By
B. MacDonald, A. Bradshaw, L. Herr, M. Neeley, and S. Quaintance
Introduction
The Tafila-Busayra Archaeological Survey (TBAS) was in the field for its first season in 1999. A preliminary report on this work appears in the Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (MacDonald et al. 2000) while a short report is published in the ACOR NEWSLETTER (MacDonald 1999). The second infield season, Phase 2, took place from April 29-June 16, 2000. It is this field season that is the focus of this report.1
Figure 1: The TBAS Territory
The project investigated an area of ca. 480 km2 in west-central Jordan in the region from just west of At-Tafila and Busayra to just north of Jurf ad-Darawish in the east. This region represents the territory immediately to the south and east of that which the Wadi al-Hasa Archaeological Survey (WHS) (1979-1983) (MacDonald et al. 1988) and the Southern Ghawrs and Northeast `Arabah Archaeological Survey (SGNAS) (1985-1986) (MacDonald et al. 1992) covered respectively (Figure 1).
A general objective of the TBAS project is to connect geographically with the territory of both the WHS and the SGNAS. In addition, there are four other objectives of the project: 1) To provide a statistically, valid sample of artifacts and archaeological sites in the various topographical zones of the survey area. Towards this end, the survey territory is divided into three topographical zones based on the 1:50,000 scale maps: a) Zone 1: the gorges, that is, the area of steep wadis that generally flow in a northwesterly direction towards the Southern Ghawrs and Northeast `Arabah (11 random plots, each measuring 500 x 500 m); b) Zone 2: the area of the so-called Edomite Plateau, or part of the Transjordanian Plateau, from just west of At-Tafila and Busayra towards Jurf ad-Darawish in the east (70 random plots, each measuring 500 x 500 m); and c) Zone 3: the desert region immediately north of Jurf ad-Darawish (six random plots, each measuring 500 x 500 m) (Figure 2); 2) To serve as a “hinterlands” survey of the Busayra Citadel, part of the Edomite capital (Bennett 1983; Bienkowski 1997). Towards this end, the TBAS project designated a 3-km radius around the citadel as Zone Busayra (Figure 3). This zone incorporates topographical characteristics of both Zones 1 and 2; 3) To “ground-proof” potential sites on several aerial photographs of the survey territory; and 4) To investigate the archaeological materials, specifically lithics, associated with Wadi al-Juheira Lake and Jurf-Burma Lake, Pleistocene lakes in the Jurf ad-Darawish region (Moumani 1996: 144-46).
Figure 2: GIS Randomly Chosen Plots
Figure 3: Zone Busayra
The specific objectives of the 2000 season were: 1) to survey the remaining 63 random squares in Zone 2 not covered during the 1999 season and the six squares in Zone 32; 2) to carry out a purposive survey of areas not covered by the random squares of the two zones in question; 3) to continue to investigate the archaeological materials associated with Wadi al-Juheira Lake and Jurf-Burma Lake; 4) to continue to “ground-proof” potential sites that D. Kennedy (1998a-b), University of Western Australia, Perth, identified on aerial photographs 9.036 (i), 9.036 (ii), and 9.035 of the survey territory; and 5) to continue to connect geographically, where possible, with the territories of both the WHS and SGNAS.
Methodologies
The methodologies that the TBAS team members employed varied according to the project’s objectives. For example, when working on a random square of Zones 2 and 3, a corner of the square was first located using a Global Positioning System (GPS).3 Once a corner was located, survey team members positioned themselves, usually at 50 m intervals, along one of the lines of the square. Then, with the help of compasses to keep a straight line, team members transected the square, collecting lithics and sherds as they were encountered. Two transects were required to cover the square. TBAS team members also used pedestrian transects to cover the remnant shores of Wadi al-Juheira Lake and Jurf-Burma Lake in their search for sites. Here, as for other lithic scatters, two collection strategies were utilised in the field. On diffuse scatters, a selection of lithic material was collected with an emphasis on locating diagnostic elements. Sites with more concentrated artefact distributions were collected by placing a 1-m radius circle on the site and collecting all material within the circle. This provided a standardised measure of artefact densities. Finally, a purposive, survey methodology was used extensively for locating sites throughout the At-Tafila-Busayra-Jurf ad-Darawish region. This involved surveying all sites noted either within or adjacent to the random squares, interviewing Department of Antiquities personnel relative to the location of sites, and also talking with the farmers, shepherds, and Bedouin who live in the region about the whereabouts of sites. Once a site was located and surveyed, TBAS team members made ever effort to insure that the name of the site was ascertained.
