Brown University Petra Archaeological Project: the 2010 Petra Area and Wådī Sulaysil Survey

BROWN UNIVERSITY PETRA ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT: THE 2010 PETRA AREA AND WÅDĪ SULAYSIL SURVEY

Alex R. Knodell and Susan E. Alcock

Introduction Wādī Baqā‘,Wādī Sulaysil, and the immediate The Petra Area and Wādī Sulaysil Survey (or vicinity of the Islamic Bayḍā structures (the site PAWS) undertook its initial season of feldwork of architectural mapping and excavation by BU- in the summer of 2010 as a major component PAP in this same season).2 Again, this territory of the Brown University Petra Archaeological has long been known, if somewhat cursorily, to Project (BUPAP). The PAWS research area is travelers and archaeologists. This brief synop- located some three to ten kilometers north of sis summarizes accounts of the earliest western the Petra city-center, between the modern vil- visitors and archaeologists who have conducted lage communities of Umm Ṣayḥūn and Bayḍā, feld research here in recent decades, framing within which three zones were intensively sur- what was known about the area previously and veyed: Areas a, b, and c (Fig. 1).1 Given its close revealing some of the gaps that PAWS and its proximity to Petra, it is no surprise that previous particular methodologies can fll. travelers, explorers, and archaeologists have in- The PAWS survey area is located in some of vestigated this region, with the earliest accounts the most viable agricultural land near Petra and going back to the 19th century (Robinson and also is transected by several potential paths into Smith 1841). However, the diachronic, system- the city. In terms of long-distance routes, there atic, and intensive design of the PAWS survey is a pass from Wādī ‘Arabah to the north of represents a novel approach to the documenta- Wādī Sulaysil that allows access to the city cen- tion of this landscape that has yielded substan- ter via Wādī Sulaysil; if approaching Petra from tial and provocative results after only a single the north one must pass through the Bayḍā area, season of feldwork. the site of the famed as-Sīq al-Bārid, or Little In approximately a month long period be- Petra, and numerous other Nabataean rock-cut tween 28 June and 31 July 2010, the PAWS tombs and complexes (see below). As for travel team systematically surveyed 133 hectares, in within the region, several wadis link the terri- which material culture from all periods (from tory surveyed in 2010 with the city center itself, Paleolithic to the present) was counted and col- and any traffc between Bayḍā/Little Petra and lected for some 334 Survey Units, and over 240 Petra proper would pass through here. Without features — ranging from tombs to water man- a doubt, this was an important part of Petra’s agement structures to agricultural installations hinterland during its Nabataean zenith, although — were recorded. The intention of this article is our work proves its interest and importance is briefy to review previous research concerning not limited to that time period alone. the survey area, to discuss our methodological Our earliest information goes back nearly as and theoretical concerns, and to summarize the far as the frst modern, Western descriptions of preliminary results of the 2010 season. Petra. Burckhardt and many who followed in his footsteps entered via Wādī Mūsā and the The PAWS Survey Area and Previous Research Sīq (Burckhardt 1822: 422), usually traveling Our 2010 survey focused on a zone including from ash-Shawbak. It is therefore possible that 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all maps created by Alex 2. See Sinibaldi and Tuttle in this volume. R. Knodell.

-489- ADAJ 55 (2011) they traveled through the northern part of our not surprising given its very close proximity to survey area, passing near Bayḍā, but they do Petra, and several signifcant sites have been not discuss it. By contrast, the Biblical schol- excavated, surveyed or described in various ars Robinson and Smith (1841: 504-512) came manners (Fig. 1). However, the area as a whole up from the Wādī ‘Arabah and appear to have had never been subjected to the kind of sys- ascended quite near the western extent of our tematic, intensive survey espoused here, where work, north of Wādī Sulaysil. They gave only the artifact (and from there densities of artifact the name “Nemela” for the pass, where they de- types and their periodization across the land- scribed the porphyrite and sandstone (Precam- scape), rather than the site, is the minimal unit brian and Cambrian) combination characteristic of analysis. By adopting such a non-site-based of the Wādī Sulaysil environs. They then de- approach, we have already achieved results that scended into the wadi, still called Nemela ac- complement previous investigations exception- cording to their guides, and mentioned a narrow ally well. gorge that fts the description of the western end The vicinity of Bayḍā has received by far of Wādī Sulaysil, where it debouches dramati- the most attention in the PAWS survey area, not cally and nearly vertically down to the area of least for the prehistoric periods. Two surveys in the Pond Temple (Lindner 1995a). From here this region sought explicitly to document pre- they followed the course of Wādī Sulaysil, men- historic sites (Gebel and Starck 1985; Kirkbride tioning the numerous terraces in the area, then 1966), and a number of syntheses of the prehis- continued into a “chasm” in a group of cliffs tory of the Petra area (and the Middle East more further east, called “as-Sīq”, which is Wādī Sīq generally) include discussion of the well-known al-Ghurāb. They next came into an area called Natufan and PPNB site of Bayḍā (e.g., Gebel “Suṭūḥ Bayḍā‘”, meaning “white plains”, which 1988). This site was put on the map through seems to refer to most of the area around and the excavations of Diana Kirkbride, which took south of Bayḍā. As Robinson and Smith moved place between 1957 and 1983, after she discov- south along the course of the modern road they ered it with local help in 1956 (Kirkbride 1960, described the now familiar topography and 1961, 1962, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1984; Mortensen tombs in the distance, as well as the diffcult na- 1970). Since then several contemporary sites ture of the farming undertaken by the Bedouin (e.g., Ba‘ja, Bas†å) have been noted or excavated living in the area. Musil, in the early twentieth in the wider region; these will not be discussed century, was the frst writer to give the name here as they lay outside of our immediate study “Sulaysil” to part of this region (1907: 333), and area. More recently, Brian Byrd briefy renewed it has been referred to variously ever since (see feldwork at Bayḍā and has synthesized the re- Lindner 1995b for a summary).3 The Baqā‘ area sults of Kirkbride’s excavations for the Natufan (roughly our Area a), lying between the previ- and Neolithic periods (Byrd 1988, 1989, 2005). ously mentioned areas and Petra proper, is not Bayḍā has also recently undergone a pro- named in early accounts, nor located on modern gram of research with respect to its Nabatae- maps. It is a toponym known colloquially and an remains. This work has focused primarily is used descriptively, meaning “open or empty around rock outcrops among and near the re- place”. A great deal of variability thus exists in mains of the Islamic period village, east of the how and for how long aspects of this landscape better-known monuments of Little Petra in the have been known or discussed by outside ob- as-Sīq al-Bārid. Since 2003, the Bayḍā Docu- servers. mentation Project, led by Patricia Bikai, has Certain parts of the survey area have been the engaged in study of numerous features, includ- subject of archaeological interest, again a fact ing agricultural installations, cisterns, and sev- 3. That transliteration from Arabic to English can result in ducted a preliminary study of toponyms in the PAWS multiple spellings of the same words or places needs survey area, we have decided to transliterate place no explanation. However, we should be explicit in stat- names in keeping with the system used by the Interna- ing our spelling conventions, as well as pointing out tional Journal of Middle East Studies (IJMES). Thus, the alternative spellings of place names that appear in for example, we use “Bayda” where others have used the text and bibliography of this article. In consulta- “Beida” or “Beidha” and “Silaysil” where “Suleisel” tion with Nancy Khalek (Brown University), who con- or “Slaysil” also appear.

