Excavations, Surveys and Heritage: Essays on Southwest Asian Archaeology in Honour of Zeidan Kafafi 3963272228, 9783963272226

Citation preview

marru 7 Excavations, Surveys and Heritage

Excavations, Surveys and Heritage Essays on Southwest Asian Archaeology in Honour of Zeidan Kafafi

Edited by Susanne Kerner, Omar al-Ghul and Hani Hayajneh

www.zaphon.de

marru 7 Zaphon

marru-7-FS-Kafafi-Cover.indd 1

18.10.2023 11:20:25

Excavations, Surveys and Heritage Essays on Southwest Asian Archaeology in Honour of Zeidan Kafafi

Edited by Susanne Kerner, Omar al-Ghul and Hani Hayajneh

marru Studien zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Studies in Near and Middle Eastern Archaeology

Band 7 Herausgegeben von Ellen Rehm und Dirk Wicke

Excavations, Surveys and Heritage Essays on Southwest Asian Archaeology in Honour of Zeidan Kafafi

Edited by Susanne Kerner, Omar al-Ghul and Hani Hayajneh

Zaphon Münster 2023

Illustration on the cover: Tell Damiyah 2015 (Photo: Excavation archive, Yousef Zu‘bi).

Excavations, Surveys and Heritage. Essays on Southwest Asian Archaeology in Honour of Zeidan Kafafi Edited by Susanne Kerner, Omar al-Ghul and Hani Hayajneh marru 7

© 2023 Zaphon, Enkingweg 36, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. Printed in Germany. Printed on acid-free paper.

ISBN 978-3-96327-222-6 (Buch) ISBN 978-3-96327-223-3 (E-Book) ISSN 2569-5851

Table of Contents Prince Hassan bin Talal Zeidan Kafafi, a Laudation ............................................................................... VII Hani Hayajneh, Omar al-Ghul and Susanne Kerner An Appreciation and Introduction ..................................................................... IX Hans J. Nissen and Khair Yassine Zeidan Kafafi, an Appreciation........................................................................XIX Hans-Dieter Bienert and Ingrid Liedgens Professor Dr. Zeidan Kafafi – a Distinguished Scholar and Friend .................XXI Carol Palmer Prof. Dr Zeidan Kafafi – Time and Place, in Conversation .......................... XXIII Fabio Parenti and Gaetano Palumbo The Upper Zarqa Valley and its Relevance for Levantine Prehistory .................. 1 Maysoon Al Nahar ‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 Season: Preliminary Report .................................................. 13 Hans Georg K. Gebel The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area: The Early 1980’s Research History ... 29 Bill Finlayson Religion and Ritual in Early Neolithic Jordan .................................................... 53 Gary O. Rollefson The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert, North-Western Arabian Peninsula .............. 67 Karin Bartl Neolithic Developments in Syria ........................................................................ 83 Eric Coqueugniot Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan) – Axes, Adzes, Scissors, Picks …: Woodcutters’ and Carpenters’ Tools, or Agricultural Implements? 109 Moawiyah M. Ibrahim Chalcolithic Sahab: A Village Farming Community between Highland and Desert ......................................................................................................... 127

VI

Table of Contents

Susanne Kerner Ledge Handles, their Development and Potential for Interpretation ................ 147 Lorenzo Nigro Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan ...................................... 161 Jens Kamlah Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts: Two Unique Tell el-Yehudiyeh Vessels from Tell el-Burak (Lebanon) ............................... 197 Gerrit van der Kooij Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple? ...................................................... 217 Margreet L. Steiner The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla: A Reassessment ........................... 233 Katharina Schmidt The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel ‫ﺟﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻌﺔ‬ (Jabal Al-Qalʽa) ................................................................................................ 249 Lucas P. Petit Crossing the Jordan River: The Historiography of the Damiyah Bridges ........ 273 Reinhard Bernbeck Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures: The Case of Abu Snesleh .. 289 Barbara A. Porter Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage over 50 Years ............ 309 Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari ‫ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺩﻏﻠﺲ ﻭﻧﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺭﻱ‬: Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture – 2500–2000 BCE in the Northern Oman Peninsula ........................... 335

Zeidan Kafafi, a Laudation His Royal Highness Prince Hassan bin Talal

Though it is impossible to give proper due to Dr. Kafafi’s immense contributions to Jordanian Archaeology in a text as short as this one, there is no doubt that Zeidan has played an instrumental role in shaping, advancing, and consolidating the field.

Figure 1: His Royal Highness Prince Hassan (right) with Zeidan Kafafi (left) and several members of Yarmuk University in the middle.

Zeidan’s commitment to the field is arguably best encapsulated in his lifelong work with the Archaeology Department at the al-Yarmouk University, where his dedication to his students and his colleagues has had a lifelong impact beyond the strict confines of the teaching of a discipline. His principled leadership of each Department, the wider University, the Queen Rania Institute for Heritage and

VIII

His Royal Highness Prince Hassan bin Talal

Tourism, and the Jordan Museum has also meant the burgeoning of centres of excellence whose reach and contributions have practically been unbounded. Dr. Kafafi is – no doubt – well regarded for the innumerable, significant excavations carried out under his directorship. Some, however, would consider his excavation of the Neolithic site of ‘Ain Ghazal as one of his most significant contributions not only to the field but to Mankind. The excavation, carried out both carefully and very thoroughly, uncovered, after all, the remarkable ingenuity of a people long gone whose history has held for us all countless lessons. No stranger to thought nor hard work nor virtue, Zeidan embodies the best of what the field has to offer. Future generations of archaeologists have much to live up to.

An Appreciation and Introduction Hani Hayajneh, Omar al-Ghul and Susanne Kerner

Writing the introduction for this honorary volume dedicated to Professor Zeidan Kafafi may frankly seem pointless, at least as far as the laureate is concerned, because who involved in the archaeology of Jordan and its vicinities doesn’t know Zeidan Kafafi? However, we were nonetheless resolved to do so, and this with much pleasure and gratitude. This Festschrift is a tribute to our colleague and friend in appreciation for his lifelong commitment and contribution to the field of Near Eastern archaeology and in particular that of Jordan. Professor Kafafi’s work has been published in several languages, whilst his public lectures and teachings in Jordan, Europe, the United States and other parts of the world have earned him a reputation as a leading authority in his own right on the ancient Near Eastern cultural history.

Figure 1: Zeidan Kafafi as a lecturer at the 2000 Symposium in Honour of Hans J. Nissen.

Professor Kafafi is a man of many facets and preternatural abilities. He is an indefatigable researcher, a facile writer, an energetic lecturer (Fig. 1), and a wise administrator. He has worked with countless students in key research projects,

X

Hani Hayajneh, Omar al-Ghul and Susanne Kerner

published co-authored articles in the finest journals, and in doing so has been responsible for the launching of hosts of successful academic careers. His inclusive research approach is a reflection of his own values and intellectual interests. In addition to his contributions to archaeology, cultural history, and related disciplines, Professor Kafafi is internationally recognised for his remarkable expertise in archaeological excavations (Fig. 2), which in their own turn have led to the disclosure of essential and unprecedented aspects of former cultures in the Middle East. Particularly noteworthy are his wholehearted engagements with various journals, professional associations, and learned societies in the social sciences.

Figure 2: Zeidan Kafafi in one of his typical postures – showing an archaeological site (here Abu Hamid) to visitors.

In addition to supervising numerous students all the way to their MA and PhD degrees, he has also substantially contributed to their academic careers beyond that. He is well-known for his enthusiasm, wisdom, and generosity when it comes to supporting colleagues (Fig. 3), both individually or in groups, be they at junior or senior levels. In addition to this unrestrained support to the students and faculty

An Appreciation and Introduction

XI

members at Yarmouk University, Zeidan Kafafi moreover has been a tireless colleague and mentor who gladly reads and comments on work and who also encourages up-and-comers wherever they arise. Zeidan tends to seek them out after conferences and workshops and offer his observations and feedback. The essays presented in this volume all share the same recognition for this exceptional spirit whose work will continue to reverberate for yet some time to come.

Figure 3: Zeidan Kafafi in another typical situation – visiting a site with colleagues (ca. 2008).

We, the three editors, got to know Zeidan Kafafi between 1976 and 1988. So for very much of our respective careers, our existence and research have been linked to Zeidan in many different ways. The introduction here may therefore be an occasion to elaborate on this. When the idea for the honorary volume sprang up, the first issue we were facing was to keep to a manageable level the number of contributors so as to maintain the objective of carrying the project through to the printed product within a set time limit. This meant that we had to restrict the number of contributors to those who either have had direct working contact with Zeidan over long periods of time (as in the case of the directors of the foreign institutes) or who had worked together with him in excavation projects. This regrettably counts out innumerable other friends and colleagues who certainly would have been eager to contribute to this volume, and to whom we have to apologise.

XII

Hani Hayajneh, Omar al-Ghul and Susanne Kerner

We all the same managed to gather a wide array of papers treating topics from the Palaeolithic in the Zarqa Valley to Ottoman bridges in the Jordan Valley as well as covering vast regions between Syria and Oman. This broad scope of topics not only stands as a reflection of the archaeological variety of Jordan as a whole, but more importantly epitomises Zeidan Kafafi’s extensive range of competencies while explaining his position as co-director in a number of these projects. The book begins with an appreciation by his Royal Highness Prince Hassan, which is followed by this introduction and two more acknowledgements. One is by Khair Yassine and Hans Jörg Nissen, his early teachers, the other by HansDieter Bienert, a former director of the GPI, and Ingrid Liedgens, a long-time cultural attaché at the German embassy with whom we had many happy visits to archaeological sites. The first paper is by Carol Palmer and is an interview with Professor Kafafi about his life curriculum. It gives a very lively impression of his life and career, while also disclosing specific information about the developments of archaeological research in Jordan. The following seven contributions all discuss subjects pertaining to the Palaeolithic or the Neolithic in South-western Asia, thus highlighting one of Kafafi’s main fields of interest. Fabio Parenti and Gaetano Palumbo’s paper on the Lower Palaeolithic and Oldowean finds in The Upper Zarqa Valley sheds light on Jordan’s yet little-known earliest human prehistory. It is followed by the first of the contributions on the Neolithic, Maysoon Nahar’s ‘Ayn Ghazal report on the 2020 season findings from the site’s new excavations, which was originally one of Kafafi’s largest projects. These excavations will hopefully ensure that this magnificent site is preserved for future generations. Hans-Georg K. Gebel’s discussion of The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area presents an overview of the area’s history of research and his own work at Ba‘ja in connection with the regional development and palaeo-environmental studies. In Religion and Ritual in Early Neolithic Jordan Bill Finlayson discusses belief systems that began in the Natufian and become more visible in the communal buildings of the PPNA and eventually turn manifest in PPNB contexts. The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert, NorthWestern Arabian Peninsula by Gary Rollefson shows the influence from the Levantine PPNB on this area and in particular discusses the Neolithic rock art. The Neolithic chapters are closed by an overview of the Neolithic Developments in Syria by Karin Bartl. She not only gives an outline of the region’s history of research, its geographical conditions and chronological development, but furthermore presents a concise overview of Syria’s Late Natufian to Late Pottery Neolithic sites. The next four chapters focus on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, another focal point of Kafafi’s research activities. He was the co-director of the excavation at Abu Hamid, and thus Eric Coqueugniot opens this section with his

An Appreciation and Introduction

XIII

discussion on the Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan). The axes, adzes, scissors, picks, and other tools found there are considered in terms of raw material and production as well as function. This is followed by a presentation from another project in which Kafafi participated, namely Chalcolithic Sahab. A Village Farming Community between Highland and Desert, by Moawiyah Ibrahim who inspects the chronological setting of the Chalcolithic cave dwellings and burials. The next chapter by Susanne Kerner examines Ledge Handles and their chronology, including the research history and methodological thoughts as well as examples from Abu Snesleh and Murayghat. This part closes with Lorenzo Nigro’s Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan which summarises the evidence from the EBA I to the EBA II/III and includes an overview of many settlements in Jordan from that timespan, as well as discusses the characteristics of urbanism. The fourth part of the volume which again consists of four chapters, but this time relating to a period between the Middle Bronze Age and the Iron Age, goes back to some of Zeidan Kafafi’s earliest archaeological activities. Jens Kamlah, who was part of the original Khirbet ez-Zeraqun team (led by Siegfried Mittmann, Moawiyah Ibrahim and Zeidan Kafafi), writes about the Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts from his excavations at Tell el-Burak. These Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels are known from many sites in Egypt, the Levant, and Cyprus and stand in a long line of meaningful bird depictions. Two contributions are dedicated to the large site at Deir ‘Alla, where for many years Kafafi was a team member and co-director. Gerrit van der Kooij writes about Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple?, which was cleared during the newer excavations. Margreth Steiner by contrast discusses the The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla: a Reassessment, a building excavated during the earlier part of the project. In The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel Katharina Schmidt reflects on the historical development of an archaeological site that once served as Zeidan’s playground on Jebel Qala’ where he grew up as a child (see Palmer this volume). The final group of articles refer to Zeidan Kafafi’s interest in historical archaeology and heritage matters and also to his time in the Arabian Peninsula. Tell Damiyah is another of Zeidan Kafafi’s many joint projects. Lucas Petit examines in his paper Crossing the Jordan River. The history of the Damiyah bridge the long tradition of bridges (from Mamluk to very recent times) at this important crossing point. Reinhard Bernbeck, one of the co-directors of the Abu Snesleh project, discusses matters of change and definitions of heritage in his contribution titled Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures: The Case of Abu Snesleh. The existence of an Anthropocene and its effect on landscape and people is discussed with the example of Abu Snesleh and its hyperobjects. The next article by Barbara Porter offers Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage over 50 Years. She emphasises the diverse aspects of ACOR’s work and discusses in

XIV

Hani Hayajneh, Omar al-Ghul and Susanne Kerner

detail some of its most important projects. The last article of the volume is by Khalid Douglas and has the heading Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm anNar Culture – 2500–2000 BCE in the Northern Oman Peninsula. Many of the recently excavated sites are discussed here in Arabic. I (HH) met Zeidan 33 years ago when I arrived at the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Yarmouk University. I have known him since the time I was a graduate student in 1988 and then as a colleague since 1998. Back then he was a faculty member at the Department of Archaeology. I have always admired his energy and enthusiasm to learn, teach, research, and reach out to others through engagement projects, giving of himself unconditionally. Having just taken a bachelor degree in Arabic language and literature and seeking to explore the historical roots of the Arabian languages within their historical and archaeological contexts, it was of great importance to me to get acquainted with his publications and studies on the Bronze and Iron Ages of the Levant and Arabia. I therefore came to know Zeidan through his publications in the late 1980s when I was working on my master’s degree at the Department of Epigraphy under the late professor George Mendenhall (University of Michigan) who had been appointed as emeritus professor at Yarmouk University. I was thoroughly impressed by Zeidan’s scholarly depth and left with a fresh aspiration to excel and better understand the cultural history of the Levant, which subsequently paved my way for drawing a historical model for the root of the Arabian languages in the Levant influenced by Mendenhall’s school. As a colleague, what I recall most about Zeidan was his attention not only to the program elements of research and educational content, faculty, students and staff, but also to the personal aspects of how people work together productively to build and maintain high quality scholarly expertise. I (OG) joined the University of Jordan in 1976. Since the university did not offer a program in Semitic languages, I enrolled at the Department of Arabic Language and Literature. In my second year, I noticed two small rooms on the ground floor of the Faculty of Arts building where some archaeological objects were displayed. The young man responsible for the collection noticed my interest and offered more information and introduced himself as Zeidan Kafafi. Five years later I was a graduate student at the Department of Arabic Language at Yarmouk University and still aspiring to study Semitic languages. Towards the end of 1983 I applied at the DAAD for a scholarship, though I had little hope of getting it then because I only held a BA degree. However, four months later, a costudent told me that Dr. Zeidan Kafafi from the Department of Humanities was looking for me. When I went to see him he broke the marvellous news that I had been awarded the scholarship and that I would be able to continue my studies in Germany. This determined my following career.

An Appreciation and Introduction

XV

In spring 1986, The Third Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan was held at Tübingen University where I was studying in the meantime. Many Jordanian scholars took part in that prominent meeting, among them also Zeidan Kafafi. During the conference we had several occasions to meet and to establish closer contact. Later that year, Zeidan was awarded a DAAD scholarship to conduct research at Tübingen University. Together with his family, he spent the summer there. This was when he started a certain “tradition”. He was writing a lengthy article for the “Palestinian Encyclopaedia”, and when he finished it, he gave it to me to add my comments and copy-edit it. Since then, I enjoyed reading almost all his manuscripts before publication and had the privilege if not duty to leave my thoughts. In 1991, I graduated from Tübingen University, and came back to work at the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at Yarmouk University. Zeidan had just been appointed as the institute’s director, which thus opened a new chapter in our relationship. I was close to him in the administration and became involved with several responsibilities mainly related to the institute’s library and its publications. This went on for some thirty years during which many events took place that are worth reporting. However, I would like to point out but two incidents owing to their special impact on my career. The first was in 2004, when a Dutch archaeological team expressed its wish to Zeidan to work with him in the Jordan Valley. He had to turn them down, since he was engaged with other duties, so instead he mentioned my name. The co-direction of the Settling the Steppe project was the first and only time in which I had the chance to co-direct an archaeological field mission. The second occasion was in 2018, shortly after he had taken up his position as president of Yarmouk University. He appointed me as director of the university’s library. I accepted with pleasure and enthusiasm because of my special interest for libraries. In the last four years, I tried to bring into the Yarmouk University Library everything I had missed in it before, such as better services and organisation and – especially close to my heart – a rich cultural program. For these two opportunities I am deeply indebted to Zeidan. Zeidan has now retired from his duties at university, but is by no means idle! Over the last two years, he has been busy writing on a plethora of subjects within archaeology and cultural heritage. Before sending his manuscripts to the publishers, he usually hands them to me. The ensuing discussions on their subject matters are a real joy. What had begun forty-five years ago as a casual meeting in the archaeological collection of the University of Jordan became a lifelong friendship!

XVI

Hani Hayajneh, Omar al-Ghul and Susanne Kerner

Figure 4: Zeidan Kafafi in the garden of the Institute for Near Eastern Archaeology in Dahlem (with others students and employees, 1980).

I (SK) got to know Zeidan Kafafi in 1980, shortly after I had begun studying archaeology at the Institute for Near Eastern Archaeology in Berlin (Fig. 4). While he was writing his PhD thesis, I was in my first semester, and therefore we never attended the same seminars. But as usual in such small institutes, one meets over lunch and in the library. It also helped that we both had a boisterous laughter which widely reverberated through the entire building. Margret Nissen, the wife of Hans Jörg Nissen who was the doctoral supervisor for both of us (at different times), once commented that if we tried we would probably succeed in bringing down the roof. My memories of the young doctoral candidate include shopping trips together with other friends to help him choose his groom outfit after Fayzeh had entered his life. She mastered her visits to Berlin and her new fiancé with remarkable aplomb, and I have since then learnt to admire her determination and strength as much as his. If indeed it may be true that Zeidan’s mother did try her hand in matchmaking - she knew her son well - Fayzeh and Zeidan Kafafi make the happiest and best-matched couple that can be (Fig. 5). But back to Berlin to the episode of Zeidan’s PhD banquet, which was my first genuine experience with Jordanian food and art of receiving, in those days a highly exceptional event to most of us. I clearly recall a lavishly prepared feast, including a roast calf on a spit. Zeidan Kafafi left Germany to go back to Jordan, and life at the Berlin institute took its course, until my appointment at the GPI in Amman in 1988.

An Appreciation and Introduction

XVII

There I learned to value Jordan as my second home, whilst Yarmuk University played among other institutions and people a key role in this. Thanks to Moawiyah Ibrahim, Omar Ghul, Fawwaz al-Khreyshah, and of course Zeidan Kafafi, it was practically the only place in Jordan, where I could speak German with friends. A tradition, which is continued with my two co-editors. Having arrived in Jordan, I planned together with three co-students from Berlin to start a small excavation. We asked Zeidan Kafafi for suggestions and following them, began work at Abu Snesleh (or Abu Sunaysilah as spelt today), which sent me off into Chalcolithic research (and my colleagues Reinhard Bernbeck, Gunnar Lehmann and Roland Lamprichs to archaeological work in Jordan and several other countries in the region). Since then I have been involved in several other projects in Jordan, of which some were still due to Zeidan’s suggestions. Though our jobs and positions have changed over the years, Zeidan has always remained a good colleague and together with his entire family a wonderful friend.

Figure 5: Zeidan and Fayez Kafafi with Omar Ghul, Amal Bseiso, Susanne Kerner, Maximilian Holström, Qais Kafafi, Sara Kafafi and son.

Acknowledgment We would like to thank the Ernst-Reuter-Gesellschaft der Freunde, Förderer und Ehemaligen der Freien Universität Berlin e. V. and the German Embassy in Amman (cultural department) as well as the University of Copenhagen for the financial support for producing this book. Many thanks are due also to Kai Metzler from the Zaphon publishing company, as well as Dirk Wicke and Ellen Rehm, the editors of the Marru series, for accepting this volume in their series. Paul Larsen, who also has known Dr Kafafi for many years has copy-edited the volume to his

XVIII

Hani Hayajneh, Omar al-Ghul and Susanne Kerner

usual impeccable standards. I (SK) would like to thank my (current and former) students Salwa Yasmina Amzourou, Ken Cortzo, Anne Drewsen, Maximilian David Holmström, Benjamin Jensen, Kristian Larsen, Cora Annamaiya Lotus Norling, Anna Silberg Poulsen and Mathilde Sehested Thormann for a thorough review of some of the articles and the same as well as Reem Basel Sami Abed Aljader, Sandra Mularczyk, Maria Diget Sletterød and Anna Trejo for a check-up on style and references. Sean Weston helped with some of the photo settings and Maximilian Holmström assisted with the editing and setting of the articles.

Zeidan Kafafi, an Appreciation Hans J. Nissen and Khair Yassine

We would like to use this occasion to congratulate Zeidan for his achievements in archaeology, which we accompanied in different positions over many years. He was not only a good student, but a thoroughly pleasant academic, who was very beneficial for the climate in our institutions. Later when he had become a full professor himself, he was the most generous colleague and host imaginable. Although age prevents us from being present in person for any celebration during the hand-over of this Festschrift, we send our heartfelt greetings.

Professor Dr. Zeidan Kafafi – a Distinguished Scholar and Friend Hans-Dieter Bienert and Ingrid Liedgens

Zeidan Kafafi is one of the best-known and respected archaeologists in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. He received his PhD in 1982 from the Freie Universität Berlin (Germany). Since then he has conducted numerous archaeological excavations – most of them with international collaborators from high-level institutions in Europe and the USA. Although his focus has been the Neolithic culture, his scholarly activities have spread far beyond this era into different periods and fields on which he also widely publishes. Professor Kafafi has held different high-level positions at universities and other institutions in Jordan and has initiated numerous and lasting co-operations with international partners. Germany became a steady and important part in his activities. Numerous stays in Germany – e.g. as fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation or by invitation of the German Academic Exchange Service – reflect this close relationship. He is an excellent ambassador for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and a scholar who strongly believes in science diplomacy and the impact of scholarly research. Having served as director of the German Protestant Institute of Archaeology in Amman between 1996 and 2001 (Dr. Hans-Dieter Bienert) and head of the cultural and press section of the German Embassy in Amman between 1992 and 1998 (Ingrid Liedgens), we both very much appreciated a most fruitful cooperation with Zeidan Kafafi on many occasions: he supported joint conferences, archaeological excavations, and numerous cultural events. He was not only a strong, reliable partner, but soon became a good friend to both of us. His advice and support have always been of great value and are very much appreciated by colleagues and friends. Personally, we remember – under his guidance – remarkable excursions to archaeological sites all over Jordan, his deep interest not only in the past but also the future of the people in the region, and – last but not least – the generous hospitality we so often experienced at his home. We are most grateful for the years of our excellent collaboration and the lasting friendship that evolved.

Prof. Dr Zeidan Kafafi – Time and Place, in Conversation Carol Palmer

Interviewee: Prof. Dr Zeidan Kafafi (ZK) Interview transcribed and edited by Carol Palmer (CP), Director, Council for British Research in the Levant (CBRL) Interview Date: 25th of January 2021 Interview location: CBRL, 102 Uhod Street, Tla’ Al ‘Ali, Amman, Jordan Zeidan Kafafi’s autobiography ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻁﻨﻴﺔ‬: ‫ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‬. ‫ﺳﻴﺮﺓ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ‬: ‫[ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﻜﺎﻥ‬Time and Place: Curriculum Vitae. Amman: National Press] was published by Jordan’s Ministry of Culture in 2018. CP: Thank you for agreeing to the interview, Prof. Zeidan. You’ve asked me why I’m interested in interviewing you; it’s because I think personal histories inform who we are, and we also carry some of our family’s history with us if we’re open to it. I’m interested in finding out more about your life history. Also, I’m interested in my own organisation’s history, Council for British Research in the Levant (CBRL), also formerly known as the British Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History (BIAAH), and any connections you have with CBRL and the other international archaeological and research institutions in Jordan. ZK: Thank you, Carol, so much for inviting me for this interview. Indeed, when you are talking about the British School and the CBRL, I would like to say that I always kept in touch with this excellent institute. I remember when Crystal[M.] Bennett was Director (Prag 2010), and the building was not far away from here. I remember excavating with Asem Barghouthi in Jerash in 1975 and 1976. Even then, I wanted to know what’s beneath the classical periods. One day, when Asem Barghouthi decided to leave us and go to Amman, I decided to make a trial trench and to go deep because, as you know, I am always interested in the Bronze and Iron Ages. So, what happened? I found Iron Age pottery sherds in that square. When Asem came back, I told him, “OK, we have new results, we have Iron I!” He didn’t believe me, so we came to Crystal Bennett, as an expert in Iron Age pottery, and we showed her the sherds, and she confirmed what I had said. Later, after receiving my PhD, I came back, and I kept very close to the British Institute directors because my PhD was about the Neolithic period. I also knew Diana Kirkbride because she used to visit me when she was in Jordan, and for my

XXIV

Carol Palmer

good luck, in 1978, when I was in Germany, I met Kathleen Kenyon in Tübingen. So, I was lucky to meet Crystal Bennett, Diana Kirkbride, and Dame Kathleen Kenyon. Then, I met Andrew Garrard, and I became very close to Alison Betts and her late husband, Svend Helms, because she was working in the Harra [Black Desert] and on the Neolithic at the same time. Once, we held a workshop at Yarmouk University during the 1980s, and we published together. Then there was Alison McQuitty, then Bill Finlayson, then Carol Palmer. Also, I am very privileged to say that I am a member of the Palestine Exploration Quarterly advisory board. I am the only Jordanian, even perhaps Arab, listed. So, I have a lot to do with British colleagues. And, I know your book on food (Palmer 2008) very well, which was translated into Arabic by Afaf Ziadeh. So, you want to know about me? CP: Thank you, yes, and for your kind words. I do have some questions. Can we begin with a description of your childhood? What were your main childhood influences for your career and future life? ZK: OK, to be frank with you, when you are talking about my childhood, to me, this means my teenage years, but, first, my name is Zeidan Kafafi. I was born in a village only about 20 km to the northwest of Hebron called Nuba. I was born on the 12th of February 1949, according to what my mother told me. I have no birth certificate from that time. This is another story because if you read my birth certificate, it says 1950. Nobody knows when I was born precisely except my mother, who told me that I was was born on the 12th of February 1949. My grandfather, who was the Sheikh of the village, married nine times, though he used to keep only four wives at one time, and he had many grandchildren. He used to send his grandchildren to the local school. There, we were never asked for our birth certificates because when Sheikh Abdulfattah brought his grandsons, that was good enough. But in 1964, after moving to Amman in 1961, when I sat for the Jordanian Preparatory General Exam, I was obliged to show my birth certificate. Since I didn’t have one, I applied to the Ministry of Health in Jordan to get an estimate of my age. So, I went to the healthcare centre in Amman, and they agreed to make a birth certificate, an estimate of my age. I wrote to the doctor that I was born on the 12th of February 1949, but he looked at me and said, “You’re not that tall!” According to him, I was born on the 1st of January 1950, and that was it! However, according to my mother, I am 10 months older than my age on my birth certificate. Before 1948, my family was divided into two parts: one that used to live and work in Jaffa, and the other in Nuba, in the village where I was born. After 1948, those in Jaffa moved to the village, but they couldn’t tolerate living with fellaheen [peasants]! So, my uncles and my father moved to Amman directly. The person who raised us was my mother, to be frank. I am the only son, though I have six sisters. Now, there was always great competition between the Sheikh’s grandsons: “who is the best, who is the number one?” And, when you

Prof. Dr Zeidan Kafafi – Time and Place, in Conversation

XXV

have many cousins, you want to be the first among them. My mother also wanted to show that one son is enough to protect her. There are many family stories about this. For example, since we were fellaheen, we took our crops and vegetables to the market in Hebron. At that time, there was only one bus for three or four villages. Instead of waiting for the bus, we used to put our goods on donkey back, making a kind of donkey caravan, and go through Halhul to Hebron. Though I was a small kid, she used to take me with her to show that she has a man taking care of her. I was perhaps six or seven years old. I was very good at school, always in the top five. I remember another story that my grandfather used to tell. He was the Sheikh and the only one to read and write during the Mandate period from the village. So, if anyone wanted something in writing, they used to go to my grandfather. Once, he received a letter from one of his relatives. I was told that my grandfather was looking for me. I was six or seven years old again, and I went to him. He was sitting with many other people in the village. He told me, Zeidan, I have something, and I want you to read it in front of the people! “Why should I read it?” I thought, “he can read it!” Yet, I read it perfectly, and after I finished, he gave me a ta’rifah. Do you know what a ta’rifah is? Half a piastre! At that time, it had an actual value. He wanted to show the people of the village that his grandson can do something the other children of the village could not do. So, he was proud of me, should I put it in this way. I used to study very hard in school. At that time, we had no electricity; we had only kerosene lamps. All the cousins would look to see each other’s lights at night to see whose would go out first. I mean, who is going to stay studying the longest. So, what I used to do is I used to bring a bowl and put my feet in the water to help to keep me awake for the longest time! We had a teacher from Karak, his name was Mohammad Barakat Al Majali, and he used to teach us history. He gave us an exam, and I wrote every word he taught us in my answer paper. He called me and said: “Zeidan, did you cheat, or what?” I told him, “No!” then he said, “Recite what you have written.” I did so completely! So, it was a matter of competition between cousins, you see, and that my mother wanted to be the proudest of me as her only son. CP: So, in terms of my original question, I suppose this early childhood influenced you to study and work hard? ZK: Yes, indeed. When we came to Amman in 1961, it became another story. It was a completely different life and society than in the village. When I was in the village with my cousins, we used to go all of us together. Everyone knew everyone. In Amman, you were obliged to have friends rather than just your relatives. In Amman, I had to start another life and find friends. My father lived on Jebel Qala’, and I went to Al Hussein Al Thanawiyah School. I felt like a stranger there at first, and it was surprising to me that each class was split into various sub-classes. However, although it went slowly, I gradually adapted to my new life in Amman.

XXVI

Carol Palmer

In the summer school holidays, I used to work. Everyone at school at that time used to work. Either my father would find me a job, or I would go downtown and sell something. My father didn’t take the money from me. I used to go to the tailor and have clothes made, and I clothed myself this way. I used to feel responsible for the house since I was the only son, and I had six sisters. Always, if there is a problem, “Zeidan, where are you?” I had to solve the problems at home. My father, Abu Zeidan [‘father of Zeidan’], didn’t like to interfere so much. Yet, I tell you something, and you can’t believe that I can’t ride a bicycle because my mother prevented me from doing so. She was so scared and afraid for me. I finished my tawjihi [General Secondary Education Certificate] in Amman in 1967, and I went directly to the University of Jordan the following September. There were two examinations I couldn’t take because of the Six-Day War. After 1967, it was terrible because Jordan became like a ‘hell’, and my grandfather, my family, and my parents didn’t like to see me leaving the house. They wanted to keep me always by them because they were afraid for me. The University of Jordan was relatively new, only five years old. We were the sixth year to be enrolled. So, what happened is I went to the Department of History and Archaeology. Students studied together until the third year when you had to choose either history or archaeology. And, frankly speaking, at that time, all my friends decided to study history. Because I didn’t know what to do, I asked my father. He said, “Go study archaeology!” He was the one to decide. If I hadn’t mentioned it in front of him, he wouldn’t have known, and maybe I wouldn’t have studied archaeology! We were nine in the archaeology section: four girls and five boys. The girls were: Hanan Kurdi, Nahla Rashad Al Barjakli, Zahida Safar Ismael, and Najwa Nadim Awad. The boys were: me, Yousef Saleh Hamad, Ibrahim Daowd Ibrahim Al Smadi, Misbah Taher Mohammad Al Khayri, and Madallah Alafen Al Majali. Hanan was always the first and went on to finish her MA in Museology. I was number two. Hanan was the most active. She is retired now, but she is excellent. Zahida studied in France and worked for the Department of Antiquities for some time. Then, she left and went to the Central Bank to establish the Numismatic Museum. From the boys, I am the only one who continued. We had professors from Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. The Egyptian professors were: Fawzi Al Fakhrani and Ayda Al Aref [archaeology]. The Syrians were Nabih Akel and Abd Al Karim Raafiq, and Abdulaziz Al Douri was Iraqi [history], plus, Abd Al Hameed Al Batreeq. We didn’t have Jordanian professors then. CP: Who were your most influential mentors as a student? ZK: Well, for my Masters at the University of Jordan, James [Abbot] Sauer was my MA supervisor, and he was very important for me. He was Director of ACOR (1975–81), but he used to teach at the University of Jordan. It was normal then for directors to teach at the university, but, unfortunately, this practice

Prof. Dr Zeidan Kafafi – Time and Place, in Conversation

XXVII

stopped. We had the benefit of being taught by James Sauer, Crystal Bennett [Director of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1970–78; Director of the British Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History, 1978–83], and Bastiaan Van Elderen [Director of the American School of Oriental Research, 1972– 3]. Elderen worked at Hesban too. He used to research and teach Byzantine archaeology. We got the benefit of being taught by many professors. George Mendenhall from Michigan, Ann Arbor, taught me, and a professor who worked in Iran, Murray B. Nicol. He worked in Iran in 1969–70 and taught us. The main fieldwork from which I learnt a lot was the Hesban excavations. I worked in 1974 with the Heshbon Expedition at Tell Hesban. They were the ones to influence my life – James Sauer as a professor and Hesban as an excavation. If I may say, James Sauer put me on the right track of archaeology, and Hans Jörg Nissen, my “Doktorvater” [academic supervisor in Germany], took me to the last station. Hans Jörg Nissen has a school in archaeology, as you know. He was the one to combine anthropology and archaeology and used to teach at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago. CP: When did you go to study in Germany? How did that happen? ZK: I finished my BA in 1971. The University of Jordan started an MA programme in Archaeology in 1973. I did that too and sat for my MA defence on the 19th of June 1977. In between, I worked for one year for the Department of Antiquities. Then, I worked as a curator to establish the Archaeological Museum at the University of Jordan from 1972 to 1977 until I left for my PhD. So, what happened is that I wanted to go to the United States to finish my PhD. James Sauer helped me find admissions to many universities, but I could not get a scholarship because they were focusing on the natural sciences at that time. They didn’t give scholarships for humanities and social sciences any more. Ghazi Bisheh [Department of Antiquities Director, 1989-91 and 1994-99] was the last to receive one. Suddenly, Moawiyah Ibrahim asked me, Zeidan, “Why don’t you go to Germany?” I worked with Moawiyah at Sahab and together on the Jordan Valley Survey with James Sauer and Khair Yassine, so he knew me. I said, “OK, if there is a scholarship, then I will go to Germany.” At that time, people were hesitant to go to Germany. It was either the Institute of Archaeology in London or somewhere in the United States. He told me, “OK, come and fill this application!” So, I remember I went to his house. He lived in Marka at that time with his wife, Bouthaynah, and they were relatively recently married. He was the one to type the application for me. Then to my surprise, I got the scholarship! So, instead of going to the United States, I went to Germany. For my good luck, my professor, Hans Jörg Nissen, used to teach at Chicago. He published a well-known book about the Baghdadi countryside with Robert

XXVIII

Carol Palmer

McCormick Adams (1972). Nissen was very close friends with Robert Braidwood, who also came to visit the Institute in Berlin, so there were many strong connections. When people went to the Institute of Archaeology in London, they stayed there for three years and returned with a PhD. One person only had a BA when they left Jordan but still returned with a PhD after three years. So, when I went to Germany with an MA, I thought it would be relatively quick. However, one day, while I was sitting in the library, Hans Jörg Nissen came to me, and he looked at me and said, “Kafafi, why didn’t you go to classes?” I told him, “What classes? I have an MA in Archaeology.” He said, “What? MA? Did I acknowledge it for you? No!" So, what happened next is that it was decided that I have to start with one major and two minors. So, my major was Archaeology, and one of my minors was Semitic Languages. I studied for four years Akkadian, two years Hebrew, Phoenician, and Aramaic. The other minor was oriental history, including the Hittites and others. Then, Nissen came to me and said that I should have studied the Latin language. I said, “What?” Then, he added, “You know Arabic, so instead of Latin, you have to study a semester of German literature and one semester of German history.” For German history, I studied the Weimar Republic. And, for the literature, I studied Kafka, Thomas Mann, and Stresemann, all those! The way we studied in Germany at that time is entirely different than nowadays. Nowadays, people who go to Germany don’t learn to speak German. They go and write their PhD in English. I wrote my PhD in English, by the way, because Nissen asked me, “Who can read German in Jordan?” I told him, “Moawiyah!” Then he told me, “Are you going to write your PhD for Moawiyah? Write it in English!” It would have been easier for me to write it in the German language because people could help correct the language. But, you know, I was lucky because Daniel Potts was there as Nissen’s assistant. Daniel worked in Tepe Yahya and the Gulf area, and he was in Saudi Arabia. Now he is back in the United States. This is the way I studied in Germany; it was not that easy. I stayed in Germany for four and a half years, and I worked very hard. To learn the Akkadian language, Fayzeh, my wife, used to help me memorise all the syllables using cards! 600 syllables! I was the first Jordanian to work on the prehistory of Jordan. I wrote my PhD on the Neolithic of Jordan (Kafafi 1982). At that time, there was not a ‘mode’ for the Neolithic. That’s why I had to go back and read what Diana Kirkbride had published. The only well-excavated Neolithic site in Jordan was Beidha. That was the backbone of my study, though she had conducted several surveys. She took soundings at Tell Abu Suwwan, and she surveyed, but Beidha was her main site. I studied her work and her chronology. We met several times before she passed away. I was honoured that we sat together. She used to come to Berlin, and I went to Denmark, and I looked at the flint stone stored in Aarhus for one week. So,

Prof. Dr Zeidan Kafafi – Time and Place, in Conversation

XXIX

after Kirkbride, I would like to say that I was the one to research the Neolithic of Jordan. After that, it became like a mode. I finished my PhD in 1982.

Figure 1: Zeidan Kafafi with Moawiyah Ibrahim and Hans Nissen at Pella 1984.

There was a shift from studying the Bronze and Iron Ages towards the study of the Neolithic during the 1980s and 1990s. I was the one to advise Adnan Hadidi to invite Hans Georg Gebel to come and work in the vicinity of Petra. Alison Betts and Andrew Garrard went to the badia, and both contributed a lot to the study of the Neolithic of Jordan. At that time, I worked at Abu Thawwab and ‘Ain Ghazal. CP: Why did people move away from the focus of the Bronze and Iron Ages? ZK: I think it was because of the attraction of studying areas of Jordan or regions not completely explored, plus it has to do with a shift away from Biblical archaeology after 1967. Another example of a prehistorian is Donald Henry, who wanted to complete the work that Geoffrey Clark had started in the Naqab area and understand its relationship with the Sinai. I divide the history of the study of the archaeology of Jordan into three stages: the first focuses on the Bronze and Iron Ages. Then comes prehistory and then anthropology and Cultural Resource Management (CRM). We are not really teaching archaeology any more. Students who graduate these days don’t learn archaeology in the same way we were trained. After I finished my PhD, I was supposed to come back to the University of Jordan because I was officially on leave from there. However, before my PhD

XXX

Carol Palmer

defence, I received a letter from Yarmouk University in which it said that I had been appointed as a faculty member at Yarmouk. Moawiyah was behind this, of course, and I think it was my good luck. I went to Yarmouk on the 13th of February 1982. We were in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences. It belonged to the Faculty of Arts. In that Department, there was Moawiyah; an Iraqi colleague, Sa’ad Ayoub; an American colleague, Robert Gordon; another American colleague teaching physical anthropology, Scott Rolston; and then came the anthropologists Setanay Shami in 1983–84 and Martha Mundy. At the same time, we started thinking of establishing an institute of archaeology and anthropology. The one who was behind the idea was Moawiyah Ibrahim, and we started making our plans. We obtained permission to establish this institute and start teaching in September 1984. So, we moved from the Faculty of Arts. The institute was organised in the way German archaeological institutes were: our own library, our own students, and we were like an independent part of the university. We excelled at that time. In 1989, however, while I was on my sabbatical in Germany, I was contacted by King Saud University [Riyadh] inviting me to go and teach there. That year, the International Conference on the Archaeology and History of Jordan (ICHAJ) was in Lyon, France. I met with Moawiyah and the President of Yarmouk there. I told them that the Saudis had contacted me, and Moawiyah and the President encouraged me to go. That was a surprise for me! I returned to Jordan and excavated at Tell Abu Thawwab in the last months of my sabbatical before I went to Saudi Arabia, which was a real opportunity. In Saudi Arabia, I had the opportunity and time to visit the archaeological site of Qaryat Al Faw, for example, and to teach and study the archaeology of Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula. I stayed there for two years. They wanted me to stay and offered me a raise even, but I wanted to go back to Jordan and my university; I wanted to become a full Professor. Four days after my return from Saudi, the President of Yarmouk University called me to meet him. “OK,” I kept thinking, “what does he want from me?” I went to his house one evening, and then he asked me, “Do you know why I invited you to come to me?”. I said, “No”, he said, “I want you to take over from Moawiyah.” So, as you know, we are very close friends, Moawiyah and I, and what should I say? That night, we were invited to Asem Barghouthi’s son’s wedding party, and there I met Moawiyah and Khair Yassine and many other colleagues. In short, I took the job, and I started as Director of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at Yarmouk University in September 1991. I stayed for six years as Director and, alhamdulillah, we achieved a lot during that period. In 1997, after six years, I wanted to leave for my second sabbatical. I received a scholarship from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung in Germany. Six days before I was due to leave for Germany, however, the President of Yarmouk called

Prof. Dr Zeidan Kafafi – Time and Place, in Conversation

XXXI

me, and he asked me to stay because I had been appointed as Dean of Research and Graduate Studies at the University. So, I didn’t go for my second sabbatical; I remained as a Dean. In 1999, I was honoured by the French government and received a medal, Palmes Academiques [Chevalier dans l’Ordre des Palmes Academiques]. At the same time, I didn’t want to continue as an administrator any more, I wanted to go back to research, and I decided to resign from administrative duties. For my luck, I was offered the opportunity from the CNRS (Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique) to go to Paris. So, I left for one year. I stayed away and worked with Geneviève Dollfus, who was my partner in the Abu Hamid excavations. After a year, after I finished my sabbatical, I came back to the University. I decided not to return to an administrative post. In 2004, I spent my sabbatical at the University of Jordan for one year. From 2004, I was very active in research, and I published several books. Then, in 2009, I was asked by the President of Yarmouk to take over the Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology. The status of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology had changed into a faculty in 2004. It meant that the faculty’s aims and mission became completely different, and there were now hundreds of students and many classes to teach. At the same time, I found out that there is a Department of Tourism, which started under the Anthropology Department’s umbrella. From my point of view, there is a big difference between archaeology, anthropology and tourism. So, I went to the President of the University, and I told him they should be separated and that they should have their own faculty, the Faculty of Tourism, and this is what happened. I stayed for two years as Dean of the Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology, and then I swore that I would quit all administrative obligations. However, unexpectedly, I received a phone call from the President of the Hashemite University. She offered me the position of the Dean of Queen Rania Institute for Heritage and Tourism. I said to myself, it’s OK, it’s a different place. So, I went there and served as dean from 2011 to 2013. At the same time I was serving as a dean at the Hashemite University, HRH Princess Sumaya bint El Hassan approached me to serve as Director of the Jordan Museum. So, I was Acting Director for almost one year, 2012–13. The Princess wanted me to stay, and the cabinet even appointed me. Still, I had to apologise because the salary was low, half of what I was receiving at the university, which made it difficult for me to accept. However, I remained a member of the Board of Trustees of the Museum. So, by 2013, alhamdulillah, I no longer had administrative obligations, and I could relax. During this period, I was honoured to receive the Jordanian National Award in the field of archaeology, with Ghazi Bisheh and Fawzi Zayadeen in 2011. In 2016, I was decorated by His Majesty King Abdullah II with the King Abdullah II Medal in recognition of my scholarly research activities and service to Jordanian museums. In 2017, I received a medal again from His Majesty King Abdullah

XXXII

Carol Palmer

II as a Jordanian Star of Science, for archaeology, at the World Science Forum held at the Dead Sea in Jordan. Then in 2018, I was appointed as President of Yarmouk University. I stayed for two and a half years until I had to give up my job, and I finally resigned from the University. I’m now 71 years old, and I decided that’s enough for me. But, all through that time, I never left my life as a researcher. I kept doing research, and I now have 14 or 15 published books and over 200–220 published articles (Kafafi 2020). I just finished writing a book about the Irbid governorate’s archaeology before Islam, and I have a book in press that is about Jerusalem. CP: In all your career, what do you consider your most significant archaeological discoveries and what do you feel are your most important contributions to the discipline of archaeology? ZK: Well, all finds and sites are very important for me. However, if you want me to single out a site, I would like to say that ‘Ain Ghazal is the one. Unfortunately, the site is badly damaged now and really should be developed for visitor purposes. I was proud when I saw a statue from ‘Ain Ghazal at the Louvre, France, and in the British Museum. Those are ambassadors for Jordan. I published an article, “Who owns the past?” (2019), explaining why I am very happy that we have those archaeological pieces outside Jordan in international museums. But, all the sites I have worked on are very special to me. My first love was the Late Bronze Age, which was my MA thesis, then I moved to the Neolithic, so I specialised from the Neolithic to the end of the Late Iron Age. When you go to prehistory, you have ‘Ain Ghazal, Abu Thawwab, Abu Hamid. If you go to the Bronze and Iron Ages, you have Deir ‘Alla and Tell Damiyah, and I worked at Khirbet az-Zaraqoun and Tell Mugheir. So, there are many! I also worked at EsSayyeh with Karin Bartl, which is also Neolithic. So, I would like to say that I worked in the Wadi az-Zarqa Basin from ‘Ain Ghazal to Es-Sayyeh, Deir ‘Alla to Abu Thawwab, then Tell Damiyah. So, I know that valley very well. I also participated in the Jordan Valley Survey in 1975 and 1976. Then, the Sahab Survey in 1983, the Abu Thawwab Survey in 1985, the Wadi az-Zarqa Survey, and the ‘Ain Ghazal Survey in 1987, then Wadi az-Zarqa Survey with Gaetano Palumbo. So, I know Jordan like the back of my hand! CP: How would you say approaches to the discipline of archaeology have changed during your career? ZK: It’s changed a lot! For example, when we were students at the University of Jordan, we had a fieldwork course. At that time, they took us to work on the Byzantine church in Sweifieh, Amman. Bastiaan van Elderen first excavated it, and then it was taken over by the Department of Antiquities. It was first exposed in 1969, and we were trained there. It was easier then. Unfortunately, the church is neglected now. I participated, as I mentioned to you, in many excavations. Still, when I think of Hesban, for example, we used to draw everything ourselves – walls, strata and

Prof. Dr Zeidan Kafafi – Time and Place, in Conversation

XXXIII

objects – to write reports, to read pottery, to know all those things. That is how we used to do everything in terms of recording. At that time, we didn’t have laptops, of course. Now we have the so-called ‘Cyber Archaeology’! So, to compare what Tom Levy and colleagues are doing now and what we were doing, there’s a big difference! There is also a difference between the English, American, and French excavation methods from my experience. Starting with the English, you had the KenyonWheeler method of excavations, which depends on trial trenches and such things. The American approach emphasised strata and the relationship of finds to strata and builds chronologies based on Albright’s methodology, which is the method followed by the Israelis. When it comes to the French, there is a big difference between the recording methods and excavations of the French and the others. For the French, I mean my experience from Tell Abu Hamid was that they do not register every stratum: they divide into ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’. They register the ‘artificial’ and the ‘natural’, they have a small booklet, and they register it there instead. I also worked with the Dutch, by the way. CP: So, what are the strengths of Jordan’s interactions with the international archaeological academic community in the past, today, and what would you like to see in the future? ZK: I think I have a good experience with, I call them, all the non-Jordanian institutions. They have contributed a lot to our archaeological heritage and are always standing behind us, pushing us forward, and teaching us a lot. This is my point of view. It’s not because I am at the CBRL that I am saying this, but I always say this. I feel sad that the directors of these institutions, our colleagues, aren’t involved any more in teaching our students at Jordanian universities. This was normal when I was a student at the University of Jordan. And, we can gain a lot from their experiences. It’s not only teaching but also training students in excavations. When we were students during the 1960s and 1970s, the Jordan University students used to work on their expeditions. That’s what we have done at Yarmouk, by the way, sometimes. In this way, our students used to be taught by other people. They used to be able to practice their English language and, believe me now, there are many professors at Jordanian universities who have difficulty speaking English, which is a shame as an archaeologist. If you are a prehistorian and don’t know French, this is a shame too. However, now, when you are talking about research methods, things have completely changed. For example, at that time, we used to go to libraries, and there were only books, but nowadays, you have the internet. I would like to emphasise that for me that the way you get the information is more important than getting the information. For example, at the British Institute, you have a library. How many students of the University of Jordan are coming and using your library? CP: Too few! I think language is one explanation, and I think people don’t think they need to read anymore.

XXXIV

Carol Palmer

ZK: I think language, and also they are not asked to write papers. If they have to write papers, they have to go to libraries and to read. So, the way of teaching is completely different. When you are talking about non-Jordanian institutions, I believe we need to intermingle with each other more. Students don’t dare to come and ring the bell because their professors don’t come and ring the bell. In your public lectures, I look around sometimes, and I don’t see that many people from the University of Jordan even. We used to be fewer in number, but we could do more together because we were fewer. I think European Community projects have been useful, but also harmful. They were useful when the projects were co-ordinated with the academic insitutions, and harmful when during the last decades they were co-ordinated with individuals rather than with institutions. To explain, as you know, I served as an administrator for a long time. Before, if we needed something, we used to write a list of our needs and send them to the President of the University, who would send the list to the embassies and the British Council, say, on or before the end of the year. What’s going on now is very dangerous. This is my point of view. Now, you have projects. Who is deciding the topic of the project? Who is responsible for the project? It is a European colleague. Now, the system is financing the project and the individuals, but is not investing in the institutions. The institutions have suffered as a result. The other thing is that the colleagues who are collecting the data, what are they doing with their data? Who is publishing it? The data goes to the European colleague, and the data are now stored somewhere else. The person who has the data is the European colleague. They analyse the data in the way they want to analyse it, and the Jordanian colleague is very happy because, “I published a paper!” Yet, the colleague often doesn’t precisely know what’s inside this paper. The university gets an overhead, 15%, 20%, say $10,000. But, the rest goes to the researcher. I mean, travelling, workshops, and then buying machines. You know that some of those machines are not useable! Either the disk is not available for them, or there is no-one who can work on it. And you are talking about research? About helping Jordan? If you want to help Jordan, we have governmental institutions, and you have to go to the institutions, not to the individuals. I don’t think that these projects serve the nation, in my opinion. Are you still recording? Maybe it’s time to stop now! CP: OK, to be honest, I agree with you on all these things, and it worries me too; and thank you for sharing your wisdom, experience and perspective. It has been an absolute pleasure to speak with you today. Thank you for a lifetime of dedication to Jordan’s archaeology, and all the best for your continued research and publications. Jordan needs this now.

Prof. Dr Zeidan Kafafi – Time and Place, in Conversation

XXXV

References Adams, Robert McC. and Hans J. Nissen 1972. The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of Urban Societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kafafi, Zeidan. 1982. The Neolithic of Jordan (East Bank). PhD diss., Berlin Free University. — 2018. Time and Place: Curriculum Vitae. Amman: Ministry of Culture, National Press. (Arabic language) — 2020. Curriculum Vitae for Professor Dr Zeidan Abid Kafafi. https://yu.aca demia.edu/ZeidanKafafi/CurriculumVitae [consulted 9 January 2022]. Palmer, Carol, translated by Afaf Ziadeh. 2008. Milk and Cereals: Identifying Food and Food Identity among Fallāhīn and Bedouin in Jordan. Amman: Ahli Bank (Arabic Language). Originally published in English in Levant 34 (2002), 173–195. DOI: 10.1179/lev.2002.34.1.173 Prag, Kay. 2010. Crystal-M. Bennett OBE, BA, D.LITT., FSA: A Memoir. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 142, 43–63. DOI: 10.1179/003103209X 12483454548284 Further Selected Publications Gebel, Hans G., Kafafi, Zeidan, and Gary Rollefson (eds.). 1997. Prehistory of Jordan II. Berlin: Ex oriente. Kafafi, Zeidan. 2001. Jebel Abu Thawwab (Er-Rumman), Central Jordan: the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age I occupations. Berlin: Ex oriente. — 2009. Middle and Late Bronze Age Domestic Architecture from Tall Dayr ‘Alla. Pp. 585–595 in F. al-Khraysheh et al. (eds.) Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan X. Amman: The Department of Antiquities of Jordan. — 2011. Clans, gods and temples at the LPPNB ‘Ayn Ghazal. in Marion Benz (ed.), The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming, 301–312. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14. Berlin: Ex oriente. — 2011. Ancient History and Archaeology of Bilad esh-Sham. From Prehistory to Alexander the Great. Amman: Dar esh-Shrouq. (Arabic Language) — 2014. Jerusalem in the Bronze and the Beginning of the Iron Ages: Biblical narratives, literary sources, the archaeological evidence and Margreet Steiner. In Van der Steen, Eveline, Boertien, Jeanette, and Noor Mulder Hymans (eds.), Exploring the Narrative: Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages, 245–255. Library of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 583. London: Bloomsbury. DOI: 10.5040/9781472550439.ch-014 — 2015. From Tall Hisban to Tall al-’Umayri. 40 Years Researching the Late Bronze Age. In Douglas R. Clark, Larry G. Herr, Øystein A. LaBianca and Randall Younker (eds.), The Madaba Plains Project. Forty Years of Archaeological Research into Jordan’s Past, 99–110. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.

XXXVI

Carol Palmer

— 2017. Ancient History and Archaeology of the Arabian Peninsula. Riyadh: Sudairi Cultural Center. (Arabic Language) — 2017. North Jordan during the Early Iron Age: An Historical and Archaeological Synthesis. In M. Neeley, G. Clark and P. M. Michele Daviau (eds.), Walking Through Jordan. Essays in Honor of Burton MacDonald, 63–77. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing. DOI: 10.1558/equinox.28927 — 2018. Life and Settlements during the Iron Age in the Central Jordan Valley: Aspects from the Sites Tell Deir ‘Alla and Nearby Sites. Vicino Oriente XXII, 29–48. — 2019. Who Owns the Past: Jordanian Archaeological Masterpieces at the International Museums. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan XIII, 627–640. Kafafi, Zeidan, Abu Ghanimeh, Khaled, and Maysoon Al-Nahar 2020. A Selection of Prehistoric Art. Amman: Ad-Dustour Press. (Arabic Language) Kafafi, Zeidan and Mohammed Maraqten (eds.). 2014. A Pioneer of Arabia. Studies in the Archaeology and Epigraphy of the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula. In Honor of Moawiyah Ibrahim. Rome: La Sapienza University. Kafafi, Zeidan and Robert Shick (eds.). 2007. Jerusalem before Islam. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1699. Oxford: Archaeopress. Simmons, Alan, Köhler-Rollefson, Ilse, Mandel, Rolfe, and Zeidan Kafafi. 1988. Ain Ghazal: A Major Neolithic Settlement in Central Jordan. Science 240, 35– 39. DOI: 10.1126/science.240.4848.35

The Upper Zarqa Valley and its Relevance for Levantine Prehistory Fabio Parenti and Gaetano Palumbo

Introduction Since the dawn of Levantine prehistory, the Jordan Valley has been considered the principal palaeontological and palaeo-anthropological corridor between Africa and Eurasia; however, its eastern side has been much less studied than its Mediterranean counterpart. As a matter of fact, Africa is the most probable cradle for the multiple “waves” of members of the genus Homo registered for Pleistocene Eurasia, though not excluding a high possibility of an unknown number of episodes in the opposite direction, depending on the instability of the palaeo-climate on both continental and local scale. If the relevance of the Jordan Rift itself as a natural mammalian corridor, at least since the Miocene, and a favourable sedimentary basin for their potential fossilisation is unquestioned, the contribution of Arabian and Iranian lands to hominin expansion(s) is largely unknown, mainly because of the lack of stratified and dated deposits. In this context, the situation of the Zarqa Valley is crucial, because it brings together three factors favourable to the recovery of archaeological and fossil remains: 1) The Jordan rift, with its Zarqa tributary, is an easily accessible, water-fed corridor linking Africa to Eurasia and was certainly frequented by hominin groups; 2) The deep incision has consistently favoured sedimentary infilling; 3) The lack of relevant tectonic disturbances, especially in the upper trait of Zarqa valley, due to the relative distance from the rift. All things put together, the Upper Zarqa is a logical target for the study of the prehistory of the Near East. Until the end of the 1980’s, the earliest accepted Palaeolithic east of the Jordan River was generally attributed to the Acheulean, both Middle and Late. Several important concentrations of Lower Palaeolithic sites, mainly related to (past) wet refugia areas, have been studied in Jordan, as in the Azraq and Jafr basins. However, Acheulean occurrences are for the most undated surface assemblages, and very few have been recovered in stratified fluvial contexts (Al-Nahar and Clark 2009). After the transitional Yabrudian facies, the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic in Western Jordan have been mostly described and tentatively related to the more

2

Fabio Parenti and Gaetano Palumbo

firmly defined facies of the Upper Pleistocene in Syria and Israel, with the sequence Hummalian-Musterian-Aurignacian-Kebarian (Jagher et al. 2018). But, once again, stratified sites are rare and with scarce faunal remains. Despite the astonishing abundance of Palaeolithic surface assemblages, the Levant is extremely poor in palaeontological remains, leaving largely unsolved many questions about the authors of different lithic industries and their animal companions (Dennell 2009). With the onset of the Holocene, the region was involved in the profound social and economic renewal known as the “Neolithic revolution”, and it was during this and subsequent periods that the societies occupying this land developed distinct local patterns clearly recognisable in the archaeological record.

The Lower Palaeolithic of the Upper Zarqa Valley In 1982 and 1983 a French team led by Francis Hours and Lorraine Copeland surveyed the Upper Zarqa with the aim to establish a relative chronology of the apparent Pleistocene river terraces. Their approach was based on the typology of stratified Palaeolithic artefacts (Besançon et al. 1984), a method regularly used since the very beginnings of prehistoric research prior to the development of today’s widely applied geochronological dating processes (Grayson 1983). The terraces are clearly distinguishable in the valley immediately north of the city of Zarqa, and their stratigraphy was and still is very well exposed, owing to the dozens of artificial cuts excavated for the improvement of the area’s agricultural production shortly after the Six Days War. Back then the area was marked by a renewed influx of Palestinian refugees accommodated in a camp immediately east of the original Chechen town of Sukhne. By doing so, this highly experienced team established a good geomorphological sketch of four different terraces, which led to a first subdivision of both lithic complexes and their sedimentary host units (Baubron et al. 1985). Except for the lowermost basalt (Barberi et al. 1980), their map, however, fell short of furnishing information about absolute dates and thus likewise for the thick caliche hard-crust capping the earliest artefact-bearing unit, since then called Dawqara Formation, from its concentration between the towns of Sukhne and Dawqara (Fig. 1). In this frame, the caliche thickest crust clearly divided the oldest core-and-flake industry devoid of handaxes from the upper, mixed and surficial, Acheulean and Middle Palaeolithic industries, which today have been exposed as a result from farming and consequent wind ablation. These last periods were identified in the lowermost and younger terraces of Birhain and Khirbet-Shamra formations (Baubron et al. 1985). Therefore, the actual innovation from the research of the French team was the discovery of a stratified pre- or lower-Acheulean industry, although devoid of fossil faunas. Cautiously, the authors attributed the Dawqara Fm and its artefacts to a minimum age of 0.5 Ma, placing the Upper Zarqa in the selected array of Middle Pleistocene sites of the Levant (Copeland and Hours 1988).

The Upper Zarqa Valley and its Relevance for Levantine Prehistory

3

Figure 1: Map of the Near East and of the study area with sites mentioned in the text.

The Wadi az-Zarqa/Wadi ad-Dulayl Project and the Broad Chronological Survey After a decade of no substantial archaeological research in the Upper Zarqa Valley, a joint Italo-Jordanian team selected this area to conduct an intensive archaeological survey. Although the main scope of the project was to investigate several Bronze Age sites known since Glueck’s explorations of Transjordan (1939; 1951), an intensive survey of the whole survey area, centred around the village of Sukhne, was also organised. The objective of this survey was to reconstruct the history of occupation of an area where a permanent water course meets the desert, and where previous, limited investigations had shown the potential for a rich variety and concentration of human activities over a very long interval. The Wadi az-Zarqa/Wadi ad-Dulayl excavations and survey project ran for a total of seven seasons from 1993 to 2002 (Palumbo et al. 1996; Kafafi et al. 1997; Kafafi et al. 2000; Caneva et al. 2001; Palumbo et al. 2002). The survey was conducted within an area of approximately 144 km2 between the northern periphery of the city of Zarqa in the southeast to the large site of Tell el-Bireh in the northwest. More than 500 new archaeological sites were identified, with the highest occurrences in the Palaeolithic and the Roman-Byzantine periods. An important PPNB Neolithic site with a later Yarmukian phase was identified at the site of al-Hasayyah (Palumbo and Parenti 1996; Caneva et al. 2001: 102–110), close to the confluence of Wadi

4

Fabio Parenti and Gaetano Palumbo

ad-Dulayl and Wadi Zarqa. This sector of Wadi Zarqa enjoyed an intensive occupation between the Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age, when many large, fortified settlements were established on the hills overlooking the river and smaller settlements either on isolated hilltops or closer to the alluvial plain. Soundings were conducted at the EB II–IV site of Jebel er-Reheil overlooking the village of Sukhne from the west (Palumbo et al. 1996: 393–401), while a subsequent project by University of Rome “La Sapienza” conducted extensive excavations at the EB II–III site at Khirbet el-Batrawi (Nigro 2012; 2016). Just to the west of our survey area, a Spanish-Italian project conducted several survey and excavation campaigns at the large Early Bronze Age I site of Jebel al-Mutawwaq, which included a vast dolmen field (Polcaro and Muniz 2020). It is interesting to note that no dolmens were identified in our area, although numerous other stone features were present in the form of cairns and stone alignments, some of which having served probably as former boundary or tribal markers.

Figure 2: Section 330, the reference for Dawqara Fm, with the settlement of Sukhne, looking South. Top: on the background the limestone hills in which the Zarqa valley is carved. Bottom: Mammutus meridionalis molar highlighted in circle.

The Upper Zarqa Valley and its Relevance for Levantine Prehistory

5

In 1996 the team, still continuing the survey of all periods in the region, renewed its efforts in the search of Palaeolithic sites and produced substantial results. Surprisingly, on the very first day of fieldwork we recovered fragments of horse teeth in one outcrop of Dawqara Fm, section 330 (Parenti et al. 1997 and Fig. 1 and 2), guided by the topographic map of Baubron et al. 1985. This was an exceptionally lucky discovery, considering the region’s very poor fossil record and the competence of the French team, which had failed to recover any fossils before. In the following days of the 1996 season Zeidan Kafafi and his team from Yarmouk University joined us, and thus we became able to map and quickly describe 85 outcrops with artefacts provisionally attributed to different formations on the basis of the geomorphological sketch of the French team (Kafafi et al. 1997). At section 330 the recovery of an elephant molar associated with hundreds of lithic artefacts, still lacking handaxes, allowed a first bio-chronological estimate of about one million years by Claude Guérin (Parenti et al. 1997). This dating almost doubled the estimated age of human presence east of the Jordan but also posed a problem: why were handaxes of more than one million years of age (Bar-Yosef and Goren-Inbar 1993) so clearly present in the nearby site of Ubeidiya, but absent much later in an otherwise reasonably rich assemblage of the Lower Acheulean, the phase to which we cautiously assigned the Dawqara industry? Was this the marker of a local facies devoid of the iconic tool of the OldWorld Palaeolithic, a sampling bias, or a sign of an earlier age? In the 1997 and 1999 field seasons, still under the guidance of the “French” geomorphological scheme and in cooperation with Kafafi’s team and the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, we continued to enrich the lithic collection. We both increased the number of outcrops, through plotting with georadar the braided channels below the caliche capping the fluviatile upper unit (Caneva et al. 2001, fig. 11) and dug some test-pits as well as a long trench at the top of the Dawqara terrace, at site 414 (Fig. 1), which produced more than a thousand artefacts in stratigraphic context and widened the basis for quantitative inferences.

Back to Old Prehistory: The Dating of the First Out of Africa Human Expansion After a new break of almost fifteen years, the research on the Palaeolithic of the Zarqa Valley resumed in 2013, this time with a specific chrono-stratigraphic focus and new funds, mainly from Brazilian and international foundations. Meanwhile, some important steps forward had been achieved in the realm of the first expansion of the genus Homo: 1) the robust evidence from the Caucasian site of Dmanisi, pointing to the spread of H. erectus in Eurasia at about 1.8 Ma (Lordkipanidze et al. 2013, Lumley et al. 2005, Mgeladze et al. 2011, Rightmire and Lordkipanidze 2010); 2) the description of a rich Oldowan and Palaeolithic sequence in the oasis of Hummal, Syria, with a tentative age older than 1.2–1.6 Ma on bio-stratigraphic

6

Fabio Parenti and Gaetano Palumbo

basis (Le Tensorer et al. 2011a, b), later confirmed and pushed back to 1.8 Ma by palaeo-magnetism (Le Tensorer et al. 2015); 3) the growing evidence of dated lithic industries of at least 1.5 Ma outside the human cradles of Eastern and Southern Africa, both in Algeria (Sahnouni et al. 2002, Sahnouni and Made 2009) and at several Chinese sites (Boëda and Hou 2011, Han et al. 2015, Hou and Zhao 2010), as later supported by new data (Sahnouni et al. 2018, Yang et al. 2016, Zhu et al. 2018). We remind here that the Zarqa, which together with the Yarmouk is the only perennial river east of the Jordan, has carved its valley into the Cretaceous-Eocene cherty limestone, which since the Late Miocene has been eroded and filled twice. Its last aggradation phase started at the very beginning of Pleistocene and its highest and oldest unit contains the Dawqara artefacts (Fig. 3). The latter seem to distribute all along the 20 m thick formation with much higher concentrations in the upper part, where some possible remnants of an original hominin site is still preserved, as documented by the density of artefacts and the recovery of some conjoining pieces at section 330. What are, in short, the essential characteristics of this pre-Acheulean lithic complex? The earliest assemblage, observed at section 334-Lower and dated at 2.48 Ma, consists (so far, 2021) of 106 flakes and cores on cherty cobbles, with some clear choppers, i.e. massive flaked tools with an evident cutting edge. However, 75% of the assemblage consists of simple flakes, some with a rough retouch (Fig. 4). All artefacts from section 334-Lower were recovered in a coarse fluvial sediment and to various degrees have suffered from both transport and the abrasive action of running water with suspended sands, although with some concentration in the western part of the outcrop, which possibly points to repeated hominin occupation of the river banks. The upper assemblage of Dawqara Fm dated to 1.95 Ma is much more abundant with about two thousand items recovered from a dozen outcrops (Fig. 4). The main concentration was observed at section 330, the reference site for Dawqara Fm and the only section with some faunal remains consisting mainly of mammalian teeth (Plate 1). The industry at all times remains devoid of handaxes and mainly contains unretouched flakes with natural or dihedral butts, for the most obtained through unidirectional flaking, but with the appearance of centripetal and bifacial trimming. All these characteristics suggest a general attribution to the so-called Oldowan culture, even though this technological complex embraces a period of more than a million years, and the term should be better restrained to the African continent in order to connote the very first human technology.

The Upper Zarqa Valley and its Relevance for Levantine Prehistory

7

Figure 3: Synopsis of upper Zarqa geological and archaeological history.

The main target of the Italo-Brazilian-Jordanian Project (2013–2015) was the absolute dating of Dawqara Fm. Though only a terminus post quem of 2.5 M, was available, the results nonetheless sufficed to consolidate the valley’s history with a robust stratigraphic investigation, thus avoiding the pitfalls of typological chronology which has proven almost useless for unformal lithic industries. In so doing, this new team, which comprised one of us (FP), was able to achieve some important results (Scardia et al. 2019) to:

8

Fabio Parenti and Gaetano Palumbo

Figure 4: Selected artefacts from Dawqara formation, in stratigraphic order (the lowest are the oldest), all from cherty cobbles: 1) 330-420: centripetal core; 2) 330-57 semi-cortical flake, from unipolar core; 3) 330-39: semi-cortical flake with cortical butt; 4) 330-462: bifacial chopper; 5) 330-160: small centripetal and bifacial core; 6) 415-90: bifacial chopper; 7) 334-1126: end-chopper; 8) 334-Lower: very rolled end-scraper on thick flake.

The Upper Zarqa Valley and its Relevance for Levantine Prehistory

9

1) limits the artefact bearing Dawqara Formation to the dates between 2.48 and 1.95 Ma. 2) map the core area and correlate the main outcrops. 3) recover in situ artefacts at the bottom (site 334-Lower) and top (sites 330, 332, 331, 415) of the formation (Fig. 1). 4) plot an in situ elephant tusk older than 2.5 Ma that was not associated with cultural remains (Parenti 2015). In conclusion, the new dates of the Dawqara Fm force us to revise the timing of the first hominin expansion outside of Africa, a much debated issue in the last two decades. In fact, if these dates are confirmed in other outcrops and with other methods, this first expansion could be related not to H. erectus/ergaster, but maybe to H. habilis or a still unknown pre-erectus species, as recently argued by Scardia and colleagues (2020). The achievements mentioned above are the necessary foundations for a thorough new cycle of research of this astonishing cradle of old world prehistory.

Acknowledgments We are especially grateful to Zeidan Kafafi and to his team, for their commitment, expert advice, and sincere friendship since the beginnings of this project. The personnel of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan has always facilitated, with kindness and companionship, our effort to unravel this astonishing treasure of Jordan’s prehistory.

Bibliography Al-Nahar, Maysoon, and Geoffrey A. Clark. 2009. The Lower Palaeolithic in Jordan. In Bill Finlayson and Gary Rollefson (eds), Jordan Prehistory: Past and Future 3.2, 305–343. Bar-Yosef, Ofer, and Nahama Goren-Inbar. 1993. The lithic assemblages of ‘Oubeidiya – a Lower Paleolithic site in the Jordan Valley, Qedem, 266, Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem. Barberi, Franco, G. Capaldi, P. Gasperini, et al. 1980. Recent basaltic volcanism of Jordan and its implications on the geodynamic history of the Dead Sea zone. In Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Geodynamic Evolution of the Afro-Arabian Rift System, 667–683. Roma: Acc. Naz. Lincei. Baubron, Jean C., Jacques Besançon, Lorraine Copeland, Francis Hours, Jean J. Macaire, and Paul Sanlaville. 1985. Evolution de la moyenne vallée du Zarqa (Jordanie) au Néogène et au Quaternaire, Revue de Géographie Physique et de Géologie Dynamique, 26.3, 273–283. Besancon, Jacques, Lorraine Copeland L., Francis Hours F., Jean J. Macaire J., and Paul Sanlaville. 1984. The Lower and Middle Paleolithic in the Upper

10

Fabio Parenti and Gaetano Palumbo

Zarqa / Khirbet Samra Area of Northern Jordan: 1982–83. Survey Results, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 28, 91–142. Boëda, Eric, and Yamei Hou. 2011. Analyse des artefacts lithiques du site de Longgupo. L’Anthropologie 115, 753–767. 10.1016/j.anthro.2010.12.005 Caneva, Isabella, Mohammed Hatamleh, Zeidan Kafafi, et al. 2001. The Wadi Az-Zarqa/Wadi Ad-Duhlayl Archaeological Project: Report of the 1997 and 1999 fieldwork seasons. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 45, 83–117. Copeland, Lorraine, and Francis Hours. 1988. The Palaeolithic in North Central Jordan: an Overview of Survey Results from the Upper Zarqa and Azraq 1982–1986. In Andrew N. Garrard, and Hans G. Goebel (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan. The State of Research in 1986, BAR int. S. 396, 287–309. Dennell, Robin. 2009. The Palaeolithic settlement of Asia. Cambridge University Press. Glueck, Nelson. 1939. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, III. (AASOR 18–19). New Haven: ASOR. — 1951. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. (AASOR 25–28). New Haven: ASOR. Grayson, Donald K. 1983. The Establishment of Human Antiquity. New York: Academic Press. Han, Fei, Jean-J. Bahanin, Chenglong Deng, et al. 2015. The earliest evidence of hominid settlement in China: Combined electron spin resonance and uranium series (ESR/U-series) dating of mammalian fossil teeth from Longgupo cave. Quaternary International 434 (A), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint. 2015.02.025 Hou, Yamei, and Zhao L.-X. 2010. New Archaeological Evidence for the Earliest Hominin Presence in China. In John G. Fleagle, John J. Shea, Frederick E. Grine, Andrea L. Baden, and Richard E. Leakey (eds.), Out of Africa I: The First Hominin Colonization of Eurasia, 87–95. Springer. Jagher, Reto, Dorota Wojtczak, Maysoon Al-Nahar, et al. 2018. The First Human Settlements on the Left Bank of the Jordan Valley: Report of the 2018 Season, Zürich: Swiss-Liechtenstein Foundation for Archaeological Research Abroad. Kafafi, Zeidan, Paolo Matthiae, Abdel H. Al-Shiyab, et al. 2000. The Zarqa Valley in Jordan from Lower Paleolithic to Recent Times: Results of the 1993– 1997 Campaigns. In Paolo Matthiae, A. Enea, L. Peyronel and F. Pinnock (eds.), Ist International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 699–711. Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998, Roma. Kafafi, Zeidan, Gaetano Palumbo, Abdel H. Al-Shiyab, et al. 1997. The Wadi AzZarqa/Wadi Ad-Dulayil Archaeological Project. Report on the 1996 Fieldwork Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 41, 9–26. Le Tensorer, Jean-Marie, Vera von Falkenstein, Helène Le Tensorer, and Sultan Muhesen. 2011a. Hummal: a very long Paleolithic sequence in the steppe of

The Upper Zarqa Valley and its Relevance for Levantine Prehistory

11

central Syria- considerations on Lower Paleolithic and the beginning of Middle Paleolithic. In Jean-Marie Le Tensorer, Reto Jagher, and Marcel Otte (eds). Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and in the neighbouring regions, 235–248. Basel Symposium. Liège 126. — 2011b. Étude préliminaire des industries archaïques de faciès Oldowayen du site de Hummal (El Kowm, Syrie centrale). L’Anthropologie 115, 247–266. Le Tensorer, Jean-Marie, Helène Le Tensorer, Pietro Martini, Vera von Falkenstein, Peter Schmid, and Juan José Villalain. 2015. The Oldowan site Aïn al Fil (El Kowm, Syria) and the first humans of the Syrian Desert. L’Anthropologie 119, 581–594. Lordkipanidze, David, Marcia S. Ponce de León, Ann Margvelashvili, et al. 2013. A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo. Science 342, 326–331. 10.1126/science.1238484 Lumley, Henri de, Médéa Nioradzé, Deborah Barsky, et al. 2005. Les industries lithiques préoldowayennes du début du Pléistocène inférieur du site de Dmanissi en Géorgie. L’Anthropologie 109, 1–182. 10.1016/j.anthro.2005.02. 011 Mgeladze Ana, David Lordkipanidze, Marie-Hélène Moncel, et al. 2011. Hominin occupations at the Dmanisi site, Georgia, Southern Caucasus: Raw materials and technical behaviours of Europe’s first hominins. Journal of Human Evolution 60, 571–596. 10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.10.008 Nigro, Lorenzo (ed.). 2012. Kirbet al-Batrawi III. The EB II–III triple fortification line, and the EB IIIB quarter inside the city-wall Preliminary report of the fourth (2008) and fifth (2009) seasons of excavations. Rome: La Sapienza. — 2016. Khirbat al-Batrawi 2010–2013: The City Defenses and the Palace of Copper Axes. Studies on the History and Archaeology of Jordan XII, 135–154. Palumbo, Gaetano and Fabio Parenti. 1996. Les couteaux yarmoukiens polis sur plaquette du site de Shayyeh, vallée du Zarqa, Jordanie. Paléorient 22.2, 129– 132. Palumbo, Gaetano, Massimiliano Munzi, Sarah Collins et al. 1996. The Wadi AzZarqa/Wadi Ad-Dulayl Excavations and Survet Project: Report on the October-November 1993 Fieldwork Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40, 375–427. Palumbo, Gaetano, Zeidan Kafafi, Fabio Parenti, et al. 2002. The Joint ItalianJordanian Project in the Zerqa Valley: Results of the 1993–2002 Seasons. In: Civilizations of the Past, Dialogue of the Present: Italian Research Missions in Jordan. Amman: Italian Embassy. Parenti, Fabio. 2015. Zarqa Valley Paleoanthropological project 2015. Unpub. Preliminary Report to the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Parenti, Fabio, Abdel H. Al-Shiyab, Ernesto Santucci, Zeidan Kafafi and Gaetano Palumbo. 1997. Early Acheulean stone tools and fossil faunas from the Dauqara formation, upper Zarqa valley, Jordanian plateau. In Gebel, Hans G.,

12

Fabio Parenti and Gaetano Palumbo

Zeidan Kafafi, and Gary O. Rollefson (eds.). Prehistory of Jordan II, Perspectives from 1996, 7–22. Berlin: ex Oriente. Polcaro, Andrea and Juan Ramon Muniz. 2020. Preliminary Results of the 2014– 2015 Excavations Campaigns at the Early Bronze Age I Settlement of Jabal al-Muṭawwaq, Middle Wādī az-Zarqā’, Area C. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 13, 85–96. Rightmire G. Philip and David Lordkipanidze. 2010. Fossil Skulls from Dmanisi: A Paleodeme Representing Earliest Homo in Eurasia. In John G. Fleagle, John J. Shea, Frederick E. Grine, Andrea L. Baden, Richard E. Leakey (eds), Out of Africa I: The First Hominin Colonization of Eurasia, 225–243. Springer. Sahnouni, Mohammed, Davi Hadjouis, Jan Van Der Made et al. 2002. Further research at the Oldowan site of Ain Hanech, North-eastern Algeria. Journal of Human Evolution 43, 925–937. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jhev.2002.0608 Sahnouni, Mohammed and Jan M. van der Made. 2009. The Oldowan in north Africa within a biochronological framework. In Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth (eds), The Cutting Edge: New Approaches to the Archaeology of Human Origins, 179–210. Gosport: Indiana Stone Age Institute Press. Sahnouni, Mohamed, Joses M. Parés, Mathieu Duval, et al. 2018. 1.9-millionand 2.4-million-year-old artifacts and stone tool–cutmarked bones from Ain Boucherit, Algeria. Science 362, 1297–1301. 10.1126/science.aau0008 Scardia G., Walter A. Neves, Ian Tattersal, and Lukas Blumrich. 2020. What kind of hominin first left Africa? Evolutionary Anthropology 30.2, 122–127. 10.1002/evan.21863 Scardia, Giancarlo, Fabio Parenti, Daniel P. Miggins, Axel Gerdes, Astolfo G.M. Araujo and Walter A. Neves. 2019. Chronologic constraints on hominin dispersal outside Africa since 2.48 Ma from the Zarqa Valley, Jordan. Quaternary Science Reviews 219, 1–19. 10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.06.007 Yang S.-X., Hou Y.-M., Yue J.-P., Petraglia M. D., Deng C.-L. & Zhu R.-X. 2016. The Lithic Assemblages of Xiaochangliang, Nihewan Basin: Implications for Early Pleistocene Hominin Behaviour in North China. PLoS ONE 11, 5, e0155793. 10.1371/journal.pone.0155793 Zhu, Zhaoyu, Robin Dennell, Weiwen Huang, et al. 2018. Hominin occupation of the Chinese Loess Plateau since about 2.1 million years ago. Nature 559, 608–611. 10.1038/s41586–018–0299–4

‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 Season Preliminary Report Maysoon Al Nahar

Introduction ‘Ayn Ghazal is located northeast of Amman, adjacent to Zarqa River. It was continuously occupied from the Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB) until the end of the Pottery Neolithic (PN -Yarmoukian). It is among the megasites whose sizes exceed 10 ha (Kafafi 2004, 115). Eleven systematic excavation seasons have been conducted at ‘Ayn Ghazal (Rollefson and Kafafi 2013, 24) between 1982 and1998. Two bulldozing incidents occurred at parts of the site in 2011 and 2019 as a result of the expanding urban development of Amman. In 2011 rescue excavations were undertaken in the destroyed part by the Hashemite University and the Department of Antiquities (DoA) under the supervision Prof. Zeidan Kafafi (Kafafi et.al 2016: 163). The 2019 rescue excavations were directed by the DoA with technical and financial support from the USAID SCHEP and assistance from Prof. Gary Rollefson (Elayan et.al 2020: 67–68). To continue supporting the efforts of preserving ‘Ayn Ghazal and to encourage interest in prehistoric periods among future generations of archaeologists, the Department of Archaeology granted the University of Jordan to carry out its 2020 field school at ‘Ayn Ghazal under the direction of Prof. Maysoon Al Nahar with funds from the University of Jordan. The 2020 season started in mid-October and ended in the last week of December. One of the main obstacles in this season was the worldwide Covid-19 pandemic, which also included the Kingdom of Jordan. Thus, certain protection procedures needed to be installed for the accomplishment of the fieldwork. Despite the difficulties, however, owing to the discoveries which are presented in this paper as well as the remarkable efforts by the field staff, the excavations achieved full success.

Methodology Two areas at the site were selected for excavation; the Central and the North Fields. Eighteen squares were excavated during this season, of which twelve were newly opened, whilst five were continued from earlier excavations campaigns (Fig. 1). In order to conform with the social distancing regulations from COVID 19, the excavation grid was established on 5 m squares, each separated in four

14

Maysoon Al Nahar

units measuring 2 × 2 m by a 1m wide baulk in the shape of a cross through the square’s centre. The units were thus confined to the squares’ corners.

Figure 1: Plan with Ayn Ghazal excavated areas (the black colour squares for previous seasons and grey colour squares are for 2020 season).

The Central Field Areas The Central Field at ‘Ayn Ghazal is very large. During this season, it was therefore divided into following four subareas: 1) area C East, 2) area C West, 3) area C1 and 4) area C2. (see Fig. 1).

A REA C E AST In this area we opened one 5 × 5 m square (3484, see Fig. 1), subdivided into four units (Fig. 2). This square is located on a slope close to the site’s eastern fence facing the main highway. Because of its location and the predisposition of stones tumbling down the slope, most of the features cleared in the square were disturbed. On first sight, the square revealed a large, c. 1.20 m wide wall oriented NS in its eastern part. The wall was built of large stones and coated with a thin white plaster layer. In the southern part of the square the top of the wall was covered by a (seemingly later) white powdery plaster floor which continued toward the south west. A disturbed dog burial (identified by Dr Belal Abu Helaleh) was recorded in the square’s NW corner. The animal appeared to have been buried below a plaster floor that had been damaged by the rocks tumbling down the slope.

‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 Season: Preliminary Report

15

Another white plaster floor appeared at a lower level of the square’s southern part and was observed to be associated with the western base of the wall. This floor extended from east to west. Figure 2: Area C East in the Central Field.

A REA C W EST This area had not been excavated previously. It consisted of squares 4484, 4684, and 4483 (Fig. 3). Each square was divided into four units (measuring 2 × 2 m). However, not all units within the squares were excavated in this season. In square 4484 all units were excavated. In square 4684 the eastern two units were opened, and in square 4483 only the NW unit was excavated. Well-made walls were uncovered in this area, one of which in an E-W orientation. Its width was established at 0.85 m and it was built of stones between 20 and 30 cm long. Even though the wall was preserved in only one course, it had been built on top of a well-made foundation consisting of small stones. The wall was observed to run through units 4484/ A, D and 4684/D. Its end appeared in the NW corner of unit 4484/D. The other end remained unrecorded, due to missing time for its full exposure. A REA C1 This area consisted of four squares; 3673 (partly excavated in previous years), 3472, 3473, and 3474 (Fig. 4). Nine units were opened within these squares. Square 3673 Square 3673 was excavated in previous years and yielded Yarmoukian architecture, including walls and a white plaster floor. In this season we opened a unit of 2.65 × 1.85 m in its SE corner with the intent to excavate the square’s lower layers and eventually to reach the LPPNB phase. In this phase we found two main floors. One was a dirt floor supporting a hearth and a stone wall, the other floor was about 30 cm below and revealed a polished plaster floor painted with red ochre. Around the plaster floor several stones were excavated that may have been part of a structure surrounding the plaster floor.

16

Maysoon Al Nahar

Figure 3: Area C West in the Central Field

Square 3472 Two units were opened in square 3472. The top layers here were severely disturbed. However, the latter were followed below by a Yarmoukian stone platform. The level of this platform indicated that it was probably related to the architecture shown in square 3673.

‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 Season: Preliminary Report

17

Figure 4: Area C1 in the Central Field

Square 3473 In square 3473, two units were opened. Both squares showed a white powdery plaster floor (probably Yarmoukian).

18

Maysoon Al Nahar

Square 3474 In Square 3474 four units were opened. A stone platform was cleared in the eastern units which probably also connects to the one in square 3472. The square’s north and west further revealed several white plaster floors in a vertical sequence, which probably points to a history of the building’s refurbishing. They also seem to relate to the floors in the units of square 3473. In general, the findings in the three eastern squares correlate with the Yarmoukian architecture in square 3673, which was excavated in previous years.

A REA C2 Area C2 includes four squares (4 × 4 m), including 3069, 3070, 3071and 3072 (Fig. 5). The excavation of these squares began in the previous rescue excavation season in 2018–2019. The area’s most important features uncovered in the previous excavations are the plaster floor with its foundations and a pit containing unexcavated human bones in square 3072, as well as a plaster floor in square 3071. It is possible that the discoveries in these squares in 2018–2019 are related to the LPPNB. In the 2020 season we continued the work in the four squares and the results are presented below. Square 3069 The square produced a poorly-made white plaster floor with no foundation in the NW corner. The SW corner provided a clay-mud floor mixed with white plaster in the northern part of the square. A wall or a stone platform was located extending from the south side toward the middle of the square. Three hearths were uncovered on the top of the platform. Two of them were on the eastern side of the platform, whereas the third hearth was located in the bottom of the platform in the north section. The hearth was connected to mud and white plaster floors in the square. At ‘Ayn Ghazal the Yarmoukian structures appear above the PPNC levels. They also reutilised the earlier house walls and modified them. The well-made plaster floors of the PPNB-PPNC were replaced by huwwar or mud floors during the PN (Kafafi 1993: 103–105). This seems to be the situation of the findings in square 3069. Moreover, the rubble layer which appears in the west section on top of the square as well as the floor types suggest that the dating of the square features may be related to the PPNC-Yarmoukian period. Square 3070 In the NE side of the square a stratified series of red decorated plaster floors was found (ca. five floors on top of each other). Above the uppermost floor a layer of burnt mud was exposed showing clear impressions of reed (Fig. 6) which probably represent a ceiling that had collapsed onto the red painted plaster floor. The

‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 Season: Preliminary Report

19

Figure 5: Area C2 in the Central Field

plaster floor and the burnt mud continued to appear in the SE corner of square 3071. A white plaster feature was found in the west side of the square on the same level as the plaster floor. It was semi-circular and made of powdery lime. This

20

Maysoon Al Nahar

Figure 6: Collapsed burned ceiling with reed impressions.

area may have served for preparing and heating the lime used in the floors. This feature noticeably included enormous numbers of sharp thin lithic blades.

The Burial A complete burial was discovered below a red plaster floor (Fig. 7) in the square’s southern area immediately next to the south section (close to the SE corner). The body had been buried in a well-prepared grave below the floor and embedded in the floor foundation. The sediment shrouding the burial was very moist (due to recent rainfall), and the bones were consequently very fragile and damp. When we first removed the sediments off the bones a reddish colour appeared, but as soon as the bones were dry the colour changed to white; they seemed to be covered with a layer of patina. The skeleton had been buried on its left side and its legs flexed. The right hand was on the chest, whilst the left hand was under the right hand. The face was in a sideway position. All the bones of the burial were present, including neck bones, clavicles and shoulder bones. The surrounding soil here included many black specks, probably carbonized seeds. Under the left knee was a large horn in an EW orientation; another horn was recorded in parallel position to the left hand. A fragment of a cattle figurine was recovered from behind the head. Although the skull remained intact together with the post-cranial skeleton, for the following reasons we consider the burial to date to the MPPNB. First, even

‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 Season: Preliminary Report

21

Figure 7: A fragile complete burial found in square 3070.

though the skull had not been removed, all other circumstances indicate it is different to the LPPNB burials so far recovered at ‘Ayn Ghazal. It had been buried beneath a red plaster floor, like all MPPNB burials and contrary to the ‘Ayn Ghazal LPPNB burials. Secondly, in one case an MPPNB subfloor burial had in fact retained its skull (Fig. 8). It may be that the deceased had been buried according to the usual MPPNB customs, but that within the interval of the grave’s reopening for the skull’s removal the house may have collapsed or the household members may have left. Thirdly, the burial is in a flexed position, typical for the MPPNB but not for the LPPNB (cf. Rollefson 1986, 50 and Footnote 21). Square 3072 In this square four surfaces were found in different phases. The top two are red plaster floors which were found in the 2019 season. There may be a burial pit below the lower floor, since there was a long bone on the top of it. But due to time constraints we decided to leave it unexcavated. The third floor was recorded as a clayish surface, and in the NE corner a pit containing some animal bones was found. Two walls forming a corner were cleared below the surface. The first wall ran from the south baulk toward the middle of the square, whilst the second from west to east. The base of the second wall was on a lower level than the first, which would suggest an earlier date.

22

Maysoon Al Nahar

Figure 8: MPPNB subfloor burial with skull intact, excavated in the Central Field in 1984 (‘Ayn Ghazal Archaeological Project, photo by C. Blair).

‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 Season: Preliminary Report

23

Inside the building near the corner was a third whitish plaster floor decorated with red parallel lines. This floor was associated with a pit and a post hole, but time constrains did not allow us to excavate them.

The North Field Area Working in the North Field was difficult because of the enormous number of stones covering the entire area. The stones ranged between 0.3 and 0.7 m. It seems that there was a recent supporting wall running from north to south, which caused an irregular and rugged slope crossing the intended working area. In the beginning, therefore, most of the work consisted of cleaning the area cautiously while taking care not to remove any original stone from the archaeological context. We stopped working in units 5115/C; 5114/C; and 5114/D after two weeks. We could not go farther in these units, owing to the insurmountable amounts of rocks. Square 5114 We opened a unit in the SE corner and it was extended to the SW corner of square 5015. Cleaning was started in the west side of the square, but two units were opened in the part of the square, each 2 × 2 m and separated by a 1 m wide baulk. Both units were extended about 1 m into the west side of square 5015. Square 5113 Three 2 × 2 units were opened in this square: Two of them in the east side of the square and one in the SW side of the square. Square 5112 Two units were opened on the east side of the square. Square 5312 Two units were opened in the eastern part of the square. The north unit (5112/B, C, D; 5111/A, D; 5312/C) Because of the huge number of the stones in the working units, it was very hard to detect the archaeological architecture inside them. Therefore, we decided to remove the baulks and to interconnect the units, so as to receive a bigger picture before continuing the removal of more stones. Consequently, all were comprised to one unit designated as the north unit which consisted of squares 5112/B, C, D, 5111/A, D, and 5312/C. A wall of about 1.20 m width in a N-S orientation was recorded in unit 5312/C and resembled a platform associated with a wall in units 5111 A and 5112 runs. A second course of this wall was noted only on its eastern face.

24

Maysoon Al Nahar

Another wall in a E-W orientation appeared in the south of the north unit (5111A). It was connected with the NS wall forming a corner. The width of this wall was established at about 0.6 m and consisted of three courses. A fragile human skull damaged by plant roots was found in front of the base of the wall’s eastern side. Other walls seem to have existed inside this unit but were insufficiently distinct. Several Yarmoukian pottery shards were found here, which may suggest contextual relationship with the architecture. However, this needs verification from future work in this area.

Figure 9: Adjacent units in the North Field.

