No abstract

Although the recent publication of the results of excavation and restoration in the Siq at Petra by the Petra National Trust has thrown welcome light on the hydraulic engineering skills of the Nabataeans, it is suggested here that the conclusions reached by the authors regarding the chronology of those works are not necessarily correct and should not be accepted as defi nitive. It is shown that the interpretation of the ceramic evidence is faulty and that other, epigraphic, evidence is ignored. In particular, it is argued that the major works -the dam and the tunnel -as well as the paved road through the Siq, may be as late as, or even later than, the middle of the 1st century AD, rather than the late 1st century BC, as the authors assume. It is further suggested that this could also be the date of the Khazneh, and that this may be indicated also by the recent discovery of earlier tomb façades beneath the Khazneh.

During the third season of excavations at Tell Nebi Mend (Qadesh) in 1978, the University of London project was extended to include investigations at the nearby site of Arjoune. 1 Originally discovered by the expedition in 1975, the site lies about one kilometre north-east of the tell on the east bank of the Orontes. At this point, slightly north of the confluence of the Ain et-Tannur (or the Mukhadiyah) tributary with the main Orontes channel, the river follows a pattern of ox-bow meanders down to the lake of Horns. Overlooking the meander belt of the flood plain is a low terrace, formed of alluvium and eroded bedrock, and broken up into patches by outcrops of the underlying conglomerate. The site lies on a promontory where one of these local outcrops of bedrock, mantled only by a shallow and patchy cover of hard, compact red-brown soil, has been badly eroded by a meander cusp (Fig. 1).Following the edge of the cusp, and encompassing three slight hillocks, the site covers an area of roughly 300 m. by 150 m. (Fig. 2). The westernmost and highest mound (A), which measures roughly 120-130 m. in diameter and is about 5 m. high, is partly used as a cemetery by the nearby village of Arjoune. The two rises to the east (B and C), which are slightly lower but cover a larger area, are separated from each other by slight depressions. They are privately owned and currently under cultivation.Preliminary surface examination of mound A showed that the bulk of the artifact scatter was concentrated in a 50-60 m. diameter area around the centre and highest part of the mound. In general, the scatter consisted of both sherds and lithics (including obsidian) of the late Neolithic/Chalcolithic periods (Sherds 84-90 in the accompanying illustrations), pottery of Hellenistic and possibly early Roman date, and an occasional sherd of recent origin.One sounding and three small probes were opened on mound A.2 The small probes (Trenches II, III, and IV) were all placed in the northern half of the mound to avoid the modern cemetery. Trench II, to the east, immediately revealed virgin soil at a depth of c. 30-40 cm. Trenches III (west) and IV (northwest) almost precisely coincided with the limits of the occupational layers where they lensed out over virgin soil. In both cases, the occupational layers were Hellenistic in date. Consequently, it is relatively certain that the Hellenistic settlement did not extend to more than 40 m. in diameter, and that the prehistoric settlement may have been even smaller in this part of the site.The sounding (Trench 1) was a 4 x 10m. "exposure orientated north-south, 5 m. north of the centre of the mound. A detailed account of the stratigraphy, with plans and sections, will be published in the final report, and here it is enough to record that four phases of occupation were defined (Figs. 3 and 4). Phase I consisted of four patches of occupational debris (layers 101.16;

No abstract

Despite Dr. Bawden's criticisms ‐ some of which seem to be based on his misunderstanding of previous arguments ‐ the author reaffirms his view that the development of “oasis urbanism” in the Hejaz at the end of the 2nd millennium was at least in part the result of Egyptian trading contacts with the region. The available evidence does not allow us to conclude that this phenomenon survived into the early 1st millennium, however, and it is more likely that the area became nomadized for several centuries, perhaps until the Neo‐Babylonian occupation of Tayma in the mid‐sixth century.