-490- A.R. Knodell and S.E. Alcock: The 2010 Petra Area and Wådπ Sulaysil Survey

1. Overall map of areas surveyed in 2010 with place names and known archaeological sites. eral substantial structures, most notably an ex- to a great extent BUPAP’s work at the in the area tremely impressive colonnaded hall (Bikai et al. of Islamic Bayḍā. Yet there has been work on the 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007, 2008). Also in this material culture of modern times. For example, area is an important Nabataean inscription that in the early 1980s Banning and Khöler-Rollefson links winemaking and ritual aspects of the land- (1983, 1992) undertook an ethnoarchaeological scape (Zayadine 1986). It remains to be seen survey in the Bayḍā area that aimed to study the how the Bayḍā Documentation Project and our tangible remains of recent pastoral practices in own work will affect previous interpretations of the area (see also Russell 1993, 1995). Because this apparently very rich and dynamic area (e.g., of the diachronic goals of BUPAP, their results Zayadine 1992). are of great interest, especially in terms of un- There is a general trend, in the archaeology derstanding modern land-use and its material of the Petra region, to privilege investigation of signatures. At present, this research possesses prehistoric periods and of the Nabataean/Roman limited spatial and methodological overlap with era at the expense of later epochs: this motivated our own work, but we plan to develop such eth-

-491- ADAJ 55 (2011) nographic and ethnoarchaeological dimensions a, the “fortifed suburb” now called Shammāsa in future seasons. was also studied by Lindner’s team; here numer- Although our 2010 survey territory remains ous water features, building remains, and a rock- relatively undisturbed, not least because of its cut shrine, possibly dedicated to Dushara, were location within the boundaries of the Petra Ar- recorded (Lindner and Gunsam 2001). Apart chaeological Park, some recent encroachments from the baseline of information provided, we have been observed. Beginning in 1996, the would underscore that the NHG’s research cap- Wādī Mūsā Water Supply and Wastewater Proj- tured some important data subsequently lost, for ect began as a rescue operation in response to, example with the destruction of the high place and cooperation with, the installation of a pipe- sanctuary complex at Rās Sulaysil shortly after line running some 60 kilometers from the vicin- their 1989 visit to the site (Lindner and Gunsam ity of Bayḍā in the north to the area of Jiththa 1995b: 271-273). Such actual and latent threats in the southwest. The project, focused on a nar- to the study region motivate, in part, our work. row strip of land that passes through our survey In sum, previous research in the PAWS sur- area along the course of the road between Bayḍā vey area has been largely site-based and ori- and Umm Ṣayḥūn, included an archaeological ented toward particular time periods. Based on survey component that was heavily oriented to- this piecemeal documentation, we know a fair wards the discovery of sites, 39 of which were amount about certain places and certain epochs, documented between 1996 and 2000. All of but there remain major gaps in our understand- these sites received basic description and some ing of the archaeological landscape, particularly more attention in the form of drawing or lim- with respect to patterns of long-term continuity ited excavation (‘Amr et al. 1998; ‘Amr and and change. Our methodology was designed to al-Momani 2001), though the project directors fll these gaps and to recognize what has so far pointed out that these “sites” are more appro- tended to be overlooked. priately described as “outstanding archaeological features” (‘Amr and al-Momani 2001: 256). Methodology Some of these features fell within our survey The methods employed by PAWS are drawn area and were additionally documented by our from the practices of “intensive survey” and project, with cross-references provided to previ- “landscape archaeology” as it is typically defned ous work. in the Mediterranean: core elements include a Of all pre-existing research to be mentioned, commitment to the collection of multi-period however, frst and foremost must be the explora- data, a regional scope, and interdisciplinary col- tions by the Naturhistorische Gesellschaft Nürn- laboration (cf. Cherry 1983: 287). These precepts berg (NHG), begun in the 1970s under the direc- were originally drawn from a later 20th century tion of Manfred Lindner. This team undertook movement in world archaeology toward system- several campaigns of exploration in the broader atization, sophistication, and transparency in Petra region, focusing on remains from vari- survey methods (e.g., Plog et al. 1978; Schiffer ous periods (e.g., Lindner 1978, 1986, 1999). et al. 1978). Innovative methods for bringing Thanks to them, for example, we know of the these concerns together in an artifact-rich en- Early Bronze Age site of Umm Saysabān, the vironment were especially evolved by British only Bronze Age site documented in our sur- and American archaeologists working in the vey area (Lindner et al. 2001). They undertook Mediterranean from the late 1970s onward (e.g., basic description, mapping, and drawing at the Wright et al. 1990; Cherry et al. 1991; Davis et Nabataean high place sanctuary and village at al. 1997). Similar developments were ongoing the far western end of Rās Sulaysil — which in Jordanian survey archaeology over the same would become a major focus for our attention time period (for overviews see Banning 2001; in Area b in 2010 (Lindner and Gunsam 1995b) MacDonald 2007), but surprisingly little cross- — as well as at the “Pond Temple” located some referencing has taken place between practitio- 300 meters below, accessed by a now ruined and ners of survey method and theory in Jordan and treacherous serpentine path (Lindner and Gun- the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the concept of sam 1995a; Zayadine 1992). Finally, in our Area off-site or non-site survey has not been widely

