Arab. arch. epig.

2012: 23: 1–6 (2012)

Printed in Signgapore. All rights reserved

Pearl fishing in the ancient world: 7500 BP

The oldest pearl in the world was found in the United Arab Emirates and dates from Vincent Charpentier1, Carl S.
7500 BP. Gemmologists and jewellers have popularised the idea that the oldest pearl Phillips2 and Sophie Méry2
1
in the world is the 5000-year-old Jomon pearl from Japan. Discoveries made on the Inrap, UMR Archéologie et
shores of south-eastern Arabia show this to be untrue, as the archaeological pearls that Sciences de l’Antiquité, Maison
have been found are 2500 years older. In this region, pearls still hold an important de l’Archéologie et de
place. Indeed, today they remain a central, identifying element. The discovery of l’ethnologie R. Ginouvès, 92023
archaeological pearls demonstrates an ancient fishing tradition that no longer exists Nanterre Cedex — France
2
today. CNRS, UMR Archéologie et
Sciences de l’Antiquité, Maison
Keywords: pearl diving, Arabia, Neolithic de l’Archéologie et de
l’ethnologie R. Ginouvès, 92023
Nanterre Cedex— France
e-mail: vincent.charpentier@inrap.fr,
carl.phillips@mae.u-paris10.fr,
sophie.mery@mae.u-paris10.fr

Introduction At present the oldest pearl, dated to about 5000 BC,

Egypt, India and China have not yielded ancient pearls
and the oldest Mesopotamian example comes from Uruk
and dates to c.3200–3000 BC (Donkin 1998). Although
some orientalists consider pearls too fragile to survive in
the archaeological record, examples have been found in
south-eastern Arabia dating to the middle and late Neo-
lithic, i.e. sixth–fourth millennia BC. We believe that the
discovery of the presence of this type of object is directly
related to the methods of excavation used and the fine
sieving (or lack of it) of sediments.
In an inventory published in 2005 (Carter 2005), only
seven occurrences were listed from Neolithic Arabia, but
today 100 pearls have been documented (Table 1), partic-
ularly at Jebel al-Buhais and Akab (United Arab Emirates,
Fig. 1), with sixty-two and eighteen examples, respec-
tively.
Apart from Jebel al-Buhais 18, the only inland site
excavated so far, all of the pearls come from coastal sites
located in the Gulf and along the shores of the Sultanate of
Oman between Muscat and Suwayh. To date, pearls have
not been reported from sites along the shores of the Red
Sea or on the Arabian Sea coast between Yemen and Dho-
far where the abalone (Haliotis mariae) also produces
pearls.
comes from as-Sabiyah in Kuwait (6135 ± 50 BP for the
earliest remains at the site) (Carter & Crawford 2002).
New dates from the early levels of Umm al-Quwain 2
show that the pearl discovered in the cemetery there is
even older, dating to the mid-sixth millennium BC (see
below). This is the oldest archaeological pearl yet docu-
mented in Arabia and indeed in the world (Fig. 2). It is
evidence that this type of product was collected as early
as 5500 BC for its aesthetic value and possibly for ritual
reasons.
Umm al-Quwain UAQ2, the cemetery and the
settlement
As stated by Phillips (2002: 173); ‘Over the entire exca-
vated area of 50 square metres the stratigraphy was quite
uniform with up to four distinct shell layers with interven-
ing layers of sterile sand. Beneath the shell layers was a
more ash rich deposit which included a number of distinct
hearths. These were themselves distributed around a more
constricted area measuring two metres by four metres
where the human remains were concentrated.’ To this may
be added that the only hearth containing a dense concen-
tration of shells was related to skeleton 1, the last of the

1
V. CHARPENTIER ET AL

Table 1. Pearls of the sixth–fourth millennia BC discovered between Arabia and Mesopotamia.
Cemeteries Date (BC) Number of pearls References

