods (100 BC‒300 AD).
Section 1 explains the methodology. Three overview images (p. 2, fig. 1; p. 15, fig. 19; p. 100, fig. 212) show the sites investigated. Owing to Oman's building boom, some of the sites were already destroyed before the team arrived (p. 16, fig. 20).
Section 2 focuses on the tombs, categorising them into six main types (type 7 contains those that do not fit within this typology), breaking with the reviewer's typology of 28 types covering the same region and periods (Yule Reference Yule2001). This section leaves the false impression that up to this publication there was no other tomb/grave typology in our region, despite some citations. The sketches here are too schematic—I prefer more realistic drawings to establish an overview.
Section 3 shows the challenge that faced the team: to record an array of heterogeneous sites and finds and present them in an orderly fashion. It would be difficult or impossible to show all of the drawings at a single scale, and the solution to print the graves and line drawings, as well as several colour photos, is successful. The graves are not sequentially numbered, but rather appear at their respective sites, meaning locating individual graves by number requires considerable searching (e.g. tomb L3-40). Drawings have both a north arrow and a graphic scale. The layout is complex, but these images are clearer than those of section 2, and the features are described in a succinct fashion, although some are more fully excavated than others. Some plans (e.g. p. 31, fig. 52; cf. p. 30, fig. 50) have been squashed to fit within the margins of the text-column. The broad range of grave/tomb types encountered is striking but not necessarily fully representative of the Bāṭinah.
In section 4, the human remains are described in great detail. The author notes (p. 134) that “limited information is presently available for populations [. . .] in this region”. She and the editors omit to mention a study of 190 skeletal remains, mostly of the Late Iron Age, from Samad (central Sharqiyyah) published by M. Kunter in Yule (Reference Yule2001) in the grave descriptions, in other parts of the text and as a table on pp. 477‒80. The main difference between the two populations is that the cemeteries described in Yule (Reference Yule2001) are largely of the Samad Period. In the latter population, average mortality ages were calculated for men (32.8 years) and for women (33.4 years). Of 153 diagnostic individuals, 54 of the tombs that contained clearly sexed skeletons were male, and 33 were female (Yule Reference Yule2001: 184). A similar male dominance is visible in the Bāṭinah tombs (p. 162, fig. 354). The two populations do differ from each other in other ways, such as in their pathology.
Section 5 deals with the finds and classifies them into dated groups. It is interesting to follow how the authors organise the new and little known material, which includes 549 pottery sherds. On p. 166 (fig. 358) a puzzling, turquoise-glazed category entitled ‘Samad‒Early Islamic’ is shown. None of the 11 previously published so-called glazed perfume bottles have a turquoise glaze (Yule Reference Yule2001: 75). On the other hand, turquoise glaze is ubiquitous in south-western Iran and southern Mesopotamia, and into the northern Gulf over several periods, visible at sites such as Hellenistic Failaka. As most of the pottery was obtained from surface finds, it would be impossible to build an independent chronology from them. In any case, the finds are listed in a database in a clear and simple way. The chronology of the finds is laid out in a table on p. 183 (fig. 368).
Finally, section 6 provides a discussion and comparisons for the six tomb types defined in section 2. One can differ with the author with regard to the comparisons made and wonder why clearer examples are not provided. He selects partly obsolete sources (e.g. Yule & Kazenwadel Reference Yule, Kazenwadel and Finbeiner1993), written at the very beginning of my work, instead of the final report (Yule Reference Yule2001) or subsequent literature. The authorʼs Wadi Suq Period tomb type 6 has numerous comparisons at the multi-period site of Samad (63 examples). In fact, the Samad Period grave I6 and its neighbours from Izkī/al-Adbī on p. 199 (fig. 389) do not, as stated, match the present authorʼs tomb L3-40 (ʻtype 7ʼ): the project sample revealed no evidence for the Samad assemblage. Unfortunately, some of the grave types reflect the state of preservation more than the original form.
Small errors throughout the volume can be taken as signs of haste in the desire to complete the work in a timely fashion. We do, however, congratulate the author on their speedy publication. Despite selective citing, this report is a welcome work on Oman's prehistory. It provides information where previously there was almost none and demonstrates that there are still new finds to be made in Oman.