-492- A.R. Knodell and S.E. Alcock: The 2010 Petra Area and Wådπ Sulaysil Survey employed in Jordan (Banning 2001: 634), de- photographed, and drawn. Information was re- spite the fact that this is an approach particularly corded on paper forms for each unit (Fig. 2), and useful for documenting high densities of surface later digitized and transferred to our electronic material continuously distributed in landscapes database. witnessing a variety of uses over time (Bintliff As for our artifact collection strategy, each and Snodgrass 1988; Alcock et al. 1994). This feld walker, within their two meter wide tran- seems to us very apposite to the archaeological sect, collected all chipped stone, counted all ce- landscape we have encountered north of Petra. ramic material and collected diagnostic sherds, Given that a principal concern of survey archae- and counted and briefy described all modern ology anywhere must be data comparability and material. This strategy was obviously governed utility for other researchers (Alcock and Cherry by practical concerns. For example, while col- 2004), and given that methodological transpar- lecting all ceramics might be ideal in some cir- ency is crucial to this, we describe our goals and cumstances (it goes without saying that what methods in some detail here. is diagnostic for a feld walker may differ from In 2010 the PAWS survey worked in three what is diagnostic for the ceramic specialist), zones: the Wādī Baqā‘ (Area a), the Wādī Su- the high densities in some areas would make laysil (Area b), and in the vicinity of the Is- total collection nearly impossible and certainly lamic Bayḍā structures (Area c). Each of these impractical. It was thus decided that, as in many was divided into a number of survey units (or Mediterranean surveys, a consistent method SUs), the boundaries of which were defned by of counting all and collecting only diagnostic GPS points taken at unit corners. Boundaries and potentially diagnostic sherds would be the were determined based on team size and natu- best way forward. Such a protocol also works ral breaking points in the landscape (e.g., feld to avoid chronological biases, which is a gov- borders or topographical features), as well as a erning principle of the Brown University Petra desire to keep units small enough to maintain Archaeological Project as a whole. The nearby good spatial control of the data. Unit size thus survey undertaken by the Finnish Jabal Harun varied from approximately 40 to 60 meters wide Project employed a similar feld walking and by 50 to 150 meters long. For each of the three collection strategy (e.g. Frösen et al. 1999), Areas, it was decided that as much territory as which will eventually aid in data comparability possible would be explored intensively, exclud- across the immediate region. ing extreme topography that is better dealt with While the three zones surveyed in 2010 con- through more extensive methods (e.g., selec- tain previously known archaeological settle- tive inspection or remote sensing). In each SU ments (notably Shammāsa in Area a, Rās Su- four to six feld walkers spaced 10 meters apart laysil in Area b, and the Nabataean and Islamic carefully inspected the ground surface, docu- communities in Area c), our goal was not to menting all artifacts within a two meter wide identify “sites”, per se. Site defnition is a no- transect for each walker. For projecting distribu- toriously tricky issue, better handled after data tions of artifacts across the landscape, we thus processing, when chronological and spatial re- possess a 20 percent sample of ground inspected lationships among artifacts and archaeological per SU, from which densities of sherds, lithics, features across the landscape can be better un- and modern material per hectare can be gener- derstood. Thus, what other projects may have ated4. The choice of a tight, 10 meter spacing called sites — for example, a cistern or a tomb also went a long way to ensure that all features — are termed by us “features” until their full in each SU could be noted, recorded, mapped, landscape and chronological context is better

4. The calculation of artifact densities per survey unit average number of artifacts per square meter. This is carried out as follows. For each survey unit, feld number is then multiplied by 10,000 to determine the walkers covered two meter wide transects. Thus, the number of artifacts per hectare (100x100 meters). Such total area of the ground surface for which artifacts are a calculation provides an immediate and comparable counted is the sum of the walkers’ transects multiplied sense of distributions across the landscape, though we by two (20 percent of the Survey Unit). Artifact counts acknowledge that, especially for lithic artifacts, it may for the Survey Unit are then divided by this product appear to exaggerate the amounts of material observed. (the sum of walker transects times two) to render the For actual lithic numbers, by Area, see Table 1.

-493- ADAJ 55 (2011)

2. PAWS Survey Unit feld form. understood. and incorporation into the project Geographic All features were assigned individual num- Information System (GIS) allows us to make bers and at the very least described, mapped, comprehensive plans of features within the sur- sketched, measured, and photographed. Oth- vey area (as a whole and in parts) that can be ers were selected for more detailed treatment compared with artifact densities across the same through architectural drawing or total station landscape (see below). survey. Analysis of certain features in the sur- GIS and remote sensing play a major role in vey area (such as quarries) is also being under- our survey design, execution, data processing, taken in tandem with study in the city center to and interpretation. After selecting the general better understand architectural and economic area for study, a QuickBird satellite image of relationships between and within the center and 0.6-meter ground to pixel resolution was pur- its hinterland. The digitization of all these data chased from DigitalGlobe Incorporated. In tan-

-494- A.R. Knodell and S.E. Alcock: The 2010 Petra Area and Wådπ Sulaysil Survey dem with ArcGIS and known GPS coordinates, fore moving to general patterns, observations, this imagery was used to identify areas of inter- and directions for further research. est, as well as the previously known sites within Lithics were found in many parts of the sur- the survey area. Features such as terrace walls vey area, albeit with some specifc clusters iden- were readily identifable, and the high-resolution tifed. Gary Rollefson (Whitman College) did satellite imagery, in combination with ground preliminary work on these fnds during the 2010 truthing, has been a great aid in mapping them. feld season, augmented by more detailed study A digital elevation model of 30-meter ground (with Clive Vella of Brown University) in May to pixel resolution was obtained from ASTER, 2011. The 2010 season recovered material dat- which has been used to model various aspects ing as early as the Lower Paleolithic, as well as of the landscape, such as viewsheds and poten- all subsequent major periods of prehistory (Fig. tial routes of movement (Because of the extreme 4, Table 1). Overall, Paleolithic artifacts from and often abrupt topography of the area, obtain- the duration of the Pleistocene period account ing higher quality elevation data became a top for more than 15% of the unit collections. De- priority for the 2011 season). Handheld personal spite the proximity of Area c to the prehistoric digital assistants (PDAs) were used in the feld site of Bayḍā, Epipaleolithic and Pre-Pottery with ArcPad mobile GIS software and Garmin Neolithic fnds were relatively rarer than might GPS receivers, which typically registered ac- have been anticipated, essentially equal to the curacy of two to fve meters; this allowed for Paleolithic periods. The samples as a whole on-the-spot generation of shapefles to denote were dominated (almost 60%) by Chalcolithic/ the boundaries of survey units and locations of Early Bronze lithics; while this might be taken features. GIS was also used to perform various to indicate a greater level of activity during these data-processing tasks, including the display of later periods, it must be recalled that these arti- artifact densities and period distributions for facts are simply the highest in the stratigraphic each survey unit and the generation of models record, and that earlier artifacts remain covered based on elevation data; of course, it also serves (or removed) by thousands of years of erosion as a generally useful interpretive tool for view- and redeposition. Moreover, there seems to have ing multiple types of data simultaneously. been a signifcant change in production in the Not everything could be achieved in our Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age, where stone initial season. In particular, we acknowledge tools were likely produced on an ad hoc basis, the need for more structured and detailed input then cast aside, resulting in greater numbers and from geologists and hydrologists, to understand wider distributions than we have for other peri- what is clearly a fragile and dynamic landscape. ods. Areas a and b refect absolute counts and Moreover, we hope to develop an ethnographic densities much higher than in Area c, which may component to our work, a dimension we feel to refect in part the especially heavy overburden be necessary to any survey committed to under- of later periods around Bayḍā, in part the sandy standing all aspects of the landscape and its use deposits which presently cover a section of the through time. Not only do the current inhabit- Sīq al-Amṭī (Figs. 3 and 4). ants of the area understand and know the cur- Ceramic analysis was undertaken by Tali Er- rent state and recent past of this region better ickson-Gini (Independent Scholar) and Micaela than visiting archaeologists, but they also have Sinibaldi (Cardiff University). With their com- a great stake in how this area develops and is bined specialties ranging from the Hellenistic to presented as an archaeological and human land- the Late Islamic periods, they were able to date scape. the vast majority of diagnostic material collected (though they stress that some yet unidentif- Preliminary Results of the 2010 Season able material may be recognizable to specialists What follows is a summary of our prelimi- in earlier periods). Ceramic fnds, as Figure 5 il- nary results for the 2010 season. Following lustrates, were widely dispersed throughout the a brief general outline, we provide diachronic survey area. Only a handful of tracts had no ma- synopses of Areas a (Wādī Baqā‘), b (Wādī Su- terial, and some yielded densities (calculated in laysil), and c (the vicinity of Islamic Bayḍā) be- the manner explained earlier) as high as 140,000