Accomplishments
During its second infield season TBAS team members transected 63 random squares of Zone 2 and six random squares of Zone 3 for a total of 70 squares . In addition, they surveyed 139 sites, Sites 152-290.
The results of the examination of 63 squares in Zone 2 are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Random Squares (RS) (500 x 500 m) of Zone 2, the Edomite Plateau, Transected in 2000.
RS # Sample #(s) Periods Represented
358 (Ceramics)/359 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Byz; Mod 371 (Ceramics)/370 (Lithics) NL lithics (?); Ceramic period lithics; Iron II;ERom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 360 (Ceramics)/361 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; LRom; MIsl/LIsl 376 (Ceramics) Chal; Byz 380 (Ceramics)/381 (Lithics) PL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab);Byz; MIsl/LIsl 362 (Ceramics)/363 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; Rom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 366 (Ceramics)/367 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab); Rom; Byz;MIsl/LIsl 311 (Ceramics)/312 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Rom; LIsl 377 (Ceramics)/378 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Rom; Byz,dom 314 (Ceramics)/315 (Lithics) MPL; PL; Ceramic period lithics; Rom; Byz 364 (Ceramics)/365 (Lithics) Early PL (?); Ceramic period lithics; Iron II;Rom; Byz, dom; MIsl/LIsl 403 (Ceramics)/404 (Lithics) MPL; Late UPL/EPL; Ceramic period lithics;ERom (Nab); LRom; Byz; Mod 310 (Ceramics) Iron II; Rom; Byz 313 (Ceramics) Iron II; ERom (Nab); Byz; MIsl/LIsl; Mod 411 (Ceramics)/412 (Lithics) MPL; EPL/UPL (?); Ceramic period lithics; Chal, prob; Rom; Byz, dom 413 (Ceramics)/414 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; Rom; Byz 490 (Lithics) MPL; PL; Ceramic period lithics 487 (Ceramics)/488 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Byz 384 (Ceramics)/385 (Lithics) PL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Rom;Byz 489 (Lithics) MPL; Ceramic period lithics 483 (Ceramics)/482 (Lithics) MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Byz 326 (Ceramics) Iron II; Byz, dom 356 (Ceramics)/357 (Lithics) PL (?); Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Byz, dom;MIsl/LIsl 388 (Ceramics)/389 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Rom; Byz;MIsl/LIsl; Mod 399 (Ceramics)/400 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab);Byz; Mod 506 (Ceramics)/507 (Lithics) PL; Ceramic period lithics; Ud ceramics 327 (Ceramics) Iron II; Hell; Rom; Byz 416 (Ceramics)/415 (Lithics) MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Byz; MIsl/LIsl;Mod 40 471 (Ceramics)/472 (Lithics) PL (?); Ceramic period lithics; Byz 41 542 (Ceramics)/543 (Lithics) MPL; PL (?); Ceramic period lithics; Rom-Byz 328 (Ceramics)/329 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; Iron II, poss; Byz, dom 390 (Ceramics)/391 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; EB III; LB, prob; Iron II;Rom; Byz 392 (Ceramics)/393 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; Iron I; Iron II; Per, prob;ERom (Nab); Byz 545 (Ceramics)/546 (Lithics) PL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Byz, poss 321 (Ceramics)/322 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; ERom (Nab); Byz 323 (Ceramics)/324 (Lithics) Ud lithics; Iron II; Byz, dom 50 348 (Ceramics)/349 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; LRom; Byz 51 427 (Ceramics)/428 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Rom 423 (Ceramics)/424 (Lithics) PL; Ceramic period lithics; Rom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 508 (Ceramics)/509 (Lithics) LPL (?); MPL; Ceramic period lithics (?); MIsl/LIsl 54 570 (Ceramics)/571 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Byz 319 (Ceramics)/320 (Lithics) Early PL; Iron II, poss; Rom; Byz 514 (Lithics) PL; NL lithics (?); Ceramic period lithics 350 (Ceramics)/351 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics (?); Rom; Byz 354 (Ceramics)/355 (Lithics) PL (?); Ceramic period lithics; Rom; Byz 419 (Ceramics)/420 (Lithics) LPL (?); MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Rom (Nab); Rom; Byz 504 (Ceramics)/505 (Lithics) PL; Ceramic period lithics; Iron II, poss; Rom, poss 445 (Ceramics)/446 (Lithics) PL (?); Ceramic period lithics; Byz, dom; MIsl/LIsl 537 (Ceramics)/538 (Lithics) PL (?); Ceramic period lithics (?); ERom (Nab) 346 (Ceramics)/347 (Lithics) MPL; Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Byz 436 (Ceramics)/435 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab); LRom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 72 522 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics 73 534 (Ceramics)/535 (Lithics) PL (?); Ceramic period lithics (?); Byz 344 (Ceramics)/345 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; Iron II, prob; Byz 441 (Ceramics)/442 (Lithics) MPL; Ceramic period lithics (?); Byz 526 (Lithics) MPL; PL; Ceramic period lithics 533 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics 81 439 (Ceramics)/440 (Lithics) PL (?); Ceramic period lithics; Rom; Byz 342 (Ceramics)/343 (Lithics) MPL; Ceramic period lithics (?); Byz 429 (Ceramics)/430 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; LRom; Byz 516 (Ceramics)/517 (Lithics) MPL; PL; Ceramic period lithics; Mod 531 (Ceramics)/532 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; UPL; Ceramic period lithics; Iron II,poss; MIsl/LIsl, poss 330 (Ceramics)/331 (Lithics) Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Byz, dom
There are 31 sites within and 29 sites near the RSs of Zone 2 transected during the 2000 season (Table 2). (TBAS team members surveyed nine of these sites during the 1999 season while investigating “potential sites” on aerial photos.)
Table 2: Sites within and near RSs of Zone 2 transected in 2000.
Site # Within RS # Near RS #(s) Periods Represented
- 23 Iron II; Hell-ERom (Nab) 81 - 4 and 8 Byz; LIsl; Mod 84 - 4 Iron Age; Nab; Mod 122 - 48 Rom-Byz 123 48 - Iron II 137 - 48 Iron II; Rom (Nab); Byz 142 - 44 Chal-EB; EB; Iron I; Iron II; Iron Age; Rom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 143 44 - Iron Age; Rom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 149 - 69 Byz/EIsl 154 - 32 Iron II; Byz, dom; MIsl/LIsl 87 - LPL/MPL 160 - 82 and 76 Iron II; ERom (Nab); LRom; Byz; LIsl 161 82 - Ceramic period lithics; Late Iron I, poss or poss Hell; Byz 162 76 - Neither lithics nor sherds found 163 - 50 Neither lithics nor sherds found 167 - 5 Iron II; ERom (Nab); LRom; Byz; EIsl; MIsl/LIsl 170 - 13 and 29 Iron Age I/II; ERom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 171 - 13 Late PL (?); Ceramic period lithics; ERom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 172 - 44 Neither lithics nor sherds found 174 34 - Neither lithics nor sherds found 176 45 - Ceramic period lithics; Iron II, prob; Byz; LIsl 178 - 22 Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab); Byz 179 22 - Neither lithics nor sherds collected 180 22 - Neither lithics nor sherds collected 181 22 - Neither lithics nor sherds found 182 22 - Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab); LRom; Byz 25 - Ceramic period lithics (?); ERom (Nab); Byz, dom 25 - Ceramic period lithics; Byz 26 - Neither lithics nor sherds collected - 62 Ceramic period lithics; LRom-Byz; Byz 62 - MPL (?); Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab); Byz 189 51 - Ceramic period lithics; Byz-EIsl 190 - 83 Ceramic period lithics; ERom; LRom; Byz, dom; MIsl 191 83 - Neither lithics nor sherds collected 192 71 - Ceramic period lithics (?); Iron II, prob; ERom (Nab); Byz; EIsl; MIsl/LIsl 194 81 - Ceramic period lithics; Byz; LIsl 196 66 - Neither lithics nor sherds found 216 40 - Neither lithics nor sherds found 223 28 - MPL (?); Ceramic period lithics; Chal prob; Rom; Byz 224 28 - MPL (?); Ceramic period lithics 225 27 - Neither lithics nor sherds found 228 - 63 Ceramic period lithics 229 - 63 Ceramic period lithics; Chal sherds 230 - 63 PL (?); Ceramic period lithics 231 - 63 Ceramic period lithics; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 232 - 63 Late NL/Chal/EB lithics 233 - 63 Ceramic period lithics; Chal; Byz 234 63 - Neither lithics nor sherds found 235 53 - PL (?); Ceramic period lithics 236 - 58 Ceramic period lithics; Chal, poss; Rom; Byz 237 58 - Rom; LRom-Byz 238 - 84 Ceramic period lithics; Rom; Byz; EIsl; MIsl/LIsl 239 - 84 Late PL; Ceramic period lithics; Chal; Iron Age; Byz; MIsl/LIsl, prob; Mod 240 - 78 Ceramic period lithics 241 - 78 Ceramic period lithics; Chal; Rom-Byz; MIsl/LIsl 242 - 78 Ceramic period lithics; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 243 85 - Ceramic period lithics 244 85 - Ceramic period lithics 245 67 - Ceramic period lithics 246 41 - Ceramic period lithics; Pre-EB III, prob Chal
Archaeological “periods represented” in both the Random Squares of Zone 2 (Table 1) and sites both within and near these squares (Table 2) are comparable.
