1Only some 50 years old, the archaeology of the Sultanate of Oman continues to flower in surprising ways. Shortly before his death in 2017, the archaeological advisor to the Ministry of Heritage and Culture, Maurizio Tosi, encouraged archaeologists working in the country to publish their results in a way appealing to both popular and scientific audiences. Such was to be of international format with good book production standards, full colour and with an excellent content. Other books in this same series deal with the history of early metal production and trade of the ancient land of Magan/Makan, named as a source of copper imported to Mesopotamia in cuneiform texts of the 3^rd and early 2^nd millennia BCE. Yet another focusses on the earliest archaeological findings in Oman and on the archaeology of Oman’s southern province, Ẓufār. Other topics almost reached fruition in this series before Tosi’s untimely death. The book under review is the second edition of that which appeared in 2017 in the Sultanate.

2Until the 1990s the publication of archaeological results on Oman was anarchic from the point of view of authors and the supporting institutions. The founding of a few organs, especially the serials Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies (1971), Journal of Oman Studies (1975), Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy (1990) and a few others set the groundwork for an Anglification of publication. Archaeological standards range from hobby archaeologists and travellers of all sorts to specialist professionals, who “adopt” sites for years, study and publish them intensively and extensively. To the latter count the editor-authors, Guillaume Gernez and Jessica Giraud, of the volume under review. Both have proven their skills in the international archaeological parquet on various archaeological topics in addition to those regarding Oman. Several archaeologists fled from war-torn other countries ad hoc to the politically stable Sultanate in order to conduct their research. Others had the advantage to deepen their professional skills in this archaeology-friendly country over a longer period. Both of the authors are former students of that heavyweight archaeologist, Serge Cleuziou (1945-2009) from the University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne—a main figure in the archaeology of Arabia and Iran. In this fast-developing area of archaeology, notions may drift apart about archaeological and publication standards, which professionals from abroad compete to raise. Available publication organs have expanded capacity to accommodate the growing number of authors. But, should a given author publish in a language other than English she or he runs the risk of being rarely quoted or misquoted for a lack of language competence (for example, Eckstein et al. 1987 or Weisgerber 1980).

3Taming the great desert reports on the activities of the Parisian interdisciplinary team in Adam with their ten winter campaigns from 2006 to 2017 (p. 1-5). Excavation at Adam continued to 2018, the final season which is not included in the book. French and Italian colleagues cooperated annually since 1986 at the archaeological Joint Hadd Project, of which the Adam project began as an offshoot. The Adam team consisted of several competent specialists, was adequately financed and had a long time-window, all necessary to achieve significant results. One might cavil that the firm hand of a native speaking English editor would have been useful, but the writing style is understandable. The first two maps of Oman (fig. 1.1 and 1.5) could easily be combined into a single one. Likewise, it would have been desirable to have a map of the various archaeological sites of Adam from the outset (including Muḍmār East) and not as fig. 6.1 on page 50 in the middle of the book. The image captions would have profited from more thorough editing to make them independent of the text, which minimises the amount of searching for understanding the relevance of a given published image.

4Archaeological reports such as that under review must be viewed in the context of the publication strategy for a given site. This book is not the preliminary report of the Adam sites, several of which appeared annually in soft or printed form (for the ample site publication, see the author’s Academia pages). Nor is it the final report. Throughout the authors refer to their GIS system, the results of which are to appear in the final report. This book is a report of the considerable results of a team that surveyed some 3,000 km² and registered 30 sites (p. 5). Nowadays archaeologists tend to publish find notices and preliminary reports instead of more synthetic studies. The reason lies in the finance structure for such research undertakings, which values more numerous site publications to fewer in-depth ones. International professional conferences and workshops nowadays also focus on site reports which are what most authors have to offer.

5The chapter structure moves from an introduction in diachronic fashion from the Palaeolithic to the subrecent. Gernez summarises in the final chapter. The chapters are well-organised to succinctly cover the main lines of this field project. The two author-editors selected larger, high-quality photos instead of more numerous smaller ones. They cite other relevant works according to their content and not first according to the author’s nationality; archaeologists of Arabia tend to cite first the works of their countrymen. This book has image credits in the captions, a (Spartan) bibliography and a useful index at the end as well. Presumably, the Ministry of National Heritage imposed a length limit which explains why all four volumes in the series are of similar length.

6The study group invested heavily in geographic methods to contextualise the different sites and results in GIS and in maps. They conducted the archaeological survey in different ways. There is no archaeological hidden agenda, and the different periods all are dealt with. Nowadays the use of a hand-held GPS receiver supplied the site positions which drastically improved mapping results since about 1995, from whence the first GPS in Oman was usable. The team conducted several excavations at Ǧ. al-Aluya, Adam North, Adam South and Muḍmār East (p. 13). Specialists in the team focussed on different kinds of materials which include prehistoric metalwork (Gernez), Palaeolithic materials (S. Bonilauri and A. Beshkani), Neolithic materials (M. Lemée), beads (J. Kenoyer and D. Frenez), soft stone vessels (C. Guitard), human bones (Y. Prouin, M. Cervel and E. Germain), animal bones (D. Decruyenaere), metallurgy (J. Goy), pottery (M. Jean and A. Benoist), geomorphology (T. Beuzen-Waller).

7The report replicates the climate conforming to the various available sources with a pluvial early mid-Holocene period, to a pluvial interlude during the Bronze Age, on to the Early Iron Age (EIA) arid conditions as we now know them (p. 19, fig. 2.5). The climate effectively conditions the population growth with exceptions. At the chronological lower end of the time scale the data are fewer; for the EIA falaǧ irrigation facilitated a population increase (p. 24).