-495- ADAJ 55 (2011)

3. Total lithic density in Areas a, b, and c.

4. Select lithic illustrations: A – PPN axe/adze (Survey Unit c50); B – Ch/EB blade core (c25); C – Ch/EB blade core (a135); D – MP Leval- lois blade (b37); E – UP end- scraper (b19); F – LN canted dihedral burin (a102); G – MP Levallois point (b41); H – MP Levallois point core (b10); I – LN burin on con- cave truncation (b45) (Illus- tration by Clive Vella).

-496- A.R. Knodell and S.E. Alcock: The 2010 Petra Area and Wådπ Sulaysil Survey

Table 1: Distribution of chipped stone artifacts by tem- poral periods in the different PAWS survey areas in 2010 (Table by Gary O. Rollefson and Clive Vella).

5. Total ceramic density in Areas a, b, and c. sherds per hectare. The majority of ceramic regional comparison. The social and cultural ac- fnds ranged in date from the Iron Age II (700 – tivity we are witnessing for the last centuries BC 500 BC) to the Middle and Late Islamic periods and early centuries AD is, of course, Nabataean (1000-1800AD). High densities of Roman (50 in character, even well after the Roman annexa- BC – 450 AD) and Islamic era ceramics were tion in the early second century (cf. ‘Amr 2004). especially noted, with other periods (Hellenistic At Tali Erickson-Gini’s suggestion, we illustrate [300 – 50 BC] and Byzantine [450 – 650AD]) select examples of Iron II and Hellenistic survey also present. We should note that the terms Hel- material, periods less well represented in publi- lenistic and Roman are used here not to assign cations from this region than the better-known cultural designations, but to frame our ceramic Roman era ceramics (Figs. 6 and 7). chronologies in a way that allows broader inter- The third major category of fnds to report

-497- ADAJ 55 (2011)

6. Iron Age II ceramics (selection by Tali Erickson-Gini; Il- lustration by Munjad Qasem). (Appendix: Ceramic Finds from the PAWS 2010 Season (by Tali Erickson-Gini) The Iron II Finds (Fig. 6) 1. Sherd with raised line decoration – SU a 29.1. Yellowish red ware (5YR5/8). Coarse fabric with numerous light gray inclusions. Light brown slip on exterior (7.5YR6/4). Raised wavy-line decoration. 2. Bowl – SU a 106.1. Strong brown ware (7.5YR5/8). Light gray core and minute light gray inclusions. 3. Bowl – SU a 149.2. Yellowish red ware. Thick gray core and numerous medium to large light gray inclusions. 4. Painted ware bowl – SU a 178.1. Reddish yellow ware (5YR6/8). Minute light gray and white inclusions. Thin black and thicker red lines on interior. 5. Painted ware bowl – SU a 172.1. Reddish yellow ware (5YR6/6). Bands of dark reddish brown on exterior (5YR3/2). 6. Bowl – SU a 72.1. Yellowish red ware (5YR5/8). Light gray core and minute light gray inclusions. 7. Bowl with knob handle – SU a 65.1. Yellowish red ware (5YR5/8). Brownish-gray core and minute light gray inclusions. 8. Knob handle – SU a 86.1. Reddish yellow ware 5YR6/8. Light grayish brown core. Dark red paint (2.5YR4/8). 9. Krater – SU b 52.3. Red ware (2.5YR6/8). Weak red slip on interior (2.5YR6/4) with red painted decoration on interior rim and a dark red band on exterior (2.5YR4/4). 10. Krater – SU a 47.2. Reddish yellow ware (5YR7/6). Minute light gray inclusions. 11. Perforated vessel base – SU a 127.1. Yellowish red ware (5RY6/8). Gray core and gray inclusions. White accretions on both sides. Row of perforations on lower body and above the base. 12. Jug or cooking pot – SU a 43.1. Reddish yellow ware (7.5 YR7/6). Light gray core. Coarse fnish and traces of brown slip on exterior (7.5YR4/3). Thumb impressed decoration along the rim. 13. Cooking pot – SU a. 46.3. Yellowish red ware (5YR 5/8). Numerous light and dark gray inclusions. 14. Cooking pot – SU a 25.1. Reddish yellow ware (5YR6/8). Light gray core and minute light gray inclusions. White accretions on both sides. 15. Storage jar – SU a 149.1. Yellowish red ware (5YR5/6). Thick gray core and numerous medium to large light gray inclusions and number of large red inclusions. 16. Large jar or jug – SU a 70.1. Yellowish red ware (5YR5/8). Thick light gray core and medium to large light gray inclusions. Band of red paint on rim.

-498- A.R. Knodell and S.E. Alcock: The 2010 Petra Area and Wådπ Sulaysil Survey

7. Hellenistic period ceramics (selection by Tali Erickson- Gini; Illustration by Munjad Qasem). The Hellenistic Finds (Fig. 7) 1. Bowl – SU b 71.3. Reddish yellow ware (5YR7/6). Small white and light gray inclusions. Traces of red wash on the exterior (2.5YR5/8) and worn dark reddish gray wash on the interior (5YR4/2). 2. Bowl – SU a 45.1. Pink ware (5YR7/4). Minute dark gray inclusions. Traces of dark slip on exterior. 3. Bowl – SU b 51. 3. Reddish yellow ware (5YR7/8). Light gray inclusions. Light gray slip on exterior (10YR7/2). 4. Bowl – SU b 51.2. Reddish yellow ware (5YR6/6). Dark reddish brown band on exterior rim (5YR3/2). 5. Bowl – SU b 71.4. Dark reddish brown ware (5YR3/2). Medium to large white inclusions. 6. Bowl – SU b 51. 1. Reddish yellow ware (5YR6/8). Minute dark gray inclusions. Red slip on exterior (2.5YR5/8). Dark reddish brown slip on exterior rim. 7. Bowl – SU b 1.1. Reddish yellow ware (5YR7/8). 8. Bowl – SU b 13.2. Reddish yellow ware (5YR6/8). Minute dark gray inclusions. Faded reddish brown slip on exterior (5YR4/4). 9. Bowl – SU b 36.1. Light reddish brown ware (%YR6/4). Gray slip on exterior (5YR5/1). 10. Bowl – SU b 21.4. Reddish yellow ware (7.5YR6/6). Light gray core and minute gray inclusions. Brown slip on exterior (7.5YR4/3). 11. Jar – SU b 36.2. Yellowish red ware (5YR5/8). Large light gray inclusions. Red slip on exterior (2.5YR6/8). 12. Jar – SU b 49.1. Reddish yellow ware (5YR6/8). Medium dark gray and white inclusions. Brown slip (7.5YR4/2). 13. Cooking pot SU b 71.2. Yellowish red ware (5YR5/8). Light gray core. Yellowish red slip on interior (5YR5/6) and very dark gray slip on exterior (7.5YR3/1). Dark brown wash on interior rim (7.5YR3/4).