TBAS team members transected the six squares of Zone 3. The results of this work are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: Random Squares (RS) (500 x 500 m) of Zone 3, the Desert Region North of Jurf ad-Darawish, Transected.
RS # Sample #(s) Periods Represented
572 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Ceramic period lithics (?) 575 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Chal lithics (?) 580 (Lithics) MPL; PL 70 583 (Ceramics)/584 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; Byz 74 587 (Ceramics)/588 (Lithics) LPL/MPL; EIsl, prob 547 (Ceramics)/548 (Lithics) LPL; MPL; UPL; Rom; Byz, dom
There are fives sites that fall within the squares of Zone 3 (Table 4).
Table 4: Sites within the RSs of Zone 3.
Site # Within RS # Periods Represented
55 Ceramic period lithics; Rom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 263 68 Late NL/Chal/EB lithics; Rom-Byz 70 MPL/UPL (?); UPL 70 LPL/MPL 267 74 LPL/MPL
Here again, the "periods represented” in the RSs and sites of Zone 3 are almost identical. A minor difference is in the probable presence of Early Islamic in one square and Middle/Late Islamic sherds at one site.
The TBAS survey team purposively surveyed 18 sites in the Wadi al-Juheira Lake and Jurf-Burma Lake region (Table 5).
Table 5: Sites Surveyed in the Wadi al-Juheira Lake and Jurf-Burma Lake region.
Site # Sample #(s) Periods Represented
207 455 (Ceramics)/456 (Lithics) MPL; PL (?); Ceramic period lithics (?); Chal sherds, poss; Rom-Byz 208 457 (Lithics) MPL (?); Late NL/Chal/EB lithics 209 458, 465 (Ceramics)/459 (Lithics) Late EPL; Chal lithics (?); Chal; Byz 210 460 (Lithics) Late EPL; Chal (?) 211 461,463 (Ceramics)/462,464 (Lithics) UPL/EPL; Chal/EB lithics (?); Ceramic period lithics (?); Chal sherds 212 466 (Lithics) Late EPL 213 467 (Ceramics)/468 (Lithics) Late EPL; PL; Chal/EB sherds; Rom, poss 214 Neither lithics nor ceramics collected 215 470 (Ceramics)/469 (Lithics) MPL; UPL; EPL; Pre-Rom bods; ERom (Nab); Byz; LIsl 226 491, 492 (Lithics) MPL; MPL/Early UPL; PL 227 493 (Lithics) LPL/MPL 252 556 (Lithics) LPL/MPL 253 557 (Ceramics)/558 (Lithics) MPL; LPL/MPL (?); UPL (?); Chal sherds, prob; Byz 254 559 (Ceramics)/560 (Lithics) MPL; UPL/EPL (?); Chal lithics and sherds 255 561 (Ceramics)/562 (Lithics) Late NL/Chal/EB lithics; PL (?); Chal sherds, dom; Byz 256 563 (Lithics) LPL; MPL/UPL (?) 564 (Lithics) MPL 592 (Lithics) MPL
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, as well as Late Epipalaeolithic materials, are well represented at these sites. The Upper Palaeolithic is less well represented. The Chalcolithic period is well represented in the form of both lithics and sherds collected from these locations. Aside from this period and the Roman and Byzantine periods, ceramic materials are absent from the collections in this area. It would appear, therefore, that the lakes were mostly devoid of water for at least the past five-six thousand years.
TBAS members “ground-proofed” 18 potential sites that Kennedy had identified on three aerial photos (9.036 [i], 9.036 [ii], and 9.035) (Table 6). They had previously surveyed two of the potential sites, namely, Nos. 1 and 14 and assigned TBAS Site numbers 186 and 194 to them respectively. Of the remaining 16 potential sites, TBAS team members judged six to be sites while the others are field clearance, exposed bedrock, and/or cairns. Thus, in the judgement of TBAS team members, 8 of 18 or 44% are sites. This is in comparison to 41% of potential sites that TBAS team members judged to be sites during the previous season (MacDonald et al. 2000: 8). Others, however, may judge these to be sites.