Umm al-Quwain 2 (UAE) 5500–5400 1 Phillips 2002

Jebel al-Buhais 18 (UAE) 5200–4000 62 Kiesewetter, Uerpmann & Jasim 2000; de Beauclair 2008
Faya NE15 (UAE) 5th mill. 3 Kutterer & de Beauclair 2008
Suwayh 1 (Sultanate of Oman) 4200 1 Charpentier, Marquis & Pellé 2003
Ra’s al-Hamra 5 (Sultanate of Oman) 3700–3400 4 Salvatori 2007
Ra’s al-Hamra 10 (Sultanate of Oman) 3700–3400 2 Santini 1987
Settlements
As-Sabiyah (Koweit) 5000 1 Carter & Crawford 2002
Dosariyah (Saudi Arabia) 5000 10 Drechsler, forthcoming
Yarmouk (UAE) 4000 ? 1 Sharjah Museum
Akab Island (UAE) 4700–4100 18 Charpentier & Méry 2008; this paper
Suwayh 1 (Sultanate of Oman) 4200 BC 2 Méry & Charpentier 2009
Khor Milkh 1 (Sultanate of Oman) 3700–3500 1 Uerpmann & Uerpmann 2003
Ra’s al-Khabbah (Sultanate of Oman) 3700?–3300? 4 Cavulli & Scaruffi, forthcoming; Scaruffi 2004
Suwayh 2 (Sultanate of Oman) 3500 1 this paper

KUW
UW
UWEIT
As-Sabiyah
A
R
A
B
I
A

D
Dosariyah
N
G

U
L
F
Umm al-Quwain
Akab Faya
Yarmoukk
Jebel
e al
al-B
l-B
Buhais

U.A.E

Ra's al Hamra
INDIAN OCEAN
Khor Milkh

SULTANA
ANATE OF OMAN
> 50
> 15 Khabbah
> 3 Suwayh
> 0
Fig. 1.
A map showing the discoveries of pearls in Neolithic contexts in the Persian Gulf.

2

Fig. 2.
The pearl of Umm al-Quwain 2 graveyard (UAE) dated to 5500 BC.
It was found in association with skeleton/burial 4 (photo Ken Walton).
burials placed in this area. This hearth thus constitutes the
only concentration of ash and shells that is contemporary
with the burials and earlier in date than the overlying
shell-midden deposits.
Of the forty-two (MNI) burials excavated at UAQ 2, the
last three burials (skeletons 1–3) remained apparently
undisturbed while all previous burials were disturbed or
manipulated such that the original positions of only nine
burials in total were discernible. The relative stratigraphic
position of these burials was such that at least three sepa-
rate periods or episodes of burial could be determined
(2002: 174, fig. 3).
The pearl was recovered in association with skeleton/
burial 4 which dates to Phase II and is clearly earlier,
therefore, than skeleton/burial 1 which is contemporary
with the earliest ash and shell-filled hearth described
above. Skeleton/burial 4 was an adult male buried in a
loosely contracted position on its left side. Both arms were
flexed with the right hand positioned in front of the face
and the left hand placed beneath the chin. The body was
orientated south-east (head)–north-west (feet). In addition
to the pearl a bitumen bead was found in close proximity
to the right shoulder. The pearl was recovered during the
post-excavation removal of sand adhering to the skull.
In 2009, a section oriented west–east was clearly visible
at the top of the dune, about 25 m south-east of the ceme-
tery. Thirteen levels were identified, the accumulated
deposits over 1.5 m thick. Level 10, an ashy level about
PEARL FISHING IN THE ANCIENT WORLD
15 cm thick that corresponds to the ashy level cleared by
C. Phillips, was covered by two thick layers of shells and
layers of wind-blown sand. Three radiometric dates were
obtained from samples of Marcia hiantina (upper level,
L3), and Marcia hiantina and Murex (hexaplex) kuesteri-
anus (basal, ashy layer, L10).
The upper level dates to the fifth millennium BC (sam-
ple LOCEAN 165: 5677 ± 32 BP, or 4233–4031 BC with
a confidence interval of 2r). The lower level was dated to
the middle of the sixth millennium BC (sample LOCEAN
164: 6741 ± 30, or 5410–5235 BC with a confidence
interval of 2r; sample LOCEAN 166 gave 6555 ± 21, or
5547–5477 BC, with a confidence interval of 2r.1 The site
of Umm al-Quwain UAQ 2 is one of the rare sixth-millen-
nium sites near the Straits of Hormuz.
Origin, shapes and selection
All of the Neolithic pearls in Arabia come either from
Pinctada margaritifera, the large pearl oyster, or from
P. radiata, which is much smaller and easier to collect and
produces pearls of the highest quality. Often white, opaque
and matt because of their alteration, some pearls are
remarkably well preserved. This is due to the density of
the shells present in the archaeological levels, causing the
pH in the sand to decrease. This is the case for the pearls
of Umm al-Quwain, as-Sabiyah (Carter & Crawford 2010:
pl. 21) and especially Akab, which possess white, pink,
orange and brownish tones and have retained their original
lustre (Fig. 3). It is rare that Neolithic pearls are perfectly
spherical: they are more often irregularly round, pear-
shaped (drop) or button-shaped. Baroque pearls, whose
irregular shape is frequent in nature, are absent in the Neo-
lithic assemblages except at Akab and perhaps as-Sabiyah
(represented by three examples of the fifty-two pearls that
we have been able to observe).2 This rareness indicates
that fishermen selected pearls according to their shape,
i.e. they preferred those that were more or less spherical.
Old accounts of pearl fishing in Arabia provide little
1
Dates run by J.-F. Saliège, CNRS, UMR 7159, Laboratoire
LOCEAN, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris. As Umm
al-Quwain is located near the straits of Hormuz, the DR should
be situated between 210 and 163 (see Méry et al. 2009 for more
details about the calculation of the regional marine reservoir
effect).
2
According to R. Carter (personal communication), the as-Sabi-
yah pearl may originally have been round rather than baroque.
It has lost some of its outer layers, thus distorting its shape.
3
V. CHARPENTIER ET AL