-499- ADAJ 55 (2011) is modern detritus (Fig. 8). A great deal of this of the Epipaleolithic to Pre-Pottery Neolithic can be traced directly to local occupants, who B samples; tools were rare. Chalcolithic/Early graze their animals, live, and picnic in this area. Bronze Age lithics were frequent, possibly as- But much is clearly related to growing, and not sociated with the Area’s close proximity to the always regulated, tourism in the region. This Early Bronze Age site of Umm Saysabān (Lind- phenomenon is only likely to develop and ex- ner et al. 2001). What is surprising is the seem- pand as signifcant Jordanian and NGO energy ingly continuous scatter throughout the sector, is devoted to encouraging people to spend more there being only a handful of survey units with time in the Petra region, in hopes of generating no identifed lithic material (Fig. 3). In general, additional local revenue streams. While this is these results compare in date and description to an admirable goal, the potential negative impact material found in the nearby Finnish Jabal Ha- on the area is no minor danger, and we plan to run Project’s survey (Frösén et al. 1999, 2000). continue documenting changes in the region, as The heaviest concentrations of chipped stone well as alerting local archaeological authorities were just north of Wādī Baqā‘, which also hap- to specifc threats. The “garbage map” of the pens to be the part of Area a closest to Bayḍā. PAWS 2010 season, for example, has already All aspects of the chaîne opératoire for stone been shared with groups working on archaeo- tool production are represented here, including logical conservation and management issues for cores, debitage and fnished implements. Based the Petra Archaeological Park. on the character of cortex on artifacts, raw material was clearly collected from wadis, quite like- Area a ly this one, next to which production seems to Located in and around an area called Baqā‘ have taken place. This fts well with Kirkbride’s or Wādī Baqā‘, Area a was divided into 180 sur- interpretation that wadi pebbles formed the chief vey units, 163 of which produced lithic material supply of fint in the area, with the other possi- from the Lower Paleolithic to the present. The ble source being the tabular fint from limestone Middle Paleolithic is well represented, includ- strata of Jibāl ash-Sharāh (1965: 37-39). ing several Levallois blades, points, and fakes. Given the ubiquity of late prehistoric lithics Epipaleolithic through Pre-Pottery Neolithic ar- and the close proximity to Umm Saysabān, it is tifacts are also relatively abundant, although the surprising that no pottery from the Early Bronze fragmentary nature of many of these pieces made Age was found in Area a. However, it is posit impossible to distinguish between almost half sible that some of the small amount of uniden-

8. Total density of modern materials in Areas a, b, and c.

-500- A.R. Knodell and S.E. Alcock: The 2010 Petra Area and Wådπ Sulaysil Survey tifed material may date to the Bronze Age or there is an apparent gap in identifed material earlier periods. The earliest identifed ceramic until the Hellenistic period, approximately the material belongs to the Iron II period (700 – 500 third century BC, though the very presence of BC) (Fig. 9). This is a period that has received material this early is noteworthy. The largest relatively little attention in the immediate vicin- concentrations of Hellenistic ceramics are found ity of Petra, though there are signifcant sites in near major features, such as those at and around the region at Ba‘ja, Khirbat al-Mu‘allaq, Jabal Shammāsa. It is noteworthy that these appear aß-Íuffå˙a, and Umm al-Biyāra at Petra itself to always co-occur with large amounts of later (Lindner and Farajat 1987; Lindner et al. 1996; (Roman period) ceramics, implying a continuity Lindner et al. 1998; Bienkowski in press). In of use of space over time. Area a, the largest concentrations of these sherds Sherds identifed as Roman (50 BC – 450AD, are found near the modern road between Umm though especially Early and Middle Roman [50 Íay˙ūn and Bayḍā, and near the fortifed Rock BC – 250AD]) were by far the most common of Shammāsa. No architectural remains can be throughout Area a. As is true for Areas b and securely dated to this period. c, Area a is nearly completely devoid of Byz- Following the Iron Age II, Edomite period, antine ceramics. Islamic period ceramics are

9. Area a features and ceramic densities, by period.

-501- ADAJ 55 (2011) scattered throughout, but in no great concentra- surface collections (found in 134 survey units in tions – except at Shammāsa, an observation that Area b compared to 163 in Area a) indicate that fts Lindner and Gunsam’s interpretation that this survey sector was more heavily “populated” Shammāsa served as a fortifed outpost in this by chipped stone artifacts. Lower and Middle Pa- period (2002). leolithic presence was three times as intensive; Based on associated fnds, building methods, for the Middle Paleolithic, the samples refect a and historical circumstances, it is our prelimi- heavy reliance on the use of Levallois techniques nary conjecture that most of the 120 features for the production of blades, fakes, and espe- recorded in Area a date to the Roman period. cially Levallois points that were used as hunt- A large number of features seem to be directly ing and butchering tools. Middle/Upper and Up- related to water management and agricultural per Paleolithic artifacts reach almost 7%, which practices in this diffcult environment. Thirty- is the highest level for the entire survey region two dams or other water control elements were in 2010. Epipaleolithic to Pre-Pottery Neolithic documented in Area a alone, including the elab- blades, fakes, and cores were found in 20% of orate system in Wādī Baqā‘ itself (This system the survey units, a possible indication that the formed the subject of a more detailed study by Wādī Sulaysil incises a varied terrain in Area b, Emanuela Bocancea and Timothy Sandiford of which would allow for a broader array of exploit- Brown University). Six cisterns, some but not able resources. Finally, the Late Prehistoric peri- all previously known, were also mapped and od (Late Neolithic through Early Bronze) retains drawn. Numerous terrace walls and feld bound- its numerical superiority, but we stress again that aries were also recorded. While such features this may well be as much a refection of natural are notoriously diffcult to date, we currently processes as of any cultural forescence. posit that many of these were part of a program For ceramic fnds (Fig. 10), very little Iron of land management beginning in the early frst Age material was found in Area b, but most was century AD. This is the interpretation of the located at the strategic high point at the end of terrace systems on Jabal Harūn (Frösén et al. the wadi on the north side. The site of a Nabatae- 1999), a date which would also work with the an high place sanctuary (and perhaps lookout), majority of our ceramic evidence. In addition this area overlooks the extent of Wādī Sulaysil to agricultural and water management features, to the east, as well as the Wādī ‘Arabah and an fve tombs, eight quarries, four structures, and important route to Petra to the west. 17 rock-cut features of various types, including The Nabataean remains in the area have long water channels, niches, and shrines, were thor- been known — discussed frst by Kirkbride oughly documented; detailed treatment of these (1961), described as a caravanserai by Zaya- will follow in other publications. dine (1992) and investigated by Lindner’s team (Lindner and Gunsam 1995b). Documentation Area b of the high place sanctuary and associated fnds, The remains of the Nabataean village of Rās as well as a basic description of the environs, Sulaysil and its immediate surroundings were thus exists — fortunately because, as mentioned, the primary focus of our investigations in Area the sanctuary suffered a massive, intentional b, located at the western end of Wādī Sulaysil. destruction sometime between the NHG team’s In the 1980s Gebel (1988: 76) surveyed a site visits in 1989 and 1990 (Lindner and Gunsam called “Wadi Sleisil”, which he dated to the 1995b: 271). For our part, we are able to provide Natufan period. He gives a description of sur- more topographical and chronological data for face fnds — a scatter of stone tools on the north this landscape and all of its numerous archaeo- side of the wadi — which we relocated during logical features. While Lindner and Gunsam the course of our work. Aside from this loca- (1995b: 273) dated the pottery associated with tion, lithic material was found throughout Area the sanctuary at earliest to the frst century AD, b, with high density areas on the north side es- our survey collection recovered a signifcant pecially (Fig. 3). amount of earlier, Hellenistic pottery, especially Although Area b covers only about a half of associated with the structures at the sanctuary the surface extent of Area a, the lithics in the (Fig. 10). Based on these new fnds, it seems that