Unit 5311/B A circle of stones, possibly marking a pit, appeared in the unit’s western part. Two walls running into the unit formed a corner next to the northern and eastern baulks. Both walls consisted of medium and large stones. Other stones formed an arch in the middle of unit 5311/B connecting to both walls. More work needs do be done here in the future. Unit 5311/C A burial pit was uncovered but we did not excavate it; no other clear features appeared in this unit. Unit 5312/D A wall with one course appeared, but the bottom of the wall comprised small stones set into mortar; more courses below may be expected in future excavations.

Remarks The surface of ‘Ayn Ghazal during the MPPNB was terraced (Kafafi 2001, 33). The houses were mostly built with large rooms for nuclear families (Rollefson 1992; 1998, 184). Walls were typically constructed of local stones, and mortar made of mud mixed with small stones. Remodelling of the rooms during the MPPNB was common and the internal layout and dimensions of the rooms were mostly standardised. The floors were customarily made of painted plaster (red,

‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 Season: Preliminary Report

25

white, or pink colours). The floors included several postholes used in roof supports (Banning 2003, 9–10; Simmons 2007, 136). By the end of the MPPNB period postholes were about 15 cm in diameter. Generally, they were located close to the wall lines (Rollefson et al.1991, 107). However, Kafafi (2004) suggested that during the MPPNB, wooden beams were used to carry the ceiling. Yet, in the LPPNB and PPNC, people stopped using them and replaced them with structural walls (Kafafi 2004, 116). The LPPNB architecture in Jordan produced evidence for two-storied buildings (Kafafi 2001, 33; Rollefson et al 1989, 111). The structures of the LPPNB continued in similar fashion as in the MPPNB, and renovation of the houses was common as well (Simmons 2007, 138). Nevertheless, while the number of the rooms increased, their sizes became smaller, and the two-story building type also appeared at other large LPPNB settlements (Kuijt and Goring-Morris 2002, 407; Bienert 2001, 111). This season of excavation was finished recently, so we have not yet had the chance to date our samples. Therefore, according to the previous description of the MPPNB and the LPPNB, squares 3070, 3071, 3072 are probably MPPNB and the trench in square 3673 likewise LPPNB. During the PPNC, ‘Ayn Ghazal occupants often reused and remodelled the LPPNB architecture (Rollefson et. al 1991:116). Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson (1993) described three types of PPNC structures in the Central Field as follows: The first type had one single room that had walls of 0.5 m in thickness. The structure had a floor made out of poor quality huwwar plaster. The second type of building was the corridor type, and the third type of structure called the “Great Wall” had five courses, reaching a height of about 60 cm and running NW-SE. It was associated with plastered courtyards on both sides of the wall (Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993, 36–38). The results of this season excavation in area C West (squares: 4484 and 4486) seem to match the suggested first type of the PPNC. Yarmoukian occupants also reused the LPPNB and PPNC structures (Kafafi 1993, 108), but new buildings were also constructed. The structures at ‘Ayn Ghazal during this period were about 5 × 9 m in size (Rollefson 2000, 182). The structures included either mud or huwwar plaster floors (Rollefson and Köhler-Rollefson 1993, 36). The plaster floors declined and the mud floors and cobblestone floors became more frequent (Banning 2003, 11; 2002, 45; Rollefson 2000, 182). This resembles the structural elements of the cobble stones, the series of plaster and mud floors in squares 3473 and 3474 in area C1. The appearance of several mud and plaster floors in combination with the large wall found in square 3181 in area C East indicate the reuse of the space through the PPNC-Yarmoukian periods.

26

Maysoon Al Nahar

Figure 10: Prof. Zeidan Kafafi visiting ‘Ayn Ghazal during the 2020 season.

Moreover, the ‘Ayn Ghazal Yarmoukian occupants built many walls and used and remodelled a large wall that originally had been built during the PPNC period (Rollefson 1997, 30). They introduced several stone buildings with different shapes including rectangular, apsidal and curvilinear geometries. It is notable that

‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 Season: Preliminary Report

27

these structures were built directly on sterile soil (Kafafi 1993, 108–110). This type of structures was uncovered in the north unit at the North Field.

Conclusion The excavation of ‘Ayn Ghazal 2020 yielded several important results. They could be summarised by the following: 1) The discovery of the complete burial with its special position found in square 3070 outside the site fence; 2) finding the LPPNB and MPPNB structures with painted plaster floors in the central area outside the site fence; 3) Most of the excavated area in the central field revealed Yarmoukian architecture, however, in the 2020 season we reached the LPPNB phase and exposed a plaster floor in square 3673; 4) In this season the western part of the Central Field was excavated for the first time and yielded structures that probably related to the PPNC period; 5) In the North Field close to the previously excavated cult building, walls and platforms with only a few Yarmoukian pottery shards were found during the 2020 season. This indicates that the North Field does not have a Yarmoukian occupation phase, but that the Yarmoukians used the area for unspecified purposes.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank the school of Archaeology and Tourism at the University of Jordan for funding this project and the moral support of its faculty members. My thanks also go to the Department of Antiquities and its representatives for their consistent logistics help. I am also much indebted to Prof. Zeidan Kafafi, Prof. Gary Rollefson, Mr Basem Mahameed and Dr Brian Byrd, for providing all the needed information of the previous work at the site which helped continuing the excavation in this season. I am grateful for my former students who assisted the work voluntarily during this season, despite the Covid 19 pandemic; Sereen al Shobaki, Joud Lu’ay, Hadeel Yaseen, Abdulhafeez Gith, Ahmad Ayasra, and Osama Samawi. This project would not have succeeded without the hard work of the project team: Muhannad Tantawi, Dr. Muath al Fuqaha, Munjed Qassim, Qutaiba Dasouqi, Mohammad Ady and Ishaq Sayaleh. I would also like to thank the American Center for Research (ACOR) for its support and help.

Bibliography Banning, E. 2002. Ceramic Neolithic – Late or Pottery Neolithic. In P. Peregrine and M. Ember (eds.) Encyclopedia of Prehistory: South & Southwest Asia, 40– 55. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York. — 2003. Housing Neolithic Farmers. Near Eastern Archaeology 66, 4–21. Bienert, H.-D. 2001. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) of Jordan: A first step towards Proto-Urbanism? Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 7, 107–119.

28

Maysoon Al Nahar

Elayan, Y., Mahamid, B. and Rollefson, G. 2020. The Rescue Excavation of ‘Ayn Ghazal, 2018 and 2019 Seasons. Creasman, P.P., J. D. M. Green and C. Shelto Archaeology in Jordan 2, 2018 and 2019 Seasons, 67–68. Kafafi, Z. 2004. The “Collapse” of the LPPNB Settlement Organization: The Case of ‘Ain Ghazal. In H.-D. Bienert, H.G.K. Gebel and R. Neef (eds.), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan, 113–118. Berlin: ex oriente. — 2001. Jordan during the Late Seventh / Early Sixth Millennia BC. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 1, 31–42. — 1993. The Yarmoukians in Jordan. Paléorient 19.1, 101–114. Kafafi, Z., Rollefson, G., Douglas, K., Lash, A. and Khraisat, B. 2016. Preliminary Report on the ‘Ayn Ghazal Rescue Excavations: October and December 2011 / January 2012. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 12, 163–172. Kuijt, I., and Goring-Morris, N. 2002. Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory 16.4, 361–440. Rollefson, G. 1986. Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal (Jordan): Ritual and Ceremony, II. Paléorient 12.1, 45–52. — 2000. Ritual and social structure at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal. In Kuijt, I. (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities, 165–190. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. — 1998. Ritual and Social Structure at Neolithic ‘Ain Ghazal. In Kuijt, I. (ed.) Social Configurations of the Near Eastern Early Neolithic 165–190. New York Plenum — 1997. The 1996 Season at ‘Ayn Ghazal Preliminary Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities 41, 27–48. — 1992. A Neolithic Game Board from ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 286 1–5. Rollefson, G. and Kafafi, Z. 2013. The Town of ‘Ain Ghazal. In D. SchmandtBesserat (ed.), Symbols at ‘Ain Ghazal, 3–29. Berlin: ex oriente. Rollefson G., Kafafi Z. and Simmons A. 1991. The Neolithic Village of ‘Ain Ghazal, Jordan: Preliminary Report on the 1988 Season, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary Studies 27: 95–116. Rollefson, G. and Köhler-Rollefson, I. 1993. PPNC Adaptations in the first half of the 6th Millennium ВС. Paléorient 19.1, 31–40. Simmons, A. H. 2007. The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape. Tucson: University of Arizona.

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area The Early 1980’s Research History Hans Georg K. Gebel

Brothers by Jordan’s Heritage The beginnings of my long-term regional engagement in Neolithic research of the Greater Petra Area were promoted and fostered by three opportune personal and academic relationships and circumstances which facilitated my field work and research during the early 1980s: In the late 1970s, while studying with Zeidan Kafafi at the Seminar for Near Eastern Archaeology at the Free University Berlin (FUB), I became his younger brother in Jordan’s Heritage, with me also specialising in Early Holocene prehistory. During the time when he prepared his PhD and I was doing my MA under Hans J. Nissen, we and our families also became close. Zeidan at that time introduced me to the visiting director-general of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (DoA), the late Adnan Hadidi. At a reception for Dr Adnan, he encouraged me, though still a master’s student, to start a field project in Jordan, and Zeidan pushed me to go for it. Diana Kirkbride had laid solid foundations for research focussing on a regional Neolithic development (excavations at Beidha, surveys in the Shaqarat Mazyad/ Musai‘id (spellings Kirkbride and Gebel) – now spelt Shkārat Msaied – and adhDhaman environs; e.g. Kirkbride 1966, 1968). While working on my master’s thesis (published as Gebel 1984), which was based on my early and deep interest in the advent of productive lifeways in the Near East and much encouraged by Hans J. Nissen and Harald Hauptmann, I realised that the Greater Petra Area would be most suitable for my research. Here, the east-west succession of 8 completely different and sensitive physiographic units between 1700 and 100 m a.s.l. would always be a very vulnerable or resilient system reacting to productive subsistence modes and related social change. Still today, I see the Greater Petra Area as a model region to study Neolithic processes. The Tübingen Atlas of the Near East (TAVO), a special research division of the German Research Foundation (DFG) chaired by Wolfgang Röllig, provided to me the framework to conduct the Palaeoenvironmental Investigations in the Greater Petra Area – Early Holocene Research (PIGPA) from 1983–85, after an

30

Hans Georg K. Gebel

initial survey in 1981.1 Following the invitation by Dr Adnan, the DoA organised my first field visit to the Greater Petra Area in spring 1981. Dr Adnan provided a pickup with driver, accommodations at the Petra Resthouse, along with Mujahed Muheisen as the DoA representative. Mujahed was taking a vacation break in Jordan from his thesis work in the French troisième cycle, for which he used the material he had excavated at early Epipalaeolithic Kharaneh IV. Since the aim of my future project was to reconstruct and compare the early Holocene Neolithic site catchments by means of a survey and sounding/sampling program, I understood that Diana Kirkbride’s PPNB sites of adh-Dhaman and Shaqarat Musai‘id would be good starting points to be revisited during that spring. I therefore had contacted Diana Kirkbride before going to Petra, asking for a meeting to obtain her consent as well as accurate information on the sites’ locations. I was deeply impressed by her generosity and helpfulness when we met at the American Center for Research (ACOR, then still near the 5th circle in Amman).2 I remember Diana’s sovereign way of directing – with an outstretched arm – as her pencil tip hit the exact spots on the 1:50.000 map without hesitating or even needing to check. She was very kind to me, and I was happy to receive her approval for my planned project.3 During the 3–4 days of the subsequent reconnaissance work north and south of Petra I was travelling on horseback, accompanied by Abu Shaher from the al-Bdul tribe in Petra. Mujahed Muheisen had to stay in the Petra Resthouse, due to chronic headaches, the first signs of the fatal disease that led to his passing in 2000 at the age of 46. It was no problem to locate and first check Shaqarat Musai‘id and adh-Dhaman. In addition, and on the way to adh-Dhaman I found the collapsed rock shelter of Sabra 1, noticing also the rich Pleistocene site presences in the Sabra/adh-Dhaman environs. 1 Hans-Peter Uerpmann shared the investigations for the Pleistocene periods in 1983. The latter evoked, from 2008, the Sabra-Project of the Collaborative Research Center 806 “Our Way To Europe” at Cologne University, directed by Jürgen Richter and (until 2013) Daniel Schyle. My Jordanian research engagement also benefitted from my abandonment of the prospect to excavate Nevalı Çori as initially raised by Harald Hauptmann (cf. Gebel 2021b.). 2 At this occasion I met Gary O. Rollefson for the first time who became a life-long friend. This was also the beginning of his long-term engagement with the study of Jordanian prehistory. 3 All the more was I surprised to hear from Peder Mortensen in the late 80s about her emotional reaction when he had proposed me to prepare with and for her the final publication of Beidha. Diana Kirkbride’s reaction related to her wartime trauma which she shared with her Danish husband Hans Helbæck who was in the Danish resistance against the German occupants during 1942–43. She did not want to have a German working on Beidha. The work on the final publication of Beidha, sponsored by a Danish institution, was then carried out by Brian Byrd (2005).

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

31

In his recent synthesis of my early work in the Petra Area (Kafafi 2019), Dr Zeidan did not take any credit for the essential role he had in establishing the PIGPA-Project, nor would he mention the constant support he later provided to my works in Jordan. Dr Zeidan was for decades also a key person in the JordanianGerman archaeological exchange and cooperation (Gebel and Kafafi 2013), following Moawiyah Ibrahim who – from the early 80s – established many joint projects between his Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (IAA) at Yarmouk University, Irbid, and with German and many other international missions. On the 40th anniversary of my work in Jordan I would like to thank Dr Zeidan for an enduring brotherhood and colleagueship (Fig.1) which have helped me to make Jordan my homeland and her people my extended family, and finally turned my heart to the east.

Figure 1: Zeidan Kafafi and Hans Gebel discussing matters during a Spreewald barge cruise (in Lübbenau) in summer 2009. (Photo: F. Kafafi)

A Long-Term Regional Study: Phases of Neolithic Research in the Greater Petra Area from 1981 until Today The current Ba‘ja Neolithic Project and its latest engagement in the Household and Death in Ba‘ja- Project (www.bajahouseholdanddeath.de) – chiefly funded by the German Research Foundation – is embedded in the long-term three-phase research strategy for the Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area. These phases followed my first reconnaissance in the area in 1981 (cf. above) and ever since have been linked to the permits, the good cooperation, and the efficient support by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and its directors-general and staff (cf. the acknowledgements).

Figure 2: Site panoramas of a Basta 1 (from SE, in 1984), b Ba′ja 1 (from SSW, in 1984), c Shaqarat Musai′id 1 (from SW, in 1983), d adh-Dhaman 1 (from ENE, in 1983), and e Abu Barqa (from E, in 1984). (Photos: H.G.K. Gebel, PIGPA-Project).

32 Hans Georg K. Gebel

Figure 3: Location of Ba′ja, with eastern Jabu Plain and Siq al-Ba′ja. (Google Earth, 2020: Siq Umm al-Hiran/ Jabu Plain, 30°24'44''N 35°27'12''E, from 3000 m. (URL:https://www.google.com/earth. Consulted 2021, 10th Feb.).

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area 33

34

Hans Georg K. Gebel

Phase 1 (1983–1985): Regional study focussing on the reconstruction of the Neolithic site environments (e.g. Fig. 7), the palaeophysiographic units of the Greater Petra Area (Fig. 6) and the settlement patterns (Fig. 8) by surveys and a sounding/sampling program for Neolithic environmental data.4 Phase 2 (1986–2014): General material culture and subsistence research with a focus on the Megasite Phenomenon, by mainly large-scale excavations at Basta and Ba‘ja and surveys in the region. Phase 3 (2016 until today): Holistic and transdisciplinary “deep knowledge” research on basic emic and etic questions of early Neolithic life modes (especially related to commodification, territoriality, sepulchral behaviour/thanatology, identity, cognition, ethos: topics of the current Household and Death in Ba‘ja-Project), starting in 2016 with resumed limited excavations in the lower occupational strata of Ba‘ja for their household and sepulchral findings), and by using relevant Ba‘ja and Basta evidence from previous seasons. Phase 3 also aimed to gradually hand over the long-term regional project into younger hands.5 In 1983, soundings, systematic and non-systematic surface collections were carried out at Sabra 1 (Fig. 4c, 5e), adh-Dhaman 1 (Fig. 2d) and Shaqarat Musai‘id 16 (Fig. 2c, 5c). The spring season of 1984 concentrated on a survey between Wadi Musa and Tayiba as well as on botanical and geological surveys in various locations of the Physiographic Units I–VI (completed in the 1985 season; Fig. 6). The autumn season of 1984 was devoted to soundings, systematic and non-systematic surface collections in Ba‘ja (Fig. 2b, 3, 4a, 5a) and Basta (Fig. 2a, 4b, 5b) as well

4

Publications: e.g. Gebel 1986a, 1986b, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1998; Gebel and Starck 1985; Röhrer-Ertl and Frey 1987; Röhrer-Ertl et al. 1988. (Project’s name: Paleaoenvironmental Investigations in the Greater Petra Area – Early Holocene Research (PIGPA), funded by the Tübingen Atlas of the Near East (SFB 19) of the DFG. 5 Publications; e.g. Benz et al. 2019, 2020; Gebel 2002, 2004a, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2014a, 2017; Gebel et al. 2017, 2019, 2020; Purschwitz 2017). Project names: Ba‘ja Neolithic Project and Household and Death in Ba‘ja – Project, principally funded by the DFG with support by ex oriente at the Free University of Berlin. 6 In 1999 I was contacted by Fawzi Zeyadine of the Department of Antiquities, asking me to excavate Shaqarat Musai‘id, as it was threatened by planned road works (the Beidha – Nemela – Gregreh road to Wadi l-‘Araba). Since I had no capacity for a second excavation and because the Carsten Niebuhr Institute (CNI) at Copenhagen University was in need for a site to train its archaeology students, I recommended Ingolf Thuesen as the head of excavations at Shaqarat Musai‘id; the DoA accepted. Since 1999 the Near Eastern Archaeology Dept. (former Carsten Niebuhr Afdeling) of the Institut for Tværkulturelle og Regionale Studier, Copenhagen University, excavates the site with changing field directors. After Moritz Kinzel started to serve as a dig architect in Ba‘ja, I recommended him to Ingolf Thuesen to also care about the architectural study of the MPPNB buildings at Shkārat Msaied (Kinzel 2013). Our 1983 sounding at the site, however, was unfortunately placed outside the core area of the round houses, respectively stopped above the MPPNB in situ layers, partly in their erosional deposits.

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

35

as systematic and non-systematic surface collections at Sunakh 2, Thugra 1, Abu Barqa (Fig. 2e; 5d) and several other sites (Gebel 1988). Parallel to the engagement in the Neolithic research of the Petra area, I was co-director along with Mujahed Muheisen in Natufian ‘Ain Rahub, near Irbid (1985). I also conducted the Eastern Jafr (Joint) Archaeological Project, in partnership with Hamzeh Mahasneh and Mu’tah University (field works in 2001, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011; from 2014 under my sole directorship). During these decades, I continuously promoted the ideas of archaeological sustainability by e.g. practising Embedded Archaeology or accepting cultural and social responsibility while doing fieldwork. This included advocacy by e.g. taking a stand for the traditional Bedouin culture (e.g. Gebel and Baumgarten 2012; Gebel 2014c, 2014d, 2015, 2021a). By all this personal and academic engagement, I matured as a scholar, recognising the ultimate aim of archaeological engagement, understanding our very own biographic entanglement with archaeological objects and layers. I became humble and caring realising our discipline’s colonial attitudes and other failures (Gebel 2021a). Co-editing two readers in the prehistory of Jordan (Garrard and Gebel 1988, eds.; Gebel, Kafafi and Rollefson 1997, eds.) helped me to find my way and role in (Jordanian) archaeology, too.

Discovering Ba‘ja 1 (1984) While residing in Nasal’s Camp in Petra during the spring season of the 1984 PIGPA project, I met Manfred Lindner from the Society for Natural History, Nuremberg who also was hosted with his team in the camp by the DoA. M. Lindner then already was a legendary explorer of the Petra Region, whose success was also related to his cooperation with the equally legendary and smart Dakhilallah Qublan al-Bdul from Umm Zeihoun (al-Bdul Housing). One afternoon M. Lindner showed me two or three typical LPPNB celts, asking what they were and reporting that they were found with Iron Age Pottery by Austrian members of his team during mountaineering in nearby Jabal Ba‘ja. The location was described as an intramountainous place with steep slopes and many walls sticking out the site’s surfaces which best could be reached by one of the gorges, or siqs, arriving from east onto the Jabu Plain, not far from the plain’s erratic, cone-shaped mountain (Fig. 3). I was alerted by the finds’ clear LPPNB traits and could not believe that a settlement may once have flourished in this labyrinth of sandstone formations. What if the celts represent an ephemeral activity in the mountains? Because the locational information was very vague and other priorities had to be considered, I could not plan to relocate the site in April 1984. On September 25th and October 7th of 1984, during the autumn season of the 1984 PIGPA-Project, I returned to the Jabu Plain with Suleiman Farajat, this season’s representative of the DoA, and J. Matthias Starck, team member, trying to locate the site. On our way (on foot), an old Amareen Bedouin didn’t allow our

36

Hans Georg K. Gebel Figure 4: a Soundings at Ba‘ja 1 (S1, 1984) from S, b Basta 1 (S1, 1984) from SSE, c Sabra (S1, 1983) from E. (Photos: H.G.K. Gebel, PIGPA-Project).

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

37

Figure 5: Artefacts from surface collections and soundings: a sandstone rings from Ba‘ja 1; b drills from Basta; c arrowheads from Shaqarat Musai‘id 1; d blade tools, foliate knife with desert varnish from Abu Barqa; e chipped stone tools (microliths, Khiamian and Helwan arrowheads, microdrills, a transversal projectile point) and beads from Sabra 1. (Photos: H.G.K. Gebel, PIGPA-Project)

38

Hans Georg K. Gebel

passage into the tribal territory, and asked us to provide “a passport”: He did not accept the DoA permit, insisting that this was tribal and not governmental land. However, we eventually reached the Jabu Plain. We first explored the two siqs close to the cone-shaped mountain and north of Siq al-Ba‘ja (Fig. 3), though without success. I remember their extremely dense vegetation and almost impassable topography, fills of large boulders, and our clothes torn apart. When we entered the lower Siq al-Ba‘ja at late forenoon on Oktober 7th 1984, we were not sure it would lead us to the PPNB occupation. After passing the comfortable gravel floors after the siq’s entrance, we became more concerned with navigating through the siq’s narrowness (as little as 60–70 cm at the bottom) and passing the huge blockages, having not brought along any climbing equipment. However, we were young and attracted by the challenge. In these moments, we hardly were aware of the beauty of the deeply incised gorge, and the plays of colour and light on its vertical walls, some of which being 70 m high. There were good chances of missing the site, had I not noticed a certain spot to my left where blades had been washed down a broad wooded slope: Continuing through the siq would have led us around the LPPNB site of Ba‘ja which rested on the remnants of an intramontane basin above. This slope was to become the access to the site during the next thirteen seasons of excavations and numerous visits to Ba‘ja. Following the “scent” of the blades, we reached the eroded intramontane plateau with its steep slopes, carrying a dense and well-preserved LPPNB architecture on c. 12–15 dunams (decares) respectively 1.2–1.5 ha area (c. 290 m × 20–90 m). It rested in an absolutely secluded setting, framed by the southern Siq al-Ba‘ja, a small northern “confluent” siq (“Snake Valley”) and vertical sandstone formations (Fig. 3). To the east, the Siq al-Ba‘ja drainage “dissolves” in various branches in the sandstone formations, after providing another but less comfortable access to the site from the south. From October 9th to October 14th 1984, our small team7 excavated Sounding 1 (S1) in Ba‘ja’s Area A (Fig. 4a), documented the extended sections of looting pits designated as Soundings 2 and 3, did systematic and non-systematic surface collections, and explored the site’s immediate vicinity to the best extent possible. After our return from the autumn season at Ba‘ja, M. Lindner gave me a small report with mappings and photos of his surface finds from various sites in the Ba‘ja area. In these, the LPPNB site of Ba‘ja was spelled Ba‘adscha II, but mentioning that the location is also called Umm al-Hamda. The photos show Nabatean and Iron Age pottery, LPPNB grinding tools and a biconically perforated “loom weight” made from a blackish basaltic tuff. This information was then published in Lindner 1986 and 1996.

7

Consisting of Matthias Starck, Bassima Khoury and Angelika Müller, the latter two being students of late Wolfgang Taute from Cologne University.

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

39

We called the site Ba‘ja 1, according to our survey rules and received the information that locally the place is called al-Mehmad. Our 1984 investigations were published in Gebel 1983–84, 1986a, 1986b, 1988, and Gebel and Starck 1985. It is acknowledged that had M. Lindner not brought into question the celts or given any general information about the site’s location, we may have considered to refrain from surveying the rock formations east of the Jabu Plain, and subsequently to the site.

Discovering Basta (1984) During his 1984 visit in Basta and while searching for Nabatean remains on Wadi Basta’s banks, DoA’s deputy director Fawzi Zeyadine noticed that construction activity was cutting and disturbing the remains of a settlement he identified as “probably Neolithic”. He instructed the new head of the Petra Office, Suleiman Farajat, to notify me about the site at my arrival in fall of that year. Suleiman Farajat, who was also the representative for our autumn season, brought me to Basta, and we started to search for the exposures of the supposed Neolithic remains. Finally, we did find LPPNB remains in a building plot cutting into Wadi Basta’s upper left bank slopes (S1, Fig. 2a) where we immediately set back an existing section from which a human skull was sticking out (Fig. 4b). Right from the beginning it was clear that the material, especially the lithic industry, was very similar to that we had recorded at Ba‘ja. While the surface distribution of LPPNB chipped stones indicated a very large site, we had no surface or section evidence of the typical LPPNB double-faced walls. Except for the two building plots (Fig. 2a) we had no indication that the thriving construction activity would soon destroy and lead to buildings occupying larger parts of the LPPNB site, especially in 1985 and 1986. It was shortly before the International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan (ICHAJ) in Tübingen, April 1986 when I received a letter from Dr Fawzi urging me to come that year for rescue excavations in Basta; he spoke of vast destruction of Neolithic layers by intense house building in the al-Neimat village of Basta. I subsequently contacted Hans J. Nissen, asking for his help and cooperation to excavate Basta. Immediately he agreed, provided it would become a real research excavation/project void of the constraints of a rescue operation. The German Research Foundation would not finance a rescue excavation considered to be the duty of the Kingdom’s authorities. It was fortunate that Tübingen’s ICHAJ brought together the initial stakeholders for the new project. The directors of the permit-granting Department of Antiquities, Adnan Hadidi, the Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology at Yarmouk University in Irbid (IAA), Moawiyah Ibrahim, and the Seminar for Near Eastern Archaeology at the Free University of Berlin, Hans J. Nissen, set up the umbrella under which the Basta Joint Archaeological Project would start. It was most help-

40

Hans Georg K. Gebel

ful that Dr Moawiyah at this time promoted many joint projects with foreign universities and that he was close to our Berlin seminar. Before this ICHAJ 1986 meeting, Dr Mujahed approached me, offering his partnership for the joint project as suggested by the IAA at Yarmouk University. In a matter of just one hour, all sides had established and already designed the new joint project to start in fall 1986, and it would be based on an equal input of material and finances. This gentlemen’s agreement even arranged who would pay for the cook and what the Department’s share of the workmen would be. Dr Mujahed and Hans J. Nissen became the co-directors of the joint project, with Nabil Qadi and me as the deputy co-directors. The DoA and its (changing) representatives became the third leg on which the project rested. The fact that the project’s directorship only had one specialist in the local and Near Eastern Neolithic was not a real disadvantage, since our field work concentrated on just the materials.

General Results of the Palaeoenvironmental Investigations in the Greater Petra Area (1981–85) Diana Kirkbride’s work in Beidha opened the door and paved the way, one might say, to intensified Neolithic research in the Greater Petra Area, a region that in addition offered excellent conditions for studying the complexity of Neolithic trajectories, due to its highly diversified human ecology. The Greater Petra Area reaches from the Arabian Plateau in the east to the flats of Wadi l-‘Araba in the west (Fig. 6). Whilst the results from Beidha provided a solid starting point for a regional project, the site catchment approach of the PIGPA- Project allowed to differentiate the distinctive site potentials from the beginning and to observe the financial limits of the project. This approach became the opener to understanding the highly interdependent Neolithic developments in the E-W succession of the small and sensitive ecologic units (e.g. Fig. 7) providing quite different developmental potentials to the individual sites. A second major aspect of the successful research history of the regional study’s Phases 1–3, is permanency and sustainability (Gebel 2014d, 2021a). It has been going on for four decades now and hopefully is on its way to become a “generations’ project”: The overall development of the regional research underlines just how important it is to regularly return to a research area. It means constantly adapting and redesigning research agendas according to new results and progressing insights, testing and reviewing working theses, overcoming financial restrictions and other constraints, and most importantly, taking part in local life and social structures of the areas studied. As a result, sustainability can be promoted on all levels, well beyond what is normal for projects governed by short-term grants. Especially the financial constraints were a permanent burden: While field work somehow always managed to find financing, especially after the launching of the research association ex oriente at the Free University of Berlin in 1994 as a backbone for the regional Neolithic study, there never was enough funding to

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

41

maintain any sufficient or permanent desk- or lab work over the decades. Without a manifold system of volunteer input and research contributions at no charge (as e.g. by A. von den Driesch, M. Kinzel, C. Purschwitz, R. Neef, J. Gresky) analysis work would not have been promoted. Much of the delays and gaps in the research activity for Ba‘ja have only recently been compensated by the Household and Death-Project, which started in 2016. PIGPA’s results (presented here in the shape of a set of theses/statements, below) are based on a survey and sounding program aiming to reconstruct the Early Holocene site environments and settlement patterns (Fig. 8): Present-day catchments were evaluated for each of the major sites, creating the base to reconstruct and measure the various shares of Neolithic catchment types in the 1hour and 3 hour walking distances (cf. the Ba‘ja example in Fig. 7). The problem of these reconstructions in the 1980s was the lack of supra-regional climate data, and much had to rely on the available palaeo-ethnobotanical and archaeo-ethnozoological data. The problem of missing climate data was “solved” by simply postulating a higher precipitation (or higher water storage capacities by rather intact soil covers in the 8th millennium BCE), equivalent to 50–100 mm higher rainfall. This work helped to generate general ideas about the potential complexities in the interaction spheres in both diachronic and synchronic terms. It was most important, in these times of lacking data, to keep research assumptions testable. Thus, as it should be done in all new research fields of the humanities, testable theses became the instrument to proceed with epistemically controlled research designs. When ‘Ain Ghazal and Basta began to demand understanding of the Megasite Phenomenon (Gebel 2004a), and our projects’ Phase 2 large-scale excavations started to provide real data bodies for the material culture and subsistence, the situation completely changed: Now theses could be tested and improved to a larger extent and on a better basis, preparing Phase 3 by which we can approach the aforementioned emic and etic essentials of Neolithic life in the Greater Petra Area (Benz et al. 2019, 2020; Gebel 2010, 2014a, 2017). As a result, much epistemically needed innovative approaches appeared in our research agenda, e.g. those inspired by social neurosciences and thanatology (current works of Joachim Bauer, Marion Benz and Hans Georg K. Gebel). By the end of Phase 1 of the regional project (1985), the surveys’ and palaeoenvironmental results allowed preliminary statements – in the shape of theses – on Neolithic trajectories in the Greater Petra; they are repeated here (from Gebel 1992) for the sake of showing their general topicality and duration. Some issues had to be revised, specified or updated in terms of calibrated dates (all in italics)8; at the same time, the following theses and their perspectives reflect the progress we made since the early 80s: 8

Something similar is true for Fig.6. In 1985, the complexity and diversity sensu co-existing lifeways were not understood yet by just surveying the few PPNB and FPPNC locations.

42

Hans Georg K. Gebel

Figure 6: Generalised reconstruction of the late 8th millennium BCE Palaeophysiographic Units I–VI along an E-W transect from Wadi l-‘Araba to the edge of the eastern limestone plateau. Transect close to Beidha. Text from Gebel 1992 (not updated): Generalised information for reconstructed potentials of palaeophysiographic units. Legend: cf. Gebel 1990. (Graph: H.G.K. Gebel, PIGPA-Project).

1. Large-scale productive control of natural resources on the basis of permanent village life was an episode event of the 8th millennium BCE. It persisted in well-watered regions into the Post-PPNB/PPNC times but ends here also by the beginning of the 7th millennium. 2. The edge of the Arabian Plateau (easternmost part of Palaeophysiographic Unit VI, Fig. 6). functioned as an “occupational shed” in the PPNB. To the west, smaller permanent settlements (Shaqarat Musai‘id 1, Beidha, adh-Daman 1, Baja 1) existed on the basis of transhumant exploitation, agriculture, and a locally confined route network. On the plateau to the east (Palaeophysiographic Units VII and VIII), large permanent settlements (the megasites) near springs (during the LPPNB and partly the FPPNB/PPNC: Basta, ‘Ain Jamam, al-Baseet and possibly two other) were sustained by the extensive eastern steppe pasturages less sensitive to overgrazing, forming parts of an interregional exchange network in a northsouth orientation.

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

43

3. Before permanent settlements were established in Unit V, a migratory seasonal pattern characterised the occupations on the sandstone shelf during the 9th millennium. Small-scale adaptive control of hunting resources and the harvesting of wild cereal and legume stands allowed semi-permanent camp sites (Fig. 8). 4. Domestic cereals, legumes and ovicaprines gradually were introduced to the sandstone shelf during the late 9th millennium. Sedentary animal husbandry and the seasonal effect of farming started to degrade the limited natural pasturages and potential farming habitats of Unit V and somewhat later in Unit IV. As a consequence, livestock reproduction and land fertility were reduced drastically. However, adapting transhumant exploitation of Units VI and I–III (hunting grounds) delayed the sudden collapse of central, village-based LPPNB economies in V.9 5. Whenever Units II and III offered favourable hydrological situations, inhabitants of permanent settlements shifted to these areas of ungulate migration in the latest part of the PPNB. A similar colonisation is expected for the woodlands and steppes east of Unit VI where large ungulate habitats and rich springs had allowed the establishment of villages larger than 10 hectares (Basta, ‘Ain Jamam). 9

The overall collapse of the megasites was later discussed as mainly the consequence of social stress through progressive population dynamics (a “social implosion” that resulted from not finding in time the social answers to the large villages’ hypertrophic growth: Gebel 2010, 2014a), joined by other factors like an increasingly dry climate and the overexploitation of near-site habitats.

44

Hans Georg K. Gebel

Figure 7: Example of a reconstructed LPNNB palaeoenvironment (Ba‘ja 1) within the 1– 1.5h walking/climbing distances. Legend: cf. Gebel 1990. (Graph: H.G.K. Gebel, PIGPAProject))

Figure 8: Reconstructed early Neolithic settlement patterns in the Greater Petra Area. State of discussion in 1985; smallest units of patterns are shown. (Graph: H.G.K. Gebel, PIGPAProject)

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

45

Here, the potential dry farming territories were considerably larger, causing the small “Middle” PPNB settlements to disappear (e.g. Ail 4). 6. The overpopulation of the sandstone shelf in the late 8th millennium – triggered by rather unaffected natural habitats in the early stages of the intensive LPPNB sedentary occupation – hastened the gradual degradation of habitats, which led to mobile animal husbandry and agriculture as an adaptive reaction. The productive potential of this new economy (pastoralism, “industrial” hunting) was determined by the restored equilibrium between the human control of habitats and natural developments and potentials in the 7th millennium.

Acknowledgements It is with deep gratitude that I acknowledge Zeidan Kafafi’s brotherly support for much of my research engagement to Jordan and Saudi Arabia. I value the manifold discussions and sustainable exchange we have been having for over 40 years on data and policies in prehistory and its Neolithic research family. When writing this, I remember surat ar-rūm v 9. Zeidan is my true brother, and my life’s companion. The late director-general Adnan Hadidi of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (DoA), Diana Kirkbride, Mujahed Muheisen and Wolfgang Röllig were essential to establishing the PIGPA-Project. I also received valuable support and contributions – in one way or the other – during the PIGPA times from: the representatives and heads of DoA’s Petra-Office Njjazi Shaba‘an (until mid 1984) and Suleiman Farajat (from mid 1984), the geologist late Fritz Helmdach, Peder Mortensen, late Manfred Lindner, and Gary O. Rollefson; the local Bedouins, especially late Abu Shaher and late Ali Mutlaq; the team members Hans Peter Uerpmann (co-director in 1983), Daniel Schyle (1983), Matthias Starck (1984–1985), Bassima Khoury, and Angelika Müller (1983–1984b). Phases 2–3 could not have taken place without the permission and efficient cooperation and support of DoA’s directors-general Ghazi Bishi, Safwan Tell, Ziad al-Sa‘ad, Fawwas al-Khreisheh, Monther Jamhawi, and Yazeed Elayan, their staffs at the DoA, as well as the many representatives sent by the DoA to the individual field seasons. Other key persons who provided direct support or offered scientific exchanges and encouragement during the regional study from 1986’s Phases 2–3 until today have been: Jürgen Baumgarten, Marion Benz, Hans Dieter Bienert, Boris B. Borowski, Bo Dahl Hermansen, Moawiyah Ibrahim, Zeidan Kafafi, Wajeeh Karasneh, Moritz Kinzel, Peder Mortensen, late Mujahed Muheisen, Maysoon al-Nahar, Hans J. Nissen, Christoph Purschwitz, Nabil Qadi, Gary O. Rollefson, and Klaus Traulsen. Last but not least, our work and achievements would not have been possible and successful without the many enthusiastic volunteers and other team members during the survey and excavation seasons, along with my brothers and sisters who live in the area, especially the workmen from

46

Hans Georg K. Gebel

Ail, Basta, Beidha, Bir Abu Danna, Bir Dabaghat, Fardah, Gregreh, and the tents around. I thank Brian Agro, Berlin, and Paul Larsen, La Roche sur Yon, for copyediting this text. I also express my sincere thanks to the editors of this festschrift, deeply respecting their devoted and honourable work to appreciate Dr Zeidan’s achievements for the archaeological heritage of his country and archaeology in general.

Bibliography Benz, Marion, Julia Gresky, Denis Štefanisko et al. 2019. Burying Power: New Insights Into Incipient Leadership in the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic From an Outstanding Burial at Ba‘ja, Southern Jordan. PLoS ONE 14(8):e0221171. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221171 Benz, Marion, Julia Gresky, and Hala Alarashi. 2020. Similar but Different. Displaying Social Roles of Children in Burials. In Hala Alarashi and Rosa Maria Dessi (eds.), The Art of Human Appearance. 40ème Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de Nice, 93–107. Nice: Éditions APDCA. Bienert, Hans Dieter, and Hans Georg K. Gebel. 2004. Summary on Ba‘ja 1997, and Insights From Later Seasons. In Hans Dieter Bienert, Hans Georg K. Gebel, and Reinder Neef (eds.),. Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 5, 119–144. Berlin: ex oriente. Byrd, Brian. 2005. Early Village Life at Beidha, Jordan. Neolithic Spation Organization and Vernacular Architecture. The Excavations of Mrs. Diana Kirkbride-Helbæck. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Driesch Angela von den, Isabel Cartajena, and Henriette Manhart. 2004. The Late PPNB Site of Ba‘ja, Jordan: The Faunal Remains (1997 Season). In Hans Dieter Bienert, Hans Georg K. Gebel, and Reinder Neef (eds.), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 5, 271–288. Berlin: ex oriente. Garrard Andrew N., and Hans Georg Gebel, (eds.) 1988. The Prehistory of Jordan. The State of Research in 1986. British Archaeological Reports – International Series 396. Oxford: B.A.R. Gebel, Hans Georg. 1983–84. Sabra 1 und die Wadi-Systeme um Petra / Wadi Musa. Archiv für Orientforschung 29–30, 282–284. — 1984. Das Akeramische Neolithikum Vorderasiens. Subsistenzformen und Siedlungsweisen. Tabellarische Material- und Befundpräsentation zu Fundorten des Protoneolithikums und des Akeramischen Neolithikums. Beihefte des Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B 52. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. — 1986a. Die Jungsteinzeit im Petra-Gebiet. In Manfred Lindner (ed.), Petra. Neue Ausgrabungen und Entdeckungen, 273–308. München: Delp.

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

47

— 1986b. Petra-Region 1983–1985. Untersuchungen zur Siedlungs- und Umweltgeschichte des Frühneolithikums. Archiv für Orientforschung 33, 275– 282. — 1988. Late Epipalaeolithic-Aceramic Neolithic Sites in the Petra Area. In Andrew N. Garrard and Hans Georg Gebel (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan. The State of Research in 1986. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 396.1, 67–100. Oxford: B.A.R. — 1990. Vorderer Orient. Neolithikum. Beispiele zur Fundortökologie. PetraRegion. Middle East. Neolithic. Examples of the Ecological Setting of Sites. Petra-Region. Map of the Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B I 15. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. — 1992. Territories and Palaeoenvironment: Locational Analysis of Neolithic Site Settings in the Greater Petra Area, Southern Jordan. In Susanne Kerner (ed.), The Near East in Antiquity 3, 85–96. Amman: Al Khutba Publishers. — 1996. Chipped Lithics in the Basta Craft System. In Stefan Karol Kozlowski and Hans Georg Gebel (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries in the Fertile Crescent, and Their Contemporanities in Adjacent Areas. Studies in Early Near Eastern Subsistence, Production, and Environment 3, 261–270. Berlin: ex oriente. Gebel, Hans Georg K. 1998. Die Petra-Region im 7. Jt. vor Chr. Betrachtungen zu Ausbildung und Auflösung einer frühneolithischen Siedlungskammer. In by Ulrich Hübner, Ernst Axel Knauf, and Robert Wenning (eds.), Nach Petra und ins Königreich der Nabatäer. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 118 (Festschrift Manfred Lindner), 1–8. Bodenheim: Philo. — 2002. Walls. Loci of Forces. In Hans Georg K. Gebel, Bo Dahl Hermansen, and Charlott Hoffmann Jensen (eds.), Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 8, 119–132. Berlin: ex oriente. — 2003. The Significance of Ba‘ja for the Early Near Eastern Neolithic Research. Orient and Occident 8.1,17–19. Amman: German Protestant Institute. — 2004a. Central to What? Remarks on the Settlement Patterns of the LPPNB Mega-Sites in Jordan. In Hans Dieter Bienert, Hans Georg K. Gebel, and Reinder Neef (eds.), Central Settlements in Neolithic Jordan. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 5, 1–20. Berlin: ex oriente. — 2004b. The Domestication of Water. Evidence from Early Neolithic Ba‘ja. In Hans Dieter Bienert and Jutta Häser (eds.), Men of Dikes and Canals. The Archaeology of Water in the Middle East. Orient-Archäologie 10: 25–36. Rahden: Marie Leidorf. — 2006. The Domestication of Vertical Space. The Southern Jordanian Case of Steep-Slope LPPNB Architecture. In Edward B. Banning and Michael Chazan (eds.), Domesticating Space: Construction, Community, and Cosmology in the

48

Hans Georg K. Gebel

Late Prehistoric. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 12, 65–74. Berlin: ex oriente. — 2009. The Intricacy of Neolithic Rubble Layers. The Ba‘ja, Basta and ‘Ain Rahub Evidence. Neo-Lithics 1/09, 33–48. — 2010. Commodification and the Formation of Early Neolithic Social Identity. The Issues Seen From the Southern Jordanian Highlands. In Marion Benz (ed.), The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14, 31–80. Berlin: ex oriente. — 2014a. Territoriality in Early Near Eastern Sedentism. Neo-Lithics 2/14, 14– 44. — 2014b.Non-Formal Sling Balls? Evidence of Geofact Commodification at LPPNB Ba‘ja, South Jordan. In Bill Finlayson and Cheryl Makarewicz (eds.), Settlement, Survey and Stone. Essays on Near Eastern Prehistory in Honour of Gary Rollefson, 235–241. Berlin: ex oriente. — 2014c. Site Presentation and Cultural “Heritage Education” in Tribal Environments. In Zeidan A. Kafafi and Muhammad Maraqten (eds.), A Pioneer of Arabia: Studies in the Archaeology and Epigraphy of the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula in Honor of Moawiyah Ibrahim. Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan (ROSAPAT) 10, 45–58. Rome: La Sapienza. — 2014d. Reconsidered Agendas, Ethics and Strategies of Jordan’s Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Research. In Gary O. Rollefson and Bill Finlayson (eds.), Jordan’s Prehistory: Past and Future Research, 183–193. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan. — 2015. The Bedouin Legacy. Call for a Rethinking. Accessible by https://www. academia.edu/12311515. — 2017. Neolithic Corporate Identities in the Near East. In Marion Benz, Hans Georg K. Gebel and Trevor Watkins (eds.), Neolithic Corporate Identities. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 20, 57–80. Berlin: ex oriente. — 2021a. Translating the Past. The Archaeological Dimensions. In Aydin Abar et al. (eds.), Pearls, Politics and Pistachios. Essays in Anthropology and Memories on the Occasion of Susan Pollock’s 65th Birthday, 619–632. Berlin: ex oriente. — 2021b. Nevalı Çori 1979. Göbekli Research Area’s “Ground Zero”. In Claudia Bührig, Margarete van Ess, Iris Gerlach, Arnulf Hausleiter and Bernd- MüllerNeuhof (eds.), Klänge der Archäologie. Festschrift für Ricardo Eichmann, 137–146. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gebel, Hans Georg K., and Jürgen Baumgarten. 2012. Der Laden des Firas Na‘im ash-Shammari. Beobachtungen in Ma‘an zum Wandel der beduinischen Kultur – und ein Plädoyer für eine andere kulturwissenschaftliche Verantwortung. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 128.1, 43–72, Tf. 2–14.

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

49

Gebel, Hans Georg K., Marion Benz, Christoph Purschwitz et al. 2017. Household and Death: Preliminary Results of the 11th Season (2016) at Late PPNB Ba‘ja, Southern Jordan. Neo-Lithics 1/2017, 18–36. Gebel, Hans Georg K., Marion Benz, Christoph Purschwitz et al. 2019. Household and Death, 2: Preliminary Results of the 12th Season (2018) at Late PPNB Ba‘ja, Southern Jordan. Neo-Lithics 2019, 20–45. Gebel, Hans Georg K.and Hans Dieter Bienert, with contributions by Tobias Krämer, Bernd Müller-Neuhof, Reinder Neef, Jan Timm, and Karen I. Wright. 1997. Ba‘ja Hidden in the Petra Mountains. Preliminary Results of the 1997 Investigations. In Hans Georg K. Gebel, Zeidan Kafafi, and Gary O. Rollefson (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4, 221–262. Berlin: ex oriente. Gebel, Hans Georg K., Julia Gresky, Filip Hájek et al. 2020. Household and Death, 3: Preliminary Results of the 13th Season (Spring 2019) at Late PPNB Ba‘ja, Southern Jordan (Interim Report). Neo-Lithics (Special Issue) 2020, 2– 42. Gebel, Hans Georg K. and Bo Dahl Hermansen. 1999. Ba‘ja Neolithic Project 1999: Short Report on Architectural Findings. Neo-Lithics 3/99, 18–21. — 2000. The 2000 Season at Late PPNB Ba‘ja. Neo-Lithics 2–3/99, 22–24. — 2001. LPPNB Ba‘ja 2001. A Short Note. Neo-Lithics 2/01, 15–20. — 2004. Ba‘ja 2003. Summary of the 5th Season of Excavation. Neo-Lithics 2/04, 15–18. Gebel, Hans Georg K., Bo Dahl Hermansen, and Moritz Kinzel. 2006. Ba‘ja 2005: A Two-Storied Building and Collective Burials. Results of the 6th Season of Excavations. Neo-Lithics 1/06, 12–19. Gebel, Hans Georg K. and Zeidan Kafafi. 2013. Im Drehkreuz der Kulturen: Jahrzehnte jordanisch-deutscher archäologischer Kooperation. Jordanien und Deutschland. Über die Vielfalt kultureller Brücken. In Horst Kopp / DeutschJordanische Gesellschaft (eds.), Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen der Deutsch-Jordanischen Gesellschaft e.V., 105–116. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert. Gebel, Hans Georg K., Zeidan Kafafi, and Gary O. Rollefson (eds). 1997. The Prehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 4. Berlin: ex oriente. Gebel, Hans Georg K. and Moritz Kinzel. 2007. Ba‘ja 2007: Crawl Spaces, Rich Room Dumps, and High Energy Events. Results of the 7th Season of Excavation. Neo-Lithics 1/07, 24–32. Gebel, Hans Georg K., Hans J. Nissen, and Zeidoun Zaid (eds). 2006. Basta II. The Stratigraphy and Architecture. bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis.

50

Hans Georg K. Gebel

Gebel, Hans Georg, and Johannes Matthias Starck. 1985. Investigations into the Stone Age of Petra Area (Early Holocene Research). A Preliminary Report on the 1984 Campaigns. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 29, 89–114. Kafafi, Zeidan. 2019. Prehistoric Petra: A Synthesis. In Shin-ichi Nakamura, Takura Adachi, and Masachi Abe (eds.), Decades in Deserts: Essays on Western Asian Archaeology in Honor of Sumio Fujii, 109–118. Tokyo: Rokuichi Syobou. Kinzel, Moritz. 2013. Am Beginn des Hausbaus. Studien zur PPNB-Architektur von Shkārat Msaied und Ba‘ja in der Petra-Region, Süd-Jordanien. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 17. Berlin: ex oriente. Kirkbride, Diana. 1966. Five Seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Village of Beidha in Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98, 8–61. — 1968. Beidha 1967: An Interim Report. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 100, 90–96. Lindner, Manfred. 1986. Archäologische Endeckungen in der Petra-Region 1982–1984. In Petra. Neue Ausgrabungen und Entdeckungen, edited by Manfred Lindner, 89–189. München: Delp. — 1996. 9000 Jahre alte Siedlungsgeschichte der Ba‘ja-Region in Jordanien – ein Forschungsgebiet der Naturhistorischen Gesellschaft Nürnberg. Das Altertum 41, 245–278. Michiels, Tristan, Amer Salah Abdo al-Souliman, and Hans Georg K. Gebel. 2012. Stage 3 Manufacturing Traces of the Ba‘ja LPPNB Sandstone Rings. Neo-Lithics 2/12, 41–50. Nissen, Hans J., Mujahed Muheisen, and Hans Georg K. Gebel (eds.). 2004. Basta I. The Human Ecology. bibliotheca neolithica Asiae meridionalis et occidentalis. Berlin: ex oriente. Purschwitz, Christoph. 2013. Early Neolithic Flint Raw Material Selection at LPPNB Ba‘ja, Southern Levant. Preliminary Results From Two Room Fills of Area B-North. In Ferran Borrell, Juan José Ibáñez and Miquel Molist (eds.), Stone Tools in Transition:From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East, 147–163. Bellaterra (Barcelona): Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Servei de Publicacions. — 2017. Die lithische Ökonomie von Feuerstein im Frühneolithikum der Größeren Petra Region. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 19. Berlin: ex oriente. Purschwitz, Christoph and Moritz Kinzel. 2007. Ba‘ja 2007. Two Room and Ground Floor Fills. Reconstructed House-Life Scenarios. Neo-Lithics 2/07, 22–35.

The Neolithic of the Greater Petra Area

51

Röhrer-Ertl, Olav and Kurt Walter Frey. 1987. Two Cases of Homocide from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Arabia Petraea (German with English Summary). Gegenbaurs Morphologisches Jahrbuch 133, 507–537. Röhrer-Ertl, Olav, Kurt Walter Frey, and Heinrich Newesely. 1988. Preliminary Note on the Early Neolithic Human Remains from Basta and Sabra 1. In Andrew N. Garrard and Hans Georg Gebel (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan. The State of Research in 1986. British Archaeological Reports – International Series 396, 135–136. Oxford: B.A.R. Schultz, Michael, Tyede H. Schmidt-Schultz, Julia Gresky, Kerstin Kreutz, and Margit Berner. 2004. Die Menschen von Basta und Ba‘ja im akeramischen Neolithikum. In Beate Salje, Nadine Riedl, Günter Schauerte, and Ralf B, Gesichter des Orients. 10000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur aus Jordanien, 57–60. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Schultz, Michael, Tyede H. Schmidt-Schultz, Julia Gresky, Kerstin Kreutz, and Margit Berner. 2007. Morbidity and Mortality in the Late PPNB Populations from Basta and Ba‘ja (Jordan). In Marina Faerman, Liora Kolska Horwitz and Tzipi Kahana (eds.), FacesFrom the Past: Diachronic Patterns in the Biology of Human Populations From the Eastern Mediterranean. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1603, 82–99. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Religion and Ritual in Early Neolithic Jordan Bill Finlayson

“Why were the Neolithic people the initiators of building up such ritual centers? What were the reasons behind such an ideological change? Did this new achievement have something to do with a change of way of life? Is it related to climatic or/and economic changes during the Neolithic period which had a very big influence on the survival of people? Could it be related to the development of the level of social life and thought? Can we describe it as an ideological change?” (Kafafi 2005, 32)

Introduction The Neolithic in Southwest Asia is routinely associated with a huge increase in the quantity of symbolic material culture, sometimes leading to the identification of a symbolic revolution, to accompany revolutions in subsistence economy, society, sedentism and cognition (Hodder 2001; Cauvin 1994). This Neolithic symbolism is frequently associated with the processes of domestication that lie at the heart of the Neolithic (Childe 1935; Verhoeven 2000a). Arguments have been made that religion only really begins with the Neolithic (Cauvin 1994). Yet identifying religion is very difficult, even where apparently richly symbolic art is present. The identification of religion or even ritual in prehistory is not straightforward, sometimes dismissed as a catch-all for any evidence for behaviour that we cannot interpret in a simple functional manner (Whitehouse 1996). Many of the observations made about ancient religion are simply assertions, for example the identification of ancestor cults based on the special treatment of skulls (Boyd 2005, 26). I take as my starting point a broad definition of religion, where it is a result of basic human cognitive behaviour that both easily attributes intentional agency to the natural environment, and which tends to anthropomorphise such agency. In this form, religion has existed for at least 60,000 years (Guthrie 1980; 2014; Schults 2014). Following this broad definition, religion is present in all human cultures, a “defining mark of what it is to be human” (Van Huyssteen 2014, 123). As such, we need not look to the Neolithic for the birth of the gods (Cauvin 1994), but can assume it is present throughout the period. The principle question I wish to address, then, is the relationship of religious behaviour with social and economic change during the Neolithic in Jordan.

54

Bill Finlayson

The wealth of naturalistic art in the Northern Levant and Anatolia has led to a particular interest in the significance and development of religion, especially in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB, 8,500–7,000 cal BCE) and on the symbolically rich site of Çatalhöyük (Cauvin 1994; Hodder 2010; 2014; ca 7500–6000 cal BCE). Spectacular monumental and artistic evidence from Göbekli Tepe has pulled the discussion back to the PPNA (10,000–8,500 cal BCE) (Hodder and Meskell 2010). Complex mortuary practices show other aspects of Neolithic belief systems on a wider Southwest Asian scale, although the most iconic form, the plastered skull, is largely a Southern Levantine expression (e.g. Kuijt 2000). However, religious behaviour has never attained the same level of centrality in research on the Southern Levant, despite the complex mortuary practices that develop from the Natufian onward, or evidence for ritualised behaviour from some specific sites such as Kfar HaHoresh, Nahal Hemar, and ‘Ain Ghazal (Goring-Morris and Horwitz 2007; Bar-Yosef and Alon 1988; Rollefson 2000). In Jordan, although not accompanied by the same quantity of symbolic, naturalistic art observed in the Northern Levant, the Neolithic is nonetheless characterised by substantial developments in ritual behaviour, with complex mortuary practices, plaster figurines, and probable ritual architecture all present. Some of the best examples of all three were identified in Kafafi and Rollefson’s excavations at ‘Ain Ghazal (Rollefson 2005). These excavations disrupted the widely accepted picture of Neolithic ritual and ceremony that had been established by excavations at Jericho and Çatalhöyük (Rollefson 2000, 165; Kenyon 1981; Garstang and Garstang 1948; Mellaart 1967). Anthropological approaches have long emphasised the role religion plays in society, supporting social values (Geertz 1973). Given the social changes associated with increased sedentism, larger community size, and changing relationships with the land and resources, and the evident profusion of symbolic material culture, it is not surprising that archaeologists turn to ritual and religious explanation. There has only been limited criticism of the tendency to casually use these labels without definition, and some concern that ritual is not about things or material forms, but social practice in action (Boyd 2005, 25; Verhoeven 2002b). Rituals involve highly controlled actions, and the rise of PPNB symbolism may have been to “control ritual behaviour and the supernatural world, in order to control the human world.” (Verhoeven 2002a 248). Ritual can also be used simply to give some practices greater importance by marking them out as special (Bell 1992). ‘Framing’ distinguishes ritual activities from others by the use of special objects, special places, special times, and the identification of such frames can be one way to identify ritual action (Verhoeven 2002b). While in the modern world “Ritual architecture does not necessarily imply religion; for example, we construct “ritual” or “communal” architecture in which we play football or baseball” (Hole 2005, 31), in the prehistoric world, religious and secular behaviour were unlikely to have

Religion and Ritual in Early Neolithic Jordan

55

been separated. Ritual practice was probably endemic and infused into Neolithic lives, with ritual acts belonging to a single domain of living and understanding the world (Banning 2011; Rollefson 2000). Whitehouse and colleagues refer to the initial function of religion – binding together small groups, gradually turning into a way of “reproducing much larger (if more diffuse) group identities” (Whitehouse et al 2014, 134). Whitehouse and Hodder (2010) identify two modes of religiosity, imagistic (low frequency, high intensity) to a more doctrinal mode (frequent, less intensive rituals). Atkinson and Whitehouse (2010) questioned whether the shift from imagistic to doctrinal drove the shift to large-scale hierarchical political systems, and was part of the process of the shift to agriculture. In this view, religion is initially characterised by low frequency, high impact events that allow “intense social cohesion amongst small groups”. These are replaced with more ideological standardisation, more control, less mystery, and greater frequency to “foster identification of group members within large “imagined” communities” of people who never have all met each other. Whitehouse and colleagues were interested in whether a decrease in special ritual and feasting events, fewer ritual installations in the house, and less focus on house continuity indicating a shift to doctrinal religious behaviour were linked to agricultural intensification and greater community size and population density. However, their study showed that the highest elaboration of imagistic traits (symbols, burials, etc.) coincide with greatest population density and stress, and that the shift to a doctrinal mode does not happen until agriculture became more intense, leading them to suggest the shift to doctrinal religion is more associated with economy than population (Whitehouse et al. 2014). The main focus of analysis of religious behaviour in the Southern Levant has been instrumental, where religion is interpreted as a functional means to manipulate power, society, and property. In this regard, the debate over mortuary practices has centred on how they inform us of the living society, whether in terms of hierarchy, or social practices (e.g. Belfer-Cohen 1988; Boyd 2005; Fletcher et al. 2008). Ritual serves as a powerful social regulator, a consolidator of economy, society, and political power (Kuijt 2000). This has led to a concentration on the social significance of the behaviours, perhaps best known from the work of Kuijt on mortuary practice, where the complex patterns of ritual are understood as methods of organising increasingly complex societies. Kuijt acknowledges the importance of religion, but focusses on its social dimension, referring to the manipulation of ritual and beliefs as tools to reinforce social norms. Ritual practices are described as social drama and not as a direct reflection of the deceased’s status and importance (Kuijt 2000). The focus is heavily on the social: “The social construction of identity and memory can be expressed through public ritual” (Kuijt 2008, 171). Goring-Morris argues that ritual ideologies were intended to “regulate and codify” increasingly complex social relationships (Goring-Morris 2000, 106). The rich material symbolism of the Late PPNB is seen as part of a response to the

56

Bill Finlayson

pressures of large-scale sedentary co-residence (Sterelny and Watkins 2015). Ritual buildings have been understood as the locus for behaviour relating to the structuring of community (Rollefson 2000). What all these approaches share is their primarily functional and secular view of religion and ritual. Such a secular approach is also seen in the work of Makarewicz and Finlayson on the importance of quotidian social behaviour staged by the communal architecture that emerges in the Southern Levant, in contrast to the ritual behaviour shown by mortuary practice (Makarewicz and Finlayson 2018). Architecture has long been seen as a window into prehistoric social organisation (e.g. Wilson 1988; Byrd1994). Unusual buildings are often contrasted with domestic dwelling spaces and interpreted as having a ritual function (Finlayson and Makarewicz 2017). The dichotomy between secular and sacred precludes the possibility of other purposes for such unusual buildings (Banning 2011). Practical constraints again come to the fore, with the explanation for different sizes of ritual buildings being a reflection of the scale of community served, not, for example because of the different nature of the practices undertaken in them (cf. Rollefson 2000). Although the majority of reconstructions of the role of ritual in the Neolithic derive from functional perspectives, integrating society through communal practices, there are other ways of analysing ritual in archaeology beyond these instrumentalist approaches (Verhoeven 2005, 41). Hodder recognised that in the Çatalhöyük project there had been a tendency to view religion in terms of enabling power and property, but in the later course of the project they had come to realise that religion was an essential part of being human, albeit open to manipulation to obtain power (Hodder 2014). Rather than seeing ritual structures as a symptom, or response to demographic change, within a fundamentally secular framework, I suggest that we should go back to Cauvin. Cauvin stressed that religion and ritual were important, not as symptoms of change, but because they reflect changing ways of understanding the world (Cauvin 1994). In this case, belief systems would have changed before domestication. The process of domestication, a manipulation of the world, may only have been possible once belief systems, in particular an understanding of humanity’s relationship with the world and nature, had changed. Vitally, rather than being a symptom, these changes in belief permitted the Neolithic transition, as they enabled new perspectives on how the world worked. We can hypothesise that changes in belief systems produced the rich material symbolic culture and permitted the new ways of seeing the world, that allowed the new social and economic systems of the Late Neolithic to develop. “In this intellectual context the original invention of agriculture and herding is not a reaction to a necessity for food, but resulted from a new perspective of humans towards nature, toward themselves, and to the role they played in this relationship” (Cauvin 2000, 242). Perhaps religion played a role in producing change at Çatalhöyük (Hodder 2014).

Religion and Ritual in Early Neolithic Jordan

57

Inverting Geertz (1973), can we say that social values are developed through world views and beliefs? Instrumental approaches would generally place religious behaviour as a mechanism designed to solve problems, such as population density and resource pressure. The alternative view that religion in itself was a generative force places religious developments ahead of the key economic and social changes that occur during this period. This appears congruent with social anthropological thought, which regards hunter-gatherers as having a distinct mode of relating to the world, understood as a giving context (Bird-David 1990; Ingold 2000. A fundamental shift in religious belief is therefore required to enable a new relationship with the world – a shift to a productive, rather than a giving world. The concept of a radical break with the past has not been accepted by all. It is hard to believe that the monumental structures and artwork at Göbekli Tepe could have appeared without their own “prehistory” (Schmidt 2005, 18), and as Kafafi (2005) noted, they are associated with an economy that appears to be more based on hunting and gathering than agriculture. Ritual structures appear to be a feature of settlements in the Middle Euphrates from the PPNA onwards, as seen for example, in Jerf el-Ahmar and in Tell ‘Abr 3 (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2005). This is evidence for a strong growth, rather than sudden emergence, of symbolic behaviour before the symbolic or cognitive revolutions associated with Late PPNB demographic pressures. Reframed in Whitehouse’s terms, these symbolically rich sites perhaps confirm the presence of a strongly imagistic religion before agriculture intensifies.

Jordanian Evidence I will now turn to briefly examine the evidence from Jordan and see what this suggests. There is a substantial literature on mortuary practice (e.g. Kuijt 2000, 2008; Benz 2010), but considerably less that is focussed on the ritual role played by architecture. My emphasis in this paper is therefore architectural, although other forms of ritual evidence will be mentioned to place the architecture into context. When Kafafi and Rollefson started to report on the presence of apparently cultic buildings at ‘Ain Ghazal (e.g. Rollefson and Kafafi 1994), few PPNB sites had been excavated, and the presence of a shrine complex at Beidha (Kirkbride 1968), one of the few other excavated sites in Jordan, might legitimately have suggested that such ritual architecture was going to be commonplace at PPNB sites. However, the evidence discovered in the extensive excavations at ‘Ain Ghazal remains unmatched at other Jordanian PPNB sites, despite the impressive architecture revealed at Ba‘ja and Basta in the south, although the areas exposed are smaller. Kafafi has reported burials under floors, plastered skulls, and statues related to MPPNB (8250–7500 BCE) at ‘Ain Ghazal, and suggested that in the Late PPNB

58

Bill Finlayson

(7500–7000 BCE) these are replaced by buildings which may have had a religious function as seen in their exceptional construction and the presence of alters and standing stones. However, he recognised that interpreting some buildings as domestic, others as ritual, what took place in them, and whether “formal terms such as “temple” can be applied to Neolithic structures” is problematic (Kafafi 2005, 35). He also observed that the apparent focus on ritual at ‘Ain Ghazal is unusual within Neolithic Jordan (Kafafi 2011). Rollefson has interpreted this transition in the nature of ritual evidence at ‘Ain Ghazal between Middle and Late PPNB as a shift in ritual behaviour (Rollefson 2005). The focus on figurines and plastered skulls ends abruptly and specialised ritual buildings appear. Rollefson takes the instrumental approach, and interprets this shift as related to the massive population rise seen at ‘Ain Ghazal at this time. The timing matches Cauvin’s Late PPNB symbolic revolution, and the loss of figurative representations may suggest the end of imagistic religion. This seems to take place a little earlier in the process of agricultural intensification and mobility compared to what Whitehouse sees at Çatalhöyük, where the religious transition is associated with agricultural and pastoral changes more like those that occur at ‘Ain Ghazal in the PPNC (Whitehouse et al. 2014). ‘Ain Ghazal appears to have many of the same elements that occur in discussions of religious elements in the Çatalhöyük project, but not with the same associations. Unfortunately, the evidence Rollefson brings to bear is not found on other sites, although the extent of excavations at ‘Ain Ghazal remain unmatched at any other Jordanian PPNB site. Recent work at the PPNB site of Abu Suwwan in the north has identified unusual architectural features (al-Nahar 2018), and it may be that there is marked regional diversity in the PPNB of Jordan. The idea that there is a sharp break in ritual traditions within the PPNB is not uniformly accepted. Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen take an opposite position based on mortuary evidence and argue that despite arguments for social change in the Neolithic, there is continuity in mortuary practices from the Natufian to the PPNB. They believe that while there is much variation, the practices are all built around the same components. Special treatment of skulls and secondary burials are all aspects of a common tradition from the Natufian to the PPNB, and Jordan fits well within that tradition (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen 2014). The presence of human remains within settlements, buried in multiple manners in the PPNA and PPNB, from trash burials to foundation burials, single to multiple, skull burials, painted burials, dedicated mortuary buildings, and the use of ground stone markers for burials, all indicates that the religious aspects of life flowed into the everyday life of the community. Concentrating on the ritual structures that form the focus of this paper, I return to the idea that as ritual structures emerge in the PPNA of the Northern Levant in an already well-developed form, they must have a “prehistory”. Rollefson has argued that there are no ritual structures in the Natufian, and in 2005 found no sign

Religion and Ritual in Early Neolithic Jordan

59

of ritual structures from the PPNA except possibly from Jericho (2005). I suggest that the combination of scale, standing stones, and a large carved stone at the Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 imply that something beyond the mundane may have been taking place. Unfortunately, even if this is a correct identification, it is the only Natufian structure that has been identified as ritual in Jordan. Unlike in the Northern Levant, ritual structures have not generally been identified in Jordan, except perhaps for the mortuary area at el-Hemmeh (Makarewicz and Rose 2011), until the probable MPPNB sanctuary at Beidha and until the LPPNB as based on evidence discussed above. The question becomes whether we can identify continuity in ritual architecture through the Early Neolithic, or whether it appears de novo in the Late PPNB, perhaps as a response to population pressures. Perhaps we can stretch our understanding of ritual architecture a little further. The architecture of the Natufian, for example at Shubayqa in Jordan, is remarkably impressive, being well-made with stone walls and floors, with built-in features such as hearths (Richter et al. 2017). While assumed to be domestic, it marks a very sharp break with simple functional shelters of the Early and Middle Epipalaeolithic, composed of shallow scoops and brushwood walls (Maher et al, 2012). Why does this splendid and distinctive Natufian architecture suddenly appear? Interpretations that it is simply a consequence of greater sedentism have been widely critiqued (e.g. Boyd 2006). If the appearance of more elaborate and permanent architecture in the Natufian is not about increasing sedentism, perhaps it is about creating special buildings, representing an ideological shift that required a more permanent marking of the landscape. If so, this might indicate that here is the change in belief systems that, in Cauvin’s model, goes on to permit the Neolithic, that lets people start to overtly manipulate the world. The case that this Natufian architecture might represent a prehistory for the PPNB ritual buildings appears at first glance to be undermined by the lack of PPNA evidence. However, it is possible that our reluctance to overly attribute ritual behaviour from architectural evidence, and a focus on the processes of domestication and social reorganisation, produce an overidentification of the secular. This process may be exacerbated by our tendency to see a dichotomy between sacred and secular. Communal buildings have become a commonly identified feature of the PPNA, but most are essentially interpreted in functional, economic terms. The large (over 20 m in diameter) structure at WF16, built with tiers of benches around a central area, suggests performance with an audience, but reporting has generally been cautious about making any ritual attribution (Finlayson et al. 2011). However, strongly symmetrical features, cup-hole mortars set on low platforms at its apex, divisions represented by “channels” and “gulleys”, all suggest structured, and perhaps ritualised, activities. Even if the activity being conducted in the centre around the cup-hole mortars is functionally everyday, it is turned into a spectacle.

60

Bill Finlayson

Unlike in the example of modern secular ritual given above, Neolithic society is unlikely to have separated secular from the religious, and such large communal ritual appears almost certain to have been charged with religious significance. Mundane, everyday activities, would have been “imbued with ritual and symbolic meaning” (Makarewicz and Finlayson 2018, 4). Another form of PPNA communal building is the granary (Kuijt and Finlayson 2009). These have been discussed in terms of their role in the development of delayed return and harvesting economies, but with an additional instrumental role to emphasise community through sharing. We should be careful not to over-emphasise an entirely secular understanding of social organisation. Kuijt has argued that we could see the egalitarian society evident in some PPN contexts as evidence of an egalitarian ideology (Kuijt 2000). Egalitarianism is not simply a means to organise a community, but it grows out of a belief that this is how society should be organised. In a similar manner, the community-based ethos that appears central to the structure of PPNA society depends upon an ideological, or religious position (Finlayson and Makarewicz 2017; Makarewicz and Finlayson 2018). There is still limited overt evidence for ritual architecture in the Middle PPNB of Jordan. Even though this is the core period of the iconic plastered skull, ritual buildings may begin to appear in Jericho, the ritual site of Kfar HaHoresh flourishes, ritual depositions were made at the cave of Nahal Hemar, and a mortuary area was located at Tell Aswad (Rollefson 2005). In Jordan, the large central building at Shkarat Msaied appears to have fulfilled a mortuary role (Kinzell 2013), and the shrine complex at Beidha seems fairly certain to have had a religious role (Kirkbride 1968). When Makarewicz and Finlayson identified the large structure of Building 37 at Beidha as a communal building that served a quotidian socially integrative function, they downplayed the different types of behaviour that may have been ritualised in this setting (Makarewicz and Finlayson 2018). This large building, with an unusually robust but still heavily worn floor, opening out onto a courtyard area, could have been used for activities such as dancing. The socially integrative aspects of dancing happen within ritual contexts, potentially providing as high an impact and imagistic context as that arising from mortuary practice. Symbolic elements are visible in the structure, including carved stone slabs, although it is not clear whether their placement on the floor may have been part of preparing the structure for its intentional destruction – an important ritual even in its own right. The shrine complex just outside the settlement represents a more overt religious structure, with uprights stones, distinctive floors, and a large basin (Kirkbride 1968). Its separation from the main settlement suggests that this complex may have played quite a distinct role in ritual activity, with intentional isolation being important. The apparent separation of a religious structure from domestic space suggests that a space may have been growing between sacred and

Religion and Ritual in Early Neolithic Jordan

61

secular domains at this time, and this complex clearly foreshadows the ‘Ain Ghazal Late PPNB religious structures.

Conclusion Overall, the evidence from Jordan suggests that architecture played a role in structuring complex religious behaviour from the Natufian onwards, part of a set of beliefs that have a deep history, but with considerable local variability. These beliefs, while they may have been manipulated for instrumental reasons, appear early enough to have provided a generative force within the Neolithic. Much ritual activity in the Natufian and earliest Neolithic probably took place in an undivided secular and sacred domain, but clearly specialised ritual buildings first begin to appear in the Middle PPNB. The presence of specialised ritual buildings in the Late PPNB at ‘Ain Ghazal is not entirely new, but a continuing development adjusting to changing needs. However, ‘Ain Ghazal stands out increasingly as being unusual in the Late PPNB, while the evidence for earlier ritual structures elsewhere becomes increasingly strong. The development of specifically religious space continues through the ritual or cultic buildings of the Chalcolithic, and on into the temples we know from the Bronze Age. While we may not be able to even attempt to discuss the “other-worldly powers addressed in ritual” (Gebel 2005, 27), we are increasingly able to see how important belief systems were within the Neolithic. We can perhaps begin to be more optimistic than when Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris said “Kuijt’s article is a thought-provoking journey into realms every Near Eastern archaeologist dreams of – the spiritual-cum- social, non-mundane aspects of early Neolithic existence. Alas, as with every dream, there is a rude awakening to be faced” (BelferCohen and Goring-Morris 2008, 186).

Bibliography Atkinson, Quentin D. and Harvey Whitehouse. 2010. The cultural morphospace of ritual form: Examining modes of religiosity cross-culturally. Evolution and Human Behaviour 32. 1, 50–62. Banning, Edward. 2011. So fair a house. Göbekli Tepe and the identification of temples in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East. Current Anthropology 52. 5, 619–660. Bar-Yosef, Ofer & David Alon, 1988. Nahal Hemar cave. The excavations. Atiqot 18, 1–30. Belfer-Cohen, Anna. 1988. The Natufian Graveyard of Hayonim Cave. Paléorient 14.2, 297–308. Belfer-Cohen, Anna and Nigel Goring-Morris. 2005. Which Way to Look? Conceptual Frameworks for Understanding Neolithic Processes. Neo-lithics 2. 05, 22–24.

62

Bill Finlayson

— 2008. Comments on Ian Kuijt: “The regeneration of life. Neolithic structures of symbolic remembering and forgetting.” Current Anthropology 49, 186– 187. Bell, Catherine. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benz, Marion. 2010. Beyond death – the construction of social identities at the transition from foraging to farming. In Marion Benz (ed.), The Principle of Sharing. Segregation and Construction of Social Identities at the Transition from Foraging to Farming. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 14, 249–276. Berlin: ex oriente. Bird-David, Nurit. 1990. The Giving Environment: Another Perspective on the Economic System of Gatherer-Hunters, Current Anthropology 31.2, 189–196. Boyd, Brian. 2005. Some Comments on Archaeology and Ritual. Neolithics 2. 05, 25–27. — 2006. On ‘sedentism’ in the Later Epipalaeolithic (Natufian) Levant. World Archaeology 38.2, 164–178. Byrd, Brian. 1994. Public and Private, Domestic and Corporate: The Emergence of the Southwest Asian Village. American Antiquity 59.4, 639–666. Cauvin, Jacques. 1994. Naissance des divinités, naissance de l’agriculture. La révolution des symboles au Néolithique. Paris: CNRS. — 2000. The symbolic foundations of the Neolithic Revolution in the Near East. In Ian Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, 235–251. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Press. Childe, V. Gordon. 1935. New Light on the Most Ancient East: The Oriental Prelude to European Prehistory. London: Kegan Paul. Finlayson, Bill and Cheryl Makarewicz. 2017. The Neolithic of Southern Jordan. In Ofer Bar-Yosef and Yehouda Enzel (eds.), Quaternary Environments, Climate Change, and Humans in the Levant, 743–752 Cambridge: CUP. Finlayson, Bill, Steven Mithen, Mohammad Najjar, Sam Smith, Darko Maricevic, Nick Pankhurst and Lisa Yeomans. 2011. Architecture, sedentism and social complexity. Communal building in Pre-Pottery Neolithic A settlements: New evidence from WF16. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108.20, 8183–8. Fletcher, Alexandra, Jessica Pearson and Janet Ambers. 2008. The manipulation of social and physical identity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18, 309–325. Garstang, John and John Bergés Eustace Garstang. 1948. The story of Jericho, London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott. Gebel, Hans Georg K.. 2005. On PPN Ritual Centralities. Neo-lithics 2. 05, 27– 29. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

.

Religion and Ritual in Early Neolithic Jordan

63

Goring-Morris, Nigel. 2000. The Quick and the Dead: The Social Context of Aceramic Neolithic Mortuary Practices as Seen from Kfar HaHoresh. In Ian Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, 103–136. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. Goring-Morris, Nigel and Anna Belfer-Cohen. 2014. Different strokes for different folks: Neolithic mortuary practices in perspective. In Ian Hodder (ed.), Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society, 35–57. Cambridge: CUP. Goring-Morris, Nigel and Liora Kolska Horwitz. 2007. Funerals and feasts during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Near East. Antiquity 81, 902–919. Guthrie, Stewart E. 1980. A cognitive theory of religion, Current Anthropology 21.2, 181–194. Guthrie, Stewart E. 2014. Religion as anthropomorphism at Çatalhöyük. In Ian Hodder (ed.), Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society, 86–108. Cambridge: CUP. Hodder, Ian. 2001. Symbolism and the origins of agriculture in the Near East. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11.1, 107–12. — 2010. Religion in the Emergence of Civilization. Cambridge: CUP. — 2014. Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society. Cambridge: CUP. Hodder, Ian and Lynn Meskell. 2010. The symbolism of Çatalhöyük in its regional context. In Ian Hodder (ed.), Religion in the Emergence of Civilization, 32–72. Cambridge: CUP. Hole, Frank. 2005. Arguments for Broadly Contextualizing Ritual. Neo-lithics 2. 05, 30–31. Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge. Kafafi, Zeidan. 2005. Stones, Walls, and Rituals. Neo-lithics 2. 05, 32–34. Kafafi, Zeidan. 2011. Upright stones of the Neolithic village of ‘Ayn Ghazal: Location and Function (Jordan). In Tara Steimer-Herbert (ed.), Pierres Levees, Steles Anthropomorphes et Dolmens/ Standing Stones, Anthropomorphic Stelae and Dolmens, 123–129. Oxford: BAR International Series. Kenyon, Kathleen. 1981. Excavations at Jericho. Vol. III. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Kinzel, Moritz. 2013. Am Beginn des Hausbaus. Studien zur PPNB-Architektur von Shkarat Msaied und Ba‘ja in der Petra-Region, Südjordanien, SENEPSE. Berlin: Ex oriente. Kirkbride, Diana. 1968. Beidha 1967: An Interim Report. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 100, 90–96. Kuijt, Ian. 2000. Keeping the Peace: Ritual, Skull Caching, and Community Integration in the Levantine Neolithic. In Ian Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, 137–164. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

64

Bill Finlayson

— 2008. The regeneration of life. Neolithic structures of symbolic remembering and forgetting. Current Anthropology 49. 2, 171–197. Kuijt, Ian and Bill Finlayson. 2009. New Evidence for Food Storage and PreDomestication Granaries 11,000 years ago in the Jordan Valley. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 106, 10966–10970. Maher Lisa, Tobias Richter and Jay Stock. 2012. The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-Term Behavioral Trends in the Levant. Evolutionary Anthropology 21, 69–81. Makarewicz, Cheryl and Katherine Rose. 2011. Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic settlement at el-Hemmeh: a survey of the architecture. Neo-lithics 1. 11: 23–9. Makarewicz Cheryl and Bill Finlayson. 2018. Constructing community in the Neolithic of southern Jordan: Quotidian practice in communal architecture. Plos One /doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193712. Mellaart, James. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Tames and Hudson Al-Nahar, Maysoon. 2018. The Neolithic site of Tell Abu Suwwan, Jerash. In Rubina Raja and Achim Lichtenberger (eds.). The Archaeology and History of Jerash, 110 years of excavations. Jerash Papers, 7–14. Turnhout: BREPOLS. Richter, Tobias, Amaia Arranz-Otaegui, Lisa Yeomans, and Elisabetta Boaretto. 2017. High Resolution AMS Dates from Shubayqa 1, northeast Jordan Reveal Complex Origins of Late Epipalaeolithic Natufian in the Levant. Scientific Reports 7. 17025, DOI:10.1038/s41598–017–17096–5. Rollefson, Gary. 2000. Ritual and Social Structure at ‘Ain Ghazal. In Ian Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming Communities: Social Organization, Identity, and Differentiation, 165–190. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. Rollefson, Gary O. 2005. Early Neolithic Ritual Centers in the Southern Levant. Neo-lithics 2. 05, 3–13. Rollefson, Gary O. and Zeidan Kafafi. 1994. The 1993 season at ‘Ain Ghazal: Preliminary report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 38, 11– 32. Schmidt, Klaus. 2005. “Ritual Centers” and the Neolithisation of Upper Mesopotamia. Neo-lithics 2. 05, 3–21. Schults, F. LeRon. 2014. Excavating theogonies: Anthropomorphic promiscuity and sociographic prudery in the Neolithic and now. In Ian Hodder (ed.), Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society, 58–85. Cambridge: CUP. Sterelny, Kim and Trevor Watkins. 2015. Neolithization in Southwest Asia in a Context of Niche Construction Theory. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25.03, 673–691. Van Huyssteen, J.Wentzel. 2014. The Historical self: Memory and religion at Çatalhöyük. In Ian Hodder (ed.), Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society, 109– 133. Cambridge: CUP.

Religion and Ritual in Early Neolithic Jordan

65

Verhoeven, Marc. 2002a. Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12. 2, 233–258. — 2002b. Ritual and its Investigation in Prehistory. In Hans Georg K. Gebel, Bo Dahl Hermansen and Charlott Hoffmann Jensen (eds.), Magic Practices and Ritual in the Near Eastern Neolithic, 5–40. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 8. Berlin: ex oriente. — 2005. The Centrality of Neolithic Ritual. Neo-lithics 2. 05, 40–42. Whitehouse, Ruth, 1996. Ritual objects: archaeological joke or neglected evidence? In John B. Wilkins (ed.), Approaches to the Study of Ritual: Italy and the Ancient Mediterranean, 9–30, London: Accordia Research Centre. Whitehouse, Harvey and Ian Hodder. 2010. Modes of Religiosity at Çatalhöyük. In Ian Hodder (ed.), Religion in the Emergence of Civilization. 122–145, Cambridge: CUP. Whitehouse, Harvey, Camilla Mazzucato, Ian Hodder and Quentin D. Atkinson. 2014. Modes of religiosity and the Evolution of Social Complexity at Çatalhöyük. In Ian Hodder (ed.), Religion at Work in a Neolithic Society, 134– 155. Cambridge: CUP. Wilson Peter J. 1988. The Domestication of the Human Species. New Haven: Yale University Press.

The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert, North-Western Arabian Peninsula Gary O. Rollefson

Introduction Although there has been interest in the prehistory of Saudi Arabia since the early decades of the 20th century, field research in the Northwest Province was patchy and somewhat disorganized. Systematic prehistoric surveys of the Northwest Province of the kingdom showed the wealth of sites in the region (e.g., Parr et al. 1978), but synthesizing the information was a difficult task in view of the absence of stratigraphic and chronological contexts of the finds. A more intensive focus on organized research in the Northwest Province in the first decade of the 21st century, and in the past ten years a clearer patterning of the Neolithic period has begun to emerge. Of major importance is the growing opportunity to understand sociocultural and socioeconomic developments in this understudied territory in relationship to the rich reconstruction of the Neolithic period in the neighbouring region of the Southern Levant.

What’s in a Name? For prehistorians working in the Levant, there is broad consensus that the “Neolithic” period consists of an evolving set of interrelated features that include sedentary settlements with substantial architecture and subsistence economy based on the domestication of plants and animals. Neolithic ritual behaviour reflects broad territorial beliefs, but with strong local canons in the material expression of them in terms of ornaments, figurines, and post-mortem treatment of members of the community. In the Levant, this package began around the middle of the 10th millennium BCE and continued to adjust to changing conditions until the end of the 6th millennium or the middle of the 5th. Not surprisingly, perhaps, outside of the Levant proper, there are other considerations in the use of the term “Neolithic.” As will be remarked more thoroughly below, for many prehistorians working in the Arabian Peninsula, local Early- and Mid-Holocene groups essentially retained Late Pleistocene or Early Holocene “Final Palaeolithic” subsistence economy: small and highly mobile groups that continued to rely on exploitation of wild plants and animals. This “Pre-Pastoral Neolithic” (PPaN?) period, using lithic techno-typological aspects

68

Gary O. Rollefson

of the Levantine early Neolithic, lasted until the late 6th millennium when domestic animals emerged as part of a mobile hunter-pastoral subsistence economy; there is little to no evidence of farming until the beginning of the Bronze Age at the very end of the 4th millennium BCE (Scerri et al. 2018: 2). The late 6th millennium, then, is the beginning of the “Neolithic” period in the Arabian Peninsula. The different usages of the term Neolithic introduce a degree of confusion when comparing events in the developments in the two regions (and even within Saudi Arabia itself), and one might require some expertise in mental agility in chronological references. With the excavations in the last decade in the Nefud, the situation is becoming more coherent (Charpentier and Crassard 2013; Crassard and Drechsler 2013).

Figure 1: Changes in global precipitation during the Holocene (Cheng et al. 2015: Fig. 2).

Environmental Setting in the Nefud Desert during the Early to Mid-Holocene The Nefud is a hyper-arid desert, with annual precipitation means ranging from 61 mm at al-Ula to 29 mm at Tobuk. Consequently, vegetation is scant and shortlived or, in some areas, absent altogether. But the bleak and forbidding expanse of today had enjoyed better climatic conditions during the post-Pleistocene period (Fig. 1). In 1980 a survey team located lacustrine sediments near Jubbah (Garrard et al. 1981), and radiocarbon assays produced an Upper Pleistocene date of 29,000 to 26,700 date (2 sigma) and another of 5,520 to 5,370 (2 sigma) Mid-Holocene date (Zarins et al. 1981: 37, Endnote 1), demonstrating that at times today’s barren

The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert

69

landscape supported a permanent lake as a result of greatly increased rainfall. The chemical composition of precipitates in the sediment of the large sabkha or playa at Tayma led Ginau et al. (2012) to conclude that in the humid period (8,000– 6,000 BCE) there was a perennial lake present. Two more radiocarbon dates from the mid-7th to the onset of the 6th millennium cal BCE were recently obtained from the same lake (JQ-200, see below; Crassard et al. 2017 Table 2). Later consideration suggested that while there was increased rainfall during the Mid-Holocene period (referred to as the Mid-Holocene Maximum, the Holocene Wet Period, or the Holocene Humid period, among others), the impact was insufficient to sustain permanent lakes, although many “modest palaeo-wetlands” characterized the Arabian Peninsula (Enzel et al. 2015: 40). That conclusion has been challenged by several other studies. Samples from lacustrine deposits at Jubbah and Tayma (among others) were analysed in terms of occurrence of in situ barnacle colonies, traces of bioclastic shoreline deposits, uninterrupted varve formation, and various aquatic freshwater, brackish and saline micro- and macrofossils (Engel et al. 2017). The presence of spring mounds at the Jubbah and Tayma palaeolakes, increased rainfall (of 250 to 400 mm/year), and the penetration of rain into the dune fields would be sufficient to recharge the lake on an annual basis (Engel et al. 2017: 260–261). Pollen data from lacustrine sediments at Tayma reinforce the conclusion that palaeolakes were a characteristic feature of the Nefud Desert between 7,000 and 6,000. By 6,700 BCE pollen common to grasslands and Ephedra steppe started to spread across the landscape grassland, and the period between 6,600 to 6,000 BCE witnessed the maximum extension of grassland during this wettest period in the stratigraphic succession in the Tayma palaeolake, although there is evidence – both pollen-based and other – that arid conditions suddenly returned at 6,000 BCE (Dinies et al. 2015: 296–297). Surveys along the western Nefud Desert reveal the extent of palaeolake formation during the Mid-Holocene Maximum; In a sampling area of approximately 820 km2, 730 palaeolakes with surface areas greater than one square kilometre (Breeze et al. 2017: 4 and Fig. 3). Analysis of satellite imagery suggest that “thousands of palaeolakes are currently exposed across the western edge of the Nefud” (Breeze et al. 2017: 4), although it appears that most of those lakes formed during the Middle and Upper Pleistocene wet periods (Breeze et al. 2017: 2).

Archaeological Excavations in the Nefud Desert A L -R ABYAH Excavations of archaeological sites in the past decade have begun to add substance, colour, and texture to skeletal survey data of earlier times concerning the development of the Neolithic in the Nefud Desert. The stratified prehistoric site of al-Rabyah is located near Jubbah, approximately 85 km NW of the city of Hail and about 300 m east of the sandstone Jebel Umm Sanman near a palaeolake.

70

Gary O. Rollefson

(Fig. 2). Lithics were scattered over a half-hectare, probably eroding out of in situ layers dating to c. 8,000 BCE exposed in an 8 m trench. The collective assemblage contained 68 tools, including 41 microliths and geometrics (Hilbert et al. 2014: Table 1), as well as 304 complete and fragmentary pieces of debitage (Hilbert et al. 2014: Table 1, Table 4). The geometric microliths defines this collection as a Levantine Middle Epipalaeolithic industry (16,000–12,500 BCE), which presents a discordance with the age of the deposits at Al-Rabyah. The excavators suggest that hunting groups in the Nefud were isolated from the Southern Levant around 10,000 BCE due to climate deterioration and maintained an essentially unchanged lithic tradition afterwards (Hilbert et al. 2014: 471).

Figure 2: General location of principle in situ Neolithic sites in the Nefud Desert, NW Arabian Peninsula. (Open source image from World Maps Online, modified by G. Rollefson)

J EBEL Q ATTAR Jebel Qattar is a low prominence near Jubbah, about 16 km east of al-Rabyah. (Fig. 2). Near the northern edge of the rise is site Jebel Qattar 101 (JQ-101) that, in turn, is near the shore of a Holocene palaeolake JQ-200. JQ-101 appears to have been a hunting camp that was apparently sporadically occupied from the Early Holocene to the Mid-Holocene to take advantage of water from the springs at the mountain as well as to exploit game attracted to the nearby lake. Surface collections and probes recovered 887 chipped stone artefacts, including 104 tools

The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert

71

and cores (Crassard et al. 2017: Table 4). The raw material for the artefacts was evenly divided between flint and quartz, even though flint outcrops have not been found in the vicinity. Among the tools were 65 arrowheads that provide evidence of when the camp was occupied. (The dates from the palaeolake provide the age of the lacustrine sediments, not the camp). Six Khiam points and four Helwan points (Fig. 3a, 3b) indicate a broad range of time from the last half of the 10th millennium to the first half of the 9th millennium in the Levant, i.e., from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) to the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB), making the camp the earliest Neolithic (in the Levantine sense) site in the Arabian Peninsula. The combination of these two arrowhead types (Fujii et al. 2019: Fig. 8) was recovered from in situ contexts at site Harrat Juhayra HJ-202 of Southern Jordan; four C14 dates place the occupation between 9,000 to 8,600 cal BCE (2 sigma range) (Fujii et al. 2019: 187 and Fig. 4). Fifty-five other arrowhead types were also collected (Fig. 3c), all of which are identical to Late Neolithic (c. 6,600– 5,000 cal BCE) types excavated at Wisad Pools and Mesa 7 in the Wadi al-Qattafi in Jordan’s Harrat al-Sham (e.g. Rollefson et al. 2017). Typical Levantine Late Neolithic projectile points have also been recovered as surface finds from the Tayma basin (Purschwitz 2017: 290, Plate 1).

Figure 3: Arrowheads from the Neolithic site of Jebel Qattar 101. a: Khiam points from the excavation; b: Helwan points from the surface collection; c: other Neolithic point types from the surface collection chronologically equivalent to the Late Neolithic in the Levant (~7,000–5,000 cal. BCE). (After Crassard et al. 2017: Figs 9, 11–12).

72

Gary O. Rollefson

Figure 4: a: “Jubba style” human hunters with a horned animal, from Jubba (photo: G. Rollefson). b: LPPNB hunters from Dhuweila, Black Desert, Jordan, wearing “feathery” headdresses (Betts 1982: Fig. 9; see Martin et al. 2013).

