Abstract:This online-only published content is freely available electronically immediately upon publication and can be distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC). This license allows anyone to reuse, remix, and build upon the content, as long as it is for legal noncommercial purposes; the new work must credit the author, the AJA, and the Archaeological Institute of America.
“…Nevertheless, cultural material (surface potsherds) of known age was recovered from the surrounding area; this belongs to the Bronze Age, and the Chalcolithic and Iron Ages (MacDonald, 1988). Our new data support Kennedy's hypothesis, and further constrain the construction if this Big Circle to the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BCE; Knodell, 2017), albeit with the possibility of later maintenance and reuse within the last two millennia. Although the new Ages do not identify the function of the circles, or support the theory that they were used as animal enclosures, they agree with Braemer and Sapin (2001) that they were constructed at Bronze Age.…”
In this study, we provide the first absolute ages for a Big Circle megalithic structure in Jordan, using rock surface luminescence dating of the buried surface of rocks collected from circle J4 in southern Jordan. Five rocks were used for this study. All rocks showed evidence of previous daylight exposure before being used in the construction of the circle. The exposure was sufficient to bleach the latent luminescence signal to a negligible level compared to the subsequent burial dose. Three rocks gave indistinguishable ages, and were last exposed to daylight in 1500 ± 100 BCE; this is very likely to be the date of circle construction. Two others gave younger ages, indicating later disturbance or reworking. These new results provide very strong evidence for construction during the Late Bronze Age, and refute the earlier hypothesis of construction during Umayyad period (661–750 CE) as a hunting trap.
“…Nevertheless, cultural material (surface potsherds) of known age was recovered from the surrounding area; this belongs to the Bronze Age, and the Chalcolithic and Iron Ages (MacDonald, 1988). Our new data support Kennedy's hypothesis, and further constrain the construction if this Big Circle to the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BCE; Knodell, 2017), albeit with the possibility of later maintenance and reuse within the last two millennia. Although the new Ages do not identify the function of the circles, or support the theory that they were used as animal enclosures, they agree with Braemer and Sapin (2001) that they were constructed at Bronze Age.…”
In this study, we provide the first absolute ages for a Big Circle megalithic structure in Jordan, using rock surface luminescence dating of the buried surface of rocks collected from circle J4 in southern Jordan. Five rocks were used for this study. All rocks showed evidence of previous daylight exposure before being used in the construction of the circle. The exposure was sufficient to bleach the latent luminescence signal to a negligible level compared to the subsequent burial dose. Three rocks gave indistinguishable ages, and were last exposed to daylight in 1500 ± 100 BCE; this is very likely to be the date of circle construction. Two others gave younger ages, indicating later disturbance or reworking. These new results provide very strong evidence for construction during the Late Bronze Age, and refute the earlier hypothesis of construction during Umayyad period (661–750 CE) as a hunting trap.
“…The discovery of layers dated to the sixth millennium cal BC was an unexpected result at Umm Huwaiwitat but human activity from this and earlier periods is attested in the vicinity (Gebel 1988). The Brown University Petra Archaeological Project recorded a “nearly ubiquitous” (Knodell et al 2017: 664) distribution of chipped-stone artefacts dating to the Late Neolithic across much of the area north of Petra, which reflects the magnitude and extent of human activity during that period. Evidence for Neolithic sites, rather than artefacts, in the Petra region are few, however, though include Beidha, Shkarat Msaied, Baʾja, Sabra and Basta (Rollefson 2008) (see Figure 1).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides Ras Al-Silaysil proper, this western end of the Wadi al-Ghurab contains a great density of ancient terrace walls, wells, rock-cut cist graves and other structures. The chronology of these features is unclear but remains from the Neolithic through to the present day are found intermingled on the surface (Lindner & Gunsam 1995b; Knodell et al 2017). Figure 2.Aerial photograph of Umm Huwaiwitat (figure by the authors, image courtesy of Robert Bewley: APAAME_20191022_RHB-0396).…”
Section: Umm Huwaiwitatmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such chronological attributions are based, in part, on the assumption that the period during which Petra was most prosperous should also be the period during which its hinterlands were most active and productive. Recent archaeological research, however, has demonstrated that parts of the region's agricultural infrastructure developed prior to the settlement of the city and continued to be constructed, used and maintained well after the city's abandonment (Beckers et al 2013b;Kouki & Lavento 2013;Kennedy 2017;Knodell et al 2017;al Khasawneh et al 2022). Such instances of longevity and continuity in land use caution against tightly linking the chronology of Petra's agricultural landscapes to that of its urban core and underscore the need for more detailed rural histories.…”
Studies of the rural landscapes around the Nabataean/Roman city of Petra in Jordan have tended to assume a developmental trajectory based on that of the urban centre. Recent archaeological investigations at the site of Umm Huwaiwitat, however, shed light on the longer-term histories of human occupation and land use in the region north of Petra. Excavation has revealed Late Neolithic deposits formed by the burning of animal dung and the disposal of ash. These deposits underlie walls, today serving as agricultural terraces, which date to at least the Early Bronze Age. Umm Huwaiwitat therefore provides a microcosm of the long-lived and constantly reworked agricultural landscapes of the Middle East.
“…The ancient city of Petra is rightly known for its long-distance trade connections and spectacular funerary architecture (Markoe 2003), but its inhabitants' capacity to live in extreme environments was just as important for the city's success. In the past two decades, archaeological surveys in Petra's hinterlands have documented pervasive and heterogeneous landscape modifications that enabled agriculture in the semi-arid territory of southern Jordan (Tholbecq 2011;Kouki & Lavento 2013;Knodell et al 2017). Building on those findings, the 'Petra Terraces Archaeological Project' (PTAP) is studying the construction, repair and collapse of ancient terrace walls and dams in a single watershed north of the city (Figure 1).…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