Table 6: Investigation of Kennedy’s Potential Sites on Aerial Photos 9.036 (i), 9.036 (ii), and 9.035.
No. Description Observed Results
1 Meandering wall Meandering Wall Site 186 2 Cairn/tower? Dark bedrock and stone pile No site 3 Faint enclosure Rock fall down side of small wadi No site 4 Small dark circle Bulldozed; a modern building No site 5 Small dark spot. Cairn? Rock pile No site 6 Small dark spot. Cairn? Small rock pile, mostly natural No site 7 Faint curving wall Enclosure Site 276 8 Faint circular enclosure Enclosure Site 286 9 Faint circular enclosure Enclosure Site 287 10 Faint circular enclosure Enclosure Site 288 11 Small dark spot. Cairn? Possible field clearance and/or tomb No site 12 Small dark spot. Cairn? Possible field clearance No site 13 Small dark spot. Cairn? Exposed, dark-coloured bedrock No site 14 Small flat enclosure Rectilinear structure Site 194 15 Ruin? Rock fall on east side of wadi No site 16 Small faint enclosure Water-catchment facility Site 289 18 Small dark spot Camp (?); wall lines and tombs (?) Site 290 19 Dark feature - cairns? Rock fall in wadi No site
The TBAS team members’ approach to Kennedy’s identification of potential sites on aerial photos differed this season from the previous one. In the 1999 season, the practice was to study the aerial photos and the identification of potential sites on them and then go into the field to attempt to find the sites. This work was done before the area in which the potential sites are located was surveyed. This season, however, TBAS team members completed their survey of random squares and did purposive survey work prior to looking at the aerial photos. Thus, at the end of the 2000 season, two days were set aside to investigate potential sites that Kennedy had identified on aerial photos.
One major result of the investigation of potential sites on aerial photos during the 2000 season was that team members entered and surveyed an area, to the north of the main Tafila to Jurf ad-Darawish road and west of the modern landfill, in Zone 2 into which they had not previously entered either for random square or purposive survey. The Department of Agriculture had “fenced-in” this area to prevent sheep and goats from entering and, thus, to give the natural vegetation a chance to regenerate. TBAS team members’ work in this “fenced-in” area resulted in the location of nine sites (276-284), all enclosures or seasonal camps, which would not have been otherwise located. Thus, this was a good lesson in survey methodology. Neither work on the random squares nor purposive survey had resulted in the discovery of the nine sites in question.
Of the 139 sites that TBAS team members surveyed during the 2000 infield season, there are a number of specific types. These types include:
1) Forty-nine enclosures/seasonal camps with architecture: Sites 184-185; Site 189; Site 194; Site 207; Site 211; Site 213; Sites 216-220; Sites 222-225; Sites 228-237; Sites 240-242; Sites 245-247; Site 249; Site 261; Site 263; Site 269; Sites 276-284; Sites 286-288; and Site 290 (?).
2) Sixteen watchtowers or potential watchtowers: Site 173, Kh. al-Friij; Site 176, Rujm ath-Thalithuwat; Site 178; Site 182; Site 195 (?); Site 198; Site 199; Site 238, Rujm al-Humrah; Site 248 (?); Site 251, Rujm al-Haj; Site 258; Site 259, Rujm al-Qiran; Site 260, Rujm al-Hamra; Site 268; Site 270; and Site 272, Rujm Umm al-`Atham.
3) Twelve seasonal camps/production/processing centres, mostly without architecture: generally the lithic sites associated with the Pleistocene lakes in the Jurf ad-Darawish area: Site 208; Site 210; Site 212; Site 215; Sites 226-227; Sites 252-254; Sites 256-257; and Site 271 (See Table 5).
4) Nine milestone(s) and/or fragments of milestones sites: Site 191; Site 193 (with inscription); Site 197 (with inscription); Sites 200-201; Sites 203-204; Site 206; and Site 250 (associated with the Hajj route rather than with the Via Nova Traiana).
5) Four possible forts: Site 164, Kh. at-Tawlaniyah; Site 177, Kh. Mughamis; Site 190, Kh. al-Hamsurah; and Site 273, Kh. ad-Dabbah (?).