-502- A.R. Knodell and S.E. Alcock: The 2010 Petra Area and Wådπ Sulaysil Survey

10. Area b features and ceramic densities, by period. Nabataean activity in the area should be pushed possessed lines of clear visual communication back to at least the third-second centuries BC. with the building clusters to the west, as well as The ritual interpretation of the site – tied up in- with places that those clusters could not observe. triguingly with its spatial and visual relationship Water management and cultivation were as with Jabal Hārūn, the Pond Temple below, as important here as in Area a. An additional 12 well as other landmarks – requires more detailed dams were recorded and the investment in ag- attention (Lindner and Gunsam 1995a). riculture is made obvious by the numerous ter- Turning to the built environment, Michelle races found throughout the area. Again, while Berenfeld (Pitzer College) and Felipe Rojas these are diffcult to date, similar terraces lo- (Brown University) undertook a detailed archi- cated slightly farther up Wādī Sulaysil have re- tectural drawing and topographic survey, produc- cently yielded radiocarbon dates of around 100 ing drawings of all 21 structures in the area, as AD, which matches the bulk of our ceramic evi- well as an overall plan (Fig. 11). From this, four dence (Beckers in press). All in all, the area of distinct clusters of buildings can be noted. Those Rās Sulaysil emerges as a most intriguing zone: outliers observed are located in strategic places, part of an inter-visible system of fortifable such as above the confuences of wadis; they thus and otherwise signifcant locations (including

-503- ADAJ 55 (2011)

11. Map of Rās Sulaysil structures and topography (map by Michelle L. Berenfeld, Felipe A. Rojas and Michal S. Dziedziniewicz). Shammāsa, Jabal Hārūn, and Petra itself), ap- While ceramic, lithic, and modern fnds were parently intensely cultivated and charged with located throughout, it should be noted that the ritual signifcance. very low densities encountered in the northern The foruit of the Sulaysil community ap- part of Sīq al-Amṭī may be the result of a deep pears relatively short-lived, with the bulk of ce- sand cover, not present elsewhere in the areas ramic fnds dating to the Early to Middle Roman surveyed by PAWS in 2010. Several features, period (50 BC – 250 AD). Material that could including quarries and petroglyphs, were locat- defnitively be identifed as Byzantine was near- ed in this area but very few surface fnds. ly completely absent, consisting of only a few The numbers and distribution of chipped sherds in a single survey unit, and only slight- stone artifacts from Area c clearly refect, at ly more Islamic pottery was collected. Finally, least in part, the geomorphological character of Area b had by far the least modern garbage of the Sīq al-Amṭī. Survey units that produced lith- any of the areas we surveyed. This must certain- ics numbered 65 (Fig. 3). Fully three-fourths of ly be a direct result of its diffcult access from the recovered artifacts from Area c were from the main road and the fact that modern land-use the later prehistoric periods (Chalco/EB and is thus far limited to goat herding and some ap- “Late”), although Lower, Middle, and Upper parent small-scale farming activity. Paleolithic fnds still accounted for around 20% of the Area c samples (Table 1). What is sig- Area c nifcant is the near absence of Epipaleolithic to Centered around the Islamic Bayḍā struc- Pre-Pottery Neolithic periods — a result which tures, Area c is divided into 70 survey units could be a consequence of better water resourc- covering the extent of the village and the Sīq es, vegetational cover, and cultivable territory al-Amṭī, as well as areas to the west and south. immediately around Prehistoric Bayḍā, a short

-504- A.R. Knodell and S.E. Alcock: The 2010 Petra Area and Wådπ Sulaysil Survey distance to the southwest. dance of Roman period sherds, which are in Moving onto ceramics from historical peri- some cases more numerous than those from the ods (Fig. 12), there is a surprising diversity of Islamic period, may allude to more complex ar- periods represented in the area of Islamic Bayḍā, chitectural phasing in the village itself than pre- beginning with Iron II pottery, found in more viously thought. Whether these are strictly sur- abundance here than anywhere else thus far surface remains or not will hopefully be revealed veyed. Hellenistic sherds are also notably pres- by BUPAP’s concurrent excavations amongst the ent, suggesting activity contemporary with the Islamic period structures. Byzantine remains are surrounding Nabataean complexes and features again quite scant, and exist only in the vicinity of under study by the Bayḍā Documentation Proj- a structure identifed as a former church. Since ect (Bikai et al. 2007). The Roman and Islamic features in this area had previously been recorded periods were, however, best represented; this is by the Bayḍā Documentation Project, the BU- not surprising, given the multi-period remains al- PAP teams (for both PAWS and the excavation ready documented by the Bikai team as well as at Islamic Bayḍā) sought only to fll certain gaps the results of the current BUPAP mapping and (Bikai et al. 2007, 2008). Timothy Sandiford excavation efforts at Islamic Bayḍā. The abun- and Ian Straughn (Brown University) with Mi-