J EBEL O RAF 2 About 30 km SW of JQ-101 is a cluster of 170 hearths found at a palaeolake shore at Jebel Oraf along with numerous chipped and ground stone tools and debitage, as well as faunal remains (Guagnin, Shipton, Martin et al. 2017). Test excavations at two of the hearths provided two C14 dates from the late 6th millennium (Guagnin et al. 2017: Table 1). Ground stone artefacts were mostly made of local sandstone; chipped stone material consisted principally of quart and quartzite. One of the grinding stones was large: more than a metre in maximum dimension and 26 cm thick, and with the others reflect repeated long-term seasonal occupation (Guagnin 2020:108). Teeth from adult Bos are of a small size similar to domesticated cattle, suggesting that the site inhabitants may have been herding the animals, an observation supported by rock art in the area (Guagnin, Shipton, Martin et al. 2017, 66). No evidence of structures was found. A LSHABAH Another “hearth site”1 occurs at Alshabah, just east of Tayma (Fig. 2) and not far from a palaeolake (Scerri et al. 2018). As was the case with Jebel Oraf 2, no structures were noted at the site. A total of 125 hearths were recorded over an area of c. 12,000 m2; hearth stratigraphy was relatively shallow (30–50 cm). Around the hearths were grinding stones and chipped stones whose raw material consisted of In addition to Alshabah and Jebel Oraf 2, twelve other “hearth sites” have been identified in the western Nefud (Breeze et al. 2017: 14). 1

The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert

73

quartz, quartzite, flint (available locally) and sandstone of varying quality (Scerri et al. 2018: 4). As at Jebel Oraf 2, no arrowheads were found at the site, nor “anywhere across the entire basin” (Scerri et al. 2018: 9), suggesting that wild game was not a major part of the diet. The assemblages around the hearths appear to have been domestic tool kits. Ground stone tools were mostly huge blocks that were not portable. Fauna recovered from excavations were in a poor state of preservation, although an ulna from a caprine was identifiable. Three radiocarbon dates place the pastoral occupations near the end of the Mid-Holocene Maximum in the late 6th to early 5th millennia.

D ÛMAT AL -J ANDAL The north-western part of the Arabian Peninsula is well known for its abundant monumental ceremonial architecture (e.g. Kennedy 2017; Kennedy et al. 2015). Dûmat al-Jandal is one example. Located at an oasis in Jawf Province approximately 300 km NE of Tayma (Fig. 2), Dûmat al-Jandal is a ceremonial site with one large monumental stone platform situated on a long promontory. The trapezoidal platform is 34.6 m long (E-W), 14.6 to 3.4 m wide, and 0.7 m high, consisting of stone walls infilled with rubble. There were three phases of use, with changes in orientation and increasing length. Two secondary burials – one somewhat older than 15 years – were excavated from the earliest phase, dated to the end of the 5th millennium; Bos teeth fragments, a caprine, and unidentified faunal remains came from the same phase. The burials of at least five other people came at a later phase, dated to the second half of the 4th millennium to the late 3rd millennium (Munoz et al. 2020: 604–606, 613). The monument’s E-W alignment suggests a ceremonial space with an astronomical orientation (Munoz et al. 2020: 612). At least two post-Neolithic phases of the platform also occur, reflecting the attraction of the location and the later appreciation of the earliest monumental construction for several millennia; a possibly perceived aura of the place may explain why 66 burial cairns were located in the near vicinity. There is no evidence of nearby domestic/ residential architecture, so visits to the platform must have covered relatively long-distance travel.

74

Gary O. Rollefson

Figure 5: a: Two men with bows confronting each other; age uncertain, from Jubba. b: Cheetah, from Jubba (photos: G. Rollefson).

The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert

75

Figure 6: Two “Jubba style” hunters and wild Bos primigenius at Jubba (photo: G. Rollefson).

Rock Art Rock art sites around Jubbah and Shuwaymis were placed on the UNESCO list of World Heritage sites, due to the stunning display each has of prehistoric and historic people, the animals that were important to them, and inscriptions. Spanning a period from c. 8,000 BCE to recent times, a survey at Jubbah documented 1,131 panels of rock art that included 4,714 individual animals and 513 people (Guagnin, Shipton, al-Rashid et al. 2017: 139). At Shuwaymis 1,902 animals were recorded, 1,514 of which could be identified to genus level, at least, as well as 180 humans (Guagnin, Jennings, Clark-Balzan et al. 2015: 5). At Shuwaymis, about a quarter of the depictions are from the Holocene Humid period which includes both wild animals from the Pre-Pastoral Neolithic period and domesticates (almost all cattle) from the Pastoral Neolithic; the other 75% range in time from the Bronze Age to modern Arabic inscriptions and animal carvings (Guagnin, Jennings, Eager et al. 2016: Fig. 3). The earliest rock art in the area comes from al-Rabyah, where 11 women, probably from the Epipalaeolithic period (see above) are represented. The style is unique compared to the rest of the humans in the two areas. The women are voluptuous, with narrow waists, broad hips and large buttocks, and heavy pendulous breasts; facial features on the round heads are not depicted (Guagnin, Shipton, alRashid et al. 2017: 142–143). The later humans from the Holocene Humid Period

76

Gary O. Rollefson

are very stylized in the “Jubbah style” (Fig. 4): rigid rectilinear bodies usually slightly bent at the knees and with thin arms and hands, featureless faces on heads that appear to wear feathery headdresses, and with ithyphallic penis sheaths (Guagnin, Shipton, al-Rashid et al. 2017: 143); the humans at Shuwaymis are very similar, although bodies are more curvilinear. Males at both sites usually have a small bow in one hand (Fig. 5a). A total of 19 animal taxa were recorded at Shuwaymis, including cheetahs (Fig 5b), leopards, Arabian wolves, lions, hyenas, gazelle, ibex, oryx, kudu, African wild ass, foxes, dogs, cattle (both wild and domestic, Fig. 6), and wild and domestic dromedary camels, donkeys, horses (Fig. 7a), and ostriches (Guagnin, Jennings, Eager et al. 2016: Table 1; Guagnin, Shipton, el-Dossary et al. 2018). Notably, caprines are rare if present at all (Fig. 7b). In the post-Holocene Humid Period there are very few wild species in the rock art, although ibex (Fig. 8a, 8b) continued to be a favourite along with ostriches; the ibex motif was also very popular in Wisad Pools and the Negev Desert (Avner et al. 2016; Hill et al. 2020), suggesting the animal held mythical/ symbolic importance. Dogs were important hunting companions at Shuwaymis, some wearing leashes held by the hunters. Packs – of up to 21 dogs – were much larger at Shuwaymis than at Jubbah (Guagnin, Perri and Petraglia 2018: 231)2.

Closing Remarks Prehistoric research has intensified in the Arabian Peninsula in the past couple of decades, and as a result, a clearer understanding of the occupational history of the region has taken on greater clarity. There is still debate on how neolithisation occurred, with arguments for indigenous developments, at least in some parts of the peninsula (Rose 2010; Uerpmann et al. 2009). For the Nefud Desert, there seems to be little doubt that neolithisation was instigated by influence, if not outright migration, from the PPNB in the southern Levant (Drechsler 2009: 161– 163; Crassard et al. 2013).

2

Guagnin et al. (2015: 14) comment that “the rock art north of the Nefud desert predominantly consists of stylized, stick animal like engravings. Moreover, it shows fewer species and particularly the absence of carnivores may indicate may indicate different cultural conventions in the representation of animals.” Carnivores have been found at Wisad Pools (Rollefson et al. 2008: Figs. 31–32), at ‘Awja in the southern Jafr Basin (Fujii et al 2013: Figs. 18–20), and at Wadi Abu Tulayha (Fujii 2009: Fig. 22); the other mammals at Wisad Pools are not stick-like in execution but as full bodied as at Jubbah and Shuwaymis (Hill et al. 2020: Fig.3).

The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert

Figure 7: a: Equid from Shuwaymis. b: “Jubba style” man leading a (domesticated?) animal, from Jubba (photos: G. Rollefson).

77

78

Gary O. Rollefson

Figure 8: a: Ibex, oryxes, and dog, probably post-Neolithic, from Shuwaymis. b: “Jubbah style” male under later post-Neolithic oryxes and other animals as well as Thamudic inscriptions, from Jubbah (photos: G. Rollefson).

The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert

79

Bibliography Avner, U., Horwitz, L. and Horowitz, W. 2016. Symbolism of the Ibex Motif in Negev Rock Art. Journal of Arid Environments 143, 35–43. Betts. A. 1988. 1986 Excavations at Dhuweila, Eastern Jordan: Preliminary Report. Levant 20, 7–21. Breeze, P., Groucutt, H., Drake, N. et al. 2017. Prehistory and Palaeoenvironments of the Western Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia. Archaeological Research in Asia 10, 1–16. Charpentier, V. and Crassard, R. 2013. Back to Fasad … and the PPNB controversy. Questioning a Levantine origin for Arabian Early Holocene projectile points technology. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24, 28–36. Cheng, H., Sinha, A. Verheyden, S. et al. 2015. The Climate Variability in Northern Levant over the Past 20,000 Years. Geophysical Research Letters. https//: doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065397 Crassard, R. and Drechsler P. 2013. Towards New Paradigms: Multiple Pathways for the Arabian Neolithic. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 3, 24:3–8. Crassard, R., Petraglia, M., Parker, A. et al. 2017. Beyond the Levant: First Evidence of a Pre-Pottery Neolithic Incursion into the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia. PLoS One 8(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068061.g001 Dinies, M., Plessen, B., Neef, R. and Kürschner, H. 2015. When the Desert Was Green: Grassland Expansion During the Early Holocene in Northwestern Arabia. Quaternary International 381, 293–302. Drechsler, P. 2009. The Dispersal of the Neolithic over the Arabian Peninsula. BAR International Series 1969. Oxford: Archaeopress. Engel M., Matter, A., Parker, A. et al. 2017. Lakes or Wetlands? A Comment on ‘The Middle Holocene Climatic Records from Arabia: Reassessing Lacustrine Environments, Shift of ITCZ in Arabian Sea, and Impacts of the Southwest Indian and African Monsoons’ by Enzel et al. Global and Planetary Change 148, 258–267. Enzel, Y., Kushnir, Y. and Quade, J. 2015. The Middle Holocene Climatic Records from Arabia: Reassessing Lacustrine Environments, Shift of ITCZ in Arabian Sea, and Impacts of the Southwest Indian and African Monsoons. Global and Planetary Change 129, 69–91. Fujii, S. 2009. Wadi Abu Tulayha: A Preliminary Report on the Summer 2008 Final Field Season of the Jafr Basin Prehistoric Project, Phase 2. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 53, 173–209. Fujii, S., Adachi, T., Endo, H. and Yamafuji, M. 2013. ‘Awja Sites: Supplementary Investigations of Neolithic Open Sanctuaries in Southernmost Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 57, 337–357. Fujii, S., Adachi, T. and K. Nagaya, K. 2019. Harrat Juhayra 202: An Early PPNB Flint Assemblage in the Jafr Basin, Southern Jordan. In L. Astruc, C. McCartney, F. Briois and V. Kassianidou (eds.), Lithic Technologies on the

80

Gary O. Rollefson

Move. Interactions and Contexts in Neolithic Traditions, 185–197. Nicosia: Astrom Editions. Garrard, A. Harvey, and Switsur, C. 1981. Environment and Settlement during the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene at Jubbah in the Great Nafud, Northern Arabia. Atlal 5, 137–148. Ginau, A., Engel, M. and Brückner, H. 2012. Holocene Chemical Precipitates in the Continental Sabkha of Tayma (NW Saudi Arabia). Journal of Arid Environments 84, 26–37. Guagnin, M. 2020. Pastoralists of the Southern Nefud Desert: Inter-regional Contact and Local Identity. In P. Akkermans (ed.), Landscapes of Survival, 103–115. Leiden: Sidestone Press. Guagnin, M., Jennings, R., Clark-Balzan, L., Groucutt, H., Parton, A. and Petraglia, M. 2015. Hunters and Herders: Exploring the Neolithic Transition in the Rock Art of Shuwaymis, Saudi Arabia. Archaeological Research in Asia 4, 3–16. Guagnin, M., Jennings, R., Eager, H. et al. 2016. Rock Art Imagery as a Proxy for Holocene Environmental Change: A View from Shuwaymis, NW Saudi Arabia. The Holocene 26.11, 1822–1834. Guagnin, M., Perri, A. and Petraglia M. 2018. Pre-Neolithic Evidence for DogAssisted Hunting Strategies in Arabia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 49, 225–236. Guagnin, M., Shipton, C., el-Dossary, S. et al. 2018. Rock Art Provides New Evidence on the Biogeography of Kudu (Tragelaphus imberbis), Wild Dromedary, Aurochs (Bos primigenius) and African Wild Ass (Equus africanus) in the Early and Middle Holocene of North-western Arabia. Journal of Biogeography 45, 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13165 Guagnin, M., Shipton C., Louise Martin, L. and Petraglia, M. 2017. The Neolithic Site of Jebel Oraf 2, Northern Saudi Arabia: First Report of a Directly Dated Site with Faunal Remains. Archaeological Research in Asia 9, 63–67. Guagnin, M., Shipton, C., al-Rashid, M. et al. 2017. An Illustrated Prehistory of the Jubbah Oasis: Re-constructing Holocene Occupation Patterns in Northwestern Saudi Arabia from Rock Art and Inscriptions. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 28, 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/aae.12089 Hilbert, Y., White, T., Parton, A. et al. 2014. Epipalaeolithic Occupation and Palaeoenvironments of the Southern Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia, During the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Journal of Archaeological Science 50, 460–474. Hill, A.C., Rowan, Y., Wasse, A. and Rollefson, G. 2020. Inscribed Landscapes in the Black Desert: Petroglyphs and Kites at Wisad Pools, Jordan. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy: DOI: 10.1111/aae.12158. Kennedy, D. 2017. ‘Gates’: a new archaeological site type in Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 28,153–174.

The Neolithic of the Nefud Desert

81

Kennedy, D., Banks, R. and Dalton, M. 2015. Kites in Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 26, 177–195. Martin, L., Edwards, Y. and Garrard, A. 2013. Broad Spectrum or Specialised Activity? Birds and Tortoises at the Epipalaeolithic Site of Wadi Jilat 22 in the Eastern Jordan Steppe. Antiquity 87, 649–665. Munoz, O., Cotty, M., Charloux, G.et al. 2020. Marking the Sacral Landscape of a North Arabian Oasis: A Sixth-Millennium BC Monumental Stone Platform and Surrounding Burials. Antiquity 94 (375), 601–621. Parr, P., Zarins, J., Ibrahim, M. et al. 1978 Preliminary Report on the Second Phase of the Northern Province Survey 1397/ 1977. Atlal 2, 34–50. Purschwitz, P. 2017. The Prehistory of Tayma: The Chipped Stone Evidence. The Surface Finds and a Techno-typological Analysis of Chert Artefacts from the Carnelian Bead Workshop SE2. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 10, 288– 331. Rollefson, G., Wasse, A. and Rowan, Y. 2008. Images of the Environment: Rock Art and the Exploitation of the Jordanian Badiah. Journal of Epigraphy and Rock Drawing 2, 17–51. Rose, J. 2010. New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis. Current Anthropology 51, 849–883. Scerri E., Guagnin M., Groucutt H. et al. 2018. Neolithic Pastoralism in Marginal Environments During the Holocene Humid Period, Northern Saudi Arabia. Antiquity 92 (365), 1180–1194. Uerpmann, H.-P., Potts, D. and Uerpmann M. 2009. Holocene (Re-)Occupation of Eastern Arabia. In M. Petraglia and J. Rose (eds.), The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia, 205–214. https://DOI 10.1007/978–90–481–2719– 1_15 Zarins, J., Murad, A. and al-Yish, K. 1981. The Comprehensive Archaeological Survey Program. The Second Preliminary Report on the Southwestern Province. Atlal 5, 12–37.

Neolithic Developments in Syria Karin Bartl

Introduction – Region and State of Research Archaeological research on the development of the Neolithic cultures in Syria has a comparatively long tradition. It began with a few investigations in the 1930s, resumed in the 1960s and continued with varying intensity in different parts of the country until 2011. Since then all archaeological activity by foreign missions have been suspended on grounds of the violent clashes in the country. Future developments are unforeseeable, and the current work on the subject focuses on the publications of the results obtained so far.1 Syria separates into several landscapes with different climatic and ecological environments: 1. A western region influenced by the Mediterranean, the most prominent component of which is the coastal mountain range of Jabal al-Ansariyah extending in a north-south orientation. 2. A northern and north-eastern part with the Jazira representing the continuation of the Mesopotamian plains in present-day Iraq, and hence also referred to as Northern or Upper Mesopotamia. 3. A region of deserts and desert steppes in the centre of the country which is the continuation of the North Arabian Desert.

1 Since 2012/13 at the latest, numerous international initiatives have been concerned with the endangered Syrian cultural heritage (Bartl, in press). It should be stressed that the current situation in Syria not only affects the archaeological sites through looting and vandalism, but that it has also led to unprecedented destruction of depots used as repositories for yet unstudied and unpublished finds with the effect that valuable information on cultural goods are being lost lost forever. Even if the monuments of the prehistoric periods are not as much in the focus of interest as those of the historical periods, the current balance of power in the country also represents a threat to these antiquities to the highest degree (Casana and Jacoby Laugier 2017). The destruction of museums, for example in the north Syrian town of ar-Raqqa (Danti et al. 2018) as well as excavation houses and depots, such as at the Neolithic site of Tell Sabi Abyad (Archaeology Newsroom 2014; Heritage for Peace 2015) demonstrates this very vividly. Pillage and smuggling of antiquities are other factors by which the countries cultural property is massively endangered if not already destroyed.

84

Karin Bartl

4. The Hauran a basalt region in southern Syria which continues into north-eastern Jordan while bounded in the west by the Golan Heights.

Figure 1: Main settlement zones in Syria (marked in grey). (Map: Th. Urban, K. Bartl, German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department).

Due to the climatic conditions and ecological resources, the primary settlement zones have for long been concentrating in the west and in the river valley areas of the Euphrates and its tributaries Balikh and Khabur in north-eastern Syria (Fig. 1). These regions are part of the so-called “Fertile Crescent”, one of the core zones of neolithisation. To the west of this area lies the northern part of the “Levantine Corridor”, the most important zone connecting the southern Levant2 with the Taurus region formed by the landscapes of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, the Jordan Valley, the Beqa‘a Plain and the Orontes Valley (Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999, Fig. 3).

2

This region includes Israel, the Autonomous Palestinian Territories and Jordan.

Neolithic Developments in Syria

85

The beginning of systematic research into prehistoric periods in Syria, especially the Neolithic, did not take place before the 1960s. However, some investigations were carried out as early as the 1930s, for example at the tell of Hama (Thuesen 1988), at Tabbat el-Hammam in the coastal region (Braidwood 1940; Hole 1959), and in the plain of ‘Amuq in the Hatay, which belonged to the French Mandate territory of Syria until 1938 (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960). The excavations in the plain of ‘Amuq led to the establishment of a regional chronological framework for the prehistoric periods starting with the Late Neolithic and constituted the most comprehensive and for many decades a ground-breaking work in the research of the northern Levant and south-eastern Anatolia. After the changes following World War II, research on the Neolithic period in Syria resumed only in the 1960s. The work of two scholars is to be emphasized: 1. Henri de Contenson, who from the 1960s generated important data from the Damascene region, but also from Ras Shamra at the coast, and from Bouqras at the Middle Euphrates. His research significantly influenced the establishment of a chronological framework for the Early and Late Neolithic periods between the 10th and 6th millennia calBCE (Huot 2006). 2. Jacques Cauvin, whose work at Tell Mureybet in the 1970s yielded significant results, especially for the initial stage of the Neolithic. His study “Naissance des divinités. Naissance de l’agriculture. La révolution des symboles au Néolithique” (Cauvin 1994)3 presented a new approach to explain the process of Neolithisation which still remains controversial.4 In his opinion, the driving forces behind this process had been less of economic than cognitive nature. He argued that change in human thinking and the emergence of a “symbolic language”, partly as an expression for the representation of deities, had developed prior to domestication. It is not entirely clear, however, how this mental change can be explained. An important basis for Cauvin’s hypotheses, which also included a diffusionist approach as to the spread of Early Neolithic cultures in Southwest Asia, were the results of the salvage excavations carried out at sites like Mureybet ahead of the dam constructions on the Middle Euphrates between the 1960s and the 1990s. In addition to this region, which is of particular importance for Neolithic research in Syria, further projects have been conducted in other areas of the country. The overall density of Neolithic sites in Syria as a whole is nonetheless fairly low, especially compared to the southern Levant or Turkey (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003).

3

The English translation appeared in 2000 under the title “The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture”. 4 See the controversial discussion in the Cambridge Archaeological Journal (Cauvin et al. 2001).

86

Karin Bartl

Chronology and Sites Various chronological frameworks are available for the temporal grouping of the Neolithic Near East. They are based on typologies of architecture and artefacts, particularly lithic artefacts, and on 14C-dating. The classification published in 1994 in the “Atlas des sites du Proche Orient” (14000–5700 BP) (ASPRO) is still used today, although with some alterations (Hours et al. 1994) (Table 1). The following presentation gives a short overview of the most important Neolithic settlements in Syria in chronological order. Table 1 Neolithic chronology of the northern Levant. Period

Sub-Phase

Dates calBCE

ASPRO

LATE EPIPALAEOLITHIC

Natufian

12,500–10,000

1

9800/9700–7000/6900

EARLY NEOLITHIC * (Pre-Pottery Neolithic) Pre-Pottery Neolithic A / PPNA Phase 1

9800/9700–8800/8700 9800/9700–9300/9200

Phase 2 Transitional phase

9300/9200–8700/8600 8800–8600

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B / PPNB Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B / EPPNB Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B / MPPNB Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B / LPPNB

8600–7000/6900 8600–8300/8200 8300/8200–7800/7500

3a 3b

7800/7500–7000/6900

4

LATE NEOLITHIC ** (Pottery Neolithic)

2

7000/6900–5200 Final PPNB/Early Pottery Neolithic *** Pre-Halaf /Transitional (Samarra) Halaf

6900/6800–6500

5

6500–6100/5900 5900–5200

6 7

* Absolute data on the Early Neolithic according to Benz 2015. ** Absolute data on the Late Neolithic according to Akkermans – Schwartz 2003, Fig. 4.2, see also Nieuwenhuyse 2018, Figs. 84–85. *** This phase corresponds to the so-called PPNC (or PPNB final) in the southern Levant. The occurrence of pottery can only be proven in the southern Levant with the Yarmoukian phase around 6400 calBCE.

Neolithic Developments in Syria

87

The Late Epipalaeolithic (12,500–10,000 calBCE) The emergence of settlements with circular buildings, which are characteristic of the beginning of the Neolithic period, dates back to the Epipalaeolithic, especially in the late phase immediately preceding the Neolithic, e.g. the Natufian (12,500– 10,000 calBCE). In contrast to the southern Levant, where this period is well-documented, only few sites from this period have been investigated by excavations in Syria (Fig. 2) (see also Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, 34–41 with further literature). These include some long-known sites on the Euphrates, such as Abu Hureyra (Moore 2000), as well as in the desert steppe south of the Euphrates (Cauvin 1981) and in the mountainous regions of the Anti-Lebanon, where caves or so-called abris such as Yabrud, Kaus Kozah Cave, and Baaz had been the preferred locations of settlement (Conard 2006).

Figure 2: Settlements of the Late Epipalaeolithic/Natufian period (12,500–10,000 calBC). (Map: Th. Urban, K. Bartl, German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department).

88

Karin Bartl

To date, only few sites outside this region are known, for example Jeftelik in the vicinity of Homs (Haïdar-Boustani et al. 2007; Ibáñez et al. 2008; Rodríguez Rodríguez et al. 2013), Tell Qarassa in the Hauran region (Ibáñez et al. 2012), and the cave of Dederiyeh, northwest of Aleppo, which is the northernmost site of this culture (Akazawa and Nishiyaki 2018).5 The uncovered findings consist of simple round building structures and fireplaces, the chipped stone industry comprises numerous microliths, including crescent-shaped lunates. The subsistence was based exclusively on wild species, among which gazelles and pistachios were often favoured. Occasionally, however, as in Abu Hureyra, human manipulation of plant food resources or even domestication of cereals is assumed for this stage of temporary sedentariness (Moore et al. 2000, 397), even though this is still open to debate.

The Early Neolithic Period (c. 10,000/9800–7000/6900 calBCE) S ETTLEMENTS OF THE PPNA Settlements of the earliest Neolithic period, i.e. the PPNA from about 9800 calBCE onward, concentrate in northern Syria, in particular in the Euphrates region. Mureybet, Jerf el-Ahmar, Tell ‘Abr, and Tell Qaramel north of Aleppo, represent the main sites of this period. In general, however, Syria appears as a largely “empty” landscape during this time (Fig. 3). The aforementioned site of Mureybet is today flooded by the Tabqa reservoir. The settlement was first examined by Maurits van Loon (van Loon 1968), and again between 1971 and 1974 by Jacques Cauvin (Cauvin 1977; Ibáñez 2008). Four layers were uncovered, the earliest of which dates back to the final Natufian. The following layer was assigned to the Khiamian, considered as the earliest phase of the PPNA and characterised by a specific type of projectile point known mainly from the southern Levant, but whose definition as a separate phase is not undisputable. The subsistence was exclusively based on the exploitation of wild species, including barley, rye, and gazelle. Phase III is the younger phase of the PPNA and is known as Mureybetian. It consists of circular houses and small rectangular buildings, probably storehouses. A special building dating to this period possibly had a communal function. The most recent phase IV dates to the PPNB.

5

Epipalaeolithic sites have also been identified occasionally in various surveys, for example on the Euphrates (Roodenberg 1977), in the Orontes region (Dietl 2009, 51–56), the “marges arides” in western Syria (Geyer and Coqueugniot 2013, Figs. 5–6), the “Gap of Homs” (Haïdar-Boustani et al. 2007, Fig. 1) and in the Khabur triangle (Hole 1994, 331– 333). Overall, the data are still limited.

Neolithic Developments in Syria

89

Figure 3: Settlements of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) period (10,000/9800–8600 calBC). (Map: Th. Urban, K. Bartl, German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department).

Jerf el-Ahmar is an exceptional site, but is today submerged by the Tishreen reservoir north of the Tabqa reservoir. This site covers less than 1 hectare. However, its two settlement areas show a formally very heterogeneous architecture whose level of complexity yet remains unrecorded at other sites of this period (Stordeur 2015). Two likely communal buildings are the most important complexes. In the “communal house” of the western area, a skull-less burial was found. It seems therefore apparent that this house had been used for rituals. Remarkable finds at Jerf el-Ahmar are small stone tablets with engravings (Stordeur and Jammous 1997). A kind of “communal building” in the late PPNA layers was also uncovered during the excavations of the 1990s at Djadé el-Mughara, north of Jerf el-Ahmar. The large circular building featured three piers and had polychrome wall paintings (Cocqueugniot 2014; 2016). Tell el-‘Abr, located on the eastern shore of the present-day Tishreen reservoir not far from the Syrian-Turkish border shows similar architecture. It consists of several circular buildings, including a “communal house” with carved stone slabs in the interior walls. Notable finds from the site include shaft straighteners with

90

Karin Bartl

incised decorations, which were also known from other sites dating to the same period across northern Syria and south-eastern Anatolia (Yartah 2013). Tell Qaramel is located 25 km northeast of Aleppo. The PPNA settlement consists of several layers and is situated at the foot of a Bronze Age tell. Massive round structures were excavated in each of the PPNA layers (Mazurowski and Kanjou 2012). One of these buildings is referred to as a tower and has been compared to the famous, although much larger round tower in Jericho. A “communal house” was also discovered at Tell Qaramel, containing a number of burials. Numerous stone tablets with engraved pictograms were recovered among the objects (Kanjou 2018, Fig. 2). Although most of the known PPNA sites are located in the Euphrates Valley and its surroundings, the site of Wadi Tumbaq 1, located in the present-day desert steppe northwest of Palmyra, proves that further settlements of the PPNA remain to be discovered outside the “optimal zone” of the Euphrates valley (Abbès 2008).6 Wadi Tumbaq 1 dates to the Khiamian. During the PPNA, subsistence was still based entirely on wild plants and animals (Willcox 2002; 2012). However, a certain “management” of wild plants and animals, which had already begun in the late Epipalaeolithic continued throughout the PPNA. A “real” domestication pertaining to the genetic-morphological modification of plants and animals was accomplished much later, i.e. during the Middle PPNB. Generally speaking, the initial stage of permanent settlement did not include any fundamental changes in subsistence practices. However, most of the the PPNA sites were founded in ecologically rich habitats, such as the fringes of the Euphrates flood plain, where natural resources afforded constant food supply without agriculture. This enabled the establishment of permanent settlements based on wild subsistence resources only. The PPNA sites in the Syrian Euphrates region reveal increases of cultural complexity with regard to architectural forms and various categories of objects, which were probably related to rituals, religious beliefs, and/or practices. Given these features, the settlements may have had links with the contemporary site at Göbekli Tepe in south-eastern Anatolia, about 100–150 km to the northeast of the Euphrates, where most of the known PPNA sites are located. Göbekli Tepe is known for its monumental stone circles with sculpted pillars. It has been defined by the excavator as a ritual gathering centre for an area of about 200 km in diameter, which thus would have included the contemporaneous settlements in northern Syria 6

The fact that the archaeological survey work in Syria has always concentrated on a few large regions, especially the river valleys, leads to assume that systematic surface investigations in the country’s present-day desert steppes, that so far have received little attention, may cover further early settlement sites (see for example the survey in the Wadi ‘Aǧiǧ on the Syrian-Iraqi border (Bernbeck 1993, Fig.1) and that of the “marges arides” south of Aleppo (Geyer and Coqueugniot 2013, Figs. 5–10).

Neolithic Developments in Syria

91

(Schmidt 2005; 2012, 237–238). More recent interpretations emphasize the fact that there are further settlements with special monuments in the wider surroundings of Göbekli Tepe, and that the site is not as unique as it once appeared. In any case, however, Göbekli Tepe makes clear that the regional abundance of resources enabled the surpluses, which could be used to support such elaborate communal efforts by hunters and gatherers (Schyle 2016). One particular feature connecting this outstanding site with the above mentioned settlements are the animal decorations on its stelae that parallel those found on the incised stone tablets and shaft straighteners of the north Syrian PPNA sites. These motifs are to be understood as a hitherto undeciphered symbolic language occurring in northern Syria together with special, intramural burials, as well as large communal buildings.

S ETTLEMENTS OF THE PPNB A significant increase in the number of sites in Syria, as well as across all regions of the Near East has been documented for the following PPNB (8600 – 7000/6900 calBCE). Apart from the Euphrates region, settlements of this period are also found in all other parts of the country, but mostly date to the late phase, i.e. in the Late PPNB (approx. 7500–7000/6900 calBCE). The Early PPNB, however, is relatively unknown in Syria (Fig. 4). Domestication of plants and animals mark the decisive developments of the Neolithic. In the long term this resulted in the subsistence base becoming concentrated on relatively few species; it also led to more predictable yields, which made it possible for human settlements to thrive in habitats with less favourable natural resources. Further changes compared to the PPNA can be observed in the architectural traditions and the lithic artefacts. Rectangular structures now form the standard house type, whilst bipolar core reduction and blade production are the primary lithic technologies. The PPNB divides into three phases: Early, Middle, and Late. Djadé elMughara, Tell Aswad, and Tell Qarassa are among the few sites of the initial phase of the PPNB (approx. 8600 – 8300/8200 calBCE) in Syria. The site of Djadé el-Mughara on the Euphrates, which had been inhabited since the PPNA, exhibits a special feature within the residential architecture: the so-called “House of the Dead”, in which a total of 80 individuals were buried over a relatively long period (Chamel 2014). Layers of the EPPNB were also discovered at Tell ‘Ain el-Kerkh in the Rouj basin west of Idlib. They were represented by several hearths, which were detected in a small area of the site (Tsuneki 2006; Arimura 2007).

92

Karin Bartl

Figure 4: Settlements of the Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (EPPNB) period (8600–8200 calBC). (Map: Th. Urban, K. Bartl, German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department).

Another site of this period is Tell Aswad in the Damascene basin, near the airport of Damascus. It was discovered by H. de Contenson and excavated in 1971 and 1972 (de Contenson 1995). A resumption of the excavations followed from 2001 to 2006. The site’s original dating to the PPNA was corrected, and it was determined that the site includes the Early, Middle, and Late PPNB (Stordeur and Abbès 2002; Stordeur et al. 2010). Tell Aswad is one of the settlements with the earliest evidence of domesticated plants (Willcox 2014; Douché and Willcox 2018) and animals comprising sheep, pigs, and perhaps also goats (Stordeur and Khawam 2016), all of which appear in the EPPNB levels. Tell Qarassa, located in the south Syrian basalt region of the Lejja, also belongs to this period. The excavations began in 2010 and generated significant data in this hitherto little-known region in terms of its prehistory (Ibáñez et al. 2010). It was reported that the recovered cereals already had been domesticated there (Arranz Otaegui et al. 2016). Following the isolated settlements of the EPPNB, the MPPNB (approx. 8300/8200–7700/7500 calBCE) is characterised by a certain increase of sites in all parts of the country (Fig. 5).

Neolithic Developments in Syria

93

Figure 5: Settlements of the Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB) period (8200–7500 calBC). (Map: Th. Urban, K. Bartl, German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department).

Tell Halula is the most important settlement among the sites on the Euphrates. It has been under investigation since 1991 and includes layers from the MPPNB and LPPNB, as well as Late Neolithic layers ascribed to the Halaf period (Molist 2013; 2016). The early strata feature a series of rectangular buildings whose uniform nature seems to have been pre-planned. Paintings on walls and floors are of special importance. Also noteworthy are new burial forms, according to which individuals had been placed in upright-seated position inside pits dug below building thresholds. In southern Syria, Tell Aswad is the most important site of this period. Here, numerous primary and secondary burials situated inside and outside the dwellings were uncovered. The most important finds are several plastered skulls that were found in two distinct areas of the MPPNB layers. LPPNB burials were located outside the houses (Stordeur and Khawam 2016). Tell Aswad is one of the northernmost occurrences of the custom of modelling skulls with plaster, which is known mainly from the southern Levant, particularly Jericho.

94

Karin Bartl

Figure 6: Settlements of the Late Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (LPPNB) period (7500–7000/ 6900 calBC). (Map: Th. Urban, K. Bartl, German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department).

Further sites of the MPPNB are known from the northern and western hinterland of Damascus. However, Qornet Rharra (de Contenson 1966) and Ghoraife (de Contenson 1995) were investigated in small soundings only. Settlements from the LPPNB, i.e. from the middle to the end of the 8th mill. calBCE, can be found in almost every part of the country (Fig. 6). However, most of the known sites are in the west and are either purely prehistoric settlements, such like Qminas near Idlib (Masuda and Sha‘ath 1983) and Tell ‘Ain Dara III south of Afrin (Arimura and Suleiman 2015), or else form the earliest layers of large Bronze Age sites, like Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1992). Among the sites investigated on a large scale are Tell Sabi Abyad II in the Jazirah, Bouqras on the Middle Euphrates, and Tell Ramad southwest of Damascus. An outstanding site of the late PPNB and also the late Neolithic is Bouqras southeast of Deir ez-Zor, which was investigated between 1976 and 1978 (Akkermans et al. 1983). The dense architecture is characterised by tripartite houses. The excavated areas could be supplemented by the documentation of buildings recognisable at the surface. A wall painting featuring ostriches was found inside one

Neolithic Developments in Syria

95

particular house. Stone vessels and figurines of high quality are unique among the objects. Tell Ramad southwest of Damascus was extensively exposed between 1966 and 1973 and dates to the late PPNB. In addition, the site revealed ceramic finds from the early late Neolithic. Large rectangular buildings with stone foundations and massive lime mortar floors form the characteristic building structures of the LPPNB layers. Several groups of skulls were found at Tell Ramad, including one example with lime plaster coating (de Contenson 2000). Tell Sabi Abyad II, located about 30 km south of the Syrian-Turkish border, is part of a cluster of several prehistoric settlements. This small site is characterised by dense architecture of multi-room, rectangular mud brick houses in the best preserved layer 3 which has been exposed over a large area. The subsistence base of this settlement consisted of domesticated and wild species revealing a conspicuously large amount of linseeds. The site belongs to a specific type of small rural settlements with a few dozen inhabitants that practiced small scale agriculture, possibly with a particular specialisation in flax cultivation (Verhoeven and Akkermans 2000).

S UMMARY The initial stage of the early Neolithic, the PPNA, is characterised by the continuation of the developments that already had begun in the late Epipalaeolithic. The settlements continued to be located in ecologically “optimal zones” with longterm usable food resources based on wild plants and animals, but the now permanently occupied settlements gradually increased in size, and the house forms and the intramural burials became more complex. This phase is also characterised by the emergence of an elaborate symbolic “language”, through which supra-regional contacts become apparent. Such contacts further materialise through the increase of the obsidian “trade” between the Levant and the raw material source regions in central and eastern Anatolia, which is known to already go back to the Epiapalaeolithic period (Batist 2014). At the end of the 9th millennium calBCE gradual economic shifts towards an agricultural mode of production began as a result of the domestication process. The domestication of the most important wild plants and animals (emmer, einkorn, barley, chickpea, lentil, sheep, goat, cattle) was completed in the middle of the 8th millennium calBCE (M/LPPNB) when crop cultivation and livestock farming dominated the subsistence economy.

The Late Neolithic (7000/6900–5400/5200 calBCE) E ARLY P OTTERY N EOLITHIC (7000/6900–6500/6400 CAL BCE) The early Neolithic or aceramic period in Syria ended around 7000/6900 calBCE. At this time pottery began to appear for the first time at various sites, a material

96

Karin Bartl

indicator, which represents the most important marker of cultural distinction from the early Neolithic. The oldest type of pottery is the “Dark Faced Burnished Ware”, a still quite rare thin-walled, mineral-tempered ceramic with a polished surface. It is unclear whether this actually was the initial stage of ceramic development or whether it followed an older “experimental stage”, either here or at some other, yet unknown location (Nieuwenhuyse 2018a, 1–6). From about the second third of the 7th millennium calBCE onwards, thick-walled, coarse vegetal tempered pottery became common, and large vessel types appeared. In the second half of the 7th millennium calBCE ceramics developed into a common, everyday product (Campbell 2017; Nieuwenhuyse 2018b).

Figure 7: Settlements of the Early Pottery Neolithic (EPN)/Early Late Neolithic period (7000/6900–6500/6400 calBC). (Map: Th. Urban, K. Bartl, German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department)

Important sites during this period are Tell Sabi Abyad (Akkermans et al. 2014), the large complex of Tell el-Kerkh 2 / Tell Ain el-Kerkh (Tsuneki and Hydar 2007; Tsuneki 2016), and Shir (Bartl 2018), all revealing 7th millennium calBCE architecture over larger surfaces. Some other sites, such as the already mentioned tell at Hama (Thuesen 1988), Tell Nebi Mend near Homs (Parr 2015),

Neolithic Developments in Syria

97

and Tell Sukas at the coast (Riis and Thrane 1974) were investigated merely in small soundings that furnished only little information about the settlement structures (Fig. 7). Tell Sabi Abyad is located on the upper Balikh, the westernmost of the two Syrian tributaries to the Euphrates, and was excavated between 1986 and 2010 (Akkermans et al. 2014). The settlement complex consists of four tell sites, three of which have been investigated. The overall sequence spans the entire period between the LPPNB and the late Pottery Neolithic, i.e. the Halaf period (5800– 5200 calBCE). Tell 1 shows a stratigraphic sequence between 7000 and 5500 calBCE. Excavations were carried out in five areas (operations I–V), whilst the longest sequence of layers was found in operation III (Nieuwenhuyse 2018a, 16– 30). In all excavation areas complex architecture was documented, including rectangular, multi-room buildings and round buildings, so-called tholoi. A special feature were numerous extramural burials of great typological diversity dating to the period between 6400 and 5800 calBCE. The individuals, who often had been provided with grave goods, were found buried in several successive cemeteries (Akkermans 2016). Tell el-Kerkh, located in the Rouj plain northwest of Idlib, is an agglomeration of several settlement sites (Tell ‘Ain el-Kerkh, Tell el-Kerkh 1, Tell el-Kerkh 2) occupied since the EPPNB (Tsuneki and Hydar 2007; Tsuneki 2012). In the course of the excavations carried out between 1998 and 2010, a regional chronology for the Neolithic was set up, thus supplementing the older data from the ‘Amuq excavations in the 1930s (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960). The architecture features both buildings with cell-like rooms and single-room buildings with lime mortar floors. A cemetery with more than 200 burials was discovered in the later layers from the end of the 7th millennium calBCE (Tsuneki et al. 2011; Tsuneki 2016; 2018). Tell el-Kerkh too, is referred to as a “mega site”, due to its overall size (Tsuneki 2012).This is a Neolithic settlement type of more than 10 hectares in size, defined for the southern Levant.7 The late Neolithic settlement at Shir is located c. 12 km northeast of Hama and was examined between 2006 and 2010 (Bartl 2016; 2018). Different issues were investigated in three settlement areas: the stratigraphic-chronological sequence, the settlement layout, and the function of some special buildings. The stratigraphic excavation showed a dense succession of buildings of varying morphologies and sizes, the most striking features of which were the identical alignments of the buildings spanning a period of approx. 600 years, as well as the intensive use of lime mortar for the floors. Burials, especially those of infants and young children, 7

In general, however, it seems questionable whether there were mega sites at all or whether “shifting settlements” should be assumed in the Neolithic, i.e. a repeated abandonment and re-establishment of small settlements in a limited area. As a ruin, such agglomerations of non-contemporary settlements create the impression of large settlements (Akkermans – Schwartz 2003, 60).

98

Karin Bartl

were often located underneath floors and walls. A large, perhaps pre-planned complex of two buildings with uniform rows of rooms was uncovered in the northeastern part of the settlement. The room inventories point to the storage of foodstuffs and to activities related to food processing. The earliest settlement strata at Shir date to around 7000 calBCE, the latest to c. 6200/6100 calBCE. It is not clear whether the end of the settlement, which apparently was abandoned, is related to the so-called 8.2 ka yrs event and its assumed climate changes.8 In the Damascene and in southern Syria, Tell Ramad and Tell Qarassa are the only two sites with layers from the early Late Neolithic. The ceramic tradition at Tell Qarassa corresponds to the Yarmoukian (6400–5800 calBCE), the oldest ceramic horizon of the southern Levant.

T HE L ATE P OTTERY N EOLITHIC ( CA . 6500/6400–5400/5200 CAL BCE) The developments in the Late Pottery Neolithic differ in the eastern and western parts of the country. In the second half of the 7th millennium calBCE, the socalled “pre-Halaf phase” begins in the North Syrian Jazirah, after which the Halaf period begins following a “transitional” phase of about two centuries (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, Fig. 4.2). This sequence is imperceptible both west of the Euphrates and in the Damascene. Virtually no archaeological data has been reported from these regions for the period between the end of the 7th millennium and the middle of the 6th millennium calBCE. Only in the second half of the 6th millennium appear traces from (late) Halaf settlements in various areas of Western Syria (Fig. 8). This period is defined by the reappearance of circular buildings and the increasing occurrence of painted ceramics. Important sites in northern Syria include the eponymous site of Tell Halaf (Becker 2013a, b), Tell Sabi Abyad (Akkermans et al. 2014), Tell Halula on the Euphrates (Molist et al. 2013), and Chagar Bazar in the Khabur triangle (Cruells et al. 2013), all located in the Jazirah of northern Syria. In western and central Syria this period has been recorded at few settlements only, as at Ras Shamra (de Contenson 1995), Hama (Thuesen 1988), and Arjoune (Parr 2003). In the Damascene Basin and in southern Syria no sites of the Late Pottery Neolithic are known so far.

8

The melting of ice shields in the North Atlantic led to cooler climate conditions (-2 degrees) in Central and Northern Europe. The question whether this event also had an impact on the Middle East has been the subject of intense discussions in recent years, though without any clear outcome (Weninger et al. 2006; 2009). However, even short-term local climate fluctuations may have had some relevance in the abandonment of settlements.

Neolithic Developments in Syria

99

Figure 8: Settlements of the Late Pottery Neolithic (LPN)/Halaf period (6500/6400–5200 calBC). (Map: Th. Urban, K. Bartl, German Archaeological Institute, Orient Department).

Conclusion Research on the Neolithic period in Syria has produced important results relatively early on, which have long been crucial for the interpretation of this period. In the past two decades, the level of knowledge of the Neolithic settlement in Southwest Asia has risen significantly through the sometimes spectacular results from new excavations in Turkey and intensified research in the southern Levant. The density of sites in these areas now allows for a more differentiated view of the regional developments that occurred during the individual periods and further contributes to the clarification of important issues, such as the processes of domestication. Syria forms the connecting area between the southern Levant and the Taurus/Zagros zone of south-eastern Anatolia / northern Iraq and western Iran. The former shows a continuous occupation between the Epipalaeolithic and the late Neolithic. The latter, also subsumed under the term “Golden Triangle” (Kozlowski and Aurenche 2005, Fig. 0.12), owing to its ecological properties, is con-

100

Karin Bartl

sidered as one of the core zones of primary neolithisation in southwest Asia, especially with regard to domestication. Domestication of barley is known to have occurred in Syria towards the end of the 9th millennium calBCE (Conolly et al. 2011), and it is perhaps also during this time that animal domestication initially began (Stordeur and Khawam 2016). Diverse connections between Syria and its northern and southern neighbours are attested through numerous finds of specific raw materials occurring naturally in partly far-flung regions only. The best known indicator for these early longdistance connections is the distribution of obsidian with its natural occurrences in central and eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus (see Database on Prehistoric Near East), and north-western Iran (Abedil et al. 2018), as reflected by its southward trade since the Epipalaeolithic. Recent studies have assumed the existence of complex trade relations between individual villages from which long-distance trade was organised in the periods after the PPNA (Ortega et al. 2016). Whether, and to what extent these apparently existing networks generally influenced the exchange of ideas and goods cannot be clearly acknowledged. However, it is hardly likely that they were of the same intensity at all time. The disparities in the ceramic developments in Syria and the southern Levant (beginning from 7000 calBCE versus 6500/6400 calBCE) may be an indication for only limited inter-settlement communication between the northern and southern Levant during the first half of the 7th millennium calBCE. As far as recognisable, the Neolithic settlements in Syria are characterised through all phases by sites measuring between one and four to five hectares. The so-called mega sites of 10 hectares of settlement area or more, which is assumed for the LPPNB in the southern Levant, is a rare a phenomenon in Syria. For Tell el-Kerkh near Idlib, however, a settlement size of 16 hectares is assumed for the LPPNB, which was reduced to 1 hectare during the late Neolithic period (Tsuneki 2012; 2016). Numerous surveys in the most important settlement areas of Syria could prove the existence of additional settlements, especially for the periods of the LPPNB and the Late Neolithic (Geyer and Coqueugniot 2013). Settlements of the earlier phases of the early Neolithic, i.e. the PPNA, EPPNB and MPPNB, are largely missing in the survey material (e.g. Akkermans 1993; Haïdar-Boustani et al. 2007; Bartl and Badawi, in prep.). The current state of knowledge, therefore, only allows to argue for a sparse occupation during the period between the 10th and the middle of the 8th millennium calBCE.

Neolithic Developments in Syria

101

Acknowledgements With this contribution, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Professor Zeidan Kafafi for his long-lasting friendship and our close, stimulating cooperation in Jordan. We have always stayed in touch since our (long-gone) days studying together with Professor Hans-Jörg Nissen at the Free University of Berlin, and it was therefore particularly fortunate for me that we were able to start a joint research project after my move from Damascus to Amman. Our work from 2013 to 2015 at the Neolithic site of eh-Sayyeh near Zarqa, where Zeidan had already conducted excavations in the 1990s, is very much in my memory, due to his inspiring scientific impulses, his collegial helpfulness, and the good spirit during the work. I am therefore very happy that I had the opportunity to work with him in Jordan. For the future, I wish him continued joy and success in his scientific work and happy times together with his wonderful family.

Bibliography Abbès, F. 2008. Wadi Tumbaq 1: A Khiamian Occupation in the Bal‘as Mountains, Neo-Lithics 01/08, 3–9. Abedil, A., Vosough, B., Razani, M., Bagherzadeh Kasiri M., Steiniger, D., and Ebrahimi, G. 2018 Obsidian Deposits From North-Western Iran and First Analytical Results: Implications for Prehistoric Production and Trade, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 18.2, 107–188. Akazawa, T. and Nishiaki, Y. 2018. The Paleolithic Excavations at the Dederiyeh Cave, Afrin Valley (1989–2011). In J. Abdul Massih and S. Nishiyama (eds.), Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000–2011, 5–12. Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut 2015. Oxford: Archaeopress. Akkermans, P. A., Boerma, J. A. K., Clason, A. T. et al. 1983. Bouqras Revisited: Preliminary Report on a Project in Eastern Syria, 335–372. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 49. Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 2016. Tell Sabi Abyad (Raqqa). In Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds.), A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites, 65–68. Oxford: Archaopress. — 1993. Villages in the Steppe: Later Neolithic Settlements and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory 5. Akkermans, P.M.M.G., Brüning, M.L., Huigens, H. and Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. (eds.). 2014. Excavations at the Late Neolithic Site of Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. The 1994–1999 Field Seasons, 17–28. Turnhout: Brepols. Akkermans, P.M.M.G. and Schwartz, G.M. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000 BC – 300 BC), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

102

Karin Bartl

Archaeology Newsroom. 2014. Depots of Leiden archaeologists in Syria plundered. https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2014/03/12/depots-of-leidenarchaeologists-in-syria-plundered/ (last accessed on 15/12/2020). Arimura, M. 2007. The Lithic Industry of the Early PPNB Layers at Tell Ain elKerkh, Northwest Syria. In L. Astruc, D. Binder et F. Briois (eds.), Systèmes techniques et communautés du Néolithique précéramique au Proche-Orient / Technical Systems and Near Eastern PPN Communities, Lyon, 137–151. Arimura, M. and Suleiman, A. 2015. A Cultural Unity in Northwestern Syria during the Neolithic. Tell Ain Dara III, a PPNB site in the Afrin Valley, Paléorient 41.2, 85–99. Arranz Otaegui, A., Colledge, S., Ibañez, J. J. and Zapata, L. 2016. Crop husbandry activities and wild plant gathering, use and consumption at the EPPNB Tell Qarassa North (South Syria), Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 25.6, 629–645. Aurenche, O. and Kozlowski, S. K. 1999. La naissance du Néolithique au Proche Orient ou le paradis perdu. Paris: Éditions Errance. Bartl, K. 2016. Shir (Hama). In Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds.), A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites, 72–75. Oxford: Archaeopress. Bartl, K. in press. Endangered cultural heritage in the Middle East. On the possibilities of preserving ancient cultural landscapes in times of crisis. In H. Hajashneh (ed.), Humboldt-Kolleg – Cultural Heritage: At the Intersection of the Humanities and the Sciences. Bartl, K. (ed.) 2018. The Late Neolithic Site of Shir/Syria. Vol. I. The Excavations at the South Area 2006–2009. Damaszener Forschungen 18, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft/Philipp von Zabern. Bartl, K. and Badawi, M. (eds.). In prep. Archaeological Survey in the Middle Orontes Region (to appear in the series Orient-Archäologie) Batist, Z. 2014. Obsidian Circulation Networks in Southwest Asia and Anatolia (12,000–5700 B.P.): A Comparative Approach, M.A. thesis. Ontario: Hamilton. Becker, J. 2013a. Tell Halaf. Die prähistorischen Schichten – Neue Einblicke. In D. Bonatz and L. Martin (Hrsg.), 100 Jahre archäologische Feldforschungen in Nordost-Syrien – eine Bilanz, 45–64. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. — 2013b. Tell Halaf: New Results on the Late Neolithic Period in Northeastern Syria. In O. P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans and J. Rogasch (eds.), Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, 455– 466.Turnhout: Brepols. Benz, M. 2015. Comments on radiocarbon dates of Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic sites of the Near East. http://www.exoriente.org/associated_projects/ ppnd.php (last accessed on 17/12/2020). Bernbeck, R. 1993. Steppe als Kulturlandschaft, Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient. Ausgrabungen 1. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Neolithic Developments in Syria

103

Braidwood, R. J. 1940. Report on two Sondages on the Coast of Syria, South of Tartous, Syria 21.2, 183–226. Braidwood, R. J. and Braidwood, L. S. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: The Earlier Assemblages Phases A–J, Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications 61. Campbell, S. 2017. Absolute Dating and the Early Pottery in South-west Asia. In A. Tsuneki, O. Nieuwenhuyse and S. Campbell (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery in West Asia, 133–153. Oxford, Philadelphia: Oxbow Books. Casana, J. and Jacoby Laugier, E. 2017. Satellite Imagery-based Monitoring of Archaeological Site Damage in the Syrian Civil War, PLoS One, 12(11), e0188589. Cauvin, M.C. 1981. L’Épipaléolithique de Syrie d’après les premières recherches dans la cuvette d’El Kowm (1978–1979). In J. Cauvin and P. Sanlaville (eds.), Préhistoire du Levant: chronologie et organization de l’espace depuis les origines jusqu’au VIe millénaire, 375–388.Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Cauvin, J. 1977. Les fouilles de Mureybet (1971–1974) et leur signification pour les origines de la sédentarisation au Proche-Orient, Annuals of the American Schools of Oriental Research 44, 19–48. — 1994. Naissance de la divinité, Naissance de l’agriculture. La revolution des symbols au Néolithique. Paris: CNRS Éditions. Cauvin, J., Hodder, I., Rollefson, G.O., Bar-Yosef, O. and Watkins, T. 2001. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture by Jacques Cauvin, translated by Trevor Watkins, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Reviewed by Ian Hodder, Gary O. Rollefson and Ofer Bar-Yosef with a response by Trevor Watkins, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11, 105–121. doi: 10.1017/ S0959774301000063. Chamel, B. 2014. Bioanthropologie et pratiques funéraires des populations néolithiques du Proche-Orient : l’impact de la Néolithisation (Étude de sept sites syriens – 9820–6000 cal. BC), École doctorale des sciences sociales (ED 483), Université Lumière Lyon 2, UMR 5133. Lyon: Archéorient – Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Conard, N.J. (ed.). 2006. Tübingen-Damascus Excavation and Survey Project 1999–2005. Publications in Prehistory. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag. Conolly J., Colledge, S., Dobney, K. et al. 2011. Meta-Analysis of Zooarchaeological Data From SW Asia and SE Europe Provides Insight into the Origins and Spread of Animal Husbandry, Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 538– 545. de Contenson, H. 1966. La station préhistorique de Qornet Rharra près de Seidnaya. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 16.2, 197–200. — 1992. Préhistoire de Ras Shamra. Paris: Éditions recherche sur les civilisations.

104

Karin Bartl

— 1995. Aswad et Ghoraifé: sites néolithiques en Damascène (Syrie) aux IXème et VIIIème millénaires avant l`ère chrétienne. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 137. Beyrouth: IFAPO. — 2000. Ramad: site néolithique en Damascène (Syrie) aux VIIIe et VIIe millénaires avant l’ère chrétienne. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 157. Beyrouth: IFAPO. Coqueugniot E. 2014. Dja’dé (Syrie) et les représentations symboliques au 9e millénaire cal BC. In C. Mann, T. Perrin and J. Guilaine (eds.), La transition néolithique en Méditerranée. Actes du colloque “Transitions en Méditeranée, ou comment des chasseurs devinrent agriculteurs”, 91–108. Musée de Toulouse, 14–15 avril 2011. Arles. — 2016. Djadé el-Mughara (Aleppo), In Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds.), A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites, 51–53. Oxford: Archaeopress. Cruells, W., Gòmez, A., Bouso, M. et al. 2013. Chagar Bazar in Northeastern Syria: Recent Work. In O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R., Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans and J. Rogasch (eds.), Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, 467–478. Turnhout: Brepols. Danti, M.D., Zettler, R., Ashby, D.P. et al. 2018. Special Report: Current Status of the Raqqa Museum, ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives (CHI): Planning for Safeguarding Heritage Sites in Syria and Iraq, January 5, 2018. http:// www.asor.org/chi/reports/special-reports/Raqqa-Museum. (last accessed on 17/12/2020) Database on Prehistoric Near East Obsidian. https://www.mom.fr/obsidienne/ (last accessed on 17/12/2020) Dietl, H. 2009. Analyse der paläolithischen Siedlungsdynamik an Freilandfundplätzen in der levantinischen Steppenzone, Tübinger Arbeiten zur Urgeschichte 6. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Douché, C. and Willcox, G. 2018. New Archaeobotanical Data From the Early Neolithic Sites of Dja`de el-Mughara and Tell Aswad (Syria): A Comparison Between the Northern and the Southern Levant, Paléorient 44.2, 45–57. Geyer, B. and Coqueugniot, E. 2013. Occupation du sol et conquete territorial durant le Néolithique dans les marges arides de Syrie du Nord, Syria 90, 159– 176. Haïdar-Boustani, M., Ibáñez, J. J., al-Maqdissi, M., Armendáriz, A., Urquijo, J. G. and Teira, L. 2007. New Data on the Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic of the Homs Gap: Three Campaigns of Archaeological Survey (2004–2006), NeoLithic 1/07, 3–9. Heritage for Peace. 2015. 20 Years of Archaeological Work from Tell Sabi Abyad Looted, http://www.heritageforpeace.org/syria-culture-and-heritage/damageto-cultural-heritage/previous-damage-newsletters/damage-to-syrias-heritage16-may-2015/ (last accessed on 15/12/2020)

Neolithic Developments in Syria

105

Hole, F. 1959. A Reanalysis of Basal Tabbat al-Hammam, Syria, Syria 36, 149– 183. — 1994. Khabur Basin PPN and Early PN Industries. In H.G.K. Gebel and S.K. Kozlowski (eds.), Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, 331–347. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 1. Berlin: ex oriente. Hours, F., Aurenche, O., Cauvin, J., Cauvin, M.-C., Copeland, L. and Sanlaville, P. 1994. Atlas des sites du Proche-Orient (14000–5700 BP). Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen 24. Lyon. Huot, J.-L. 2006. Henri de Contenson: Un parcours. Hommage. Syria 83, 19–24. Ibáñez, J.J. (ed.). 2008. Le site néolithique de Tell Mureybet (Syrie du Nord). En hommage à Jacques Cauvin. Oxford: BAR International Series 1843. Ibáñez, J.J., Balbo, A., Braemer, F. et al. 2010. The Early PPNB Levels of Tell Qarassa North (Sweida, Southern Syria), Antiquity 84 (325). http://www. antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/ibañez325/#author. (last accessed on 02/12/2020) Ibáñez, J.J., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Maqdissi, M. et al. 2008. Mission conjointe siro-libano-espagnole de prospection et sondages archélogiques à l’ouest de la ville de Homs (République Arabe Syrienne), campagne 2008, rapport scientifique. digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/8497/1/Rapport%2008.pdf. (last accessed on 13/05/2016) Ibáñez, J.J., Terradas, X., Armendáriz, A. et al. 2012. Nouvelles données sur les architectures des sites Natufiens de Jeftelik et Qarassa 3 (Syrie centro-occidentale et du sud). In J.L. Montero Fenollós (ed.), Du village néolithique à la ville syro-Mésopotamienne, Bibliotheca Euphratica 1, 9–33, Universidad da Coruña, Coruña. Kanjou, Y. 2018. Archaeological Excavations at Tell Qaramel 1999–2011 (Aleppo-North Syria). In J. Abdul Massih, S. Nishiyama (eds.), Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000–2011, 13–20. Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut 2015, Archaeopress, Oxford. Kozlowski, S.K. and Aurenche, O. 2005. Territories, Boundaries and Cultures in the Neolithic Near East, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1362, Oxford. Masuda, S. and Sha‘ath, S. 1983. Qminas, the Neolithic Site Near Tell Deinit, Idlib (Preliminary Report), Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 33.1, 199-231. Mazurowski, R.F. and Kanjou, Y. (eds.). 2012. Tell Qaramel 1999–2007. Protoneolithic and Early Pre-pottery Neolithic Settlement in Northern Syria, Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw. Molist, M. 2016. Tell Halula. In Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds.), A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites, 54–56. Archaeopress, Oxford.

106

Karin Bartl

Molist, M. (ed.). 2013. Tell Halula: un poblado de los primeros agricultores en el valle del Éufrates, Siria, Tomo I, Memoria Científica, Ministerio Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Madrid. www.medc.gob.es. Molist, M., Anfruns, J., Bofill, M. et al. 2013. Tell Halula (Euphrates Valley, Syria): New Data from the Late Neolithic Settlement. In O.P. Nieuwenhuyse, R. Bernbeck, P.M.M.G. Akkermans and J. Rogasch (eds.), Interpreting the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia, 443–454. Brepols, Turnhout. Moore, A.T.M., Hillman, G.C. and Legge, A.J. 2000.Village on the Euphrates. From Foraging to Farming, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. 2018a. Relentlessly Plain. Seventh Millennium Ceramics at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria, Oxbow Books, Oxford, Philadelphia. — 2018b. Pottery, in: Bartl, K. (ed.), The Late Neolithic Site of Shir/Syria, Damaszener Forschungen 18, 263–423. Ortega, D., Ibáñez, J.J., Campos, D., Khalidi, L., Méndez, V. and Teira, L. 2016. Systems of Interaction between the First Sedentary Villages in the Near East Exposed Using Agent-Based Modelling of Obsidian Exchange, Systems 2016, 4(2), 18. doi:10.3390/systems4020018 www.mdpi.com/journal/systems Parr, P.J. 2003. Excavations at Arjoune, Syria, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1134, Archaeopress, Oxford. Parr, P.J. (ed.). 2015. The Excavations at Tell Nebi Mend (Syria),Volume I, Levant Supplementary Series, Volume 16, Oxbow Books. Oxford, Philadelphia. Riis, P.J. and Thrane, H. 1974. Sūkās III: The Neolithic Periods, Publications of the Carlsberg Expedition to Phoenicia 3, Copenhagen. Rodríguez Rodríguez, A., Haïdar-Boustani, M., Urquijo, J.E. et al. 2013. The Early Natufian Site of Jeftelik (Homs Gap, Syria). In O. Bar-Yosef and F. Valla (eds.), Natufian Foragers in the Levant. Terminal Pleistocene Social Changes in Western Asia, 61–72. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 19, Ann Arbor. Roodenberg, J.J. 1977. An Epipaleolithic Industry on the Nahr el-Homr. In D.N. Freedman (ed.), Archaeological Reports From the Tabqa Dam Project – Euphrates Valley, Syria, 9–17. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 44. Schmidt, K. 2005. “Ritual Centers” and the Neolithisation of Upper Mesopotamia, Neo-Lithics 2/05, 13–21. — Göbekli Tepe. A Stone Age Sanctuary in South-Eastern Anatolia, ex Oriente, Berlin. Schyle, D. 2016. Zur Interpretation des Göbekli Tepe: Heiligtum oder Dorf? In T. Kerig, K. Nowak and G. Roth (eds.), Alles was zählt …, Festschrift für Andreas Zimmermann, 263–272. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 285, Bonn.

Neolithic Developments in Syria

107

Stordeur, D. 2015. Le village de Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie, 9800–8700 av. J.-C.). L’architecture, miroir d’une société néolithique complexe, CNRS Éditions, Paris. Stordeur, D. and Abbès, F. 2002. Du PPNA au PPNB: mis en lumière d’une phase de transition à Jerf el Ahmar (Syrie), Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 99.3, 563–595. Stordeur, D., Helmer, D., Jamous, B., Khawam, R., Molist, M. and Willcox, G. 2010. Le PPNB de Syrie du Sud à travers les découvertes récentes à Tell Aswad. In M. al-Maqdissi, F. Braemer and J.-M. Dentzer (eds.), Hauran V. La Syrie du sud du Néolithique à L’Antique tardive, 41–68. Recherches récentes, Actes du colloque de Damas 2007, volume I, Beyrouth. Stordeur, D. and Jammous, B. 1997. D’énigmatiques plaquettes gravées néolithiques, Archéologia 332, 36–41. Stordeur, D. and Khawam, R. 2016. Shir (Hama). In Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds.), A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites, 57–60. Archaeopress, Oxford. Thuesen, I. 1988. Hama. Fouilles et Recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931– 1938, Volume I: The Pre- and Protohistoric Periods, Copenhagen. Tsuneki, A. 2012. Tell el-Kerkh as a Neolithic Mega Site, Orient XLVII, 29–65. — 2016. Tell el-Kerkh (Idlib). In Y. Kanjou and A. Tsuneki (eds.), A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites, 61–64. Archaeopress, Oxford. — 2018. Tell el-Kerkh. A Neolithic Mega Site in the Province of Idlib. In J. Abdul Massih and S. Nishiyama (eds.), Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000–2011, 267–282. Proceedings of ISCHAJ-Beirut 2015. Tsuneki, A., Dougherty, S. P., Hironaga, N. et al. 2011. Life and Death in the Kerkh Neolithic Cemetery, Tsukuba. Tsuneki, A. and Hydar, J. 2007. A Decade of Excavations at Tell el-Kerkh, 1996– 2006, Department of Archaeology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba. van Loon, M.N. 1968. The Oriental Institute Excavations at Mureybit, Syria: Preliminray Report on the 1965 campaign, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27, 265–290. Verhoeven, M. and Akkermans, P.M.M.G. (eds.). 2000. Tell Sabi Abyad II – The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Settlement. Report on the Excavations of the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden in the Balikh Valley, Syria, Leiden. Yartah, T. 2013. Vie quotidienne, vie communautaires et symboliques à Tell ‘Abr 3 – Syrie du Nord. Données nouvelles et nouvelles reflections sur l’horizon PPNA au nord du Levant 10000–9000 BP, 2 volumes, Thèse de doctorat, Université Lyon 2, Lyon. Weninger, B., Alram-Stern, E., Bauer, E. et al. 2006. Climate forcing due to the 8200 cal yr BP event observed at Early Neolithic sites in the eastern Mediterranean, Quaternary Research 66, 401–420.

108

Karin Bartl

Weninger, B., Clare, L., Rohling, E.J. et al. 2009. The Impact of Rapid Climate Change on prehistoric societies during the Holocene in the Eastern Mediterranean, Documenta Praehistorica 36, 7–59. Willcox, G. 2002. Charred plant remains from a 10th millennium B.P. kitchen at Jerf el Ahmar (Syria), Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11.1, 55–60. — 2012. Pre-Domestic Cultivation during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in the Northern Levant. In P.Gepts, T.R. Famula, R.L. Bettinger et al. (eds.) Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability, 92–109. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. — 2014. The Beginnings of Cereal Cultivation in the Near East. In C. Manen, T. Perrin and J. Guilaine (eds.), La transition néolithique en Méditerranée. The Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean, 47–58. Paris.

Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan) – Axes, Adzes, Scissors, Picks … Woodcutters’ and Carpenters’ Tools, or Agricultural Implements? Eric Coqueugniot

The study presented here concerns lithic artefacts uncovered during the first field campaign in Abu Hamid (Jordan Valley) in 1986. At that time, on the one hand a systematic collection of material was carried out on the surface whilst extensive excavation work of in situ levels had begun. The in-situ levels delivered 5361 flint artefacts, and for all purposes, the appendix (Tab. 1–2) summarises the composition of this sample of flint artefacts constituted by the pieces collected in a “safe” stratigraphic context during this first excavation campaign. The knapped stone tools collected at Abu Hamid are both very abundant and varied,1 with the coexistence of two distinct series: • simple pieces (common tools such as toothed tools, drills and borers, “sickle elements”) were probably made by the users themselves, according to the most basic needs (Fig. 1); • more elaborate pieces requiring know-how for their manufacture, which was probably not available to everyone. This series includes on the one hand artefacts that may not have been manufactured locally (e.g. perforated discs and tabular scrapers or micro-scrapers using a special technology and/or made of non-local flint [Fig.1:8; Fig. 2]),2 and on the other hand some heavy tools 1

Information on all the material can be found in Dollfus et al. 1988. An initial version of this text had been prepared in the early 1990s and was never published. I am pleased to dedicate it to Prof. Zeidan Kafafi. 2 Abu Hamid’s “tabular scrapers” are tall and regular scrapers, shaped on large, thin flakes, with a cortical, flat upper surface. Their elaborate character is not due to the retouch of the cutting edge, but to the fact that the support is obtained from very large nodules or flint in benches, raw material that does not come from Abu Hamid’s environment. Workshops for knapping these particular supports have been found in the Negev, in NE Jordan and in the Jafr basin (Quintero, Wilke and Rollefson 2002; Abe 2008; Müller-Neuhof 2013). For the perforated disks see e.g. Perrot et al. 1967; Epstein and Noy 1988.

110

Eric Coqueugniot

made locally in “workshops” located at specific points in Abu Hamid, using local raw materials. In this contribution, we will consider only the latter group of tools: the axes/adzes group.

Figure 1: AH 86 – Examples of common tools: borer (1), multiborer (2), wide-base borer (9), angular borer (6), angular burin (3), “sickle” elements (4–5), denticulated (7), micro end-scraper on fine retouched blade (8), transverse arrowhead (10), distal notch (11). (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan)

111

Figure 2: AH 86 – Examples of elaborate tools probably produced by specialised craftspeople: perforated disc with concave base (1), fragment of bifacial perforated disc with axial perforation (3) and elongated tabular scrapers (2).3

The heavy, elongated tools analysed here are all bifacial and are characterised primarily by the opposition of a butt and a cutting edge (or a point in the case of the picks, Fig. 12: 2). The series studied comes from the first excavation campaign at Abu Hamid and includes 114 pieces, 79 of which are whole; it is therefore a sample from the material delivered by this site, but it is large enough to answer many questions. In fact, only 19 of these pieces have been unearthed in a stratigraphic context. We have added the pieces collected during the surface prospecting, because our studies have shown that the surface material and that of the levels

3

For these three pieces (and contrary to the artefacts shown in the other figures) a reduction rate of 0.5× has been applied (the scale is in centimetres). (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

112

Eric Coqueugniot

excavated during the first campaigns belonged to the same chrono-cultural background. The axes/adzes are a group of tools that is both well-represented and characteristic in chrono-cultural terms. In fact, tools of the same general form from the Neolithic period in Palestine (“Tahounian tranchets”) were shaped in a totally different way;4 moreover, this group disappeared at the beginning of the Bronze Age (Rosen 1997, Barkai 2011). It is therefore a key fossil of the transitional period represented by the Wadi Rabah and Ghassoulian phases of Palestine, or the Late Neolithic and Eneolithic from Byblos.5 The distinction between the so-called axes and adzes is basically functional. If both are attached transversely to the handle, the axe has a cutting edge parallel to the handle and is a lumberjack’s tool, whereas the adze, a carpenter’s tool, has the cutting edge perpendicular to the handle. Unfortunately, on the sites that concern us the handles are not preserved and, by their absence, in the nomenclature of prehistoric tools, the partition between axes and adzes is generally established solely on the basis of morphological criteria. Since the general shape remains the same, it is usually considered that the axes correspond to pieces whose sections – both longitudinal and transverse – are biconvex and symmetrical (Fig. 12: 1), while for adzes they are plano-convex and asymmetrical. This partition based on the morphological characters of present-day metal tools is, however, too rigid for stone tools, all the more so as ethnography abounds with examples of “typological” axes fitted into adzes and vice versa (Pétrequin and Pétrequin 1993). Ethnographic examples supported by use-wear analyses (Cauvin 1983) have shown that the function was not unambiguously inscribed in the form of prehistoric tools. For the Abu Hamid artefacts, there does not appear to be a clear metrical partition between pieces with symmetrical sections (“axes”) and ones with asymmetrical sections (“adzes”) (see Fig. 3–4). Therefore, as a first approach, we preferred to talk about the group of axes/ adzes (or the more generic term celt) rather than making an a priori6 decision, especially since a premature interpretation is often reused as it stands. In this context, it was interesting to try to see the place and the exact role held by these tools in the toolkit of the inhabitants of Abu Hamid.

4

For the Tahounian tranchets, the cutting edge was obtained by two transverse removals and not axial ones as in the case of the tools we are concerned with here. 5 Our tools have many similarities with the ‘straight-edged long axes’ (haches longues à taillant droit) of the Late Neolithic and Eneolithic at Byblos and the Lebanese coast (Cauvin 1968). 6 Following Leroi-Gourhan, in his synthesis on the lithic tools of Byblos, Cauvin used the general term axe, after taking care to specify that this term included both types (Cauvin 1968).

Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan)

113

Figure 3: Distribution cloud of the length and width of 69 whole axes/adzes according to the possible symmetry of the profile (longitudinal section) of their edge. The similarity of the distributions indicates that the distinction between “typological axe” and “typological adze” does not concern the module of the pieces.

Figure 4: Histogram of elongation ratio (length/width) for 75 whole axes/adzes. It should be noted that for most of these pieces the elongation indices are between 2 and 3, which is close to the values found for Eneolithic Byblos (Cauvin 1968).

Raw Material and Manufacturing Method The raw material used for these bifacial tools is always a coarse-grained, homogeneous flint, grey to orange-beige in colour. This flint originates from the Ajlun Mountains but is present in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village in the deposits of the wadis, where the inhabitants of Abu Hamid had to collect it. In fact, most of these artefacts have rolled and strongly altered residual cortical patches, clearly showing that they are not boulders or nodules collected in situ in their geological level of formation. The flint of the pebbles thus exposed to the

114

Eric Coqueugniot

weather and carried by the rivers is less suitable for pruning than that collected in situ, and the abundance of cracks sometimes makes the rolled pebbles unusable. However, in the case of the Abu Hamid flint, we observed that many pebbles today present below the prehistoric settlement still were suitable for knapping, provided that no attempt was made to extract large and regular blades or flakes from them. It is thus the proximity that was privileged, and the choice of material was deliberate. It was not due to a lack of knowledge of the primary deposits, because we noted that for other tools, the craftspeople of Abu Hamid had used a flint of similar nature but which they had collected in primary geological positions, as attested by the presence of a thick unaltered calcareous cortex. In addition to the finished tools, blanks and preforms were found corroborating that these tools had been made in the village. Furthermore, these pieces make it possible to understand how Abu Hamid’s axes and adzes were made. The preforms are rectangular pieces of varying sizes and of more or less triangular crosssection. From a block or a suitable elongated pebble, the shaping could be done in two different ways: • According to a first procedure (Fig. 5a), large transverse flakes on one side of the pebble produced a “flat” side, the centre of which could possibly remain cortical. Starting from the edges determined along both sides of this flat face by the negatives of the first removals, large removals were then made on the opposite face so as to create a domed surface, the central part of which would eventually remain cortical. • According to a second procedure (Fig. 5b), on the contrary, the convex side was roughly cleared, with its two edges serving as striking planes for the removal of material to shape the flat side. In the two processes encountered in Abu Hamid it should be noted that shaping removals were always of lateral origin, while the axial removals were reserved for the finalisation of the cutting edge and sometimes for the final removal of a lateral edge that was too large or too sharp. The preforms obtained often had cortex patches both on the faces and near the ends, cortex is also found on the majority of finished tools (especially at the butt i.e. proximal end). The variable quality of the flint found in the wadis deposits, the rarity of raw pebbles at the site itself, and the absence of shaping remains from the preforms suggest that the manufacture of preforms probably took place close to the collection point of the pebbles. On the other hand, the processing of the axes/adzes from the preforms was carried out inside the settlement site, as is shown by the presence of these preforms, the discovery of unfinished axe/adze blanks, and the discovery of a workshop for the additional processing of these tools.7 7

The proximity between the source of raw material and the cutting workshop is a usual situation (see e.g. Shemer 2019), but in the case of Abu Hamid only the preparation of the

Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan)

115

Figure 5: Schema showing the two processes used by the craftspeople of Abu Hamid to shape the preforms of axes/adzes (“on-block” shaping). 3a- Shaping first of all a flat (or slightly curved) side, then the curved side. 3b- Shaping first of all the curved side, then the “flat” side. (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

In addition to the “on-block” manufacturing technique, with preliminary shaping of a preform, another method of shaping must be mentioned, as evidenced by a few axes/adzes: in some cases, heavy flakes were transformed into partially double-sided (or even single-sided) axes/adzes, with the domed ventral face of the flake acting as the underside of the tool (Fig. 6). From the previous preforms or large heavy flakes, the craftspeople would shape the axes/adzes by creating a rectilinear or slightly convex edge at one end first. The retouches used to shape this cutting edge were always axial removals

preforms seems to have been done outside the village, while the shaping of the axes/adzes was done in the village.

116

Eric Coqueugniot

(unlike those of the preform); they concerned either both faces, or only the “upper” one (the “domed” face) of the piece. Then the lateral edges, previously roughened by the retouch of the preform, were touched up. Finally, the tool was usually finished by polishing the cutting edge of the celt. This polishing was either only for the area adjacent to the cutting edge (sharpening of the cutting edge) or, on the contrary, it could extend widely over the sides of the tool, but in no case was it sufficiently intense to remove the negatives from the processing (Figs. 7; 10:1,3; 12:1). The coexistence of these two manufacturing methods, with the dominance of the “on-block” method, is probably due to the variable quality of the raw material used for these heavy tools. Indeed, the poor quality of most of the flint pebbles available made it difficult to obtain very large flakes, while the progressive shaping of the block remained possible.

Figure 6: AH 86 – Axes/adzes made on large flake (“on flake” processing). 1 – The cutting edge has been polished on both faces. 2 – The polishing concerns only the upper face (note the intense hammering of the lateral and upper edges in the median zone, this is to be put in relation with the fitting). (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan)

117

Although it is not possible to prove it, we believe that the manufacture of these heavy tools was the work of a “specialised group” (without talking about specialised craftsmanship). After all, the regularity and perfect technological mastery of the manufacture of axes/adzes is hardly compatible with occasional work. In contrast, the tools of the common groups other than the axes/adzes, the micro endscrapers (Fig. 1: 8) made from an exotic and translucent flint (Gilead 1984), the perforated discs, and the tabular scrapers had to be made by everyone as and when needed.

Function of the Axes/Adzes of Abu Hamid The abundance of the items collected indicates the importance of the role played by these heavy tools in the activities of the inhabitants of Abu Hamid. It is therefore necessary to try and specify where, how and by whom these tools had been used. Observation with a binocular microscope and a metallographic microscope8 made it possible first of all to eliminate all usage of these tools for working the soil (hoe use), only woodworking with direct percussion is attested. Yet contrary to initial hopes, the high magnification approach did not allow a clear distinction between the use as an axe and that as an adze. In fact, the criterion of the direction of the use striations visible on the cutting edge (axial for axes, oblique for adzes)9 proved difficult to apply, due to the mixture of the polishing striations on the cutting edge, those of use and those of a possible re-polishing after a partial re-sharpening of the cutting edge. Paradoxically, we have obtained better indications concerning the kinematics of the use of these artefacts through the observation (with the naked eye or at low magnification with the binocular microscope) of the usescars. Indeed, when they are used, these tools are subjected to violent shocks that cause damage; these damages, by their location and direction, make it possible to recognise the nature of the tool’s movement. From this analysis of the marks of use it emerged that Abu Hamid’s axes/adzes essentially had been used as axes, although some examples were used as adzes without any morphological difference appearing between the pieces regardless of whether they had been used as either one or the other; only the method of fitting them would have differentiated them. While some of the axes/adzes appear to be new, most had been used intensively and, due to the damage to the cutting edge caused by their use, many had their

8

The binocular magnifier allows magnifications of up to 70× (observation of microscratches), the metallographic microscope allows magnifications of up to 400× (observation of striations and polishes). 9 On the subject of striations on polished stone axes and adzes in the Middle East see (Roodenberg 1983).

118

Eric Coqueugniot

cutting edge excessively reworked (Figs. 7; 8: 1; 9: 1). 10 In contrast to edge shaping retouches, these repairs were very awkward and quickly resulted in an ineffective edge because the angle of the cutting edge became too steep. The analysed series contains many pieces with levels of exhaustion undoubtedly beyond operational capacity; in addition, there are also many broken pieces of which only the butt has survived.11 The almost complete absence of broken edges (Figs. 9: 2; 10: 1) and the abundance of proximal fragments (butts, Fig. 11) and unusable parts suggest that these woodworking tools had to be used (and thus damaged) outside the settlement. They were then brought back to the village for the replacement of the lithic part of the tool, and the fragment remaining in the handle was then discarded within the settlement. In the composite tool that constituted an axe or adze with its wooden handle and flint “blade”, the precious part had to be the handle;12 consequently, a tool whose “blade” was unusable was brought back to the village so that it could be replaced. On the other hand, it was at the place of use and probably without removing the flint piece from the handle that the cutting edge was reworked when the damage was not irremediable. The rough and rapid nature of this repair carried out by the user explains in our opinion the great difference in “quality” between the initial retouch of the tool and its repair. We see here the difference between the work of the specialists who made the tools and the users who repaired them at the place of use, without mastering the technology of flint knapping.

10 The ethnological examples clearly show that the use of stone tools to cut wood by direct blows very quickly alters their cutting edge, which requires frequent “re-sharpening”, when the tool is not rendered totally unusable by breakage or the awkwardness of its resharpening (cf. in particular Carneiro 1979). 11 In the material collected during the various excavation campaigns at Abu Hamid, there is a marked disproportion between the scarcity of broken cutting edges and the relative abundance of broken butts. It is of course often difficult to distinguish a pick butt from a thick axe/adze one; however, whole picks are rare and traces of percussion on their butt attest to unmounted use, so there is no reason to suppose that the butts and tips of broken picks were abandoned in different sectors. 12 In the geo-cultural area that concerns us, the caves of Murabba’at delivered an adze handle made of tamarisk wood with leather ligatures, but the lithic part had disappeared (de Vaux 1953). This exceptional case clearly shows that the “precious” part of the tool must have been the handle rather than the stone element.

Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan)

119

Figure 7: AH 86 – Big axe/adze with invasive polish. The cutting-edge has been resharpened by rough polishing. (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

Figure 8: AH 86 – Extreme degrees of exhaustion. 1 – Axe/adze that has become unusable due to a too crude re-sharpening. 2 – Unpolished and unused adze (unfinished piece?). (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

120

Eric Coqueugniot

Figure 9: AH 86 – 1 – Bifacial axe/adze with symmetrical cross-section and cutting edge made unusable by use. 2 – Broken distal part of an unpolished axe/adze. (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan)

121

Figure 10: AH 86 – 1 – Broken distal part of a symmetrical axe/adze. 2 – Narrow axe/adze (chisel?) with unpolished edge but scratched when used as an adze. The butt is broken near its base. 3 – Whole polished “axe”. 4 – Narrow “adze” with thick butt (note the large lower removal determining a “gouge” at the cutting edge). (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

122

Eric Coqueugniot

Figure 11: AH 86 – Axe axe/adzes (or chisels?) discarded in the village but whose cuttingedge has not been found and certainly been lost outside the settlement. (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan)

123

Figure 12: AH 86 – 1 – Short axe/adze with symmetrical section. 2 – Pick with trihedral section. (Drawing E. Coqueugniot, inking G. Deraprahamian).

124

Eric Coqueugniot

Appendix Composition of the sample of 5,361 pieces of flint artefacts collected from undisturbed levels during the first excavation campaign at Abu Hamid (1986, cf. Dollfus et al. 1988). Table 1: Distribution of flint artefacts between debitage products and tools. Debitage products

Flakes Bladelets

38,9 % 0,7 %

Blades

3,2 %

Chips and chunks Cores Tools i.e. retouched artefacts

42,8 % 47,7 % 3,5 % 6%

Table 2 Distribution of flint artefacts between the main typological groups (in the previously published table [Dollfus et al. 1988, 588], due to a factual error the 22 denticulates had disappeared from the count).

Typological groups Tabular scrapers Perforated discs Axes/Adzes and picks Sickle blade elements Side-scrapers End-scrapers Micro-end-scrapers Bladelets with fine retouches Transverse arrowheads Burins Truncations Borers and drills Notched pieces Denticulateds Crude retouched pieces Choppers Hammerstones

13

N 3 2 1913 59 22 40 2 5 2 5 14 34 15 22 77 1 114

% 0,9 0,6 5,9 18,3 6,8 12,4 0,6 1,6 0,6 1,6 4,3 10,5 4,6 6,8 23,8 0,3 0,3

Only the 19 axes/adzes or picks found in a clear stratigraphic context are taken into account in this count. But in fact, the 1986 campaign delivered a total of 114 axes/adzes or picks which we were all able to take into account for the present analysis, because the other studies showed that the surface material and that from disturbed levels belonged to the same chrono-cultural horizon as the one excavated in 1986. 14 Hammerstones are obviously a different type of tool from the others because they were

Heavy Flint Tools from Abu Hamid (Jordan)

125

Bibliography Abe, Masashi. 2008. The Development of Urbanism and Pastoral Nomads in the Southern Levant: Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Stone Tool Production Industries and Flint Mines in the Jafr Basin, Southern Jordan. Ph.D diss., Liverpool University. Barkai, Ran. 2011. The evolution of Neolithic and Chalcolithic woodworking tools and the intensification of human production: axes, adzes and chisels from the Southern Levant. In Vin Davis and Mark Edmonds (eds.), Stone Axe Studies III, 39–54. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Carneiro, Robert Leonard. 1979. Tree felling with the stone axe: an experiment carried out among the Yanomanö Indians of southern Venezuela. In Carol Kramer (ed.), Ethnoarchaeology. Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, 21–58. New-York: Columbia University Press. Cauvin, Jacques. 1968. Les outillages néolithiques de Byblos et du littoral libanais. Fouilles de Byblos IV. Paris: A. Maisonneuve — 1983. Typologie et fonctions des outils préhistoriques: apport de la tracéologie à un vieux débat. In Marie-Claire Cauvin (éd.), Traces d’utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du Proche-Orient, 259–274. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient. Dollfus, Geneviève, Zeidan Kafafi, Jacek Rewerski, Nathalie Vaillant, Eric Coqueugniot, Jean Desse and Reinder Neef. 1988. Abou Hamid, an early fourth millennium site in the Jordan Valley. Preliminary Results. In Andrew Garrard and Hans-Georg Gebel (eds.), The Prehistory of Jordan. The State of Research in 1986. BAR Int. Ser. 396.2, 567–601. Oxford. Epstein, Claire and Tamar Noy. 1988. Observations concerning perforated flint tools from chalcolithic Palestine. Paléorient 14.1, 133–141. Gilead, Isaac. 1984. The micro-endscraper: a new tool type of the chalcolithic period. Tel Aviv 11.1, 3–10. Müller-Neuhof, Berndt. 2013. Nomadische Ressourcennutzung in den ariden Regionen Jordaniens und der Südlichen Levante im 5. bis frühen 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 6, 64–80. Perrot, Jean, N. Zori, and Y. Reich. 1967. Neve Ur, un nouvel aspect du Ghassoulien. Israël Exploration Journal 17, 201–232. Pétrequin, Pierre, and Anne-Marie Pétrequin. 1993. Écologie d’un outil: la hache de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indonésie). Paris: CNRS, Monographie du CRA 12. Quintero, Leslie A., Philip J. Wilke, and Gary O. Rollefson. 2002. From flint mine to fan scraper: The late prehistoric Jafr industrial complex. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 327, 17–48.

used to knapp and to retouch the other stone tools. It is likely that some of the hammerstones have been grouped together with the grinders or bush-hammers used for the shaping of grinding tools, hence the small sample of hammers.

126

Eric Coqueugniot

Roodenberg, Jacob 1983. Traces d’utilisation sur les haches polies de Bouqras, Syrie. In Marie-Claire Cauvin (éd.), Traces d’utilisation sur les outils néolithiques du Proche Orient, 177–185. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient. Rosen, Steve A. 1997. Lithics after the Stone Age: a handbook of stone tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek and London: Altamira Press. Shemer, Maayan, Joel Roskin and Jacob Vardi. 2019. The Bifacial Tools Workshop at the Flint Production Area of Givat Rabi East, Lower Galilee, Israel. Mitekufat Haeven 49, 119–136. de Vaux, Roland. 1953. Les grottes de Murabba’at et leurs documents. Revue Biblique 60, 255–267.

Chalcolithic Sahab A Village Farming Community between Highland and Desert Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

Location Sahab lies ca. 12 km southeast of Amman on the modern and ancient road to the desert castles of the early Islamic Period, including Muwaqqer, Kharraneh, Quseir Amrah, Azraq and others. The location of Sahab in a transitional zone between the highland of Jordan and the desert was evidently a lucrative choice (Ibrahim et al. 1984, 2). The modern town of Sahab was founded on the ancient tell and spread from there to the surrounding area, destroying major parts of the ancient settlement in the process. The cutting of three large streets through the occupation material left two considerable trenches, which revealed the stratigraphy of the upper part of the mound (ibid.). The ancient mound occupies an area of about 500 dunams and is 873 m above sea level. The highest point of the mound is ca. 22 m above the western plains, but on the site’s other sides the height difference with the surrounding fields is much less. The area around Sahab is well cultivated, whilst the actual desert begins about 15 to 20 km to the east (ibid.) The Sahab district is bounded by those of Zarqa to the north, Amman to the west, Qasr Mshash to the east, and Khan ez Zabib to the south where the Alia International Airport is located. Its geolocation is 31º45'–32º00'N and36º00'– 36º15'E, and it covers about 600 km2 (Faddah 1991, 1).

History of Excavations The first season of the archaeological excavations at Sahab began in 1972, under the supervision of Moawiyah Ibrahim for the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and concentrated in the areas A, B, C, and D (Fig. 1). Many of the floors that were excavated in this season in Area B dated to Iron Age I, the tomb furnishings in Area C dated to the Early Iron Age. The Area A tomb was dated to the MBA by the first stratified evidence found at Sahab, and some of the caves had been inhabited during the Chalcolithic (Ibrahim 1972). During the second season in Sahab in 1973 fieldwork was extended to areas E and F, while the excavations in both areas B and D were continued. More evidence from the Chalcolithic was

128

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

Figure 1: Topographic map showing the extent of the Chalcolithic settlement at Sahab.

found in association with the cave dwellings in Area B (Ibrahim 1974). During the third season in 1975 excavations were undertaken in the three major areas B, D, and E. The latter revealed evidence of extensive Chalcolithic occupation, including cave dwellings, well-built rooms and pits. Some of the evidence from the caves were assigned to the Early Bronze Age (EBA). Other parts of structures uncovered in Area E were dated to the Late Bronze Age (LBA). Scattered houses were built after the destruction of the major Iron Age I town, as indicated in Area D as well as in test trenches on the east slope. Evidence recovered from below the modern cut surface of Area B belonged to the end of Iron Age II (7th century BCE) (Ibrahim 1975). Professor Zeidan Kafafi participated in the excavation at Sahab in 1977, just before he left for Germany to work on his Ph.D. He got involved in the research on early settled life in the Levant and particularly, in the Jordan Valley. Zeidan Kafafi also participated in the archaeological survey around Sahab (Ibrahim et al. 1983) together with Moawiyah Ibrahim on behalf of Yarmouk University and Heinz Gaube of Tübingen University (Fig. 2). During the fourth season in 1977 the excavations continued in Area E (E west and E east) and Area B (BO19 and BII), which produced pottery sherds from the Middle and Late Bronze Age, as well as the Iron Age. During the last season in 1980, the excavations concentrated in areas EW, E, GII, GIII, GIV, and other soundings in areas HII, HIII, and HIV.

Chalcolithic Sahab

129

Figure 2: Dr. Zeidan Kafafi in the middle next to Dr. Moawiyah Ibrahim (second right) and Dr. Heinz Gaube (right) of Tübingen University/Germany.

The situation as to the MBA settlement became clearer in this season. In Area GII, close to the centre of the site, part of a MBA fort connected to a typical glacis rampart was excavated. The major excavated portion was in the west part of the LBA settlement in areas GII, GIII, and GIV, where a defense wall was cleared over a distance of 75 m. Domestic architecture from the Early Iron Age appeared in areas EW, H, and G. The Iron II settlement emerged beyond the LBA town wall in Area GII (Ibrahim 1987, 77–78). Following the field work at Sahab and the Sahab survey (Ibrahim et al. 1983), Susanne Kerner jointly with Reinhard Bernbeck, Roland Lamprichs and Gunnar Lehmann developed interest in the region’s Chalcolithic and launched an excavation project at Abu Sneisleh (Kerner et al. 1992; Kerner 2016; Lamprichs 1998).

The Chalcolithic Period Sahab had been at its largest extension during its earliest period of occupation at a time when it assured its subsistence with extensive agriculture and evidently produced abundant foodstuffs. This agricultural wealth is demonstrated by the large number of storage facilities both inside the houses and outside, in courtyards. Some of the courtyard storage structures were huge, measuring around 4 m in diameter. These pit structures suggest that Sahab’s inhabitants anticipated occasional periods of poor agricultural yield that could be offset by a long-term storage strategy. Furthermore, the way these storage pits are arranged within house units may suggest that large families were living in each quarter of the site. In

130

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

fact, the arrangement of one of the architectural units itself supports such a proposal. This unit, excavated in Area E, consists of several rooms (built of mostly unhewn stone) surrounding a courtyard in which large storage pits were cut into virgin soil and lined with small stones. Such units developed out of individual rooms, one added after the other. The deposits of this phase could be easily recognized and separated from each other when they were not disturbed by later construction. This phase was attested to in almost every trench where virgin soil or bedrock was reached. Although wide horizontal clearance of this period was not possible, similar structures and storage pits were uncovered both in the main excavation areas and in soundings. It is interesting to note that these settlers coexisted with cave-dwellers: caves were found in areas A, B, caves C and D. Some of these caves show a series of floors, of which the upper ones date from the EBA. It is quite possible that occupants continued to live in caves even after the main Neolithic/Chalcolithic settlement had been deserted or destroyed. A few other Neolithic/Chalcolithic settlements north and south of Sahab were identified during the 1983 survey, but Sahab remains the largest one and was possibly the main centre during this early period. There are no signs of an enclosure wall around Neolithic/Chalcolithic Sahab or any of the other settlements. Sahab represents a typical village farming community during the 5th and the 4th millennia BCE. Where did the earliest Sahabis come from? It is not easy to answer this question, but the following observations may be helpful. During the 1983 survey, we could not identify any settlements that directly preceded Sahab. It does not, therefore, appear that its first inhabitants came from the immediate vicinity. It is clear, however, that the early Sahabis were experienced farmers and must have had a good knowledge of building techniques, as well as of the manufacture of pottery, stone vessels, flint implements, and other stone tools. Their distinctive pottery is easy to recognise and separate from the pottery of later periods at Sahab (Fig. 3). All of it is handmade and much of it is coarseware, although painted and red burnished pottery are also well represented. Most often, the paint is red and applied in wide bands. Incised decoration also occurs. Large storage jars have flat or small, uneven bases. Thumb-indented clay bands are attached to the body and plain and thumb-indented ledge handles were also found in this occupation phase. The closest parallels to such finds appear at sites in the Jordan Valley, north of the Dead Sea, such as Telailat Ghassul or Abu Hamid (Ibrahim et al. 1976; Yassine et al. 1988). There are clearly some Ghassulian types and techniques among the pottery from Sahab. These include storage jars (Fig. 4), bowls and decoration as thumbindented and wide, painted bands, as well as a spoon with short handle. Parallels are also to be found in the flint, basalt, and other stone tools and containers. In

Chalcolithic Sahab

131

fact, the builders of the houses at Sahab may have been familiar with the way houses at Telailat Ghassul were constructed.