6) Four water-catchment facilities: Site 221; Site 239; Site 243; and Site 289.
7) Two major north-south highways: Site 180, Via Nova Traiana (Thompsen 1917; MacDonald et al. 1988); and Site 250, Hajj Route (MacDonald et al. 1988)
Although there are many wall lines in the survey territory, TBAS Site 186 is of particular interest. It cuts through the eastern segment of the survey territory, east of the Via Nova Traiana, in a north-south direction. TBAS team members first encountered this wall in the north-central segment of the survey territory while transecting RS 26, Zone 2. It was also encountered later while TBAS team members transected RS 81, Zone 2, and randomly surveyed TBAS Site 285-289.
The site is probably a boundary wall of some kind. It presently measures only ca. 0.50-1.00 m wide and ca. 0.40-0.50 m high and, thus, cannot be defensive. The stones, limestone and chert, of the wall are well weathered and many of them are now fallen over. This wall is probably a segment of the Khatt Shabib, or “Shabib’s Wall”, a line marking the border between the desert zones and the plateau. Relative to this wall, which can also be observed east of the main road between Ma`an and Ras an-Naqab, Kirkbride writes: “There seems, therefore, some reason for accepting as true the local tradition that it formed the boundary between the land owned by cultivators and that at the disposal of their nomadic neighbours” (1948: 154). And on this same feature, Abu Jaber states: “In years of drought or in times of weakness of the government, these nomads tried to move from the desert border zones into the plateau seeking pasture for their herds and flocks as well as water…. Khatt Shabib in the Ras an-Naqab area could have been one of the devices executed by the authorities to regulate nomadic incursions into the settled plateau. The name probably refers to the Governor of Jordan Shabib al-`Uqayli at the time of the Ikhshidis just before the end of the tenth century. However, further excavations and studies will have to be made to ascertain the true background” (1995: 740). As Abu Jaber notes, caution is certainly warranted relative to the dating and builder of the Khatt Shabib.
Of the 139 sites that TBAS team members surveyed during the 2000 season, 26 of them are major architectural sites (Table 7). These sites, of course, do not include any of the 49 enclosure or seasonal camps with architecture.
Table 7: Major Architectural Sites of the 2000 Season
Site # Site Name Description Periods Represented
157 Kh. al-Qasr Church/chapel (?) Byz; EIsl; MIsl/LIsl 159 Kh. Ibn Hadayyah Agricultural Site Late NL/Chal/EB lithics; EB; Byz 160 Kh. ash-Shariya`ah Agricultural Village Iron II; ERom (Nab); LRom; Byz; LIsl 164 Kh. at-Tawlaniyah Fort Ceramic period lithics (?); ERom (Nab); LRom; Byz; LIsl, prob 166 Kh. al-Friij Agricultural complex ERom (Nab); Byz; MIsl/LIsl 167 Kh. al-`Adawayn Agricultural complex Iron II; ERom (Nab); LRom; Byz; EIsl; MIsl/LIsl 168 Kh. an-Nasraniyah Agricultural complex Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Rom, poss; Byz, dom; 169 Kh. as-Sayir Agricultural village Iron II; Byz; MIsl and/or LIsl 170 Kh. `Abur Agricultural village Iron Age I/II; ERom; Byz; MIsl/LIsl 173 Kh. al-Friij Watchtower Ceramic period lithics; Iron II, poss; Byz 176 Kh. ath-Thalithuwat Watchtower Ceramic period lithics; Iron II, prob; Byz; LIsl 177 Kh. Mughamis Fort Ceramic period lithics; Iron II, dom; MIsl/LIsl 178 Unknown Watchtower Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab); Byz 180 Via Nova Traiana Roman Road Roman 182 Unknown Watchtower Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab); Byz 183 Qasr al-Basha Caravanserai Ceramic period lithics; ERom (Nab); Byz; MIsl/LIsl 186 Khatt Shabib Border line Ud 192 Kh. at-Tuwanah5 Town on Via Nova Traiana Ceramic period lithics; Iron II, prob; ERom (Nab); Byz; MIsl/LIsl 196 Unknown 6.90 m wide wall Neither lithics nor sherds found 248 Unknown Major Watchtower/tombs Iron II; Rom-Byz 251 Rujm al-Haj Major Watchtower Ceramic period lithics; Byz 259 Rujm al-Qiran Major Watchtower Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; ERom (Nab); LRom; Byz 260 Rujm al-Hamra Major Watchtower Iron Age; Rom; Byz, dom 268 Unknown Watchtower Byz; MIsl-LIsl 272 Rujm Umm al-`Atham Watchtower Ceramic period lithics; Iron II; Rom; Byz 273 Kh. ad-Dabbah Defensive “Citadel” (?) Iron II; Byz; MIsl
TBAS team members were able to connect their survey territory geographically with both the territories of the WHS and the SGNAS. Connections with the latter were achieved during the 1999 season (MacDonald et al. 2000: 4-5; see also Waheeb 1993). Relative to geographical connections between the TBAS territory and that of the WHS, this has been accomplished along the three main, north-south highways, namely, the King’s Highway, the Via Nova Traiana (TBAS Site 180; WHS Site 429; see MacDonald et al. 1988: 206 and Figs. 2 and 57), and the Hajj Route (TBAS Site 250; WHS Site 1073; see MacDonald et al. 1988: 280 and Figs. 2 and 65),6 in the western, central, and eastern segments of the TBAS territory respectively. Furthermore, in an effort to connect the two territories, TBAS team members surveyed Site 272, Rujm Umm al-`Atham, a major watchtower that is located immediately east of the Via Nova and both north and south of the territories of the TBAS and WHS respectively.