12. Area c ceramic densities, by period, and a preliminary Total Station survey plan of Islamic Bayḍā.

-505- ADAJ 55 (2011) caela Sinibaldi (Cardiff University) undertook, sis of features will continue, as will topographic for example, a preliminary mapping of the extant studies of routes of movement within the survey architectural remains at Islamic Bayḍā (Fig. 12; area, and between it and the city center of Petra. this work will be further discussed in reports on A preliminary report cannot do justice to the BUPAP’s results from the excavations). efforts of all who contributed to the 2010 season North of the village, in the Sīq al-Amṭī, ce- of PAWS. Indeed, this article has had the daunt- ramic distributions are predominantly of Roman ing task of distilling multiple detailed feld reports and Medieval date. However, the overall densi- prepared by various project members, sometimes ties are lower than one would expect for a cara- reducing several thoughtful pages into only a vanserai, as Zayadine (1992) and many others sentence or two. We hope, however, to have pre- would like to see here. Architectural elements sented a coherent account of our frst season of suggestive of ritual activity, as well as wine- work that gives due credit to previous researchers presses suggesting the presence of vineyards, in our project area, explains the background and have been identifed here by Bikai (Bikai et al. motivations of the Petra Area and Wādī Sūlaysil 2007: 369), an interpretation that seems to ft the Survey, and provides some initial interpretations area’s Nabataean usage more readily. Further in presenting the data thus far collected. analysis of ceramic data based on the distribution of forms may clarify this issue. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge our deep Conclusions and Future Directions gratitude to the institutions and individuals who In sum, the PAWS survey, after one season of made this research possible, namely the De- feldwork, has produced both novel and promis- partment of Antiquities of Jordan and the Petra ing results. In many ways, our landscape approach Archaeological Park (especially Dr. Emad Hi- complements research previously conducted jazeen, Tahani al-Salhi, and Hyeam Twassi); in the area, providing necessary background to Brown University and the Joukowsky Institute known sites. However, the intensive methodol- for Archaeology and the Ancient World; and ogy advocated here has also revealed signifcant our hosts, the Dakhillala Qublan al-Fakhir fam- amounts of material from formerly little-known ily and all of the residents of the Petra region. periods in the region (e.g. late prehistoric), and We also thank all BUPAP project members exposed more complicated, diachronic histories who participated in the 2010 season: Filip Ani, at sites generally described as belonging to a sin- Michelle Berenfeld, Emanuela Bocancea, Tali gle period (e.g., Islamic Bayḍā or the Nabataean Erickson-Gini, Katherine Harrington, Bron- village at Rās Sulaysil). Despite these already wen Konecky, Megan Perry, Felipe Rojas, Gary signifcant results, we stress that the interpreta- Rollefson, Timothy Sandiford, Ian Straughn, tions presented above remain preliminary in na- Bradley Sekedat, Micaela Sinibaldi, Harrison ture. Much work remains to be done with respect Stark, Christopher Tuttle, and Thomas Urban. to primary feldwork (for example, flling gaps Additional thanks are due to Tali Erickson-Gini between areas surveyed in 2010), as well as fea- and Micaela Sinibaldi for their assessment and ture, artifact, and data analysis, which we look discussion of the ceramic material, and to Gary forward to reporting in the coming years. Rollefson and Clive Vella for their reports on In 2011, feldwork will continue with a slight- lithic assemblages. We especially thank Tali Er- ly larger team, allowing for greater expediency ickson-Gini, Gary Rollefson, Micaela Sinibaldi, in the recording of survey units and features. Christopher Tuttle, and Clive Vella for detailed Intensive feld walking will have two primary comments on earlier drafts of this article. goals: (1) to cover the areas separating Areas a, b, and c as comprehensively as possible and Alex R. Knodell (2) to expand east of the road that runs between Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Umm Sayhūn and Bayḍā. Additionally, we hope Ancient World to expand the ethnographic and geological com- Brown University ponents of the project, for which groundwork Box 1837 / 60 George Street was laid in 2010. Architectural and spatial analy- Providence, RI 02912

-506- A.R. Knodell and S.E. Alcock: The 2010 Petra Area and Wådπ Sulaysil Survey Susan E. Alcock Biyara, Jordan, by Crystal-M. Bennett, 1960– Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the 1965. Levant Supplementary Series, London. Ancient World Bikai, P.M., Kanellopoulos, C. and Saunders, S.L. Brown University 2005 The High Place at Beidha. ACOR Newsletter Box 1837 / 60 George Street 17(2): 1-3. Providence, RI 02912 2007 Gods and Vineyards at Beidha. Pp. 369-374 in T.E. Levy, P.M. Michèle Daviau, R.W. Younker, and M. Shaer (eds.), Crossing Jordan: North Bibliography American Contributions to the Archaeology of Alcock, S.E. and Cherry, J. F. (eds.) Jordan. Equinox: London. 2004 Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional 2008 Beidha in Jordan: A Dionysian Hall in a Naba- Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford: taean Landscape. AJA 112(3): 465-507. Oxbow. Bintliff, J. and Snodgrass, A.M. Alcock, S.E., Cherry, J.F. and Davis, J.L. 1988 Off-site Pottery Distributions: A Regional and 1994 Intensive Survey, Agricultural Practice and the Inter-Regional Perspective. Current Anthropol- Classical Landscape of Greece. Pp. 135-168 in ogy 29: 506-13. I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histo- Burckhardt, J.L. ries, Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge: Cam- 1822 Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. 2 Volumes. bridge University Press. London: Murray. ‘Amr, K. Byrd, B.F. 2004 Beyond the Roman Annexation: The Continu- 1988 The Natufan of Beidha. Report on Renewed ity of the Nabataean Pottery Tradition. SHAJ 8: Field Research. Pp. 175-197 in Garrard, A.N. 237-245. and Gebel, H.G. (eds.), The Prehistory of Jor- ‘Amr, K. and al-Momani, A. dan: The State of Research in 1986. BAR Inter- 2001 Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Com- national Series 396 (i), Oxford. ponent of the Wadi Musa Water Supply and 1989 The Natufan Encampment at Beidha: Late Wastewater Project (1998-2000). ADAJ 45: Pleistocene Adaptation in the Southern Levant. 253-285. ‘Amr, K., al-Momani, A., Farajat, S. and Falahat, H. Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 1998 Archaeological Survey of the Wadi Musa Water Volume 23. Aarhus. Supply and Wastewater Project Area. ADAJ 42: 2005 Early Village Life at Beidha, Jordan: Neolithic 503-548. Spatial Organization and Vernacular Architec- Banning, E. ture. The Excavations of Mrs. Diana Kirkbride- 1996 Highlands and Lowlands: Problems and Survey Helbæk. Oxford. Frameworks for Rural Archaeology in the Near Cherry, J.F. East. BASOR 301: 25-45. 1983 Frogs Round the Pond: Perspectives in Current 2001 Archaeological Survey in Jordan. Pp. 631-638 Archaeological Survey Projects. Pp. 375-416 in B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski in D. Keller and D. Rupp (eds.), Archaeologi- (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan. Sheffeld: cal Survey in the Mediterranean Area (BAR Int. Sheffeld Academic Press. 155). Oxford. Banning, E. and Köhler-Rollefson, I. Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L. and Mantzourani, E. (eds.) 1983 Ethnoarchaeological Survey in the Beidha Area, 1991 Landscape Archaeology as Long-term History: Southern Jordan. ADAJ 27: 375-383. Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands. Los An- 1992 Ethnographic Lessons for the Pastoral Past: geles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Univer- Camp Locations and Material Remains near sity of California Los Angeles. Beidha, Southern Jordan. Pp. 181-204 in O. Bar- Davis, J.L., Alcock, S.E., Bennet, J., Lolos, Y.G. and Yosef and A. Khazanov (eds.), Pastoralism in the Shelmerdine, C.W. Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropo- 1997 The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project Part logical Perspectives. Madison: Prehistory Press. I: Overview and the Archaeological Survey. Beckers, B. Hesperia 66(3): 391-494. In press Preliminary Report of the Bheida/Petra Region Frösén, J., Fiema, Z.T., Lavento, M., Danielli, C., Hol- Survey 2010 on the Chronology and Impact of mgren, R., Latikka, J., Rajala, A., Mikkola, E., Lahelma, its Agricultural Terraces and their Environmen- A., Holappa, M. and Juntunen, K. tal Settings. Munjazat. 2004 The 2003 Finnish Jabal Harun Project: Prelimi- Bienkowski, P. nary report. ADAJ 48: 97-116. In press The Eagles Nest: Excavations at Umm al- Frösén, J., Fiema, Z.T., Lavento, M., Koistinen, K. and