Figure 3: Pottery and Flint Tools of Neolithic/Chalcolithic Period.

Figure 4: Flat Based Jars.

132

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

From this phase we also found a seal fragment (S-75, D.D 18, Reg 207) made of clay, originally square in shape and measuring 4.5 × 3.5 cm across the preserved portion. The front side shows a net of incisions in which four horizontal lines are incised over a set of vertical ones (Fig. 5). The seal is made of the same clay used in the pottery of this phase and was therefore most likely of local manufacture. The shape and design indicate the object’s function as a stamp seal; it certainly represents an early attempt at glyptic, at least for the Syro-Palestine region. The use of seals to mark certain products probably indicates trade with distant areas (Ibrahim 1983).

Figure 5: Clay seal (4.5 × 3.5 cm).

Thus, the evidence at this stage suggests that the closest parallels for the artefacts of the Neolithic/Chalcolithic period at Sahab come from sites further to the north and northwest, including sites in the Jordan Valley and the Damascus (Tell Ramad) area. Although no final conclusions can be drawn now, it therefore seems possible that the earliest inhabitants of Sahab had come from the north or northwest. Contemporary sites throughout the entire region need to be investigated before this suggestion is substantiated (Kafafi 1982).

Caves and Cave Dwelling at Sahab Cave dwelling at Sahab during the Chalcolithic and at the beginning of the EBA was apparently practiced on a large scale. So far, these caves were found along

Chalcolithic Sahab

133

the northern contour lines of the site. It should be noted, though, that excavations were limited to empty spaces within the modern settlement of Sahab. In general, the caves were natural but had been enlarged and adapted for human living and storage. Stone walls were built as subdivisions and at the mouths of the caves. Additional walls were added, depending on the needs of the dwellers in the different periods of the caves’ use. Storage pits were not found inside the caves, as early deposits had been disrupted or destroyed by either later occupation or the caves’ usage as burials in later periods, especially in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, and in the Iron Age. A REA A (C AVE 1) Six occupation phases were identified with a total of 20 levels (Fig. 6). Phase I represents the latest occupation on top of the cave dating from the Iron I. The second Phase II represents the reuse of the cave as a tomb in the MBA. Phase III, IV, V, VI are occupation phases connected to the use of the cave for human living.

Figure 6: Cross section drawing for Area A Tomb I, 1972. Chalcolithic level at the bottom.

Phase III (levels 8–19) is the latest in the occupation sequence of the cave. There was a gap to the previous level IV. An occupation floor composed of thick huwwar (level 12) mixed with little stones was found. It slopes down from the north outside the cave into the cave’s interior below the MBA pavements. Its highest point is about 1 m above the lowest point. No wall construction was found with this floor. Another ashy layer with dark soil (level 11) was uncovered, most

134

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

clearly inside the cave. This construction is unusual and it seems that the occupants had just cleared part of it to a certain level and left the dump outside before covering the latter with a huwwar mixture, which served as plaster. The floor was partly cut when a shaft was dug by the later MBA people. This probably also destroyed most of levels 8–10, which could only be followed to a short extent in the eastern part of square 1. Level 8 was a packed, sandy brown soil with a few fragments of limestone. Level 9 was a dark brown soil. Level 10 was a thick, yellowish soil mixed with little stones. The remains of these layers served as the steps of the shaft. One could speculate that the three layers represent debris that accumulated between the occupation (levels 11 and 12) of the cave and its re-use as a tomb (level 7). The pottery from phase III is all hand-made of reddish, cream and pink coarse wares. A few sherds had red shiny burnishing. Some of the pottery shows the characteristics of the beginning of the EBA, whereas other pieces represent the Chalcolithic Period. Phase IV consists of a series of floors (levels 15–17) about 5–15 cm thick, each against which a wall had been built (wall A). These floors, seen in the eastern section of square 1, are made of pink and reddish, firmly packed soil mixed with little stones. Ashy remains were found on them. Level 14 contains fallen stones from wall A, whereas level 13 was formed when the cave was not in use. Wall A was built of medium and large, rough stones at the mouth of the cave, while wall B of phase V and wall C of phase VI were built 70–150 cm further north. It appears that walls B and C were also built at the mouth of the cave, but the edge of the roof (mouth) had broken off. This is very clear on the eastern side of the entrance. At any rate, a roughly square stone from the eastern side of the uncovered wall A is situated exactly below the present edge of the cave roof. There is a ridge (curve) in the middle of the wall where it follows the irregular contour of the edge of the cave. The wall reaches from one side of the entrance to the other. The actual entrance of the cave during the earliest three phases is supposed to have been located at the eastern side, where wall A turns to form a corridor with the side of the cave. During this phase, the area connected with the cave had been partly leveled and cleaned. Part of the dump of phase V had been cut to erect wall A. A fragmentary door socket was found more towards the eastern side among the fallen stones of the upper floor (level 15). The location of the socket suggests also that the entrance had been at the eastern side. A good number of the Chalcolithic sherds were brought to light from this phase. Whether or not some of the sherds belong to types from the beginning of the EBA remains debatable. Animal bones and flint implements also need further study. Under level 17 and similar to it, yet another 5–10 cm thick floor was uncovered. This floor runs below wall A of phase IV. It is connected with the earliest wall B, which too had been built at the opening of the cave. It seems that the cave

Chalcolithic Sahab

135

had been larger during this phase than in phase IV, as noted above. Earlier debris was cut to cede to wall B, and the contemporary floor (level 18) was built above part of the fallen stones and the debris of level 19. In fact, the fallen material seemed to be mixed and especially in the north-eastern side, it was unclear which part of the debris had belonged to phase IV and which to phase V. Most of the pottery is similar to that of phase IV. Brown, reddish, and cream coarse wares are common. Slightly concave rims of open mouth jars and thumbindented ledge handles are also well represented. The later red, brown and yellowish burnishing does not appear here. Animal bones and flint tools are roughly the same as in phase IV. The main part of level 19, which is a fill of soft brown soil mixed with fallen stones, had served as the foundations for the floor of level 18 and wall B. A third wall C was uncovered, against which had been laid a floor of firmly packed, reddish sandy soil (level 20). Level 20 is in fact the occupation floor of phase VI which was partly covered with a heavy ashy layer, some of which is from the remains of a hearth. Next to this supposed hearth, some blackened animal bones were uncovered. Above this floor (level 20) and covering a major part of it, were a good number of broken pots, including hole mouth jars, three of which we were able to restore. A nicely worked grinding stone, a stone polisher, and some flint implements were found in association with this floor and its pottery. To judge from the way the finds lay on the floor, it seems that the cave was suddenly deserted at the end of phase VI. Wall C was built of huge stones, probably of the same rock as the cave, chinked and dressed with smaller ones. Whether the cave had reached its largest size during this period could not be determined, since the presence of modern constructions blocked further excavations in the northern and eastern sides. But the floor of level 20 and wall C had been built directly on bedrock, which may indicate to the earliest date of this inhabited cave and the excavated area. A foundation trench of wall C had been cut through the dump on the north (outside the wall) which contained a thick ashy layer. Unfortunately, the latter was traced to a very limited extent only, because of the mentioned constructions. A large part of the bedrock inside and outside the cave was uncovered. There were no clear cut marks, which suggests it originally had been a natural cave. The rock is of soft huwwar with flint strata which makes it difficult to identify artificial cutting. Natural cavities in the bedrock were filled with soil and small stones so as to provide an even support for the entire floor area. In association with the floor (level 20) and partly below the eastern section was a small rounded, cemented pit nicely cut into the bedrock. It was about 12– 15 cm deep, the upper diameter about 60 cm wide, whilst at the bottom only 10 cm. The mixture of the cement was ash, huwwar and ground stones, which was very hard. This, besides its shape and location, suggests the possibility of its use as a door socket.

136

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

Study of the pottery appeared elsewhere. But a few words can be said about this. Phases 5 to 6 provided a good number of sherds representing types of handmade vessels, fire-blackened, gritty coarse wares. Some are decorated with thumb indentations, other have broad bands of reddish-brown paint. Hole-mouth jars with thickened concave rims and flat bases are rather common. A large spout with a plain rim of a hole-mouth jar is typical of Ghassul IV A and IV B. In fact, all these types appear in the latest phases of Telailat Ghassul and probably Bir esSab’ (Beersheba) and should be placed within the contexts of these cultures. The same types and wares are also known from major Chalcolithic sites in Palestine, such as Megiddo (Stratum XIX), Affulah, Beisan – Beth Shean – (Stratum XVIII and pits), Tell el Far’ah (N), and a number of sites in the Jordan Valley. The gritty coarse ware, broad bands of paints, red and yellow burnished examples have their best parallels at Tell Umm Hammad ash-Sharqi and Tell ash-Shuneh in the central and northern Jordan Valley. Similar types and wares were also found in several caves alongside the wadis in the hills west of the Dead Sea. This cave and other caves found at Sahab were probably inhabited at the same time of the late Ghassulian settlements. They are probably contemporary with the inhabited Chalcolithic caves west of the Dead Sea. Massive, though primitive wall-structures of large and medium-sized stones and the floors show that this cave and that of Area C were inhabited not just for a short period but for long seasons. Seeds from Area C (cave 1) and other artefacts indicate the kind of agriculture that was practiced by the inhabitants of the caves. The study of such caves on both banks of the Jordan will contribute to the elucidation of the region’s social and economic structures in this period. The earliest pottery found at Sahab will throw more light on the chronology of the area’s Late Chalcolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Evidence from the EB II and III in Area A is lacking, but further investigation on the mound is needed. A REA C (C AVE I) Cave 1 in Area C is a large natural cave whose entrance is facing west. The latter is narrow and at some stage it had been closed by corbelling stones which at the top formed a chimney-like opening. This opening was sealed by a small rounded stone slab. It seems that, similar to other examples found at Sahab, this construction dates to the cave’s later use. The general shape of the cave is irregular but tends to be rounded in the southern part. It measures about 14 m in length and 2–6.5 m width (Fig. 7). In the north and in the middle the cave becomes narrower. The height ranges from 2 m to 0.5 m, as it diminishes inwards. A number of holes and benches were along the interior sides. The benches appear to be natural bedrock rather than human-made. The holes on the southern side were filled with small and medium stones. The entrance of the cave during the Chalcolithic Period must have been the same as at the present and in the Early Iron Age. The stone roofing of the entrance

Chalcolithic Sahab

137

should date to the Iron Age, but what it looked like in the Chalcolithic period is not clear.

Figure 7: Section drawing of Sahab Area C tomb II, 1972. Chalcolithic level at the bottom.

A REA D (C AVE I) Hashim Amir, the owner of a house next to Area A brought our attention to another cave, which was accidentally found while the people were digging a drainage pit in the eastern part of the town, when they hit the cave’s stone roofing. It was cleared before we started our excavation at Sahab. The debris and the bones from the cave were put on the edge of the pit. Sherds from the debris and inside the cave point to its occupation in the Iron II and the Chalcolithic. We cleared the cave from its rubbish, drew and photographed it, but refrained from carrying out new excavations. The cave is roughly rectangular at its base (4.50 × 3.40 m) and shows small depressions and pockets along its walls. The highest point at the ceiling is about 1.60 m above the bottom surface. The rock ceiling of the cave is continued by small and medium-sized rough stones and stone slabs. The latter are fairly large and had functioned as key stones. The stone roofing was supported by two columns (about 1.60 m high) built of medium and large stones, one had been in the middle and the other adjacent to the eastern wall. This construction seems unusual, though it fits with the nature of the cave. A shaft had been cut in the western part of the ceiling and sealed by a rounded slab chinked with small stones.

138

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

A red burnished Iron II juglet delivered to us by the cutters of the drainage pit was reported to be from this cave. Though stratified evidence is needed for definite dates of its use, it was occupied in the Chalcolithic period and re-used as a tomb in the Iron Age. The stone roofing dates from the later use. In 1975, a trench was excavated in the west side down to bedrock, above which a thin irregular floor of firmly packed reddish soil was uncovered. On this floor was an up to 30 cm thick, ashy layer mixed with charcoal. The gap of ca. 2 m between this layer and the cave ceiling had been filled with loose, brown soil mixed with small stones. This fill seemed to have accumulated after the IA I building on top was deserted. The pottery found in the fill and the ashy layer was mixed and comprised Chalcolithic/EBA I, Iron I, and a few Iron II sherds. Apparently the cave had been cleaned to the original floor, and the part excavated so far shows that it had been reused by the builders of the Iron I houses, probably as a shelter or for storage purposes. The excavators have no doubt that originally the cave had been inhabited during the Chalcolithic/EB period. The main entrance to the cave during this early period was at the west side. A well-built wall, 1.80 m high and of large and medium stones had been raised against the mouth (entrance) of the cave. The situation here, especially the shape of the cave and the wall at the entrance, is very much reminiscent of the inhabited caves found in Area A and B at Sahab. This is another example which shows that cave-dwelling was wide-spread at different parts of the site. A REA B P HASE 2 (C AVE ) This phase is related to a cave (square 1) of 3 m × 2 m size and 2 m height. It was almost full of soft earth that had been deposited by water seeping through the upper stones. The mouth of the cave is located in the southern part. This mouth consisted of a wall made from large stones, whose inner face had been plastered with mud and hay. It seems that the cave had been used in the Chalcolithic Period and in a later time, just before the implementation of the earliest IA I floor plaster (Fig. 8). At least the upper part of this wall belongs to the later use. The thick ashy levels below the IA I floors had been cut at the mouth of the cave to support this part of the wall. A foundation trench was followed beyond this wall. It seems that the latter does not continue to the bottom of the wall, thus suggesting that the lower part may have been built in an earlier stage. The location and the deposits indicate that the cave was used as a shelter in its later use. The cave has a semicircular opening sealed by four large stones of which one had been used to block the entrance in the south corner. The upper surface of the wall was used as foundation for the plastered IA I floor. It yet remains unclear whether or not the structure beyond this wall had been built at the earliest stage of the cave. However, the western and eastern walls continue to run below the northern section of square 2.

Chalcolithic Sahab

139

The pottery from the gap between the walls of the cave shows Chalcolithic characteristics.

Figure 8: Cross section of Sahab Area B, 1972.

Figure 9: Top plan drawing shows the Chalcolithic and LB structures at area E, 1977 season.

140

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

A REA E The following period towards the beginning of the EBA seems to have been transitional, and its occupants do not appear to have been permanent settlers at the site. Several fragmentary walls were uncovered in Area E on top of the Neolithic/Chalcolithic levels (Fig. 9). These wall remains do not conform to a definite architectural plan and, judging from the one or two courses that have been preserved, do not seem to have been raised to the height of an ordinary room. Inside the site’s caves, occupational floors on top of Neolithic/Chalcolithic levels yielded similar pottery; the floor sequences indicate that the caves had been used seasonally. The present evidence thus suggests that the site had functioned as a seasonal settlement towards the end of the 4th millennium BCE, probably at the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age (Kenyon’s Proto-Urban or EBIA). Related to this transitional period were two burial jars with human skeletons and a reused pit with seven to nine animal burials, which were excavated in Area E (Ibrahim 1984). The burial jars can be seen as the continuation of the Ghassulian burial tradition, while the animal burials are new to the area and deserve some comment (Fig. 10). Goats have been found buried together with human bodies in MBA contexts at the coastal site of Dhahret el Humraiya, c. 13 km south of Jaffa. According to the excavator, “in the earliest burials, it appears to have been customary to enter the pet animal of the deceased in the same grave. In Grave 11 the animal was buried at the feet of the deceased. This seems to have been the commonest practice. In every one of these cases a bronze knife was found placed beside the animal skeleton and we may infer that the animal was slaughtered on the grave. No. 9 represents a solitary animal grave, the deposit consisting of a single jar” (Ory 1948, 77).

Figure 10: Animal burial of Late Fourth Millennium BC, Area E.

Chalcolithic Sahab

141

Sahab Comparative Study The term Chalcolithic consists of two Greek words, khalkós meaning copper and lithos meaning stone. Thus, the term means copper-stone age. It refers to the period that followed the Neolithic Period and ended with the beginning of the Bronze Age. Archaeological finds confirm that a number of cultural remains made from copper occurred in different locations during this new phase of human life. Stone tools are still dominant at 5th and 4th millennium BCE sites, with only a few copper tools found at some of the sites (de Vaux 1971, 521). Wherever copper items have been found, even though they form only a very small part of the find repertoire, the term Chalcolithic is used for that particular cultural material. However, the majority of tools is still made from stone, whilst copper items are relatively scarce. Many theories have been published to explain and clarify the transition from the Pottery Neolithic to the Chalcolithic and from there to the Bronze Age. There is a near unanimity of opinions by those working in the Palestinian antiquities that it is difficult to find a clear boundary between the Pottery Neolithic and the Chalcolithic, and that the absence of a clear divergence between these two phases still awaits explanation (Kenyon 1960, 68; Anati 1963, 286; Mellaart 1966, 12; Kafafi 1986, 2; Albright 1960, 65). Given the uncertainty of the transitional period between the Pottery Neolithic and the Chalcolithic Period, the distinction between them has primarily relied on changes in the remains of archaeological sites, such as pottery, lithic and bone tools, and other archaeological finds such as copper and ivory. There was a period of transition from the Pottery Neolithic to the Chalcolithic Period in the ancient Near East at different stages in various areas; therefore, the transition did neither occur in the entire region within one single time interval nor at one single site in all its aspects. Copper appeared in Palestine later than in other parts of the Fertile Crescent (Wright 1971, 277). The Chalcolithic in Anatolia began around 5600 BCE, while in Mesopotamia it started towards the middle of the 6th millennium BCE (Mellaart 1971, 317). Many characteristics of the earlier Chalcolithic Period are hardly distinguishable from those of the Pottery Neolithic B, and the division between both periods simply is an archaeological convention. It gives a lot of importance to the use of copper as metallurgical material. The Chalcolithic as the period between the Neolithic and the EBA is in many ways still ill-defined. This has led to the lack of a clear distinction for the Pottery Neolithic and the Chalcolithic as well as to confusion and a divergent usage of terms and chronological differentiations (de Vaux 1971, 520). This leads to problems of defining a clear end of the Pottery Neolithic period in Palestine and Jordan, as well as defining many characteristics of the Chalcolihtic period. Kaplan considered the beginning of the Chalcolithic period with the Wadi Rabah culture, which is roughly contemporary with the Jericho VIII

142

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

material, and is then followed by the Ghassulian culture (Kaplan 1969, 30). Albright followed him in defining the beginning of the Chalcolithic with the Jericho VIII culture (Albright 1960, 65). De Vaux prefers not to use the term ‘Chalcolithic’ at all until it is certain that the use and knowledge of copper is identifiable from the archaeological record. Amiran considers the Ghassulian–Beersheba Culture to be part of the Chalcolithic Period in Palestine and Jordan, while the latest part of Ghassulian–Beersheba corresponds with the beginning of the EBA Age (Amiran 1969, 22). Others consider it a late stage of the Chalcolithic Period (Dothan 1959, 29; Mellaart 1966, 49; de Vaux 1971). According to 14C tests from Palestinian and Jordanian sites, Perrot considered the period from the beginning to the end of the 4th millennium BCE to be part of the Chalcolithic Period. Perrot published dates of 3460 + 350 BCE for the second period of Bir al-Safadi, 3260 + 350 BCE for the third period of Bir al-Safadi, and 3325 + 350 BCE for the third period of Khirbet al-Bitar (Perrot 1967, 153). Epstein published dates from the Golan sites of 3320 + 140 BCE (Epstein 1977, 45). Levy published three dates from Shiqmim; 6150 + 180 BCE and 5750 + 180 BCE (both from the Upper Village: 1985) and 5250 + 140 BCE (from the Lower Village:1981) (Levy et al. 1985, 74). Hennessy published dates from Telailat Ghassul of 3700 BCE (Hennessy 1982, 56). Many of these older 14C dates are not too precise, so that most authors agree that the Late Chalcolithic starts around the middle of the 5th millennium, ending ca. 3800/3700 BCE (Kerner 2009; Rowan 2014). The precise end of the Late Chalcolithic period has recently been much discussed, as an increasing amount of 14C-data has shown the EBA to begin as early as 3700 BCE (Bourke et al. 2009). In the Chalcolithic period there is evidence for the evolution of religious beliefs, expressed in the practice of burial customs. Burials occur in pottery jars within the residential area under the floors of houses at the site of Telailat Ghassul. Secondary burials appear in different forms in caves dug for this purpose in the area of the Palestinian coast, as well as in specially designated areas outside the region as in the residential site at Shiqmim and in the Negev. Further important evidence for religious beliefs is furnished by anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, as well as basalt pillars found in the Golan. Another aspect of cultic life are temples discovered in some locations, such as those discovered at Telailat Ghassul (Hennessy 1982, 56) and the Temple of Ein Gedi to the west of the Dead Sea (Ussishkin 1971, 23–39). The Chalcolithic Period is marked by greater control in operations pertaining to food production. Next to herding sheep and goats and breeding animals such as pigs and cattle in some areas, agriculture saw the appearance of olives at Telailat Ghassul and Tel Abu Hamid, in the area of the Golan, and in the caves west of the Dead Sea. Furthermore evidence for dates has been found in the vicinity of the Dead Sea (Hennessy 1969, 5; Bar Adon 1977, 686), as well as wheat, barley,

Chalcolithic Sahab

143

lentil, maize, onion, garlic and more. Chalcolithic sites have revealed little evidence for hunting, as there are only small amounts of deer and gazelles bones as well as small numbers of arrowheads, fishing on the other hand is indicated (Levy 1986, 103–104). The plans and the styles of buildings at Chalcolithic sites are varied. Mud brick construction on stone foundations is common at sites in the Jordan Valley and in the highland region, including Sahab. More common are stone built rectangular rooms surrounding courtyards, as was the case at Sahab. Some of the rooms are partially subterranean. The courtyards served for storage and daily activities as well as for sheltering domestic animals. Some major settlements became fairly large; the site of Telailat Ghassul reached 20 hectares (Hennessy 1982, 55) and the site of Shiqmim 9 hectares, which makes it one of the largest villages discovered in the south of Palestine (Levy 1986, 103–104). This period witnessed technological advancement and quantitative growth in the manufacture of pottery. Pottery started to be made on the slow turning wheel in addition to handmade pottery. Chalcolithic pottery is more diverse than in previous periods. New forms were added and changes are observable in the decoration and treatment of the vessels’ outer surfaces. According to Anati, the new development in the Chalcolithic Period was the result of technological advancement that took place in the 4th millennium BCE and is evident at sites all over the Bilad al-Sham region, including south Jordan and Palestine (Anati 1963, 205–206). Kenyon, on the other hand, believed this new development was the result of newcomers from the east or northeast in the first half of the 4th millennium BCE (Mellaart 1966, 31). De Vaux, on the other hand, considers that the Ghassul-Beersheba culture began with subterranean houses, and at Ghassul consisted of two stories. These Ghassulian houses were contemporary with the ossuaries found at Palestinian coastal sites (de Vaux 1971, 529). There are distinct differences in the Chalcolithic culture between northern and southern Palestine (Perrot 1967, 156). Anati believes that both were populated by different ethnic groups and that exchange between the two groups was not stable, although the influence from the south on the north was stronger. He also believes that the southern groups practiced “shifting cultivation”, in other words, that they abandoned the land once it was exhausted and then moved to new arable land. The topography and environmental conditions in Jordan and Palestine are varied. This is reflected by Chalcolithic occupation throughout the region’s diverse environments ranging from the coastal plain, to Marj ibn ‘Amr (Esdraelon Valley), the highlands and the Negev desert, down to the hot climate of the Jordan Valley, and finally, the eastern highlands of Jordan. This diversity led the inhabitants to embrace different adaptive strategies; however, in spite of these differences, there are many common features linking the various groups into one culture during the 4th millennium BCE, when people practiced agriculture, livestock

144

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

grazing, and copper mining. The links and trade exchanges among these groups were strong, so the material culture of the various regions had much in common. The study of cultural remains contributes in many different ways to shed light on the nature of the interaction between man and the surrounding environment (Ibrahim 1987, 131). Chalcolithic cultural groups are distinguishable by geographical diversity of archaeological finds in the various regions, each representing one aspect of this civilisation.

Bibliography Albright, William F. 1960. The Archaeology of Palestine. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Anati, Emmanuel. 1963. Palestine before the Hebrew. London: Jonathan Cape. Bar-Adon, P. 1977. Judean Desert Caves, The Nahal Mismar Caves. In Encyclopedia of the Archaeological Excavation in the Holy Land, Vol. 3, 683–690. London: Oxford University Press. Bourke, Stephen J., Ugo Zoppi, John Meadows, Quan Hua and Samantha Gibbins. 2009. The Beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the North Jordan Valley: New 14C Determinations from Pella in Jordan. Radiocarbon 51.3, 905–913. Dothan, M. 1959. Excavation at Horvat Beter (Beer Sheva). Atiqot 2, 1–71. Faddah, Eyad H. 1991. The Geology of the Sahab Area: Map Sheet (3253–IV). Geological Mapping Series, Geological Bulletin No. 17. Geology Directorate, Geological Mapping Division, Natural Resources Authority, Amman. Hennessy, John B. 1969. Preliminary Report on a First Season of Excavations at Teleilat Ghassu1. Levant 1, 1–24. — 1982. Teleilat Ghassul: It Place in the Archaeology of Jordan. In Hadidi, Adnan. (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, 55–58. Amman: Department of Antiquities. Ibrahim, Moawiyah M. 1972. Archaeological Excavations at Sahab. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 17, 23–36. — 1974. Second Season of Excavations at Sahab. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 19, 55–61. — 1975. Third Season of Excavations at Sahab, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 20, 69–82. — 1983. Sigel und Siegelabdruck aus Sahab, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 99, 43–53. — 1984. Sahab. AfO 29, 256–260. — 1987. Sahab and its Foreign Relations. In Hadidi, Adnan (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology in Jordan 3, 73–83. Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Chalcolithic Sahab

145

Ibrahim, Moawiyah M., James A. Sauer, and Khair Yassine. 1976. The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 222, 41–66. Ibrahim, Moawiyah M., Zeidan Kafafi, Carrie Gustavson-Gaube and Heinz Gaube. 1984. Archaeological Survey in the Area of Sahab southeast of Amman, 1983. (Unpublished). Kafafi, Zeidan.1982. The Neolithic of Jordan (East Bank). Inaugural-Dissertation Zur Erlangung Des Doktorgrade Der Philosophischen Fakultät der Freien Universität Berlin (Unpublished.) — 1986. The Pottery Neolithic in Jordan in Connection with other Near Eastern Regions. Paper Submitted to the Third Conference on the Jordanian Archaeology and History, Tübingen, Apri1 1986. Kaplan, Jacob. 1969. Ein el Jarba, Chalcolithic Remains in the Plain of Esdraelon. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 194, 2–39. Kerner, Susanne. 2009. The Pottery of Hujeyrat al-Ghuzlan 2000 to 2004. In K. Schmidt and L. Khalil (eds.) Prehistoric Aqaba I, 127–233. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden: VML. — 2016. The excavation in Abu Sunaysilah with particular consideration of food related organisation. Studies in the History and Archaeology in Jordan 12. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 155–163. Kerner, Susanne, Bernbeck, Reinhard, Lamprichs, Roland and Lehmann, Gunnar. 1992. Excavations in Abu Snesleh: Middle Bronze Age and Chalcolithic architecture in central Jordan. The Near East in Antiquity III, 43–54. Amman: al-Kutba. Kenyon, K. 1960. Archaeology in the Holy Land, Fourth edition. London: Methuen & Co.Ltd. Lamprichs, Roland. 1998. Abu Snesleh: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1990 und 1992. Rahdan: VML. Levy, Thomas. 1986. The Chalcolithic Period. The Biblical Archaeologist 49.2, 82–108. Mellaart, James. 1966. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in near East and Anatolia. Beirut: Khayats. — 1971. Anatolia Before c. 4000 B.C. Cambridge Ancient History 1, 304–325. Ory, J. 1947–1948. A Bronze Age Cemetery at Dhahret el Humraiya, QDAP 13, 75ff. Perrot, Jean. 1967. Les Ossuaires de Ben Shemen. Eretz-Israel Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, Sukenik Volume (1967), 46–90. Rowan, Yorke. 2014 The southern levant (cisjordan) during the chalcolithic period. In M. L. Steiner and A. Killebrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant (ca. 8000 – 332 BCE), 223–236. Ussishkin, David. 1971. The Gassulian Temple in Ein Gedi and the Origins of the Hoard from Nahal Mishmar. The Biblical Archaeologist 34, 23–39.

146

Moawiyah M. Ibrahim

de Vaux, Roland. 1971. Palestine during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods. In Edwards, Iorwerth. E. S., Cyril J. Gadd, Nicholas. G. L. Hammond, Edmond Sollberger (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, Part 2, 499–538. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press. Wright, George E. 1971. The Archaeology of Palestine from the Neolithic Through the Middle Bronze Age. Journal of American Oriental Society 91, 27–93. Yassine, Khair, Moawiyah M. Ibrahim, James A. Sauer. 1988. The East Jordan Valley Survey. In Yassine, Khair (ed.), Archaeology of Jordan: Essays and Reports, 189–206.

Ledge Handles, their Development and Potential for Interpretation Susanne Kerner

Introduction The seminal book by Ruth Amiran about South Levantine pottery gives a invaluable overview from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Alas, the publication was over 50 years ago; it misses the many results from excavations carried out ever since. Consequently, new efforts in ceramic description and analysis have been made and remain necessary.1 So, for my part I would like to investigate a particular form of diagnostic pottery, the ledge handles (furthermore abbreviated as LHs). The amount and diversity of LHs that we have recovered from Murayghat, a site dating mostly to the EB I, illustrates how necessary it has become to take a more detailed look at these features. They already appeared in the Late Chalcolithic and continued through to the Middle Bronze Age (Wright 1937, 93). However, I will concentrate on the LHs from the Early Bronze Age, particularly the EB I, as the wealth of the material evidence by far exceeds any possibility of including other phases at the same level of detail to the present discussion. This paper thus needs to be understood as a work in progress. Partly based on even earlier typologies as developed by Engberg and Shipton (1934), Wright (1937), and Tufnell (1958), Amiran too elaborated a chronological development of the ledge handles, which I would like to put to the test here. The chronology of the EBA and in particular the EB I has been much altered since Amiran’s publication, in which EB I is dated to 3100–2900 BCE, and EB II and EB III to a timespan between 2900 and 2350 BCE (Amiran 1969, 12). Currently, the beginnings of EB I are considered to date between 3800 and 3600 BCE (Braun 2019; Greenberg 2019, 16; Kerner 2008, 160; 2020, 408; Miroschedji 2009, 103; Philip 2001). This article is also based on the assumption that ledge handles developed locally out of earlier handle shapes (knobs and protuberances) already known from Neolithic and Chalcolithic evidence,2 and for this reason it will abstain from discussing Egyptian and other foreign origins. 1

S. Gitin has edited three volumes, albeit dealing with later pottery and a fourth, for the period relevant here, will follow. Garfinkel’s very helpful, more recent overview of pottery from the earlier periods is now itself over 20 years old (Garfinkel 1999). 2 See Garfinkel 1999; examples have also been found in Tuleilat Ghassul and Fazael 7.

148

Susanne Kerner

The choice of sites treated here is based partly on the availability of published reports during the restrictions of the 2020/21 pandemic, when libraries were partly closed. It therefore naturally falls short of surveying all the known sites at which ledge handles have been discovered.

Method This article is less an end in itself than a step along a path to encourage fellow archaeologists to be as inclusive and exhaustive as possible in their ceramic reports. Most publications give only few images of handles and little if any information as to their numbers. Moreover, the handles are often treated separately, as they have the tendency to detach from the actual vessels and thus to be excavated separately from the latter. Subsequently disconnected find visualisation makes it very difficult to establish specific links between certain types of handles and certain vessel types, as one has to go through all available images to find still attached handles. A discussion of the relationship between the detached handles and the few examples also revealing the vessel shapes would thus significantly boost the momentum of research. It would allow to see whether for instance ledge handles appeared earlier on jars than on bowls. Similarly worthwhile would be the inclusion of numerical information about correlations between the handles and the vessel shapes in ceramic typologies. This is true for all forms of handles, but particular for the ledge handles, which have chronological and possibly functional importance. In the following discussion attributes taken into account are not only the shape of the handles, but also any discernible correlation between handle and vessel shape (not many were available), as well as size and outline of the handle. The size of the handles which comprises length (the part connected to the vessel), width (from the joint with the vessel to the tip of the handle), and depth (thickness), is seldom given but can sometimes be deduced from the drawings. Although sketchy, such estimations nonetheless permit to some extent to distinguish between different categories. The geometric outline of the handles, both in plane and section, should also be studied, particularly with regard to the plain handles. The importance of that consideration becomes clear when e.g. the chronological importance of the “duck-bill” variant is considered. The publications from Um Hamad and Jawa are exceptional in their way of fully describing the shapes of the handles, including their orientation, and not only concentrating on the decoration (Betts 1991; Betts 1992).

Original Typology The original typology based mostly on Amiran and Wright includes the following types (table 1), and it is noticeable that Amiran’s much quoted typology collapsed some elements of the more detailed categories from the other authors into her 5 types. The drawings in Amiran (1969, pl. 8) give a good overview of the different

Ledge Handles

149

types, thus allowing for typological comparisons of other material evidence (one of the advantages of Amiran’s book). The more detailed descriptions by Wright (1937), Engbert and Shipton (1934), and Tufnell (1958) palpably had been carried out by individuals who actually had held the handles in their hands, thus often making it difficult for anybody else with deficient access to the same material, to follow the descriptions. The photos in Engberg and Shipton (1934, fig. 5), on the other hand, are helpful for comprehending the different types. A future publication with many more photos and drawings would thus be of great benefit. Amiran Type 1 Plain

Engberg and Shipton Wright 14D plain narrow Ic plain 14E plain broad

Tufnell Form 7

Type 2 Indented

14C small thumbindented 14G thumb-indented Ia scalloped 14 F oblique wavy 14H wavy Ib true wavy

Forms 1–light indentation 2–stronger indentation 3 twin LH 4–very small 5–stronger, very close indentations, handle slightly up

Type 3 pushed-up 14B pushed-up Type 4 Folded

14A folded

Id pinch-lapped Ie pushed-up Ig pushed-up scalloped If folded (pushedup and envelop)

Type 5 Vestigial

Form 8 Form 6 Forms 10, 10a, 11 (pinched, turned over and pressed down) Form 12

Table 1: Overview of different divisions of ledge handles.

P LAIN H ANDLES Ledge handles (Amiran 1969, pl. 8.1–6) with an unadorned edge, which essentially come in two variations, as described by Engberg and Shipton (1934, fig. 5: 14D and 14E), a plain narrow LH, which approximately has the same length and width (Amiran 1969, pl. 8.1–2); and a plain broad LH, which is much longer (broader in Engbert and Shipton’s terminology) than wide (Amiran 1969, pl. 8.3– 4). The profile of the handle usually tapers towards the edge. Some plain handles have impressions above and/or below the actual handle (e.g. Mallon et al. 1934, fig. 41.5 and 8). S CALLOPED OR I NDENTED H ANDLES Ledge handles (Amiran 1969, pl. 8.7–15) with impressions/incisions along the edge, making the profile of the handle blunter at the edge. The manipulation is usually made by finger or thumb, and these impressions can be smaller or larger

150

Susanne Kerner

(Engberg and Shipton 1934, fig. 5: 14C and 14G). The indentation can also be made with a seemingly V-shaped tool (e.g. Mazar, Miroschedji and Porat 1996, fig. 19.22), which is often difficult to differentiate from the thumb-impressed LHs. As influential as Amiran’s typology was, it nonetheless omits, as mentioned above, a number of differentiations pointed out in the terminology of Engbert and Shipton (1937) and particularly that of Tufnell (1958), which might well be especially worthwhile to re-consider for the scalloped LHs. The scalloped/wavy handles were divided into C – “small thumb-indented”, G – “thumb-indented”, F – “oblique wavy” and H – “wavy” by Engbert and Shipton (1937, 13) and into 1 – “light indentation”, 2 – “stronger indentation”, 3 – “twin” LH (which probably is more likely to be ornamental than functional), 4 – “very small”, 5 – “stronger, very close indentations, handles slightly turned up” by Tufnell (1958).

P USHED - UP / P INCH - LAPPED H ANDLES These handles are impressed too, and their edges additionally pushed upwards (with differing angles; Amiran 1969, pl 8.16–19). Wright has two subgroups, one that shows a thumb impression on the upper part of the handle (“pinched-lapped”) and one with impressions and an upturned edge (“pushed-up”, Wright 1937, pls. beta and delta, Ie and If). They date to the EB IB to EB IV. It is often difficult to differentiate clearly between the scalloped and pushed-up variety. In some cases, as e.g. in Hartuv, the term “pushed-up” is also used for scalloped LHs. The latter have no discernible angle towards the edge, but are connected to the wall pointing upwards (Mazar, de Miroschedji and Porat 1996, fig. 19.23, where they typically appear on jars). The diverging use of the term stresses the need for a better definition and clearer sub-divisions. T RUE W AVY H ANDLES These categories appear only in Engberg and Shipton and in Wright, where they describe handles with the indentations seemingly obtained through pressing the edge of the handle alternately up and down so as to create a wave (Engberg and Shipton 1934, pl. 16.26, 27; Wright 1937, pl. alpha Ib). It is – again – very difficult to define the exact difference with the scalloped handles in the early publications as the former are photographed from the front and the latter from the top3. In these early publications, they are described in connection with influences from Egypt. In Megiddo they appear from the lowest levels (Engberg and Shipton 1934, 43; Joffee 2000, fig. 8.3.16; Braun 2013, 92). If possible, a genuine definitional difference to the thumb-impressed handles should be established, otherwise, the term better ought to be dropped.

3

Braun also describes them “sometimes described as ‘wavy lined’ or thumb indented” (Braun 2013, 92).

Ledge Handles

151

F OLDED (P USHED - UP AND E NVELOPED ) H ANDLES These LHs had been impressed first and then folded over, and they thus show a certain similarity to Wright’s pinch-lapped handles, although the pushed over part is often wider than a simple thumb-impression would allow for. They appear e.g. in Megiddo IV and Beth-Shean XIII, hence in the later EBA.

Discussion of the Material Evidence For reasons of available space and time, the discussion will concentrate here on plain and indented/scalloped ledge handles.

P LAIN L EDGE H ANDLES Wright suggested that plain ledge handles started in Beth Shean XVI, dating to the LC-EB transition and lasted until EB III (Wright 1937, 93), and Tufnell saw them in a midway chronological position (1958, 152) as well. Engberg and Shipton (1934, 15 and 42) claimed that plain handles did not appear before Stage V at Megiddo (EB IB) and that they were thus chronologically between LHs with different manipulations (wavy, impressed, pushed-up). They considered this as “abnormal”, but were not able to explain their stratigraphy otherwise (see also Braun 2013, 25–26). In his volume about Beit Mirsim, Albright (1932) follows them but added a comment just prior to publication, in which he indicates that the newest Megiddo material might change this view. It was Amiran who declared plain LHs the oldest, also assuming a start in EB I (Amiran 1969, 40). More excavations have shown that plain LHs start earlier, as they appear already in Chalcolithic contexts, such as at Tuleilat Ghassul, where a number of LHs still attached to the vessels were excavated. A relatively small one (Lovell 2001, fig. 4.38.6) is connected to a holemouth jar, while two very similar looking handles (Lovell 2001, fig. 4.43.1 and 7) were found as separate items. The earlier excavations by the Pontifical Biblical Institute displayed two plain handles from level III with a decoration of hook-shaped impressions above or a round impression above and below the handle (Mallon et al. 1934, fig. 41.5 and 8). Two relatively long, but not very wide plain handles are from level IV (Mallon et al. 1934, fig. 41.4 and 7), of which one is possibly from a straight-sided bowl. Plain LHs are also known from Fazael 5, stratum II (Bar et al. 2015, fig. 12.2), where only two separated handles appear, one of which being plain. Three LHs were excavated at the contemporary site of Fazael 7, but only one plain handle is illustrated from stratum II (Bar et al. 2017, fig. 18.7), whilst one plain, rather narrow, but broken handle is shown from Fazael 2 (Bar 2013, fig, 10.16.8). Plain LHs also form a small part of the Golan handle assemblage, they appear on large bowls (Epstein 1998, pls. XVI.7, XVII.9, XVIII.1) and hole-mouth-jars (HMJ) (Epstein 1998, pl. XX.2). The handles generally come in two shapes, one

152

Susanne Kerner

more knob-like (short and thicker), the other more elongated and very thin (Epstein 1998, pl. XXVII.9–12 and pl. XXVII.13–15), but only two examples are longer than 5 cm. In Tel Teo, a small plain LH (Eisenberg 2001a, fig. 6.6.12) on a straight-sided bowl too dates to the LC. The EB IA (level V) ledge handles are very similar but occur on vessels with more rounded walls (Eisenberg 2001b, fig. 7.8.10). At Bab edh-Dhra the plain LHs from the EB IA cemetery are wide (Schaub and Rast 1989, figs. 19.1, 70.1 and 2) and display a slight upturn whilst being connected to jars. In one case, LH and loop handle appear together on a jar (fig. 79.2). The plain LHs from the town of Bab edh-Dhra (level V, EB IA) are similar to those from the tombs in the EB IA cemetery and occur in area H1 with just under 25 % of the classifiable LHs (Rast and Schaub 2003, 94, pls. 2:6, 5:16). Plain LHs are often attached to bowls and disappear after level III. In level V there are also some small LHs, or knob-ledges, as Rast and Schaub call them, both from area H1 and area J2 (Rast and Schaub 2003, fig.5.2: 18, pl. 2:7–8). These knobledges are comparable to the finds from the Late Chalcolithic site of Giv‘at HaOranim (Scheftelowitz 2004, 3.18:7–10). Other EB IA and IB plain LHs were found at Um Hamad (Genre 67), where they are relatively long, between ca. 7 and 14 cm, and regardless of length ca. 4 cm wide and 3 cm thick (Betts 1992, fig. 238.1–4), often displaying a concave lower side. A second group (Genre 69) is thicker and decorated occasionally with red splash paint (Betts 1992, figs. 238.9–10 and 239.1–4). Betts considers both handle forms as belonging to Repertoire 1 (Betts 1992, 89 and 101) which has close connections to Chalcolithic forms. Plain ledge handles continue into the EB IB at several sites, such as Bab edhDhra, where 21 of the 40 LH from level IV in the town referred to as duck-bills are wider than long (Rast and Schaub 2003, 149, fig. 7.3, pl. 21) and in this case were connected to jars. The handles too are upturned, quite thick, sometimes nearly rounded in section and thus providing a firm grip to the jar. “They also are … continuing the angle of the lower section of jars. This angle would provide a more comfortable position for upraised arms if the vessels were carried on the head“ (Rast and Schaub 2003, 149). One of the examples has finger impressions on the very edge, making it technically an impressed LH of the next section. Similar handles come from the EB IB tombs, where the handles are attached to jars (Schaub and Rast 1989, fig. 133.1–2). Some four, normal plain LHs also occur in these levels (Rast and Schaub 2003, pl. 16:1, 18), but with quite diverse looks. A further LH, connected to a bowl comes from the cemetery (Schaub and Rast 1989, fig. 16:22). A plain, straight and thin LH fixed to a slightly rounded wall below the point of its maximum diameter has been reported from Beqo‘a, stratum II (Golani et al. 2018, fig. 27.7). At Megiddo plain and separated LHs are shown from the Eastern Slope (Braun 2013, pl. 62.n and possibly q) dating to the later EB I.

Ledge Handles

153

S CALLOPED OR T HUMB I NDENTED L EDGE H ANDLE The scalloped handles should probably be further divided into thumb-indented and tool-indented LHs, as the manufacture of the latter requires a tool and because they look quite different. They are thus considered here as SLH (scalloped or thumb-indented) and TLH (tool-indented ledge handle with V-shaped indentations). In some publications, particularly the older ones from the era before digital photography, the differences are very hard to detect so that the attribution of several examples to one of these categories proves unfeasible. SLH (scalloped or thumb-indented) The first scalloped ledge handles appear in Late Chalcolithic contexts, as at Tuleilat Ghassul where only one LH from level IV is shown (Mallon et al. 1934, pl.40.3). Another LH with only one indent, but with crescent-shaped incisions above the actual handle (Mallon et al., fig. 41.8) was recovered from level III, which thus means that this is the earliest, albeit relatively unusual representations. Scalloped LHs are known from Giv‘at Ha-Oranim (Scheftelowitz 2004, fig. 3:18. 1–3). There are more examples from sites dating to the very end of the Chalcolithic period, such as Fazael 2 (Bar 2013, fig. 10.16.7) where Bar reports 16 handles (lug and ledge) decorated with thumb-impressions. He also states “The flat ledge handle … is less common in this assemblage. It does not resemble the Early Bronze Age types and tends to be much smaller in size” (Bar 2013, 284), although it has a compatible length to EBA SLHs. The depicted handle from Fazael 2 is pointing down, which is rather unusual. Other SLHs from the end of the Chalcolithic period (stratum II) appear in Fazael 5 (Bar et al. 2015, fig. 12.2)4 and Abu Snesleh (Kerner n.d., fig. 4.19). All of these handles are not very long, the one from Fazael 5 is less than 4 and the others less than 6 cm long, while the width respectively measures less than half of the length. At Beqo‘a (stratum III) the displayed SLH is long but very narrow (Golani et al. 2018, fig. 24.8). In EB IA 43 scalloped LHs occur in level V at the town of Bab edh-Dhra. Here, one represented example is hardly indented at all, while another exhibits regular impressions all along the edge. The three to five impressions per handle are not deep, which leaves the handle relatively pointed (Rast and Schaub 2003, 94 and fig.5.2: 17 and 19). A similar handle was found in the EB IA cemetery at Bab edhDhra (Schaub and Rast 1989, fig. 18.1). As vessels tend to be more complete in the cemetery, the handle is still attached to a jar, where it is fixed well below the middle of the body and is relatively straight. Rast and Schaub further describe these handles: “It is possible to classify further the impressed handles into lightly impressed and pushed-up types. The latter, similar to Forms 1 and 2 of Tufnell (1958, 149–151) leave a slight ridge on the interior (pls. 1:18, 19; 3:18, 19; 5:13– 15). These are not the pushed-up ledge handles that close in the handle on the 4

More references are given to Fazael 7 (Bar 2013, fig. 6.17:2; Hebrew).

154

Susanne Kerner

circumference with a vertical edge making a slight hollow (Amiran 1969: pl. 8:16–18), or the pinch-lapped type (Mazar, Miroschedji, Porat 1996, 23, fig. 19:24), since the pushed-up impression is not folded or lapped over onto the surface of the handle.” (Rast and Schaub 2003, 94). In Tel Teo the SLH from level V is on a restricted vessel (Eisenberg 2001b, fig. 7.8.11) and pointing slightly up. The EB IA SLHs in Yifta’hel are scalloped and grooved, sometimes more than 10 cm long, while they tend to be around 4 cm wide. They occur on large bowls, basins, and storage jars (Braun 1997, fig. 9.6, 9.7, 9.19–22). The thumb-impressed LHs in Um Hamid (Genre 64) from the EBA are between ca. 8 and 15 cm long, 2 to 8 cm wide, and around 3 cm thick (Betts 1992, fig. 236). Their shapes vary from flat curves to almost duck-bill shapes. They were found from stratum 2 (EB IA) to stratum 4 (EB II). The sizes of the impressions range between very small (too small for a finger or thumb?, fig. 236.1–7) to normal. The handles are straight and slightly upturned, in some cases with a concave underside. The other thumb-impressed LH is Genre 76 (Betts 1992, fig. 241.9– 10), dating to EB IB and EB II). At Ashkalon SLHs were found in Strata I and II (EB IA and EB IB), they are slightly upturned and have only shallow impressions (Braun 2000, fig. 7.4, 6–8; Golani 2008, figs. 9:15; 10:10; Khalaily 2004, fig. 17.1–3). The impressed LHs seem to be slightly upturned and can appear together with more folded over LHs (Braun 2000, 123; Khalaily 2004, fig. 17.5). In Beqo‘a SLHs also appear in the EBA IB, where they are longer, but very narrow, as opposed to the TLHs (see below) (Golani et al. 2018, fig. 27.7). The earlier reports from Megiddo describe them stemming from not later than Megiddo IV (Engberg and Shipton 1934, 15), which Braun dates to the later EB I (Braun 2013). There is only one SLH from level IV at Bab edh-Dhra (Rast and Schaub 2003, fig. 7.2:23). Other occurrences include Jericho (end of Level V), Ai and Beth Shean (Level XVII and XVI), which all have some mixed EB I pottery. TLH (tool indented ledge handle). In Um Hamad many TLHs were found with very small, slashed, or punctuated bands along the edge; some of them are duck-billed, upturned and often painted (Genre 66: Betts 1992, fig. 237.5–7), while others are mostly parabolic, not painted and concave below (Genre 68: Betts 1992, fig. 238: 5–8). These two genres date mostly to stratum 2 and thus to EB IA, although Betts considers Genre 68 to belong to Repertoire 2 (Betts 1992, 89 and 103), therefore slightly later than Repertoire 1 (Genre 66). Both tool-indented handles also have a decoration of punctures above the actual handle.5

5

Not all handles from Genre 66 and 68 seem to be tool-indented, some may well be finger-impressed.

Ledge Handles

155

Figure 1: Double-handled Murayghat bowl (findnr. 8328, drawing: P. Nielsen, digitising: A. Andersson).

Figure 2: One of the Murayghat bowls with two ledge handles (left) and one ledge handle (middle). Photo: S. Kerner.

In Beqo‘a, stratum II (EB IB) a rounded, almost rectangular handle just below the widest point of a HMJ, appears to have been indented with a small tool (Golani et al. 2018, 26.1). In the “Middle Southern EB I” at Hartuv different types of LHs are attested, of which one or two seem to have tool-made indentations (Mazar, Miroschedji, Porat 1996, fig. 19:21, 22). One notched LH has been recorded at the town site of Bab edh-Dhra (Rast and Schaub 2003, pl. 22:6).

156

Susanne Kerner

Other Handles I NTERNAL H ANDLES One ledge handle form, which has not been mentioned in the traditional typologies, is the one appearing on the interior side of the vessel. Such internal handles are known from the Late Chalcolithic sites in the Beersheba valley (CommengePellerin 1990: figs. 22:2, 31; Gilead and Goren 1995: fig. 4.4:3–52; Levy and Menachem 1987: fig. 13.16:9) as well as from Giv‘at Ha-Oranim and Horbat ‘Illit B (Milevski et al. 2013, fig. 25.9). However, their function hardly matches that of a handle, and hence the name is misleading, but the manufacture would have been the same. They may have served for supporting lids, although some of these ‘handles’ protrude from relatively deep levels inside the vessel bodies. In these instances devices like ‘double floors’ used for steaming, keeping things hot etc. spring to mind. D OUBLE H ANDLES One reason for delving into the study of ledge handle development is the occurrence of two large bowls at Murayghat, each with sets of two LHs above each other, and alternating with a single LH (Fig. 1 and 2). They are SLHs with small regular indentations, either straight or upturned, with the lower LH being longer than the upper one. These bowls are still unique, even though most LHs appear to be broken off, which means other examples might already have been found, but could not be recognised as such.

Conclusion When studying the ledge handles, it becomes clear that Amiran’s original typology, although helpful back at that time, was probably too loosely-knit. It only considered the actual shape of the handle and the treatment of its outer edge. A more detailed analysis of the handles’ • • • • •

sizes (length, width and thickness), shapes (half-circle, duck-bill, nearly rectangular etc.), orientations (straight, turned up etc.), different forms of treatment or decoration, such as painting, impressions above or below etc.), associated vessel category (jar, bowl etc.).

appears necessary for an improved understanding of both the development and importance of these handles. Correlations between these components and different variations of the LHs might thus emerge. Such a fine-combed investigation may lead not only to the establishment of a more accurate chronological framework, but moreover to that of the ledge handles’ regional and possibly even functional specifics. The success of such exhaustive examinations would inevitably

Ledge Handles

157

depend on analyses carried out on the material evidence itself rather than on published images and descriptions. This paper began with the belief that the existing typologies for ledge handles might need updating – the actual research into published ledge handles revealed that the entire subject is indeed highly complex. A comparison of different styles of drawings and photographs proved to be very challenging, as the presentations of the indentations/impressions often prohibit an in-depth analysis of shape, size, and technique of manipulation. Without photographs or actual visual inspection of the material it remains unclear where indentations end, wavy impressions continue, and folding over begins. A far more precise definition is needed here. It has also become clear that it is crucial to connect the handles with certain types of pottery vessels (bowls versus jars etc.), which furthermore would lead to a better understanding as to the probable location of the handles on the vessel bodies. This was beyond the target of the present context, which ended up as a brief overview of the available information concerning plain and scalloped/indented ledge handles. The paucity of the currently obtainable numerical facts does not allow any further conclusion with regard to correlations between size, shape, and chronology. The chronological information shows that plain and thumb-impressed LHs evidently begin in the Late Chalcolithic. Both continue into the EB IA and EB IB, with the impression that thumb-impressed LHs become more common. The LHs with tool impressions, on the other hand, seems to start in the EBA only. There is a slight hint that SLHs might be longer in the EBA than in the LC, but that needs further research.

Bibliography Albright, William Foxwell. 1932. The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine. Vol. 1 (The Pottery of the First 3 Campaigns). The Annual of the ASOR XII. New Haven: Yale University Press. Amiran, Ruth. 1969. Ancient pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Massada Press. Bar, Shay. 2013. Dawn of the Bronze Age: The Pattern of Settlement in the Lower Jordan Valley and the Desert Fringes of Samaria. During the Chalcolithic Period and Early Bronze Age I. Leiden: Brill. Bar, Shay, Cohen-Klonymus, H., Pinsky, S., Bar-Oz, G. and Shalvi, G. 2015. Fazael 5: Soundings in a Chalcolithic Site in the Jordan Valley. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 45, 193–216. Bar, Shay, Cohen-Klonymus, H., Pinsky, S., Bar-Oz, G., Zuckerman, R., Shalvi, G. and Davidovich, U. 2017. Fazael 7: A Large Chalcolithic Architectural Complex in the Jordan Valley, the 2009–2016 Excavations. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 47, 208–247. Betts, Alison V. G. 1991. Excavations at Jawa 1972–1986. Stratigraphy, Pottery and other Finds. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

158

Susanne Kerner

— 1992. Excavations at Tell Um Hammad: The Early Assemblages (EB I–II). Excavations and Explorations in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Braun Eliot. 1997. Yiftah’el: Salvage and Rescue Excavations at a Prehistoric Village in Lower Galilee, Israel (IAA Reports 2). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. — 2000. Area G at Afridar, Palmahim Quarry 3 and the Earliest Pottery of EBA I: Part of the ‘Missing Link’. In G. Philip and D. Baird (eds.), Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, 113–128. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. — 2013. Early Megiddo on the East Slope (the “Megiddo Stages”): A Report on the Early Occupation of the E Slope of Megiddo (Results of the Oriental Institute’s Excavations, 1925–1933). OIP 139. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. — 2019. Forging a Link: Evidence for a ‘Lost Horizon’: The Late Chalcolithic to EB 1 Transition in the Southern Levant. In H. Goldfus, M.I. Gruber, S. Yona, and P. Fabian (eds.). ‘Isaac went out to the field’: Studies in Archaeology and Ancient Cultures in Honor of Isaac Gilead, 66–95. Oxford: Archeopress. Commenge-Pellerin, Catherine. 1987. La Poterie d’Abou Matar et de l’Ouadi Zoumeili (Beershéva) au IV e millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne. Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Française de Jérusalem 3. Paris. — 1990: La Poterie du Safadi (Beershéva) au IVe millénaire avant l’ère chrétienne.Paris: Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherche Française de Jérusalem 5. Eisenberg, Emmanuel. 2001a. Pottery of Strata VII–VI, The Chalcolithic Period. In E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg (eds.), Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley, 105–116 (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. — 2001b. Pottery of Strata V–IV, The Early Bronze Age I. In E. Eisenberg, A. Gopher and R. Greenberg (eds.), Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley, 117–133. (IAA Reports 13). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Engberg, A. M., and Shipton, G. M. 1934. Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery of Meggido. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University. Epstein, Claire. 1998. The Chalcolithic Culture of the Golan. IAA-Reports 4. Jerusalem. Garfinkel, Yosef. 1999. Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Qedem 39. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University. Golani, Amir. 2008. The Early Bronze Age Site of Ashqelon, Afridar – Area M. ‘Antiqot 60, 19–51. Golani, Amir, Storchan, B. and Eirikh-Rose, A. 2018. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age IB Site of Beqo‘a. ‘Atiqot 90, 9–54.

Ledge Handles

159

Greenberg, Rapahel. 2019. The Archaeology of the Bronze Age Levant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joffe, Alexander H. 2000. The Early Bronze Age Pottery from Area J. In Finkelstein, Israel, Ussishkin, D. and Halpern, Baruch (eds.) Megiddo III. The 1992– 1996 Seasons, 161–185. Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Monograph Series 18. Tel Aviv University. Kerner, Susanne. 2008. The Transition between the Late Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. In: Kühne, H., Czichon, R. and Kreppner, F. (eds.), Social and Cultural Transformations: The Archaeology of Transitional Periods and Dark Ages, 155–166. Proceedings of the 4th ICAANE, 2004. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. — 2020. Late Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age transition in Southern Jordan: Changes in material and social structure. In: Alexander Ahrens, Dörte RokittaKrumnow, Franziska Bloch and Claudia Bührig (eds.), Drawing the Threads Together. Studies on Archaeology in Honour of Karin Bartl, 407–428. marru 10. Münster: Zaphon. — n.d. The pottery from Abu Snesleh. In S. Kerner (ed.), Material and Finds from Abu Snesleh. Lovell, Jaimie L. 2001. The Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Periods in the Southern Levant. New data from the site of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. BARIntSer 974. Oxford. Mallon, A., Koeppel, R. and Neuville, R. 1934. Teleilat Ghassul I: Compte rendu des fouilles de l’Institut biblique pontifical. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Mazar, Amihai, Pierre de Miroschedji, and Naomi Porat. 1996. Hartuv, an Aspect of the Early Bronze I Culture of Southern Israel. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302, 1–40 Milevski, Ianir, J. Vardi, I. Gilead, A. Eirikh-Rose et al. 2013. Excavations at Horbat ‘Illit B: A Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) Site in the Haelah Valley. Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 43, 73–147. Miroschedji, Pierre de. 2009. Rise and Collapse in the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age. Scienze dell’antichità Storia Archeologia Antropologia 15, 101–129. Philip, Graham. 2001. The Early Bronze I III Ages. In MacDonald, B., Adams, R. and Bienkowski, P. (eds.) The Archaeology of Jordan. An Archaeological Reader, 163–232. Levantine Archaeology 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Rast, Walter and Schaub, R. Thomas. 2003. Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘: Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Schaub, R. Thomas and Rast, Walter. 1989. Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘: Excavations in the Cemetery. Directed by Paul. W. Lapp (1965–1967). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

160

Susanne Kerner

Scheftelowitz, Na’ama. 2004. The Pottery Assemblage. In: Scheftelowitz N. and Oren R. (eds.), Giv‘at Ha-Oranim: A Chalcolithic Site: 59–69. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Tufnell, Olga. 1958. Lachish IV (Tell ed Duweir). The Wellcome-Marston Archaeological Expedition to the Near East. London. Wright, G. E. 1937. The pottery of Palestine from the earliest time to the Early Bronze Age. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan Lorenzo Nigro

Introduction In the last decades, the study of the origins of the urban phenomenon in the 3rd millennium BCE Southern Levant has seen Zeidan Kafafi mastering the discussion about its features and historical meaning (Kafafi 2011; 2014, 145). The contribution given by Zeidan, a scholar and an archaeologist with a long and extensive field experience, including direct knowledge of almost all sites illustrating such a cultural development, has inspired many to re-consider their interpretive paradigms to the benefit of more dependable and coherent insights. The debate stemmed from the interpretation of some major EBA sites of Jordan, whether they could be considered examples of urbanism like similar sites in Syria-Palestine or not. This was part of an overall assessment of early urbanism in the Southern Levant, opposite to that of the coast of Syria-Palestine, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Anatolia which nurtured the “earliest cities” intended as socioeconomic and cultural models of human organisation (Frangipane 2018). The discussion sometimes was terminological (Nigro 2020a, 183–184) but had to deal with sound archaeological evidence. This debate made it visible that also beyond the Jordan River there were fortified sites exhibiting a rather high range of complexity and interconnections. Hereby, a summary of most interesting experiences is attempted as a homage to the scholar who strongly defended the possibility to label “urbanism” the variety of cultural developments observed in EBA Jordan.

Proto-Urban Premises (Early Bronze I, 3500–3050 BCE) The Late Chalcolithic and following EB I in the Levant are still revealing all their historical-archaeological potentialities (Rowan and Golden 2009), especially when studied from a long-duration perspective in the overall scenario of the ancient Near East. During both periods human communities of Syria-Palestine and Jordan have shown many different attempts to transform their settlements into something more complex than rural villages or seasonal camps. Jordan with its variegated landscape hosted several different examples of these formative developments.

162

Lorenzo Nigro

After the discovery of Ebla in inner Northern Syria, surveys and excavations in inland Levant provided the evidence that the urban phenomenon was not a prerogative of the riverine valleys and the coast, and that different models of cities could co-exist and interact. Jawa in the Black Desert of Jordan showed that also the chronological references of such phenomena might be higher and longer than previously thought. Explorations in the Julan, the Badia and Jebel Drus, and the Homs region in Syria demonstrated that Jawa was not an isolated case, identifying other similar sites (Khirbet al-Umbashi, Qarassa, Labwe, Tell Afihe: Braemer and Échallier 2004; Philip and Bradbury 2010; Müller-Neuhof 2017). The emergence of fortified settlements experimenting different ways of adaptation and exploitation of resources and exercising a kind of territorial control can be considered an attempt of incipient urbanisation giving birth to a kind of “different urbanism” during the 3rd millennium BCE.

J AWA Jawa1 is located in the western fringes of the Basalt Desert in the Jordanian Badia, on the eastern banks of Wadi Râjil, the seasonal river descending from the Syrian highlands and crossing the central Transjordan hills through the basaltic region of al-Harra (Fig. 1). Jawa was a major EB IA fortified settlement controlling one of the most important north-west/south-east tracks connecting inner Syria to Transjordan, Arabia, and Mesopotamia (Sala 2006, 245–246). In the second half of the 4th millennium BCE, the site reached an extension of 7 ha and was given an impressive fortification system. The 1.1 km long city wall, was made of the characteristic local basalt stones with rounded towers and articulated city gates (Betts 1991, 30–35, 40–45). Inside, the residential area consisted of dwellings with curvilinear plan (Betts 1991, 35–38). The site also possessed a complex water system, including carefully constructed channels, dams, and reservoirs, ensuring the necessary water supply in an area well below the 200 ml isohyet allowing dry agriculture (Betts 1991, 54, 105). Notwithstanding the monumentality of its architecture and its well-planned organisation, Jawa had an extremely short life, and it was abandoned during the EB IA (Helms 1982, 101–107). It can thus be regarded as a hazardous attempt to stabilise a mixed agriculturalist/pastoralist community in a semi-desert region. Nevertheless, the track along the Wadi Râjil remained one of the main inland routes across the Syro-Arabic Desert.

1

In 1947 Jawa (JADIS Site no. 3319.010) was surveyed by N. Glueck (1951, 30–31) and excavated by S. Helms between 1972 and 1976 (Helms 1981; 1982; Betts 1991; 1998).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

163

Figure 1: Aerial view of Jawa (Image digitalizing: Lorenzo Nigro).

J EBEL AL -M UTAWWAQ Jebel al-Mutawwaq2 is located at the top of the southern slope of a mountain overlooking the turn to west of Wadi az-Zarqa (Fig. 2). The site occupies a favourable position at the confluence between Wadi az-Zarqa and Wadi Quneya, with two main springs to the southeast and northwest of the mound (Polcaro and Muñiz 2017). This location was appreciated in very ancient times, as demonstrated by the discovery of a major Pre-Pottery Neolithic site (Kharaysin) on the terraced wadi banks at the southern foot of the mountain (Ibáñez et al. 2016). Dominating the Middle Wadi az-Zarqa at the fringes of the semi-arid Transjordan Highlands, Jebel al-Mutawwaq was a most suitable resting place for shepherds and their livestock in summer, but may also assure a good agricultural basis for a sedentary community. During the EB I the site became one of the largest settlements of Jordan, with an extension of ca. 8 ha, a fortification line, and a huge necropolis of hundreds of 2

In the 1980s Jebel al-Mutawwaq (MEGA Jordan Site no. 7233) was surveyed by J.W. Hanbury-Tenson (1989) and excavated by J.A. Fernández-Tresguerres Velasco (2008). It is currently being investigated by a Spanish-Italian expedition directed by J.R. Muñiz and A. Polcaro (Polcaro, Muñiz, and Álvarez 2016; Polcaro and Muñiz 2017; 2018; 2020).

164

Lorenzo Nigro

clustering dolmens outside the village over an area of at least 70 ha. Two main occupational phases have been identified corresponding to the two major sub-periods of the EB I.

Figure 2: Aerial view of Jebel al-Mutawwaq (Image digitalizing: Lorenzo Nigro); view of the EB IA (3500–3200 BCE) “Temple of the Serpents” (after Polcaro and Muñiz 2017, Fig. 4), and jar with serpents applied decoration (Photo: Lorenzo Nigro).

At the beginning, the site hosted a sacred place and the dolmen field serving as necropolis (Polcaro and Muñiz 2018, 590). Then, a village formed on the southern mountain flank, enclosed further on by a stone wall resembling more an ideal fence than a genuine fortification. The wall had three narrow (0.9–1.0 m) entrances on the southern side, each flanked by two stone jambs (Hanbury-Tenson

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

165

1989, 137; Polcaro, Muñiz, and Álvarez 2016, Fig. 4). The village consisted of double apsidal houses and included a large sacred area, the so-called “Temple of the Serpents” (Fig. 2), composed of a main oval building (Building 76), five independent rooms to the west and rectangular structures to the north (Building 75) and south (Building 77), all enclosed by a temenos delimiting an open courtyard (Fernández-Tresguerres Velasco 2008; Polcaro 2019, 777–778). The area east of the temple hosted houses and buildings devoted to communitarian functions (Polcaro and Muñiz 2018, 590–591). These buildings are all located in prominent positions well visible from the valley below. One public structure referred to as the “Great Enclosure” has been excavated on the southern cliff of the mountain. It consists of a large semi-circular, open area of ca. 200 m width and defined by a massive stone wall, with a single standing stone in the centre and a megalithic entrance to the west (Polcaro and Muñiz 2017, 21–22, Fig. 5). The huge dolmen field outside the wall was divided into three groups on the eastern, western, and southern sides of the mountain. The eastern group is the largest one and reveals the best-preserved dolmens (Polcaro and Muñiz 2020). Different paths connected the south-eastern entrance of the village with the nearby dolmens (Polcaro and Muñiz 2017, 18–19, Fig. 2). The village of Jebel al-Mutawwaq was abandoned at the beginning of the EB IB (ca. 3200–3050 BCE). The middle and upper stretches of Wadi az-Zarqa underwent a synecystic process: whilst the main villages were deserted, the administrative and socio-economic pole of the area retracted to the fortified site at Batrawy which primed over the hamlets and farms scattered along the river. Nevertheless, Mutawwaq remained a central place for funerary practices performed by a large nomadic community. During EB IB and EB IIA, dolmens were built on the southern cliff of the mountain, while partially overlapping and reusing the ruins of the EB IA village and thus demonstrating the funerary site’s continuity under the population living in the valley (Polcaro and Muñiz 2018; Polcaro 2019, 55–56, Fig. 7).

J NENEH Jneneh3 is a 3 ha large site on the western (left) bank of the Wadi az-Zarqa, located about 1 km southwest of Batrawy and accessible via a ford across the river. It hosted a wide EB I village on a flat terrace overlooking the river. Curvilinear buildings have been excavated and dated to the EB IA (Sala 2008, 366–368, Figs. 11–13). Nonetheless, the site’s overall extension, the presence of a fence-wall visible on its northern and eastern sides overlooking the river and its affluent, the Wadi Shomar which represented a useful shortcut to the Jordan Valley, suggest that, together with Tell es-Sukhne North, Jneneh was one of the main villages of 3

Jneneh (Mega Jordan Site no. 3375) was discovered by G. Palumbo in 1993 (Palumbo et al. 1996, 388). In 2011 the Hashemite University and the Department of Antiquities of Jordan started a survey and excavation project under the direction of K. Douglas (2012).

166

Lorenzo Nigro

agriculturalists of the upper Wadi az-Zarqa during the EB I and that it provided the basis of the population for the rising city of Khirbet al-Batrawy.

Early Cities: The Urban Period (EB I–III, 3050–2350 BCE) The last decades of the 4th and the first of the 3rd millennium BCE signalled the rise of fortified settlements on both banks of the Jordan Valley, and in other strategic points along the main wadis of Jordan. This peculiar urban phenomenon also occurred in the highlands, in the fringe area between the desert and the steppe, and along the shores of the Dead Sea. New fortified sites arose on top hills overlooking riverine valleys and along tracks crossing the highlands and the desert to the Aqaba Gulf, the Sinai, the Euphrates, and the oases in current Saudi Arabia. This synecystic process was accompanied by a new displacement of agriculturalist communities, which in several cases grouped into a “central places” also capable to form hubs for nomad tribes. The most evident features of the EB II central places were their impressive fortifications, thus hinting to accumulation of wealth and security problems. City walls and monumental defensive works, as well as hydraulic works and public buildings (temples and palaces) characterise the rise of this urban culture.

P ELLA Pella4 is a 10 ha large site in the lower foothills of the eastern Jordan Valley next to a perennial spring and 4 km east of the Jordan River. The site is located in a strategic position in a highly favourable ecosystem, near the junction of two major trade and military routes of the ancient Levant. One runs north-south along the eastern side of the Jordan Valley, the other east-west from the Transjordan Highlands across the Jordan River and through the Esdraelon Plain to the coast. This prompted its occupation since the Neolithic (ca. 6500 BCE) and the development towards the urban model in the EBA. The settlement evolved on the top of an oval mound (Ṭabaqat Faḥl), on the northern side of Wadi Jirm el-Moz, and intermittently upon a dome-shaped natural hill (Tell el-Ḥusn) facing the former (Fig. 3) (Bourke 2000, 233). EBA occupation at Pella begins in the EB IB and rapidly increased through the EB II, before ceasing towards the end of the same period.

4

Pella (MEGA Jordan Site no. 2705 and 4346) was investigated by R. Funk and N. Richardson in 1958 (Funk and Richardson 1958). In 1967 soundings were excavated by R.H. Smith (1973). In 1979 R.H. Smith, J.B. Hennessy and A.W. McNicoll co-directed an expedition by the University of Sydney and College of Wooster (McNicoll et al. 1992). The same institution resumed excavations in 1985 under the direction of S. Bourke from 1992 until today (Bourke 2020).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

167

Figure 3: Aerial view of Pella with the two mounds of Ṭabaqat Faḥl and Tell el-Ḥusn (Image digitalizing: Lorenzo Nigro), and the EB II (3050–2700 BCE) city-wall found at Ṭabaqat Faḥl.

In the EB IB–II Pella was a main fortified settlement, with a city wall encircling both mounds. The fortification system was identified on the eastern slope and the south-eastern corner of the main mound (Area III and Trench XXXII), just beneath the MBA fortifications (Fig. 3). The city wall was made of a 2 m wide stone foundation and a mudbrick superstructure which also comprised rectangular towers/bastions (Bourke 2000, 233–234). EBA structures were also exposed in the north-eastern corner of Tell el-Ḥusn (Trench XXXIV; Bourke, Sparks, and Mairs 1999, 58–64). Large rubble platforms, 15 × 15 m in size and up to 5 m thick, lined the eastern edge of the tell, with 1 m wide passageways leading to narrow postern gates. In the south-eastern corner of the area, a small well-paved gateway was flanked by 2 m thick projecting towers (Bourke, Sparks, and Mairs 1999, Pls. 9.1, 10.1). A 3.6 m wide mudbrick wall ran west from the northern rubble platform, revealing that Tell el-Husn had the same heavily fortified system as the main mound (Bourke 2013, 3–4). Tell el-Ḥusn also produced a storage complex of plaster-lined bins (Bourke, Sparks, and Mairs 1999, Pl. 11.1–2). This complex structure is characterised by an extensive courtyard area containing storage and grinding facilities, thus showing that the mound was dedicated to storage and milling for the whole community (Bourke 2000, 234–235). The retrieval of a hoard containing copper weapons in a probe on the mound’s summit (Bourke, Sparks, and Mairs 1999, 61–62, Figs. 10–11, Pl. 12.2) has shown that the economy of the city included metal exchange and control and the existence of a military elite as at Batrawy. The EBA site of Pella could be interpreted as a “twin-centered” town (Bourke 2013, 4), with the administrative centre on Tell el-Husn. During the EB II the fortified city came to an end, probably due to a violent earthquake of regional significance. Few EB III remains indicate the presence of

168

Lorenzo Nigro

a small unfortified settlement during this period. Except for this short frequentation during the EB III, Pella remained abandoned for nearly a millennium. The massive fortifications, the complex organisation, the presence of large buildings, as well as the recorded specialised ceramic production, metal weapons and tools, and other artefacts attribute Pella to the early urban communities of the first half of the 3rd millennium BCE in Jordan.

T ELL ES -S A ‘ IDIYEH Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh5 is a double mound situated in the central Jordan Valley, 1.8 km east of the Jordan River and on the south bank of Wadi Khufrinjeh. The upper tell lies to the east at 40 m above the surrounding plain level, the lower tell is approximately 20 m below. In all, the site covers about 7 ha (Fig. 4). The earliest occupation occurred in the EB IB. Remains related to the EB II have been excavated in the lower tell, even if the settlement in all probability covered both mounds. Two occupational phases (Stratum L3 and L2) are associated to the EB II city (Tubb 1998, 42) which is characterised by the presence of a fortification wall and a major public complex. The earliest city wall (Fig. 4) was built in the EB IB, and during the EB II fortifications underwent a progressive enlargement which finally included an inner wall, an outer wall, and an internal passageway, reaching together a total thickness of 3.25 m (Tubb, Dorrell, and Cobbing 1997, 65–66; Tubb 1998, 41). A rectangular building with a courtyard (or entrance hall) accessible from a pebble-paved street was built on the lower tell at the beginning of EB II (Stratum L3). More rooms have been uncovered to the north of the main building and to the south of the street. In the following phase (Stratum L2), a huge building extended over the south-western corner of the lower tell, usually referred to as a “palace” (Tubb and Dorrell 1994, 59–66; Tubb, Dorrell, and Cobbing 1997, 55– 65; Tubb 1998, 43–48, Fig. 17). It was carefully built with mudbricks on stone foundations and was equipped with white plastered floors. The building’s purpose was clearly public and multi-functional. It comprised different rooms and halls and specialised areas devoted to industrial activities as well as to olive oil, wine, and textiles. This fortified city suddenly ended in a violent destruction (Tubb 1998, 42–43) after which followed an ephemeral phase of campsite occupation (Stratum L1) at the final stage of EB II and the reuse of the previous burnt ruins. After a short period the site was completely abandoned and remained unoccupied until the end of the LBA when it was used as a large cemetery.

5

Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh (MEGA Jordan Site no. 2655) was surveyed by N. Glueck (1951, 292– 293). In 1964–1967, the site was excavated by J.B. Pritchard (1985). In 1985 J.N. Tubb on the behalf of British Museum directed the last excavation project at the site (Tubb and Dorrell 1994; Tubb, Dorrell, and Cobbing 1997; Tubb 1998).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

169

Yet again, the excavations indicate the rise of a city with a major building – a seat of power where agricultural products and other wealth were gathered. The city occupied a central place in the Jordan Valley. This allowed a sudden rise when agricultural production and trade flourished, but also quite rapidly lead to an end due to the intrinsic fragility of these early polities.

Figure 4: Aerial view of Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh with the location of the EB II (3050–2700 BCE) palace in the Lower Tell (Image digitalizing: Lorenzo Nigro); remains of the EB II (3050– 2700 BCE) city-wall stone foundation (a) and mudbrick superstructure (b) (after Tubb, Dorrell, and Cobbing 1997, Figs. 18, 23).

170

Lorenzo Nigro

T ELL A BU AL -K HARAZ A different situation is illustrated by Tell Abu al-Kharaz6, 35 km south of the Sea of Galilee, on the top of a hillock controlling a large portion of the Jordan Valley (Fig. 5). A settlement was built on the tell’s summit towards the end of the 4th millennium BCE covering an area of at least 2 ha (Fischer 2000, 202). According to the excavator, this large village was characterised by the presence of domestic quarters with curvilinear structures cleared alongside roughly rectangular houses7. The latter became the predominant type of houses in the EB II which represents the period of the highest building activity in the EBA settlement at Tell Abu alKharaz.

Figure 5: Aerial view of Tell Abu al-Kharaz (Image digitalizing: Lorenzo Nigro), and the EB IB–IA (3200–2850 BCE) city-wall (after Fischer 2008, Fig. 232).

Stretches of a 5 m wide and 6–8 m high fortification wall consisting of fieldstone foundations and a sun-dried mudbrick superstructure (Fischer 2011, 27) were excavated on the site’s southern and northern sides (Fig. 5). It had first been erected in a late stage of the EB IB and then consolidated during the EB II8. This points to a similar development observed at sites like Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh and Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, with an incipient urbanisation during the last stage of EB I and the achievement of a genuine urban manifestation in EB II (Nigro 2010). Several finds may indicate the cultural status of “city” already during the incipient urban phase: among the objects of daily use there are cylinder seals of 6

Since 1989, Tell Abu al-Kharaz (MEGA Jordan Site no. 9583) has been excavated by P.M. Fischer of the Swedish Jordan Expedition (Fischer 2008). 7 Something seems unclear in the stratigraphic reconstruction of the site – excavated areas are small and typical features of different periods seem to intermingle. 8 Three major architectural phases have been reconstructed: phase I (A–B) dated to the EB IB, phase II (A–B) to the early stage of the EB II, and phase III (A–B) to the late stage of the EB II (Fischer 2011, 28–30).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

171

bone and hippo ivory, and jewellery of copper alloys (Fischer 2011, 34–36, Fig. 7). Two violent destructions occurred at the end of EB IB (ca. 3050 BCE) and the end of EB IIA respectively (ca. 2850 BCE), likely caused by major earthquakes (Fischer 2008, 31, 34, 71, 181, 383–5; 2011, 28; Gallo 2014, 146–52). After this, the site was partially reoccupied by squatters during the EB IIB (2850–2700 BCE). The squatters’ settlement too came to an abrupt end by a violent conflagration, yet again after another probable earthquake. The site thus remained in a state of abandonment until the end of the MBA (Fischer 2011, 29–30).

T ELL Z IRA ‘ A Tell Zira‘a9 is located in Northern Jordan about 4.5 km southwest of Gadara in the lower stretch of Wadi el-‘Arab next to a small tributary called Wadi az-Zahar and just upstream of the Wadi el-‘Arab dam. The “Gadara Region Project” has shown that a walled town of about 4 ha existed at the site during the EB II–III. The city wall was identified on the north-western slope of the tell (Area I) and shows several refurbishing and additions (Vieweger and Häser 2019, 24–45). It consists of a stone foundation with a mudbrick superstructure supported by a stone glacis on the tell slope (Fig. 6). Finds and massive stone walls suggest that the entire tell had been fortified as yet another major regional centre at a strategic node of the EB II-III communication network. K HIRBET EZ -Z ERAQUN Khirbet ez-Zeraqun10 is located ca. 13 km northeast of Irbid, on a flat hilltop rising above the western edge of Wadi esh-Shellal in the eastern Jordanian Plateau (Fig. 7). Khirbet ez-Zeraqun was occupied during the EB II–III11 and was one of the key sites within the regional economic system of EBA Jordan (Kamlah 2000, 113, 188–192). It was for the first time occupied in a precisely laid out plan at the

9

Tell Zira‘a (MEGA Jordan Site no. 10613) was surveyed in 1885 by G. Schumacher (1886) and then, in 1942 by N. Glueck (1951, 183–184, Fig. 71). The “Gadara Regional Project” began excavations at the site in 2003 under the direction of D. Vieweger who recorded a long-lived occupation at the site and an interesting EBA phase (Vieweger and Häser eds. 2019). 10 The Yarmouk University of Irbid and the Eberhard Karls-Universität of Tübingen excavated Khirbet ez-Zeraqun (MEGA Jordan Site no. 6731) between 1984 and 1994 (Ibrahim and Mittmann 1989; Kamlah 2000; Genz 2002; Douglas 2007). 11 Three main stratigraphic phases have been distinguished (Genz 2002, 7–14) as consisting of a “früher Horizont”, associated to the foundation of the fortified city, a “mittlerer Horizont” associated to the city’s floruit, and a “später Horizont” designating the settlement’s progressive decline.

172

Lorenzo Nigro

Figure 6: Topographic map of Tell Zira‘a and view of the western slope (Area I) with the EB II–III (3050–2350 BCE) city-wall (Image digitalizing: Lorenzo Nigro).

Figure 7: Aerial view of Khirbet ez-Zeraqun (Image digitalizing: Lorenzo Nigro).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

173

beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE. A fortification wall enclosed an area of ca. 8 ha, with an upper city to the north and a lower city to the south. The first one hosted a public district, while a domestic quarter was excavated in the lower city, where houses were separated by streets. Its layout may recall that of Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh and Tall al-Ḥammām. The fortification wall was built of limestone boulders (Douglas, Khrisat, and Al-Ajlouny 2009) supporting a mudbrick superstructure. It was 3.5–4.5 m thick, with an original height of 5–7 m (Douglas 2007, 4)12. The wall had been reinforced through the addition of a series of scarp-walls (“shells”) which increased the width of the structure up to 6–7.5 m (Ibrahim and Douglas 2004, 371). Rectangular bastions (30 × 8 m) set along the perimeter served as buttresses and to protect the side gates, while the southern gate in the lower city was protected by a horseshoe-shaped tower. Six 0.80 m wide posterns have been identified along the western side, five of which excavated in the upper city, one in the lower city. Two main gates were positioned in the upper and lower city. The upper city was occupied by a public area with a temple compound to the west and the palace district to the east. A main street running north-south separated the religious and the palatial areas. The temple complex was composed of three buildings, a circular altar and subsidiary structures enclosed by a temenos. The palace complex was a large multifunctional building with juxtaposed spaces devoted to representative, economic-industrial, as well as residential purposes. The fact that the functions of these buildings are easily determinable per se demonstrates that there was a model of public structures in the Southern Levant of the 3rd millennium BCE. Zeraqun’s temples and palace in fact resemble those of Megiddo (Ussishkin 2015), Batrawy and Sa‘idiyeh. During the EB III13, a large part of the settlement came into disuse (Genz 2002, 13, 101) in a slow and progressive abandonment (Genz 2002, 93–104). The sub-

12 On the eastern side of the site, facing the underlying wadi, no remains of the fortifications have been found (Ibrahim and Douglas 2004, 368). 13 Recent higher datings of the end of Zeraqun (Tumolo and Höflmeyer 2020, 259) are connected to the same pitfalls concerning the general re-assessment of the EBA chronology in the Southern Levant by means of radiocarbon, as pointed by the present author at other occasions (Megiddo, Jericho, Hazor; Nigro 201911, Tab. 3). Absolute chronology is a very difficult topic when relating to stratigraphy. The reliability of correlations between 14C dates and the stratigraphy of an archaeological site depends on two main factors. The site would need a well-excavated and published, long and continuous occupational sequence. The samples would need to be taken at different locations in order to obtain a representative perception of the site’s overall stratigraphy and periods. As in the case of Jericho (Nigro et al. 2019), only a full understanding of the stratigraphic sequence and the direct control of stratigraphy in relation to 14C samples (not the a priori attribution to periods/cultural horizons) can provide the anchor to fix cultural horizons into a reliable chronological grid.

174

Lorenzo Nigro

Figure 8: Aerial view of Khirbet al-Batrawy and the EB II–III (3050–2350 BCE) quadruple fortification lines on the northern slope, from east (Copyright: Rome “La Sapienza” Expedition to Jordan).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

175

sequent occupational stage during the EB IV (“Posturbane Schicht”) was characterised by an open seasonal settlement with flimsy structures built of spoils from the ruins of the previous fortified city (Ibrahim and Mittmann 1989, 645; Kamlah 2000, 192–193; Genz 2002, 10). Just like Batrawy, Khirbet ez-Zeraqun, which thrived during the urban period only (EB II–III), is a typical example of a city founded on a position overlooking a river, controlling an agricultural enclave, a ford, and a crossroad of caravan tracks at the western fringes of the Syro-Arabic Desert. Its location and finds show a high rate of sharing with Batrawy in terms of urban layout, monumental architecture, and material culture, especially pottery (Genz 2002).

K HIRBET AL -B ATRAWY Khirbet al-Batrawy14 is located on a hilltop dominating the middle course of Wadi az-Zarqa, in the northern periphery of Zarqa (Fig. 8). It stands on a strategic location overlooking the ford across the river with available land for cultivation as well as freshwater. The site was located at the western extremity of the track leading from the Mesopotamian east through the Syro-Arabic Desert to the Jordan Valley, but also on the north-south oriented inland, so-called copper route coming from Anatolia and Syria and heading toward the Aqaba Gulf and beyond to the Sinai and Egypt, but also to the Arabian Peninsula (Nigro 2014a). Due to a synecystic phenomenon at the beginning of EB II a fortified city evolved over an area of about 4.5 ha on the hill of Batrawy as it gave shelter to the population from the surrounding rural villages in the valley (as Mutawwaq and Jneneh; Nigro 2013a, 490–491; 2013b). The city came into being with the erection of a monumental wall of limestone boulders a mudbrick superstructure and the of the broad-room temple on its easternmost terrace (Nigro 2008, 270– 316). Sixteen seasons of systematic investigations brought to light a complex system with juxtaposed walls built progressively on terraces (Fig. 8) and bridging an overall width of 16 m (Nigro 2016, 13–69; Nigro 2012, 13–52). The top and earliest structure was the EB II main inner city wall (MIW), with the main gate, 3.5 m wide on the north-western edge, and a postern, 1.5 m wide, set 25 m to the east. After the collapse of this massive structure during a major seismic swarm in the 28th century BCE (Nigro 2008, 87, 245–268, Fig. 3.37; Gallo 2014, 150), the fortification system was re-planned and reconstructed in EB IIIA, including a raise of its stone basement, the insertion of wooden chains, and the rebuilding of the mudbrick superstructure. Two battering walls (outer wall W.155 and scarp wall W.165) and a huge rectangular tower (northern bastion T.830, 50 × 10 cubits [26.5 × 5.25 m]) were added to strengthen the system (Nigro 2012, 42–52). The two gates were blocked (Nigro 2008, 89-90, Figs. 3.38, 3.40) and another entrance 14

Khirbet al-Batrawy (MEGA Jordan Site no. 7411) has been excavated since 2005 by the Rome La Sapienza Expedition to Jordan (Nigro 2006; 2008; 2012).

176

Lorenzo Nigro

was opened to the east. A gate, 1.6 m wide, was identified in the outer wall in its easternmost stretch, where it joins with the MIW leaning on its outer face. Finally, in the EB IIIB, the fourth and last fortification line was added to the bottom of the system (with transversal wall W.177 and exterior wall W.827), which progressively turned up southwards to end against the abutting face of the outer wall (Nigro 2016, 138–139). Immediately to the south of the fortifications, the sloping flank of the khirbat was occupied by the a monumental building erected on three terraces labelled “Palace of the Copper Axes”, fully burnt in a dramatic destruction in EB IIIB. A monumental four-pillared entrance-hall divided two symmetrical wings, the eastern one subdivided into two pavilions (Nigro 2016, 139–149; 2020b, 50; Nigro et al. 2020). The palace’s destruction fills have brought remarkable finds to light. They witness wealth concentration (including almost two tons of barley) and a complex centralised socio-economic urban organisation. The monumental architecture, as well as the finds, including copper axes, luxury items and precious goods imported from Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia, testify to the prosperity of the local power and to the inclusion of Batrawy in the international exchange network of the 3rd millennium BCE. Following the destruction, the site was abandoned until the EB IVB (ca. 2200– 2000 BCE), when an unwalled village developed on top of the ruins of the former fortified city.

T ALL AL -H AMM Ā M Tall al-Ḥammām15 is sited 12.6 km northeast of the Dead Sea and 11.7 km east of the Jordan River. It is at the base of the foothills in the southern Jordan Valley, a strategic location at the intersection with the tracks connecting the Jordanian Highlands with the Jordan Valley. It is flanked by two perennial streams – Wadi Kufrayn to the north and Wadi Rawda to the south – which provided substantial sources of water (Collins, Kobs, and Luddeini 2015, 2–4). Tall al-Ḥammām has both an upper and a lower tell and an overall extension of 20 ha (Kobs 2019, 190, Fig. 2). During the Early Bronze Age the city extended in the lower tell over an area of 8 ha (Fig. 9). Tall al-Ḥammām hosted an open rural village from the Late Chalcolithic period through EB I with broad houses (Collins, Kobs, and Luddeini 2015, 26–40). By the end of EB I the site was fortified as it attained urban ranking. In the EB II, the city wall was 5–6 m thick and 10–16 m high and encompassed the entire lower tell16. The main gate, or the gate identified so far, was to the south below the gate dating to the EB III (Kobs 2019, 197, Fig. 4). 15

Tall al-Ḥammām (MEGA Jordan Site no. 2691) is being excavated since 2005 in a joint project between Trinity Southwest University, Veritas International University, and the DoA of Jordan under the direction of S. Collins (Collins, Kobs, and Luddeini 2015). 16 The wall consisted of a partial foundation of medium-to-large (40–60 cm), undressed

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

177

Figure 9: Aerial view of Tall al-Ḥammām (Image digitalizing: Lorenzo Nigro), and the EB–MB pillared gatehouse excavated in the south-eastern corner (Field LA) of the Lower Tell (after Collins 2019, Fig. 18).

The first city collapsed in a major seismic event at the end of EB II (Kobs 2019, 201). The defensive system was immediately rebuilt and replaced on a much sturdier foundation consisting of five-to-six courses of boulders through its full 5–6 m thickness (Kobs 2019, 198, Fig. 5). The EB III city wall following the layout of that of the EB II was characterised by the presence of multiple posterns, 1.4 m wide and located at 20–30 m intervals, which allowed an easy access to agricultural fields and prevented the city wall from domino collapse in case of an fieldstones in one-to-two rows and courses along the interior and exterior of the wall, between which were mudbricks.

178

Lorenzo Nigro

earthquake. The main gateway on the south side was 2.5 m wide and flanked by rectangular towers (5 × 5–6 m). A pillared gatehouse had once stood immediately inside the gateway (Collins 2019, Fig. 18). At least two additional EB III “farm gates” have been identified west of the main towered gate. A 6 m wide ring road inside the city wall serving the surrounding domestic quarter had been carefully planned while based on the construction of the fortifications (Kobs 2019, 204–247). The domestic quarter was characterised by the presence of mono- and multi-cellular structures with shared courtyards used for communal activities and food storage. There is no evidence of destruction at the end of EB III: fortification walls, domestic quarter and ring road were rebuilt and reused during the EB IV, thus testifying to the continuity of occupation at the site throughout the entire 3rd millennium BCE. Urban development and cultural features at Tell al-Ḥammām are similar to those at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, despite the lack of a final violent destruction in the former. The two facing cities, on the northern shores of the Dead Sea, controlled the verdant region of the southern Jordan Valley. With Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ, Numeira, and Arad, they composed the group of early cities gravitating around the Dead Sea and its precious resources: salt, bitumen, and to the south in the Wadi ‘Arabah, copper. The pillared gate of EB III Tell al-Ḥammām (Fig. 9) recalls both the main entrance to Palace B in Khirbet Yarmouk (Tel Yarmuth: de Miroschedji 2000, 690, 694) and the four-pillared hall of the Batrawy palace.