Although not a specific objective of the TBAS project, team members necessarily surveyed sites that Glueck (1934, 1935, 1939) had visited. Thus, comments relative to some of the sites that Glueck surveyed in the territory covered by Phase 2 of the TBAS project are necessary since there are glaring contradictions between what Glueck reported about the sites and what TBAS team members observed and are here reporting.
Glueck describes Kh. al-Friij, TBAS Site 173, as “an extensive, completely ruined site, presenting a confusion of foundation-ruins of walls and houses, with the usual complement of cisterns and cave-cisterns. Numerous Nabataean, Roman, Byzantine, and mediaeval Arabic sherds were found. This site was once a thriving farm village” (1939: 49). We found this site to be a watchtower and we think that what Glueck is describing is `Abur, TBAS Site 170. Relative to this latter site, Glueck describes it as “a small, featureless site, on which there is a single modern house. A few Nabataean sherds were found, and also a few mediaeval Arabic sherds” (1934: 80). TBAS team members found the site of `Abur to be a major architectural site at which there was, at the time of our visit, two families living. The remains at the site include several structures that date at least to the Ottoman period. To repeat, Glueck does not seem to be describing the site of `Abur that the TBAS team members surveyed. Is he confusing the site with Kh. el-Freij? Just as startling is Glueck’s description of Rujm al-Mughamis, TBAS Site 177, which he states, “represents the ruins of a small block-house, 8 m. square, oriented n.-s., and built of roughly hewn flint blocks” (1939: 49). The TBAS team members, on the other hand, found Kh. al-Mughamis to be a major architectural site, in fact, a fort, measuring ca. 75 (N-S) x 59 (E-W) m with the wall on the east side measuring ca. 2.30-2.50 m wide. Thus, it seems that Glueck is not describing the same site that the TBAS team members visited. Glueck characterizes Rujm al-Qiran (his Rujm Hala el-Qaraneh, 1935: 96), TBAS Site 259, Rujm al-Hamra (1939: 51-52), TBAS Site 260, and Rujm Umm al-`Atham (1939: 51), TBAS Site 272, as fortresses. Although, all three sites are impressive, TBAS team members judge them to be watchtowers rather than fortresses.7 In conclusion, it is necessary to exercise caution relative to Glueck’s description of sites in this region.
Conclusions
Relative to lithic periods represented in the survey territory, the Middle Palaeolithic is dominant at seasonal camps/production/processing centres in the Wadi al-Juheira Lake and Jurf-Burma Lake region. However, it is also represented in other segments of the survey territory. Epipalaeolithic materials are also well represented, especially in the southern segment of the Pleistocene lakes. The Chalcolithic period is well represented by both lithics and sherds.
There is very little evidence of Early Bronze settlement in the surveyed territory. Moreover, there is no evidence of Middle Bronze and only one probable sherd from the Late Bronze period. Thus, the area appears to have been devoid of settlement during most of the Bronze Age.
There is some evidence of Iron I presence. However, this is probably near the end of the period.
The best-represented materials from the ceramic periods come from the Iron II, Early Roman (Nabataean), and Byzantine. However, while there is little in the way of Early Islamic materials, the Middle/Late Islamic period is well represented, especially at major agricultural sites (see Table 7).