Fig. 3.
Pearls from the island of Akab, 4700–4100 BC (Emirate of Umm al-Quwain, UAE). Eighteen pearls were found in habitation contexts. With the excep-
tion of one pearl found in sector 1, scraping 2, all of the pearls come from sector 4, scrapings 3–6. No pearls were found in the sanctuary at Akab (pho-
tos O. Brunet/Famuae).

information concerning the number and types of pearls

collected. Henri de Monfreid recounted going pearl fishing
in the Red Sea with four men for an entire day. This
yielded 1000 oysters which produced only twenty-seven
pearls, twenty of which were baroque and five of which
were round and the size of a pinhead (de Monfreid 1935:
44–45).

The status of pearls

The presence of pearls at many Neolithic sites confirms
that they were sought after not only in the Gulf but also on
the shore of the Indian Ocean (Sea of Oman and Arabian
Sea). Moreover, the mother-of-pearl of the oysters was an
important resource in the Neolithic economies of Arabia,
as fish-hooks for fishing a wide range of fish, including
the largest (tuna and sharks), were made from the large
shells of P. margaritifera (Beech 2007; Méry, Charpentier
& Beech 2008).
Of the 24,000 elements of jewellery belonging to 420
Fig. 4.
individuals buried in the fifth-millennium cemetery of A pearl deposited on the upper lip of an individual in the cemetery at
Jebel al-Buhais, there were only sixty-two pearls. At Umm Jebel Buhais, Emirate of Sharjah (UAE) (photo courtesy of Dr Adelina
al-Quwain UAQ 2 (MNI = 42) only one pearl was found. Kutterer, al-Buhais Project).
In the fourth millennium, four pearls were found among
the 220 individuals at Ra’s al-Hamra 5, and two among Pearls occupied a particular place in funeral rites. At
the thirty-two individuals at RH-10. Pearls are thus infre- Jebel al-Buhais 18, they were deposited on the face of the
quent, even rare, in Neolithic Arabian cemeteries (de deceased, especially above the upper lip; this was perhaps
Beauclair 2008; de Beauclair et al. 2006; Phillips 2002; the case at Suwayh 1 also (Fig. 4). Recent work indicates
Salvatori 2007). that at Jebel Buhais the semi-perforated pearls were