K HIRBET I SKANDER Khirbet Iskander17 lies in the south-central Jordanian Plateau, north of the Plain of Moab. It is located in a strategic position on the northern bank of a perennial stream called Wadi al-Wala which flows westwards, joining with Wadi Mujib before draining into the Dead Sea. The site owes its predominance to the presence of abundant water sources, expansive agricultural lands, and a proximity to a major crossing point of the main north-south route, the “King’s Highway” (Nigro 2014a), which crossed the Wadi Wala just in the vicinity of the site (Fig. 10). The mound covers an area of 2.7 ha, although it is possible that the ancient settlement extended over an area of at least 5 ha comprising the tell and a “lower” mound (Glueck 1939, 127, Fig. 48).

17

Khirbet Iskander (MEGA Jordan Site no. 2976) was surveyed by N. Glueck (1939, 127– 128), and first excavated by P.J. Parr (1960). Since 1981, the American Schools of the Oriental Research sponsored the excavations directed by S. Richard (Richard 2014; Richard and Long 2009; Richard et al. 2010; D’Andrea, Richard, and Long 2020).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

179

Figure 10: View of Khirbet Iskander, and the multi-phase EB III–IV (2700–2000/1950 BCE) fortifications in Area B (after Richard 2014, Fig. 3).

Khirbet Iskander is known as a signature site for the so-called post-urban EB IV period (Richard et al. 2010). However, it was an important urban centre during the EB III, as confirmed by the latest seasons of excavations18. A multi-phase

18

Materials dated to the EB I–II have been found too (Parr 1960, Fig. 1; Richard et al. 2018, 598).

180

Lorenzo Nigro

fortification system (Fig. 10) dated to the EB III19 (Richard 2014, 588–591, Figs. 3–5) was brought to light in the northwest corner of the site (Area B). The earlier inner city wall (Phase D) was a mudbrick structure on stone foundation, tentatively dated to the EB II/III, with a gateway in between two circular towers. In the following Phase C, after the destruction of the inner wall, the gateway was blocked and an outer, 2 m wide stone wall was built and used throughout the EB III with multiple rebuilds and reinforced with squared/rectangular bastions. A portion of the settlement built against the fortifications was excavated below a thick layer of destruction debris dated to the end of the EB IIIA. There a central room with pillar bases was revealed as well as an outer room with a well-preserved doorway and a threshold with steps, plus a courtyard and a work area (Richard 2014, 593, Fig. 7). These structures have been associated with a late stage (Phase C1) of the settlement, whereas less is known about its founding stage (Phase C2), which is contemporary to the Phase C fortifications’ construction. After the major EB III destruction, the western curtain wall of Phase C fell into disuse and the latest fortification wall was constructed. The so-called rubble wall built in a characteristic building technique is the largest city wall (3 m wide) and covered the fortifications of the previous phases (Richard 2014, 590–592, Fig. 6). This substantial construction was added to the defensive system and was used during the EB III/IV transition (Phase C/B) (D’Andrea, Richard, and Long 2020, 89, Fig. 1). During EB IV Iskander was a multi-phased, fortified settlement (Richard and Long 2009, 94–99) with public buildings and a fortification system characterised by the reconstruction of the rubble wall, an articulated “gateway” complex with benches for communal activities (Richard et al. 2010, 272–275, Figs. 1:2, 1:6–7), and a large necropolis all around the site (Richard et al. 2010, 159–266). This evidence reveals a high level of complexity in the rural EB IV of the Southern Levant. Khirbet Iskander was abandoned at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE (ca. 2000 BCE).

A L -L AHUN Al-Lahun20 is in the highlands of Central Jordan, on a flat hill dominating Wadi al-Wala and Wadi al-Mujib and around 27 km east of the Dead Sea. The site was already occupied during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. The EBA settlement arose as a rural village during the EB IB, including apsidal buildings (Swinnen 2008, 245; 2014, 52, Fig. 5). At the eve of the 3rd millennium BCE, the village became a 19

In Area B four phases have been identified: Phases A–B are EB IV; Phases C–D are EB III (Richard and D’Andrea 2016, 566). 20 From 1979 to 2000, the Belgium Committee of Excavations in Jordan carried out excavations at al-Lahun (MEGA Jordan Site no. 12335) under the direction of D. HomèsFredericq (1997).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

181

fortified town (Homès-Fredericq 1997, 340), with the erection of a 5.5 m wide city wall with stone foundations (two curtains and a rubble fill inside) and a mudbrick superstructure. The defensive line was about 800 m long and encompassed the settlement on an overall area of about 5 ha along the northern, western, and eastern sides, whilst the southern side was naturally protected by Wadi el-Mujib, (Swinnen 2014, Fig. 6). The main gate was in the north-western corner, and a main street ran along the site’s south-western slope. The houses were rectangular, 5–7 × 2 m, with walls made of irregular shaped stones and floors of rammed earth. Most of the dwellings are mono-cellular structures, and a few are divided into two or three rooms. In the centre of the town two natural depressions were transformed and consolidated as water reservoirs in the same way as at Arad and Batrawy (Nigro 2017b, 9–10, Fig. 11). Many houses were provided with additional cisterns excavated in the bedrock. Three large stone olive presses were found close to the houses, which may indicate that the olive industry was part of the local economy (Sabatini 2019). The end of this urban centre was apparently this time not caused by a violent catastrophe, but by abandonment towards the mid-3rd millennium whilst remaining deserted until the end of the 2nd millennium BCE.

Figure 11: Topographic map of Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ (after Rast and Schaub eds. 2003, Fig. 1.2) and reconstruction of the EB II–III town (after Gasperetti and Sheridan 2013, Fig. 2); view of the EB II (3050–2700 BCE) mudbrick city-wall and the EB III (2700–2350 BCE) stone city-wall with the blocked western gate (Photo: Lorenzo Nigro).

182

Lorenzo Nigro

B Â B EDH -D HR Â ᶜ AND THE EB III T OWN OF N UMEIRA In the south-eastern Dead Sea Plain of Jordan, the transition to fortified towns took place at the sites of Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ and Numeira21. Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ22 lies at 240 m below sea level on a series of limestone ridges, east of the Lisan Peninsula at the outlet of Wadi al-Karak. The site includes a walled town on the southern bank of the wadi, and a large cemetery 500 m southwest of the settlement (Fig. 11). The earliest occupation at Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ is dated to the EB IA (Stratum V), with seasonal campsites related to the first use of the large cemetery area (Ortner and Fröhlich 2008). The EB IA necropolis is characterised by the presence of shaft tombs counting one to five chambers cut into the rock. Burials usually consist of a central bone pile with skulls arranged in a line along the walls. Bones are disarticulated, although partial articulation has been observed in some instances (Lapp 1970, 109; Rast and Schaub eds. 1981, 7–9). At the beginning of the EB IB (Stratum IV), a broad, open village developed over the western area of the plain. EB IB tombs show some continuity with EB IA types, but also important innovations, as the construction of circular mudbrick tombs with evidence of primary and secondary mortuary practises. At the end of the 4th millennium BCE, the village was spread over a wide area, including the higher ridges overlooking Wadi al-Karak. A rectangular mudbrick tower (6 × 3 m) was built at the eastern end of the site (Rast and Schaub 2003, 170–171). The EB IB village ended violently (Rast and Schaub 2003, 129–130; Gallo 2014, 156– 157), but the settlement recovered immediately afterwards and developed fully into an urban centre during the EB II (Stratum III). Clear signs of an emerging urban culture appeared (Fig. 11): a 2.5 m wide mudbrick wall (Wall B) was built on the site’s most vulnerable eastern slope and enclosed an area of at least 4.5 ha (Rast and Schaub 2003, 166–17123). Two major public buildings were constructed to the southwest (Temple B in Area XII) and northeast (Building of Area XI) on the highest points of the site (Rast and Schaub 2003, 157–166, 187–217). During the EB III (Stratum II), fortifications were completely rebuilt and consolidated (Fig. 11): a 7 m wide stone wall was constructed on the site’s western, southern, and eastern sides (Rast and Schaub 2003, 264–286) with a gate at the western end (Rast and Schaub 2003, 273–280, Figs. 10:19, 10:23.). A severe erosion caused the disappearance of the city wall along the northern side overlooking Wadi alKarak. The western gate provided direct access to an open area dominated by the 21

The Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain explored the EBA settlement patterns in the Southern Ghôr from 1975 to 1997 (Rast and Schaub 1981; 2003; Schaub and Rast 1989; Chesson, Schaub, and Rast 2020). 22 Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ (MEGA Jordan Site no. 4481) was first excavated by P.W. Lapp in 1965– 1967. 23 A separate, at least 5 × 5 m large mudbrick structure in the east and possibly connected to Wall B has been interpreted as a gate tower (Lapp 1966, 560).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

183

sanctuary. The EB III temple (Temple A) was rebuilt using the stone foundations of the forerunner structure, though in a different orientation and a completely new organisation of the internal plan (Rast and Schaub 2003, 321–335). To the west of the main building, a semi-circular stone altar was set in the open courtyard paved with plastered mudbricks. The public building in the site’s north-eastern corner (Area XI) was reconstructed and reinforced with the addition of two square towers, 4 m wide and flanking a passageway (Rast and Schaub 2003, 253–263, Figs. 10.2, 10.4.). During the so-called “urban phases” mortuary practises in the necropolis underwent a decisive change: rectangular charnel houses were built. They were rectangular mudbrick structures with doorways in one of the long walls, flanked by large orthostates, stone thresholds led via a single step down into the chamber where the primary burials were deposited. The end of the fortified city occurred around 2350 BCE, and the area of the main gate was blocked before the violent conflagration (Rast and Schaub 2003, 263–4). After a short period of abandonment, an unwalled EB IV (Stratum I) village emerged on top of the ruins of the previous fortified city. The Satellite Town of Numeira In the area around Numeira24, occupation started during the EB IB at Ras enNumeira (Chesson, Schaub, and Rast 2020, 19–22, 318–335), located high above the later site. The following occupational phase is dated to the beginning of the EB III and was limited to at least two centuries, when a fortified settlement was established at Numeira. The site was located on a high, isolated hilltop of gravel next to the Dead Sea coastal modern highway, just south of the outlet of Wadi enNumeira and some 13 km to the south of Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ (Fig. 12). The settlement measured just over 1 ha and has been associated with two major occupation phases (Chesson, Schaub, and Rast 2020, 17–18). The first occurred at an early stage of the EB III (Phase 1A-B) pre-fortification and consisted of work areas with pits, plastered surfaces, and storage jars for water and grain set into the natural bed gravel (Chesson, Schaub, and Rast 2020, 48–61, 213–224, Figs. 3.1–3.22, 4.6– 4.14). The second and major phase (Phase 2A–C) is related to the occupation inside the walled city. During the earliest sub-phase (Phase 2A), a stone wall with 4 m wide mudbrick superstructure was erected all around the site, including two main gates at the eastern and western edges (Chesson, Schaub, and Rast 2020, 224–230, Fig. 4.15). In the following sub-phase (Phase 2B), the city wall was widened and reinforced with a huge tower at the eastern end of the tell (Chesson, Schaub, and Rast 2020, 230–237, Figs. 4.20–4.21), while a gate complex with two flanking towers was

24

MEGA Jordan Site no. 4445.

184

Lorenzo Nigro

Figure 12: Topographic map of Numeira and reconstruction of the walled city (after Chesson, Schaub, and Rast eds. 2020, Figs. 1.11, 2.12).

built at the western end (Chesson, Schaub, and Rast 2020, 237–260, Figs. 4.31, 4.33–4.35, 4.49–4.50). Within its wall, the town consisted of scores of houses, with covered rooms built around open courtyards, suggesting a family-based organisation. The domestic units were arranged around a main street running eastwest (Chesson, Schaub, and Rast 2020, 61–185, Figs. 3.23–3.25).

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

185

According to the excavators, Numeira was established as a satellite settlement by the inhabitants of Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ to expand their agricultural holdings and better secure the region (Rast and Schaub 2003, 251). A violent earthquake probably – together with the scarce agricultural sustainability – caused the complete destruction and abandonment of Numeira, as the Dead Sea Plain is a particularly seismic segment of the Dead Sea Fault25 (Rast and Schaub 1981, 36–7, 41; Gallo 2014, 152–153, Figs. 8–9). After the destruction of Numeira the inhabitants, who continued to use the necropolis of Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ, probably returned to the major centre before its destruction at the end of the urban period. The Urban Parable in the Non-Urban Region About fifty years of field archaeology – during which Zeidan Kafafi was a prominent figure in the region – have revealed more than ten sites showing urban features in the different landscapes of Jordan. In the Black Desert, in the Jordan and Zarqa Valleys, and far into the southern desert and the ‘Arabah, human communities experimented with the urban challenge, adapting and re-inventing a city model capable of rising and sometimes surviving the region’s different environmental conditions. Thus, the question we were led to ask at the beginning of this paper: “Did the city exist in EBA Jordan?” has to be transformed into: “Which were the typical features of the urban experience as it developed in EBA Jordan?” The origins and demise of this variegated and fragile “urban diversity” allow for some preliminary suggestions. Further studies and more excavations are nonetheless needed to unveil this picture.

I NCIPIENT U RBANISM The Jordanian diverse urbanism was not an import but a local adaptive phenomenon, as suggested by archaeological traces of its incipient phase which coincides with the cultural period called Early Bronze IB and often precedes the genuine urban phase. This is well attested to at Jebel al-Mutawwaq, Jawa, and Khirbet alUmbashi, which precociously reached the rank of fortified settlements with public buildings and water reservoirs, but also at Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Pella, Tell esSa‘idiyeh, Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘, where rural villages gradually developed into fortified cities. It is perhaps not a case that this culture was named “walled-town culture” by an antesignanus of the scholars of ancient Jordanian Bronze Age civilisation, R. Thomas Schaub (1982). EB IB sites are characterised by the appearance of rectangular houses, terraceand fence walls – i.e. public constructions descending from a planned layout of the inhabited spaces –, and by the increasing presence of agricultural devices for food production and a rare but meaningful attestation of imports (from other sites, from nearby regions, from Egypt and Mesopotamia). The socio-economic condi-

25

Donahue 1984, 87; contra Chesson, Schaub, and Rast eds. 2020, 35–36.

186

Lorenzo Nigro

tions for the rise of the urban model catalysed towards the end of the 4th millennium BCE, due to a series of interacting factors (demographic growth, climate, increasing intensive agriculture, exchanges, cultural developments and interactions).

R ISING U RBANISM At the turn of the millennium – perhaps not by chance at the time of the first establishment of a unified kingdom in the not-too-far-off Egypt and the upspring of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia – Jordan like Palestine witnessed the establishment of a network of urban centres exercising territorial control, intensive agricultural production, centralised trade and – within a few decades – also organised warfare. This stage was accompanied by a significant advance in technology as observed though the standardisation of pottery, the diffusion of copper weapons and tools, and significant progress in building techniques. Socio-economic growth prompted the rise of a ruling élite capable of gathering wealth and transforming these centres into fortified cities that hosted temples, markets, water reservoirs, workshops, and centralised productive devices. The city defences, a major wall consisting of a robust stone foundation with a mudbrick superstructure (2–5 m wide and 5–8 m high) and an outer ditch, typically consolidated through the addition of further walls with time, came to be the most impressive components of this new settlement types. City walls had a threefold purpose: to mark and protect the urban space; to let the fortified city dominate the surrounding landscape and mark the territorial control of the new socio-economic model; to engage large groups in building and maintenance works, including the semi-nomadic, non-urban components of society to participate in the city’s economy. Which were the main features of this diverse urbanist spread over Jordan during the EB II? • Reduced dimensions: towns or cities are no larger than 10 ha (Table 1), although these centres exceed the sizes of the other settlements in a ray of about 20 km. • City walls: massive building works entailing high labour and materials costs. • Inner spatial and functional differentiation of spaces and buildings, including public structures (temples). • Accumulation of wealth (agricultural products, meat, wool, metals, salt, and precious commodities) in quantities exceeding the needs of the community (surplus). • Adoption of tallying systems (e.g. clay tokens, pierced sea-shells, calculi, seals). • Precious metals/stuffs exchange (as evidenced by the attestation of balance weights of 1 to 36 grams / corresponding to a measure 1 to 5). • Social differentiation reflected by the spatial organisation at the settlement and in the necropolis.

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

187

Period Site

Exten- Fortision fication

Temple

Palace/ public building

Dwelling NecroQuarter polis

Egypt Metals imports

EB IA Jawa

7 ha

X

-

-

X

-

-

-

Jebel al-Mutawwaq 8 ha EB IA–B

X

X

X

X

X

-

X

EB I

?

-

-

X

-

-

-

EB Pella IB–II

10 ha X

-

X

-

-

-

X

EB Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh IB–II

7 ha

X

-

X

-

-

-

X

EB Tell Abu IB–II al-Kharaz

2 ha

X

-

-

X

-

X

X

EB Tell Zira‘a II–IV

4 ha

X

-

-

-

-

-

X

EB Khirbet ez-Zeraqun 8 ha II–III

X

X

X

X

-

-

-

EB Khirbet al-Batrawy 4.5 ha X II–IV

X

X

X

-

X

X

EB I–IV

Jneneh

3 ha

Tall al-Ḥammām

8 ha

X

-

X

X

-

-

-

Khirbet Iskander EB III–IV

ca. 5 ha

X

-

-

X

-

-

-

EB I–III

Al-Lahun

5 ha

X

-

-

X

X

-

-

EB I–IV

Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘

4.5 ha X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1 ha

-

-

X

-

X

-

EB III Numeira

X

Table 1: Summary table of the EBA sites mentioned, with the most representative features of the incipient and mature urban phases (EB I–III, ca. 3500–2350 BCE).

• • •

Labour organisation (e.g. for building and maintenance of the city walls, the water systems, sources canals). Craftsmanship and art (seen in wooden furniture, statuary, glyptic). Material culture specialisation and standardisation (mainly detectable in pottery and architecture).

M ATURE U RBANISM The first urban phenomenon reached its apogee in Jordan during the EB III. Urban centres grew and hosted public buildings, temples, and palaces, where economic and social functions were gathered and organised. International relationships became stable, while trade and exchange of people, ideas, and goods spread across the Levant. A series of cities prospered in the Jordan Valley and some also developed in the Transjordan Highlands between them and the desert. The case of Batrawy has revealed a centralisation not only of agricultural products, but also of

188

Lorenzo Nigro

precious goods, which may hint at a codification and self-representation of power (Nigro 2014b). Similar levels of wealth and social complexity emerge at the palace of Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh, the sacred area of Khirbet ez-Zeraqun, or at the necropolis and town of Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ.

S YSTEMIC COLLAPSE The reduced dimensions of the “diverse urban phenomenon” and its economic foundations based on agriculture as well as sheep and goat livestock breeding increased the susceptibility to climate fluctuations and unpredictable hazards, such as earthquakes, epidemics, or war. A combination of such adverse factors, including influxes of new nomadic groups may triggered a systemic collapse (Nigro 2017a, Tab. 8.1), which in most cases – marking a difference with Palestine and Syria – ended with the definitive abandonment or destruction of the early cities of Jordan, as they were unable to recover. Such was the fate of the cities in the marginal areas, like Zeraqun, Batrawy, Bâb edh-Dhrâᶜ that remained deserted and lost in oblivion until modern times.

Bibliography Betts, Alison V.G. ed. 1991. Excavations at Jawa 1972–1986. Stratigraphy, Pottery and Other Finds. Excavations and Explorations in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI: 10.1017/S00263 18400028121 Bourke, Stephen J. 2000. Pella in the Early Bronze Age. In Graham Philip and Douglas Baird (eds.), Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant, 233–254. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. DOI: 10.1017/S000 3598X00090177 — 2013. Pre-Classical Pella in Jordan: A Conspectus of Recent Works. ACOR Newsletter 25.1, 1–12. — 2020. Pella. In Pearce Paul Creasman, John D. M. Green, and China Shelton (eds.), Archaeology in Jordan 2: 2018 and 2019 Seasons, 35–7. Amman: American Centre of Oriental Research. Bourke, Stephen J., Rachel T. Sparks, and Lachian D. Mairs. 1999. Bronze Age occupation at Tell Husn (Pella): Report on the University of Sydney’s 1994/95 field seasons. Mediterranean Archaeology 12, 51–66. Braemer, Frank, and Jean-Claude Échallier. 2004. Les ensembles construits du Bronze Ancien I et II. In Frank Braemer, Jean-Claude Échallier, and Ahmad Taraqji (eds.), Khirbet al Umbashi. Villages et campements de pasteurs dans le “désert noir” (Syrie) à l’âge du Bronze. Travaux de la mission conjointe franco-syrienne 1991–1996. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 171, 39–86. Beyrouth: Inc. Printers. DOI: 10.2307/20723382. Chesson, Meredith S, R. Thomas Schaub, and Walter E. Rast eds. 2020. Numayra: Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Townsite in Jordan, 1977–1983. Reports

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

189

of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan 4. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns. Collins, Steven. 2019. The Tall al-Ḥammām city-state in the Early Bronze Age: population and demography, economy and social organization, trade and connectivity. In Elisabetta Gallo (ed.), Conceptualizing Urban Experiences: Tell es-Sultan and Tall al-Ḥammām Early Bronze cities across the Jordan. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 13, 155–188. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. Collins, Steven, Carroll M. Kobs, and Michael C. Luddeni. 2015. The Tall alHammam Excavations 1. An Introduction to Tall al-Hammam with Seven Seasons (2005–2011) of Ceramics and Eight Seasons (2005–2012) of Artifacts. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. DOI: 10.5325/j.ctv1bxh21r D’Andrea, Marta, Suzanne Richard, and Jesse C: Long Jr. 2020. Khirbat Iskandar. In Pearce Paul Creasman, John D. M. Green, and China Shelton (eds.), Archaeology in Jordan 2: 2018 and 2019 Seasons, 89–91. Amman: American Centre of Oriental Research. de Miroschedji, Pierre. 2000. Fouilles de Tel Yarmouth : résultats des 11ème, 12ème et 13ème campagnes de fouilles (1996–1999). Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 679–710. DOI: 10.3406/crai. 2000.16153 Donahue, Jack. 1984. Geological Reconstruction of Numeira. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 255, 83–88. Douglas, Khaled. 2007. Deutsch-jordanische Ausgrabungen in Hirbet ez-Zeraqon 1984-1994. Die Befestigung der Unterstadt von Hirbet ez Zeraqon im Rahmen der frühbronzezeitlichen Fortifikationen in Palästina. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 27.3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. — 2012. Jneneh. American Journal of Archaeology 116.4, 706–708. Douglas, Khaled, Bilal Khrisat, and Fardous Al-Ajlouny. 2009. Quarry Technique in the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant, Ḥirbet ez-Zeraqōn: A Case Study. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 125.2, 101–115. Fernández-Tresguerres Velasco, Juan A. 2008. The “Temple of the Serpents,” a Sanctuary of the Early Bronze Age I in the Village of Jabal al-Muṭawwaq (Jordan). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 52, 23–34. Fischer, Peter M. 2000. The Early Bronze Age at Tell Abu el-Kharaz, Jordan Valley: a study of pottery typology and provenance, radiocarbon dates, and synchronization of Palestine and Egypt during Dynasties 0–2. In Graham Philip and Douglas Baird (eds.), Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant, 201–232. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. DOI: 10. 1017/S0003598X00090177.

190

Lorenzo Nigro

— 2008. Tell Abu Kharaz in the Jordan Valley, Volume I: The Early Bronze Age. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie XLVIII. Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. — 2011. The Early Bronze Age Societies of Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Central Jordan Valley. In Meredith S. Chesson (ed.), Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant. Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub, 23–40. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. DOI: 10.5325/j.ctv1bxh34s.5. Frangipane, Marcella. 2018. The many dimension of the ‘city’ in early societies. In Marcella Frangipane and Linda R. Manzanilla (eds.), Rethinking urbanization and its living landscapes from the inspiring perspective of a great “maestro”. In memory of Robert McC. Adams. Origini XLII.2, 13–23. Roma: Gangemi Editore Funk, Robert, and H. Neil Richardson. 1958. The 1958 Sounding at Pella. The Biblical Archaeologist 21.4, 81–96. DOI: 10.2307/3209176. Gallo, Elisabetta. 2014. Destructions in Early Bronze Age Southern Levant. In Lorenzo Nigro (ed.), Overcoming Catastrophes. Essays on disastrous agents characterization and resilience strategies in pre-classical Southern Levant. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan, 11, 141–169. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. Gasperetti, Matthew A., and Susan G. Sheridan. 2013. Cry Havoc: Interpersonal Violence at Early Bronze Age Bab edh-Dhra’. American Anthropologist 115.3, 388–410. DOI: 10.1111/aman.12024. Genz, Hermann. 2002. Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik von Hirbet ez-Zeraqon: Mit Studien zur Chronologie und funktionalen Deutung frühbronzezeitlicher Keramik in der südlichen Levante. Abhandlungen des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 27.1, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Glueck, Nelson. 1939. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, III. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 18–19. New Haven, CT: ASOR. — 1951. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, IV. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 25–28. New Haven, CT: ASOR. Hanbury-Tenison, Jack W. 1989. Jebel al-Mutawwaq. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 33, 137–44. Helms, Svend W. 1981. Jawa: Lost City of the Black Desert. London: Methuen. — 1982. Paleo-Beduin and Transmigrant Urbanism. In Adnan Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I, 97–112. Amman: Amman Department of Antiquities. DOI: 10.1017/S000358150008063X. Homes-Fredericq, Denys. 1997. Lehun. In Eric M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 2, 340–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.2307/3210561.

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

191

Ibáñez, Juan José, Eneko Iriarte, Juan Ramón Muñiz Álvarez, and Martin Monik. 2016. Kharaysin: A PPNA and PPNB Site by the Zarqa River. 2014 and 2015 Field Seasons. Neo-Lithics 15.2, 10–19. Ibrahim, Mohawiyah, and Siegfried Mittmann. 1989. Zeiraqun (Khirbet el). In Denys Homes-Fredericq, and John Basil Hennessy (eds.), Archaeology of Jordan II. Field Reports. Sites L–Z. Akkadica Supplement VIII, 641–646. Louvain: Peeters. Ibrahim, Mohawiyah, and Khaled Douglas. 2004. The Early Bronze Age Town of Khirbet ez-Zeraqon: Excavations, preservation and site management. In Talal S. Akasheh (ed.), First International Conference on Science and Technology in Archaeology and Conservation, 367–381. Granada: Fundaciâon El Legado Andalusâi. Kafafi, Zeidan. 2011. Neither Early Bronze Age Cities nor States in the South of the Levant: Another Perspective. Syria 88, 47–57. DOI: 10.4000/syria.894 — 2014. Early Bronze Age I–III. Archaeological Evidence from the Jordan Valley: Proof of the Levantine-Egyptian Trade Route. In Felix Höflmayer and Rricardo Eichmann (eds.), Egypt and the Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age (Orient Archäologie 31), 149–163. Rahden: Westf. Kamlah, Jens. 2000. Der Zeraqon-Survey 1989–1994: Mit Beiträgen zur Methodik und geschichtlichen Auswertung archäologischer Oberflächenuntersuchungen in Palästina. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 27.2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kobs, Carroll M. 2019. Tall al-Ḥammām in the Early Bronze Age: the beginning of urbanization. In Elisabetta Gallo (ed.), Conceptualizing Urban Experiences: Tell es-Sultan and Tall al-Ḥammām Early Bronze cities across the Jordan. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 13, 189–215. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. Lapp, Paul W. 1966. Bab edh-Dhra‘. Revue Biblique 73, 556–561. — 1970. Palestine in the Early Bronze Age. In James A. Sanders (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honour of Nelson Glueck, 101–31. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. McNicoll, Anthony W., Philip C. Edwards, Jack W. Hanbury-Tenson et al. 1992. Pella in Jordan 2. The Second Interim Report of the Joint University of Sydney and College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982–1985. Sydney: Mediterranean Archaeology. Müller-Neuhof, Bernd. 2017. The Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Hillfort Phenomenon in the Northern Badia. Near Eastern Archaeology 80.2, 124–131. DOI: 10.5615/neareastarch.80.2.0124

192

Lorenzo Nigro

Nigro, Lorenzo. 2006. Khirbet al-Batrawy. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Town in North-Central Jordan. Preliminary Report of the First Season of Excavations (2005). Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 3. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. — 2008. Khirbet al-Batrawy II. The EB II city-gate, the EB II–III fortifications, the EB II–III temple. Preliminary Report of the Second (2006) and Third (2007) Seasons of Excavations. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 6. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. — 2010. Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze Age II (3000–2700 BC): the rise of an early Palestinian city. A synthesis of the results of four archaeological expeditions. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 5. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. — 2012. Khirbet al-Batrawy III. The EB II–III triple fortification line and the EB IIIB quarter inside the city-wall. Preliminary report of the fourth (2008) and fifth (2009) seasons of excavations. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 8. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. — 2013a. Urban Origins in the Upper Wadi az-Zarqa, Jordan. The City of Khirbat al-Batrawi in the Third Millennium BC. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan XI, 489–506. Amman. — 2013b. Khirbet al-Batrawy: An Early Bronze Age City at the fringes of the desert. Syria 90, 189–209. DOI: 10.4000/syria.1790 — 2014a. The Copper Route and the Egyptian Connection in 3rd millennium BC Jordan seen from the caravan city of Khirbet al-Batrawy. Vicino Oriente XVIII, 39–64. — 2014b. The King’s Cup and the Bear Skin. Royal Ostentation in the Early Bronze III “Palace of the Copper Axes” at Khirbet al-Batrawy. In Zeidan Kafafi, and Mohammed Maraqten (eds.), A Pioneer of Arabia. Studies in the Archaeology and Epigraphyof the Levant and the Arabian Peninsulain Honor of Moawiyah Ibrahim. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine and Transjordan 10, 261–270. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. — 2016. Khirbat al-Batrawi 2010–2013: The City Defenses and the Palace of Copper Axes. Studies on the History and Archaeology of Jordan XII: Transparent Borders, 135–154. — 2017a. The end of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant. Urbn Crisis and Collapse seen from two 3rd Millennium BC-Cities: Tell es-Sultan/Jericho and Khirbet al-Batrawy. In Tim Cunninghm, and Jan Driessen (eds.), Crisis to Collapse. The Archaeology of Social Breakdown (AEGIS 11), 149–172. Louvain: Presses Universitares de Louvain.

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

193

— 2017b. Water and Power. Early cities in Jordan and water control in the 3rd millennium BC: the case of Batrawy. In Lorenzo Nigro, Michele Nucciotti, and Elisabetta Gallo (eds.), Precious Waters. Paths of Jordanian Civilizations as seen in the Italian Archaeological Excavations. Rome La Sapienza Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 12, 1–14. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. — 2019. Archaeological periodization vs absolute chronology: what does not work with high and low Early Bronze Age in Southern Levant. In Elisabetta Gallo (ed.), Conceptualizing Urban Experiences: Tell es-Sultan and Tall alHammām Early Bronze cities across the Jordan. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 13, 1–46. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. — 2020a. The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015): Archaeology and Valorisation of Material and Immaterial Heritage. In Rachel T. Sparks, Bill Finlayson, Bart Wagemakers, and Josef M. Briffa (eds.), Digging Up Jericho. Past, present and future, 175–214. Oxford: Archaeopress. — 2020b. Khirbet al-Batrawy. In Pearce Paul Creasman, John D. M. Green, and China Shelton (eds.), Archaeology in Jordan 2: 2018 and 2019 Seasons, 49– 51. Amman: American Centre of Oriental Research. Nigro, Lorenzo, Lucio Calcagnile, Jehad Yasin, Elisabetta Gallo, Gianluca Quarta. 2019. Jericho and the Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age: A Radiometric Re-Assessment. Radiocarbon 61/1, 211–241. DOI: 10. 1017/RDC.2018.76 Nigro, Lorenzo, Elisabetta Gallo, Roumel Gharib, Francesco Mura, Michele Macrì, and Teresa Rinaldi. 2020. An Egyptian green schist palette and an amazonite gemstone from the “Palace of the Copper Axes” at Batrawy, Jordan. Vicino Oriente XXIV, 1–26. Ortner, Donald J., and Bruno Fröhlich. 2008. The Early Bronze Age I Tombs and Burials of Bab edh-Dhra`, Jordan. Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan, Vol. 3. New York: AltaMira Press. Palumbo, Gaetano, Massimiliano Munzi, Sarah Collins, Fouad Hourani, Alessandra Peruzzetto, and Martin D. Wilson. 1996. The Wadi az-Zarqa‘ / Wadi adDulayl Excavations and Survey Project: Report on the October-November Fieldwork Seaso. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 40, 375– 426. Parr, Peter J. 1960. Excavations at Khirbet Iskander. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 4–5, 128–133. Philip, Graham, and Jennie Bradbury. 2010. Pre-Classical activity in the Basalt Landscape of the Homs Region, Syria: Implications for the development of ‘sub-optimal’ zones in the Levant during the Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age. Levant 42, 136–169. DOI: 10.1179/175638010X12797237885659

194

Lorenzo Nigro

Polcaro, Andrea. 2019. On Pots and Serpents: An Iconographic and Contextual Analysis of the Cultic Vessels with Serpent Figurines in the 4th–3rd Millennium BC Transjordan. In Marta D’Andrea, Maria Gabriella Micale, Davide Nadali, Sara Pizzimenti, and Agnese Vacca (eds.), Pearls of the Past Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock. marru 8, 775– 793. Münster: Zaphon Polcaro, Andrea, and Juan Ramón Muñiz. 2017. Jebel al Mutawwaq, the Mountain Surrounded by Water. The Importance of Water Resources During the 4th Millennium BC in the Transjordanian Highlands. In Lorenzo Nigro, Michele Nucciotti, and Elisabetta Gallo (eds.), Precious Water. Paths of Jordanian civilizations as seen in the Italian archaeological excavations. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 12, 15–27. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. — 2018. Dolmen 534: A Megalithic Tomb of the Early Bronze Age II in Jebel al-Mutawwaq, Jordan: Preliminary results of the 2014 Spanish-Italian expedition in Area C South. In Barbara Horejs, Christoph Schwall, Vera Müller, Marta Luciani, Markus Ritter, Mattia Giudetti, Roderick B. Salisbury, Felix Höflmayer, and Teresa Bürge (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Vienna 2016), 589– 600. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. — 2020. Jebel al-Mutawwaq. In Pearce Paul Creasman, John D. M. Green, and China Shelton (eds.), Archaeology in Jordan 2: 2018 and 2019 Seasons, 46– 8. Amman: American Centre of Oriental Research. Polcaro, Andrea, Juan Ramón Muñiz, and Valentin Álvarez. 2016. The New Spanish-Italian Expedition to the EB I site of Jebel al-Mutawwaq, Middle Wadi az- Zarqa, Jordan: Preliminary Results of the 2012-2013 Campaigns. In Rolf A. Stucky, Oskar Kaelin, and Hans-Peter Mathys (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Basel), 1633–1645. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Pritchard, James B. 1985. Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh: Excavations on the Tell, 1964–1966 (University Museum, Monograph 60). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Rast, Walter E., and R. Thomas Schaub eds. 1981. The Southeastern Dead Sea Plain Expedition: An Interim Report of the 1977 Season (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 46). Cambridge MA: ASOR. DOI: 10. 2307/3768562 — 2003. Bab edh-Dhra‘: Excavations at the Town Site (1975-1981). Part 1, Text; Part 2, Plates and Appendixes. Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan, Vol. 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. DOI: 10.5325/j.ctv1bx h3z6 Richard, Suzanne. 2014. Recent Excavations at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan. The EB III/IV Fortifications. In Rolf A. Stucky, Oskar Kaelin, and Hans-Peter Mathys

Paths towards Urbanism in Early Bronze Age Jordan

195

(eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Basel 2014), 585–597. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Richard, Suzanne, and Marta D’Andrea. 2016. A Syrian Goblet at Khirtbat Iskandar, Jordan: A Study of Interconnectivity in the EB III/IV Period. Studies on the History and Archaeology of Jordan XII: Transparent Borders, 561– 585. Richard, Suzanne, and Jesse C. Long, Jr. 2009. Khirbet Iskander, Jordan and Early Bronze IV Studies: A View from a Tell. In Peter J. Parr (ed.), The Levant in Transition. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 9, 90–100. London: Maney. Richard, Suzanne, Jesse C. Long, Jr., Marta D’Andrea, and Rikke Wulff-Krabbenhöft. 2018. Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and Its Environs: The 2016 Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 59, 597–606. Richard, Suzanne, Jesse C. Long Jr., Paul S. Holdorf, and Glen Peterman eds. 2010. Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and Its Environs. Vol. 1: Khirbat Iskandr Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries. American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Reports 14. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research Rowan, Yorke M., and Jonathan Golden. 2009. The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant: A Syntetic Review. Journal of World Prehistory 22, 1–92. DOI: 10.1007/s10963-009-9016-4 Sabatini, Sharon. 2019. Olive oil in Southern Levant: rise and collapse of an economy in the Early Bronze Age. In Elisabetta Gallo (ed.), Conceptualizing Urban Experiences: Tell es-Sultan and Tall al-Ḥammām Early Bronze cities across the Jordan. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 13, 247–264. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. Sala, Maura. 2006. Across the desert and the steppe. Ancient tracks from the eastern edges of the az-Zarqa and al-Mafraq districts to the western fringes of the Black Desert of Jordan. In Lorenzo Nigro (ed.), Khirbet al-Batrawy. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Town in North-Central Jordan. Preliminary Report of the First Season of Excavations (2005). Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 3, 233–250. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. — 2008. Along the river: 2007 survey of the Upper and Middle Wadi az-Zarqa. In Lorenzo Nigro (ed.), Khirbet al-Batrawy II. The EB II city-gate, the EB IIIII fortifications, the EB II–III temple. Preliminary Report of the Second (2006) and Third (2007) Seasons of Excavations. Rome «La Sapienza» Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan 6, 359–397. Rome: «La Sapienza» Expedition to Palestine & Jordan. Schaub, R. Thomas. 1982. The Origin of the Early Bronze Age Walled Town Culture in Jordan. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan I, 67–75.

196

Lorenzo Nigro

Schaub, R. Thomas, and Walter E. Rast eds. 1989. Bab edh-Dhra‘: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed By Paul W. Lapp (1965–1967). Winona Lake. IN: Eisenbrauns. Schumacher, Gottlieb. 1886. Across the Jordan. London: Bentley. Smith, Robert H. 1973. Pella of the Decapolis, Vol. 1: The 1967 Season of the College of Wooster Expedition to Pella. Wooster, Ohio: The College of Wooster. Swinnen, Ingrid M. 2008. The Early Bronze I pottery from al-Lahun in Central Jordan: Seal impressions and potter’s marks. In Joaquín Mª Córdoba, Miquel Molist, Mª Carmen Pérez, Isabel Rubio, and Sergio Martínez (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Madrid 2006) Vol. III, 245–256. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma De Madrid. — 2014. Curvilinear Domestic Structures in the Prehistoric Eastern Mediterranean Region and Evidence from the Early Bronze I Period at al-Lahun in Jordan. Akkadica Supplementum III, 43–70. Tubb, Jonathan N. 1998. Canaanites (Peoples of the Past). London: British Museum Press. Tubb, Jonathan N, and Peter G. Dorrell. 1994. Tell es-Sa‛idiyeh 1993: Interim Report on the Seventh Season of Excavations. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 126, 52–67. DOI: 10.1179/peq.1994.126.1.52. Tubb, Jonathan N. Peter G. Dorrell, and Felicity J. Cobbing. 1997. Interim Report on the Ninth (1996) Season of Excavations at Tell es-Sa‛idiyeh, Jordan. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 129, 54–77. DOI: 10.1179/peq.1997.129.1.54 Tumolo, Valentina, and Felix Höflmayer. 2020. Khirbet ez-Zeraqon and Early Bronze Age Chronology Revisited. In Suzanne Richard (ed.), New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant, 249– 64. University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns. Ussishkin, David. 2015.The Sacred Area of Early Bronze Megiddo: History and Interpretation. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 373, 69– 104. DOI: 10.5615/bullamerschoorie.373.0069. Vieweger, Dieter, and Jutta Häser eds. 2019 Tall Zirā‘a. The Gadara Region Project (2003–2011). Volume 2. Early and Middle Bronze Age (Strata 25–17). Norderstedt: Gadara Regional Project.

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts Two Unique Tell el-Yehudiyeh Vessels from Tell el-Burak (Lebanon) Jens Kamlah

Introduction Birds have always been part of human life. We hunted or bred them and consumed them as food or dedicated them as sacrificial offerings. They delighted us with their varied singing and they accompanied us through the annual recurring of the seasons. We admired them or ruthlessly persecuted them, fearing that they could harm our agricultural yields. It is therefore not surprising that many ancient images depict birds. However, the question often arises whether the depicted birds have certain meanings and whether they can be identified with certain species. For example, many of the represented fowl on Late Bronze Age (LBA) painted pottery in the Levant can hardly be identified with any specific species (Choi 2016, 74). Moreover, it seems that some of these images had not been even intend to depict any particular bird species. On the other hand, numerous bird images in Egyptian reliefs and wall paintings for example allow their identification through ornithological techniques (Wyatt 2012), and it is possible to learn about their meaning by taking the iconographic context into account. Very little is known about birds and their possible symbolic meanings in the ancient Levant. Various sources can be used to find out more about ancient birds and how they were perceived by man. Zooarchaeological, ornithological, literary and iconographical analysis offer valuable insights into the nature of former relationships between man and fowl (Altmann 2019, 1–5; Greet 2021). However, birds are often underrepresented in zooarchaeological studies. Only recently have the latter increasingly been concentrating on birds and their importance for the Bronze and Iron Age societies in the Levant (cf. Grigson, Edwards, and CerónCararasco 2017; Spiciarich 2020). A comprehensive study of birds in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant that takes into account all sources yet needs to be carried out. Such a study should not only treat birds in terms of their benefits for humans, but rather try to understand the complex relationship between humans and birds from a perspective of coexistence (cf. Goldhahn 2020).

198

Jens Kamlah

Figure 1: Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels from Tell el-Burak (Badreshany 2019, Fig. 10.12). 1) TB02 (31/25) 65. 2) TB05 (30/22) 136.

Two partially preserved Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels1 from the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) with distinctive bird depictions have been excavated at Tell el-Burak, 9 km south of Sidon on the Lebanese coast (Fig. 1). Kamal Badreshany published

1

Tell el-Yehudiyeh pottery is a distinctive (but not homogeneous) group of Middle Bronze Age vessels (mainly juglets) characterised by reddish brown to black surfaces with incised and punctured decoration (see Bietak and Aston 2019, 137–140, and see the paragraph on Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels below with further references). It probably first had been produced in the Central Levant before developing into various regional groups in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts

199

the vessels in the final excavation report on the MBA remains at Tell el-Burak (Badreshany 2019, 305–307 with colour Fig. 22–32; see also Badreshany and Kamlah 2010–2011, 87–88 with Fig. 30–34). It is the aim of this article to carefully consider what both vessels and their decorations originally looked like. For this purpose, precise three-dimensional reconstructions of the vessels were made. On the basis of these new 3D-renderings and considering comparable vessels from the Eastern Mediterranean, the representations of the birds as well as possible identifications and symbolic meanings are discussed.

Vessel TB02 (31/25) 65 with Bird Depictions (Fig. 2–3)2 The shape of the vessel is not typical for Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels. It is comparable to MB I-II closed bowls with rounded carination. However, since large parts of the body and the rim are missing, it cannot be excluded that the vessel originally had a handle (stretching from the shoulder to the rim), similar to MB II juglets with a high, splayed neck and a trefoil mouth. The diameter of the vessel is 5.0 cm at its ring base, 10.5 cm at its widest perimeter, and 9.0 cm at its rim. It is composed of a fine ware with few inclusions (Badreshany 2019, 306), and its surface is covered with a thin dark-brown layer. Traces of burnishing are visible. The decoration of the vessel was incised into its surface with a sharp and pointed tool. Additionally, a fork-like tool was probably used to decorate areas with many dots impressed closely together. Incised lines and impressed dots were filled with a white substance. The decoration is composed of two friezes framing a 6.0 cm high zone with figurative depictions. The lower frieze consists of a 1.0–1.2 cm wide band filled with a net-pattern, and the upper frieze of a row of pendent semicircles (0.8–1.0 cm wide). While the upper frieze is placed under the rim of the vessel, the lower frieze encircles the vessel at its widest perimeter. The preserved fragments of the vessel contain two almost completely preserved bird depictions. They render the birds with their feet on the bottom frieze and their bills touching the upper frieze, whilst their wings are speckled with dots. To the right of both birds appears the tail of a third bird, and to their left the front part (including the head and the bill) and the tail of a fourth bird (cf. Fig. 3). From the preserved vessel fragments it is possible to conclude that the bodies of the third and fourth birds were completely covered with dots and that their wings were not indicated. All four birds face in the same direction. The preserved fragments of the vessel furthermore display the rump and the feet of a fifth bird. It is placed tail to tail on the left side with the fourth bird (cf. Fig. 2). From this position it is evident that the fifth bird was shown face to face with the third bird. Like the third and the fourth bird, the fifth bird too fails to display any indication of a wing, and

2

Tell el-Burak excavation season 2002, Square 31/25, reg. no. 65 (from context no. 97). height: 14.0 cm, diameter: 5.0–10.5 cm.

200

Jens Kamlah

it is speckled completely with dots. In summary, the figurative zone of the vessel originally contained five birds, two of them face to face and two tail to tail. Four birds look to the right, while one is looking to the left. Three of the birds have dots all over the body, and two on their wings only.

Figure 2: Details of the vessel TB02 (31/25) 65.

Despite the difference between showing dots all over the body and on the wings only, all depictions display the same type of bird. This can be deduced from the shape of their bodies and their size. They represent songbirds (passeri) with strong feet, a short tail, and a relatively thin bill. These characteristics do not seem to be the fruit of the craftsman’s imagination who produced the vessel. On the contrary, these specific features appear to reflect accurate observations in nature. Apart from this rather obvious conclusion, I would like to put forward the more concrete hypothesis that the depictions were intended to display Common Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). The mentioned traits (strong feet, short tail, thin bill) match well with those of the Common Starling. Furthermore, the speckled plumage with light dots is exclusive to the Common Starling, and in filling the birds with white dots, the craftsman also used a well-known decorative technique of the Tell el-Yehudiyeh pottery style (i.e. triangles or other forms filled with dots) to highlight one of the most conspicuous attributes of the Common Starling, namely its dotted appearance. Even the fact that two of the birds show dots on their wings only may find an explanation in nature. In winter male Common Starlings are less spotted than females. Observing starling flocks in winter clearly reveals that some of the birds are less speckled with white flecks than others.

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts

201

Figure 3: Three-dimensional visualisation of vessel TB02 (31/25) 65 and artistic reconstruction of its decoration (Oliver Bruderer). Note that dark surface areas indicate extant fragments, while light surface areas represent artistic additions.

202

Jens Kamlah

Greek authors state that starlings were mainly perceived as winter guests (Arnott 2007, 290). In addition, the remarkable flight formations of large flocks of starlings were already noticed by man in ancient times. Current ornithological observations in the Central Levant show that starlings occur in large flocks as both migratory birds and winterers, especially in open, cultivated areas (Ramadan-Jaradi et al. 2020). Ancient accounts report of massive invasions of starlings into plantations (Arnott 2007, 290; cf. Antipater of Sidon 7.172=22). The agricultural damage that starlings can cause may perhaps be associated with the bird depictions of our vessel TB02 (31/25) 65, thus reminding us of how starlings peck at grapes or berries. If our identification is correct and Geoffrey Arnott’s (2007, 291) remark holds true that “no certain representation of the starling has been identified in ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman art,” our vessel is a precious exception to this rule.

Vessel TB05 (30/22) 136 with Bird Depictions and Floral Motifs (Fig. 4–5) 3 The second vessel discussed here also shows a unique shape within the Tell elYehudiyeh pottery group. Not enough sherds of this vessel have been recovered during the excavations to reconstruct its complete form. The excavated fragments allow us to reconstruct the lower and middle parts of the vessel only (see Fig. 1). It is imaginable that the vessel represents a cylindrical juglet (see Fig. 5), but it has to be noted that neither the neck nor the rim was found. Equally, no traces of a possible handle were found. Hence, these elements have been added in Fig. 5 without evidence from the excavations, but are suggested by comparable vessel types from other sites. The only indications for the upper part of the vessel are furnished exclusively by a single sherd displaying a rosette pattern which most probably belongs to the vessel’s shoulder (cf. Fig. 4). It cannot be ruled out that the fragment in question was part of a lid, which would indicate that the vessel was some kind of pyxis (cf. the usage of pyxides as grave goods in the Minoan culture). Nevertheless, a reconstruction of our vessel as cylindrical juglet seems probable, considering the range of vessel types attributed to the Tell el-Yehudiyeh pottery. Cylindrical Tell el-Yehudiyeh juglets dating to the MBA II are classified as “Late Palestinian” (Bietak and Aston 2019, 139 Pl. 2.1.2:2; cf. also Kaplan 1980, 5–18 Fig. 4–12). However, beyond the Tell el-Yehudiyeh pottery style cylindrical juglets also appear in the Southern Levant already during the early MBA. Cylindrical Tell el-Yehudiyeh juglets have flat or very gently curved bases (Kaplan 1980, 17). The vessel TB05 (30/22) 136 has a gently curved, flat base, but it is a remarkable exception because it is the only Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessel so

3

Tell el-Burak excavations season 2005, Square 30/22, reg. no. 136 (from context no. 2); preserved height: 7.0 cm; diameter: 9.5 cm.

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts

203

far known to have three feet at its base.4 Each foot is 2.0 cm wide and 1.5 cm high. The diameter of the three-footed vessel is 9.5 cm at its base and (due to the cylindrical shape) equally 9.5 cm at the shoulder. The preserved part of the vessel is 7.0 cm high, its original total height was possibly ca. 14 cm. TB05 (30/22) 136 is composed of a hard-fired, fine ware with few inclusions. The inner surfaces of the vessel wall and of the base are greyish and show clear production traces from a fast potter’s wheel. The outer vessel surface is covered with a thin, dark-brown layer.

Figure 4: Details of the vessel TB05 (30/22) 136.

4

There is a noticeable similarity between the three-footed vessel from Tell el-Burak and some (rarely occurring) Tell el-Yehudiyeh juglets with triple bodies, which also stand on three feet (cf. Kaplan 1980, Fig. 130d; Aston and Bietak 2012 no. 683 on Pl. 124).

204

Jens Kamlah

Figure 5: Three-dimensional visualisation of vessel TB05 (30/22) 136 and artistic reconstruction of its decoration (Oliver Bruderer). Note that dark surface areas indicate extant fragments, while light surface areas represent artistic additions. Note especially that no remains of the neck, the rim or the handle have been found; these parts have been artistically added.

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts

205

The decoration was incised with a very sharp tool. Notably, decorative patterns were created with short wedge-shaped strokes (instead of dots). The strokes are ca. 2.0 mm long, 0.5–0.8 mm wide at their head and taper at their end (some have a length of up to 3.5 mm). Therefore, it seems that the wooden (?) tool which was used to impress these strokes did not have a pointed tip but rather one that was rounded like a scalpel. The incised and impressed decoration was most probably filled with a light-coloured material, though which in the present state of preservation, appears in a yellowish-brownish hue. The composition of the decoration forms three horizontal zones: a lower zone with lotus flowers growing out of the vessel feet, a main zone with scenes of birds flanking palm trees, and an upper zone with a rosette pattern. Among the lotus flowers of the lower zone, one closed blossom and two open blossoms are depicted on the preserved fragments of the vessel. While the stems of the open blossoms are depicted by double lines, the stem of the closed blossom has a single line only. Since all of the vessel’s three feet have been recovered, the pattern of open and closed blossoms in the lower zone is clear: from the left foot on Fig. 5 two flowers with open blossoms rise, from the middle foot one flower with an open and one with a closed blossom, and from the right foot two flowers with closed blossoms. We cannot be sure if all blossoms were depicted in upright position. Small traces on the left edge of the preserved left foot may indicate that the blossom to the left was depicted in a pendulous position. The same might be true for one or both of the closed blossoms which have been added artistically in Fig. 5 above the vessel’s right foot (for a combination of upright and pendulous lotus blossoms on a Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessel from nearby Sidon, see Doumet-Serhal 2011–2012, 149–150 no. 15). The preserved vessel fragments of the middle zone contain the lower parts of three birds, including the feet, the tail, part of the body and part of the wings of each figure. To the left of these three birds the tail of a fourth bird is visible (see Fig. 5). Additionally, a single sherd of the vessel was recovered which shows the head of one bird with an eye and the bill. Taking these elements together and considering the space of the middle zone, it is safe to reconstruct the middle zone with six equally depicted birds. Furthermore, it is clear that the middle zone showed these birds in pairs flanking three palm trees. Of the palm trees only a part of one trunk is visible (indicated by a double zigzag line between the second and third bird from the left on Fig. 5) and parts of two palm fronds on the single sherd (to the right and above the bill of one of the birds). Hence, the middle zone originally contained three palm trees, each of which was flanked by two birds. Each bird was shown above one lotus blossom (open or closed) and each palm tree was placed in the middle between two vessel feet. This remarkable image composition was framed on the top by a lotus rosette at the shoulder of the vessel. However, it has to be noted that due to the fragmentary state of preservation of the vessel, some questions have to remain open: only one head of the six birds

206

Jens Kamlah

was found (cf. Fig. 4). Since the fragment in question reveals no direct link to the other vessel fragments, the lengths of the necks of the depicted birds are unknown (though it is evident that the birds did not have short necks). For the same reason the exact shape of the necks remains unclear. Finally, it is not possible to reconstruct the upper part of the palm trees owing to the lack of fragments from the upper part of the middle zone. As for the first vessel discussed in this paper, I would also like to propose for this second vessel a tentative identification of the birds. It is clear that they are depicted in a distinctively different manner to the songbirds on the first vessel. They have long legs with strong feet and triangular thighs. Furthermore, they have a broad tail with distinctive rump feathers. The birds are shown with spread wings, of which single feathers are carefully depicted (primaries and secondaries). Their bills seem to be medium-sized (i.e. shorter than that of a stork and longer than that of a duck bill). To me it seems probable that the bird depictions of the vessel TB05 (30/22) 136 were intended to represent cranes (Gruidae), more specifically Common Cranes (Grus grus). They are very similar to the crane depictions on painted vessels from the LBA in the Southern Levant (Choi 2016, 75 with Fig. II-44). Details like the illustrations of the rump feathers forming the tail and of the legs with the thighs are very similar to ancient Egyptian crane representations (cf. Bailleul-LeSuer 2012, 27 with Fig. 1.9; von der Osten-Sacken 2015, Abb. 156, 171–171 and 175). Above all, the way in which the birds are depicted on our vessel resembles cranes performing the courtship display (so-called dance of the cranes). In her excellent study on bird exploitation in the ancient Near East, Elisabeth von der Osten-Sacken analyses among others published zooarchaeological data for cranes/Gruidae together with iconographical and written sources (von der Osten-Sacken 2015, 321–352). From her study it is evident that crane hunting and crane keeping played a major role in Mesopotamia, as well as in Egypt, during the Bronze and Iron Ages, and therefore most likely also in the MBA Levant. From ancient Greek sources it can be seen that the migration of cranes in vast noisy flocks was observed with great attention (Arnott 2007, 80). To this day, large flocks of cranes can be observed in the Central Levant during bird migration in spring (March to April) and autumn (mid-September to November as well as occasionally in winter; Ramadan-Jaradi et al. 2008 and Ramadan-Jaradi et al. 2020). In ancient times, smaller groups of cranes may have stayed in the Central Levant throughout the winter season. Greek and Roman texts transmit the story of the battle between the Pygmies and the cranes (Arnott 2007, 81), which is also reflected in paintings on Greek vases (Ovadiah and Mucznik 2017). Details of these vase paintings, such as the representation of the legs, the tail and the wings, again show clear similarities with the bird depictions on our vessel TB05 (30/22) 136.

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts

207

The Context of the Vessels with Bird Depictions from Tell el-Burak The first vessel (TB02 [31/25] 65) was excavated in a tomb close to the MBA Monumental Building at Tell el-Burak (Kamel and Nurpetlian 2019). The tomb contained the human remains of six individuals and a limited number of grave goods (ca. 10–15 pottery juglets and bowls; Kamel and Nurpetlian 2019, 241–242 with Fig. 8.5a). Among the finds from the burial were 118 bone fragments, which originally must have been part of a wooden box with bone inlays. The bone inlays were incised with geometrical and figurative motifs, including strips with longitudinal lines and stylised bird depictions (Kamel and Nurpetlian 2019, 241–244 with Fig. 8.5b). Wooden boxes with bone or ivory inlays appear regularly as grave goods in MBA burials of the Southern Levant (Liebowitz 1977). Next to geometrical motifs, the inlays of some of the boxes show stylised bird depictions (and in very rare cases animal or snake depictions). With respect to its stratigraphy the tomb at Tell el-Burak was attributed to Phase 3. Phase 3 was determined as either possibly overlapping with Phase 2 of the Monumental Building or as subsequent to the latter. The finds seem to date the burials to the MB I–II transition or to early MB II (ca. 1750–1650 BC; cf. Badreshany 2019, 306). In summary, the Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessel TB02 (31/25) 65 was used as a grave good for one of the interments in a MBA tomb at Tell elBurak. It was an outstanding burial object among a small assemblage of modest grave goods. Together with the second outstanding burial object (the wooden box with bone inlays including stylised bird silhouettes), the vessel may arguably point to a symbolic dimension of the bird representations in the funerary practices at Tell el-Burak. The fragments belonging to the second Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessel (TB05 [30/22] 136) were found in Square 30/22 on the southern slope of Tell el-Burak, at a distance of approximately 30 m from the above-described burial (Badreshany 2019, 306). We think that the vessel originally belonged to another MBA tomb located close to the place where the fragments were excavated. However, no human bones or indications of grave architecture were found there. Nevertheless, the fact that several restorable MBA vessels were recovered from this context strongly suggests that these vessels (as well as TB05 [30/22] 136) come from a disturbed MBA tomb. Remarkably, among the thousands of ceramic fragments from all non-funerary contexts at Tell el-Burak, only one tiny sherd of Tell elYehudiyeh pottery was found.

208

Jens Kamlah

Figure 6: Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels with bird and plant depictions from the Eastern Mediterranean. 1) Tell el-Dabʻa (h. 10.9 cm); 2) Toumba tou Skourou (h. 13.4 cm); 3) Sasa (h. ca. 8–10 cm ?; according to the scale of the publication: ca. 14 cm); 4) Sidon (preserved h. 11.4 cm); 5) Tell el-Ghassil (h. ca. 10,05 cm). Drawings by Oliver Bruderer (after Aston and Bietak 2012, Pl. 26:117; Negbi 1978, 144 illustrations 1–4; Ben-Arieh 2004, Fig. 6; Doumet-Serhal 2011–2012, 149–150 no. 15; Doumet-Serhal 1996, Pl. 15:2)

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts

209

Tell el-Yehudiyeh Vessels with Bird Depictions from Other Sites in the Eastern Mediterranean Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels are known from many other MBA sites in the Eastern Mediterranean (Egypt, the Levant, and Cyprus; Kaplan 1980, Aston and Bietak 2012, Bietak and Aston 2019). Petrographic analysis shows that they often were produced close to the sites of their discovery (Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2004; Charaf and Ownby 2012). Nevertheless, Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels were also exchanged between the various Eastern Mediterranean regions during the MBA and that they can be defined in this regard as shared or hybrid objects (de Vreeze 2016, 171). At many sites Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels were predominantly found in tombs, which points to their particular function in funerary rites (Baker 2006, 11– 13; de Vreeze 2016, 161-164). A certain relationship between this type of pottery and bird symbolism is indicated by a small group of Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels in the shape of birds (ducks and falcons; see Kaplan 1980, Fig. 122–123; Aston and Bietak 2012, 288–295 with Fig. 211–215; Stager and Voss 2018, 274–276 with Fig. 8.4:30). Of particular relevance are Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels with bird depictions. One example from Tell el-Dabʻa in the Nile Delta has three upright lotus flowers on a long stem and alternating with three birds (“waterfowl”) displaying long legs and long, curved necks (Aston and Bietak 2012, 381 with Pl. 28:122). Furthermore, three very similar examples from the same site show a rosette-like lotus petal on their shoulder and as main motif three connected lotus blossoms alternating with three birds (Fig. 6:1; Aston and Bietak 2012, 377–381 with Pl. 26:116–117 and Pl. 27:118 [Group J.1.4]). The birds have long legs and long necks and are designated as “wading birds” in “marsh scenes” (Aston and Bietak 2012, 193 and 378– 379). A similar Tell el-Yehudiyeh juglet comes from Cyprus (Fig. 6:2; Toumba Tou Skourou; Negbi 1978, 143–147 with illustrations 1–4). It has two friezes of connected lotus blossoms. In the lower frieze, each of the four lotus flowers is associated with two backward-facing birds (yielding altogether eight bird depictions). Ora Negbi is inclined to identify the birds as geese and compares their backward-facing pose with Egyptian wall paintings showing waterfowl in a deathpose. However, with their long legs, their tails and long necks the birds from this vessel rather resemble cranes. Their pose seems to be induced by the image composition, which interposes the birds between the curved outlines of the blossoms. In light of the Tell el-Burak vessels it becomes evident that Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels with bird depictions cluster in the Central Levant (though not in large numbers). They have been found at Sasa in Upper Galilee (Fig. 6:3; Ben-Arieh 2004, 6*–7* with Fig. 6), Tell el-Burak, Sidon (Fig. 6:4; Doumet-Serhal 2011– 2012, 149–150 no. 15), Tell el-Ghassil (Fig. 6:5; Doumet-Serhal 1996, Pl. 15:2)

210

Jens Kamlah

and Arde (Kaplan 1980, 327 with Fig. 127f)5. All of these vessels were found in tombs and hence were used as grave goods (only for Arde this is not clear). In comparison with the Tell el-Dabʻa / Toumba Tou Skourou group, the Central Levantine group features two characteristics: Firstly, they also depict songbirds and the bird depictions differentiate clearly between songbirds and “waterfowl” (i.e. large birds with long legs and long necks). Secondly, they also depict palm trees, and the floral representations clearly differentiate between lotus flowers and palm trees. The following table summarises bird and plant motifs on Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels from the Eastern Mediterranean. Site, vessel

Tell el-Dab‘a Toumba Tou Skourou Sasa Tell el-Burak TB02 (31/25) 65 Tell el-Burak TB05 (30/22) 136 Sidon Tell el-Ghassil

Fig.

Fig. 6:1 Fig. 6:2 Fig. 6:3 Fig. 3 Fig. 5 Fig. 6:4 Fig. 6:5

Birds Plants Large Birds Song- Lotus („waterfowl“) birds flowers X X X X ? -

Rosette-like lotus petal X -

Palm trees X

-

X

-

-

-

X

-

X

X

X

X

X X

X -

-

X

Table 1: Bird and plant motifs on Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels from the Eastern Mediterranean.

The small Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessel from Tell el-Ghassil is the only example so far which shows large birds (two of them on the lower part of the vessel) as well as songbirds (five of them on the shoulder of the vessel and two on the lower part of the vessel). Moreover, it contains the motif of two birds flanking a palm tree and feeding from it. This motif appears with two songbirds on one side of the vessel and two large birds with long legs and long necks on the other, just like vessel TB05 (30/22) 136. The motif of large birds flanking a palm tree is furthermore represented on a MB II painted jar from Tell el-Far‘a (North) (Ziffer 1990, 11*; Schroer 2008, 206–207 no 435; Choi 2016, 75 with Fig. II-45:10–12 and 207–208 with Fig. III-28:21). In light of the Tell el-Burak vessel it is possible to 5

The famous Tell el-Yehudiyeh juglet with an anthropomorphic head from Jericho is to be classified as a special case (cf. Kaplan 1980, Fig. 131c; Aston and Bietak 2012, 83 with Fig. 33). The decoration on the juglet’s front side consists of a triangle on a stem (a stylised plant motif?) flanked by two birds. The complex iconography of this juglet cannot be analysed in detail here. However, the bird representations on Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels discussed in this article also shed new light on the iconography of the outstanding Jericho juglet.

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts

211

identify the birds on the jar from Tell el-Farʻa (North) as cranes. The motif of cranes flanking a palm tree is therefore first known from the MBA at Tell elBurak, Tell el-Ghassil, Tell el-Farʻa (North) and later, during LB II, from painted craters belonging to the assemblage of the Fosse Temple at Lachish (Choi 2016, 105–107 with Fig. II-67:1–3 and Fig. II-68:1–3).

Birds and Funerary Beliefs The question of whether birds might have had a symbolic meaning in Levantine MBA funerary beliefs cannot be answered in the current state of research. However, there are certain indications that should not be ignored: bird images appear (not frequently, but repeatedly) in MBA tombs on wooden boxes with bone inlays and also on Tell el-Yehudiyeh pottery vessels. Though uncertain, it is yet possible that both object groups were produced specially as grave goods and that they belonged to a specific funerary kit (cf. Liebowitz 1977, 96; de Vreeze 2016, 161– 164). The above-described Central Levantine group of Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels combines bird depictions with floral motifs of regeneration (alternating open and closed lotus blossoms) and with symbols of feeding and life (birds flanking a palm tree). A study of zooarchaeological finds from Neolithic Catalhöyük was able to show that cranes may have conveyed symbolic implications connected to the “dance of the Cranes” (Russel and McGowan 2003). These finds indicate together with crane depictions from Catalhöyük, Göbekli Tepe, and other sites that Early Neolithic crane symbolism was centred around fertility rituals (von der Osten 2015, 330–336). In later times cranes occasionally appear in connection with agricultural fertility: their autumnal reappearance was seen as a sign to begin ploughing and sowing (cf. for Akkadian, Kassite and Greek examples: von der Osten 2015, 337 with Abb. 166 and Arnott 2007, 80–82). An Akkadian-period tomb at Tell Beydar (2nd half of the 3rd mill. BC) points to a relationship between cranes and burial rituals: Inside the tomb the skeletons of two Demoiselle Cranes were found (Anthropoides virgo; cf. Soldado 2016, 5– 6). It is possible that the funeral beliefs were influenced by the fact that these birds appear and disappear at Tell Beydar as typical migrating birds (van Neer 2001, 62). However, this should not be interpreted in terms of a belief in the resurrection of the deceased, as Elisabeth von der Osten-Sacken (2015, 326–328) has shown. She convincingly connects the Demoiselle Crane skeletons with literary references to the Mesopotamian perception that spirits of the dead may occur in the appearance of birds. In any case, it has to be noted, that the presence of crane skeletons inside the tomb at Tell Beydar is so far unique. In his study on waterfowl imagery in the late second millennium BC of the Southern Levant, Ben Greet (2021, 217) emphasizes that waterfowl iconography served, among other symbolic meanings, “as a symbol for the concepts of death and rebirth”.

212

Jens Kamlah

More important for the contextualisation of the Tell el-Burak grave vessels with bird depictions are the MBA tombs at Sidon. Here, no faunal remains of cranes have been recognised. In 90 of 101 MBA tombs at Sidon faunal remains have been discovered (8787 animal bones; Chahoud 2016–2017, 117–124 with Tab. 12 and 17). But, among the faunal assemblage only a small number of remains from birds is recorded (10 bones from unidentified birds). Regarding the Tell el-Yehudiyeh pottery it has to be noted that among 18 published Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels and fragments from the MBA tombs at Sidon only one has a bird depiction (Doumet-Serhal 2011–2012, 149–150 no. 15). From all this follows that neither the faunal remains nor the Tell el-Yehudiyeh pottery from the tombs at Sidon provide clear evidence for the idea that the bird depictions on both vessels from Tell el-Burak might have had a symbolic meaning in the frame of the MBA funeral beliefs of the region. Nevertheless, I still think that it is worthwhile to keep this question in mind for future discussions.

Conclusions The question of whether the bird depictions of the Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels from Tell el-Burak symbolise concrete funerary beliefs must remain open. Future research should better explore a possible connection between Tell el-Yehudiyeh pottery and wooden boxes with bone inlays in the Levant. The Tell el-Burak vessels and their decoration certainly stand out in comparison to other Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels in terms of handcraft and artistic quality. The bird representations can be identified with a certain degree of probability as representations of the Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and the Common Crane (Grus grus). Both bird species have in common that they do not occur all year round in the Levant, but only during the winter months (starlings) or bird migration in autumn and spring (cranes and starlings). Both bird species appear in large, eye-catching flocks and are clearly noticeable, both visually and acoustically. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that their annual disappearance and return led to ideas according to which these birds symbolised the fate of the deceased. For further research into the Tell el-Yehudiyeh vessels from Tell el-Burak, it is planned to examine the vessels according to their petrographic composition in order to be able to determine the place of their production. I suspect they came from workshops nearby and that future excavations in the area will reveal more of these remarkable vessels. Should it be confirmed that the vessels come from the Sidon region, they would then, together with the animal depictions of the wall paintings in Tell el-Burak (Bertsch 2019), testify to the great importance of art and handcrafts in the regional MBA culture, in which precise observation of nature and the artistic reproduction of characteristic features of animals played an important role.

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts

213

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the editors Susanne Kerner, Omar al-Ghul, and Hani Hayajneh for the invitation to contribute to this Festschrift. Excavating together with Zeidan Kafafi at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon was a great pleasure and I think back to it with gratitude. I would also like to thank Hélène Sader, Aaron Schmitt, and Kamal Badreshany, my colleagues in the excavations at Tell el-Burak, for their collaboration. My thanks also go to Julia Bertsch, Virginia Herrmann, and Adriano Orsingher for valuable remarks on the manuscript. I would also like to thank Rami Yassine for the preparation of Fig. 1 and Oliver Bruderer for Fig. 2–6. My special thanks go to Ghassan Ramadan-Jaradi for valuable information on the marvellous avian wildlife in Lebanon, which needs to be protected. His expert advice was extremely helpful to me; any ornithological errors in the article are entirely my responsibility.

Bibliography Altmann, Peter. 2019. Banned Birds. The Birds of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Arnott, W. Geoffrey. 2007. Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z. London and New York: Routledge. Aston, David A., and Manfred Bietak. 2012. Tell el-Dabʿa VIII. The Classification and Chronology of Tell el-Yahudiya Ware. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Badreshany, Kamal. 2019. The Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Areas 1 and 2, In Jens Kamlah and Hélène Sader (eds.), Tell el-Burak I: The Middle Bronze Age, 283-316. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins; 45,1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Badreshany, Kamal and Jens Kamlah. 2010–2011. Middle Bronze Age Pottery from Tell el-Burak, Lebanon. Berytus 53–54, 81–113. Bailleul-LeSuer, Rozenn. 2012. From Kitchen to Temple: The Practical Role of Birds in Ancient Egypt. In R. Bailleul-LeSuer (ed.), Between Heaven and Earth: Birds in Ancient Egypt, 23–32. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Baker, Jill L. 2006. The Funeral Kit: A Newly Defined Canaanite Mortuary Practice Based on the Middle and Late Bronze Age Tomb Complex at Ashkelon. Levant 38.1, 1–31. https://doi.org/ 10.1179/lev.2006.38.1.1 Ben-Arieh, Sarah. 2004. Middle Bronze Age II Tombs at Kibbutz Sasa, Upper Galilee (Tomb I and Graves 37, 39). ‘Atiqot 46, 1–22. Bertsch, Julia. 2019. Preliminary Report on the Wall Paintings of Tell el-Burak: Iconography. In Jens Kamlah and Hélène Sader (eds.), Tell el-Burak I: The Middle Bronze Age, 385–400. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins; 45,1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

214

Jens Kamlah

Bietak, Manfred, and David Aston. 2019. Middle Bronze Age II Local and Imported Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware. In Seymour Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbors from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age, 137–143. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Chahoud, Jwana. 2016. L’animal et l’offrande: une approche archéozoologique des pratiques funéraires à Sidon, Liban (2000 av. JC). Archaeology & History in the Lebanon; 44–45. Beyrouth: Université Libanaise. Charaf, Hanan, and Mary Ownby. 2012. The Tell el-Yahudiya Ware from Tell Arqa. In David Aston and Manfred Bietak (eds.), Tell el-Dabʻa VIII. The Tell el-Yahudiya Ware and its Classification, 591–620. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Choi, Gwanghyun D. 2016. Decoding Canaanite Pottery Paintings from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I: Classification and Analysis of Decorative Motifs and Design Structures - Statistics, Distribution Patterns - Cultural and Sociopolitical Implications. Orbis biblicus et orientalis. Series archaeologica; 37. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Cohen-Weinberger, Anat, and Yuval Goren. 2004. Levantine-Egyptian Interactions during the 12th to the 15th Dynasties Based on the Petrography of the Canaanite Pottery from Tell el-Dabʻa. Levant 14, 69–100. https://doi.org/10. 1553/AEundL14s69 de Vreeze, Michel. 2016. “A Strange Bird will Breed in the Delta Marsh”: The Evolution of Tell el-Yahudiya Juglets and the Role of Tell el-Dabʻa as a Hybride Zone. In Bettina Bader, Christian Knoblauch and E. Christina Köhler (eds.), Vienna 2 – Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century, 155–177. Leuven, Paris, Bristol: Peeters. Doumet-Serhal, Claude. 1996. Les fouilles de Tell el-Ghassil de 1972 à 1974: étude du matériel. Bibliotheque archeologique et historique; 146. Beyrouth: Institut Francais d’Archeologie du Proche Orient. — 2011. Tell el-Yahudieh Ware in Sidon. Archaeology & History in the Lebanon 34–35, 139–153. Goldhahn, Joakim. 2020. To Bring Back Some Eagleness to Eagles. On Bird Worldings in the Bronze Age. Current Swedish Archaeology 28, 47–73. Greet, Ben. 2021. Waterfowl Imagery in the Material Culture of the Late Second Millennium BC Southern Levant. In Laerke Recht and Christina Tsouparopoulou (eds.), Fierce Lions, Angry Mice and Fat-tailed Sheep. Animal Encounters in the Ancient Near East, 207–220. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.76179 Grigson, Caroline, Yvonne Edwards, and Ruby Cerón-Carrasco. 2015. The fauna of Tell Nebi Mend (Syria) in the Bronze and Iron Age – a diachronic overview. Part 2: hunting, fowling and fishing. Levant 47.2, 164–185. https://doi.org/ 10.1179/0075891415Z.00000000064

Bird Depictions in Middle Bronze Age Burial Contexts

215

Kamel, Daisy, and Jack Nurpetlian. 2019. The Middle Bronze Age Tomb. In Jens Kamlah and Hélène Sader (eds.), Tell el-Burak I: The Middle Bronze Age, 235–245. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins; 45,1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Kaplan, Maureen. 1980. The Origin and Distribution of Tell el Yahudiyeh ware. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology; 62. Göteborg: Paul Aströms Förlag. Liebowitz, Harold A. 1977. Bone and Ivory Inlay from Syria and Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 27.2/3, 89–97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27925611 Negbi, Ora. 1978. Cypriote Imitations of Tell el-Yahudiyeh Ware from Toumba tou Skourou. American Journal of Archaeology 82.2, 137–149. https://www. jstor.org/stable/504489 Ovadiah, Asher, and Sonia Mucznik. 2017. Myth and Reality in the Battle between the Pygmies and the Cranes in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Gerión. Revista de historia Antigua 35.1, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.5209/GERI. 56960 Ramadan-Jaradi, Ghassan., T. Bara, and Mona Ramadan-Jaradi. 2008. Revised Checklist of the Birds of Lebanon 1999–2007. Sandgrouse 30.1, 22–69. Ramadan-Jaradi, Ghassan, Fuad Itani, James Hogg, Assad Serhal, and Mona Ramadan-Jaradi. 2020. Updated Checklist of the Birds of Lebanon, with Notes on Four New Breeding Species in Spring 2020. Sandgrouse 42.2, 186–238. Russell Nerissa, and Kevin J, McGowan. 2003. Dance of the Cranes: Crane symbolism at Çatalhöyük and beyond. Antiquity 77.297, 445–455. https://doi. org/ 10.1017/S0003598X00092516 Schroer, Silvia. 2008. Die Mittelbronzezeit (Die Ikonographie Palästinas, Israels und der Alte Orient, 2). Fribourg: Academic Press. Soldado Ramos, José Luis. 2016. Structured Deposition of Animal Remains in the Fertile Crescent during the Bronze Age. Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. Spiciarich, Abra. 2020. Birds in Transition: Bird Exploitation in the Southern Levant During the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age I, and Iron Age II. BASOR 383, 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1086/707393 Stager, Lawrence E., and Ross J. Voss. 2018. Special Ceramic Wares Found in Middle Bronze Age Ashkelon. In Lawrence E. Stager, J. David Schloen, and Ross J. Voss (eds.), Ashkelon 6. The Middle Bronze Age Ramparts and Gates of the North Slope and Later Fortifications, 267–298. University Park, Pennsilvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. van Neer, Wim. 2001. Faunal Remains from an Akkadian Grave in Tell Beydar. In Karel van Lerberghe and Gabriella Voet (eds.), Tell Beydar, Environmental and Technical Studies, 61–64. Subartu VI. Turnhout: Brepols. von der Osten-Sacken, Elisabeth. 2015. Untersuchungen zur Geflügelwirtschaft im Alten Orient. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, 272. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

216

Jens Kamlah

Wyatt, John. 2012. Bird Identification from Art, Artifacts, and Hieroglyphs: An Ornithologist’s Viewpoint. In Rozenn Bailleul-LeSuer (ed.), Between Heaven and Earth: Birds in Ancient Egypt, 83–90. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Ziffer, Irit. 1990. At that Time the Canaanites were in the Land: Daily Life in Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age 2; 2000–1550 B.C.E. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum.

Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple? Gerrit van der Kooij

Introduction The Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla is a long-term project which involved 17 field seasons between 1960 and 2009. The first five seasons (1960–1967) were directed by Henk Franken from the University of Leiden. Focus was laid on the transition between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age around 1200 BC, a highly challenging historical phase in the region. While aiming at establishing an independent archaeological chronology, Franken not only worked with detailed stratigraphic excavation and documentation methods, but also carried out technology-based pottery studies. The excavations became particularly known for the discovery of a Late Bronze Age temple, a series of intriguing clay tablets, as well as that of the Iron Age Balaam texts. The following field seasons (since 1976) were a joint project between Leiden University, the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, and the newly established Yarmouk University (since 1980). This cooperation was initiated by Moawiyah Ibrahim, who also acted as co-director with Franken and myself (as his successor since 1979). The project evolved to focus on the site’s regional settlement history, including its Jordan Valley hinterland from the Middle and Late Bronze Ages to the Iron Age. The Mameluke and Ottoman periods, during which the site’s top surface served as a cemetery, had been investigated already in the first excavation period, although this continued subsequently. The regional element of the joint expedition at first included excavations at nearby Tell el Hammeh (1996–2009), partly for rescue reasons and partly for probing remains from the c. 10th century BC iron production. This initiative labelled The Iron Track of Jordan gathered specialists from the University of Delft, the Deltares Institute in Utrecht, and the University College London (2009). Secondly the project’s regional aspect was concerned with the issue of changing societies in the Syro-Palestinian drylands, as elicited by the alternating intensity of use at Tell Deir ‘Alla. For this purpose the Settling the Steppe project was initiated (2004–2008) and put into practise in 2005 and 2006 through intensive fieldwork comprising surveys and exploration trenches in the site’s surrounding region. In this Tell Deir ‘Alla project Zeidan A. Kafafi played a significant role. He joined the excavation team (Fig. 1) in the short season of 1982, being employed

218

Gerrit van der Kooij

at Yarmouk University after his PhD exam at the Free University of Berlin. In fact, this in many ways was an important season for all team members, because the Deir ‘Alla Station for Archaeological Study established by the three parties of the joint project, was opened and officially inaugurated on December 15th by HRH Crown Prince Hassan. Figure 1: Zeidan Kafafi as supervisor of square B/C8 in 1982, with the excavation team, including foreman Khamis Mohammed, one of the four “Jericho men” trained by Kenyon. The remains of a room at Deir ‘Alla Iron Age Phase IX are shown, with pottery and loom weights in deposit B/C8.75 (Photo: Gerrit van der Kooij).

Moawiyah Ibrahim was co-director of the project until the end of 1994, when a new series of seasons started. From 1996 onwards, Zeidan, now professor at Yarmouk University, was his successor as co-director of the Deir ‘Alla project, including the off-spin focusses on Tell Hammeh, and the Settling the Steppe project. His colleague Omar Ghul replaced him occasionally during fieldwork in this latter project. On this special occasion it is important to concentrate on the joint expedition’s more recent excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla before and during 2009 (Fig. 2). Apart from the preliminary excavation reports, there have been several dedicated published studies, including an introduction to the archaeological project (Kooij and Ibrahim 1989). Meanwhile, the comprehensive basic reports are under preparation, describing and interpreting the four dimensions of stratigraphy/time and the use of space. In connection with these preparations it seems appropriate for this contribution to focus on the southern slope, the so-called terrace, just west of the main gully. Within Area C (the SW quarter of the site), this concerns twenty 5 × 5 m squares JKLM34567, of which twelve were partly excavated in 1998, 2000,

Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple?

219

2004, 2009, and with a small addition in 2007 when one of the stratigraphic pulloffs for the Jordan Museum in Amman was made there. The excavated parts mainly concern final LBA remains which are succinctly described in short preliminary reports. The area was also the object of a study on the MBA-LBA chronology (Kooij 2006, summary 205), an architectural study (Kafafi 2009a, especially 590 f.), and a stratigraphic presentation (Kooij 2009, in particular 76 f.). These were written before the fieldwork of 2009 in the three N squares that produced some more data, which thus would call for an additional stratigraphic study as well as a reassessment of the use-of-space results.

Figure 2: Contour plan of Tell Deir ‘Alla indicating areas A, B, C, and D, and excavated parts. The locations with burnt LBA phase E are horizontally hatched. The site’s top is at -200.72 m below sea level (Tell Deir ‘Alla Excavation Archive, updated by this author).

A full stratigraphic and use-of-space study of the excavated parts reveals the interesting character of the area, but for now we limit ourselves to the earliest excavated building phases ̶ mainly for intrinsic reasons, but also because this may give a functional context to the enigmatic clay tablets found there (Kafafi 2009b, 125 ff.; Kooij 2014, 160 f., 174 f.; de Vreeze 2019, 490 f.). Our object of study is the large building of preliminary phase 3 in the eight (out of twelve) excavated squares J4, 5, 6, K4, 5, 6, and L5, 6, shown in the plan (Fig. 3).

220

Gerrit van der Kooij

Figure 3: Partial plan (of 8 squares out of 12) of phase 3 of the excavated remains at the so-called terrace in area C, with some remains of phase 4 (composition by this author).

Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple?

221

Stratigraphy and Architecture This part of the site’s detailed stratigraphic analysis is of course based on the excavation record (written, drawn and photographed) established by the square- and area supervisors, as well as the photographers, the surveyors, and directors. It needs to be reminded that what is presented here is not the full final result of the analysis of the excavations of the parts concerned. A tentative stratigraphic chronology of Area C is shown in table 1. This has been combined with a site chronology and related to some points in absolute chronology, as discussed in Kooij 2006, 205. The descriptions in column C/J, K, L, M partly differ from those published in 2006 and in Kooij 2009, 77.

Table 1: The preliminary stratigraphic chronology in Area C, adapted from Kooij 2006, 205.

S TRATIGRAPHY The two summarising drawings of the vertical sections through the accumulated and modified deposits are the northern sections of squares K6, 5, and 4 (Fig. 4) and the eastern section of square K4 (Fig. 5). A stratigraphic connection with other parts of the site is formed by the largely burnt LBA stratum E (equivalent with the preliminary phases 3 and 4 in the table) as distinguished by Franken for the 1960s excavation results on the north slope (Franken 1992). This stratum is considered to belong to the final stages of the LBA (cf. Kooij 2006, 218 ff.), sometimes labelled as LB III or transitional period, especially because of the pottery characteristics from phase E and onwards (cf. Kafafi and Kooij 2013, 125 ff.). With this burnt phase we are dealing with a large conflagration, in fact the only seemingly complete one at the site. The stratum is visible like a ring over the entire site at the level of c. -217 m MSL, thus halfway down the tell’s total height, with a lower extension near its south-western foot which, indeed, is an extra-mural part of the LBA town.

222

Gerrit van der Kooij

Because the large building complex of phase 3 is our main concern here, there is no need for a further discussion of the following phases, except for some parts of phase 4, but not the large, unburnt building remains of phase 5. The preliminary phases 1 and 2 below phase 3 are represented here by two subsequent destructions, partly from fire. The excavations recorded them in this part of Area C, mainly in squares K3, K4, K5, L6, and M6.

Figure 4: Summary of the northern stratigraphic sections of squares K4, K5, and K6, adapted from Kooij 2009, Fig. 18a. The burnt LB phases 1–4 are indicated, as is the spot where the stratigraphic pull-off for the Jordan Museum was taken in 2007 (composition by this author).

Figure 5: Tracing of the field drawing of the W-section of square K4. For orientation: the “whitish surface accumulation” (deposit no. 7) of phase 3 was recorded at level c. -217.60 m (Tell Deir ‘Alla Excavation Archive).

Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple?

223

A RCHITECTURE Among all architectural remains this paper focusses on one complex of phase 3. As mentioned, it concerns the building whose floor produced fragments of clay tablets. The drawing in figure 3 shows the excavation squares with their baulks and also summarises the results of the stratigraphic analysis by which a number of walls and constructions were concluded to be synchronous and physically connected. The drawing also shows some of the contexts indicating why some remains were not found at certain locations, i.e. where either only small test trenches had reached the phase (as in the higher J-squares) or where later modifications of pit digging and erosion had occurred. The actual building had not stood isolated. It had open space to the east (courtyard), whilst there was a nearby building (at 2.5 m) to the south. However, much of the synchronic space context had eroded away (to the west) or else remains unexcavated (to the north). For convenience sake the walls of the building and the rooms are indicated independently from the excavation unit numbers, except where details are discussed. Thus the walls are labelled A, B, C, D, E and F, and the rooms 1, 2, 3 and 4. Walls The walls were of mudbricks and mud mortar, with the faces mud plastered. The bricks came in two sizes, generally measuring c. 50 × 34 cm at varying thicknesses between 9-12 cm, but larger dimensions at c. 55 × 40 cm do also occur. Wall B is a good example of this combination of sizes, with the smaller bricks coming from the preceding, red-burnt phase of that wall and thus resulting to varying widths for the mortar joints. The long main walls B, C, and D were 1.20 m to 1.30 m wide, often including a layer of mud plaster. Only a part of the width of wall A was excavated (1.20 m), thus the main brick size used led to several brick bonds. Each course of bricks had bonds of one row of headers and two rows of stretchers (see a sample of wall B in Fig. 3), and in the successive courses the three rows were in alternating positions. The short walls E and F were narrower, in particular wall F with one brick in header position. A large chunk of this wall had collapsed to the west, among wall rubble L5-23. Bonding of wall connections is clear in some cases. The excavated parts of the walls show only one doorway north of wall B, but there the floor was not yet reached. The western end of wall C may have been used as a doorway at a later stage. The set of walls may have been intended to be geometrically rectangular, but as found they were not, even if taking into account the slanting position of some walls. In northward direction, therefore, the distance between walls A and B decreases from 9.30 m to 8.60 m. The width of room 4 had probably necessitated pillars to support the roof. The large flat stones (1 m in diameter and 25–35 cm thick) in square J5 may have been used as pillar bases in view of a charred chunk of wood on top of J5-76. This

224

Gerrit van der Kooij

southern stone formed the top of three superseding stones clad with brick-clay, in all 1 m high (between -216.15 and -217.15), as far as excavated. The northern stone was in secondary context, presumably detached from the lower stones. Its expected original position would be at least 1 m further northeast, 3 or 4 m away from the southern pillar base. For the roof, bridging the span between walls A and B would have been achieved by using the pillars as support for N-S oriented middle beams and cross beams of some 5 or 6 m length. Unless there were more pillars, the span between the northern W–E wall and wall C would have been some 14 m. The position of the doorway would thus define room 4 as a “broad room”. Walls B and C were observed to exactly correspond with earlier walls (cf. figures 4 and 5, showing walls K4-9 and K4-3 in section). The same yet remains to be confirmed for the other walls, though this is rather likely. It is quite possible that wall A was a rebuilt version (further west) of the wide masonry of bricks K654 in a N-S orientation that was partly first used as a platform in L6, but later certainly as a floor surface, both during phase 3. In fact, after the collapse of phases 3 and 4 the new thick walls partly followed at some distance the lines of walls A, B, and C. Remarkably, the stumps of the main western and southern walls A, D, E, and F (Fig. 3) were leaning strongly towards the WSW, up to 20o, in the same way as the surface layers outside wall D. The same applies to the phase 5 remains in these squares. Because it was impossible to both build or use the walls in this way, the leaning process may have begun at the time of the structure’s collapse, whilst probably linked to inconsistencies of the subsoil’s solidity, especially considering the presence of a large pit containing compressible fills just below. In that case existing internal tensions may have been released through seismic tremors, thus causing the skew of the wall and the surface layers. This would have occurred together with localised fissuring and shifting (at right angles to the slope), as observed here as well. Yet another issue concerns the stratigraphic position of the small, burnt N-S oriented wall K5-11, since it’s attribution to either of the phases 3, 4, or 5 remains unresolved. It clearly postdates floor 24 and debris 23 of square K5, because these continued below it. The connection with the large, unburnt wall 5 is not fully understood. The mud plaster of wall 11 descended in a curve to the horizontal screed surface. This mud floor (K5-28) had been established about 1 m above phase 3 floor 24/39, and included a 1 m deep, plastered pit (27) for grain storage. This floor was also connected with wall K5-26 to the west, and is part of phase 4. The complex should therefore be ascribed to phase 4, with wall 11 built in a foundation trench. This phase ended in a fire and the structure’s subsequent collapse. Its roof debris (K5-22) contained a relatively high number of small and large jar stoppers, pottery, and many other interesting objects, including conical clay stands and an Egyptian sealing.

Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple?

225

Figure 6: Field photograph (2004) of the NE-part of square K6, with part of K5 (note the vertical string for the dividing line). Part of the phase 2 rows of bricks (K6-54) are shown, with rubble bricks 55, and the whitish floor 39 above it (Digital photo: Yousef Zu’bi).

Rooms The composition of the formerly roofed spaces is quite remarkable. The large room (4 on Fig. 3) covered a surface of c. 9 × 14 m (or longer) and had a doorway (half-way?) in wall B. There were three rooms in a row at the southern end. Rooms 1 and 2 measured c. 2.3 × 2.7 m, and room 3 was possibly the same size, with wall B forming its eastern limit. The levels of the floor surfaces differed somewhat in the four rooms. In room 4 they varied around c. -217.60 m, but were slightly higher up in the north and the east, whereas those in the three small rooms were 70 to 80 cm lower. The floors were composed of a 1–10 cm thick accumulation of surface materials, which after the fire had taken the appearance of an off-white to ochre and light grey, soft layer with a certain amount of vegetal residues. In room 4 the accumulation process had been interrupted, mainly within square K5, where floor 24 was recorded as floor 38 in a downward slope to the west. Possibly on top of this floor 38, some rows of mudbricks, four courses high, had been placed (K541 = K6-54/56; note especially the pull-off part of the N-section, cf. Fig. 4). Floor 39 developed above these bricks (see Fig. 6) and joined up again with floor 24. It

226

Gerrit van der Kooij

is also possible that the mudbrick rows were part of a wide wall in a N-S orientation adjacent to floor 38. The modifying pit K5-9 did not reach the floor or the lower rubble of phase 3. Change also occurred within square K6: before the final destruction, the western extremity of wall C had been partly removed and covered with a burnt, whitish surface material identified as a floor. Furthermore, the middle part of wall A had suffered severe erosion (down to -217.60), leaving only few indications of its original existence there. The whole structure then suddenly collapsed, with fire at floor level causing the roof structure to fall with its charred beams and burnt roof mud and reed. At places the roof mud had come down first, prior to the charred beams covering it. Generally, these were followed by the collapse of the upper wall parts, and many bricks were impacted by the original fire and then by the glow of the debris below (cf. Fig. 5). In the following development, instead of being left to be altered by natural processes, the heap of ruins was transformed to give way to new architectural structures erected in phase 4 whose remains were retrieved chiefly in squares J4, J5, and K5.

The Use of the Building Complex The reconstruction of the use of a building complex is basically deduced from the shape of the construction itself, provided its shape is known for specific functions. Sets of installations and mobile objects from particular contexts (i.e. at the surface or within the debris of collapsed buildings) may also contribute to such reconstructions. Other indicators, such as residues from specific activities or remains from mites or other infestations or biological substances, and even geomorphological data, though not used here, have partly been sampled.

P LAN The building’s layout is based on the excavated large room (broad room) of almost 9 m width and at least 9 or 14 m length and revealing two (or more) pillar bases along its central axis. It furthermore comprises three small rooms at the southern short side. It partly compares with the main building of the LBA “sanctuary” (according to Franken 1992; see also Steiner in this volume) at the northern slope of Tell Deir ‘Alla, which was excavated at the same level and determined approximately contemporary with the present structure (cf. Kooij 2006 passim). There too, Franken (1992, 27) reconstructed a main room (“long room”) of c. 8 × 12 m with two stone pillar bases and a platform at the northern end, and possibly three small rooms at the same end (the “stone structure”). The main difference is the platform. The orientation of both plans is deviating clockwise c. 10–12o from N– S, but this gives no clue because that is the orientation of nearly all buildings on the site.

Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple?

227

Interestingly, the building of phase 3 had predecessors of comparable dimensions at the same spot and perhaps also a successor in phase 5, as far as the excavation results go. In other words this location seems to have been exclusive for this kind of building or use.

M OBILE O BJECTS The sudden collapse prompted both an instantaneous sealing of all objects in place on the floor and those falling from the ceiling where they had been hanging previously, or otherwise also from shelves, cupboards, or the roof. However, the distribution of the six clay tablet fragments recorded on the floor of room 4 is remarkable, as shown in Fig. 3. The two fragments (at A and D) of tablet DA3524 were found 6 m apart, and the same was also true for two (at B and F) of the three fragments belonging to tablet DA3525. They clearly had been broken and spread over the floor prior to the collapse. However, the pots on the floor were smashed by the falling roof, which fixed their original positions. In fact, a fair amount of objects were found unbroken, which indicates that they had been distributed on the floor some time before the sudden collapse, especially the small ones. Using this assumption we may summarise, for this occasion, the presence of objects in the way following below. The full documentation is reserved for the final publication. Room 1: On the floor near the NW corner are some stones alongside a large, roughly rectangular one (c. 55 × 30 × 30 cm) that may have been used as a worktable. There are also some small bowls (e.g. DA3427; characteristic for Deir ‘Alla LB-phase E) and a bowl (reg. DA3441, Fig. 7B) with a copper-alloy residue found upside down near the eastern corner. The residue may indicate to its limited use as a crucible. Also remarkable is the goblet DA3434, white slipped and with purple zigzag lines painted in between stylised date palms (Fig. 7A). On the floor and in the burnt roof rubble on top was a number of used jar stoppers (small and large) impacted by heat. They apparently had been stored after usage. Room 2: The pottery on the surface and just barely within the roof debris concerned about a dozen of small bowls (same type as in room 1). Rubble 23 also included several small clay objects, among which a miniature wheel of a cart (DA3518), a cloth-impressed jar stopper, and some undefined ones. Room 3: In roof rubble L5-14 was a lamp and a square, conical clay stand (h. 16 cm, base 10 cm, with a groove on top). Such stands were also found in probable domestic contexts on phase 4 floors: two in K5-22, and one in J5-66. Their function is uncertain, although there may have been some association with ground looms, according to ethnographic parallels. Room 4: The pottery was found mainly in three groups on the floor (see Fig. 3). Group I in the western part of K5, on floor 39, in or under burnt rubble 34 extending to rubble K6-45 and together with three clay tablet fragments and a hand grinder. The group consists of about six pots, including a complete biconical

228

Gerrit van der Kooij

Figure 7: Two ceramic objects from room 1 (1998). A. goblet reg. DA 3434, found standing against the wall (Drawing: Hugo de Reede) and B. open bowl reg. DA 3441, with greenish colour, and some copper-alloy oxide shapelessly spread over the bottom (Photo: Gerrit van der Kooij).

Jug (DA3553) and a cooking pot. Some jar stoppers were found nearby. Group II on floor 24 in the eastern part of K5 with three tablet fragments nearby. They are (at tablet D; see Fig. 8) a lamp (DA3464), an oblong juglet (DA3466), and a funnel (F1220). Group III on floor J4-55, in a row alongside wall 33, included a small jar (DA3569) with its ring-base in a clay bed, another jar (smashed), and a small plate. Some isolated objects were also found, such as a wheel of a model cart at

Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple?

229

Figure 8: Field photograph (2000) of floor K5-24 with a lamp (DA3464), a juglet (DA3466), and tablet fragment D (DA3524-A) on or in the whitish floor material (Analogue photo: Gerrit van der Kooij).

the top of K6-54, the rows of burnt mudbrick below floor 55 (see the N-section in Fig. 8).

Concluding Remarks The discovery of the clay tablets exclusive to Tell Deir ‘Alla are a useful starting point for discussing the functional aspects of the present building. Such tablets were also found at two other locations in buildings of the same stratum of LBphase E (see Kooij 2014, 160f). Those from the northern slope were from an indirect religious context, whereas the find circumstances of the tablet from the tell’s south-western foot connect with “metal work, storage and possibly with trade” (Ibrahim, Kooij 1997, 108).This may lead to suggest that the tablet texts were of administrative rather than religious character, even though the latter possibility cannot be excluded. The discussed building gives a number of contextual indications. Room 1 suggests metal work, but also administration, considering the series of used jar stoppers. Religious qualities may be inferred from the date palm decoration on the goblet. Room 2 contained a set of small bowls, but their purpose here is unclear. The clay wheel with part of a burnt axis is all that remains of a cart model, which may point to a workshop but which also may have religious connotations. In room 3 the oil lamp and the burnt conical clay stand disclose no clear indications as to what had occurred there, although the stand may refer to a craftsman’s work. Especially the large room 4 is relevant to understand the compound’s function.

230

Gerrit van der Kooij

The structure itself (as far as excavated) shows no feature among the fixtures pointing to a cultic centre. The brick courses below floor K6-55 probably formed the preserved top of an earlier wall that may have projected from the floor for some time in the way of a platform, but they revealed no features or objects compatible with cultic functions, except perhaps the wheel of a cart model. None of the pottery pinpoints symbolic purposes, although a lamp and a funnel were part of the inventory of the “temple” at the northern slope, but whose Mycenaean pottery and other exotic objects remained unparalleled by the finds in the presented building. On the other hand, room 4 hardly exhibits the characteristics of a domestic space. The origin of the soft, whitish floor material is as yet unclear, but may furnish useful data for the identification of the purpose of this large room. In short, the building complex with its grand appearance cannot directly be identified as a religious centre or temple. Other functions still require consideration, like that of a centre for crafts and trade, or perhaps a social gathering place, although clear parallels still are unavailable.

Bibliography De Vreeze, Michel. 2019. The Late Bronze Deir ‘Alla tablets: a renewed attempt towards their translation and interpretation. MAARAV. A Journal for the study of Northwest Semitic languages and literatures 23.2, 443–491. Franken, Henk J. 1992. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla. The Late Bronze Age Sanctuary. Leuven: Peeters Press. Ibrahim, Moawiyah M., and Gerrit van der Kooij. 1997. Excavations at Tall Dayr ‘Alla; seasons 1987 and 1994. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 41, 95–114. Kafafi, Zeidan A. 2009a. Middle and Late Bronze Age Domestic Architecture from Tall Dayr ‘Alla. In F. al-Khraysheh et al. (eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan X, 585–595. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan. — 2009b. The Archaeological Context of the Tell Deir ‘Alla Tablets. In: Eva Kaptijn and Lucas P. Petit (eds.), A Timeless Vale. Archaeological and related essays on the Jordan Valley in honour of Gerrit van der Kooij on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 119–128. Leiden: University Press. Kafafi, Zeidan A., and Gerrit van der Kooij. 2013. Tell Dēr ‘Allā during the Transition from Late Bronze Age to Iron Age. Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 129, 121–131, Tafel 10–12. Kooij, Gerrit van der. 2006. Tell Deir ‘Alla: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Chronology. In Peter M. Fischer (ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu al-Kharaz, and Tell Deir ‘Alla, 199–226. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Southern LBA Temple?

231

— 2009. Stratigraphic Pull-Offs: a documenting and teaching tool at Dayr ‘Alla. In Hans-Georg K. Gebel, Zeidan Kafafi and Omar al-Ghul (eds.), Modesty and Patience. Archaeological studies and memories in honour of Nabil Qadi “Abu Salim”, 61–84. Irbid and Berlin: Yarmouk University and ex oriente e.V. — 2014. Archaeological and palaeographical aspects of the Deir ‘Alla Late Bronze Age clay tablets. In: Zeidan Kafafi and Mohammed Maraqten (eds.), A Pioneer of Arabia. Studies in the Archaeology and Epigraphy of the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula in Honor of Moawiyah Ibrahim (ROSAPAT 10), 157–178. Rome: “La Sapienza” expedition to Palestine and Jordan. Kooij, Gerrit van der and Moawiyah Ibrahim (eds.). 1989. Picking up the threads … A continuing review of excavations at Deir Alla, Jordan. Leiden/Tilburg: Gianotten Press.

The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla: A Reassessment Margreet L. Steiner

In 1982, Zeidan and I first met at Tell Deir Alla where we worked in adjacent squares. We quickly became friends. Several seasons of excavations at the tell followed, where we joined forces trying to modernise the excavation procedures. It is a great pleasure to present him with some thoughts on the tell we both love so much. In 1961 and 1964 a large LBA temple was excavated at Tell Deir Alla (Franken 1992). Sixteen rooms were exposed, including a cella, a treasury, a chapel and several storage spaces. The number of excavated objects was staggering and included hundreds of ceremonial and household vessels, dozens of objects of faience, gold, bronze, alabaster, stone, glass, ivory, and bone. According to the excavator the temple was a trade sanctuary, and not attached to any settlement; it was used by local tribal traders and Egyptian middlemen. However, since 1964 much more information has become available on LBA temples in the Jordan Valley and beyond, and on the contemporary settlement excavated at Deir Alla itself. It now is time for a re-assessment of the temple.1 Tell Deir Alla is located in the Eastern Jordan Valley, just north of the river Zerqa, biblical Jabbok. The tell has been excavated in seventeen seasons between 1960 and 2009 (Franken 1969; 1992; Kooij and Ibrahim1989; Steiner and Wagemakers 2019). The temple was discovered during the second excavation season in 1961, and the entire fourth season in 1964 was devoted to excavating the complex (Fig. 1). Time constraints prevented the temple to be fully uncovered. In 1967, a new series of excavations began to expose more of the temple complex. The find of the Balaam inscription, however, disrupted the plan, and the 6– day war in June later that year halted the excavations for many years. When the project was re-launched in 1976, emphasis was laid on the Iron Age levels east of the temple complex. LBA levels were again excavated only from 1994 onward, this time on the southern slope of the hill, exposing a LBA settlement with domestic and storage buildings, all destroyed by the same earthquake that had

1

See also Kooij, this volume.

234

Margreet L. Steiner

ravaged the temple complex (Kooij 2006; Kafafi 2009a; Kafafi and Kooij 2013). The temple itself was not excavated during those years.

Figure 1: Tell Deir Alla in 1962. (Photo courtesy Tell Deir Alla Project).

Architecture Franken distinguished several building phases of the temple complex (Fig. 2). The latest phase which had been destroyed by a severe earthquake, was called phase E. In a trench dug through the cella floor (sounding 2) he found earlier phases which were labelled A–D. Very little material from these phases could be retrieved, except for a hoard of pottery found underneath the phase B floor.2 The phase E temple was difficult to excavate because a heavy fire following the earthquake had reduced most mudbrick walls to a fine, red powder that spilt down the slope, and had cracked and shifted the temple’s floors. The uncovered complex consists of a central cella of at least 11 × 15 m in size and built on an elevated platform (Fig. 3). Many objects were found inside, such as cylinder seals, amulets, beads, objects of faience, bone, gold, and alabaster, as well as some ceremonial and household pottery. Two stone pillar bases were found inside the cella which had repeatedly been raised. A bench may have stood against the north wall. It is not clear where the entrance to the cella was located. Franken suggests that it was at the unexcavated south side (1969, 26). However, it is possible that the cella was entered from the east side, through a recorded courtyard, or else from the western side.

2

I would, however, indicate phase B as the earliest temple phase – see note 4.

The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla

235

Figure 2: Excavation of the Late Bronze Age temple in 1964. (Photo courtesy Tell Deir Alla Project).

Figure 3: Plan of the temple complex. (Steiner and Wagemakers 1992, fig. 5.5).

Rooms 7 and 8 were located west of the cella, both entered from a hallway to the south. The floors of these rooms were 1.5 to 2 m lower than the floor of the cella, and they mainly contained household pottery, such as small bowls, jugs, and jars. No luxury objects were found in these rooms but only a few ceremonial vessels. The remaining rooms 9–14 at the west side of the cella may also have belonged to the temple complex. The floors were at the same level as the floors in rooms 7 and 8. Mainly common household wares were found here and no luxury objects. East of the temple was an open courtyard of at least 10 m width, partly covered with a layer of mudbricks. The floor level was at the level of the latest floor inside the cella. The courtyard was not attributed a number in the final publication, and hardly any pottery or other finds were recorded in the excavated part, except for four incomplete vessels: two bowls, one juglet, and one goblet (Franken 1992,

236

Margreet L. Steiner

70–72). Two small trenches were cut through its floor (sounding 3, Franken 1992, 19), revealing mudbrick walls and a platform, possibly a substructure for the courtyard, although the trenches were too small to provide secure results. East of the courtyard three storage or treasury rooms 4–6 were excavated, and it is in these rooms that the famous clay tablets were excavated, as well as forty ceremonial vessels and some luxury objects, such as alabaster and faience vessels and numerous beads. The floors here are at the same level as that of the courtyard. About 17 m to the east of the treasury rooms, in square P600, three more rooms were found that were interpreted as a small shrine (room 1), a kitchen (room 2) and a storeroom (room 3). They mostly contained household wares, very little ceremonial pottery, and few luxury objects. In room 1 ten spindle whorls were found, of a total of sixteen from the whole complex, as well as a 20 cm long, decorated bone pin (a distaff ?). The preliminary report further mentions the find of “two horn cores, from different animals … certainly worked with a tool” (Franken 1961, 367). Room 3 contained fifty household vessels. Franken suggests that it was in the kitchen (room 2) that the fire started after the earthquake, since the debris there partly had been heated to melting point. In this room the only human skeleton was found, lying on a stone bench next to a large pottery jar (Franken 1992, 43). It is not clear whether these rooms had belonged to the temple complex. They may have been part of a residential quarter used by the temple personnel. The levels of the floors here are not indicated in the report. Lower down the slope, in P700, more architecture was found yielding large fragments of LBA pottery (Franken 1992, 19–21; 131–133). In a small sounding (no. 5) a heavy stone foundation was excavated supporting a brick wall of up to 3 m height. A series of buttress walls had been built against its eastern side. This structure was provisionally interpreted as a tower. Furthermore, some pits and a plastered floor were excavated (Franken 1992, fig. 2–10). It is not clear whether or how these structures connect to the temple complex. The floor levels were not indicated in the original report. Only part of the temple complex was thus uncovered. The northern side of many rooms had been eroded away owing to the tell’s steep slope, while to the south up to 9.5 m of Iron Age layers deposited on top of the temple remained unexcavated. Most plans show a stone structure running at a lower level along the north side of the complex (Franken 1992, 13–14; figs. 2-4, 3-1, 3-2). It consists of two east– west oriented stone walls with intermediate walls forming three compartments (Fig. 4). It abuts against the north wall of the temple and runs partly below its west wall. After years of erosion it was noticed that its west wall continued to the south (Franken 2008, 31). Its top courses as excavated at the north side were 1 m lower than the latest cella floor. It had been constructed on top of an artificial mound on which the temple was built, and the excavator concluded that it belonged to the original layout of the cella, although its function remains obscure. It should be

The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla

237

noted that its orientation is not completely consistent with the orientation of the temple itself (Franken 1992, fig. 3.1). Although the shape of the stone structure resembles a casemate wall, Franken resolutely rejected this interpretation (2008, 31).

Figure 4: The stone structure, running from west (left side of the photo) to east. (Photo courtesy Tell Deir Alla Project).

Because the stone structure had no structural function for the cella, and since it resembles a casemate wall, maybe it thus is a casemate wall? During the excavations in the 1960s hardly any MBA material was retrieved, but later excavations uncovered a MBA settlement on the hill’s southern slope (Kooij 2006, Steiner and Wagemakers 2019, 129–130). It is possible that this settlement had been surrounded by a town wall, of which the stone structure is a part. Maybe the artificial hill that Franken noticed below the LBA cella was part of the revetment on which the casemate wall stood, a suggestion made earlier by Moawiyeh Ibrahim (Kooij 2006, 218).

The Finds from Phase E According to the final publications (Franken 1992, 163–165) pottery was plentiful in the temple’s last phase E. Seventy, almost complete ceremonial vessels (goblets, fenestrated pots, cup-and-saucers, bird vessels, pilgrim flasks, etc.) were found in addition to 275 complete household vessels (mainly bowls, jugs and juglets as well as some lamps) and about 400 large and small diagnostic sherds,

238

Margreet L. Steiner

mostly of household wares. Further 75 complete pottery vessels and large fragments, among which a dozen ceremonial vessels, were excavated from the slope north of the complex, in squares D600/700, P600, and P700. Of all the ceremonial vessels, 70% consisted of pedestal bowls and goblets. About 40% of the household wares were bowls, the rest were jars, juglets, and to some extent lamps. A 83 cm tall and decorated pottery stand with a missing base was found in room 4, and a large pottery storage vat, 60 cm high, from the roof debris in room 5. Five Mycenaean juglets were found in rooms 1 and 5, as well as an imitation stirrup jar in room 2 (Hankey 1967; Wijngaarden 2008) (Fig. 6). Three large pithoi with collared rims were found in room 9. Figure 5: Fenestrated pot with lid. (Photo courtesy Deir Alla Project).

A total of five fenestrated vessels, or shrine models, were excavated in the cella and in rooms 1, 4, 6, and 8 (Fig. 5). So far 21 such vessels have been excavated in the Rift Valley, from Kamid el-Loz in the north to Deir Alla in the south, in both shrine and non-shrine contexts, and dating to the 14th to 8th centuries BCE (Berkheij-Dol 2012). Their function is still under discussion, and many hypotheses have been forwarded: they are supposed to be shrine models, votive gifts, receptacles for small offerings, abodes for deity statuettes, lamps, lairs for live snakes, repositories for covenant documents, or grain silo models. Berkheij-Dol suggests they functioned as receptacles for small offerings, or to transport objects to the sanctuary, or as repositories for covenant documents that needed cultic validation (personal communication). Eighteen pieces of bronze scale armour were found in the cella and on the slope nearby. Scale armours were often donated to temples as prestigious votive objects (Hulit 2002). Furthermore, fifteen Mitanni cylinder seals were found in the cella and the slope to the north, as well as in rooms 1, 4, and 5, while four Egyptian scarabs of stone and bone were retrieved from rooms 1, 4, 5, and 7 (Fig. 6). Five alabaster tazze were excavated in rooms 4 and 5, all in Levantine style

The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla

239

made of one piece (cf. Sparks 2007, 92). These tazze were probably used as drinking cups, although they are very small, more fit for gin than for wine. A rare 9 cm tall flask of pale cream yellow glass was found, in room 4 (Franken 1992, 58). Many more small objects were found in and around the complex, such as a fragment of gold, several amulets and pendants, hundreds of beads, a bronze handle, a faience necklace (Franken 1961, Plate 9) and a bone plaque featuring an incised hunting scene (Franken 1961, Plate 8).

Figure 6: Gifts donated to the sanctuary: decorated Mycenaean juglets (A), faience beads (B) and cylinder seals (C). (Steiner and Wagemakers 2019, fig. 5.9).

The most prestigious find is no doubt a blue faience vase bearing the cartouche of the Egyptian queen Taousert, who reigned from 1188–1186 BCE (Yoyotte 1962). She may have sent it to the sanctuary as a diplomatic gift to strengthen Egypt’s ties with the region. The vase was found in the cella (Fig. 7). The object’s scorched state has left it without its original splendour. Luckily, I was able to identify comparable objects on the website of the Louvre Museum, this time displaying a cartouche of Ramses II.3 As to size and decoration they are almost identical with the Deir Alla vase, and are executed in a bright blue colour. Another good parallel is a vase found at Sidon, of which three fragments were retrieved. It is made of white faience (for this vase and the discussion of parallels including the Deir Alla vase, see Maree 2006). Sixteen other faience vessels were found, either complete or as large fragments, mainly in the cella and in rooms 1, 2, 4, and 5. Niels Groot submitted a study on their typological and technological aspects and distinguished between vessels in Egyptian or Egyptianizing style, vessels in Mesopotamian style and vessels of a yet unparalleled group possibly produced in Transjordan itself (Groot 2011, 13–70).

3

https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010006479.

240

Margreet L. Steiner Figure 7: The vase with the cartouche of queen Taousert. (Steiner and Wagemakers 1992, fig. 5.8).

The finds that received most attention were the clay tablets (Fig. 8). They were all found in rooms 4–6. In all, three tablets with script were recovered here (one complete and two fragmented), one tablet with signs and dots, six tablets with dots only (five complete and one fragmented) and one fragment without incisions (Franken 1964a; 1964b; 1965). Two squashed clay objects were also found in room 4; according to the excavator they are clay tablets that had been compressed during the process of being inscribed, which would prove that the tablets were written at Deir Alla itself (Franken 1992, 58). Since 1994, three new complete tablets and two fragments belonging to the same tablet have been found in possibly domestic buildings on the south slope of the tell, all revealing script (Kafafi 2009b; Kooij 2014). The script on the tablets has been compared to Cypro-Minoan, South-Arabian or Phoenician scripts (Cazelles 1965; Masson 1974; Shea 1989; Branden 1965a; b). It certainly is an early alphabetic script, one of the many that developed in this period. Recently Michel de Vreeze has proposed a translation of the texts. He concludes that “the meaning of the tablets, as deduced so far, should be sought in poetic and formulaic spells, prophecies and instructions which likely must be linked to scribes performing in a ‘cultic’ sphere of offering and worship.” (De Vreeze 2019, 490). No figurines were found, except for a terracotta arm in Egyptian style retrieved from the destruction debris on the slope of the hill. It is thought to have come from inside the cella. The arm with hand is 17 cm long; the rest of the statue was missing (Franken 1992, fig. 3–11:30). Room 7 revealed a terracotta fragment of an animal figurine. The style is Iron Age and it may be an intrusive object as many pits were dug into the temple debris.

The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla

241

Figure 8: Clay tablets with text and dots, and a squashed tablet. (Steiner and Wagemakers 1992, fig. 5.10).

Franken noticed a clear functional difference between the cella and rooms 1– 6 east of it on the one hand, and rooms 7–14 west of the cella on the other (1992, 164). Household wares were much more abundant in the rooms west of the cella (152 registered vessels) than in the cella itself (9 ×) and rooms 1–6 (110 ×). Ceremonial pottery was found mostly in the cella and the rooms east of it (58 registered vessels) compared to only 12 vessels in the rooms west of it. Luxury objects of gold, glass, alabaster, ivory, faience, and bone such as combs, beads, spatulas and the objects discussed above, were found mainly in the cella and the rooms east of it, while only some beads and two alabaster juglets were found in the rooms west of the cella. In other words, the rooms east of the cella may have functioned as part of the actual shrine, whereas the rooms west of it had served mainly as storage rooms for household vessels. It is possible that this household pottery constitutes the remains of offerings brought to the temple or that it had been used in rituals. It is noteworthy that only three complete cooking pots were found (in rooms 8 and 9) as well as seventeen rim sherds (mostly in rooms 7–9) , which seems to preclude the idea of cooking or feasting at the site .

Dating of the Temple The find of the Taousert vase pinned the destruction of the temple to somewhere after 1186 BCE, though how long after this date is not clear; the pottery has not been close-dated yet. Only one radiocarbon sample was taken, from a roof beam belonging to the temple, which produced a date of 3130 ± 60 BP (Vogel and Waterbolk 1967, 140). Franken (1992, 177) mentions that this date was calibrated ‘recently’, which resulted to an absolute date (2 sigma) of 1296 or 1266 BCE, which date of course applies to the felling of the tree. Some C14 samples taken in

242

Margreet L. Steiner

the LBA buildings on the south slope yet need to be analysed. It only is possible to date the destruction of the temple to somewhere during the first half of the 12th century BCE or even somewhat later. The beginning of the temple complex can be dated by a foundation deposit (hoard D539) discovered underneath what I interpret as the lowest floor of the temple, D822, phase B (Franken 1992, 16, fig. 2-5), which was encountered in a small trench only (sounding 2).4 Here 22 complete ceremonial vessels were retrieved, including four lamps, as well as a large undecorated storage jar and 54 diagnostic sherds (Franken 1992, 115–119). This pottery can be tentatively dated to the mid-16th century BCE, in other words the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.

Comparison with Other Temples Late Bronze Age temples and shrines have been excavated both in Northern and Southern Levant inside large and small settlements, just outside settlements, and along roads. Many buildings had indirect entrances and an elevated cultic niche or platform accessed through a staircase. They were equipped with benches, and usually included adjunct rooms that are difficult to define in terms of use and function. Foundation deposits and votive pits are common and yield large quantities of luxury votive gifts, whilst the pottery repertoire consists sometimes of hundreds of vessels connected with drinking or eating (DePietro 2012, 57–64). Deir Alla does conform with some but not all characteristics mentioned above, if only because the complete temple could not be uncovered. It lacks the elevated cultic niche or platform, accessed through stairs, although that may have been located at the unexcavated south side. It also is unclear whether indeed there were benches in the room, as suggested by Franken, as the walls’ identification was problematical owing to the fire. No votive pits have been excavated, but then, only part of the courtyard has been uncovered. The find repertoire of this temple is, however, very similar to those of other temples. One of the best parallels in terms of finds may be the LBA (phase 5) temple excavated at Pella in Jordan and roughly dated to 1300–1100 BCE (Bourke 2012). With its outer dimensions of 12 × 18 m, it was slightly larger than the Deir Alla 4

Franken assumed that the lowest phase of the temple was phase A (Franken 1992, 15– 16). The small sounding 2 made through the uppermost floor of the cella (Franken 1992, fig. 2-5) shows that phase A constitutes of floor layers running up to a mudbrick wall D544 / D810, running east-west against the stone structure, 3–4 m below the phase E floor. Fig. 2-5 also shows that this wall had been levelled and that the first floor running over the whole area of sounding 2 (D822) also extended above this wall. Phase A was either a precursor of the temple on a much smaller scale, or part of a building not connected with the later temple. Floor D822 then was the first floor of the (enlarged) cella, with phase B fill on top of it. Hoard D539 is hidden below this floor. No material was retrieved from the phase A floors.

The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla

243

temple. It had a separate cult room with four pillar bases and mudbrick benches set against three walls, and an antechamber with three pillar bases. Many objects were found in a foundation deposit under the floor, in offering pits dug into the floors of both the antechamber and the courtyard, and on the floor of the temple itself. Another parallel is the Fosse temple at Lachish, erected in the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and rebuilt twice (Tufnell et al. 1940). The first temple resembles the Deir Alla complex, although it is much smaller. The cella was 5 × 10 m in size with two small auxiliary rooms at the north and west sides. It had several stone bases for pillars and could be entered at the east and west sides. A cultic platform was located in front its southern wall. The later phases of this temple were more elaborate, with more benches and a raised cultic platform. Hundreds of pottery vessels were excavated from the temple complex, mostly bowls and lamps. Objects made of gold, bronze, alabaster, faience, stone, and glass, as well as cylinder seals, ivory combs, scarabs, and plaque figurines, were retrieved from several votive pits in the courtyard. The temple was destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age.

Function and Rituals Franken interpreted the Deir Alla temple as a place where officials of the Egyptian empire met with local tribes to conclude trade agreements (1992, 163–166; 2008, 33–40). He envisioned the temple standing alone, no settlement nearby, on a trade route running north-south through the Jordan Valley. Eveline van der Steen (2008) argued that another trade route ran from east to west, from the highlands around Amman down to the Jordan Valley, and then north through the valley to cross the river near Pella. The recent find of an Iron Age sanctuary at Tell Damiyah (Petit and Kafafi 2016)5 hints to a ford much closer to Deir Alla itself, which would locate the tell at the junction of important trade routes. Franken thought the shrine was initiated by the Egyptians, although he admitted that neither the architecture nor most of the finds were Egyptian (1992, 166). Since 1976, the renewed excavations at Deir Alla have shown the existence of a LBA settlement with several phases of occupation on the southern slope of the tell. After the site’s abandonment at the end of the Middle Bronze Age it received new settlers in the Late Bronze Age I. They levelled the MBA ruins at the tell’s south side in order to create space for their own houses, whilst apparently considering the ancient ramparts at the northern side a suitable location for their temple. This settlement was destroyed by the same earthquake that had ravaged the temple. The complex was not a stand-alone temple, but part of a settlement. However, Deir Alla was not a town, and no town walls have been discovered. According to

5

See also Petit in this volume.

244

Margreet L. Steiner

Kooij (2006, 218), the settlement must have been small, about 3 ha in size, including the temple complex. The temple complex was large and concentrated much wealth, at least in its final stages when it received votive objects from all over the then-known world, including Mesopotamia, Mycenae, and Egypt. The Egyptians may have had a hand in the establishment of the temple, even though they probably did not run it. A similar indirect Egyptian influence recently has been postulated for the Fosse temple at Lachish (Koch 2017). It remains unknown which deity had been worshipped at Deir Alla. It seems that many of the discovered vessels relate to some form of eating, or rather drinking. Most of the pottery consisted of bowls and goblets, jugs, and jars, while some large storage containers were present as well. I hesitate to call this feasting, as feasting involves communal meals, identifiable by the presence of cooking installations, cooking pots, and animal bones. The focus at Deir Alla rather seems to be on some form of drinking, maybe as offerings, and possibly the offerings of products of the land such as grain and fruit. The foundation deposit contained mainly bowls and goblets as well as a large storage jar. There is little evidence for the offering of aromatic substances. In contrast to the Pella temple mentioned above, no cymbals or scoops were found at Deir Alla, and there was only one large stand or altar. Animal bones are not mentioned in the reports on the temple, so none have been found or if so, in small quantities only. The function of the fenestrated vessels or shrine models in the rituals is not yet clear. The many luxury objects, from gold and glass to alabaster and faience, had been brought to the temple as votives. Interestingly, no figurines were among the objects, except for the arm of the large statue mentioned above. In contrast to the temples at Pella and Lachish, no votive pits were found, but then only part of the courtyard was excavated.

Conclusions The temple complex at Deir Alla was in use from the 16th till the second half of the 12th century BCE. It consisted of a cella with auxiliary buildings stretching over an area of some 70 m from east to west. At the north side the tell slopes steeply downwards, while at the south side the buildings are still covered by up to 9.5 m of later deposits. The size of the complex is unknown. From the latest phase E hundreds of pottery vessels and dozens of luxury objects were retrieved. The layout and inventory of the temple are comparable but not identical to those at other LBA temples, for instance at Pella or Lachish. At Deir Alla the rituals seem to have focussed on the drinking or offering of beverages, the bestowals of votives and possibly the delivery of land produce. Evidence for the slaughtering of animals or the offering of aromatic substances has so far been lacking.

The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla

245

The temple was located in an unwalled village (as far as can be ascertained) and was built on top of an earth bank with a stone structure, possibly the remains of the MBA revetment. An earthquake followed by a raging fire devastated the settlement as well as the temple. There is evidence for attempts to rebuild the temple, which though were halted by yet another earthquake and fire (LBA phases F and G), after which the tell was abandoned for some time.

Bibliography Berkheij-Dol, Johanna. 2012. Sacred or Profane? Identifying Cultic Places in the Early Iron Age Southern Levant: A study on the pillared courtyard building of Tel Kinrot and its shrine model. Master thesis, Protestantse Theologische Universiteit, Kampen. Bourke, Stephen. 2012. The Six Canaanite Temples of Tabaqat Fahil. Excavating Pella’s “Fortress Temple” (1994–2009). In Jens Kamlah (ed.), Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.). Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen (28th–30th of May 2010), 159–202. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Branden, Albert van den. 1965a. Essai de déchiffrement des inscriptions de Deir ‘Alla. Vetus Testamentum 15, 129–150. — 1965b. Comment lire les textes de Deir ‘Alla? Vetus Testamentum 15, 532– 535. Cazelles, Henri. 1965. Deir-Alla et ses tablettes. Semitica 15, 5–21. DePietro, D.D., Piety, Practice and Politics: Ritual and Agency in the Late Bronze Southern Levant. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 2012. De Vreeze, Michel. 2019. The Late Bronze Deir ‘Alla Tablets: A Renewed Attempt towards their Translation and Interpretation. Maarav 23, 443–496. Franken, Hendricus. 1961. The Excavations at Deir Alla in Jordan, 2nd Season. Vetus Testamentum XI, 361–372. — 1964a. Clay Tablets from Deir Alla, Jordan. Vetus Testamentum XIV, 377– 379. — 1964b. The stratigraphic context of the clay tablets found at Deir Alla. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 96, 73–78. — 1965. A note on how the Deir Alla tablets were written. Vetus Testamentum XV, 150–152. — 1969. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Allā I; A Stratigraphical and Analytical Study of the Early Iron Age Pottery. Leiden: E. J. Brill. — 1992. Excavations at Tell Deir Alla; The Late Bronze Age Sanctuary. Leuven: Peeters.

246

Margreet L. Steiner

— 2008. Deir Alla and its Religion. In Margreet Steiner and Eveline van der Steen (eds.) Sacred and Sweet; Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir Alla and Tell Abu Sarbut. 25–52. Leuven: Peeters. Groot, Niels C. F. 2011. All The Work of Artisans; Reconstructing society at Tell Deir ‘Allā through the study of ceramic traditions: Studies of Late Bronze Age Faience vessels and Iron IIc–III ceramics from Tell Deir ‘Allā, Jordan. Ph.D thesis, Delft University. Hankey, Vrowney. 1967. Mycenaean Pottery in the Middle East, Notes on Finds since 1951. Annual of the British School of Athens 62, 131–134. Hulit, Thomas. 2002. Late Bronze Age scale armour in the Near East: an experimental investigation of materials, construction, and effectiveness, with a consideration of socio-economic implications. Durham theses, Durham University. Kafafi, Zeidan. 2009a. Middle and Late Bronze Age Domestic Architecture from Tall Dayr ‘Allå: Recent Discoveries. In: Fawwaz al-Kharasheh (ed.). Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan X, 585–595. Amman, Department of Antiquities of Jordan. — 2009b. The Archaeological Context of the Tell Deir Alla Tablets. In Eva Kaptijn and Lucas Petit (eds.). A Timeless Vale. Archaeological and Related Essays on the Jordan Valley in Honour of Gerrit van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, 119–128. Leiden: Leiden University Press. Kafafi, Zeidan and Gerrit van der Kooij. 2013. Tell Deir Alla during the Transition from Late Bronze Age to Iron Age. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 129, 121–131. Koch, Ida. 2017. Revisiting the Fosse Temple at Tel Lachish. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 17, 64–75. Kooij, Gerrit van der. 2006. Tell Deir Alla: The Middle And Late Bronze Age Chronology. In Peter Fischer (ed.), The Chronology of the Jordan Valley during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages: Pella, Tell Abu Al-Kharaz and Tell Deir Alla, 199–226. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. — 2014. Archaeological and Palaeographical Aspects of the Deir ‘Alla Late Bronze age Clay Tablets. In Zeidan Kafafi and Mohammed Maraqten (eds.), A Pioneer of Arabia; Studies in the Archaeology and Epigraphy of the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula in Honor of Moawiyah Ibrahim, 157–178. Rome: Univversita di Roma “La Sapienza”. Kooij, Gerrit van der and Moawiyah Ibrahim. 1989. Picking Up the Threads …; A continuing review of excavations at Deir Alla, Jordan. Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. Maree, Marcel. 2006. A Jar From Sidon With The Name Of Pharaoh Tawosret. Archaeology & History in the Lebanon 24, 121–128. Masson, Emilia. 1974. Un nouvel examen des tablettes de Deir ‘Alla (Jordanie). Minos 15, 7–33.

The Late Bronze Age Temple at Deir Alla

247

Petit, Lucas and Zeidan Kafafi. 2016. Beyond the River Jordan; a Late Iron Age Sanctuary at Tell Damiyah. Near Eastern Archaeology 79, 18–26. Shea, William. 1989. The Inscribed Tablets from Tell Deir ‘Alla. Andrews University Seminar Studies 27.1–2, 21–37; 97–119. Sparks, Rachael. 2007. Stone vessels in the Levant. London and New York, Routledge. Steen, Eveline van der. 2008. A Walk through the Wadi Zerqa. In Margreet Steiner and Eveline van der Steen (eds.) Sacred and Sweet; Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir Alla and Tell Abu Sarbut. 109–134. Leuven: Peeters. Steiner, Margreet and Bart Wagemakers. 2019. Digging up the Bible? The Excavations at Tell Deir Alla, Jordan (1960–1967). Leiden: Sidestone Press. Tufnell, Olga, Charles Inge and Lankester Harding. 1940. Lachish II (Tell edDuweir); The Fosse Temple. London: Oxford University Press. Vogel, J. C. and Harm Waterbolk. 1967. Groningen Radiocarbon Dates VII. Radiocarbon 9, 107–155. Wijngaarden, Gert Jan van. 2008. Dots close together on a Map; Mycenaean Pottery in the Jordan Valley. In Margreet Steiner and Eveline van der Steen (eds.) Sacred and Sweet; Studies on the Material Culture of Tell Deir Alla and Tell Abu Sarbut. 25–52. Leuven: Peeters. Yoyotte Jean. 1962. Un Souvenir du “Pharaon” Taousert en Jordanie. Vetus Testamentum 12, 464–469.

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel ‫( ﺟﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻌﺔ‬Jabal Al-Qalʽa) Katharina Schmidt

Introduction The Amman citadel (‫ )ﺟﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻌﺔ‬has a long history, but this paper discusses a short, yet relevant occupation interval, namely the Iron Age. It focusses in particular on the history of research of this period and also on the people and the missions that contributed to its exploration. The Amman citadel is of central historical interest for the research on the Iron Age, as it once was the capital of the Ammonite kingdom called Rabbat-Ammon, the northernmost of the known Transjordanian kingdoms. But the citadel site is also important and central for the inhabitants of modern Amman, as its elevated position in the city represents a visible landmark from afar as it rises above the busy, narrow streets in the neighbouring downtown wadis. The citadel is also of special significance for the honouree to whom this article is dedicated: in his childhood, Zeidan used to play football with his friends on the third terrace, right there where later excavations were to uncover parts of an Ammonite residence. Archaeological sites not only are important for scholarly research from their aspects as historical and material witnesses, but can also be meaningful neighbourhoods for those who live nearby and those who interact with them and embrace them as integral part of their own personal history.1

An Outline of the Citadel’s Topography and its Iron Age Occupation The citadel consists of four terraces arranged in an L shape. The vertical arm of this L comprises the “première” and the “deuxiême terrace”, according to the terminology by Jean-Baptiste Humbert and Fawzi Zayadine (1992, 216, fig. 1) (figs. 1–2). It expands from north to south over an area of c. 360 × 180 m (6.5 ha) and

1

I would sincerely like to thank Zeidan Kafafi for his openness, sincerity and support he has brought to me as a colleague and friend in Amman. I would like to thank him for many brilliant and stimulating conversations, not only with regard to archaeological topics, and for sharing his profound knowledge of the archaeology of Jordan and beyond. Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to Barbara Porter and Paul Larsen for remarks and English proofreading; all remaining errors are attributable to the author.

250

Katharina Schmidt

Figure 1: Plan of the Amman citadel (M 1/2000) (Almagro 1980, 111).

comprises the Umayyad palace (“première terrace”), the modern Citadel Museum, and the temenos area of the Hercules temple (“deuxiême terrace”). The arm running from west to east corresponds to Humbert and Zayadine’s “troisième terrace” (1992, 216, fig. 1) (fig. 2) and extends over a surface measuring 300 × 120 m (3.6 ha). This part of the citadel reaches from the area east of the Hercules temple to the far eastern end of the now unbuilt part of the Jabal Al-Qalʽa which was bordered by a wall in both the Roman times and most likely the Iron Age (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 225–241). It has been noted that this part of the citadel is often misleadingly called the “Lower terrace” (Najjar 1997, 1). This designation is ambiguous, as the actual lowest terrace of the citadel – here labelled as the “fourth terrace” – adjoins the “third terrace” to the east (fig. 2). Although this part is completely overbuilt by modern houses today, there once had been dwelling houses here (Najjar 1997, 1–2). Humbert and Zayyadine (1992, 16 fig. 1) thus refer to this 6 ha large area as the “quatrième terrasse”, and Conder too (1989, 30) describes it as the “most eastern terrace” while including it into his plan (fig. 3). Hence, for reasons of accuracy, the terms “first, second, third, and

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

251

Figure 2: Division of the Amman citadel into four terraces, as followed in this article. Plan showing the course of the city wall, including that of the fourth terrace under excavation in 1988–1991 (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 216, fig. 1, drawn by A. Chambon).

fourth terrace” are used here. With regard to the Iron Age city, it must be assumed that the lower town of Rabbat-Ammon once extended to the area of the fourth terrace, as also confirmed by a large amount of Iron Age II pottery found there (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 219).2

2

Conder’s plan (fig. 3) shows a fortification drawn in dotted lines around the fourth terrace following the top of the slope and Dornemann’s (1983, fig. 3) reconstruction of this part of the city wall follows this line. Humbert and Zayadine (1992, 219) proposed on the basis of some walls they observed and marked on their plan that the layout for the city wall was more flexible than the straight line of the Conder wall. Excavations that could clarify the course of the wall around the fourth terrace cannot be undertaken because it is overbuilt.

252

Katharina Schmidt

Table 1: Overview of excavations uncovering Iron Age remains on the Amman citadel. Fortification wall

Gate

Tombs

1889 Conder survey 1927–1938 Italian Mission Southern slope of third terrace (Harding 1953; Zayadine 1973)

1950s Adoni-Nur tomb discovery 1968/ 69 Dornemann Campaigns

– Northern city wall (casemate wall ?) (Area II and III) – Northwestern city wall (Area I) (Dornemann 1983, 89–93)

1968, 1972–1973 DoA excavations

1987–1991 École Biblique – DoA joint excavations

Area B, eastern end of the third terrace: Iron Age glacis and probably walls (Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989)

1990–1993 ACOR – DoA Temple Excavations Southern side of third terrace: 2000 / 2002 DoA excavations probably city wall (Mansour 2002)

Northern city gate? (Area II) (Dornemann 1983, 92)

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

Residence and other building structures

Temple

253

Northern underground chamber / water system / “cistern” “cistern” (Conder 1889, 34) “cistern” (Botarelli 2015; Bartoccini 1933)

Interpreted as water system or sacred function? (Dornemann 1983, 90–91 footnote 1) Area A on third terrace; Ammonite double-face female heads in secondary context (Zayadine 1973) Area A, southern side of the third terrace: part of a residence (Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989)

“water system” (Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989, 357, 358 fig. 2) Remains of large building, probably temple of god Milkom (Koutsoukou et al. 1997)

254

Katharina Schmidt

Our archaeological knowledge about Rabbat-Ammon is limited. This is due mainly to the few archaeological investigations that explicitly have aimed at researching the Iron Age and the overbuilding of the monuments, in particular in modern times immediately next to the citadel.3 The Iron Age I is evidenced by pottery sherds only (Dornemann 1983, 170; Hadidi 1974). In contrast, the existence of a substantial Iron Age II (10th–6th century BCE) occupation has been demonstrated on many parts on and immediately around the citadel and will be discussed in detail in this contribution. So far, summaries on the history of research at the citadel have been presented by Almagro (1983a, 33–36), Anastasio and Botarelli (2015, 15–23), Northedge (1992, 16–18), Tyson (2014, 2–9), and Zayadine (1973, 17–20), whilst focussing on different periods. In the following, research activity and excavations at the Amman citadel are discussed chronologically, whereas table 1 is intended to provide an overview of the various structures excavated by the different missions.

The 19th and 20th Centuries: Early Travellers Many European explorers visited Amman in the 19th and the early 20th century.4 They described the Roman and Umayyad monuments on the citadel and the remains in the lower town visible at the surface and plotted them in maps. Among the earliest visitors were Ulrich J. Seetzen (Seetzen 1810) who visited Amman briefly in 1806, and Johann L. Burckhardt in 1812 (1822, 360) who described the city more extensively. The first survey was carried out in 1821 by James S. Buckingham (Buckingham 1825, 68–69), who also mentioned the “cistern” in the north of the citadel, and this is of particular interest for this present contribution, as its origin most likely dates back to the Iron Age (Table 1). Laurence Oliphant stands out from the many other travellers to Amman, owing to his precise measurements which he carried out at the “cistern” in 1879 (1880, 161).5 Around the same time, in 1878 and later between 1881 and 1882, Claude R. Conder was engaged in surveying Palestine on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund (Conder 1889, 19– 65) and subsequently produced a highly accurate map of the citadel and its surroundings (fig. 3). In addition to a detailed record of the topographical features, this map also furnishes a unique testimony of the monuments and tombs still present at the time before succumbing to the development of the Circassian settlement around the citadel. Conder also described the “cistern” at the northern end 3

Epigraphic evidence about Ammon is not discussed in detail in this paper; for a summary see in particular Hübner 1992. 4 For a research history of Amman in the 19th centuries see Almagro (1983, 33–36), Northedge (1992, 16–17), and Anastasio (2015, 15–23). 5 In the 19th century, many other travellers visited Amman, most of them only for short stays, and they also described the monuments. These records are not discussed here as they do not address the structures relevant to the Iron Age citadel. A detailed overview can be found in Anastasio (2015, 16–17).

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

255

of Jabal Al-Qalʽa (Conder 1889, 34) and coupled it to a passage of Polybius who narrated the siege of Philadelphia under Antiochus the Great. In the early 20th century, Howard C. Butler published an extensive description as well as a detailed plan of the old ruins of Amman, its citadel, and the lower town (Butler 1907, 34–62).6 He based his publication on a survey on behalf of the Princeton Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904, while being aware that his record might be the last detailed documentation of the site (Butler 1907, 34):

Figure 3: Map produced by Conder in 1889 showing a detailed record of the topographical conditions and monuments on and around the citadel of Amman (Conder 1889).

6

Other travelers of at the early 20th centuries are discussed in Anastasio 2015, 18–19; N. Glueck 1939 surveyed the area around Amman but not the citadel in his early 1930s campaigns.

256

Katharina Schmidt

“It was only upon our arrival, and after a general survey of the site, when it became apparent that the ruins had suffered great depredations since the last publications of them were made, and were likely to perish entirely under the hands of the recent Circassian settlers, that we determined to measure, as thoroughly as possible, all the ancient remains visible above ground, and to publish them together. Our hope, in doing this, was that by restudying the monuments already published, and by publishing with them a few unpublished remains, we might present a record of the antiquities of the city as they are today, while their rapid dilapidation is in progress, trusting that these records may be of use, after much that is now above ground has disappeared, in case the site should ever be excavated.” (Butler 1907, 34).

Excavation History and Results 1927–1938 F IRST E XCAVATIONS BY THE I TALIAN M ISSION The first excavation conducted on the citadel of Amman was carried out by an Italian mission under the direction of Giacomo Guidi and later that of Renato Bartoccini between 1927 and 1938. Their work was interrupted by WW II. The excavation focussed on the area of the Umayyad palace, the church and the temple. On Carlo Ceschi’s general plan of 1930, the fourth terrace of the citadel was still free from overbuilding (Bartoccini 1938, pl. IV/6). The final report and the subsequently foreseeable high-quality plans, drawings, and photographs remained nonetheless unpublished, except for only a few notes by Bartoccini (1930; 1933). In the course of the preparations of the Spanish archaeological mission, Antonio Almagro located the documentation at the University of Perugia (Institute of Ancient History) and published them in 1983 (Almagro 1983). In 2015, Stefano Anastasio and Lucia Botarelli finally succeeded in publishing the entire archived material by Giacomo Guidi and Renato Bartoccini and their missions (Anastasio and Almagro 1983, 619, fig. 10)7. They further had located the complex in a map (Anastasio and Botarelli 2015, 14, fig. 6). Antonio Almagro produced photogrammetric plans in the 1980s showing the condition of the citadel and its surroundings, at a point when the fourth terrace already had been completely overbuilt, just like the slopes to the northeast, west, and south. Until now, this has remained the most recent map (fig. 1).

7

Ceschi indicates 20 steps, while Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989 marked 14 steps; also the second passage was omitted in Ceschi’s drawings.

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

257

Figure 4: Plan view and section views of the “cistern” north of the citadel drawn by C. Ceschi according to R. Bartoccini in the 1920s/30s (Botarelli 2015, 100).

1949 T HE D ISCOVERY OF THE FOUR I RON A GE S TATUES ON THE N ORTHERN S LOPE Gerald Lankester Harding (1953) noted in the Palestine Exploration Fund Annual VI that intensive construction was underway in Amman and in other parts of the kingdom and that archaeological objects were continually brought to light. For example, the first four Ammonite statues were found by accident in 1949. They belong to the Ammonite statue corpus and comprise a head (J.1654)8, a torso

8

Barnett (1951, pl. 12); Dornemann (1983, 283 fig. 90, 3); Harding (1950, 266 fig. 6); Zayadine (1987, 136 cat.-no. 132); Zayadine (1991, 43, no. 43).

258

Katharina Schmidt

(J.1655)9, a statue (J.1657)10, and the inscribed statue of Yerakh-Azar (J.1656)11. They were discovered by a house owner while removing the earth in his yard, just north of the Roman city walls at the northernmost end of the citadel, but the exact circumstances of the discovery remain unknown (Barnett 1951, 34).12 Rudolph H. Dornemann (1983, 90, footnote 1) stated that the statues were found near the entrance of the rock chamber (“cistern”), however, a reconstruction of the exact location of discovery cannot be made. Harding (1950) published the finds in a short article in the Illustrated London News on February 2, 1950, in which he already referred to two stone heads, one acquired and kept at the British Museum (BM 116739)13, the other located in Amman (no number). Richard D. Barnett (1951) published the statues and suggested the sculptures were a “cache having some connection with a shrine” (Barnett 1951, 34; see also Harding 1950). Only a few years after the discovery of the four Ammonite statues, workers of the municipality of Amman uncovered a torso (J. 8124)14 in the same area. The statue was found 300 m east of the north corner of the Roman city wall when a cave was being converted into a civil defence shelter (Maʽayeh 1960, 114). According to Farah Maʽayeh, this find supports the assumption that the statues found in 1950 had been part of a “cache”.

T HE E ARLY 1950 S . T HE TOMB OF A DONI - NUR AND E XCURSUS ON O THER I RON A GE T OMBS One of the most prominent Iron Age tomb complexes is the tomb of “Adoni-nur” discovered in 1950. It represents one of the very few tombs that can be located directly on the slope of the Amman citadel.15 The reconstruction of the exact location of the tomb complex is revealed only with Harding and Zayadine’s descriptions placing it on the citadel’s southern slope “opposite the Roman theatre” (Zayadine 1973, 19) and “opposite the Hashimiyeh Police Post” (Harding 1953, 48). The tomb complex is hence possibly located in the area of a cliff edge on the southern slope at the eastern end of the third terrace (Fig. 3), which corresponds to the descriptions by Harding and Zayadine. Since the area around the caves was completely demolished and overbuilt in the 1990s, nothing of the Adoni-nur tomb AN

9

Barnett (1951, pl. 13); Dornemann (1983, fig 92, 2); Zayadine, Humber and Najjar (1989, pl. LI, 1, 2), Harding (1950, 266, fig. 5). 10 Barnett (1951, pl. 10); Zayadine (1991, 41, no. 39). 11 Abou Assaf (1980, pl. 9); Barnett (1951, pl. 11); Dornemann (1983, fig. 92, 3); Zayadine (1974, fig. 1; pl. 3, 4); Zayadine (1987, 133); Zayadine (1991, 40, no. 38). 12 Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar (1989, 359) indicate that the four statues were found near entrance 3 of the cistern, north of the Citadel. 13 The head is said to come from Amman, see Barnett (1951, footnote 1). 14 Abou Assaf (1980, 92, pl VI) I; Dornemann (1983, fig. 92.4); Maʽayeh (1960, pl. IV). 15 It is striking that this burial complex was never mentioned or recorded on any map of the travelers of the 19th and 20th centuries, as it is one of the few tombs located directly on the southern slope of the citadel.

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

259

has survived today.16 Harding (1953, 48–49) describes in great detail the circumstances that led to the discovery of the tomb inventory. He noted that during the renovation of two caves by the owners, seals and pottery sherds were found and reported to the Department of Antiquities (DoA) in the late 1940s. Immediately after the discovery of the finds, the DoA carried out further excavations and was able to find more objects, such as seals, fibulae (among which one of gold), and the remains of three sarcophagi (“Hockersarkophag”) (Harding 1953, 51–72). The material came from the rocky ledge in front of the two caves which therefore could be identified as a burial already robbed in antiquity (Harding 1953, 50). The period of occupation can be dated by the finds from the 7th century BCE to the early Persian period. Some of the finds show close similarities with objects from the Neo-Assyrian capitals in Northern Mesopotamia, as elaborated by Oded Tufnell (1953, 66–72) and pointing to intensive exchange. Harding, who presented the majority of the finds, also evoked Neo-Assyrian parallels with regard to the stamp seals, in addition to those with seals in the Levant and Palestine (Harding 1953). Of particular importance is a pierced scarab (J.1195) displaying the alphabetic inscription of a man named Adoni-nur which gave the tomb complex its name. The seal surface is divided into two epigraphic registers, and the inscription can be read as follows: “Belonging to Adoni-nur servant of Ammi-nadab” (Hübner 1992, 110–111).17 Ammi-nadab, in Assyrian Ammi-nadbi can be identified as a king of Ammon and vassal of the Neo-Assyrian king Assurbanipal (669–631 BCE), according to the latter’s inscriptions. Therefore, the seal belonged to Adoni-nur, a close associate of the Ammonite king, who probably had been buried there. Because of their historical and archaeological importance, the following gives an overview of the other Iron Age tombs uncovered in the immediate vicinity of the citadel.18 Tombs Amman A and B are both situated in close proximity to each other on the north side of the opposite hill of Jabal Joffeh, about 1 km to the south of the citadel. The tombs had been disturbed in the Roman period by looting and quarrying work but contained earlier pottery sherds, earrings, an ivory seal, a stone palette, and the head of a rider figurine (Harding 1945). Both tombs were attributed to the 8th to 7th centuries BCE (Henschel-Simon 1945, 80). Dornemann (1983, 63) dates the pottery from tomb A slightly later (7th – late 6th century BCE) than that of tomb B (8th – mid-7th century BCE). Tomb C was uncovered at the “foot of Jebel Amman al-Jedid, just above Sharia el Amir Talal” and c. 2 km to the west of the citadel (Harding 1951, 37). Although the tomb most probably had been quarried away in the Byzantine period, pottery fragments, as well as a bronze 16

I am indebted to Dr. Adeeb Abu Shmeis for this information. For a summary of all readings of the inscription see Hübner (1992, 110, footnote 287). 18 An updated and extensive summary concerning the Ammonite tombs has been submitted by Tyson (2014, 39–45). Dornemann (1983, 47–48) published a summary of the tombs incorporating them in his chronological sequence, see there p. 63. 17

260

Katharina Schmidt

fibulae, bronze and iron rings, bracelets, a figurine, and two stone palettes were found and attributed to the 8th to early 7th century BCE (Harding 1951, 37; Dornemann 1983, 63). Harding also mentioned tomb D located on the northern slopes of the citadel hill, which was robbed out completely before him bringing the objects to the DoA (Harding 1951, 37). The undisturbed tomb E was found at the foot of Jabal Joffeh, 300 m east of the Roman theatre. It contained 150 intact pottery vessels as well as metal and stone objects (Dajani 1966; also mentioned in Maʽayeh 1960, 114). The grave goods have been dated to the 8th century BCE to the Persian period (Dajani 1966, 46; Dornemann 1983, 63; Routledge 1997, 34). Tomb F was situated in close proximity to tomb E, c. 500 m south of the citadel, and its discovery coincided with the excavations of the foundations of the Roman theatre. The tomb had been disturbed, but it nonetheless contained pottery, several terracotta figurines and moulds, as well as bone objects with central perforations. Dornemann (1983, 47, 63) dated it to the mid-7th to the late 6th century BCE. The Raghadan royal palace tomb situated on Jabal al-Qusur contained two anthropoid coffins which, according to Khair Yassine (1975, 60–61), date to the Iron Age IIB. From the surrounding area of Rabbat-Ammon, further tombs were uncovered at the following sites: one at Meqabelein, about 6 km southwest of the citadel (Harding 1950) and dating between the 7th and 5th centuries BCE; Tomb B at Sahab, at some distance southeast of the citadel and attributed to the 9th to 7th centuries BCE (Harding 1948); one tomb at Umm Udayna, c. 6 km west of the citadel dating to a period between the 8th and the 5th centuries BCE (Abu Taleb 1985, Hadidi 1987, Khalil 1986); two tombs at Abu Nseir, 15 km northwest of the citadel from the 8th to 7th centuries BCE (Abu Ghanimeh 1983); and two tombs at Khalda, 10 km north of the citadel attributed to the 7th to 5th centuries BCE (Yassine 1988, 19–31)

1968/1969 F IRST E XCAVATIONS ON THE C ITADEL T ARGETING THE I RON A GE LED BY R. H. D ORNEMANN The first archaeological excavations aiming specifically at the citadel’s Iron Age levels were carried out by Dornemann in 1968/ 69. Dornemann lived in Amman from 1965 to 1967 and served as an archaeological advisor to the Department of Antiquities in the framework of a USAID tourism project. At the time he was working on his PhD thesis on the Iron Age in Transjordan. His dissertation, which he submitted to the University of Chicago in 1970 and which was published with almost the same title in 1983, still remains the most detailed monograph on the citadel and its surrounding area in the Iron Age including a study of archaeological objects (Dornemann 1983, XIV). As a staff member at the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman (ACOR), Dornemann began fieldwork in 1968/69 and targeted several spots on the northern slope of the citadel, directly north of

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

261

the Hellenistic-Roman city wall.19 There, the Iron Age city wall and a possible city gate were excavated in three areas (Area I, II, and III) (Dornemann 1983, 89– 94, figs. 4, 5). The wall structures excavated in Areas II and III could be attested in two phases and showed that the city wall may have formed a casemate wall. However, on the basis of the excavated archaeological features, this cannot be clearly established, because the rectangular wall corner may also hint to a possible city gate. The ceramic material associated with a deep trench at the wall section in Area II points to the 10th and 9th centuries BCE (Dornemann 1983, 89–92). Of further interest for the course of the wall in the Iron Age is the indication of massive wall structures uncovered during clearing work at the south-eastern corner of the second terrace, possibly dating to the Iron Age, as indicated by the pottery (Dornemann 1983, 94). Coupled to the fortification system, Dornemann (1983, fig. 5) proposed an interconnected arrangement of different-sized underground chambers and a tunnel. This is the structure that Conder, Bartoccini and others referred to as “cisterns” (see above). The layout consists of four main chambers with a central, stepped entrance and a small tunnel that emerges to its south, directly outside the Roman city wall. Accepting the proposed course of the Iron Age city wall as well as the tunnel system’s assumed date to the Iron Age, the tunnel entrance would have been located on the inside the Iron Age fortress, whereas the wide stepped entrance would have been on its outside (Dornemann 1983, fig. 5). No artefacts leading to a chronological attribution were found. Dornemann 1983 (90, footnote 1) predates the tunnel to the chamber, on grounds of observed differences in workmanship of both constructions. The cistern interpretation was suggested and it was noted that there had been no natural supply of water, thereby suggesting the possibility that the tunnel and the stairs had served as inlets for water. Another theory based on the four statues found in the immediate vicinity (see above) suggested the system had fulfilled a “religious function” (Dornemann 1983, 90 footnote 1). Dornemann also analysed “old finds” from the Iron Age coming from various museums, among others including the Citadel Museum and the Archaeological Museum in Irbid (Dar Al Saraya). These finds consisted chiefly of ceramic material which, like the material from his excavations at the citadel (Dornemann 1983, 94–103), came mostly from Iron Age tombs (Dornemann 1983, 31–38, 47–88). In addition, he focussed on the Ammonite stone sculptures from the citadel and its surroundings (Dornemann 1983, 153–163) and also on the Iron Age figurines and terracotta shrines (Dornemann 1983, 129–145), the anthropoid sarcophagi (Dornemann 1983, 145–149), and metal objects (149–152). In his exhaustive investigation of the citadel’s architecture, pottery, and small finds Dornemann was able to establish that the evidence had accumulated during specific periods, but 19

The excavations on the northern part of the citadel had become necessary, because soil from the northern side of the city wall had been moved by the DoA to make the HellenisticRoman wall more visible (see Dornemann 1983, 90; Zayadine 1973, 19).

262

Katharina Schmidt

with a particular emphasis at the end of the Iron Age II, i.e. the 7th and 6th centuries BCE (Dornemann 1983, 166).

1968, 1972–1973 D EPARTMENT OF A NTIQUITIES OF J ORDAN E XCAVATIONS : D ISCOVERY OF THE D OUBLE -F ACED F EMALE H EAD The DoA carried out excavations on the third terrace under the direction of Zayadine in 1968 and also between 1972 and 1973. Their objective was to demonstrate the archaeological significance of the area which the Amman Municipality planned to convert into a public park (for a map, see Bennett 1977, 174; Zayadine 1973, fig. 1). The investigations concentrated in Area A20 at the southern edge of the third terrace, the same spot that later was investigated by Zayadine, Humbert, and Najjar (Zayadine 1973, 20) (see below), and Area B at the south-eastern corner of the third terrace (Zayadine 1973, 20)21. The excavations in Area B need yet to be published. The excavations aimed to explore the city wall and the area that directly adjoined it intra muros (Area A). Five strata were identified in Area A of which stratum V dates to the Iron Age II period (Zayadine 1973, 22–30, figs. 2– 3).22 Also of particular interest with regard to the Iron Age is a drainage channel from the Hellenistic period with four double-sided female heads (J.11688, J.11689, J.11690, J.11691) used as paving material (Tell 1967–1968, 9; Zayadine 1971, 152, pl. XLI; Zayadine 1973, 23 figs. 3, 27).23 The heads belong to the Ammonite corpus of sculptures and were found in secondary context (Abou Assaf 1980, 97, pl. 12; Dornemann 1983, figs. 93–94; Zayadine 1987, 134–153; Zayadine 1991, 45). The Iron Age building structures of stratum V included two walls and floors, which yet cannot be assigned to any building structure. The Iron Age debris can be divided into two phases respectively consisting of the 10th–9th and the 7th–6th centuries BCE (Zayadine 1973, 28–30, figs. 2–3). 1987–1991 É COLE B IBLIQUE – D EPARTMENT OF A NTIQUITIES OF J ORDAN J OINT E XCAVATIONS : D ISCOVERY OF A R ESIDENCE The third terrace of the citadel was still in danger of being destroyed by modern construction when the Amman Municipality attempted to build a hospital here in 1987. Also, the northern area of the Jabal Al-Qalʽa was reworked and turned into a public park. These undertakings provided the impetus for a joint expedition of 20

Corresponding to Dornemann’s Area VIII, Dornemann (1983, fig. 4). Corresponding to Dornemann’s Area IX, Dornemann (1983, fig.4). 22 Stratum I comprised a large fortification wall that Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar (1989, 359) later attributed to the Late Roman period, strata II and III were also attributed to the Late Roman period and stratum IV to the Hellenistic period. 23 All numbers refer to the architectural plans by Zayadine (1973, fig. 3). Tell (1967–1968, 9–12) described in detail both the circumstances of the discovery of the heads and the heads themselves. Abou Assaf (1980, 20) stated that the fourth head was found within a deposition layer 1 m above the canal. 21

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

263

the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (DoA) and the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jerusalem (EBAF). Those involved were F. Zayadine and Mohamed Najjar for the DoA, Jean-Baptiste Humbert, Jean-Michel de Tarragon, Alain Chambon, and Eleni Papapetrou-Humbert for the EBAF, and Frank Braemer for the Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient (Ifapo). The results were published in Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989, and Humbert and Zayadine 1992. In 1988 excavations started in order to investigate the “water system” (“cistern”) in the area north of the citadel. The water system was investigated in detail (Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989, 357–359), and an updated plan was prepared by A. Devillers (Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989, 357, 358, fig. 2). In this context, Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar (1989, 359, pl. I) produced another Iron Age stone torso uncovered at the north-eastern corner of the city wall and revealing a striking design on the upper part of its represented garment. Stylistically, the torso matches well with the corpus of Ammonite statues, however, its find number and current location remain unknown. This discovery adds a sixth statue fragment to the corpus of Iron Age statues found in the northern area of the citadel. The excavators interpret the underground chamber system as a cistern and evoke close connections with the siege of Amman-Philadelphia by Antiochus III in 218 BCE, as earlier proposed by Conder (see above) (Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989, 359). Excavations on the third terrace began in areas A and B (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, fig. 2), and a short report was published soon after in 1989 (Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989). A more exhaustive article followed in 1992 (Humbert and Zayadine 1992), but the final publication is still pending. The old soundings carried out in 1968, 1972, and 1973 were reopened in Area A at the southern side of the terrace, although under great effort, since large concrete blocks used as fill material had to be removed.24 The Iron Age II structures uncovered here comprise a large courtyard paved with pebbles (N–S 10 m; W–E 15 m, not entirely exposed) bordered by two large, parallel walls (0613 and 0822) with adjoining rooms in the north and south (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 248, fig. 12). The courtyard contained a drainage system running west to east, either for collecting rain water in a cistern or for the evacuation of waste water (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 251 fig. 13, large plan). The flanking rooms 108, 110, and 107, which originally had most likely one or two upper floors, were filled with large quantities of debris that had fallen from the upper storeys (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 253). The objects retrieved from this debris comprise e.g. life size terracotta masks (unpublished, 24

In the 1968/72/73 excavations, part of a city wall had already been excavated. However, a date was only tentatively suggested then. The new excavations led to a late Roman date in the 3rd and 4th centuries; see Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989, 359; Humbert and Zayyadine 1992, 222–225. Apart from the Roman ramparts, investigations also cleared a Middle Bronze Age II fortification system; see Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989, 359 and Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 230–233.

264

Katharina Schmidt

on display in the Jordan Archaeological Museum, J.19636), and the Amman glass bowl, which is a unique piece with parallels in the Neo-Assyrian capitals only, in particular Nimrud (Schmidt 2019, 48, 66, pl. 23, ). Rooms 103 to 105 to the south of the courtyard had served as private rooms, including a toilet (103) with a stone seat. Room 105 is of particular interest as it contained a podium, close to which a stone block showing a narrow face with an eye (25 cm) was found (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 253).25 Because of its size and the accompanying finds, this building was interpreted as a residence, and it was also suggested that the double-faced female heads excavated in secondary contexts in 1968/72/73 (see above) must have belonged to this building (Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar 1989, 362; Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 247). The pottery, the glass bowl, and the female heads date to the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, according to the excavators. They partly reveal close parallels with Neo-Assyrian pottery and glass objects. The fact that Ammon had become a Neo-Assyrian vassal in 732 BCE points to the date of the residence’s construction most probably at the end of the 7th century BCE (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 257–258). At the eastern end of the third terrace in Area B, excavations uncovered a sequence of the city walls belonging to the Roman and Hellenistic periods. An Iron Age glacis in the form of a rounded masonry wall reinforces a large wall oriented perpendicular to the Roman rampart, the base of this wall was not reached (Humbert and Zayadine 1992, 233–135, fig. 8, 238–240, pl. VIII b).

1990–1992 A MERICAN C ENTER OF O RIENTAL R ESEARCH – D EPARTMENT OF A NTIQUITIES OF J ORDAN J OINT P ROJECT : T HE T EMPLE E XCAVATIONS The “Temple of Hercules Project” was conducted in eight seasons between 1990 and 1993 with the aim to recover archaeological evidence and to carry out restoration work at the Roman temple and its temenos. The project was a cooperation between the DoA and the ACOR. The participants included Pierre M. Bikai (ACOR), R. H. Dornemann (Milwaukee Public Museum), Ahmad Momani (University of Jordan), M. Najjar (DoA), Glen L. Peterman (ACOR), Kenneth W. Russel (ACOR) and Khair Yassine (University of Jordan) (Koutsoukou et al. 1997; Najjar 1997, 1). Extensive structures from the Iron Age II were discovered to the west and east of the temenos area as well as inside the latter, most of which was attributable to the Iron Age IIB and IIC. Iron Age IIB pottery was detected in the temple’s foundation trenches. East and west of the temenos a number of Iron Age II rooms was excavated, although the evidence was insufficient to reconstruct a full outline of a building on either side (fig. 5). The rooms contained pottery vessels and partly also storage jars and valuable objects, such as stone palettes (B-9, P-26) and a tridacna shell (NE40/95) (Najjar 1997, 4; Koutsoukou 1997, 147, no. 25

This stone block was reported from nearby the foundations of a Hellenistic wall, but since it is unpublished, no suggestion as to its date can be given.

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

265

183–185). The most prominent Iron Age II structures were uncovered directly underneath the cella and to the east of the portico of the Roman temple. The Iron Age remains comprise three massive walls (each 1 m wide) forming the northeastern corner and its south-western extension of a large building (NE25/35, NE30/25, NE30/35.24 and NE20/20) (fig. 5). The overall length of the preserved east-west walls (altogether 21.3 m) and 6 m north-south wall point to a building of considerable dimensions. Adjoining the corner of the walls were the remains of a plastered floor established on top of an earth layer set on bedrock (NE25/35 and NE30/35). The floor plaster indicates that this room had once been covered (Momani and Koutsoukou 1997, 163). The pottery is of high quality and dates to the Iron Age IIC, in addition, six figurines were found in this area (Momani and Koutsoukou 1997, 167–169). Because of the large size of the building and the distinctive location close to the prominent rock, the excavators cautiously proposed that the structure was the temple of the Ammonite god Milkom, suggesting a cultic continuity at that place (Momani and Koutsoukou 1997, 164).

2000/ 2002 D EPARTMENT OF A NTIQUITIES OF J ORDAN E XCAVATIONS The “Development of Amman Citadel Project” was carried out by the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities with the technical cooperation of the DoA in 2000. The excavations were headed by Sahar Mansour and focussed on the south-eastern sector of the third terrace. The results were published in two articles, one concentrating on the stratigraphy and the architectural structures (Mansour 2002), and the other on the terracotta figurines (Mansour 2005). Three areas were targeted: Area SEa inside the southern fortification wall and Area SA4 and SA3 outside the city wall. Trenches were dug to the east of Area A of the excavations of Zayadine, Humbert and Najjar (see above) (Mansour 2002, 141). The excavations Areas SA3 and SA4 outside the southern city wall revealed two parallel wall courses running from west to east under a thick layer of mixed pottery (walls A and B) (10 m length, 0.65–0.74 m thick, rising 1–5 m high). In between was a floor, paved with small stones and containing Iron Age material (terracotta figurines and pottery; Mansour 2002, 141, figs. 2, 4–6). A staircase to the east of the floor was identified as associated with it. It is unclear whether the two walls A and B are related to the Iron Age floor, and their chronological attribution yet remains problematical. Within the southern city wall in Area SEa, a row of five rooms running parallel to the southern wall was excavated at a distance of c. 5–7 m north of this wall and interpreted as a casemate wall by the excavator (Mansour 2002, 142– 143). The rooms were c. 4.35 m in size (only the N-S measurements are given), filled with limestone and rubble and with no entrances. Iron Age material was absent, as are other finds (Mansour 2002, 142–144). The excavations in the westernmost rooms (2.50 × 2.50 m) produced Hellenistic pottery, which led the excavator to assume a continuity in the use of this structure from the Iron Age into the

266

Katharina Schmidt

Hellenistic period (Mansour 2002, 144). Due to the unclear stratigraphic attributions of the individual building structures, presently no conclusion can be drawn concerning the Iron Age building remains.

Figure 5: Floor plan of the Roman temple and its temenos with the underlying Iron Age structures within the cella and outside the temenos area (Koutsoukou et al. 1997, pl. 1).

2010 R ESCUE E XCAVATION D EPARTMENT OF A NTIQUITIES OF J ORDAN E XCAVATIONS : A MMAN “T HEATRE S TATUE ” In April 2020, a monumental basalt statue (height 2.1 m; width 0.85 × 0.56 m; c. 2 tons) was uncovered during development works on the Hashemite Square, which is the plaza in front of the Roman theatre in the lower city (Burnett and Gharib 2017). The rescue excavations carried out by the DoA (Romel Gharib) attributed the statue to a levelling layer containing Iron Age, Hellenistic, and Roman pottery, which was laid out as a substructure for the theatre square; the socalled theatre statue was thus found in secondary context.26 It is unlikely that the 26

Hadidi who excavated in front of the Roman theatre, indicated that the construction of the “forum” in Roman times involved major rebuilding work and earth moving activity. The pottery found in this area was a mix of Roman, Hellenistic and Iron Age pottery. The lowest layers along the south side contained even Iron Age I sherds, Hadidi (1974, 82; 380–384). Also the Amman theatre inscription was discovered on the western side of the theatre in 1961; see Dajani (1967–1968, 65) for the description of find context; for the

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

267

statue, which almost weighs 2 tons, had been transported over any long distance to end up here. Burnett and Gharib (2017, 419) observed damage from water erosion, so it is possible that the statue had been lying in the Seil river bed for some time before being used as building material. Therefore, I assume that the theatre statue had stood originally on the citadel, most likely in its eastern part and that it had tumbled down the steep slope after having fallen into disuse.27 It is possible that the theatre statue was originally placed in or near a presumed eastern city gate. Comparable finds of statues of rulers were made in Luwian-Aramaic cities, for example in Malatya or in Karkemish; thus larger-than-life statues of kings were found in situ in the gates (Orthmann 1971, pl. 34b). ⸭⸭⸭ This outline of the history of research on the citadel in Amman shows how long it has attracted the attention of researchers and travellers. However, a sign that today is located next to the entrance of the citadel and refers to some unidentifiable building structures says aptly: “These archaeological remains show us the past building form, and remind us that much of the Citadel site still holds a promise of future discovery and knowledge.”

Bibliography Abou Assaf, Ali. 1980. Untersuchungen zur ammonitischen Rundbildkunst. Ugarit-Forschungen 12, 7–102. Abu Ghanimeh, Khaled. 1984. Abu Nseir Excavation. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 28, 305–310. Abu Taleb, Mahmud. 1985. The Seal of Plty Bn M´š the Mazkir. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 101, 21–29. Almagro, Antonio. 1980. The Photogrammetric Survey of the Citadel of Amman and Other Archaeological Sites in Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 24, 111–119. 1983. El palacio Omeya de ʿAmmān. Valencia, Granada, Madrid: Inst. San Jerónimo; Escuela de Estudions Árabes CSIC; Inst. Hispano-Arabe de Cultura Dir. General de Relaciones Culturales. Anastasio, Stefano, and Lucia Botarelli, eds. 2015. The 1927–1938 Italian Archaeological Expedition to Transjordan in Renato Bartoccini’s Archives 2015. Oxford: Archaeopress. Anastasio, Stefano. 2015. Research in Amman prior to the Italian Expedition. In Stefano Anastasio and Lucia Botarelli (eds.), The 1927–1938 Italian Archaeological Expedition to Transjordan in Renato Bartoccini’s Archives 2015, 97– 100. Oxford: Archaeopress. reading, see Hübner (1992, 17–18, especially footnote 10) with a compilation of the entire bibliography on its reading and interpretation. 27 Burnett and Gharib (2017, 419) pointed to a possible origin of the statue on the citadel but also suggested an original erection in close proximity to the theatre.

268

Katharina Schmidt

Barnett, Richard D. 1951. Four Sculptures from Amman. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 1, 34–36. Bartoccini, Renato. 1930. Ricerche Scoperte Della Missione Italiana in Amman. Bolletine dell Associazione Internazionale per gli studi Mediterranei, 15–17. — 1933. Scavi Ad Amman Della Missione Archeologiaca Italiana, A. IV. Bolletine dell Associazione Internazionale per gli studi Mediterranei 4–5, 10– 15, 19.20. — 1938. La Roccia Degli Ammoniti. Atti del IV Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani Vol I, 103–108. Bennett, Crystal M. and Alastair Northedge. 1977. Excavations at the Citadel, Amman, 1976: Second Preliminary Report. 172–179. Botarelli, Lucia. 2015. The Water Cisterns. In Stefano Anastasio and Lucia Botarelli (eds.), The 1927–1938 Italian Archaeological Expedition to Transjordan in Renato Bartoccini’s Archives 2015, 97–100. Oxford: Archaeopress. Buckingham, James S. 1825. Travels Among the Arab Tribes Inhabiting the Countries East of Syria and Palestine: Including a Journey from Nazareth to the Mountains Beyond the Dead Sea and from Thence Through the Plains of the Hauran to Bozra, Damascus, Tripoly, Lebanon, Baalbeck and by the Valley of the Orontes to Seleucia, Antioch and Aleppo; with an Appendix Containing a Refutation of Certain Unfounded Calumnies Industriously Circulated Against the Author of This Work by Mr. Lewis Burckhardt, William John Banks and the Quarterly Review. London: Longman Hurst Rees Orme Brown And Green. Burckhardt, John L. 1822. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. London: Darf Publishers. Burnett, Joel S., and Romel Gharib. 2017. An Iron Age Basalt Statue from the Amman Theatre Area. Annual of the Department of Antiquities 58, 413–421. Butler, Howard C. 1907. Syria: Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–1905: Division II. Ancient Architecture in Syria. Leyden: Brill. Section A. Southern Syria. Part I Ammonitis. Conder, Claude R. 1889. The Survey of Eastern Palestine. London: The Committee of the Palestine exploration fund. Dajani, Rafrik, W. 1966. An Iron Age tomb from Amman. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 11, 41–47. — 1967–1968. An (EB-MB) burial from Amman. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 12–13, 68–69. Dornemann, Rudolph H. 1983. The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Milwaukee (Wis.): Milwaukee Public Museum. Hadidi, Adnan. 1974. The Excavation of the Roman Forum at Amman (Philadelphia), 1964–1967. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 19, 71– 91. — 1987. An Ammonite tomb at Amman. Levant 19, 101–120.

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

269

Harding, G. Lankester 1945. Two Iron Age tombs from Amman. Quaterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 11, 67–74. — 1948. An Iron Age tomb at Sahab. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 13, 92–103. — 1950. A Find of Great Archaeological Interest and Importance” Illustrated London News. 18th February, 1950, 266–267. — 1951. Two Iron Age tombs in Amman. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 1, 37–40. — 1953. The Tomb of Adoni-Nur in Amman. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 6, 48–72. Henschel-Simon, Elisabeth. 1945. Note on the Pottery of the Amman Tombs. The Quaterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 11, 75–90. Hübner, Ulrich. 1992. Die Ammoniter: Untersuchungen Zur Geschichte, Kultur Und Religion Eines Transjordanischen Volkes Im 1. Jahrtausend V. Chr. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins Bd. 16. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Humbert, Jean-Babtiste, and Fawzi Zayadine. 1992. Trois Campagnes De Fouilles a Amman (1988–1991) Troisième Terrasse de la Citadelle (Mission Franco-Jordanienne). Revue Biblique 99, 214–60. Khalil, Lutfi. 1986. A Bronze Caryatid Censer from Amman. Levant 18, 103–110. Koutsoukou, Anthi. 1997. VII. Miscellaneous Finds. In A. Koutsoukou, K.W. Russell, M. Najjar, and A. Momani (eds.), The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations, 135–156. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research Publications. Koutsoukou, Anthi, and M. Najjar. 1997. Pottery. In A. Koutsoukou, K.W. Russell, M. Najjar, and A. Momani (eds.), The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations, 55–118. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research Publications. Koutsoukou, Anthi, Kenneth W. Russell, Mohammad Najjar, and Ahmad Momani (eds). 1997. The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research Publications. Maʽayeh, Farah, S. 1960. Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 4 and 5, 114–116. Mansour, Sahar. 2002. Preliminary Report of the Excavations at Jabal Al-Qalaʽa (Lower Terrace): The Iron Age Walls. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 46, 141–150. — 2005. Figurines and Iron Age Objects from ʽAmman Citadel. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49, 541–555. Momani, Ahmad, and Anthi Koutsoukou. 1997. The 1993 Excavations. In A. Koutsoukou, K.W. Russell, M. Najjar, and A. Momani (eds.), The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations, 157–180. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research Publications.

270

Katharina Schmidt

Najjar, Mohammad. 1997. The 1990–1992 Excavations. In A. Koutsoukou, K.W. Russell, M. Najjar, and A. Momani (eds.), The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations, 1–22. Amman: American Center of Oriental Research Publications. Northedge, Alastair. 1992. Studies on Roman and Islamic ʿAmmān: The Excavations of Mrs C.-M. Bennett and Other Investigations. British Academy monographs in archaeology 3. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Oliphant, Laurence. 1880. The Land of Gilead: With Excursions in the Lebanon. Edinburgh: Blackwood. Routledge, Bruce. 1997. Mesopotamian “Influence” in Iron Age Jordan: Issues of Power, Identity and Value. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 32, 33–42. Schmidt, Katharina. 2019. Glass and Glass Production in the Near East during the Iron Age Period: Evidence from Objects Texts and Chemical Analysis. Oxford: Archaeopress. Seetzen, Ulrich J. 1810. A Brief Account of the Countries Adjoining the Lake of Tiberias, the Jordan, and the Dead Sea. Bath. Tell, Safwan, Kh. 1967–1968. New Ammonite Discoveries (Engl. Title). Annual of Department of Antiquities 7/ 8, 9–12. Tufnell, Oded. 1953. Notes and Comparisons. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual VI´, 66–72. Tyson, Craig W. 2014. The Ammonites: Elites, Empires, and Sociopolitical Change (1000-500 BCE). The Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord. aspx?p=1656526. Yassine, Khair. 1975. Anthropoid Coffins from Raghdan Royal Palace Tomb in Amman.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities 20, 57–68. Yassine, Khair, ed. 1988. Archaeology of Jordan. Amman: Dept. of Archaeology. Zayadine, Fawzi. 1971. Foullies Classiques Récentes En Jordanie. Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes 21, 147–155. — 1973. Recent Excavations on the Citadel of Amman. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 18, 17–35. — 1974. Note Sur l’inscription de la Statue d’Amman J. 1656. Syria 51, 129– 136. — 1987. Die Zeit der Königreiche Edom, Moab und Ammon. In Der Königsweg: 9000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur in Jordanien und Palästina; [RautenstrauchJoest-Museum, Köln, vom 3. Oktober 1987 - 27. März 1988; Schallaburg, NÖ April–Nov. 1988; Prähistorische Staatssammlung, München, 30.11.1988– 19.2.1989, edited by Siegfried Mittmann, 117–169. Mainz, Rh. von Zabern. — 1991. Sculpture from Ancient Jordan. In Piotr Bienkowski (ed.), The Art of Jordan: Treasures from an Ancient Land. 31–61. Stroud: National Museums & Galleries on Merseyside.

The History of Research on the Iron Age at the Amman Citadel

271

Zayadine, Fawzi, Jean-Babtiste Humbert, and Mohammad Najjar. 1989. The 1988 Excavations on the Citadel of Amman: Lower Terrace, Area A. Annual of the Department of Antiquities 33, 357–363.

Crossing the Jordan River The Historiography of the Damiyah Bridges Lucas P. Petit

Introduction The magnificent 360-degree view from the summit of Tell Damiyah over the Zor is definitely worth the steep climb (Fig. 1). The Zor denotes the actual streambed of the Jordan River and is one of the most neglected territories in terms of archaeological research. The reasons are threefold. This part of the Jordan Valley is, or more precisely, was affected by seasonal floods and thus neither very suitable nor safe as a place for dwelling until the 20th century. Secondly, the sparse sedentary occupation remains are covered by thick layers of river sediment. Archaeologists have not been able to find many remains except those on elevated ground (Kaptijn 2009).1 And last but not least, most of the Zor has been under military jurisdiction since 1967 and hence inaccessible for researchers.2 Nevertheless, there exist some very interesting features in the Zor near Tell Damiyah, such as the remains of ancient bridges. They played a crucial role in the region’s long history of occupation, and it is high time their evidence is discussed. This article is written in honour of my colleague and dear friend Zeidan Kafafi with whom I have spent many days, weeks, if not months discovering and debating the remarkable surroundings of Tell Damiyah.

The Ford of Adama According to the Old Testament, the royal town of Adama was situated near one of the few fords of the Jordan River (e.g. Gen. 14:2; Joshua 3:16). Most scholars identify Adama with the settlement mound Tell Damiyah (cf. Glueck 1943, 6; MacDonald 2000, 45–61) and accept that the mentioned ford must have been nearby, probably south of the confluence of the Zerqa and the Jordan Rivers (Fig. 1

Geomorphological investigations near Tell Damiyah revealed Iron Age II pottery at a depth of 1.8 m below the present walking surface (personal communication Dr Fouad Hourani). 2 I would like to thank the Jordanian Armed Forces for their permission to study the archaeological remains in the Zor. I am also indebted to the Department of Antiquities of Jordan for their continuous support, and also to the Yarmouk University and the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities for financing the project at Tell Damiyah.

274

Lucas P. Petit

2). The presence of the remains of historical bridges suggest that the Iron Age ford was at the same spot. Pre-Roman fords in this area, however, are very hard if not impossible to locate, since the Jordan River has changed its course repeatedly and because evidence of ancient roads is missing. Recent excavation results at Tell Damiyah reveal that goods were frequently exchanged between the east and the west during its main occupation phase (ca. 1550–600 BCE) (Petit 2009a; 2009b; 2013; 2016; Petit and Kafafi 2016). Similar to the text passage in the Old Testament, these movements point toward a suitable crossing place not too far away from the settlement.

Figure 1: View from the 2015-excavation trenches on the summit of Tell Damiyah towards the west, with Zeidan Kafafi and Zeyad Ghunaimat (representative of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan) visible in the upper centre. The Damiyah bridges are located behind the trees on the far right (Photo: Lucas Petit).

There were numerous settlements in the Jordan Valley during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, some of them large and important, like Pella, approximately 45 km north of Tell Damiyah. Archaeological surface surveys immediately to the north of the research area showed that the Ghor, the upper valley plain, had been densely occupied during these periods (e.g. Kaptijn 2009, 228). Roman milestones found in the area testify to roads connecting the north and the south (Mittmann 1970; O’Hea 2002). The exact crossing locations of the Jordan River during the Roman period remain uncertain, although one of which may have been near Tell Damiyah (cf. Mittmann 1970, 144). Travellers may have continued their journey

Crossing the Jordan River

275

accordingly up through the Wadi Far‘ah towards the large city of Neapolis (Nablus). The Madaba mosaic map, the area’s earliest, dates to the 6th century CE and is a useful source for identifying towns and landmarks. Unfortunately, it still remains undecided whether it refers to the ford of Damiyah. The map shows a ferry north of the Dead Sea, but the part mentioning the original name of the location is damaged. This particular ferry is a little south of Salumas and Aenon, two ancient settlements generally assumed to be in the northern part of the Jordan Valley. According to Avi-Yonah (1954), this proves that the location was the northern crossing point close to Lake Tiberias. But taking the distances into account and accepting that the tributary river next to the ferry is the Zerqa River, Damiyah may by the same token also be considered.

Figure 2: A map of the area with the changing locations of bridges, roads and rivers (Map made by Lucas Petit).

The medieval stone bridge of Beibars The earliest mention of a built bridge at Damiyah is attributed to the Muslim historian al-Noweiry who lived between 1280 and 1332 (Peake 1958, 800).

276

Lucas P. Petit

Accordingly, Sultan Beibars had ordered its construction in February 1266, at a time when the Jordan Valley experienced a period of prosperity under the newly established Mameluke power and an upsurge in commerce. Trading posts and mosques were founded along the routes between Damascus and Egypt, whilst roads and bridges were built to sustain transport. Beibars dedicated his time and energy especially to improve the logistics in this area. At “Duma”, most likely equivalent with Damiyah, he ordered the construction of a stone bridge with five arches (Ibn Taghribardi 1941, vii; al-Maqrizi 1956, I, 544; Ibn Shaddad 1983, 352). Noweiry’s narrative informs about difficulties in its achievement, owing to the strong current. At least one pillar was damaged shortly after completion and had to be rebuilt: “In February 1266 A.D., the Sultan Beibars ordered a bridge of five arches to be built over the Jordan near Duma; and a marvellous thing happened, the like whereof was never heard before. After being erected, one of the piers got displaced, and the Sultan being angry, sent the builders back to have it right; but the current was so strong as to interfere with their work. When, lo! after a time, on the night of December 8, 1267, the water ceased to flow; and the bed being dry, they lighted fires and torches, and hastily using the opportunity, completed repairs that would otherwise have been impossible. Rider sent to find out the cause discovered that a mound some way upon had fallen into the channel and dammed the water up.” (quoted by Watson 1895, 253) It is unknown how long this stone bridge was in use, though it certainly lasted for more than one century. During most of the 13th and 14th centuries, agriculture prospered – especially sugar cane plantations – and the Jordan Valley reached its highest level of wealth (Ashtor 1981, 93; Watson 1981, 41; Kareem 2000, 12; LaGro 2002). Crucial for this success was the use of water mills whose remains are still visible (Kaptijn 2009, 282–283). It is fair to assume that the bridge was maintained regularly during this period. This changed in the 15th century when the valley’s population increasingly was threatened by Bedouin attacks from the south (Kaptijn 2009, 313). Villages clustered together for purposes of protection, but as a result of plagues and epidemics, the sugar industry declined and came to an end in the late 15th century (Ashtor 1977, 236; LaGro 2002). We have no information as to whether the bridge was still in use during or after this decline, but it is questionable if a bridge would withstand more than a century without maintenance. Floods and high water levels represented a constant threat, as described below. For the following 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries there is no available information as to the existence of any sort of bridge or ferry at Damiyah. In 1848 US naval officer William Francis Lynch and his crew visited the Jordan Valley and reported about the river, the landscape, and some archaeological and historical features. They camped on the western banks near the Damiyah

Crossing the Jordan River

277

ford. After dinner, some of the team members crossed the river to explore the ancient ruins of the bridge: “The bridge was of Roman construction [sic], with one arch entire, except a longitudinal fissure on the top, and the ruins of two others, one of them at right angles with the main arch, probably for a mill-sluice. The span of the main arch was fifteen feet; the height, from the bed of the stream to the keystone, twenty feet. From an elevation, the party could see, towards the east, three of four miles distant from them, a line for verdure indicating a water course. The Arabs say that it is the Zerka (Jabok), which, on the maps, flows into the Jordan very near this place. It approaches quite close, and then pursues a parallel course with the Jordan. Tomorrow, we shall probably determine the exact point of junction. To the best of our knowledge, this bridge has never before been described by travellers.” (Lynch 1855, 249–250) Deeper archaeological interest in the region did not start earlier than in 1868, during a visit by the French explorer Victor Guérin. His book which was published the following year describes his arrival at the Damiyah ford where he crossed the 40 m wide river by boat and where he observed the five ruinous arches witnessing the former stone bridge. According to Guérin, the remains did not predate the Islamic period and had most likely been built by the crusaders (1869, 240). Inspired among others by the accounts of Lynch and Guérin, an increasing number of scholars became interested in the Jordan Valley whilst realising its historical and archaeological significance. One of the most useful reports on the valley’s archaeological and historical monuments was published by the American archaeologist Selah Merrill: “I spent the afternoon in making a sketch of the valley from Tell Damiyah, and in measuring the remains of the bridge that once spanned the river a mile to the west of it. This was on the high road from Nablus or ancient Shechem to Gilead and the East. It was Roman work [sic], but has been repaired by later races. The stream is about one hundred feet wide where the bridge crossed the river and formerly stone work could be seen in the middle of the stream. (…) The foundations of the abutment on the east side are quite perfect. For something over one hundred feet back from the river the bridge has disappeared. When it behind, it does so, as well be seen in the illustration, with a broken arch, and runs eastward two hundred and eighty—nine feet, where it turns to the north and runs down an easy incline to the level of the plain. Its entire length from west to east would thus be about four hundred feet. (…) As will be noticed, the arches do not succeed each other at regular intervals. The reason is that the ground is not level. (…) If we count two broken arches, there are eight remaining, and formerly there must have been two or three more.” (Merrill 1881, 423–424)

278

Lucas P. Petit

This description was published together with a very accurate sketch of the ruins (fig. 3; Merrill 1881, 422–423). In all, Merill counted eight arches and suggested there had been at least two more. This is remarkable, since the earliest written description by al-Noweiry states that the bridge originally had five arches only.

Figure 3: Detailed sketch of the medieval bridge of Damiyah made by Merrill in 1881, looking south (Reproduced from Merrill 1881, 422–423).

This difference is hard to explain, unless the bridge had been submitted to considerable repair work and alterations. Its sharp bend, in this case northward, is unusual for a bridge. Merrill made a valuable comment about the unlevelled ground. Recalling the problems Beibars had experienced in 1266, the constructors had most likely chosen to build on more elevated and stable parts of the terrain. Later constructors too, had indeed struggled with the relatively unstable ground.3 The preferred trajectory of this stone bridge had apparently not been in a straight east-west line. A suggestion by Lynch that it may have been a mill-sluice cannot be confirmed, but still remains a good alternative. Almost two decades later the German archaeologist Gottlieb Schumacher took a photograph of the Damiyah bridge (Fig. 4). It consists of a close-up of two of the arches and includes two local Bedouins. Schumacher suggested a date to the Islamic period instead of its elsewhere repeated Roman or Crusader origins (1899, 35).

3

In 1939 a new bridge was constructed. The builders had difficulties in identifying suitable locations for the pillars, even though they analysed samples obtained from multiple boreholes prior to the work (Israel State Archive 1939–1947).