8The archaeological sequence begins with the Lower Palaeolithic and proceeds to the Middle Palaeolithic Levallois industry. The Neolithic in the southeast part of Arabia is completely different from that of Mesopotamia (p. 33). Fortunately, this archaeological find zone in Adam is endowed with the otherwise rare in southeast Arabia Late Neolithic occupation (5300-3300 BCE) which is defined by the onset of a new lithic plunging technique and more importantly by the diversification of funerary practices and crafts (p. 33). The documentation and treatment of the lithics are important and rendered in some detail (p. 39-42).

9“Cairn and tower tombs” of the Ḥafīt period (“3200-2700”) survived in a larger number and 750 were mapped (43). Cleuziou and Tosi termed this period “the great transformation” (2007: 63). The authors recognise the scientific value of the excavation of such tombs and through several cemeteries at Adam nicely update the discussion regarding the number of interred in a given tomb. In the central part of Oman, most of the data regarding this period derive from Ra’s al-Ḥadd and Ḍank (p. 43 including bibliography). The authors’ chronology for this and other periods jibes roughly with the recent serious attempt of Thornton et al. (2016: 3, table 1.1 “3100-2900”). Tombs were positioned to be conspicuous at some distance (p. 47), perhaps to mark territory, and sometimes they seem highly visibly to be strung along ancient dirt paths.

10Excavation included well-documented Umm an-Nar, Wadi Suq and Late Iron Age (LIA) burial structures. The authors have a simple classification of grave/tomb types (p. 59-61) expanding the reviewer’s typology for funerary architecture in the southeast part of Arabia (Yule 2001: 27-45) but also that of Saunders et al. (2016: 8-14). The LIA re-use of earlier burials is often thematised in southeast Arabian archaeology also here. Unfortunately, human osteal remains from Umm an-Nar communal burials are few and badly preserved. The Wadi Suq burial in Adam South, tomb 2001 (p. 63, fig. 6.18) finds a close match in the Samad burial ground (Yule 2001: table 601, grave S101040) for which dating evidence is thin. The Adam cemeteries are nicely mapped (e.g., p. 64, fig. 6.19; p. 66, fig. 6.22), which can be compared with others (e.g., Samad cemetery S21 which consists largely of randomly positioned Wadi Suq burials; Yule 2001: table 603). During this period, the orientation of the grave chamber seems to vary from cemetery to cemetery and also within a given cemetery (see p. 66, fig. 6-22; Yule and Mauro 2019: 5, fig. 9, cemetery plan of the Wadi Suq al-Berain cemetery). The Wadi Suq grave architecture of this period resembles that excavated in the Samad al-Ša’n area (Yule 2001, table p. 444-450) and possibly at ‘Amlā’/Qorin al-Saḥḥaimah (Yule 2001: table 466 above).

11At Adam Early and Late Iron Age tombs rarely appear as their own architecture, but rather appear as re-used older tombs. The authors describe the LIA graves as “taller” which seems to mean that the burial lies above the surface level for reasons not described (p. 74). Such graves contain iron weapons, in the case of interred males (such as p. 78, fig 6-36). The nice golden earring, excavated from the LIA grave 1002 (p. 79, fig. 6.37) may date to the EIA (see Genchi et al. 2018: 108, fig. 7h from Dibba tomb LCG2) in Musandam.

12The most striking find of this mission is the recovery of miniature and full-size weapons of EIA date in the “columned building of the archers” in room 3036 of building 1 of Muḍmār East. The associated contexts here are important since in the central part of Oman few substantive buildings have survived. This one is well-dated by different materials. More importantly, the weapons which it housed evoke an interpretation of a cultic use (p. 81-99). The full-sized weapons are characteristic of the EIA (see the A6 class shaft-hole axe shown p. 93, fig. 7.10 with ones from the ‘Uqdat al-Bakrah workshops in Yule 2018: pl. 3.88-91). Certain kinds of copper finds including miniature quivers, arrows, bows, bow strings and a copper snake (p. 90-5, fig. 7.7-12) suggest a cultic use according to A. Benoist who has written several articles which feature the snake cult in EIA Southeast Arabia. The stratigraphic excavation is particularly impressive (p. 88 and the relevant images). The 623 pottery sherds in building 1 date it to the EIA II phase (p. 95-99).

13During the LIA a population seems to have re-used building 1 and “very few materials” including two imported Abi‘el silver tetradrachms came to light in situ (p. 99-100, fig. 7.15). A third (which indicates an occupation around the 2^nd to 1^st centuries BCE) came to light in the central part of Oman in al-Neǧd, a settlement of the Samad period (for this dating: Yule 2016: 58-9, fig. 19). These coins are the earliest datable finds of the period and add evidence for its unsupported upper terminus. The occurrence of the coins in building 1 does not provide clear evidence for trade routes from central Oman to the sites of Préislamique récent in the north as stated on page 100.

14J. Charbonnier added his thorough observations of the traditional sundial timing for water distribution from the falaǧ into the gardens at Adam/al-Māleh. Although he states that star gazing no longer is in use at Adam to allot water to a given garden channel, the considerable literature over the years on this fading technology could have been mentioned in the text at least honoris causa (e.g., Nash 2011).

15The excavators mention first as a result of their 10-year period of research the rendering of a comprehensive archaeological map of the find zone (p. 114). They are not responsible that they worked on sites sometimes with excellent preservation, which are becoming rare, but are so for their excellent investigative strategy and methods and which yielded much new information. In terms of its originality and high-quality visual material, the present volume is successful in maintaining and even raising the publication standard regarding the archaeology of Southeast Arabia.