At-Tuwanah (Feima 1993, 1997), TBAS Site 192, located in the central segment of the survey territory, is the largest site surveyed this season and the most easterly located of all villages/towns in the entire survey territory. It is an impressive site that begs to be better known.
The best known site in the survey territory is the Via Nova Traiana (TBAS Site 180). It cuts through the central segment of both the TBAS and WHS territories. Along its route, there are many milestone and/or fragments of milestone and watchtowers.
The large number of enclosures/seasonal camps surveyed is located for the most part in the eastern portion of the territory. They are generally positioned on an east-facing slope where they are protected from the northwest wind. Moreover, they are usually in locations where there are modern Bedouin camps and/or evidence of former Bedouin encampments. Thus, it appears that such slopes have been favoured camping spots for millennia, especially in light of the Chalcolithic period artifacts found in association with them.
Aerial photos, in conjunction with other forms of surveys, can be a valuable tool in the location of sites. However, most of the obtrusive sites in the survey area would probably be discovered without the help of such a resource.
TBAS team members met all their specific objectives for the 2000 season.
Notes
References
Abu Jaber, R.
Water Collection in a Dry Farming Society.” Pp. 737-44 in K. `Amr, F. Zayadine, and M. Zaghloul (eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan V: Art and Technology Throughout the Ages. Amman: Department of Antiquities.
Dixon, A.
Selective Availability Discontinued for GPS Satellites, and Vehicle Radio Privacy. POP’COMM. August, p. 78.
Fiema, Z. T.
Tuwaneh and the Via Nova Traiana in Southern Jordan: A Short Note on the 1992 Season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 27: 549-51.
At-Tuwana - the Development and Decline of a Classical Town in Southern Jordan (with a Note on the Site Preservation). Pp. 313-16 in G. Bisheh; M. Zaghloul; and I. Kehrberg (eds.), Studies in the History and Archaeological of Jordan VI. Amman: Department of Antiquities.
Glueck, N.
Explorations in Eastern Palestine, I. Pp. 1-113 in The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 14 (for 1933-1934). Philadelphia, PA: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Explorations in Eastern Palestine, II. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15 (for 1934-1935). New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Explorations in Eastern Palestine, III. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 18-19 (for 1937-1939). New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Hart, S.
Nabataeans and Romans in Southern Jordan. Pp. 337-42 in P. Freeman and D. Kennedy (eds.), The Defense of the Roman and Byzantine East. Proceedings of a Colloquium held at the University of Sheffield, April 1986. BAR International Series 297. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Kennedy, D.
1998a Aerial Archaeology in Jordan. Levant 30: 91-96.
1998b Gharandal Survey 1997: Air Photo Interpretation and Ground Verification. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42: 573-85.
Kirkbride, A.
1948 Shebib’s Wall in Transjordan. Antiquity 151-54.
MacDonald, B.
1999 Tafila-Busayra Survey. ACOR NEWSLETTER 11.1: 4-5.
MacDonald, B. et al.
1988 The Wadi el Hasa Archaeological Survey 1979-1983, West-Central Jordan. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University.
The Southern Ghors and Northeast `Arabah Archaeological Survey. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 5. Sheffield: Collis.
MacDonald, B.; A. Bradshaw; L. Herr; M. Neeley; and S. Quaintance.
The Tafila-Busayra Archaeological Survey: Phase 1 (1999). Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44: 1-16.
Moumani, K. A.
1996 Quaternary Sediments of the Jurf Ed Darawish Area, Central Jordan. Unpublished M.A. dissertation. University of Wales, Cardiff.
The Geology of Al Husayniyya Al Janubiyya (Jurf ed Darawish) Area: Map Sheet No. 3151-II. Bulletin 38. Amman: Geology Directorate, Geological Mapping Division.
Thomsen, P.
1917 Die römischen Meilensteine der Provinzen Syria, Arabia und Palaestine. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 40: 1-104.
Waheeb, M.
1993 Archaeological Rescue Survey of the Tafileh-Ghawr Feifeh Road Alignment, Sections I + II. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37: 135-46.
West, G.
GPS: Better, But Not Perfect … Yet.” Amateur Radio: The Radio Amateur’s Journal. July 16.
Burton MacDonald, Ph.D.
Director, Tafila-Busayra Archaeological Survey
Department of Religious Studies
P. O. Box 5000
St. Francis Xavier University
Antigonish, Nova Scotia B2G 2W5
Fax: 902-867-2448
E-mail: bmacdona@stfx.ca
Websites