Crossing the Jordan River

279

Figure 4: One of the first photographs of the medieval bridge at Damiyah made by Gottlieb Schumacher in 1898, probably looking north (Repro. from Schumacher 1899, Abb. 9).

During the construction of a later bridge in 1939 (see below) the medieval remains were measured, photographed, and partially buried. This was one of the actions that was agreed upon between Transjordan and the British officials in Palestine: “… The Trans-Jordan Government will not object to the partial burial of a Roman bridge [sic] by the approaches to the new bridge provided that the Palestine Department will take photographs and make a plan of the antiquity before the work commences.” (Israel State Archive 1939–1947) Successive letters thereafter reveal that the archaeological remains were not of highest priority. In September 1939, the Palestine Department in Jerusalem pointed out that they did not have adequate staff to either take the photographs or to make good plans of the ancient remains. In the end the Palestine Department took six photos in September 1939 and also produced a map. Unfortunately, the topplan as well as the section-drawing for the most had faded over the years (Israel State Archive 1939–1947). The six images, however, very much resemble the situation rendered by Merrill and Schumacher in the late 19th century. The two arches were present and the flat pavement on top of the bridge was still there. This sharply contrasts to the situation today. The deterioration can be explained partly by the “partial burial” of the remains (see above), but also by weathering, floods, and the reuse of stones for later constructions.

280

Lucas P. Petit

Figure 5: The only remaining arch-fragment of the medieval bridge at Damiyah in 2015, looking northeast (Photo: Lucas Petit).

Figure 6: A fragment of the medieval bridge in 2015, looking east. The original construction method with a wall of dressed stones and an interior of clay and pebbles is visible. The top of this bridge was reused as the road for the 1939 bridge (Photo: Lucas Petit).

Crossing the Jordan River

281

Figure 7: A military car crossing a wooden bridge on April 1, 1917. This might be an image of the Damiyah bridge, looking east. This photograph was provided by the German Federal Archive to Wikimedia Commons (Bundesarchiv, no. 146-1971-103-24 / CC-BYSA 3.0).

Among the few in situ remains of the medieval bridge there is one preserved arch, yet only in fragments, whilst hidden by dense vegetation (Fig. 5). The medieval bridge was constructed in two parallel, square-dressed walls of ashlars filled with pebbles, earth, and clay (Fig. 6). As far as can be distinguished from sight, these ashlars are made of local travertine and limestone. The arches are formed with more rectangular-dressed flat stones. The walking surface of the pavement has not survived, but the images from 1939 (Israel State Archive 1939–1947) show that flat stones had been used to facilitate movement and to protect the bridge from erosion and weathering.

The Wooden Bridge of the Ottomans Evidence of a first bridge after the medieval period at Damiyah is kept at the German Bundesarchiv and consists of a photograph displaying a wooden bridge, a military vehicle, and two soldiers (Fig. 7). It was taken on April 1, 1917, but the absence of any other photographic proof or description complicates the confirmation as to the bridge’s location at Damiyah. Since similar wooden bridges had existed previously in the Jordan Valley (for example the so-called El-Ghoraniye bridgehead built in 1893), it is reasonable to assume that the Ottomans had also built a wooden bridge in the centre of the Jordan Valley to develop transport but also to collect various tolls and taxes from travelling merchants. In 1910 Abel

282

Lucas P. Petit

mentions no wooden bridge at Damiyah, which means that its construction must have occurred between 1910 and early 1917 (Abel 1910). During 1918, the last year of WW I, the Jordan Valley bridges, among which also the Damiyah bridge, were prime targets for the battling parties. There are multiple accounts of these battles and more than one for the Damiyah bridge. After a failed capture in spring, the wooden bridge was finally said to have been taken on September 22 by a multinational force made up of New Zeeland, Australian, West Indian, and Jewish volunteer troops during the so-called Third TransJordanian Attack. They forced the Ottoman defenders to withdraw in disorder, and the bridge was captured in intact condition (Wavell 1968, 221; Moore 1920, 148–150). Photographs taken at the end of 1918, however, show the construction of a temporary wooden bridge on a series of pontoons.4 The original permanent bridge, after all, may have been too damaged for use. The provisional bridge functioned for a short time only. British representatives in the early 1920s mentioned that people could cross the Jordan River near Damiyah in a ferry (Israel State Archive 1921–1939). Also the images made by the American archaeologist William Foxwell Albright show a boat (1929, 13), and this ferry was still there in 1936 (Fig. 8).

The Metal Bridge of the British One of the first references to a metal bridge at Damiyah is a letter dated August 8, 1939 and addressed to the High Commissioner for Transjordan at Jerusalem (Israel State Archive 1939–1947) by a British resident A. S. Kirkbride. It mentions a meeting held at Damiyah between representatives of the Palestine Department of Public Works and the Transjordan Government, in order to discuss matters connected to the building of a bridge at this site. They came to an agreement, and the bridge was finished in late December 1939. Parts of the Allenby bridge further south – which at the same time was dismantled – were used in this construction. During the construction and repair works on the older ferry, a boat was put into service. Both the fear of floods as well as hopes of ending work well ahead of the March water swells emerge from this correspondence. Tests at the bridge began late December and early January, unaware that the following year 1940 would be exceptional. Already by January 31, the water levels of the Jordan River had surged unexpectedly to -201.1 m, which is 5 m above the usual level. The metal bridge was destroyed and only three pillars remained. The British did not wait long and began repair work on March 24, only few months later, which was completed on June 4. It is this metal bridge that occurs on the maps as from 1942 (Map of Palestine 1942) and 1945 (Map of Palestine 1945). As long as security

4

A low resolution image can be found on Wikimedia commons (File:The_Damieh_bridge_captured_by_the_New_Zealand_Mounted_Rifles_Brigade.jpg). Accessed November 11, 2020.

Crossing the Jordan River

283

Figure 8: The Damiyah ferry around 1936, looking northeast (Photo: G.Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection, American Colony, no. LC-DIG-matpc-05126).

measures could not be agreed upon, the Damiyah bridge was used only infrequently. Misfortune struck again only a few years later, in 1946. In the night from June 16 to 17 elite Jewish covert troops of the Palmach blew up seven road and two railway bridges, effectively cutting off Palestine from the outside world. Damiyah was one of the damaged bridges. Images taken shortly after the attack show a gap in its centre. However, the damage was unimportant and could be repaired during

284

Lucas P. Petit

1947 (Israel State Archive 1939–1947). Parts of the concrete pillars of this repaired bridge are still visible today as well as parts of the road on the east bank. Stones from the medieval bridge were used to make this road.

The Jordanian Bridges During the 1950s the Jordanians constructed a second concrete and stone bridge a few hundred metres to the south. Both the precise date and the reason behind the construction of this second bridge are unknown to me. Both bridges remained in use to cross the river at least until 1967. This ended with the Six-Day War between June 5 and June 10, opposing Israel and the neighbouring states of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Already on June 1, the concrete and metal bridges were destroyed in Israeli airstrikes. The northern bridge was completely destroyed, whereas the southern bridge was only partly damaged (Fig. 9). Right after the destruction of the bridges, the Israeli Minister of Defence, Moshe Dayan, allowed the uncontrolled traffic of goods between the Palestinians and Jordan via the Damiyah ford in a measure to avoid an economic collapse of the West Bank. The American archaeologist Nelson Glueck describes in his diaries the situation on August 16, 1967: “[…] at the easily fordable crossing of the Jordan near Damieh (Biblical Adamah), there is a wholesale movement of heavy trucks bringing melons, tomatoes, and other farm products from the Arab sections of the West Bank across the river to the East Bank, which is in sore need of them, and where the West Bank farmers or fellahin can get much higher prices than on the West Bank itself. A newly sprung up group of what may be called Jordan River pilots has come into being, that knows the shallow bottom of the river very well and directs the passage of the trucks in both directions across the river. The water comes up to above the hub caps of very large trucks. Small passenger cars cannot make the crossing, unless dragged over by one of the trucks. […] No Israeli or Jordanian officials or military are around, at least not in uniform, and the brisk trade between Israel and Jordan goes on without any official interference or supervision whatsoever.” (Glueck 1967, 96) In January 1968 Jordan built a prefabricated metal bridge to facilitate trade with the West Bank. It was open to both goods and people, but not for long. Less than three months later, on March 21, Jordanian artillery damaged the same bridge to prevent Israel from passing during the Battle of Karameh. Relations between Israel and Jordan remained fragile in the aftermath of the Six-Day War and the loss of the West Bank to Israel. The inflicted damages were, however, insignificant and Israel could cross in the morning of March 21. Israeli troops were stationed on the east bank of the Jordan River, whilst the engineers repaired the metal bridge to ease movements during the conflict. In the evening the Israeli

Crossing the Jordan River

285

Figure 9: The remains of the southern concrete bridge in 2015, looking west, with damage of the airstrike on June 1, 1967 in the centre (Photo: Lucas Petit).

Figure 10: The metal bridge covered with vegetation in 2015, looking west (Photo: Lucas Petit).

286

Lucas P. Petit

army withdrew from the east bank and established the border at the Damiyah bridge. The metal bridge remained in use until 2005, although with numerous repairs and adjustments. In January 1968 the bridge suffered a blast that destroyed most of the Jordanian side of the span, and in early 1975 its metal structure was damaged by floods. In December 1991 it was decided that the Damiyah bridge was no longer to serve for passenger traffic. The Allenby Bridge to the south was to be the sole crossing point for residents of the Westbank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. From that year the Damiyah bridge was destined for goods transported in lorries only. At the end of the Second Intifada in 2005 the Damiyah bridge was closed completely and went out of use (Fig. 10). In early 2014 the Palestinian Authorities discussed with the Jordanian Government the possibilities of reopening traffic between the two sides, and there are other plans of reestablishing the Damiyah bridge as a crossing point. To date (in late 2020), none of these plans have been put into effect.

Bibliography Abel, Félix-Marie. 1910. Exploration de la Vallée du Jourdain. Revue Biblique Internationale 19, N.S. 7, 532–556. Albright, William Foxwell. 1929. New Israelite and Pre-Israelite Sites: the Spring Trip of 1929. BASOR 35, 1–14. Al-Maqrizi. 1956. Kitāb as-Sulūk li-Ma’rifat Duwal el-Mulūk. Cairo [Arabic] Ashtor, Eliyahu. 1977. Levantine sugar industry in the late Middle Ages. Israel Oriental Studies vii, 227–280. Ashtor, Eliyahu. 1981. Levantine Sugar Industry in the Late Middle Ages: A Case of Technological Decline. In A. Udovitch (ed.), The Islamic Middle East, 7001900: Studies in Economic and Social History, 91–133. New Jersey. Avi-Yonah, Michael. 1954. The Madaba Moasic Map, with introduction and commentary. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society. Glueck, Nelson. 1943. Three Israelite Towns in the Jordan Valley: Zarethan, Succoth, Zaphon. BASOR 90, 2–23. — 1967. Nelson Glueck Papers. Accessed November 16, 2020. https://www. asor-glueck.org/diaries/1967-2/. Guérin, Victor. 1869. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine, II. Paris Ibn Shaddad. 1983. Tarīkh al-Malik az-Zāhir. Ed. Ahmad Hutait. Beirut [Arabic] Ibn Taghribardi. 1941. an-Nugūm az-Zāhira fi Mulūk Misr wal-Qāhira. Cairo [Arabic] Israel State Archive. 1921–1939. “Jericho- Es Salt Road”. File -00079mu. Accessed November 12, 2020. https://www.archives.org.il.

Crossing the Jordan River

287

Israel State Archive. 1939-1947. “Bridge over the River Jordan at Damiya including dismantling of old Allenby Bridge, Sabotage”. File 0006mxf-. Accessed November 12, 2020. https://www.archives.org.il. Kaptijn, Eva. 2009. Life on the Watershed. Reconstructing subsistence in a steppe region using archaeological survey: a diachronic perspective on habitation in the Jordan Valley. Leiden, Sidestone Press. Kareem, Jum’a Mahmoud H. 2000. The Settlement Patterns in the Jordan Valley in the Mid- to Late Islamic Period. BAR International Series 877. Oxford: Archaeopress. LaGro, Ted. 2002. An insight into Ayyubid-Mamluk pottery: description and analysis of a corpus of mediaeval pottery from the cane sugar production and village occupation at Tell Abu Sarbut in Jordan. PhD diss., Leiden University. Lynch, William Francis. 1855. Narrative of the expedition to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea. London: James Blackwood. MacDonald, Burton. 2000. “East of the Jordan". Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures. Boston: ASOR. Map of Palestine. 1942. “Map of Palestine” compiled, drawn and printed by Survey of Palestine from large scale surveys and air photos. 1:100,000. Map of Palestine. 1945. “Map of Palestine” compiled, drawn and printed by ‘Survey of Palestine. 1:250,000. Merrill, Selah. 1881. East of the Jordan: A record of travel and observation in the countries of Moab, Gilead, and Bashan. London: R. Bentley & Son. Mittmann, Siegfried. 1970. Beiträge zur Siedlung und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes. Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Moore, A. Briscoe. 1920. The Mounted Riflemen in Sinai & Palestine: The Story of New Zealand’s Crusaders. Christchurch: Whitcombe & Tombs. O’Hea, Margaret. 2002. Note on a Roman Milestone from Gadora (al-Salt) in the Jordan Valley. Levant 34 (1), 235–238. Peake, Frederick Gerard. 1958. A History of Jordan and its Tribes. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press. Petit, Lucas Petit. 2009a. Settlement Dynamics in the Middle Jordan Valley during Iron Age II. British Archaeological Reports. International Series 2033. Oxford: Archaeopress. — 2009b. A Wheel-made Anthropomorphic Statue from Iron Age Tell Damiyah, Jordan Valley. In E. Kaptijn and L. Petit (eds), A Timeless Vale. Archaeological and related essays on the Jordan Valley in honour of Gerrit van der Kooij on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 145–153. Leiden: Leiden University Press. — 2013. Understanding the “Pit People”: An Imaginary Conservation in the Central Jordan Valley during the Late Seventh or Sixth Century B.C.E. In E. van der Steen, J. Boertien and N. Mulder-Hymans (eds), Exploring the Narrative.

288

Lucas P. Petit

Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages, 171–179. London: Bloomsbury. — 2016. Tell Damiyah: A Small Settlement Mound with a Remarkable International Role. In R. A. Stucky, O. Kaelin and H.-P. Mathys (eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology and History of the Ancient Near East, 561–570. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Petit, Lucas P. and Zeidan Kafafi. 2016. Beyond the River Jordan: A Late Iron Age Sanctuary at Tell Damiyah. Near Eastern Archaeology 79 (1), 18–26. Schumacher, Gottlieb. 1899. Unsere Arbeiten im Ostjordanlande III. Deutsche Palästina Verein. Mitteilungen und Nachrichten 2 (3), 17–23, 33–39. Watson, Lieut.-Colonel C.M. 1895. The Stoppage of the River Jordan in A.D. 1267. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 27 (3), 253–261. Watson, Andrew M. 1981. A Medieval Green Revolution: New Crops and Farming Techniques in the Early Islamic World. In A. L. Udovitch (ed.), The Islamic Middle East, 700–1900: Studies in Economic and Social History, 29– 58. Princeton: Darwin Press. Wavell, Archibald Percival. 1968. The Palestine Campaigns. London: Constable & Co.

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures The Case of Abu Snesleh Reinhard Bernbeck

Introduction In the years 1990 and 1992, a group of students from the Freie Universität Berlin conducted archaeological soundings at the small site of Abu Snesleh, located southeast of Amman in the Sahab region. We, that is Susanne Kerner, Gunnar Lehmann, Roland Lamprichs and myself, had not finished our PhD theses and were idealistic enough to dream of a non-hierarchised way of doing fieldwork. Reality set in quickly, although we had no “dig director” in those two seasons, and I still think the work we carried out was reasonably well done, considering the means at our disposal. At the time, we drove every day by car through downtown Amman to the site along a bypass road in the direction of Sahab. Turning left near Abu Alanda, a road led through an area of limestone quarries to Abu Snesleh. The site was located at the confluence of the south-north running Wadi Qattar and the smaller Wadi Irmedan, coming from the east. The project was geared towards exploring subsistence economies in the ecologically transitional zone between the Jordan Valley and the Eastern Desert, with a view towards potential evidence for Chalcolithic to early Middle Bronze I nomadic pastoralism and other socio-economic conditions of life (Fig. 1). In 2009, I revisited the site with Roland Lamprichs, accompanied by Kathrin Bastert and Susan Pollock who had not been part of the excavations. At that point, Abu Snesleh was partly destroyed: a bulldozer road for the construction of several huge high voltage pylons had been cut through trenches T10, T11 and T12 of our excavations, destroying both the remains of the only Chalcolithic and a Middle Bronze I house. Two of the pylons sat on the southern half of the site, on the left bank of Wadi Irmedan. The Bedou family present during our excavations seemed still to come back in winter to early spring, but they were not in residence during our late summer visit. Instead of the bleating of sheep and goats, the air was filled with the strange buzzing noise from the corona discharge of the power lines. I will not venture into further detail about our initial project from the late 20th century here. Rather, I explore an emerging characteristic of Abu Snesleh and its

290

Reinhard Bernbeck

immediate environs that becomes more and more prevalent in archaeological research: its entanglement in the Anthropocene.

Figure 1: Abu Snesleh during the1990 excavations; trenches are at the left of the image; wadi Irmedan runs from right to left (photo archive Abu Snesleh).

Landscapes of the Anthropocene and Archaeology In the year 2000, atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen and limnologist Eugene Stoermer proposed to define a new geological age, the “Anthropocene”, based on the recognition that human beings are changing the world with the massiveness of a geological force (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). The Subcommission on Quarternary Stratigraphy of the International Commission on Stratigraphy currently discusses whether the Holocene has ended and whether we are now living in a new geological age, the Anthropocene. It is characterised as an epoch where anthropogenic modifications mark the globe everywhere and so massively as to constitute a new stratigraphic layer, partly defined as one that is identifiable through atomic radiation as a result of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Zalasiewicz et al. 2008, 4–8), partly an effect of plastiglomerates and other sedimented hybrid objects (Corcoran et al. 2014, 4–8). The committee’s argument is that human beings have changed the world so fundamentally that virtually no point on earth can be identified that has been left untouched by people’s activities. Humanity is now the most important geological force. Evidence for this can be found in the deepest levels of our oceans, at the North Pole, or in the upper layers of the atmosphere. Archaeologists have weighed into the debate, following the

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures

291

“Ruddiman hypothesis” (Ruddiman 2003) which argues that the Anthropocene started with neolithization and its fundamental long-term effects that changed the face of the earth (Erlandson and Braje 2013, 1–7). This view is not shared widely in the scientific community, however. Research into effects of the Anthropocene takes different directions. One issue that always plays a role in such investigations is the spatial scale. The Anthropocene includes changes that cover vast regions of the earth, the oceans and the atmosphere (Scherer and Renn 2015). The immensity of scale becomes clear when we compare Anthropocene sites of the present with traditional archaeological sites and our methods of investigation. I mention two of the “smaller” sites from Berlin. At the time when Zeidan was studying at the Freie Universität in West Berlin in the 1980s, its highest mountain was the Teufelsberg with a height of 85 m above the city. The Teufelsberg is an immense artificial mound consisting of more than 25.000 m3 of waste from Berlin’s buildings that were destroyed during the Second World War. The peak preserves the ruins of the former U.S. and British radar installations for spying on the former Eastern Bloc, and it is a site that has been investigated archaeologically (Cocroft and Schofield 2020). Walking up the steep slopes to the post-WW II ruins, a keen observer finds pieces of porcelain, scraps of rusty enamel and other things from the Nazi period and earlier. An archaeological excavation of this debris-filled mound would likely reveal hundreds of thousands of objects from the times before 1945, back to when Berlin was part of the Prussian kingdom. However, before reaching sterile soil, the dangerously deep sounding would reach the remains of a never-finished monumental building from the late 1930s, the so-called Wehrtechnische Fakultät, a monstrous military university designed by the Nazi’s “star” architect Albert Speer. This hellish period of Germany’s past left other horrible, but also strange relics. A “normal” garbage dump of the city of Berlin is located 35 km northeast of the capital near the village of Groß Schönebeck (Kersting 2009). Train tracks for the “Heidekrautbahn” led there from Berlin’s northern periphery. If you walk over these sprawling piles of garbage today, you will find objects on the surface from the last days of the WW II era. This is because this landfill was no longer used after the war, due to the destruction of the railroad bridges. Another reason was that the city’s western sector was walled off and infrastructures were disrupted on a larger scale. The stratigraphy of Groß Schönebeck’s dump could theoretically be used to trace a consumer history of Berlin up to the end of WW II. Especially household waste with its food remains would be extremely interesting for such a history, as the dominant narrative is one of increasing scarcity – but without much historical documentation to sustain it. Abundant faunal remains from an excavated WW II pit at Tempelhof Airport show the unreliability of written sources and the great value of an archaeology of recent times (Becker and Gütter 2018). It was the archaeologist William Rathje who first developed an interest in these massive,

292

Reinhard Bernbeck

typically modern assemblages of human activities that we call landfill or garbage dumps. As early as 1973 he started to examine discarded material for clues about everyday life (Rathje and Murphy 2001). What ends up in today’s landfills is an increasingly complex mixture of food, plastic materials, huge quantities of hybrid objects such as cell phones, printers, entire refrigerators and other household materials, but also building materials such as cement bags, brick or remnants of steel, aluminium, and metal alloys (Dawdy 2016, 2020). These materials, the discard of which we often naively equate with their disappearance from the human world, are assumed to revert back to nature. But the Anthropocene does not leave any place for “nature”. We are beyond any possibility of a fundamental conceptual division between a primeval nature and humandesigned worlds of “culture”. Philippe Descola’s book Beyond Culture and Nature (2013) captures well the current state of global affairs. The disappearance of “nature” is due to an imagined relation of human beings to their surroundings that is inseparably connected to modernity. According to this view, “nature” was perceived in earlier epochs as a threat, and phenomena such as weather, wind, diseases, water and its floods, fire and other agents of this “nature” were either anthropomorphised into deities or fought as demons (for a critique of such views, see Bauer and Ellis 2018). With the Enlightenment and industrialization, a mentality characterised by a primordial right, if not duty of humanity to exploit “nature” for human aims at any cost came into full force. It was combined with notions of progress and growth, both of which are firmly anchored in historical as well as political-economic master narratives of the 18th and 19th century. These strains of thought dominate the writings of scholars from Adam Smith and David Ricardo to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, from Georg F. Hegel and Auguste Comte to Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill. “Nature” as a resource to be exploited is part and parcel of a reified, exploitable world. Up to today, the academic system with its subdivisions of humanities, social and natural sciences is driven by this mentality. Recent theorization has criticised that belief in an amalgamation of the objectified world, profit and progress as “extractivist” (Burman 2018). Extractivism is a prevalent mentality in modern economic thinking and praxis. It is sufficient to consider the ruthlessness with which plants are genetically modified to produce maximally voluminous harvests, from tomatoes and maize to coffee, while at the same time all other plants (and most insects) that might naturally tend to grow in their vicinity are chemically eradicated with agents such as glyphosate. A wellknown extractivist scandal is Rio Tinto’s 2020 dynamiting of the 46.000 years old sacred site Juukan Gorge in Australia for an extension of its iron ore mine. Many other examples could be added. I restrict myself here to naming two of the most important axioms of extractivism: (1) the inexhaustibility of resources; and (2) the

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures

293

inconsequentiality of their extraction. Although both beliefs have long been scientifically proven to be completely untenable, and although politicians often confirm this in their speeches, economic and social practice proceeds as if such insights did not exist. Extractivism is not only a global mentality, but also one that is tied to competitive advantage: the more a company or country devotes itself to extractivism, the more economic profit it can expect. Under these conditions gas, oil, shale oil, coal, light, and wind are exploited as much as possible for energy production, instead of developing mechanisms that would reduce energy demand and thus make less heavy use of the mentioned materials or natural phenomena. It should be clear that a number of supposedly beneficial innovations of a ”green” technology that reduce damage from old energy sources, such as nuclear waste do not really imply a turn away from extractivism (for a similar argument, see Heurtebise 2020). This mindset as a whole is based on a human relationship to a “nature” that is imagined as an entity of endless manipulability, that must be transformed to be useable, whose transformed shape plays the role of a commodity that can be exchanged for other objects and phenomena, and that becomes economically usable through this commodity form.

Hyperobjects Extractivism is characterised not only by a progressivist mentality of growth and profit, but also by the compulsion to transmute materials’ forms where one primary goal is quantification, a principle that succeeds only via material standardisation. Quantification works by permitting the equation of x units of object A with y units of object B. Oxhide ingots of the Mediterranean Late Bronze Age are an early manifestation of this principle, the kilowatt-hour in a meter in every household connected to electricity a version of this phenomenon in the 20th century. Nevertheless, many objects adhere to chaotic networks, which we cannot understand in their entirety. These gigantic connections are what philosopher Timothy Morton calls “hyperobjects”. Morton opts for a decidedly non-analytical approach to such conglomerates of materials, ideas, tensions, and liquids. He defines hyperobjects as “things that are massively distributed in time and space relative to humans” (Morton 2013,1). In the book he dedicates to the topic of hyperobjects, he remains vague and collects examples that can be used to distil some of their characteristics. They reach from “trinitite”, the result of nuclear explosions, to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and poems. Hyperobjects cannot be categorised using traditional criteria such as those preferred by archaeologists: shape, material, weight, colour, etc. In the Anthropocene, “thinking becomes a weird openness rather than cataloging and classifying, because it cannot presuppose a preformatted being as its content” (Morton 2016, 25). If we try to follow this perceptual shift that is appropriate for the condition of the Anthropocene, we suddenly find ourselves surrounded by hyperobjects. Citing Aristotle, Morton (Morton 2013,

294

Reinhard Bernbeck

101-103) argues that “background” and “foreground” can no longer be so easily separated if hyperobjects are taken seriously. The example of the garbage dumps mentioned above shows: the unperceived remains – and eventually comes back to haunt us. Similarly, we can no longer pretend to live in a world where shale-oil extraction does not matter to us because we do not have to perceive it: it has become part of weather changes that bring extreme heat in summer, blizzards in winter and dust storms to regions that did not know them before the Anthropocene. Hyperobjects are typical of the Anthropocene era. Three such hyperobjects are noticeable in the immediate vicinity of Abu Snesleh today: limestone quarries, garbage dumps, and electricity. At the time of our excavation, thirty years ago, only one of these objects was present, the limestone quarries. Abu Snesleh is now a site where the materiality of contemporary life and that of a (pre)historic past are inextricably intertwined (Fig. 2). This is not a single case, although only a handful of other examples have been reported (for example, Mytum and Meek 2021). Abu Snesleh raises questions about how the legacies resulting from an extractivist Anthropocene will manifest themselves archaeologically in the future. I return to this question at the end of this contribution.

Figure 2: Sentinel 2 image with sites mentioned in the text, power lines as black dashed lines; Amman in western part of the image (© Copernicus 2021).

THE HYPEROBJECT LIMESTONE The region of Amman sits on the late Cretaceous Amman limestone formation (Abu-Jaber et al. 1997). Major buildings from the classical past, such as Amman’s amphitheatre and the Hercules temple on the citadel are built from this soft stone

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures

295

(Paradise 1998). The use of limestone as construction material continues up to the present and has taken on an intensity that is truly exceptional, partly because it is required by a code of the Greater Amman Municipality (GAM) (Atiyat 2015). Amman is known as the “White City” because almost all of its buildings have a thin cover in the form of limestone tiles (Fig. 3). Some students of urbanism belittle this uniformity of appearance as a “limestone modernity” (Pilder 2011,34). A team from the Center for the Study of the Built Environment calls the fashionable coverings “stone wall paper” (Abdullah et al. 2000). They collected 84 different samples whose ways of production can be arranged in a chronology that reaches back to the start of the 20th century.

Figure 3: New limestone-clad building, western Amman neighborhood (photo courtesy of S. Kerner).

While it is culturally important to investigate the aesthetic dimension of Amman’s façades by categorising the ways of dressing limestone tiles, the conditions under which this material is obtained have not attracted great attention. Yet, the limestone quarries around Amman have an intrinsic archaeological interest. Let us look at this in the fashion of a generalised operational chain that starts from current conditions. High-quality limestone for the obligatory embellishment of house façades comes from Ma’an, Ajloun, Irbid and other regions at some distance from the capital (Al-Rawashdeh 2013). Around Amman, limestone is of lower quality, but still heavily quarried. After extracting huge rocks with bulldozers, backhoes and other large mechanical equipment, the blocks are cut into more easily transportable plaques. While some finishing for use on walls is done mechanically, most of this final shaping step is carried out by hand with various types of hammers and chisels at the site of construction (Helmedag 2012, 84–89). There are three main traditional ways of dressing the limestones surface before the tiles

296

Reinhard Bernbeck

are fixed to the walls. These are tubzeh for a roughly dressed and thick material, mufajjar for medium-fine dressing and musamsam that uses for dressing a chisel with teeth. The development in the course of the 20th century seems to have gone from tubzeh (coarse) to a finer dressing (musamsam), implying perhaps also that limestone was increasingly thinly cut before being delivered to building sites. Nowadays, attempts are made to reproduce stonemasons’ skills with a robot – so far to no avail (Shaked et al. 2020).

Figure 4: Preparation of limestone tiles near the limestone quarry before transport to construction sites.

The growth of Amman with its attendant construction projects has resulted in an increasing need for limestone for façades. One of the consequences is a scarred landscape in the outskirts of the capital whose wounds do not heal easily. Dangerous vertical cliffs and abysms are in need of transformation when extending the fast-growing city beyond its current confines. Today, plans for an Amman Development Corridor Project for industry and housing concerns the relatively poor southeast of the city (Potter et al. 2009). This is where Abu Snesleh is located. Quarrying still continues in this region and has potentially deleterious effects on health. The areas where limestone for the sheathing of houses is quarried produce heavy pollution in the form of a fine dust that covers animals, people, houses, cars, and the bare mountains with a dazzling white layer (Dmour and Vaughan 1997). Inhaling limestone dust of particles less than 10 microns size is not just unpleasant as it dries out the respiratory tract (as we experienced when

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures

297

working at Abu Snesleh), but also a health risk for workers who are under permanent exposure to such dust. Silicosis, an incurable disease typically contracted by miners, can be the result (Tolinggi et al. 2014). People who live near quarries with a lot of respirable silica dust undergo the same risks (Bhagia 2012). Research shows that such dust is massively present in the vicinity of Amman around the limestone quarries (Fig. 4; see also Abu-Allaban et al. 2006). Limestone is a true hyperobject in Amman. Morton (2013, 1–3; 81–84) lists as one of the main characteristics of hyperobjects their “stickiness” or “interobjectivity”: they associate easily with other objects. In this case a dominant association is a fairly simple and repetitive one, as the limestone plaques are almost always attached to concrete and brick walls. They also create networks with bush hammers, mallets or chisels, and bulldozers. For the dominant association, it must also be added that not all walls are equal. Amman’s architecture reaches from simple and standardised buildings to pompous and pretentious ones, with all shades in-between. While western Amman tends to be rich and luxurious, the east – and thus, the surroundings of Abu Snesleh – is populated by the poorer part of the population, mainly concentrated in the northeast on the road to Zarqa (Razzaz 1996). My analysis of the hyperobject limestone remains incomplete as long as the distribution of the various types of stone and dressings are not plotted in more detail. In the end, hyperobjects are not just a big, unwieldy fusion of things, but entities that have anchors in the human world.

Figure 5: Abandoned limestone quarry near Abu Snesleh (photo archive Abu Snesleh).

298

Reinhard Bernbeck

REPLACING ONE HYPEROBJECT BY ANOTHER: QUARRIES FOR WASTE One result of intensive quarrying is the severe degradation of the landscape. Abandoned and exhausted quarries are only very slowly re-occupied by plants that could provide a space for wildlife (Fig. 5, 6). Severely reduced biodiversity is the consequence, and ecological recovery is almost non-existent in the region east of Amman. Water may collect at the bottom of quarries, and garbage is illegally dumped. A significant loss of resilience against erosion is another marked effect of limestone extractivism. To stop and even reverse such problems, complex efforts have to be undertaken. Rehabilitation can be so prohibitively expensive that it is never carried out (CNRS-L et al. 2015). Some creative projects have provided solutions to this conundrum. They consist, for instance, of rehabilitation with artificially rugged architectural forms that adapt to these kinds of landscape (Gandah and Atiyat 2016).

Figure 6: Anthropocene landscape near Abu Snesleh (photo archive Abu Snesleh).

The Abu Alanda quarries directly west of Abu Snesleh have not received such beneficial attention. Quite the opposite, the deep scars and gashes in the topography have been turned into one of the largest landfills in the vicinity of the Jordanian capital. When we drove to Abu Snesleh in 2009 from the luxurious western Amman location in Tla’ al-Ali, we did not notice this fundamental transformation of the landscape. The white lime dust of the stone industry still seemed to hover in the area. But behind the undulating hills, a large hole carved into the ground for limestone mining had already been filled with solid waste. As of 2008, Google

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures

299

Earth reveals that the sharply delimited white areas northeast of Abu Alanda, the former limestone quarries, are rapidly filling up with trash. Amman’s garbage trucks can be seen as small dots in this colourful landscape of household and other waste. The old quarries serve apparently as an overflow for the al-Sha’er solid waste transfer station. 3000 tons of waste are brought from Amman every day. Ultimately, that waste is transferred further east, to what is currently the capital’s only massive solid waste facility with leachate management, the al-Ghabawi plant, which is in constant need of expansion. As much as 73% of the waste deposited there each day comes from the al-Shaer transfer station and its environs (Aldayyat et al. 2019, 457). Google Earth also allows the tracing of the further development of the landfill 1.5 km west of Abu Snesleh. Major deep quarries were filled completely and even turned into new, flat-topped elevations of waste up until the end of the year 2013. After that, the landfill was capped with a layer of humus and trees were planted. Some growth is observable over the years, depending on aridity. Since May 2020, the area that had been planted with trees has again been filled with the next layer of garbage, suffocating the trees with Amman’s waste. Less than 1 km to the south of this landfill, a major housing project has been developing since 2010. The “Abu Alanda Affordable Housing Project” (Razem 2014) consists of at least three stages of construction. Stage III included a competition for water- and energyefficient low income plans to be submitted by architects. Nowhere in the competition announcement is there any word of the landfill, however (CSBE n.d.). At the same time, a deepening crisis of waste volumes is partly due to the fact that ca. 30%, or 195.000 of Jordan’s Syrian refugees have settled in Amman. The collection and deposition of household waste is a perfect example of a hyperobject. The “things” included in such a mass often cannot be disentangled from each other. While some may still have been functional at the time of discard, others are food waste that could by no means be used anymore. Taking a close look at parts of such an assemblage amounts almost to a taboo: we are not used to thinking of our own garbage as an informative assemblage, but rather as something from which it is necessary to take a maximal distance (Douglas 1966), although archaeologists identify “secondary contexts” and thus the abject in their excavations as of great informational value about past life (e.g. Sosna and Brunclíková 2016; Wolfram 2003). Like limestone quarrying, an activity distributed all over Jordan and other parts of the Levant, the waste of Abu Alanda transcends this space; at the same time, comprehending the number of single objects that make up a landfill is simply beyond us – one of the defining criteria for these strange hyperobjects. “Nonlocality” is another characteristic. Indeed, when considering the landfill near Abu Snesleh, its single elements have their own unaccountable biographies. A rusty pipe, a food wrapper, rotten vegetables and a plastic toy, even when found next to each other, likely come from very different places. And their closeness in the landfill

300

Reinhard Bernbeck

will not endure either, because this is only a transitional place. The final place of deposition is supposed to be al-Ghabawi, 23 km further east (Greater Amman Municipality 2019). Waste and its apparent uselessness have instigated others to criticise Morton for his philosophical stance that is based on object-oriented ontologies (OOO). Frantzen and Bjering, for example, miss in his descriptions a concern with political economy and difference between human and other relations. With regard to waste, they propose to replace Morton’s “hyperobject” with a “hyperabject”, a “planetary infrastructure of waste” (Frantzen and Bjering 2020,89) that concerns the export of waste from Europe to Africa just as much as the ubiquitous distribution of microplastics. I have not touched here on a reduction of waste through recycling. So far, efforts of inciting the population to support recycling by separating waste at the point of discard have not been successful. However, the waste is supposed to produce energy instead of simply being deposited. Landfill gas (LFG), mainly methane, is extracted from drillings into the landfill and used to power a turbine that can one day produce 6 MW electricity per year (Hemidat 2019). ELECTRICITY AS A HYPEROBJECT The third hyperobject connected to Abu Snesleh is much more elusive than limestone and waste: electricity. At the time of our excavations, none of it was yet connected to the site. But when we revisited Abu Snesleh in 2009, the two aforementioned huge metal pylons stood on the southern side of the Wadi Irmedan at its confluence with Wadi Qattar (Fig. 2, 7). During and after the visit, I did not really think about the meaning of these metal towers, I just noticed their strange buzz and was annoyed that the engineers who set them up had rammed a path through the archaeological remains down to the next pylon north of the site. Only later did I reflect on Abu Snesleh’s future and this extraneous material addition to the site. My first question was: wherefrom did the electricity come and for whom was it intended? I fell prey to thinking of a hyperobject – electricity – in terms of a quotidian thing such as a bicycle, a cooking pot, or a pen. But of course, electricity, distributed via high-voltage lines and their pylons, is not characterised by thingness and observable quantities. It remains hidden from the human senses but is still delivered to specific individuals, families or companies, and it is made artificially measurable and therefore consumable as a commodity through the invention of the electricity meter in the year 1883 (Katzir 2009). The origin of the lines was quite easy to identify via Google Earth as close to the Madounah interchange just east of the Amman Ring Road. In this area, there are six major energy-producing and storage plants which I enumerate here briefly to document the massive concentration of energy-related sites:

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures

301

Figure 7: Electricity pylon at Abu Snesleh, 2009. In the background, another pylon further north and the bulldozed way through the site are visible. •

•

•

•

The energy plant AES-IPP1 generates electricity on a large scale by means of a “Combined Cycle Power Plant” (CCGT), which uses gas and steam for dual power generation with a total capacity of 380 megawatt (AES-Jordan n.d.); AES-IPP1 was commissioned in 2009. But as soon as it was running, AESIPP4, a tri-fuel plant for use during peak energy consumption was built in the years 2013 to 2014. Its capacity is 250 MW. An AES-IPP3 plant is located 9 km further east on a spur road and is – according to the turbine developer Wärtsilä (Koul n.d.) – a unique multi-fuel combustion-engine power plant of 573 MW which can be operated with gas, heavy as well as light oil. Directly opposite in the vegetationless desert, another huge industrial plant was built: the Amman Strategic Terminal for Petroleum Products (ASTPP). This infrastructure project is able to store large quantities of gasoline, oil and liquid gas as a strategic reserve.

302

•

Reinhard Bernbeck

Closer to the present, in 2019, two large solar panel plants were added. AlManakher Solar Plant, near AES-IPP1 and 4, has a capacity of 40–50 MW (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2017). The other photovoltaic plant is not yet completed.

Taking all of these power plants into consideration, three traditional-energy ones, two renewable-energy ones, and one huge strategic reserve for energy, it becomes clear that this is in itself another hyperobject. These plants do not exist out in the vegetationless desert. They are connected to two parallel high-voltage transmission lines that carry electricity from Madounah interchange towards the city. From the interchange, the lines arc slightly to the northwest and enter Wadi Irmedan at its head, crossing its winding course several times. Abu Snesleh itself is an important junction in the power distribution to Amman. One high-voltage line runs north along Wadi Qattar towards Zerqa and the region of Ain Ghazal. The other branches off towards the south with one going to Queen Alia International Airport and other to the southern periphery of the capital (Fig. 2). Electricity is a typical hyperobject of the Anthropocene. We would not survive a day without refrigeration, light, heat, computers and other electronic devices. We treat electricity as a kind of a thing, since we pay for it with the money that can also be used for a tea, a screwdriver or a guitar string. We can even steal it and incite others to devise means to prevent its theft (Depuru et al. 2011). Still, this “thing” does not smell, is not visible nor audible, but it nevertheless generates visibility and audibility, and is of immense scalarity. Electricity can only be felt in a most unpleasant way: as an electric shock, which can be painful and even life threatening. This elusive force, an energy that we consume without thinking much about it, reaches homes and offices in wires. It connects them as a background infrastructure whose production remains extremely centralized, as shown in the case of the city of Amman.

Conclusion Timothy Morton claims that hyperobjects are “massively distributed in time and space relative to humans” (Morton 2013,1). For the three cases I have discussed, I have only referred to their spatial distribution. The reason is simple. These hyperobjects emerged in recent times only. But they will have a long future, one that preoccupies us all, since it is related to foreseeable as well as unforeseeable catastrophes. Temporalities of these hyperobjects are unknown to us, but they are likely to outlast the usual archaeological timeframes we have become used to. When all city dwellings of Amman have disappeared, the holes from the quarried limestone hills will still be there. When all electricity has ceased to run through the power lines that destroyed a large part of Abu Snesleh’s Chalcolithic architecture, the bases of many of the lattice towers will still remain, not to speak of the vast power

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures

303

generation plants at the Madounah interchange. The disappearance of landfills such as al-Ghabawi is entirely wishful thinking. Would anyone have an interest in preserving such hyperobjects as heritage? So far, we do not see any signs of that. But it is conceivable that one day when energy is created more locally than now, power lines would raise the curiosity of those who smile at the naivety of transporting energy for dozens of kilometres from a central production site. Equally, waste from the 1930s already has culturehistorical value, as I experienced first-hand during excavations of a Nazi forced labour camp in the middle of Berlin. These kinds of hyperobjects will accompany us into the Anthropocene. But while Morton wants to see in all hyperobjects entities that exceed our senses because of their scale, the three cases discussed here reveal that we can and should still think of them with a differentiating mind. I propose two dimensions, one a status, the other a dynamic, as essential for an attempt to grasp what such objects are. In terms of a status, it is possible to distinguish mainly immaterial hyperobjects from those that are mainly material. Secondly, we can differentiate hyperobjects that show a centripetal dynamic from others that manifest a centrifugal force. In the examples discussed here, limestone and electricity can be assigned to the centrifugal hyperobjects. They differ, however, in that electricity is mainly immaterial, even though it depends on a material infrastructure. Finally, the waste deposited near Abu Snesleh is clearly a material hyperobject with a centripetal propensity. According to Ömür Harmanşah (n.d.), these boundless and measure-less entities grow particularly fast in landscapes we treat as disposable. Abu Snesleh once seemed to me to be a relatively quiet archaeological site at the outskirts of Amman’s capital. Not particularly attractive, but also not without its own charm. Nowadays, it is a knot in an entanglement of hyperobjects.

Acknowledgements I thank Susan Pollock and Ömür Harmanşah for critique and input.

Bibliography Abu-Allaban, M., Safeia Hamasha, and Allan Gertler. 2006. Road Dust Resuspension in the Vicinity of Limestone Quarries in Jordan. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 56, 1440–1444. Abu-Jaber, Nizar, Ali Jawad Ali, and Rafie Shinaq. 1997. Genesis of the Amman Formation Silicified Limestone of Jordan. Africa Geoscience Review 4.3–4, 381–394. Acosta, Alberto. 2013. Extractivism and Neo-Extractivism: Two Sides of the Same Curse. In Miriam Lang and Dunia Mokrani (eds.), Beyond Development: Alternative Visions from Latin America, 61–87. Berlin: Rosa Luxemburg-Stiftung.

304

Reinhard Bernbeck

AES-Jordan n.d. AES Jordan PSC (IPP1). AES Jordan PSC, Amman. http:// www.aesjordan.com.jo/our-business/aes-jordan-psc-amman-east-powerplant-ipp1/ (last accessed 3 April 2021). Aldayyat, Ebtihal, Motasem N. Saidan, Musa A. Abu Saleh, Sudki Hamdan, and Colette Linton. 2019. Solid Waste Management in Jordan: Impacts and Analysis. Journal of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy* 54.2, 454–462. Al-Rawashdeh, Taiseer. 2013. Textured Concrete as an Alternative Cladding Material Instead of Stone – Case of Amman. Chemistry and Materials Research* 3.4, 26-30. Atiyat, Diala. 2015. Stone as a Main Building Material, Case Study of Amman, Jordan. Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology* 2.4, 509–514. Bauer, Andrew M., and Erle C. Ellis. 2018. The Anthropocene Divide: Obscuring Understanding of Social-Environmental Change. Current Anthropology 59.2, 209–227. DOI:10.1086/697198. Becker, Cornelia, and Ganesh Gütter. 2018. Ereignisse am Rand des 2. Weltkriegs: Speisereste aus einer Müllgrube vom Tempelhofer Flugfeld, Berlin. In Stefan Flohr and Peggy Morgenstern (eds.) Beiträge zur Archäozoologie und Prähistorischen Anthropologie vol. IX, 217–234. Langenweißbach: Beier & Beran. Bhagia, L.J. 2012. Non-Occupational Exposure to Silica Dust. Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 16.3, 95–100. Burman, Anders. 2018. Are Anthropologists Monsters? An Andean Dystopian Critique of Extractivist Ethnography and Anglophone-Centric Anthropology. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 8.1-2, 48–64. DOI:10.1086/698413. CNRS-L, AFDC, IUCN, and Holcim. 2015. Mediterranean Quarry Rehabilitation Manual – Learning from the Holcim Experience. Gland (Switzerland): International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Cocroft, Wayne, and John Schofield. 2020. Archaeology of The Teufelsberg. Exploring Western Electronic Intelligence Gathering in Cold War Berlin. London: Routledge. Corcoran, Patricia L., Charles J. Moore, and Kelly Jazvac. 2014. An Anthropogenic Marker Horizon in the Future Rock Record. GSA Today 24.6, 4–8. Crutzen, Paul J., and Eugene F. Stoermer. 2000. The “Anthropocene.” IGBP Newsletter 41,17–18. CSBE n.d. Affordable Housing for the Future Competition: A Call for Innovative Ideas for the Design of a Model Water- and Energy-Efficient Low-Income Apartment Building in Abu Alanda, Jordan. Announcement, https://www. csbe.org/competition-announcement (last accessed April 4, 2021) Dawdy, Shannon Lee. 2016. Patina. A Profane Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures

305

— 2020. Talking Trash and the Politics of Disregard. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 30.1, 156–160. DOI:10.1017/S0959774319000520. Depuru, Soma Shekara Sreenadh Reddy, Lingfeng Wang, and Vijay Devabhaktuni. 2011. Electricity Theft: Overview, Issues, Prevention and a Smart Meter Based Approach to Control Theft. Special Section on Offshore Wind Power Planning, Economics and Environment 39.2, 1007–1015. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.11.037. Descola, Philippe. 2013. Beyond Nature and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dmour, Taghrid, and R.A. Vaughan. 1997. Geo-environmental Assessment Using Landsat TM Data in the Amman Area of Jordan. In Anna Spiteri (ed.), Remote Sensing ’96: Integrated Applications for Risk Assessment and Disaster, 173– 178. Rotterdam: Balkema. Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routlegde & Kegan Paul. Erlandson, Jon M., and Todd J. Braje. 2013. Archeology and the Anthropocene. When Humans Dominated the Earth: Archeological Perspectives on the Anthropocene 1, 1–7. DOI:10.1016/j.ancene.2014.05.003. Frantzen, Mikkel Krause, and Jens Bjering. 2020. Ecology, Capitalism and Waste: From Hyperobject to Hyperabject. Theory, Culture & Society 37.6, 87– 109. DOI:10.1177/0263276420925541. Gandah, Firas, and Diala Atiyat. 2016. Re-Use of Abandoned Quarries; Case Study of Eco-Tourism and Rangers Academy – Ajloun, Jordan. Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering 6.4, 1–6. Greater Amman Municipality. 2019. Greater Amman Municipality (GAM) Ghabawi Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Stakeholder Engagement Plan. Greater Amman Municipality, Amman. Harmanşah, Ömür. n.d. Producing Countervisualities in the Anthropocene. In Political Ecology: Platform Chicago. https://politicalecologies.wordpress. com/producingcountervisualitiesintheanthropocene/ (last accessed April 4, 2021). Helmedag, Ingo. 2012. Contemplations on Contemporary Construction Routines, Examples from Amman. In Ingo Helmedag and Juliane Jäger (eds.) Stone and Architecture in the Moutainous Regions of Jordan and Syria, 61–120. Amman: German Academic Exchange Service. Hemidat, Safwat. 2019. Feasibility Assessment of Waste Management and Treatment in Jordan. Unpublished Dr. Eng. thesis, University Rostock, Rostock (Germany). Heurtebise, Jean-Yves. 2020. Philosophy of Energy and Energy Transition in the Age of the Petro-Anthropocene. The Journal of World Energy Law & Business 13.2, 100–113. DOI:10.1093/jwelb/jwaa012.

306

Reinhard Bernbeck

Katzir, Shaul. 2009. Hermann Aron’s Electricity Meters: Physics and Invention in Late Nineteenth-Century Germany. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 39.4, 444–481. DOI:10.1525/hsns.2009.39.4.444. Kersting, Thomas. 2009. Der Müll und die Macht der Medien – Die Deponie von Groß Schönebeck, Lkr. Barnim. Archäologie Berlin Brandenburg 2008. In Archäologische Gesellschaft in Berlin und Brandenburg e.V (ed.), Archäologie in Berlin und Brandenburg 2008, 150–152. Stuttgart: Theiss. Koul, Upma. n.d. IPP3, Jordan. Wärtsilä. https://www.wartsila.com/energy/learnmore/references/ipps/ipp3-jordan (last accessed March 4, 2021). Morton, Timothy. 2013. Hyperobjects. Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Morton, Timothy. 2016. Dark Ecology. For a Logic of Future Coexistence. New York: Columbia University Press. Mytum, Harold, and James Meek. 2021. The Iron Age in the Plastic Age: Anthropocene Signatures at Castell Henllys. Antiquity 95 (379), 198–214. DOI: 10.15184/aqy.2020.237. Paradise, Thomas R. 1998. Limestone Weathering and Rate Variability, Great Temple of Amman, Jordan. Physical Geography 19.2, 133–146. DOI: 10. 1080/02723646.1998.10642644. Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2017. Al Manakher Solar PV Plant. Environmental Impact Assessment. Report No. 006R04. Sharjah (UAE): Parsons Brinckerhoff. Pilder, Andrew D. 2011. Urbanization and Identity: The Building of Amman in the Twentieth Century. M.A. thesis, History Department, Miami University, Oxford (OH). Potter, Robert B., Khadija Darmame, Nasim Barham, and Stephen Nortcliff. 2009. “Ever-Growing Amman”, Jordan: Urban Expansion, Social Polarisation and Contemporary Urban Planning Issues. Habitat International 33.1, 81–92. DOI:10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.05.005. Rathje, William, and Cullen Murphy. 2001. Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Razem, Maiss. 2014. Abu Alanda Affordable Housing (Architecture Aesthetics through Environmentally Sustainable Solutions). The Third Arab Conference on Housing, Amman-Jordan, Amman. https://www.academia.edu/37031904/ Abu_Alanda_Affordable_Housing_Architecture_Aesthetics_through_Environmentally_Sustainable_Solutions_Paper_by_Maiss_Razem (last accessed 3. April 2021) Razzaz, Omar M. 1996. Land Conflicts, Property Rights and Urbanization East of Amman. In Jean Hannoyer and Seteney Shami (eds.) Amman. Ville et société. The City and its Society, 499–526. Beyrouth: Publications de l’Institut français du Proche-Orient.

Extractivism, Hyperobjects and Heritage Futures

307

Ruddiman, William F. 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago. Climatic Change 61.3, 261–293. DOI: 10.1023/B:CLIM. 0000004577.17928.fa. Scherer, Bernd, and Jürgen Renn (eds). 2015. Das Anthropozän: Zum Stand der Dinge. Berlin: Matthes & Seitz. Shaked, Tom, Karen L. Bar-Sinai, and Aaron Sprecher. 2020. Autonomous in Craft: Embedding Human Sensibility in Architectural Robotic Fabrication. In D. Holzer, W. Nakapan, A. Globa, and I. Koh (eds.), RE: Anthropocene, Design in the Age of Humans, 243–252. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. Sosna, Daniel, and Brunclíková (eds). 2016. Archaeologies of Waste: Encounters with the Unwanted. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Tolinggi, Safrudin, Moh. Rivai Nakoe, Inne A. Gobel et al. 2014. Effect Inhaling of Limestone Dust Exposure on Increased Level of IL-8 Serum and Pulmonary Function Decline to Workers of Limestone Mining Industry. International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science* 3.8, 66–72. Wolfram, Sabine (ed). 2003. Müll – Facetten von der Steinzeit bis zum Gelben Sack. Oldenburg: Isensee. Zalasiewicz, Jan, Mark Williams, Smith G, Tiffany Barry et al. 2008. Are We Now Living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today 18, 4–8. DOI: 10.1130/ GSAT01802A.1. * = predatory journal

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage over 50 Years Barbara A. Porter

Introduction This volume honouring Zeidan Kafafi was created in a strange year that has brought huge changes to how academics interact. In 2020, I returned to the United States after 14 years in Jordan as the ACOR director. Thus, these reflections are written from a new perspective away from Jordan and in the United States. Many who read this essay will be familiar with ACOR in Jordan one way or another. For some, the centre may have been the starting and ending points of an excavation season. However, others may never have set foot inside the building located across from the University of Jordan (Fig. 1) or kept up with its activities and thus would be unfamiliar with its role in supporting diverse heritage efforts, along with many other initiatives.

Figure 1: ACOR in spring 2020 on the hillside across from the University of Jordan; in the distance the Engineering School situated on top of Tell Siran, excavated in 1972–1973 by an ACOR – University of Jordan project (All Photos: Barbara A. Porter).

I was first introduced to ACOR (then near Amman’s Third Circle) in 1977 when I participated in the first excavation season at Tell Mazar in the Jordan Valley led by Professor Khair Yassine of the University of Jordan. On that dig one of

310

Barbara A. Porter

the other graduate students was Zeidan, among a small international team (for group photos, see Yassine 1988, 113). Zeidan was also one of the part-time staff members on the important East Jordan Valley Survey conducted in 1975 and 1976 by Mo’awiyah Ibrahim (Department of Antiquities), Khair Yassine (University of Jordan), and Jim Sauer (ACOR) (Ibrahim et al. 1976, 44; Yassine et al. 1988; Denton 1993; MacDonald 2007, 28–29), which led to Yassine’s choice to excavate at Tell Mazar. This survey project gets further attention in this volume with an article by M. Ibrahim. Thus, interconnections between Zeidan and ACOR go back many years, as also exemplified by the fact that J. Sauer, ACOR’s first long-term director, served as the thesis advisor for Zeidan’s University of Jordan master’s degree conferred in 1977 (Brown 2008, 14). From his student days to his professorial years, the ACOR Library has been a resource for him and furthered his active publication efforts (see Fig. 8 below). The ACOR Library has also served thousands of scholars and eager students over the years and plays a major role in providing a research base in Amman (Ayoubi 2008) (Fig. 2). It has grown from a small archaeological collection to its current varied holdings, including a robust section devoted to cultural heritage management and museums (de Vries 1989a; MacDonald 1989; Zamora 2000; Brown 2008; Gaston 2008; Peterman 2008; Tuttle 2008). Here I offer an overview of ACOR’s role in assisting in the preservation of Jordan’s heritage, with which Zeidan has been so intricately involved for decades (e.g. Kafafi 2009).

Figure 2: ACOR Library with Jordanian and foreign researchers (October 2012).

In 2020, ACOR’s official name was changed from The American Center of Oriental Research in Amman to The American Center of Research, with Jordan implied (Creasman and Gnehm 2020, 1–2). The history of ACOR has been discussed before in greater detail. My intention is to provide a summary guide to those efforts and highlight a few major initiatives. Meaningful assessments at various benchmarks include ACOR: The First 25 Years (Pa. Bikai 1993a, 1993b) (available on the ACOR website, www.acorjordan.org). A few years later, another

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

311

very useful study (Lapp 2001) was tied to the centennial of ASOR (American Schools of Oriental Research, renamed in 2020 the American Society of Overseas Research), as ACOR is one of the affiliated overseas “schools” that came to be after the 1967 June war (King 1983, 195–200; see www.asor.org). Nancy Lapp’s well-illustrated chapter in that centennial volume covered the ACOR founding years and then considered the phases of each long-term director as of 1975 starting with Jim Sauer (1975–1981) followed by David McCreery (1981–1988), Bert de Vries (1988–1991), and Pierre Bikai who took over in 1991. ACOR’s main Jordanian governmental partner has always been the Department of Antiquities (DoA) of Jordan, itself under the aegis of the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (MOTA) (King 1983, 200). ACOR’s permanent building opened in July 1986 across from the University of Jordan and near the British and German institutes (McCreery 1997, 88). This was a major milestone, for which McCreery deserves much credit along with many important supporters (Pa. Bikai 1993a, 20–24; Lapp 2001, 270–273; Porter 2011). The importance of owning the building cannot be overstated as with the vicissitudes of rising rents and land prices in Amman, ACOR has been assured of a base. Lapp also highlighted the first part of the directorship of Pierre Bikai (full term 1991–2006) which began with financial challenges just to keep operations going (Pa. Bikai 1993a, 28; Pi. Bikai 2008, 13). Lapp also noted the book publication series – overseen by Patricia Bikai from 1993 starting with Michele Piccirillo’s The Mosaics of Jordan (Lapp 2001, 287; Piccirillo 1993). The Bikais led ACOR for almost fifteen years, and many significant projects were undertaken during their tenure (Porter 2005). The ACOR Newsletter was launched by Bert de Vries early in his directorship with the stated goal to provide information on the centre’s “major developments and events,” “aspects of ACOR’s programs,” “ACOR based field work”, and “Cultural Resource management activities” (de Vries 1989b, 1). This initiative helps track ACOR’s history and involvements in Jordan. Prior to leaving Jordan, de Vries reflected on ACOR’s past, present, and future and projected ideas for ACOR at 30 (de Vries 1991). The style and content of the newsletters have varied over time but all contain useful summaries of ACOR’s activities and projects as well as of numerous affiliated ones. In terms of the latter, ACOR has extended assistance to legions of projects (e.g. excavation, survey, research) conducted by individuals not officially under ACOR’s purview. ACOR’s help in terms of a wide-range of logistics facilitated their efforts (for past listings, see Pa. Bikai 1993a, 39–83; Lapp 2001, 311–316). To my mind, this supporting role played by ACOR constitutes a major contribution to the heritage of Jordan. ACOR’s 40th anniversary newsletter in 2008 included the voices of three past directors (Pi. Bikai 2008, de Vries 2008, McCreery 2008) and myself (Porter 2008a). There were also academic sessions at the November 2008 ASOR Annual

312

Barbara A. Porter

Meeting in Boston to mark the occasion. The speakers were archaeologists involved in a variety of projects and showcased a wide span of interests from the Neolithic to Islamic periods. For example, Gary Rollefson reflected on “ACOR’s Expansion into Prehistory”; Tom Schaub gave an overview of forty years for the “Expedition to the Dead Sea Plains and the Early Bronze Age”; and Bethany Walker wrapped up the program with “Islamic Archaeology in Jordan” (Porter 2008b, 7). In many newsletters, articles covering some long-standing archaeological projects were included in order to provide more in-depth information to a wider audience. This, in part, fulfilled ACOR’s mission “to advance knowledge of Jordan past and present.” Some of the featured sites were Ghawr as-Safi [22.2], Pella [25.1, 26.1], Humayma [27.1], and Umm al-Jimal [28.1] (with ACOR Newsletter issue number). A recent different approach for lead articles were reflective synthetic overviews, namely for the Madaba Plains Project’s fifty years in Jordan [29.1] (Clark et al. 2017) and forty years of research on Neolithic Jordan [31.1] (Rollefson 2019). From 2009, ACOR’s flagship project in Petra was at the Temple of the Winged Lions and it was highlighted in issues from 2012 to 2017 [24.2, 25.2, 26.2, 27.2, 29.2]. In ACOR Newsletter 30.1 honouring 50 years in Jordan, I summarised some initiatives undertaken by ACOR (Porter 2018a). To inaugurate ACOR’s 50th anniversary year, I delivered an extensively illustrated public lecture in February 2018 (archived on ACOR’s YouTube page); it covered various aspects of ACOR activities over five decades along the theme of this essay. An academic session at the ASOR Annual meeting in Denver was moderated by Tom Parker, ACOR’s long-term trustee, and he spoke on “ACOR’s Research Projects – A Scholarly Appraisal” and Jack Green, ACOR Associate Director, discussed future plans (Porter 2018b, 8). A booklet titled 50 Years in Jordan was created to highlight ACOR’s significant achievements and to honour the many donors who support ACOR – from individuals to U.S. government entities, such as USAID (The United States Agency for International Development) which has been the main funder for ACOR’s heritage endeavours in Jordan (Porter and Carter 2019, 21– 23). A short 50th anniversary film created with interviews with many involved in ACOR’s past provides a special personal flavour (also to be found via ACOR’s website). For those interested in details of how ACOR operates, the Annual Reports are now on ACOR’s website (see “About” for years 2018, 2019, and 2020). ACOR is one of many overseas research institutes affiliated with the Council of American Overseas Research Centers (CAORC), a non-profit institution established in 1981 in Washington D.C. (see www.caorc.org). Thus ACOR is part of a network of ORCs (overseas research centers) reaching from Mexico to Mongolia, albeit each one with its own identity and structure. CAORC plays a major role in

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

313

ACOR’s fellowship program, as it administers US government funding for specific fellowships supporting a wide range of research agendas, including archaeology and heritage (Porter and Pyne 2011). The impact and varied roles of the ORCs have been discussed by Morag Kersel and Christina Luke (Luke and Kersel 2013, 38–39; Kersel and Luke 2018). Glenn Corbett, after serving as ACOR Associate Director (2014–2017), provided insights into ACOR with the lens of “beyond archaeology” focussing on its scholarly and educational mission and providing an overview of the array of programs (Corbett 2018). ACOR fellowships have been significant in supporting archaeological research in Jordan, including for younger scholars on named fellowships (Parker 2012), and they have also helped many scholars complete their publications. One example of the impact of ACOR’s research grants would be the excavation of the Neolithic mega-site of Ayn Ghazal as it was during a fellowship period that Gary Rollefson was introduced to the site by Khair Yassine (Rollefson 2019, 1). The ensuing project was conducted under the auspices of the DoA and Yarmouk University with Zeidan Kafafi being another principal investigator with various US affiliates (Rollefson and Kafafi 1996; Rollefson 1997, 36). The excavations led to the discovery in 1983 and 1985 of the two caches of remarkable plaster statues which are celebrated examples of prehistoric art in Jordan – a subject of one of Zeidan’s most recent co-authored publications in Arabic. The 1980s excavations there were conducted with the ACOR building (then between Amman’s 5th and 6th circles) serving as the home base and lab space for the foreign excavators (Pa. Bikai 1993a, 38–39; Brown 2008, 14). At that point the ACOR kitchen served as the wet lab area in the evenings (see Gary Rollefson interview in ACOR’s 50th anniversary film) so when the permanent building was designed in the mid-1980s a proper laboratory space was part of the plan.

ACOR Conservation Laboratory and Conservation Cooperative One way that ACOR has directly assisted projects is through its ACOR Conservation Cooperative (ACC) created in 2007. ACOR built a formal conservation lab in 1993 based on the advice of many experts and funded by American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) (Peterman 1993). It served various ACOR projects through to 2007 when the restoration of most of the material from ACOR excavations, particularly in Petra (see below), was completed. In Jordan, unfortunately few archaeological projects are able to have a fulltime object conservator on site, usually due to budgetary constraints (ACOR’s Petra Church project being a notable exception). With that realisation in mind, ACOR offered pro bono the services of Naif Zaban, ACOR’s conservation technician (Fig. 3). He would undertake appropriate treatment in ACOR’s conservation lab, usually on ceramic material and metal coins. Naif Zaban retired in January 2021 after being involved for more than 30 years with ACOR having started on the Amman Citadel project in the late 1980s and worked on ACOR’s Petra

314

Barbara A. Porter

projects (Porter 2013; ACOR Newsletter 32.2 [March 2021], 12). For the ACC, he dealt with excavated material for at least 75 projects (foreign and Jordanian) and also assisted the Department of Antiquities as well as the Jordan Museum on and off from 2009 to 2013 as their museum galleries were being arranged. This effort was funded by ACOR’s USAID Petra Endowment, which in 2016 became the permanent ACOR Cultural Heritage Fund (Porter 2018a, 5).

Figure 3: Naif Zaban with Murayghat ceramic pieces that he restored in July 2019 as part of the ACC and at the request of Susanne Kerner.

Recently the ACOR conservation lab assisted the Petra North Ridge Project led by Tom Parker and Megan Perry. After their 2016 discovery of two Romanperiod marble statues, the excavated pieces were brought to the ACOR lab with the permission of the DoA. In fall 2018, conservator Michael Morris received an ACOR CAORC fellowship that allowed him time in Amman to restore the statues (Morris 2018). One of these two statues of Aphrodite with Eros was put on display in the new Petra Museum in spring 2019 in time for its opening (The Petra Museum Guidebook 2020, 137) – demonstrating the power of collaboration between ACOR, the DoA, and the PDTRA (Petra Development and Tourism Region Authority).

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

315

Cultural Resource Management (CRM) and Inventory of Archaeological Sites In 1980, ACOR was contracted by USAID to work with the Department of Antiquities on a five-year plan for archaeological development, taking into consideration environmental impact and CRM as factors (King 1983, 203, n. 2; Lapp 2007, 18). Stemming from that study, around 1982, McCreery and Sauer created a booklet entitled Economic Development and Archaeology in the Middle East published with the DoA in both English and Arabic. This succinct document was intended to raise awareness about site destruction and protection to the general public and stressed the importance for careful planning and cooperation with the DoA as the point of contact for sites under threat (McCreery and Sauer [1982]., 5–6, 20; now available on ACOR’s website under publications). This study took place at the very time Amman was starting to expand exponentially and demonstrated the need for urgent action. Fortunately, the foundational efforts of the 1980s laid the groundwork for projects and USAID continued to support necessary projects, some of which are highlighted on the ACOR website under “CRM in Jordan Project (1986–1995).” In 1987, the Cultural Resource Management Project was initiated for the DoA and ACOR (Pa. Bikai 1993a, 26). In the initial announcement in the ACOR Newsletter, Ruba Kana’an, the ACOR CRM planner, stated that the purpose of this CRM Project was the “prevention of destruction of archaeological sites as a result of rapid and unrestricted economic development” and that the planning’s effectiveness relied on interagency coordination for rescue excavations as well as public awareness (Kana’an 1990, 2). This clearly echoed the earlier report (McCreery and Sauer [1982]). These same priorities remain challenges for the DoA thirty years later and were hard to implement even in the initial years (Pa. Bikai 1993a, 48–49; Pi. Bikai 1994, 47). This project included the Archaeological Survey of Greater Amman (ASGA) (Greene 1990, 8; Abu Dayyah et al. 1991, 361). The Amman Citadel Feasibility Study was undertaken in 1989–1990 under the auspices of the DoA and MOTA with the University of Jordan and led by Rudolph Dornemann for ACOR. He had previously conducted work on the citadel for the DoA from 1965 to 1967 at the behest of ASOR (Dornemann 1990, 3–4; Pa. Bikai 1993a, 10; Lapp 2007, 17). This study led to the more massive Temple of Hercules Project (or Amman Great Temple) from 1990 to 1992 (Najjar 1990, 4; Russell 1991, 1). The Roman-period temple was excavated and partially restored as part of a masterplan for an archaeological park (Fig. 4). ACOR produced two final publications on the Amman Great Temple – one on the architecture (Kanellopoulos 1994) and the other on the excavations (Koutsoukou et al. 1997). This major effort was undertaken as an archaeological development project (Russell 1991, 1) and has had a huge impact on the skyline of central Amman (Pi. Bikai 2007, 90; Kanellopoulos 1993, 12). The work on the citadel

316

Barbara A. Porter

demonstrated ACOR’s ability to undertake a major project that enhanced tourism and thus had economic benefits, but also in terms of archaeological requirements fulfilled the obligation to publish in a timely fashion.

Figure 4: The Great Temple on the Amman Citadel restored by ACOR in the 1990s with built-up modern Amman on the hill opposite (April 2014).

Another aspect of this CRM Project was the first major inventory of archaeological sites. Joe Greene, who was involved in the Greater Amman Survey, pioneered the efforts to create an integrated database. Gaetano Palumbo as the ACOR CRM contracted archaeologist continued the work with a team from the Department of Antiquities (Palumbo 1990, 2–3), and there was a conference marking the progress in September 1992 (Palumbo 1992a, 1–2). Those involved in the creation of JADIS (Jordanian Antiquities Database and Information System) stressed its usefulness in salvage and rescue excavations (Palumbo 1992b, 187–188; Palumbo 1993, 48–49). The print publication of JADIS documented the progress, acknowledged the participants and donors, and explained the system. At that stage, it provided information for approximately 8,680 sites (Palumbo 1994). The main product was to be one available not as a static tool but an electronic system to be maintained by the Department of Antiquities. With the rapid changes in technology, JADIS needed to be upgraded, and Steven Savage took on that task and produced a version interfaced with Google Earth that reached 10,400 sites by 2003 and was also to be maintained by the DoA with a read-only version at ACOR (Savage 2007, 38–44). JADIS was a critical tool for many years, but it was replaced by the system called MEGA- Jordan (Middle Eastern Geodatabase for Antiquities) (Myers and Dalgity 2012, 36). From 2007 to 2014, The Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) and the World Monuments Fund (WMF) worked with the DoA on this initiative (www.megajordan.org). MEGA-Jordan was made available to the public in April 2011 after a formal launch. The system initially imported over 10,400 sites from

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

317

JADIS and some 400 new sites were added from the MEGA development phase of 2008 (Myers and Dalgity 2012, 50). JADIS data had to be checked in the light of new technology but it provided a fundamental base for the content of MEGAJordan. There were training sessions in Amman at ACOR for DoA staff. Such workshops at ACOR are another example of its role in heritage support and over the years, there have been many such capacity-building programs at the centre (Fig. 5).

Figure 5: GCI and WMF training program being conducted in the ruins of Khirbet Salameh in front of ACOR in May 2008. This Byzantine farmhouse has served as a field school with University of Jordan students led by Pierre Bikai in the 1990s and for many training programs over the years.

The GCI website presents some of the background to MEGA-Jordan and notes that it is “at its core, an electronic inventory capable of maintaining information on site location and extent, site characteristics, and site condition in an easy-touse manner” and also points out that it is “the DoA’s preeminent planning and decision-making tool, addressing its needs and demands related to the legal protection of sites, site management, infrastructure and development control, [and] World Heritage requirements” (Getty Conservation Institute [2014]). Thus, MEGA-Jordan fulfilled a determination of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) request for a US Cultural Property Bilateral Agreement as it confirmed

318

Barbara A. Porter

“their efforts to assess, monitor, and safeguard the cultural heritage of the Kingdom” (Kersel and Hill 2020, S103). The future of MEGA-Jordan may lie in Arches (www.archesproject.org) with efforts coordinated with EAMENA (Endangered Archaeology of the Middle East and North Africa) project (www.eamena.org), which partnered in October 2015 with Arches (also a GCI and WMF initiative). This powerful platform would further enhance the capability of Jordan to monitor and plan while also raising awareness, all of which were ideas fostered in the early 1980s by ACOR before technology changed. JADIS was a crucial step along the way. From the late 1980s, ACOR undertook other archaeological and restoration projects including an archaeological park in Aqaba at the early Islamic site of Ayla (1986–1993), touristic rest houses in Umm Qais and Pella designed by architect Ammar Khammash (which opened in fall 1991), and an even bigger endeavour in the Madaba Archaeological Park with shelters, including some designed by Khammash (1991–1995) (Pi. Bikai 2007, 88–89). The Madaba project included survey within the city (Harrison 1996; Harrison 1997) and a study of the vernacular architecture (Denton and St. Laurent 1996). The work in Madaba was executed under the authority of MOTA and the site management included providing various kinds of shelters for the Byzantine mosaic floors (Pi. Bikai and Pa. Bikai 1997). ACOR considered “the uniqueness of the project is the integration of archaeology and architectural renovation and design, with the ultimate goal of touristic presentation” (Pa. Bikai 1993a, 63). Based on the survey, Tim Harrison continued to work in central Madaba and commenced excavations in the area of Tall Madaba in 1998 and these remain ongoing by Debra Foran (Harrison et al. 2007, 143–144; Foran 2012). The excavation report for ACOR’s 1990s work in the Burnt Palace area in the Madaba Park West is being prepared by Robert Schick and demonstrates ACOR’s commitment to publishing its legacy projects. That very area was also selected for a new museum (see www.madabamuseum.org) and this effort stems from a project supported by USAID SCHEP implemented by ACOR (more on SCHEP below). Thus, efforts by ACOR for heritage preservation have led to other fruitful projects

Petra Projects In the 1990s when ACOR was pursuing projects in many locations in Jordan, Petra was added to the geographic range. In 1990, while Ken Russell, then ACOR NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities) fellow, was spending time in Petra, he confirmed the presence of a church on the hillside above Wadi Musa in the centre of the site (Russell 1992, 1–2). ACOR sought a grant from USAID for a project to be led by Russell. The official agreement was signed in October 1991 (Russell 2001, xi), but as Russell died suddenly and tragically in early May 1992, others had to take over the Petra Church excavations in late May; the chief field

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

319

archaeologist for the onsite work was Zbigniew Fiema. Fortunately, Russell’s vision for the project was realised – excavation, conservation, preservation, and publication – as noted by Pierre and Patricia Bikai in the preface of the final publication of the Petra Church excavations (Fiema et al. 2001, vii). ACOR worked on site from May 1992 to May 1998 in various field seasons, the last being for the preparation of the nave floor (Pa. Bikai 1997, 7; Tillack and Pa. Bikai 2001, 439– 446) and the installation of the modern shelter (Pi. Bikai and Pa. Bikai 1997, 1– 3). The excavations uncovered mosaic floors with wonderful details that provided fresh insights, and as noted by Tomasz Waliszewski in his study “they hold an exceptional place in the art” of the region (Waliszewski 2001, 219). This final publication includes contributions by some 35 people and lists the legions of participants and supporters (Fiema et al. 2001, viii), demonstrating the collaborative efforts needed for the full project, including the conservation, study, and publication of the surprise discovery in 1993 of around 150 carbonised papyrus scrolls. When I became ACOR director in spring 2006, I was immediately tasked to lecture to various groups on ACOR projects. The Petra Church became one of my favourite topics. The final publication answered many questions on the site itself but the fragile 6th century papyrus documents were yet to be fully published as only volume I was then available (Frösén et al. 2002). The work of the papyrologists, primarily from Finland and the United States, meticulously presented the most complete documents and 87 are included in the five-volume set, The Petra Papyri vols. I–V (Frösén et al. 2002; Arjava et al. 2007, 2011, 2018; Koenen et al. 2013), which were published by ACOR. It was my responsibility to see through the printing of the last four volumes. Volume V was published in ACOR’s 50th anniversary year, which was 25 years after the original discovery. To celebrate that milestone the two main editors, Jaakko Frösén and Antti Arjava, lectured at ACOR in October 2018 (now for posterity on ACOR’s YouTube channel). These documents written in Greek provide invaluable insights into the people who lived in Petra at that time (see anniversary lecture; also Arjava et al. 2018, 1–7). The Petra Church project in its entirety is a very significant contribution to Jordan’s heritage and was planned well from the outset, although there were still surprises along the way. From 1994 to 2002, Patricia Bikai with Megan Perry and a diverse team turned their attention to the slope above the Petra Church. Regular articles on the progress at the Ridge Church (and Nabataean tombs below) and the Blue Chapel were included in ACOR Newsletters (e.g. Pa. Bikai 2002). In 2020, the final monograph, Petra: The North Ridge with multiple contributors was published by ACOR (in electronic and print format). The Blue Chapel was restored in spring 2002 with the four blue-granite columns resurrected as coordinated with the project architect C. Kanellopoulos (Pa. Bikai 1997, 2–3; Pa. Bikai et al. 2020, 492– 494). These columns stand out on the hillside from many vantage points. Thus, through excavation and publication this area is now better understood, and these

320

Barbara A. Porter

three Byzantine churches are available for visitors who go beyond the normal paths. The site enhancements fulfil the original intent to create an alternative section of Petra for exploration (Fig. 6).

Figure 6: The city center of Petra with the sheltered Petra Church (right) and Blue Chapel and Ridge Church on the slope above and the Temple of the Winged Lions further west across from the Great Temple (March 2008).

The ACOR Petra excavations led to world-wide outreach with a major exhibition entitled Petra Rediscovered which opened in New York at the American Museum of Natural History in October 2003 and then moved to the Cincinnati Art Museum (Markoe 2003) and thereafter to many other places. Patricia and Pierre Bikai were involved in the planning of the exhibition, and the loans from Jordan included the pulpit from the Blue Chapel, fragments of which were only discovered in 2000 to 2002 and were restored for the exhibit (Pa. Bikai 2003, 1–2). One of the Petra papyri was included in the section on Byzantine Petra, thus providing an exciting opportunity to share recent ACOR discoveries with the world (Markoe 2003, 238–261). When the objects returned to Jordan in early 2008, ACOR Associate Director Chris Tuttle and I had the privilege to assist the DoA in checking on the loan objects that had travelled for many years with this exhibition. In 2011, the restored blue pulpit was installed in the permanent galleries of the Jordan Museum in downtown Amman, along with other objects from ACOR’s Petra excavations.

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

321

While ACOR was conducting excavation and restoration projects on the north side of Wadi Musa, on the south side the Brown University excavations at the Great Temple were taking place during summer seasons from 1993 to 2008 (Joukowsky 2017). ACOR provided logistical support to this project and there was much shared camaraderie. Just to the west of the Petra Church lies the Nabataean Temple of the Winged Lions where Philip Hammond of the American Expedition to Petra led excavations from 1974 to 2005 (Hammond 2003, 223; Tuttle 2013a, 10). After the death of Hammond in 2008, in order to ensure the future of this temple complex, the Temple of the Winged Lions Cultural Resource Management (TWLCRM) initiative was launched by ACOR after DoA consultations. The TWLCRM had many goals, including the expectation of creating a comprehensive presentation strategy and the building of local capacity for CRM efforts (Tuttle 2012, 2; Mickel 2021, 7). The project evolved over time and benefited from the efforts of many local and international participants and partners. The TWLCRM was supported by two U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation (AFCP) grants as well as USAID SCHEP (see below). ACOR Associate Directors served as TWLCRM directors (Tuttle 2012, 2013a, 2013b; Corbett and Ronza 2014, 2015; Corbett 2016; Corbett and Green 2017). There is now a major effort to publish the results of the work on the site from both the Hammond archive, now at ACOR, and the data collected from the TWLCRM efforts (Green 2019). On the ACOR website there is a robust discussion of the project for further interest.

USAID SCHEP The TWLCRM initiative included several innovative approaches and they ultimately led to ACOR submitting a proposal to USAID for a cooperative agreement grant awarded in November 2014, initially for four years, and now extended until 2022. It is called USAID SCHEP – Sustainable Cultural Heritage Through Engagement of Local Communities Project–and progress can be followed in articles in the ACOR newsletters starting in 2014 (Special Announcement in 26.2; Porter 2015) and at length in 30.2 (Adarbeh et al. 2018). However, its main outreach platform remains through its website (www.usaidschep.org) and Facebook and other social media outlets. SCHEP has evolved and adapted to different site-specific needs, but there are now nine so-called SCHEP sites (see website). For example, ACOR and SCHEP senior staff responded to an urgent need for the protection of the extraordinary painted tomb in Bayt Ras discovered in November 2016 (Adarbeh and Porter 2017). This site was investigated as part of a consortium under the Department of Antiquities with many partners (Adarbeh et al. 2017; Green et al. 2018). The Bayt Ras project was featured in ACOR Newsletter 31.2 (Haron et al. 2019) and in the Archaeological Institute of America’s journal Archaeology (Weiss 2020; Adarbeh

322

Barbara A. Porter

2020). A virtual reality film was created to document the space that should have limited access due to its fragility. A collaborative final report on the first phase of SCHEP (2014 to 2018) can be viewed and downloaded from the SCHEP website (Adarbeh et al. 2020a). As comments above show, ACOR conducted diverse heritage projects in many places in the country in the 1990s. Where SCHEP is different, is in its wider scope and extensive capacity building efforts on local levels in several places at once (i.e, Aqaba, Busayra, Ghawr as Safi, Umm al Jimal). Ties to the key partners within the Jordan professional community dealing with cultural heritage and tourism remain important and ACOR through USAID SCHEP provides ongoing support (Adarbeh et al. 2020b) in various ways, including to colleagues in the Department of Antiquities. As noted above, collaboration with the DoA has been part of ACOR’s ethos from its origins in 1968 and remains core to its mission.

Archaeology in Jordan (AIJ) Newsletter The Department of Antiquities is the ultimate authority in Jordan governing fieldwork projects and receives the final reports from the principal investigators, but those are unpublished. The Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (ADAJ) (now available on line and easily accessed via ACOR’s website under Library Catalogue section) publishes articles in English and Arabic, and these provide information on the research conducted, often in the form of excavation reports. In 1991, Bert de Vries initiated “Archaeology in Jordan,” a newsletter that was published in the American Journal of Archaeology (AJA) with ACOR staff sustaining that endeavour over the years until 2016, often with the assistance of outside editors (Porter 2014, 7). When the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) determined that it was no longer practical to include such newsletters in their journal, ACOR took on the responsibility of continuing the effort, albeit electronically, thanks in particular to the encouragement of Associate Director Jack Green. So now on ACOR’s website, current projects within a two-year period are included in the new “Archaeology in Jordan” (AIJ) newsletter, for which seasons 2016 and 2017 were in AIJ 1 (2018) and 2018 and 2019 in AIJ 2 (2020). These brief entries provide awareness to all who are interested in learning about current archaeological and CRM projects taking place in Jordan (albeit not all, as project directors must submit). This endeavour provides a central, easily accessible repository and now all the years are readily available, as the prior reports in the AJA from 1991 to 2016 (22 editions) are included through stable JSTOR links on the ACOR website publication section thanks to the AIA. The initial outreach every two years by ACOR to project directors, which this effort entails, is just one of the ways ACOR staff can keep up with colleagues working in Jordan and it is a useful communication tool.

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

323

The ACOR Photo Archive During my time as ACOR director, I was approached by different individuals to ask if ACOR would receive their slide collections. For some I agreed in order to ensure their preservation, and in a few cases I even hand-carried the slide collections from the US to Jordan. Other photographic materials were donated to ACOR when the person was departing Jordan permanently. Those who entrusted them to me over the years were George Bass, Linda Jacobs, Rami Khouri, Nancy Lapp, and Jane Taylor. ACOR also has many legacy collections from past directors and affiliated scholars. A proposal prepared by Glenn Corbett for a U.S. Department of Education Title VI four-year grant was successful and as of 2016 supported the newly realised ACOR Research Library Photographic Archive Project. The goal was to digitise 30,000 images (primarily from slides) (Green 2018). Inherent in the planning was hiring archival consultants and interns who could determine the best way forward (Commisso 2019). Benchmarks for digitisation were met along the way thanks to the project archivists and many archival interns who gained specialised knowledge (Holland 2018; 2019). To understand the breadth and depth of this project and the actual archive’s functionality, it is necessary to go to the online portal (easily accessed on the ACOR website but also directly to photoarchive.acorjordan.org.). One inspirational aspect of the ACOR Photo Archive project has been a series of workshops. The training materials are also shared on the website to foster professional archival practices, which are key to preserving the many records and photographic materials in the varied collections in Jordan (i.e. DoA, MOTA, universities, institutes, private archives etc.). The purpose of this project as summarised on the webpage: The ACOR Library holds a remarkable photographic archive related to its role in preserving and promoting the country’s heritage. The complete collection, estimated to number more than 100,000 images, provides primary visual documentation of Jordan, including the major archaeological and cultural heritage projects that the center has sponsored across the country over the decades. Given its broad range of content and subject matter, the ACOR Library photographic archive has the potential to be a crucial resource for American, international, and Jordanian scholars involved in cultural and natural heritage preservation and management. A follow-up grant secured for 2020 to 2024 has the title The ACOR Digital Archive: Developing a Multimedia Teaching and Learning Resource. Over 18,000 images and multimedia resources are to be made available on line. Some of the images that will be dealt with in this cycle are my own slides (ca. 13,000) taken in many countries in the Middle East from 1977 (including the season at Tell Mazar in the Jordan Valley) to 2005 when I switched to digital cameras. In March 2020, I donated this slide collection to ACOR. My digital images from the

324

Barbara A. Porter

period of 2006 to 2020 are stored in ACOR’s database and are to be used as ACOR sees fit. Over those years, I recorded ACOR activities, visitors, and fellows as well as site visits around Jordan, official events, and friends’ gatherings (etc.). The photos in this essay come from that extensive repository as do many of the photos included in past ACOR Newsletters.

Final Thoughts In this review of some of ACOR’s history of engagement in Jordan, the building in Tla al-Ali across from the University of Jordan has been described as a place for research and residence by staff, fellows, and friends. I got to know it well and enjoyed the many intellectual and social interactions that took place in the building. When I moved into the premises in March 2006, I was duly grateful that new hostel floor additions had been completed in 2005, thanks to my predecessor Pierre Bikai (ACOR Newsletter 17. 1 [Summer 2005], 11).

Figure 7: At a gathering hosted by Zeidan Kafafi and Fayzeh Shrouf, from left Khair Yassine, Zeidan Kafafi, Gary Rollefson, and Moawiyah Ibrahim – all friends for decades (August 2018)

After more than 20 years, it was clear that improvements for public and private spaces at ACOR were necessary. Fortunately, in September 2019 after much discussion with USAID, an agreement was signed to undertake an ambitious renovation project in the whole building. This major project is being implemented by

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

325

UNOPS (the United Nations Offices for Project Services) under the current ACOR director Pearce Paul Creasman (ACOR Newsletter 31.2 [Winter 2019], 16). Due to the pandemic, the work is now scheduled to be completed by fall 2021 (ACOR Newsletter 32.1 [Summer 2020], 9). The enhancements will allow for larger spaces for lectures, which had reached capacity in the last few years. Infrastructure improvements with modern technology will most certainly improve the functionality of ACOR. Here I want to express my gratitude for this grant and to all who have been involved in figuring out what was required. I also admit to being very appreciative that this endeavour is now the responsibility of others. I look forward to visiting the new ACOR.

Figure 8: Zeidan presenting one of his publications for the ACOR Library to Barbara Porter (February 2018)

326

Barbara A. Porter

ACOR has hosted many conferences and seminars over the years in Amman and it has also participated in one way or another with the Department of Antiquities’ International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan (ICHAJ), which first took place in Oxford in 1980 under the patronage of H.R.H. Prince El Hassan bin Talal (see photo of Jim Sauer in Lapp 2001, 259). These conferences planned for every three years take place in various locations in and out of Jordan. In 2007, ACOR hosted ICHAJ 10 (“Crossing Jordan”) in Washington D.C. At this conference, some 220 people attended and they represented some 21 countries, including 50 people from Jordan and 90 from the US (Clark and Porter 2007; Porter 2007). ICHAJ 10 provided me with an amazing introduction to the “Who’s Who” in Jordan’s heritage in my first year as ACOR director. Given the timing and location, it was appropriate that Patricia Bikai gave the keynote address; she reflected on the conference theme and changes over time from the first one in 1980 (Khrayseh ed. 2009, 23–26). One lasting aspect of ICHAJ 10 is the volume Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan (Levy et al. 2007). Many contributors to this volume were at one time ACOR fellows or board members (or both) and their projects, like those of many others, benefited from ACOR support. One can learn a lot about ACOR’s role in that one source. In my contribution to honour Zeidan, I have tried to capture multiple facets of ACOR’s role in Jordan, but in truth, there are so many others that could have been considered. Behind the summary of 50 years of projects, there are also so many people who should have been acknowledged but are too many to mention in this context.1 Finally, I note that the friendships built up over time within the ACOR realm remain one of the lasting legacies to be fostered and cherished (Fig. 6-7).

Bibliography Note: ACOR Newsletters are available on the ACOR website www.acorjordan.org under Publications. Many public lectures since 2014 are posted on ACOR’s YouTube page with links on ACOR’s website. Abu Dayyah, Abdul Sami, Joseph A. Greene, Ibrahim Haj Hassan and Emsaytif Suleiman. 1991. Archaeological Survey of Greater Amman, Phase 1: Final Report. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 35, 361–395.

1

During the preparing, writing, and final stages before publication of this contribution, several people who played major roles in ACOR’s history and served on its Board of Trustees have died – Artemis Joukowsky (December 2020), Bert de Vries (March 2021), Mohammed Asfour (June 2021), and Tom Parker (September 2021). They represent a tradition of giving back and profound involvment. Just two weeks before Bert de Vries died, he read a draft of this paper and provided invaluable, feedback based on his long and varied experience with ACOR and Jordan.

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

327

Adarbeh, Nizar Al, Starling Carter, Sofia Smith, and Shatha Abu Aballi with contributors. 2020a. The Story of SCHEP: Sustainable Cultural Heritage Through Engagement of Local Communities Project 2014–2018. Final Report for USAID Grant. Amman: ACOR. Adarbeh, Nizar Al, Starling Carter, and Shatha Abu Abali. 2020b. USAID SCHEP Update. ACOR Newsletter 32.1, 3–5. Adarbeh, Nizar. 2020. Letter to the Editor on Bayt Ras. Archaeology May/June, 8. Adarbeh, Nizar Al and Barbara A. Porter. 2017. Update of USAID SCHEP – Sustainable Cultural Heritage Through Engagement of Local Communities Project. ACOR Newsletter 29.1, 7. Adarbeh, Nizar Al, Jehad Haron, and Barbara A. Porter. 2017. USAID SCHEP Update: The Bayt Ras Tomb Project. ACOR Newsletter 29.2, 5. Adarbeh, Nizar Al, Jehad Haron, and Hussein Khirfan. 2018. Four Years of SCHEP – The Sustainable Cultural Heritage Through Engagement of Local Communities Project. ACOR Newsletter 30.2, 1–5. Arjava, Antti, Matias Buchholz, and Trianos Gagos, eds. 2007. The Petra Papyri III. Amman: ACOR. Arjava, Antti, Matias Buchholz, Trianos Gagos, and Maarit Kaimio, eds. 2011. The Petra Papyri IV. Amman: ACOR. Arjava, Antii, Jaakko Frösén, and Jorma Kaimio, eds. 2018. The Petra Papyri V. Amman: ACOR. Ayoubi, Humi. 2008. ACOR Library: Reflections. ACOR Newsletter 20.1, 19. Bikai, Patricia M., ed. 1993a. ACOR: The First 25 Years: The American Center of Oriental Research: 1968–1993. Amman: ACOR. (now available as PDF on www.acorjordan.org under Books). — 1993b. ACOR: The First 25 Years. ACOR Newsletter 5.1, 4–9 (excerpts from Pa. Bikai, ed. 1993a). — 1997. Petra Church: Pavement of the Nave. ACOR Newsletter 9.2, 7. — 2002. North Ridge Project. ACOR Newsletter 14.1, 1–3. — 2003. The Blue Pulpit. ACOR Newsletter 15.1, 1–2. Bikai, Patricia M., Megan A. Perry, and Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos. 2020. Petra: The North Ridge. Amman: ACOR. Bikai, Pierre M. 1994. The American Center of Oriental Research: projects in Jordan. In Susanne Kerner (ed.), The Near East in Antiquity: Archaeological work of national and international institutions in Jordan IV, 41–48. Amman: German Protestant Institute for Archaeology of the Holy Land and Al Kutba Publishers. — 2007. Conservation and Preservation of Archaeological Sites in Jordan Archaeology: Initiatives of the American Center of Oriental Research. In Thomas E. Levy, P.M. Michèle Daviau, Randall W. Younker, and May Shaer (eds.),

328

Barbara A. Porter

Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, 87–94. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. — 2008. Reflections by Pierre M. Bikai. ACOR Newsletter 20.1, 12–14. Bikai, Pierre M. and Patricia M. Bikai. 1997. Caring for the Cultural Heritage: Shelters. ACOR Newsletter 9.1, 1–3. Brown, Robin. 2008. ACOR Library: The Early Years. ACOR Newsletter 20.1, 14–16. Clark, Douglas R. and Barbara A. Porter. 2007. “Crossing Jordan” in Washington D.C.: The Tenth International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan. Near Eastern Archaeology 70.2, 111–113. Clark, Douglas R., Lawrence T. Geraty, Larry G. Herr, Øystein S. LaBianca, and Randall W. Younker. 2017. The Madaba Plains Project @50. ACOR Newsletter 29.1, 1–5. Commisso, Corrie. 2019. The ACOR Photo Archive Project: Building a New Resource. ACOR Newsletter 29.1, 6. Corbett, Glenn J. 2016. A Temple Transformed: The TWLCRM Initiative Hits its Stride. ACOR Newsletter 28.2, 1–4. — 2018. Beyond Archaeology: The Broader Scholarly and Educational Mission of the American Center of Oriental Research. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 6.3, 172–188. Corbett, Glenn J. and John D. M. Green. 2017. The TWLCRM Initiative: Ensuring the Temple’s Long Term Preservation. ACOR Newsletter 29.2, 1–5. Corbett, Glenn J. and M. Elena Ronza. 2014. What Lies Beneath: New Insights into Petra’s Temple of the Winged Lions. ACOR Newsletter 26.2, 1–6. — 2015. Building Momentum: ACOR’s TWLCRM Initiative Looks to the Future. ACOR Newsletter 27.2, 1–5. Creasman, Pearce Paul and Edward W. Gnehm, Jr. 2020. Welcoming a New ACOR: The American Center of Research. ACOR Newsletter 32.1, 1–2. Denton, Branwen. 1993. East Jordan Valley Survey. In Pa. Bikai (ed.), ACOR: The First 25 Years, 50–51. Amman: ACOR. Denton, Branwen and Beatrice St. Laurent. 1996. 19th and Early 20th Century Architecture. In Patricia Maynor Bikai and Thomas A. Dailey (eds.), Madaba Cultural Heritage, 47–87. Amman: ACOR. De Vries, Bert. 1989a. Humi Ayoubi: New Librarian. ACOR Newsletter 1 (November), 5. — 1989b. Launching the ACOR Newsletter. ACOR Newsletter 1 (November), 1. — 1991. ACOR’s Past, Present and Future. ACOR Newsletter 4 [3.1] (May), 1. — 2008. ACOR 1988–1991: Reflections by Bert de Vries. ACOR Newsletter 20.1, 11–12. Dornemann, Rudolph. 1990. Citadel-‘Ain Ghazal Feasibility Study. ACOR News– letter 3, 3–4.