4
 PEARL FISHING IN THE ANCIENT WORLD

associated with men and the completely perforated pearls
with women (de Beauclair 2008). Also noticeable are
some examples of pearls assembled with stone beads in
bracelets. Various indications in the Persian Gulf, the Sea
of Oman and the Arabian Sea show that pearls were part
of individual adornments for the local populations, in the
context of primary burials. Like mother-of-pearl and shell
ornaments, pearls may have played a role in Persian Gulf
trade during the Neolithic, particularly between the Gulf
and Mesopotamia, a role that is repeatedly mentioned in
the archaeological literature, e.g. for Ubaid pottery (Oates
et al. 1977: 233; Uerpmann & Uerpmann 1996: 135; Phil-
lips 2002; Carter 2006: 60).
During the fourth millennium BC funerary practices
evolved, and pearls no longer appear near the face but near
the hands of the deceased. In tombs 37 and 86 at Ra’s
al-Hamra 5, a woman and a man each hold a perforated
pearl in their right hand (Salvatori 2007). Pearls thus
retained their importance in religious practices but were
part of ‘accompanying objects’, a description that may also
apply to the pearls deposited on the faces of the deceased.
Conclusion
Pearls are part of a Neolithic tradition that is rich in orna-
ments and included mother-of-pearl objects made of
P. margaritifera (‘buttons’ and pendants, especially leaf-
shaped ones). In the Gulf, cornelian beads deposited on the
faces of the dead played the same role as pearls in the fifth
millennium BC. The discoveries made on the coast of
south-eastern Arabia demonstrate that archaeological pearls
existed as early as 5500 BC. Is this status as the oldest
pearls known to humanity the most interesting aspect of this
discovery for archaeologists in Arabia? Compared to the
importance that these objects held for these early popula-
tions as an element of their cultural identity, it is not. Gath-
ered under difficult and dangerous conditions, pearls were
selected for their spherical shape. The status of these pearls
evolved over time as seen in various practices, but pearls
retained their importance long after the Neolithic.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the archaeological authorities of the Emirate
of Umm al Quwain, especially Ms Alyaa Mohamed al Ghafly
(Museum of Umm al Quwain) and HE Sheikh Khaled bin Humed al
Mualla (Department of Antiquities and Museums), as well as the
authorities of the Sultanate of Oman, especially Mrs Biubwa Ali Al
Sabri, Department of Excavations and Archaeological Studies, Minis-
try of Heritage and Culture. Thanks are also due to Dr J-F. Saliège
and Dr J. Demange (LOCEAN, CNRS) who produced the radiocarbon
dates; Dr A. Kutterer (Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäo-
logie des Mittelalters, Tübingen) for the photograph of Buhais 18; and
Philipp Drechsler (University of Tübingen) for his information on the
site of Dosariyah (Saudi Arabia).