-507- ADAJ 55 (2011)

Holmgren, R. Lindner, M., Hübner, U. and Genz, H. 1999 The Finnish Jabal Harun Project. A Preliminary 2001 The Early Bronze Age settlement on Umm Say- Report. ADAJ 43: 369-410. saban north of Petra (Jordan) and its topographi- Frösén, J., Fiema, Z.T., Lavento, M., Koistinen, K., Hol- cal context, report on the 1998/1999 survey. mgren, R. and Gerber, Y. ADAJ 45: 287-310. 2000 The 1999 Finnish Jabal Harun Project: A Pre- Lindner, M., Knauf, E.A., Hübner, U. and Hübl, J. liminary Report. ADAJ 44: 395-424. 1998 From Edomite to Late Islamic: Jabal as-Suffaha Gebel, H.G. North of Petra. ADAJ 42: 225-240. 1988 Late Epipalaeolithic – Aceramic Neolithic Sites Lindner, M., Knauf, E.A. and Zeitler, Z.P. in the Petra-Area. Pp. 67-100 in A.N. Garrard 1996 An Edomite Fortress and a Late Islamic Vil- and H.G. Gebel (eds.), The Prehistory of Jor- lage Near Petra (Jordan): Khirbat Al-Mu‘allaq. dan: The State of Research in 1986. BAR Inter- ADAJ 40: 111-136. national Series 396 (i), Oxford. MacDonald, B. Gebel, H.G. and Starck, J. M. 2007 Archaeological Site Surveying in Jordan: The 1985 Investigations into the Stone Age of the Petra North American Contribution. Pp. 27-36 in T.E. Area. ADAJ 29: 81-114. Levy, P. M. Michèle Daviau, R.W. Younker, and Kirkbride, D. M. Shaer (eds.), Crossing Jordan: North Ameri- 1960 The Excavation of a Neolithic Village at Seyl can Contributions to the Archaeology of Jordan. Aqlat, near Petra. PEQ 92: 136-145. London: Equinox. 1961 Ten Thousand Years of Man’s Activity around Mortensen, P. Petra: Unknown and Little Known Sites Ex- 1970 A Preliminary Study of the Chipped Stone In- cavated or Explored. Illustrated London News dustry from Beidha. Acta Archaeologica 41: 239: 448-451. 1-54. 1962 Excavation of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Village Musil, A. at Seyl Aqlat, Beidha. ADAJ 6: 7-12. 1907 Arabia Petraea (Volume 2). Wien: A. Hölder. 1966 Five Seasons at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Vil- Plog, S., Plog, F. and Wait, W. lage of Beidha in Jordan. PEQ 98: 8-72. 1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. Pp. 383- 1967 Beidha I965: an interim report. PEQ 99:5-10. 421 in M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in Archae- 1968 Beidha 1967: An Interim Report. PEQ 100: 90– ological Method and Theory 1. 96. Robinson, E. and Smith, E. 1984 Beidha 1983: An Interim Report. ADAJ 28: 1841 Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai 9-12. and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of Travels in the Lindner, M. Year 1838. 3 Volumes. London: J. Murray. 1978 Die 3. archäologische Expedition der Naturhis- Russell, K.W. torischen Gesellschaft Nürnberg nach Jordanien. 1993 Ethnohistory of the Bedul Bedouin of Petra. Jahresmitteilungen der Naturhistorischen Ge- ADAJ 37: 15-35. sellschaft Nürnberg: 81-96. 1995 Traditional Bedouin Agriculture at Petra: Eth- 1986 Archäologische Erkundungen in der Petra-Re- noarchaeological Insights into the Evolution of gion 1982-1984. Pp. 87-170 in M. Lindner (ed.), Food Production. SHAJ 5: 693-705. Petra - Neue Ausgrabungen und Entdeckungen. Schiffer, M.B., Sullivan, A.P. and Klinger, T.C. Bad Windscheim-München. 1978 The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World 1999 Late Islamic Villages in the Greater Petra Re- Archaeology 10: 1-29. gion and Medieval “Hormuz”. ADAJ 43: 479- Wright, J.C., Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L., Mantzourani, E., 500. Sutton, S.B. and Sutton, Jr. R.F. Lindner, M. and Farajat, S. 1990 The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: A 1987 An Edomite Mountain Stronghold North of Pe- Preliminary Report. Hesperia 59(4): 579-659. tra (Ba‘ja III). ADAJ 31: 175-185. Zayadine, F. Lindner, M. and Gunsam, E. 1986 A Symposiarch from Petra. Pp. 465-474 in L.T. 1995a A Newly Described Nabataean Temple Near Pe- Geraty and L.G. Herr (eds.), The Archaeology of tra: the Pond Temple. SHAJ 5: 199-214. Jordan and Other Studies Presented to Siegfried 1995b The Unique Nabataean High Place of Ras Slay- H. Horn. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Univer- sil Northwest of Petra and its Topographical sity Press. Context. ADAJ 39: 267-280. 1992 L’espace urbain du grand Pétra, les routes et les 2002 A Fortifed Suburb of Ancient Petra: Shammasa. stations caravaniéres. ADAJ 36: 217-240. ADAJ 46: 225-242.

-508-