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

329

Fiema, Zbigniew T., Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, Tomasz Waliszewski, and Robert Schick. 2001. Edited by Patricia M. Bikai. The Petra Church. Amman: ACOR. Foran, Debra. 2012. Fifteen Years of Research in Madaba – the City of Mosaics. ACOR Newsletter 24.1, 1–3. Frösén, Jaakko, Antii Arjava, and Marjo Lehtinen, eds. 2002. The Petra Papyri I. Amman: ACOR. Gaston, Meryle. 2008. ACOR Library: Reflections beginning in 1988. ACOR Newsletter 20.1, 17–18. Getty Conservation Institute [2014]. Middle Eastern Geodatabase for Antiquities (MEGA)-Jordan (2007–2014). Accessed Feb. 2021, www.getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/field_projects/jordan/ (with PDF of MEGA-Jordan brochure). Green, John. D. M. 2018. ACOR Photo Archive Projects Gathers Pace. ACOR Newsletter, 30.1, 10. — 2019. Temple of the Winged Lions Publication Project. ACOR Newsletter 31.1, 11. Green, John D. M., Nizar Al Adarbeh, and Jehad Haron. 2018. Update for USAID SCHEP. ACOR Newsletter 30.1, 12. Greene, Joe. 1990. Archaeological Activities of the CRM Project, 1987-1988. ACOR Newsletter 2, 8. Hammond, Philip C. 2003. In Glenn Markoe, (ed.), Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans, 223–229. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., in association with the Cincinnati Art Museum. Haron, Jehad, Nizar Al Adarbeh, and Ahmad Lash. 2019. Bayt Ras: Founding the Roman City. ACOR Newsletter 31.2, 1–6. Harrison, Timothy. 1996. Surface Survey. In Patricia Maynor Bikai and Thomas A. Dailey (eds.), Madaba Cultural Heritage, 19–23. Amman: ACOR. — 1997. Intrasite Spatial Analysis and the Settlement History of Madaba. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 6, 137–142. Harrison, Timothy P., Debra Foran, and Andrew Graham. 2007. Investigating 5,000 Years of Urban History: The Tall Madaba Archaeological Project. In Thomas E. Levy, P.M. Michèle Daviau, Randall W. Younker, and May Shaer (eds.), Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, 143–152. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Holland, Jessica. 2018. ACOR Photo Archive Update. ACOR Newsletter 30.2, 7. — 2019. ACOR Photo Archive Update. ACOR Newsletter 31.2, 8. Ibrahim, Mo’awiyah, James Abbot Sauer, and Khair Yassine. 1976. The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 222, 41–66.

330

Barbara A. Porter

Joukowsky, Martha Sharp (ed.). 2017. Petra Great Temple, vol. III, Brown University Excavations 1993–2008: Architecture and Material Culture. Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxbow books. Kafafi, Zeidan. 2009. Studies and Essays in the Archaeological Cultural Heritage. Amman: Jordan Museum. Kana’an, Ruba. 1990. CRM: Planning Heritage Preservation. ACOR Newsletter 3, 2. Kanellopoulos, Chrysanthos. 1993. The Great Temple of Amman. ACOR Newsletter 5.1, 10–12. — 1994. The Great Temple of Amman: The Architecture. Amman: ACOR. Khraysheh, Fawwaz Al, ed. 2009. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan X. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Kersel, Morag M. and Austin (Chad) Hill. 2020. Databases, Drones, Diggers, and Diplomacy: The Jordanian Request for a US Cultural Property Bilateral Agreement. Journal of Field Archaeology 45 (sup 1), S101–S110. doi.org/10. 1080/00934690.2020.1713282 Kersel, Morag and Christina Luke. 2018. Introduction: The Power of Place at the U.S. Overseas Research Centers, Heritage, Diplomacy, and Archaeology. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archeology and Heritage Studies 6.3, 167– 171. King, Philip J. 1983. American Archaeology in the Mideast: A History of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Philadelphia: ASOR. Koenen, Ludwig, Jorma Kaimio, Maarit Kaimio, and Robert W. Daniel, eds. 2013. The Petra Papyri II. Amman: ACOR. Koutsoukou, Anthi, Kenneth W. Russell, Mohammad Najjar, and Ahmed Momani. 1997. The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations. Amman: ACOR. Lapp, Nancy. 2001. ACOR: A History of the American Center of Oriental Research, Amman, Jordan 1968–2000. In Joe D. Seger (ed.), An ASOR Mosaic: A Centennial History of the American Schools of Oriental Research 1900– 2000, 219–318. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Lapp, Nancy. 2007. The History of North American Archaeological Research in Jordan. In Thomas E. Levy, P.M. Michèle Daviau, Randall W. Younker, and May Shaer, Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, 15–25. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Levy, Thomas E., P.M. Michèle Daviau, Randall W. Younker, and May Shaer (eds.). 2007. Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd Luke, Christina and Morag M. Kersel. 2013. U.S. Cultural Diplomacy and Archaeology: Soft Power, Hard Heritage. New York and London: Routledge. MacDonald, Burton. 1989. The ACOR Library: An Expanding, Quality Resource Facility. ACOR Newsletter 1 (November), 7–8.

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

331

— 2007. Archaeological Site Surveying in Jordan. In Thomas E. Levy, P.M. Michèle Daviau, Randall W. Younker, and May Shaer (eds.), Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, 27–35. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. McCreery, David W. 1997. American Center of Oriental Research. In Eric M. Meyers (ed.), Vol. I, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archeology in the Near East, 88–90. Under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. — 2008. ACOR 1981–1988: Reflections by David McCreery. ACOR Newsletter 20.1, 9–10. McCreery, David W. and James A. Sauer. n.d. [1982]. Economic Development and Archaeology in the Middle East. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan, ACOR and ASOR. Markoe, Glenn (ed.) 2003. Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., in association with the Cincinnati Art Museum. Mickel, Allison. 2021. Why Those Who Shovel Are Silent – a history of local archaeological knowledge and labor. Louisville: University Press of Colorado. Morris, Michael. 2018. Conservation and Restoration of the Petra North Ridge Aphrodite Statues. 2018. ACOR Newsletter 30.2, 9. Myers, David and Alison Dalgity. 2012. The Middle Eastern Geodatabase for Antiquities (MEGA) – An Open Source GIS-Based Heritage Site Inventory and Management System. Change Over Time 2.1, 32–57. Najjar, Mohammad. 1990. The Temple of Hercules Project. ACOR Newsletter 2, 4. Palumbo, Gaetano. 1990. CRM: Computer Inventory of Archaeological Sites. ACOR Newsletter 3 (November), 2–3. — 1992a. The Cultural Resources Management Conference. ACOR Newsletter 4.2, 1–2. — 1992b. JADIS (Jordan Antiquities Database and Information System): An example of national archaeological inventory and GIS applications. In J. Andresen, T. Madsen, and I. Scollar (eds.), Computing the Past, Computer Applications and Quantitative methods in Archaeology, 183–185. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. — 1993. Cultural Resources Management Project. In Pa. Bikai (ed.), ACOR: The First 25 Years, 48–49. Amman: ACOR. — ed. 1994. Jordan Antiquities Database & Information System A Summary of the Data. Amman: The Department of Antiquities of Jordan and the American Center of Oriental Research. Parker, S. Thomas. 2012. ACOR’s Named Fellowship Program. ACOR Newsletter, 24.1, 45. Peterman, Glen L. 1993. The Conservation Laboratory. ACOR Newsletter 5.1, 16.

332

Barbara A. Porter

— 2008. ACOR Library: Recollections from 1986–1996. ACOR Newsletter 20.1, 16–17. The Petra Museum Guidebook. 2020. Jordan: The Petra Museum and Japan International Cooperation Agency. Piccirillo, Michele. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan. Edited by Patricia M. Bikai and Thomas A. Daily. Amman: ACOR. Porter, Barbara A. 2005. Pierre and Patricia Bikai: Fifteen Years at ACOR (19912006). ACOR Newsletter 17.2, 7–8. — 2007. “Crossing Jordan” – ICHAJ 10: The 10th International Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan. ACOR Newsletter 19.1, 1–5. — 2008a. 40th Anniversary Celebrations in Amman and Barbara Porter’s Reflections. ACOR Newsletter 20.1, 1–5. — 2008b. ACOR Activities in Boston. ACOR Newsletter 20.2, 7–8. — 2011. ACOR’s Permanent Home – 25 Years. ACOR Newsletter 23.1, 1–2. — 2013. ACOR Conservation Technician Naif Zaban and the ACOR Conservation Cooperative. ACOR Newsletter 25.2, 6–7. — 2014. ACOR and the AJA’s Newsletter on Archaeology in Jordan. ACOR Newsletter 26.2, 7. — 2015. USAID SCHEP Update. ACOR Newsletter 27.1, 8. — 2018a. ACOR@50: Reflections on a Decade. ACOR Newsletter 30.1, 1–6. — 2018b. ACOR in Denver at ASOR Annual Meeting. ACOR Newsletter 30.2, 8. Porter, Barbara A. and Nanette Pyne. 2011. CAORC: Council of American Overseas Research Centers – 30th Anniversary. ACOR Newsletter 23.1, 2–4. Porter, Barbara A. and Starling Carter (compilers). 2019. 50 Years in Jordan. Amman: ACOR. Rollefson, Gary O. 1997. ‘Ain Ghazal. In Eric M. Meyers (ed.), Vol. I, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, 36–38. Under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. — 2019. Four Decades of Intensified Neolithic Research in Jordan. ACOR Newsletter 31.1, 1–8. Rollefson, Gary and Zeidan Kafafi. 1996. ‘Ain Ghazal: Ten Seasons of Discovery. ACOR Newsletter 8.1, 1–3. Russell, Kenneth W. 1991. Excavating and Rebuilding the Temple of Hercules. ACOR Newsletter 5 [3.2], 1–3. — 1992. The Petra Project, ACOR Newsletter 4.1, 1-2. — 2001. Genesis of the Project. In Zbigniew T. Fiema, Chrysanthos Kannellopoulos, Tomasz Waliszewski, and Robert Schick. The Petra Church, ix–xi. Amman: ACOR. Savage, Stephen H. 2007. Controlling Space at the Regional Level. In Thomas E. Levy, P.M. Michèle Daviau, Randall W. Younker, and May Shaer (eds.),

Some Thoughts on ACOR’s Role in Jordan’s Heritage

333

Crossing Jordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan, 37–46. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd. Tillack, Susan B. and Patricia Maynor Bikai. 2001. Appendix III. After the Excavation. In Zbigniew T., Fiema, Chyrsanthos Kanellopoulos, Tomasz Waliszewski, and Robert Schick. The Petra Church, 439–436. Amman: ACOR. Tuttle, Christopher A. 2008. ACOR Library: Recent History. ACOR Newsletter 20.1, 18–19. — 2012. Temple of the Winged Lions Cultural Resource Management InitiativeSome First Steps Forward (2009–2012). ACOR Newsletter 24.2, 1–9. — 2013a. Preserving Petra Sustainably (One Step at a Time) – The Temple of the Winged Lions Cultural Resource Management Initiative as a Step Forward. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1, 1–23. — 2013b. Temple of the Winged Lions Cultural Resource Management Initiative – Further Steps Along the Path (2013). ACOR Newsletter 25.2, 1–5. Waliszewski, Tomasz. 2001. Mosaics. In Zbigniew T. Fiema, Chyrsanthos Kanellopoulos, Tomasz Waliszewski, and Robert Schick (eds.), The Petra Church, 219–270. Amman: ACOR. Weiss, Daniel. 2020. The Founder’s Tomb. Archaeology March/April, 38-41, 61 (credits). Yassine, Khair. 1988. Tell El Mazar Field I: Preliminary Report of Areas G, H, L, and M. In Khair Yassine (ed.), Archaeology of Jordan: Essays and Reports, 189–207. Amman: Department of Archaeology, University of Jordan. Yassine, Khair, James A. Sauer, and Moawiyah M. Ibrahim. 1988. The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1976 (Part 2). In Khair Yassine (ed.), Archaeology of Jordan: Essays and Reports, 73–111. Amman: Department of Archaeology, University of Jordan. Zamora, Kurt. 2000. The ACOR Library, Past and Present. ACOR Newsletter 12.2, 11.

‫ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺩﻏﻠﺲ ﻭﻧﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺭﻱ‬ ‫– ‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬ ‫‪2500–2000 BCE in the Northern Oman Peninsula‬‬ ‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺪ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﺘﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﺍ ً ﻭﺍﺯﺩﻫﺎﺭﺍ ً ﻓﻲ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺔ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﻟﻜﺜﺮﺓ ﺍﻹﻧﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﻁﻠﻖ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻠﻮﺯﻳﻮ ﻭﺗﻮﺯﻱ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻮﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺣﺼﻠﺖ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ ) ‪Cleuziou and Tosi 2007,‬‬ ‫‪ ،(63‬ﺇﺫ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﻋُﻤﺎﻥ ﺗﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻊ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻕ‪.‬ﻡ ﺳﺎﻫﻤﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻐﻴﺮ ﺃﻧﻤﺎﻁ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ‬ ‫ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺄﺭﻳﺦ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺘﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ‪ 3500‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 1300‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ )‪.(Al-Jahwari 2013, 25–26; Table 6‬‬ ‫ﻭﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺑﻈﻬﻮﺭ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﺘﺎﻟﻴﺘﻴﻦ ﻳﻐﻠﺐ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺘﻬﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻤﺎ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺣﻔﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺆﺭﺥ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 3500‬ﻭ‪ 2500‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 2000–2500‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ )ﻛﻔﺎﻓﻲ ‪ ،(2017‬ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻨﺴﺐ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﻕ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﺘﺪ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫‪ 2000‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 1300‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ )‪. (Velde 1991, 1992, 2003; Carter 1997a–b‬ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻥ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء‬ ‫ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺗﺒﻨﻮﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﻘﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺗﻴﻮﺑﻨﻐﻦ ﺍﻷﻟﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪1981‬ﻡ ﺗﺴﻤﻴﺔ "ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺣﻔﻴﺖ" ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ‬ ‫ﺟﺒﻞ ﺣﻔﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺔ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻹﻣﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟ ُﻤﺘﱠﺤﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻭﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﻋﻦ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﻣﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺷﺎﺋﻌﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺧﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﺒﻘﺖ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺸﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺟﺮﺗﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺜﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻧﻤﺎﺭﻛﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ‬ ‫ﻋﺜ َِﺮ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻧﺤﺎء ﻣﺘﻔﺮﻗﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﻗﺒﻮﺭ ﺣﺠﺮﻳﺔ ﺭﻛﺎﻣﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ُ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﻛﺰ ﻣﻌﻈﻤﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﺠﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﻔﻌﺎﺕ‪.‬‬

‫ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﻋﻤﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﺪﺭ ﺑﺤﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 500‬ﺳﻨﺔ )‪ 2000–2500‬ﻕ‪.‬ﻡ(‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻧﺠﺎﺯﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺣﻘﱠﻘَﺖ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺗﻤﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻫﻲ ﺫﺭﻭﺓ ﻋﺼﻮﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺃﺑﺮﺯ ﻣﻼﺡ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻞ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﺣﺎﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ‪ .‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻅﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺧﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺣﻔﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺇﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﺍ ً ﺟﺪﺍ ً ﻭﻣﻘﺘﺼﺮﺍ ً ﻋﻠﻰ‬

‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫‪336‬‬

‫ﻋﺪﺩ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ ﺟﺪﺍ ً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﻫﻴﻠﻲ ‪ 8‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻦ ) ‪Cleuziou 1980, 26; 1982,‬‬ ‫‪ ،(16‬ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺸﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻴﺒﻲ ) ‪Al-Jahwari and Kennet 2010; Schmidt and Döpper‬‬ ‫‪ ،(2017‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﻠﻲ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ‪(Cleuziou 2003, 141; Azzara 2009, 2012) (HD-6) 6‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺰ ‪Cleuziou and Tosi 2000; Cleuziou 2003, ) (RJ-1) 1‬‬ ‫‪ (139‬ﻓﻲ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﺻﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻦ ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺰ )‪Giraud 2009, 742; Blin ) (ALA-2‬‬ ‫;‪ ،(2007, 248–250‬ﻭﺑﺎﺕ )‪ ،(Thornton, Cable and Possehl 2016‬ﻭﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻴﺒﻲ‬ ‫)‪ .(Al-Jahwari et al., 2020‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﺪﺍ ً ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺰ ﺟﻨﻮﺑﺎ ً ﺣﺘﻰ ﺳﻮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻹﻣﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺷﻤﺎﻻً )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(1‬ﻭﺗﻤﺘﺪ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﺒﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺒﻠﻎ ﻁﻮﻟﻬﺎ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 600‬ﻛﻠﻢ ﻭﻋﺮﺿﻬﺎ ‪ 60–30‬ﻛﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻦ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺏ ﻭﻣﺴﻨﺪﻡ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﻣﻀﻴﻖ ﻫﺮﻣﺰ ﺷﻤﺎﻻً‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺴﺔ ﺣﺎﺟﺰﺍ ً ﻁﺒﻴﻌﻴﺎ ً ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﺨﻠﻠﻬﺎ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺿﻲ ﻛﻤﻤﺮﺍﺕ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ ﺗﺼﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺗﻐﻄﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻀﺎء ﺍﻟﺠﻐﺮﺍﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺮﺕ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﻔﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻫﺎﺗﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁﻬﻤﺎ ﺑﺒﻌﻀﻬﻤﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :1‬ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ )ﺭﺳﻢ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ(‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺠﺎﻧﺲ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻀﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﺐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻅﻬﺮ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺗﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺟﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺑﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﺪﺍﺧﻼً ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺎ ً ﻭﺯﻣﺎﻧﻴﺎً‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﺳﺒﺐ ﺍﺭﺑﺎﻛﺎ ً ﻟﺪﻯ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻭﺭﺍء ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻉ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻒ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻏﻴﺮ ﺑﺮﺟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪337‬‬

‫‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺟﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻭﻳﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﺿﺨﻤﺔ ﺗﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﻭﺣﺠﻤﻬﺎ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻨﺪﺭﺝ ﺗﺤﺘﻪ ﻧﻤﻄﺎﻥ ﺛﺎﻧﻮﻳﺎﻥ‪،‬ﻫﻤﺎ‬ ‫•‬

‫•‬

‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺮﺟﻴﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻀﻢ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺳﻜﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺝ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺑﻬﻼء) ‪Degli‬‬ ‫‪ ،(Esposti 2014‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﺸﺒﺔ )‪ ،(Schmidt and Döpper 2017‬ﻭﺑﺴﻴﺎء‬ ‫)–‪Orchard and Stanger 1999, 91–93, fig. 3; Orchard and Orchard 2002, 228‬‬ ‫‪ ،(229‬ﻭﺻﻔﺮﻱ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪.(2‬‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺮﺟﻴﺔ ﺗﻀﻢ ﺃﺑﺮﺍ ًﺟﺎ ﻭﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺳﻜﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻀﻢ ﺑﺮ ًﺟﺎ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪًﺍ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﻴﻦ )‪ ،(Al-Jahwari et al., 2020‬ﻭﻣﻴﺴﺮ ‪Weisgerber 1978, 27; ) 25‬‬ ‫‪ ،(1981, 174–263‬ﻭﺗﻞ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﻕ )‪ ،(Potts 1991, 21–25‬ﻭﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻀﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﺎﺕ‬ ‫)‪ ،(Thornton, Cable and Possehl 2016‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﺽ )‪ ،(Castel et al. 2020‬ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻴﺨﺔ‬ ‫)‪ ،(Kennet et al. 2016‬ﻭﻗﻤﻴﺮﺍء )‪) (Rutkowski 2017, 528‬ﺷﻜﻞ ‪.(3‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :2‬ﺑﺮﺝ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺻﻔﺮﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻻﻳﺔ ﻳﻨﻘﻞ )ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺩﻏﻠﺲ(‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺗﻤﻴﺰﺍ ً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻓﻮﺍﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﻛﺘﻠﺔ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺿﺨﻤﺔ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﻗﻄﺮﻫﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪20‬ﻡ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎﺕ ) ‪Frifelt‬‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺑﻊ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫‪ ،(1976‬ﻭ‪40‬ﻡ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺗﻞ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﻕ )‪ ، (Potts 2000‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑُﻨﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜ ٍﻞ‬ ‫ٍ‬ ‫ﺑﻴﻀﻮﻱ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺟﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺑﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺸﺒﺔ )‪ .(Al-Jahwari and Kennet 2010‬ﺍﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻓﻬﻮ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻑ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺨﺮﻳﺐ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺣ ﱠﻞ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻻﺣﻘﺎً‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﺍء‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﻔﻌﻞ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻨﻲ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻛﻠﻴﻬﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻀﺨﻤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎﺩﻯء ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺣﻔﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺄﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﻗﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﺍً‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻴﻠﻲ )‪ ،(Cleuziou 1980; 1982) (8‬ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺸﺒﺔ‬

‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫‪338‬‬

‫)‪ ،(Schmidt and Döpper 2017‬ﻭﺑﺎﺕ )‪ .(Thornton, Cable and Possehl 2016‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺷﺎﻉ ﺑﻨﺎء ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻀﺨﻤﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﻏﺪﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺸﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﺭﺟﺎء ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺛﺒﺖ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺣﻔﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻤﺖ ﺗﻘﻮﻳﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺠﺪﺭﺍﻥ ﺣﺠﺮﻳﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﺸﺬﺑﺔ ﻭﺿﺨﻤﺔ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻁﻮﻟﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺷﺘﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﻭﺳﻂ ﻣﻌﻈﻤﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﺑﺎﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﺣﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﺳﺘﺜﻨﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﺮﺝ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺷﻜﻞ ﻧﺘﻮءﺍﺕ ﺑﺎﺭﺯﺓ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎﺕ )‪ ،(Frifelt 2002‬ﻭﻗﻤﻴﺮﺍء ) ‪Rutkowski 2017,‬‬ ‫‪) (528‬ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(3‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻜﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻠﻔﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺨﻄﻴﻄﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺟﺪﺭﺍﻥ ﺣﺠﺮﻳ ٍﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻣﺪﺍﺧﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻮﺯﻋﺖ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺿﻢ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺻﻔﻮﻓﺎ ً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺫﻭﺍﺕ‬ ‫ٍ‬ ‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﺛﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﺎﻧﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺌﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﻈﻤﻬﺎ ﻣﺮﺩﻭ ًﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺮﺍﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ‪،‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :3‬ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻠﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻗﻤﻴﺮﺍء )ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﻧﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺭﻱ(‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻣﺨﺼﺼﺔ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﺷﻴﺪﺕ ﻛﻘﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻳﻌﺘﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺒﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻟﻢ ﻧﻌﺜﺮ‬ ‫ﺣﺘﻰ ﺍﻵﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﺎ ﻟﻤﺜﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺛﻤﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻱ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻣﻨﺼﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﺼﻄﺒﺔ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﺿﺨﻤﺔ )ِ‪،(Al-Jahwari and Kennet 2010‬‬ ‫ﻋﺜِﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻄﻢ )‪،(Frifelt 1979; 1985; 2002‬‬ ‫ﻭﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﻣﺎ ُ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﻴﺴﺮ ‪ .(Weisgerber 1978, 27; 1981, 174–263) 25‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﻓﻠﻢ ﺗﺸﺘﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺃﻱ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻞ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺮ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺒﺌﺮ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻲ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺒﻘﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺝ ﻣﻠﻴﺌًﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﺗﺮﺑﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺮﺝ )‪ (ST1‬ﻓﻲ ﺑﻬﻼء )‪.(Degli Esposti 2014‬‬

‫‪339‬‬

‫‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬

‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺑﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﺒﺎﻳﻨﺖ ﺍﻷﻣﺎﻛﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻤﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﺒﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺨﺸﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻔﻮﺣﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻧﺘﻮءﺍﺕ ﺻﺨﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﺨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺑﻄﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺑﻬﻼء‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻬﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﺗﻨﻮﻉ ﻁﻮﺑﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﺩ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺍﻵﻥ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻣﺨﻄﻄﺎﺗﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻁﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻬﺎ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻳﺆﻛﺪ ﺗﺒﺎﻳﻦ ﻭﻅﺎﺋﻔﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻨﻨﺎ ﻧﺴﺘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺃﻥ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﺑﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺋﻲ ﻷﻏﺮﺍﺽ‬ ‫ﺁﺑﺎﺭﺍ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺰﺭﺍﻋﺔ ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻄﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﺩﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺃﺣﻴﻄﺖ ﺑﺨﻨﺎﺩﻕ ﺿﺨﻤﺔ ﻭﻋﻤﻴﻘﺔ ﺗﺤﻮﻱ ً‬ ‫ﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ )ﻣﺜﻞ ﺳﻠﻮﺕ ﺑﺒﻬﻼء(‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﻔﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺎﻥ ﺑﻌﻴﺪﺍ ً ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺗﺠﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﺧﺪﻣﺖ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ‬ ‫ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺭﻣﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺳﻜﻨﻴﺔ ) ;‪Frifelt 1979, 578; Crawford 1998, 112–120‬‬ ‫‪ .(Orchard and Orchard 2002, 165–175; Al-Jahwari 2013, 158‬ﻭﺗﺠﺪﺭ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻁﺎﺋﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻘﺒﻴﻦ ﻻ ﺗﺴﺘﺒﻌﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺣﺘﻮﺕ ﻋﺪﺩًﺍ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﻧﺤﻮ ﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﺑﺮﺍﺝ‪ ،‬ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻣﺘﺰﺍﻣﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻢ ﺗﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﺟﻤﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻧﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺝ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺴﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻮﺩ ﺗﺼﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺌﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻳﻬﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻭﻳﺘﺮﻙ‪ ،‬ﺛﻢ ﻳﺒﻨﻰ ﺑﺮﺝ ﺁﺧﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻜﺬﺍ ) ‪Thornton,‬‬ ‫‪ .(Cable and Possehl 2016‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎء ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 2000‬ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ ﺍﺧﺘﻔﺖ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻅﺎﻫﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﺍﻟﻀﺨﻤﺔ ﻭﻟﻢ ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺟﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺗﻤﻴﺰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﻐﻴﺎﺏ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﺍﺝ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎ ً ﻋﻨﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺟﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻨﺠﺪﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺟﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ )‪ ،(Frifelt 1995‬ﻭﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺰ ‪ ،(Cleuziou and Tosi 2002; 2007) 2‬ﻭﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ (Al-Jahwari et al., 2018) 7‬ﻭﻋﻤﻼء )‪،(de Cardi et al. 1976‬‬ ‫ﻭﻣﻴﺴﺮ ‪ .(Weisgerber 2007b; 1981; 1980) 1‬ﻭﻳﻀﻢ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺔ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻄﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﺗﻀﻢ ﻋﺪﺩﺍ ً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ً ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺾ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﺘﺒﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﻛﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﺴﺮ )‪ (Weisgerber 2007b; 1981; 19‬ﻭﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﻴﻦ‬ ‫)‪ ،(Al-Jahwari et al., 2020‬ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﺠﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺳﻜﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﺼﻠﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﻛﺘﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺰ ‪ .(Cleuziou and Tosi 2002; 2007) 2‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ً‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ً ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻼ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺗﻴﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻳﺼﻌﺐ ﺗﻜﻬﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﺫ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺟﻴﺔ ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺟﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﺩﻧﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻬﺮﻣﻲ‬ ‫ﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ )‪،(Al-Jahwari and Kennet 2010; Deadman 2012‬‬ ‫ﻓﻘﺪ ﺩﻟﺖ ﺍﻻﻛﺘﺸﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺜﺔ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻨﻄﻠﻘًﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﻜﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻬﺮﻣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﻲ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺜﻤﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺑﺮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺰ ‪ ،2‬ﻭ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪،7‬‬ ‫ﺃﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﺗﻤﻴﺰﺍ ً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﻰ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﺟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻦ‬ ‫ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻣﺆﺷﺮﺍ ً ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎ ً ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻟﻬﺬ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻅﻬﺮ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺩﻓﻦ‬ ‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﺧﺘﻠﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺷﺎﺋﻌﺎ ً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺣﻔﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﺎﺩ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺧﻼﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻜﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺒﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻤﻢ ﺍﻟﺠﺒﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻭﺩﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻬﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺮﺓ ﺩﻓﻦ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺗﻀﻢ ﻋﺪﺩﺍ ً ﻗﻠﻴﻼً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻮﻧﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﺔ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ )‪Al-‬‬ ‫‪ ،(Jahwari 2013‬ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺮﺕ ﺑﺄﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﺟﺪﺍ ً ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﻗُﺪّ َِﺭﺕ ﺑﻌﺸﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻵﻻﻑ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﻔﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺗﻤﺎ ًﻣﺎ ﻣﻊ ﻅﻬﻮﺭ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻟﻴﺤﻞ ﻣﺤﻠﻪ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﻬﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺒﻨﻰ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻘﺴﻢ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺮﺍﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻦ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﻋﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻟﻠﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 12‬ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻄﻮﺭﺍ ً ﻭﺗﻌﻘﻴﺪﺍ ً ﺧﻼﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﺍﻫﺘﻢ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺝ‬

‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫‪340‬‬

‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻋﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ ﻋﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﻫﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎﺅﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺒﻨﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﻀﺎء ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺸﺬﺑﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻘﻦ ﺟﺪﺍً‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺑﺎﺕ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(4‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺯﺧﺮﻓﺖ ﻭﺍﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺑﺄﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﺁﺩﻣﻴﺔ ﻭﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﻧﺤﺘﺖ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ً ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺑﺎﺭﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻘﺪﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺆﻣﻦ ﺑﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺁﻧﺬﺍﻙ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﻫﻴﻠﻲ )‪) (Frifelt 1975b‬ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ ،(5‬ﻭﺟﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬ ‫) ‪Thorvildsen 1963, 199–200, figs 7–8; Frifelt 1975b, figs 37–38; 1991, 27–28,‬‬ ‫‪.(figs 21–21a, 22–22a‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :4‬ﺃﺣﺪ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻣﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺑﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ )ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺩﻏﻠﺲ(‪.‬‬

‫ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻌﺎ ً ﻁﺒﻘﻴﺎ ً )‪.(Potts 2009; Cleuziou and Tosi 2007; Magee 2014, 120‬‬

‫ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺪ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺷﺎﻋﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻣﺤﻠﻴﺎ ً ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﺪﺓ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ‪ ،‬ﺃﻫﻤﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺰﺧﺮﻑ ﺑﺄﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻫﻨﺪﺳﻴﺔ ﺭﺳﻤﺖ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﺳﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻄﺎﻧﺔ ﺣﻤﺮﺍء )‪ ،(Black on Red Fine Ware‬ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﻠﻲ )‪،(Sandy Ware‬‬ ‫ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻨﻊ ﻣﺤﻠﻴﺎ ً ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻟﻴﺤﺎﻛﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺃﺷﻜﺎﻝ ﻓﺨﺎﺭ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ ) ‪et‬‬ ‫‪ .(Douglas et al., 2021; Méry al., 2017; Frenez et al., 2016‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﺍﻷﺣﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻋﻢ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺑﻜﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻛﻤﺮﻓﻘﺎﺕ ﺟﻨﺎﺋﺰﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺷﺎﻋﺖ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺤﻮﺗﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻮﺭﺍﻳﺖ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺑﻮﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﺩﻱ ﻧﺼﻒ ﻛﺮﻭﻳﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﺇﺳﻄﻮﺍﻧﻴﺔ ﺯﺧﺮﻑ ﺟﻤﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﺑﺤﻠﻘﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﺘﻮﺳﻄﻬﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻧﻔﺬﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺃﻭ ﺻﻨﺎﺩﻳﻖ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻏﻄﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻟﻺﻧﺎء ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻏﺎﺋﺮ )‪ ،(David-Cuny 2002‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ ﻟﺘﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ‬ ‫ﻛﻤﺮﻓﻘﺎﺕ ﺟﻨﺎﺋﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ ﻳﻜﺎﺩ ﻣﺪﻓﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻳﺨﻠﻮ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻧﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪341‬‬

‫‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :5‬ﻣﺪﻓﻦ ﻫﻴﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻣﺎﺭﺍﺕ )ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺩﻏﻠﺲ(‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻔﻖ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻫﻮ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ) ;‪Potts 1978‬‬ ‫‪Costa and Wilkinson 1987; Brunswig 1989; Edens 1992; Cleuziou 2002; Weeks‬‬ ‫‪ .(2004‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻅﻬﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺣﻔﻴﺖ ) ‪(Cleuziou and Tosi‬‬ ‫;‪ ،(2007, 94; Weisgerber 2007a, 195; Weeks et al. 2009; Magee 2014‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺷﺎﻉ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﺟﺪﺍ ً ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻓﻨﺠﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺍ ً ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﺧﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓﺮ ﺑﻜﺜﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺟﺒﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺳﻤﺪ ‪ 5‬ﻭﺳﻤﺪ ‪) 50‬ﻣﻴﺴﺮ‬ ‫‪ ،(Meadow, Humphries and Hastings 1976, 112) (1‬ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻦ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺍﻟﺰﺍﻫﺮ ‪ 2‬ﻭ ‪ 3‬ﻓﻲ ﻭﺍﺩﻱ‬ ‫ﺇﺑﺮﺍء )‪ ،(Hastings, Humphries and Meadow 1975, 11–12‬ﻭﻣﻼﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻴﺴﺮ ‪ 2‬ﻭ‪16‬ﻭ ‪49‬‬ ‫)‪ ،(M2, M16, M49‬ﻭﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺪﻥ ‪ 1‬ﻭ‪ ،2‬ﻭﺟﻤﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﻴﺒﻲ )‪Weisgerber 1981, 263–174‬‬ ‫;‪ ،(186–189 and 198–203‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻘﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻬﻼء )‪ .(Weisgerber and Yule 2003, 24–53‬ﺃﺷﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺼﺪﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺼﺪﺭ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺳﺒﺎﺋﻚ ﻧﺤﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻓﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ ) ‪Cleuziou and Tosi 2000: 54 and‬‬ ‫‪ ،(2007, 213‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﻴﺴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﺔ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻮﺍﻟﺐ‬ ‫ﻟﺼﻬﺮ ﺳﺒﺎﺋﻚ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻭﺗﺸﻜﻴﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺒﺎﺋﻚ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺒﻮﻛﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﻣﻨﻪ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺳﻠﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﻛﻤﺮﻓﻘﺎﺕ ﺟﻨﺎﺋﺰﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﺃﻧﺤﺎء ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺗﻞ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ) ‪Weeks 1997 and‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ﻭﺻﻮﻻ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﻴﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ ) ‪Vogt 1985; Méry et‬‬ ‫‪،(2004; Monchablon et al. 2003‬‬ ‫‪ .(al. 2004‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺧﻠﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺩﻭﺍﺕ ﻣﺼﻨﻌﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻛﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺧﺒﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﺗﺪﻝ ﺑﻮﺿﻮﺡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻧﺸﻐﺎﻝ ﺳﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻭﺻﻬﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪Al-) 1‬‬ ‫‪ .(Jahwari et al., 2022‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺗﺠﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﺳﺒﺎﺏ‬

‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫‪342‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺮﺧﺎء ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﺎﺷﻪ ﺷﻜﺎﻥ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻧﻌﻜﺲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﺎ ً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﻨﺎﺣﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺁﻧﺬﺍﻙ‪ .‬ﻭﺧﻴﺮ ﺩﻟﻴ ٍﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻌﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﻟﻲ ﺟﺎء ﻣﻦ ﺑﻼﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻓﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺑﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﻓﺪﻳﻦ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﻣﺠﺎﻥ ﺃﺭﺽ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ) ;‪Heimpel, 1981, 65–67; Glassner 1989, 184–187 and 2002, 348‬‬ ‫–‪Potts 1986, 273, 275–276, 1990, 136–142 and 1993, 118; Cleuziou 2002, 225‬‬ ‫;‪ .(226‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻳﻀًﺎ ﺑﺄﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺻﺪﺭﻫﺎ ﺳﻜﺎﻥ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﻳﻀﺔ ﺑﺒﻀﺎﺋﻊ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺩﻟﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﻨﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺟﺮﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺰﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺮﻑ ﺏ )‪ (Black Slipped Indus Storage Jars‬ﺇﺫ َﻣﺜُﻠَﺖ ﺑﻜﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ )‪.(Méry and Blackman 2006; Méry et al., 2017‬‬ ‫ﻭﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﻁﺮﻕ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺑﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺑﺤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺧﺎﺭﺟﻬﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻣﺨﺘﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻛﺸﻔﺖ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻧﻘﺐ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﺎً‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﺘﻈﺮ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ )‪ ،(Frifelt 1975a; 1976‬ﻭﺗﻌﺪ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺰ‬ ‫)‪ ،(Cleuziou and Tosi 2002; 2007‬ﻭﺭﺃﺱ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ )‪ ،(Cattani et al., 2019‬ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺸﺒﺔ )‪Al-‬‬ ‫‪ ،(Jahwari and Kennet 2010; Schmidt and Döpper 2017‬ﻭﻣﻴﺴﺮ ) ‪Weisgerber 1978,‬‬ ‫‪ ،(1980, 1981‬ﻭﺑﻬﻼء )‪ ،(Humphries 1974; de Cardi, Collier and Doe 1976‬ﻭﺑﺴﻴﺎء‬ ‫)‪ ،(Orchard and Stanger 1994 and 1999‬ﻭﺑﺎﺕ ) ;‪Schmidt 2010, 2011; 2012‬‬ ‫;‪ ،(Brunswig 1989; Frifelt 1975a, 1976, 1985, 2002‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺭﺽ )‪Castel et al. ) (Ard‬‬ ‫‪ ،(2020‬ﻭﻗﻤﻴﺮﺍء ) ‪Białowarczuk 2017; Rutkowski 2017; Białowarczuk and‬‬ ‫‪ (Szymczak 2018; Białowarczuk and Szymczak 2019‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺩﻟﻴﻼً ﺃﺛﺮﻳﺎ ً ﻏﻨﻴﺎ ً ﺣﻮﻝ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻣﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ً ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﺴﺎﻫﻤﺔ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﻴﻠﻲ ‪ ،(Cleuziou 1989) 8‬ﻭﺟﺰﻳﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ )‪ ،(Frifelt 1995‬ﻭﺗﻞ ﺍﻷﺑﺮﻕ )‪ ،(Potts 1991 and 2000‬ﻭﺷﻤﻞ )‪Vogt and Franke-‬‬ ‫‪ ،(Vogt 1987; Franke-Vogt 1991‬ﻭﻋﺴﻴﻤﺔ )‪) ،(Vogt 1994‬ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(1‬ﻭﻳﺬﻛﺮ ﻫﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺑﻮﺱ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺿﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺎﻫﻤﺔ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻓﺎﻋﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺃﺩﻟﺔ ﺃﺛﺮﻳﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﺳﺎﻋﺪﺕ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻧﻘﺐ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺑﺈﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻛﺎﺗﺒﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻨﺔ ‪2014‬ﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ‬ ‫‪2021‬ﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 7‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﺔ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻨﺔ )‪ ،(Al-Jahwari et al. 2018; Douglas et al. forthcoming c‬ﻭﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﺔ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ )‪ ،(Al-Jahwari et al. 2020‬ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ً ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﺎ ﺯﺍﻝ ﺟﺎﺭﻳﺎ ً ﻓﻴﻬﺎ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(1‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﺩ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻘﺪﻡ ﻣﻮﺟﺰﺍ ً ﻷﻫﻢ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻲ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 7‬ﻛﻨﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ )ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ( ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺣﻈﻴﺖ ﺑﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﻮﺍﺳﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 2014‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪2021‬ﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺑﺮﺯﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﺷﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺎﺭﻱ ﻭﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻷﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻪ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ‪2014–2013‬ﻡ ﺑﺈﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﻧﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺭﻱ‬ ‫ِﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ )‪ 2000–2500‬ﻕ‪.‬ﻡ(‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻠﻴﺞ ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ﻏﺮﺏ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺻﺤﻢ ُﻛﺸ َ‬ ‫ﺗﺘﺮﻛﺰ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻗﻄﺮﻫﺎ ‪1500‬ﻡ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻭﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺳﻤﻴﺖ ﺑﺪﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭ ‪ 5‬ﻭ ‪ 6‬ﻭ‪7‬‬ ‫ﻭ‪ 8‬ﻭﻋﺮﻓﺖ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﺏ )‪) (DH1, DH5, DH6, DH7, DH8‬ﺷﻜﻞ ‪.(6‬‬

‫‪343‬‬

‫‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬

‫ﻭﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺘﺰﺍﻣﻨﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ ﻁﻴﻠﺔ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﺗﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﻣﺮﺩ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻓﻲ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ .‬ﻓﻌﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﻳﺠﺜﻢ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﺎ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 6‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 8‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻣﻨﺨﻔﻀﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻦ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻛﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻘﺮﺑﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﻭﺍﻷﺭﺍﺿﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﺮﺑﻊ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻲ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 7‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺎﻁﺐ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﻣﺮﺗﻔﻌﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﺖ‬ ‫ﻛﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺳﻜﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺘﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺑﻮﻓﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﺻﺔً ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺍﺳﻢ ﺍﻷﻣﻄﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺳﺎﻋﺪﺕ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺑﻴﺌﺔ ﺧﺼﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺰﺭﺍﻋﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ )ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺭﻱ ﻭﺩﻏﻠﺲ ‪ .(2022‬ﻭﺗﺘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ‬ ‫ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺑﻮﻓﺮﺓ ﻣﺎﺩﺓ ﺧﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺸﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺟﺒﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺩﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﻗﻮﻋﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻕ‪.‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :6‬ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻷﻭﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﻬﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪(DH1) 1‬‬ ‫ﺗﻘﻊ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 24‬ﻛﻢ ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ﻏﺮﺏ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺻﺤﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺣﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﺳﻬﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺇﺣﺪﺍﺛﻴﺎﺕ )‪) (56° 41' 44.778" E, 24° 3' 2.01" N‬ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(1‬ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﺼﻄﺒﺔ ﺣﺼﻮﻳﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺔ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻮﺡ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻟﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺟﺒﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺤﺪﻫﺎ ﻭﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺘﻴﻦ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(6‬ﻭﺗﺒﻠﻎ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ‪ 16‬ﻫﻜﺘﺎﺭﺍ ً‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺤﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﺒﻨﻰ ﺗﺘﺮﻛﺰ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﺘﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻭﺷﻤﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﻋﺪﺩ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻀﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ‪17‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺰﻳﺪ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻭﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻣﺮﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻖ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃُﺯﻳ َﻞ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﺗﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺗﺠﻤﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻁﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﻉ )‪ .(Al-Jahwari et al. 2018‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﺳﻢ ‪2017–2014‬ﻡ ﺑﺈﺷﺮﺍﻑ ﻛﺎﺗﺒﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻧﻘﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻤﺲ‬ ‫ﻭﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ‬ ‫ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﺟﺰﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 6‬ﻭ ‪ 10‬ﻭ‪ 14‬ﻭ ‪ 16‬ﻭ ‪ ،20‬ﺣﻴﺚ ُﺭ َ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪.(7‬‬ ‫ﺃﺷﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬ ‫ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﻛﻮﺭﺵ ﻟﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﻄﺒﻖ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 6‬ﻭ‪14‬‬ ‫ﻭ‪ 16‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺳﻜﻨﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ )‪ .(Al-Jahwari et al., 2022‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪ ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻝ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ ،14‬ﺃﻭ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻏﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ‬ ‫‪ .16‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻑ ﻣﺴﺘﻄﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺘﺼﻞ ﺃﺣﻴﺎﻧﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺑﻤﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻲ‬ ‫ﻳﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺑﻤﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺩﺭﺟﺘﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻬﺒﻂ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺪﺭﺟﺘﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻛﻼ‬

‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫‪344‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﻴﻦ ‪ 10‬ﻭ ‪ 20‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﻤﻴﺰﺍ ً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻁﻼﻕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻮﻅﻴﻔﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﻨﺎ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﻣﻮﺟﺰ ﻋﻦ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﻴﻦ‪:‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :7‬ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪) 1‬ﺭﺳﻢ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ(‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪10‬‬ ‫ﻳﻘﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 10‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻲ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ ،(7‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻨﻌﺰﻝ ﻧﻮﻋًﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻁﻼﻕ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻘﺪﺭ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺘﻪ ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ‪ 228‬ﻣﺘﺮﺍ ً ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺎ ً )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪.(8‬‬ ‫ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺴﻤﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺷﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻭﺟﻨﻮﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻡ ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻏﺮﻑ ﻣﺴﺘﻄﻴﻠﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ )‪ (R1,R3,R5‬ﺗﻘﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻄﻞ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻤﺮ ﻁﻮﻳﻞ )‪ (R8‬ﻟﻪ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻋﺮﻳﺾ )‪1‬ﻡ(‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻏﺮﻓﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﺘﺎﻟﻴﺘﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ )‪ ،(R2, R4‬ﻭﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء‬ ‫ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ً ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ )‪90‬ﺳﻢ( ﻳﻘﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‪ .‬ﺃﺿﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﻻﺣﻘﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ‬ ‫ﻋﻦ ﺣﻮﺵ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ )‪ ،(R7‬ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ )‪ ،(R6‬ﻭﻟﻪ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻋﺮﻳﺾ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻭﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ُ‬ ‫ﺷ ِﻴّﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺬﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺟﺪﺭﺍﻧﻪ ﻣﻐﻄﺎﺓ ﺑﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻼﻁ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺟﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺳﺎﺣﻞ ﺃﺑﻮﻅﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻭﺻﻒ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻣﺒﻨﻰ‬ ‫ﺗﺨﺰﻳﻦ )‪ .(Al Tikriti 2011, Fig.8) (Ware House‬ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻟﻌﺪﺓ ﺃﻏﺮﺍﺽ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﺨﺰﻳﻦ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺴﺮ ﻓﺨﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﻗﻞ ﻝ ‪ 14‬ﺟﺮﺓ ﻳﺮﺟﻊ ﻣﻌﻈﻤﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﺎﺭﺑﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺍﺩﻱ‬ ‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﺜﺮ ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ِﻛ َ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﺟﺮﺍﺭ ﺗﺨﺰﻳﻦ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﺑﺸﻜﻠﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺼﻠﻲ ﻭﻗﺎﻋﺪﺗﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﻄﺎﺓ ﺑﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺳﻤﻴﻜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟ ِﺒﻄﺎﻧﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻮﺩﺍء ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺤﻤﺮﺍء ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗُﻌﺮﻑ ﺏ)‪ .(Black Slipped Indus Storage Jars‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﻻﻟﺔً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﺎﺭﺑﺎ ﻭﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬ ‫)‪ .(Méry and Blackman 2006; Méry et al. 2017; Douglas et al. 2021,‬ﻭﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺨﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﺎﺭﺑﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻟﻌﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﻛﻮﺳﻴﻂ ﺗﺠﺎﺭﻱ )‪ .(Al-Jahwari et al, 2022‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻅﺎﺋﻒ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺷﻐﻠﻬﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻭﺭﺷﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﻳﻞ )‪ (R8‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﺎ‬ ‫ﻓﺮﻥ ﻟﺼﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﺗﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺒﺚ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺪﻥ ﺫﺍﺗﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺧﻄﺎﻑ )‪ (Hook‬ﻣﺼﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺘﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﺪ ﻟﻠﻨﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ )‪ (R3‬ﺍﺗﺨﺬ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺣﻔﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺴﻜﻨﻰ ﺑﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﻭﺟﺪ ﺍﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻄﺢ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ً ﻟﻠ ُ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻀﻮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﺎ ﻧﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧﺎءٍ ﻟﻠﻄﻬﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﺪﺩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﺪﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺒﺨﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ‬

‫‪345‬‬

‫‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬

‫)ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ ،(9‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﻰ ﺗﻤ ً‬ ‫ﻴﺰﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﺪ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ) ‪Al-Jahwari and‬‬ ‫‪.(Douglas 2021a‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :8‬ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 10‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻓﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺳﻢ ‪) 2017‬ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﺒﻲ(‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪20‬‬ ‫ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ً ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ ،1‬ﻣﺒﻨﻰ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ ،20‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ ،(7‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 10‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻧﻌﺰﺍﻟﻪ ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻩ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺻﻐﺮﻫﺎ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺼﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺘﻪ ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪16‬ﻣﺘﺮﺍ ً ﻣﺮﺑﻌﺎً‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻏﺮﻓﺘﻴﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺗﻴﻦ ﺷﻴﺪﺗﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺘﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺘﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﺗﻘﻊ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻡ )‪ (R1‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺒﻠﻎ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺘﻬﺎ ‪5‬ﻡ‪ 2‬ﻭﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺻﻐﻴﺮ )ﺑﻌﺮﺽ ‪50‬‬ ‫ﺳﻢ( ﻓﻲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(10‬ﻛﺸﻒ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺧﻤﺲ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﻣﺸﻴﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﺮ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻨﻀﺪﺗﺎﻥ )‪ (Benches‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﺑﻤﺤﺎﺫﺍﺓ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻲ‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺑﻤﺤﺎﺫﺍﺓ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ )‪ (silo‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﻤﺤﺎﺫﺍﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﺪﻟﺖ ﻻﺣﻘﺎ ً ﺑﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻭﺿﻌﺖ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎ ً ﻓﻲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺭﺻﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﺤﺠﺮﺓ ﺑﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺩﺭﺟﺘﺎﻥ ﺗﺆﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺗﻤﺖ‬ ‫ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ )‪245 x 142‬ﺳﻢ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ )‪ ،(R2‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺼﻄﺒﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (Platform‬ﻣﺴﺘﻄﻴﻠﺔ ﻣﻼﺻﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻔﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻘﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺳﻂ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﺻﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺗﺸﺒﻪ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺜﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﺍ ً ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺣﺪ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺜﻮﺭﺍﺕ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﺟﺪﺍ ً ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﺜﺮ ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ )‪ (R2‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺴﺮ ﻹﺑﺮﻳﻖ ﻓﺨﺎﺭﻱ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺼﺐ )‪،(Spouted Pot‬‬ ‫ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺍ ً ﻓﻲ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺷﺎﻉ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻱ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﻭﺍﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﻕ )‪ 1300–2000‬ﻕ‪.‬ﻡ( )‪ ،(Velde 2003‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺷﻤﻞ )‪ ،(Vogt and Franke-Vogt 1987‬ﻭﻭﺍﺩﻱ ﺳﻮﻕ )‪ ،(Frifelt 1975a‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻫﻴﻠﻲ ‪ .(Cleuziou 1989) 8‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 20‬ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻞ ﻛﻤﻌﺒﺪ ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻧﻌﺰﺍﻟﻪ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺨﻄﻄﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻱ‬

‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫‪346‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﺎ ً ﻋﻦ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺳﻮﺍء ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺤﺠﻤﻪ ﺍﻷﺻﻐﺮ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻻ ﻳﺼﻠﺢ ﻟﻐﺎﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﻁﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺿﺪ ﻭ )‪ ،(silo‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺎء ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬ ‫ﺣﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻨﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺠﺪﺭ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﺒﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻈﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻱ‬ ‫ٍ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮﻋﻪ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻓﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺔ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ) ‪Al-Jahwari and Douglas‬‬ ‫‪.*(2021b‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :9‬ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 10‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪) 1‬ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﺒﻲ(‪.‬‬

‫‪347‬‬

‫‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :10‬ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 20‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ‪ 1‬ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻭﻥ )ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﻚ ﻛﻨﺖ(‬

‫‪.‬ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪(DH7) 7‬‬ ‫ﻳﻘﻊ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 7‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﻮﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﺨﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺪ ‪ 850‬ﻡ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﺷﺮﻕ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪) 1‬ﺷﻜﻞ‬ ‫‪ .(6‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺒﺎﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻘﺪﺭ ﺑﺤﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 31‬ﻣﺒﻨﻰ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺃﺻﻐﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ ،1‬ﻭﺗﻘﺪﺭ ﺑﺤﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 6.4‬ﻫﻜﺘﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﻭﻓﻖ ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﻣﺴﺒﻖ )‪ (Douglas et al, forthcoming c‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺑﻌﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﻄﺒﺔ ﻣﺮﺗﻔﻌﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺩﻱ ﻭﻣﻄﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﻬﺎ )ﺩﻫﻮﻯ‬ ‫‪ ،1‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ ،5‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ ،6‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ .(8‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻮﺯﻋﺖ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﻁﻮﺑﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ ً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺃﻁﻠﻖ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺒﻨﻰ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ )ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ ،(1‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺎﻥ )ﺭﻗﻢ ‪2‬ﻭ ‪،(3‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻔﻀﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺔ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒًﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻀﻢ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺪﻓﻦ‬ ‫ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻑ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(11‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﻘﺐ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﺒﺮ ﻣﻮﺳﻤﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﺘﺎﻟﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪2019–2018‬ﻡ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺳﻢ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ‪2021‬ﻡ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺭﻛﺰ ﻓﻴﻪ ﻛﺎﺗﺒﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﻨﻰ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ ،1‬ﺇﺫ‬ ‫ﻣﺒﺎﻥ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﻮﺑﻮﻏﺮﺍﻓﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ‬ ‫ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺮﺕ‬ ‫ٍ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 1‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 3‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺳﻄﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 42‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 19‬ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻔﻠﻰ )‪ ،(Douglas et al, forthcoming c‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ )‪ (T1‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ )‪ .(Williams et al 2021‬ﻭﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪(DH7) 7‬‬ ‫ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﺎﺭﺳﻮﺍ ﺣﺮﻓﺔ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﺎ ﻟﺨﺒﺚ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻲ‬ ‫ﺃﻓﺮﺍﻥ ﻟﺼﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻭﺣﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺤﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﺑﻤﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻛﻤﻴﺎﺕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﺎ ﻭﻛﺴﺮ‬ ‫ٍ‬ ‫ﻱ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺗﻘﻊ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ٌ 7‬‬ ‫ﺩﻭﺭ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ٌ‬ ‫‪ 186.3‬ﻡ ﻓﻮﻕ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻭﻓﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺪﻓﻦ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻌﻠﻪ ﺧﺪﻡ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ً ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ‪.‬‬

‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫‪348‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :11‬ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪) 7‬ﺭﺳﻢ ﻛﻤﺒﺮﻟﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺎﻣﺰ ﻭﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ(‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﺘﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 7‬ﻭﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻄﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ 42‬ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻤﻴﺰﺍ ً ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻘﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ ،7‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺗﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻮﺟﺰ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ‬ ‫)‪.(T1‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪1‬‬ ‫ﻣﺒﺎﻥ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻘﻊ ﺃﻗﺮﺏ ﻣﺒﻨﻰ ﻟﻪ‬ ‫ﺃﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺰﻭﻝ‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻮ‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫ﺩﻫﻮﻯ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻧﻘﻄﺔ‬ ‫ﺃﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻳﻘﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪1‬‬ ‫ٍ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺪ ‪ 30‬ﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺏ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪) 3‬ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(11‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 1‬ﻣﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﺗﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻔﺮﺩ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﻳﻘﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪130‬ﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ )‪.(T1‬‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻹﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻭﻣﺨﻄﻄﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺪء ﻓﻲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺠﻤﻪ‬ ‫ﺴِﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻌﺒﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﺨﻄﻄﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻳﺸﺒﻬﺎﻥ ﻟﺤﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ 20‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻓُ ّ‬ ‫ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﻣﻼً‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﺴﺘﻄﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﻠﻎ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺘﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ )‪x 320‬‬ ‫‪210‬ﺳﻢ(‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﺻﻐﻴﺮ )ﺑﻌﺮﺽ ‪50‬ﺳﻢ( ﻳﻘﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﺃﻣﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﺼﻄﺒﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻄﻴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ‬ ‫ﻋﺮﺿﻬﺎ ‪130‬ﺳﻢ ﺷﻴﺪﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻁﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺟﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺮﺗﻔﻊ ﻋﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪20‬ﺳﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﺜﺮ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻁﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺣﺠﺮﻳﺔ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ )‪44 x 53‬ﺳﻢ( ﺗﻘﻊ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺻﻔﻮﻑ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺮﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻳﺼﻞ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻋﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ‪50‬ﺳﻢ ﻭ ﻣﻐﻄﺎﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺎﺕ ﺑﻄﺒﻘﺔ ﺳﻤﻴﻜﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﺮ ﺍﻷﺻﻔﺮ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﻄﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﺮ ﺍﻷﺻﻔﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺭﺑﻊ ﺣﻠﻘﺔ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﺤﺎﻁﺔ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﻭﻣﻤﻠﻮءﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﺮ ﺍﻷﺻﻔﺮ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﺎ ﻟﻤﺼﻄﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﺮ ﺍﻷﺑﻴﺾ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻨﺎء ﺻﻐﻴﺮ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻱ ﺗﺤﻴﻂ ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﺣﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺸﻔﺖ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺳﻢ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ ‪ 2021‬ﻋﻦ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺼﻄﺒﺔ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﺭﺟﺘﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻼﺻﻘﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺼﻄﺒﺘﻴﻦ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻳﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﺘﺘﺎﻟﻴﺘﻴﻦ ﻗﺮﻳﺒﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﺒﺔ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﺮﻳﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬ ‫ﺇﻟﻰ )‪ (Silo‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻦ ﺣﻮﺽ ﻟﻠﻤﺎء ﻣﺴﺘﻄﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺒﻨﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻭﺃﺭﺿﻴﺘﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﺮ ﺍﻷﺻﻔﺮ ) ‪Douglas‬‬ ‫‪ .(et al, forthcoming a‬ﺃﻅﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺘﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻡ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺻﻔﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺧﺮﺓ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺒﺴﻄﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻓﺼﻠﺖ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺘﻴﻦ‬

‫‪349‬‬

‫‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬

‫ﻁﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺜﻮﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﻔﺖ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺫﺍﺕ‬ ‫ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﺟﺪﺍً‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻋﺜﺮ ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﻣﻮﺳﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﻤﻴﺰﺓ ﺟﺪﺍ ً ﻭﻫﻲ ﺯﻭﺝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻨﺞ )‪(Cymbals‬‬ ‫ﻭﺿﻌﺎ ﺑﻌﻨﺎﻳﺔ ﻓﻮﻕ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﻤﺎ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺍﻷﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮﺓ ) ‪Douglas‬‬ ‫ﺴﺮ ﻹﺑﺮﻳﻖ ﻓﺨﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﺤﻠﻲ ﻣﺰﺧﺮﻑ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺼﺒﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻠﻘﻰ‬ ‫‪ ،(et al., forthcoming b‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ِﻛ َ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﻮﻗﻌﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻓﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﻌﺒﺪ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪.1‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪42‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ﻳﻘﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 42‬ﻓﻲ ﺃﻗﺼﻰ ﺷﺮﻕ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ ،7‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﻌﺰﻭﻝ ﻧﻮﻋﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﺘﺮﻛﺰ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺏ ﻣﻨﻪ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(11‬ﻭﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪190) 7‬ﻡ‪ ،(2‬ﺣﻴﺚ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺰﺋﻴﻦ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻴﻦ‪ :‬ﺷﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻭﺟﻨﻮﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻲ ﻓﻬﻮ ﺍﻷﻗﺪﻡ ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ‪ 6‬ﻏﺮﻑ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻘﻊ ﻣﺪﺧﻠﻪ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻪ ﺩﺭﺟﺘﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻭﺍﺛﻨﺘﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻻﺣﻘﺔ ﺃﺿﻴﻔﺖ ﺳﺎﺣﺔ‬ ‫)‪ (R4‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺣﻮﺵ‪ ،‬ﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﻣﺤﺎﻁ ﺑﺠﺪﺍﺭﻳﻦ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﻗﺪ ﺑﻨﻴﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺰﺍﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺵ ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ )‪ (R8‬ﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺪﺭﺝ ﻳﺼﻌﺪ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭﻋﺜﺮ ﺑﺪﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺵ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﻄﺒﺘﻴﻦ ﺩﺍﺋﺮﻳﺘﻴﻦ ﻭ )‪ (silo‬ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻓﺔ ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻮﻗﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺘﻄﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(12‬ﻭﻋﺜﺮ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺵ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻜﺴﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺰﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﻳﻀﻢ ﻋﺪﺩﺍ ً ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺍ ً ﻣﻦ ﺟﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺰﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﺭﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﻭﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺪﺭ ﻋﺪﺩﻫﺎ ﺑﺤﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 32‬ﺟﺮﺓ ) ‪Douglas‬‬ ‫‪ ،(et al. 2021‬ﻭﻟﻌﻞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺮﺍﺭ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺰﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺣﺪ ﻭﻅﺎﺋﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ‬ ‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺆﻛﺪ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﻓﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻮﺵ‪ .‬ﻭ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻝ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻮ ًﻣﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﻳﺸﺒﻪ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣ ٍﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 10‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺚ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭﻻً‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﻓﻜﻼﻫﻤﺎ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺇﻥ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 42‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 7‬ﺃﺻﻐﺮ ﻗﻠﻴﻼً‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ‪ 10‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪،1‬‬ ‫ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺎً‪ :‬ﻳﺒﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﻄﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻛﻼ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﺃﺿﻴﻒ ﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﺣﻮﺵ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺪﺧﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻭﻓﻴﻪ‬ ‫ﻏﺮﻓﺔ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺛﺎﻟﺜﺎ‪ :‬ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﻼ ﻟﻌﺪﺓ ﺃﻏﺮﺍﺽ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺟﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺨﺰﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﺭﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻀﺎﺭﺓ ﻫﺎﺭﺑﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻭﺍﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻜﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﺭﺵ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻨﻴﻊ‪.‬‬

‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫‪350‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :12‬ﻣﺨﻄﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ ﺭﻗﻢ ‪ 42‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪) 7‬ﺭﺳﻢ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ(‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ )‪(DH7:T1‬‬ ‫ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺰء ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺔ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 7‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻦ )‪ ،(T12,13,14,18‬ﻭﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻐﺮﺑﻴﺔ )‪) (T1‬ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(11‬ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺄﺭﻳﺨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺃﻅﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ‬ ‫)‪ (T1‬ﻋﻼﻣﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﻮﺩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻭﻟﻤﺪﺓ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﺳﻢ )‪–2017‬‬ ‫‪ .(Williams et al 2021) (2019‬ﺃﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﻢ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺒﻠﻎ‬ ‫ﻗﻄﺮﻩ ‪8‬ﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺖ ﺣﺠﺮﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﺪﻓﻦ ﻣﻮﺯﻋﺔ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﺛﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻴﻤﻴﻦ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻠﻬﺎ ﺛﻼﺙ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻴﺴﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻔﺼﻞ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻤﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻁﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﻳﺘﺠﻪ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ‪-‬ﺟﻨﻮﺏ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ .(13‬ﺑﻨﻲ ﻧﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﺗﺤﺖ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺭﺽ ﻭﺍﻵﺧﺮ ﻓﻮﻗﻬﺎ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻣﺪﺧﻼﻥ ﻣﺘﻘﺎﺑﻼﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﻮﺑﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺰﻭﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻋﺘﺒﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺎﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻣﺪﻓﻦ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 7‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺘﻄﺎﺑﻖ‬ ‫ﻣﺨﻄﻄﻪ ﻭﻁﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﺑﻨﺎﺋﻪ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺘﺸﻔﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋُﻤﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺑﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺟﺪﺍﺭﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﺭﺟﻲ ﻣﺸﻴﺪ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻛﻠﺴﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻀﺎء ﻭﻣﻘﻄﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻣﺘﻘﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﻣﺒﻨﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺸﺬﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﻢ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺣﺠﺮﺍﺕ‬

‫‪351‬‬

‫‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻦ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺟﺪﺭﺍﻥ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺠﺎﺭﺓ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺸﺬﺑﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺑﻨﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻼﻁﺎﺕ ﺣﺠﺮﻳﺔ ﺿﺨﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﺪﺍ ً ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﻣﻨﻬﺎﺭﺓ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﺷﻴﺪﺕ ﺃﺭﺿﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻄﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺻﻮﺹ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻋﺜﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺧﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺸﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﻔﺮﺓ ﻟﻠﻌﻈﺎﻡ )‪ (Bone Pit‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻔﺮﻳﻎ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﻣﺘﻼﺋﻪ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻋﺪﺩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻘﻄﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻭﺗﺤﺮﻕ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﻔﺮﺓ ﻛﻲ ﺗﺘﺴﻊ ﻟﻜﻤﻴﺔ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺃﻭﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻈﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻨﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻓﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺎﺋﺰﻳﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ً ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﻔﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺄﻟﻔﺖ ﻣﻦ ٍ‬ ‫ﻓﺨﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺑﻮﻧﻲ )ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ (14‬ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﺧﺼﻴﺼﺎ ً ﻟﺘﻮﺿﻊ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻓﻰ‬ ‫)‪.(Williams et al 2021‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :13‬ﺻﻮﺭﺓ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻭﻥ ﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ )‪ (DH7:T1‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪) 7‬ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺮﻱ(‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺗﻤﺔ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺮﺿﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﻀﺎﺭﻱ ﻟﺸﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﻻ‬ ‫ﻭﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ )ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ(‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﺃﺷﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺷﻬﺪﺕ ﻧﻤﻮﺍ ً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻴﻄﺎﻥ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺗﻄﻮﺭﺍ ً ﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺸﻬﺪﻩ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺸﻔﺖ ﻋﻦ ﺛﻘﺎﻓ ٍﺔ ﻣﺘﻄﻮﺭﺓ ﻭﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻄﺎﻕ‬ ‫ﺗﻐﻄﻲ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻹﻗﻠﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﺳﺎﻫﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺳﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺣﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻞ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺮﺣﺎﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺋﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺮﻯ‬ ‫ﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺃﻧﻈﻤﺔ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﻣﻌﻘﺪﺓ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺗﺄﺳﻴﺲ ﺟﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺘﻀﺢ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﺎﺭﺳﻮﺍ‬ ‫ﻧﻤ ً‬ ‫ﻄﺎ ﻣﻌﻴﺸﻴًﺎ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻳًﺎ ﻣﺰﺝ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺰﺭﺍﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﻮﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﻐﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻤﺎﺷﻰ‬ ‫ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺸﻲ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻣﻮﺍﺯ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻧﺸﻄﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺨﺼﺼﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻭﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻌﺒﺖ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﺍ ً ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ً ﻓﻲ ﺇﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻭﺗﺼﺪﻳﺮﻩ‬ ‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﻼﺩ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺮﻳﻦ ﻭﻧﻬﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﺛﻤﺔ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻉ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻫﻢ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﺍﻣﺘﺎﺯﺕ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺍﻷﺛﺮ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺎﻡ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻹﻗﻠﻴﻤﻲ ﻭﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ً ﻓﻲ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﺒﻮﺭ‬ ‫ﻭﻋﺪﺩﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﺭﺗﻔﺎﻉ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻮﺣﻈﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻣﺘﺪﺍﺩ ﺃﻧﺤﺎء ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻅﻬﻮﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻀﺨﻤﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺗﻀﺎﺡ ﻁﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﻨﺎﺋﺰﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺭﺯﺓ ﺩﺍﺧﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻭﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺛﺒﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﻭﻣﺘﺤﺪ ﻣﻴﺰ‬ ‫ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﺒﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari‬‬

‫‪352‬‬

‫ﻭﻳﺒﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﻧﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺑﺮﺟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻭﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺑﺮﺟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﻋﻦ ﺃﻫﻢ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺼﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺳﻴﻘﺖ ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﺘﻀﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻤﻨﺎﻁﻖ ﺟﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ ﺃﻭ‬ ‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺯﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻣﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﺪﺍﺧﻼً ﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺎ ً ﻭﺯﻣﺎﻧﻴﺎً‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺠﺪﺭ ﺍﻹﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻬﺮﻣﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻫﺬﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻋﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﺃﻣﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻓﻨﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﺪ ﻁﻮﺭ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺻﺎ ﻟﻠﺪﻓﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺪﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ ﻟﻬﺬ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻋﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺃﻳﻘﻮﻧﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺎﻣﺎ ً ﺧﺎ ً‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻦ ﺟﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﻌﺪﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻐﺮﻑ ﺃﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺟﻨﺎﺋﺰﻳﺔ ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺳﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﺧﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺩﻭﻥ ﻏﻴﺮﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :14‬ﺃﻭﺍﻥ ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻋﺜﺮ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻓﻦ ﻭﺣﻔﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻈﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪) 7‬ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﺒﻲ(‪.‬‬

‫ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻮﺭﻗﺔ ﺃﻣﺜﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻌﺾ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻛﺰﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫ ﻗﺪﻣﺎ ﻣﺆﺷﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻬﻤﻴﻦ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻒ ﻋﻨﻬﻤﺎ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﻋﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻨﺔ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﻗﻌﺎ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪،7‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻠﺬﺍﻥ ﻗﺎﻡ ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ ﺑﺠﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺑﻮﺱ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﻋﻨﻬﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺸﻜﻞ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻫﺎﺗﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﺴﺎﻫﻤﺔ‬ ‫ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﺃﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﻬﻤﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜ ٍﻞ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺳﺎﻗﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺩ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ )ﻣﻦ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻲ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ ،7‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﻀﻤﻨﺔ ﻋﺪﺩًﺍ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺍ ً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺩﻟﻴﻼً ﻗﻮﻳﺎ ً ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﺗﺼﺎﻻﺕ ﻣﻊ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻊ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﻧﺒﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻧﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺩﻫﻮﻯ )ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻭﺍﻓﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺧﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﺎﺱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺮﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺠﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻣﺎ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻢ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻨﺔ ﻗﺪ ﺷﻬﺪ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺍﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﻣﻊ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭ ﻭﺻﺎﻧﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺨﺎﺭ ﻣﻦ ﺑﻼﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺫﻟﻚ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﺭﺑﻤﺎ‬

‫‪353‬‬

‫‪Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture‬‬

‫ﺍﺣﺘﻞ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ﻭﻅﻴﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺮﻛﺰﺍ ً ﻹﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻣﺔ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺩﻣﺔ‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻁﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻭﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﻗﻊ‪ .‬ﻭﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﻛﻞ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻌﺔً ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﺤﺘﻞ‬ ‫ﻣﻜﺎﻧﺔ ﻫﺎﻣﺔ ﻛﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﺮﻛﺰﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﺇﻗﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻁﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﻣﺒﺎﻥ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻄﻘﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺎﺋﺮﻳﺔ‬ ‫ﺷﺮﺍ ﻗﻮﻳﺎ ً ﻋﻠﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﺠﺘﻤﻊ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻊ ﻭﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻭﻧﺰﻱ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻜﺮ ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﺆ ً‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻈﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ‪.‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﺮ ﻭﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ‬ ‫ﻳﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﻛﺎﺗﺒﺎ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻝ ﺑﺠﺰﻳﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺎﻋﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻲ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ 1‬ﻭﺩﻫﻮﻯ ‪ ،7‬ﺳﻮﺍء‬ ‫ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻘﻴﺐ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﺳﻢ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻮﻳﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺨﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻛﺮ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻼء ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭﻧﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺸﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺒﺮﻟﻲ ﻭﻟﻴﺎﻣﺰ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻟﺸﻜﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺃﻳﻀﺎ ً ﻟﻤﻦ ﺳﺎﻋﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺨﺺ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﻛﺮ ﺩﻳﺮﻳﻚ ﻛﻴﻨﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻓﺎﺭﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻤﺮﻱ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺟﻊ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‪ .2010 .‬ﻗﺒﻮﺭ ﺍﻟﺮﻛﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺠﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﺇﺷﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺭﻳﺦ ﻟﻘﺒﻮﺭ‬ ‫ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺣﻔﻴﺖ )ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻊ ﻭﺑﺪﺍﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﻟﻒ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﻼﺩ(‪ .‬ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ‪-93: 16‬‬ ‫‪.112‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﺻﺮ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻏﻠﺲ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﻟﺪ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ‪ . 2022 .‬ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺎﻧﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﺎﻥ‪:‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﺩﻫﻮﻯ ﺍﻷﺛﺮﻱ ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺟﺎً‪ .‬ﺹ‪ .162-137 :‬ﺃﺑﺤﺎﺙ ﻧﺪﻭﺓ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻮﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻁﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺿﻮء‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻛﺘﺸﺎﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺛﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﻋﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﺩﻥ ‪ 5–2‬ﺻﻔﺮ ‪ 1440‬ﻩ )‪ 14–12‬ﺍﻛﺘﻮﺑﺮ ‪2018‬ﻡ(‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺮﺭﻭﻥ‪ :‬ﺃ‪.‬ﺩ‪ .‬ﺧﻠﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﻘﻞ ﻭ ﺩ‪ .‬ﻋﺒﺪﷲ ﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺭﺥ ﻭ ﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺘﻴﺒﻲ‪ .‬ﺃﺩﻭﻣﺎﺗﻮ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺽ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻮﺩﻳﺔ(‪.‬‬ ‫ﻛﻔﺎﻓﻲ‪ ،‬ﺯﻳﺪﺍﻥ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻓﻲ‪ .2017 .‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺷﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ﻭﺁﺛﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻹﺳﻼﻡ‪ .‬ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﺪﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻲ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺽ‪.‬‬

‫‪Bibliography‬‬ ‫‪Al-Jahwari, Nasser Said. 2013. Settlement Patterns, Development and Cultural‬‬ ‫‪Change in Northern Oman Peninsula: A multi-tiered approach to the analysis‬‬ ‫‪of long-term settlement trends. D. Kennet and St. J. Simpson (eds.) British‬‬ ‫‪Foundation for the Study of Arabia Monographs No. 13 BAR International‬‬ ‫‪Series. Oxford: UK: Archaeopress.‬‬ ‫‪Al-Jahwari, Nasser Said and Khaled A. Douglas. 2021a. Early Bronze Age In‬‬‫‪cense Burner from Dahwa 1 (DH1), Northern al-Batina, Oman. Near Eastern‬‬ ‫‪Archaeology 84.3:172–181.‬‬ ‫‪— 2021b. Umm an-Nar Ritual Building in Dahwa 1 (DH1), Northern Al-Batinah,‬‬ ‫‪Oman. Near Eastern Archaeology, 84(4): 262–271.‬‬ ‫‪Al‐Jahwari, Nasser Said, Khaled A. Douglas, and Mohammed A. Hesein. 2020.‬‬ ‫‪Al‐Ghoryeen: An Early Bronze Age settlement in central Oman peninsula.‬‬ ‫‪Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 31.2, 281–300.‬‬ ‫‪Al-Jahwari, N.A., Douglas, Khaled, Williams, K. D. 2022. Dahwa 1 (DH1): Umm‬‬ ‫‪An-Nar Settlement in Al-Batinah Plain, Northeast Oman. Ancient Near East‬‬ ‫‪Archaeology 59 (2022): 81–124.‬‬

354

Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari

Al-Jahwari, Nasser Said and Derek Kennet. 2010. Umm an-Nar settlement in the Wadi Andam area (Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40, 161–172. Azzara, Valentina. 2009. Domestic Architecture at the Early Bronze Age sites HD-6 and RJ-2 (Ja’alan, Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 39, 1–16. — 2012. The Organization of food Processing at HD-6 (Sultanate of Oman). In Roger Matthews and John Curtis, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 251–268. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Białowarczuk, Marcin. 2017. Preliminary report on Qumayrah–Ayn 2, a new prehistoric site in northern Oman. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 1 (XXVI), 543–555. Białowarczuk, Marcin, and Agnieszka Szymczak. 2018. Second season of prehistoric investigations in the Qumayrah Valley, Oman. Polish Archaeology of the Mediterranean 27.1, 446–463. — 2019. An overview of the latest prehistoric research in Qumayrah Valley, Sultanate of Oman (poster). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 49, 25–31. Blin, Olivier. 2007. Al-Ayn: a small Settlement and Palm Tree Garden in Eastern Oman. In Serge Cleuziou and Maurizio Tosi (eds.), In the Shadow of the Ancestors: the Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization in Oman, 248–250. Muscat: Ministry of Heritage and Culture. Blau, Soren. 2001. Fragmentary endings: a discussion of 3rd-millenium BC burial practices in the Oman peninsula. Antiquity 75.289, 557–570. Bondioli, Luca., A. Coppa, and R. Macchiarelli. 1998. From the coast to the oasis in prehistoric Arabia: what do the human osteodental remains tell us about the transition from a foraging to an exchange economy? Evidence from Ra’s alHamra (Oman) and Hili North (U.A.E.). In Maurizio Tosi (ed.) Proceedings of the XIII Congress 8–14 September 1996, International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, 229–34. Forli: ABACO. Brunswig, Jr. Rober H. 1989. Cultural History, Environment and Economy as seen from an Umm an-Nar Settlement: Evidence from Test Excavations at Bāt, Oman, 1977/78. Journal of Oman Studies 10, 9–50. Carter, Robert A. 1997a. Defining the Late Bronze Age in Southeast Arabia: Ceramic Evolution and Settlement during the Second millennium BC, vols.1–2. Unpublished PhD Thesis submitted to the University College London: London. — 1997b. The Wadi Suq Period in South-East Arabia: A Reappraisal in the Light of Excavations at Kalba, UAE. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27, 87–98.

Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture

355

— 2000. New Evidence for the MedievalOccupation of Abu Dhabi. Tribulus 10.1, 10–11. Castel, C., Olivier Barge, Blandine Besnard, Tara Beuzen-Waller, Jacques Brochier, Lionel Darras, Emmanuelle Régagnon, Séverine Sanz.2020. First discoveries of the Bāt/al-Arid mission (Sultanate of Oman). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 50, 71–84. Cattani, Maurizio, Jonathan M. Kenoyer, Dennys Frenez, Randall Law, Sophie Méry. 2019. New Excavations at the Umm an‐Nar site Ras al‐Hadd HD‐1, Sultanate of Oman (seasons 2016–2018): Insights on cultural interaction and long‐distance trade. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 49, 69– 84. Cleuziou, Serge. 1980. Three Seasons at Hili: Toward a Chronology and Cultural History of the Oman Peninsula in the 3rd Millennium B.C. Proceeding of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 10, 19–32. — 1982. Hili and the Beginning of Oasis Life in Eastern Arabia. Proceeding of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 12, 15–22. — 1989. Excavations at Hili 8: a preliminary report on the 4th to 7th campaigns. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 5, 61–87. — 2002. The early Bronze Age of the Oman Peninsula from chronology to the dialectics of tribe and state formation. In Juris Zarins, Maurizio Tosi, and Serge Cleuziou (eds.) Essays on the late prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula, 191–36. Rome: Istituto italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente. — 2003. Early Bronze Age Trade in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea: The Society Behind the Boats. In Daniel Potts & Hasan Al Naboodah and Peter Hellyer (eds.) Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the UAE, 133–148. London: Trident Press Ltd. Cleuziou, Serge and Maurizio Tosi. 2000. Ra’s al-Jinz and the prehistoric coastal cultures of the Ja’alan. Journal of Oman Studies 11, 19–73. — 2007. The Great Transformation. In Serge Cleuziou and Maurizio Tosi (eds.) In the Shadow of the Ancestors: the Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization in Oman, 63–104. Muscat, Oman: Ministry of Heritage and Culture. Costa, Paolo and Tony J. Wilkinson. 1987. The Hinterland of Sohar: Archaeological Surveys and Excavations within the Region of an Omani Seafaring City. Journal of Oman Studies 9. Crawford, Harriet E. W.1998. Dilmun and its Gulf Neighbours. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. David-Cuny, Hélène. 2002. Soft Stone Mining Evidence in the Oman Peninsula and its Relation to Mesopotamia. In Juris Zarins, Maurizio Tosi, and Serge Cleuziou (eds.) Essays on the late prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula, 317– 335. Roma: Istituto Italiano per L’Africa e L’Oriente.

356

Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari

de Cardi, Beatrice., Stephen Collier and Brian D. Doe. 1976. Excavations and Survey in Oman, 1974–1975. Journal of Oman Studies 2, 101–199. Degli Esposti, Michele. 2014. Excavations at the Early Bronze Age site «ST1» near Bisyah (Sultanate of Oman): notes on the architecture and material culture. Proceedings, 9th ICAANE 3, 665–678. Douglas, A., Khaled; Al-Jahwari, N.S., Méry, S.; Hesein, A. Mohamad and Williams, K. Al. 2021. Umm an-Nar settlement pottery from Dahwa 7 (DH7), northern al-Batinah, Oman. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 32, 198– 212. Douglas, Kh., Nasser S. Jahwari, and Mohammed A. Hessein. Forthcoming c: Umm an-Nar Settlement at Dahwa 7 (DH7), Northern Al-Batinah, Oman. Douglas, Kh., Nasser S. Al-Jahwari, Mohammed A. Hessein, and Michel de Vreeze. Forthcoming a: Umm an-Nar Ritual Building at Dahwa 7 (DH7), Northern Oman. Douglas, Kh., Nasser Al-Jahwari, Michel de Vreeze, Mohammed Hesein, Lloyd Weeks, Bernhard Pracejus. Forthcoming b: Cymbals from Early Bronze Age Dahwa 7 (DH7) in Oman. Symbols of interregional cultic connections. Douglas, Kh., Nasser Al-Jahwari, Sophie Méry, Mohammad Hesein, and Kimberly D. Williams. 2021. Umm an-Nar Settlement Pottery from Dahwa 7 (DH7), Northern Al-Batinah, Oman. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 32: 198-212 Edens, Christopher. 1992. Dynamics of trade in the ancient Mesopotamian ‘World System’. American Anthropologist 94, 118–139. Franke-Vogt, Ute. 1991. The Settlement of Central-Shimal. In Klaus Schippmann, Anja Herling and Jean-François Salles (eds.) Internationale Archäologie 6: Golf-Archäologie: Mesopotamien, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Oman, 179–204. Lyon: Universite Lumiére. Frenez, Dennys, Michele Degli Esposti, Sophie Méry, and Jonathan M. Kenoyer. 2016. Bronze Age Salūt (ST1) and the Indus Civilization: recent discoveries and new insights on regional interaction. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 46, 107–124. Frifelt, Karen.1975a. On Prehistoric Settlement and Chronology of the Oman Peninsula. East and West 25, 359–424. — 1975b. A Possible Link between the Jemdet Nasr and the Umm an-Nar Graves of Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 1, 57–80. — 1976. Evidence of a Third Millennium BC Town in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 2, 57–73. — 1979. Oman during the Third Millennium BC: Urban Development of Fishing/Farming Communities? South Asian Archaeology 1977.1, 567–587. — 1985. Further Evidence of the Third Millennium B.C. Town at Bāt in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 7, 89–104.

Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture

357

— 1991. The Island of Umm an-Nar: Vol.1, The Third Millennium Graves. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 26. Aarhus University Press: Aarhus. — 1995. The Island of Umm an-Nar, vol. 2. The third Millennium settlement (Jutland Archaeological Society Publications No. 26/2), Århus — 2002. Bat, a Centre in Third Millennium Oman. In Juris Zarins, Maurizio Tosi, and Serge Cleuziou (eds.) Essays on the late prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula, 101–110. IsIAO: Roma. Giraud, Jessica. 2009. The Evolution of Settlement Patterns in the Eastern Oman from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age (6000–2000 BC). C.R. Geoscience 30, 1–22. Glassner, Jean-Jacques. 1989. Mesopotamian textual evidence on Magan/Makan in the late 3rd millennium BC. In Paolo Costa and Maurizio Tosi (eds.) Oman Studies: Papers on the Archaeology and History of Oman, 181–191. Rome: IsMEO. — 2002. Dilmun et Magan: Le peuplement, l’organisation politique, la question des Amorrites et la place de l’écriture. Point de vue de l’assyriologue. In: Essays on the late prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula, 337–381. Rome: Istituto italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente. Hastings, A., J.H. Humphries, and R. H Meadow. 1975. Oman in the Third Millennium BCE. Journal of Oman Studies 1, 9–55. Heimpel, Wolfgang. 1981. A First Step in the Diorite Question. Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale Paris 76.1, 65–67. Humphries, J.H. 1974. Harvard Archaeological Survey in Oman: II – Some Later Prehistoric Sites in the Sultanate of Oman. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 4, 49–77. Kennet, Derek, William M. Deadman, Nasser Said Al-Jahwari. 2016. The RustaqBatinah Archaeological Survey. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 46, 155–168. Magee, Peter. 2014. The Archaeology of Prehistoric Arabia: Adaptation and Social Formation from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Cambridge University Press. Meadow, R.H., J.H. Humphries and A. Hastings. 1976. Exploration in Oman, 1973 and 1975: Prehistoric Settlements and Ancient Copper Smelting with its Comparative Aspects in Iran. In Firouz Bagherzadeh (ed.) Proceedings of the IV Annual Symposium of Archaeological Research in Iran, 3rd–8th November, 1975, 110–129. Tehran: Iranian Center for Archaeological Research. Méry, Sophie and M.J. Blackman. 2006. Socio-economical patterns of a ceramic container: The Harappan Black Slipped Jar. In C. Jarrige and V. Lefèvre (eds.), Sixteen International Conference on South Asian Archaeology, Paris, 2–6 July 2001, 226–235. Paris: ERC.

358

Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari

Méry, Sophie, Michele Degli Esposti, Dennys Frenez. and Jonathan M. Kenoyer.2017.Indus Potters in Central Oman in the second half of the third millennium BC. First results of a technological and archaeometric study. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 47, 163–184. Méry, Sophie, Kathleen McSweeney, Walid Yasein Tikriti, and Sander Van der Leeuw. 2004. New approaches to a collective grave from the Umm an-Nar Period at Hili (UAE). Paléorient, 163–178. Monchablon, Cécile, Rémy Crassard, Olivia Munoz, Hervé Guy, Gaelle BruleyChabot, and Serge Cleuziou. 2003. Excavations at Ra’s al-Jinz RJ-1: Stratigraphy without tells. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 33, 31– 47. Orchard, Jocelyn and Jeffery Orchard. 2002. The Work of the Al Hajar project in Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 12, 227–234. Orchard, Jocelyn and Gordon Stanger. 1994. Third Millennium Oasis Towns and Environmental Constraints on Settlement in the Al-Hajar Region. Iraq 56, 63– 100. — 1999. Al-Hajar oasis towns again. Iraq 61, 89–119 Potts, Daniel T. 1978. Towards an Integrated History of Culture Change in the Arabian Gulf Area: Notes on Dilmun, Makkan and the Economy of Ancient Sumer. Journal of Oman Studies 4, 29–51. — 1986. The booty of Magan. Oriens Antiquus 25, 271–285. — 1990. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, Volume I: From Prehistory to the Fall of the Achaemenid Empire. Oxford: Claredon Press. — 1991. Further excavations at Tell Abraq: the 1990 season. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. — 1993. Rethinking some aspects of trade in the Arabian Gulf. World archaeology 24.3, 423–440. — 2000. Ancient Magan: The Secrets of Tell Abraq. Trident Press Ltd: London — 2009. The archaeology and early history of the Persian Gulf. In: L.G. Potter (ed.) The Persian Gulf in History. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 27–56. Rutkowski, Łukasz. 2017. Archaeological investigation of Early Bronze Age burial site QA 1 in Wadi al-Fajj in northern Oman: results of the 2016 season. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, 1.XXVI, 523–542. Schmidt, Conrad. 2010. Excavation Bāt and Al-Ayn. Tubingen: Institute for Ancient Near Eastern Studies. — 2011. German Expedition to Bāt and Al-Ayn. Tubingen: Institute for Ancient Near Eastern Studies. — 2012. German Expedition to Bāt and Al-Ayn. Tubingen: Institute for Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Schmidt, Conrad and Stephanie Döpper. 2017.The development of complexity at third-millennium BC al-Khashbah, Sultanate of Oman: results of the first two

Early Bronze Age Settlements – Umm an-Nar Culture

359

seasons, 2015 and 2016. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 47, 215–226. Thorton, Christopher P., Charlotte M. Cable, Gregory L. Possehl. 2016. The Bronze Age Towers at Bat, Sultanate of Oman. Research by the Bat Archaeological Project 2007-12. University of Pennsylvania Museum of archaeology, Philadelphia. Thorvildsen, Knud. 1963. Burial Cairns on Umm an-Nar. Kuml, 1962: 191–219. Velde, Christian. 1991. Preliminary Remarks on the Settlement Pottery in Shimal. In Klaus Schippmann, Anja Herling and Jean-François Salles (eds.) Internationale Archäologie 6: Golf-Archäologie: Mesopotamien, Iran, Kuwait, Bahrain, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Oman, 265–288. Lyon: Universite Lumiér. — 1992. Die Spätbronzezeitliche und früheisenzeitliche Siedlung und ihre Keramik in Shimal/Ras al-Khaimah (Vereinigte Arabische Emirate). Unpublished MA Thesis: Göttingen. — 2003. Wadi Suq and Late Bronze Age in the Oman Peninsula. In Daniel T. Potts, Hasan Al Naboodah and Peter Hellyer. (eds.) Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the UAE, 102–113. London, UK: Trident Press Ltd. Vogt, Burkhard. 1985. The Umm an-Nar Tomb A at Hili north: a preliminary report on three seasons of excavation, 1982–1984. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 4, 20–35. — 1994. Asimah: An Account of a Two Months Rescue Excavation in the Mountains of Ras al- Khaimah, United Arab Emirates. Shell Markets Middle East: Dubai. Vogt, Burkhard and Ute Franke-Vogt. 1987.Shimal 1985/1986: Excavations of the German Archaeological Mission in Ras al-Khaimah, U.A.E.: a preliminary report. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Weeks, Lloyd Richard. 1997. Prehistoric Metallurgy at Tell Abraq, U.A.E. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 8.1, 11–85. — 2004. Early Metallurgy of the Persian Gulf: Technology, Trade, and the Bronze Age World. Boston, Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc. Weeks, Lloyd Richard, E. Keall, Vanessa Pashley, Jane Evans, and Susan Stock. 2009. Lead isotope analyses of Bronze Age copper‐base artefacts from Al‐ Midamman, Yemen: Towards the identification of an indigenous metal production and exchange system in the Southern Red Sea Region. Archaeometry 51.4, 576–597. Weisgerber, Gerd. 1978. Evidence of Ancient Mining Sites in Oman: a Preliminary Report. Journal of Oman Studies 4, 15–28. — 1980. „… und Kupfer in Oman“ – Das Oman-Projekt des Deutschen BergbauMuseums. Der Anschnitt 2-3.32, 62–110.

360

Khaled Douglas and Nasser Al-Jahwari

— 1981. Mehr als Kupfer in Oman: Ergebnisse der Expedition 1981. Der Anschnitt 5-6.33, 174–263. — 2007a. Copper from Magan for Mesopotamian Cities. In Serge Cleuziou and Maurizio Tosi (eds.), In the Shadow of the Ancestors: the Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization in Oman, 195–196. Muscat: Ministry of Heritage and Culture. — 2007b. Copper production as seen from Al-Moyassar-1. In Serge Cleuziou and Maurizio Tosi (eds.), In the Shadow of the Ancestors: the Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization in Oman, 251–254. Muscat: Ministry of Heritage and Culture. Weisgerber, Gerd and Paul Yule. 2003. Al-Aqir near Bahlā' – an Early Bronze Age Dam Site with Planoconvex ‘Copper’ Ingots. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 14, 24–53. Williams, K., Al-Jahwari, N.S., Douglas, Khaled. 2021. Preliminary Analyses of the Bronze Age and Post-Bronze Age Mortuary Monuments at the Dahwa sites, North Batinah Coast, Sultanate of Oman. East and West N. S. 2 (61). 2, 27–42.