References
Beauclair, R. de. 2008. La parure funéraire de
la nécropole néolithique d’al-Buhais 18
(Émirats Arabes Unis). Pages 39–52 in
Bailly, M. & Plisson, H. (eds.), La valeur
fonctionnelle des objets sépulcraux (Aix-
en-Provence, Préhistoire Anthropologie
méditerranéennes 14).
Beauclair, R. de, Jasim, S.A., Uerpmann, H-P.
& Uerpmann, M. 2006. New results on the
Neolithic jewellery from al-Buhais 18,
UAE. PSAS 36: 175–187.
Beech, M.J. 2007. The Late Stone Age of
south-eastern Arabia: New results from
excavations on Marawah island and
Umm az-Zamul, Abu Dhabi Emirate,
UAE. Pages 110–141 in Orchard, J. &
Orchard, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the
International Symposium — Archaeology
of the Arabian Peninsula Through the
Ages 7th–9th May 2006 (Muscat,
Monograph No. 134, Ministry of
Heritage and Culture).
Carter, R. 2005. The history and prehistory of
pearling in the Persian Gulf. JESHO 48/2:
139–209.
Carter, R. 2006. Boat remains and maritime
trade in the Persian Gulf during the sixth
and fifth millennia BC. Antiquity 80: 52–63.
Carter, R. & Crawford, H. 2002. The Kuwait-
British Archaeological Expedition to As-
Sabiyah: Report on the fourth season’s
work. Iraq 64: 1–13.
Carter, R. & Crawford, H. (eds.) 2010.
Maritime interactions in the Arabian
Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As Sabiyah,
an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait. Leiden/
Boston: Brill.
Cavulli, F. & Scaruffi, S. (forthcoming) . The
Middle Holocene settlement of KHB-1
(Ra’s al-Khabbah, Sultanate of Oman): An
overview. In Hommage à S. Cleuziou.
Paris: Presse de la Sorbonne.
Charpentier, V. & Méry, S. 2008. A Neolithic
settlement near the Strait of Hormuz: Akab
Island, United Arab Emirates. PSAS 38:
83–102.
Charpentier, V., Marquis, P. & Pellé, E. 2003.
La nécropole et les derniers horizons
Vème millénaire du site de Gorbat
al-Mahar (Suwayh SWY-1, Sultanat
d’Oman): Premiers résultats. PSAS 33:
11–19.
Donkin, R.A. 1998. Beyond price: Pearls and
pearl-fishing, origins to the Age of
Discoveries. Philadelphia: Memoirs of the
American Philosophical Society 224.
Dreschler, P. (forthcoming) . Re-excavating
Dosariyah: Report on the second campaign
in the field. Atlal.
Kiesewetter, H., Uerpmann, H-P. & Jasim, A.
S. 2000. Neolithic jewellery from Jebel-al
Buhais 18. PSAS 30: 137–146.
Kutterer, A. & Beauclair, R. de. 2008. FAY-
NE15. Another Neolithic graveyard in the
Central Region of the Sharjah Emirate?
AAE 19: 133–142.

5
V. CHARPENTIER ET AL
Méry, S. & Charpentier, V. 2009. Rites
funéraires du Néolithique et de l’Age
du bronze ancien en Arabie orientale.
Pages 11–40 in Guilaine, J. (ed.), Du
Néolithique à l’Histoire: Sépultures et
sociétés (Paris, Séminaires du Collège
de France).
Méry, S., Charpentier, V. & Beech, M. 2008.
First evidence of shell fishhook technology
in the Gulf. AAE 19: 15–21.
Méry, S., Charpentier, V., Auxiette, G. & Pellé,
E. 2009. A dugong bone mound: The
Neolithic ritual site on Akab in Umm al-
Quwain, United Arab Emirates. Antiquity
83: 696–708.
Monfreid, H. de. 1935. L’île aux perles. Paris:
Grasset.
Oates, J., Davidson, T.E., Kamilli, D. &
McKerrel, H. 1977. Seafaring merchants
of Ur? Antiquity 51: 221–234.
Phillips, C.S. 2002. Prehistoric middens
and a cemetery from the southern
Arabian Gulf. Pages 169–186 in
Cleuziou, S., Tosi, M. & Zarins J.
(eds.), Essays on the late prehistory of
the Arabian Peninsula (Rome, Serie
orientale 93).
Salvatori, S. 2007. The prehistoric graveyard
of Ra’s al-Hamra 5, Muscat, Sultanate of
Oman. JOS 14: 5–202.
Santini, G. 1987. Site RH-10 at Qurum and a
preliminary analysis of its cemetery: An
essay in stratigraphic discontinuity. PSAS
17: 179–198.
Scaruffi, S. 2004. Il popolamento Medio
Olocenico nelle regioni orientali del
Sultanato dell’Oman. Unpublished thesis,
University of Bologna ‘Alma Mater
Studiorom’, Faculty of Letters and
Philosophy.
Uerpmann, H-P. & Uerpmann, M. 1996.
‘Ubaid pottery in the eastern Gulf: new
evidence from Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.)
AAE 7: 125–139.
Uerpmann, H-P. & Uerpmann, M. 2003. Stone
Age sites and their natural environment,
the Capital Area of northern Oman. Part
III. (Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients,
Beihefte 31/3, Reihe A.) Wiesbaden:
Reichert.