Jabal Khubthah Aerial view of Jabal Khubthah

APAAME

  • Reference: APAAME_20181017_MND-0190
  • Photographer: Matthew Neale Dalton
  • Credit: Aerial Photographic Archive for Archaeology in the Middle East
  • Copyright: Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works


Click on Image for high resolution magnifiable image


Names
Transliterated Name Source Name
Jabal Khubthah Arabic جابال كهوبتهاه
Jabal Umm al Amr Arabic جابال ومم ال امر
the "high place(s)"
Introduction

Jabal Khubthah also known as the "high place" in Petra has long been thought to have been associated with a religious "sacred space" - something common in "Semitic religions" ( Tholbecq et al, 2014). Excavations have indicated that it is a multi functional space that is not exclusively cultic ( Tholbecq et al, 2014).

Maps and Plans Chronology
Phasing

In the east complex (Sector 6000 aka Secteur 6), Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) identified 3 main phases of construction and occupation, two main occupation periods (Nabatean and Late Roman/Early Byzantine - 3rd-5th century CE), and two destruction episodes, probably both seismic; the first ending Phase 2 and the second ending the occupation in Phase 3. Phasing is summarized below:

Phase Date Comments
1 Nabatean
  • construction and initial use of the building
  • it is reasonable to assume that the Phase 1 structure was constructed sometime in the later 1st c. AD and perhaps remained in a relation with the bath complex at the top of al-Khubthah.
2 Late Roman/
Early Byzantine
  • While it is not possible to fully assess the length of occupation in Phase 1 and the dating of Phase 2 is difficult (infra), apparently, major modifications took place at the excavated building resulting in a substantial expansion of its size
  • The dating of this phase is difficult. The post quem date for the beginning of this phase is the end of the lst c. AD
  • A 2nd-3rd century date is perhaps closer indicating the beginning of Phase 2
  • As for the end of this phase, its dating also depends on when the pavement was laid out - Phase 2 or 3 (vide infra pilasters 6014 and 6014); it could have happened sometime in the 4th century, presumably as the result of the 363 earthquake. All in all, Phase 2 may perhaps be dated to the 3rd-4th centuries AD
3 Byzantine
  • The last occupational phase in the building excavated in Sector 6000 also witnessed some significant changes. It is reasonable to assume that these changes were initiated as the result of a previous destruction. Such destruction could have been caused by the disastrous earthquake of May 19, 363, otherwise well documented to have affected Petra.
  • The structure had suffered a massive destruction at the end of Phase 3, which bears strong features of tectonic origins. Both arches collapsed on the floor, the eastern one preserving the original pattern of several voussoirs.
  • It is therefore reasonable to suggest that of the earthquake of AD 363 ended the duration of Phase 2, and Phase 3 began soon after that seismic event, with the reconstruction of the structure. It seems that not long afterwards, another earthquake was responsible for the final destruction and the subsequent abandonment of the structure excavated in Sector 6000. It is tempting to propose the enigmatic AD 419 tremor recognized on at least one site in the Petra Valley as responsible for that final destruction. However, other seismic events of the 5th or even early 6th century, which are not historically documented, might have also been responsible.

End of Phase 2 Earthquake - 4th century CE ?

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) acknowledged difficulties in dating this presumed seismic destruction but suggested that the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE was responsible.

End of Phase 3 Earthquake - 5th or 6th centuries CE

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) encountered difficulties in dating this presumed seismic destruction and suggested that the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE or a later earthquake was responsible.

Seismic Effects
End of Phase 2 Earthquake - 4th century CE ?

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) did not list much in the way of direct archaeoseismic evidence for the destruction at the end of Phase 2 and the destruction appears to be largely inferred from rebuilding evidence such as strengthening of walls and blocking of doors in Phase 3 construction.

The modifications in Phase 3 indicate that some parts of the enclosing walls might have collapsed and that the stability of reconstructed walls was of major concern. A new (?) system of roof support was also introduced. If pavement 6011 was already in situ (partially or in its entirety) during Phase 2, which is a distinct possibility, some of its flagstones appear to have been titled, caved in, cracked or replaced. Of course these phenomena might relate to the destruction at the end of Phase 2 and/or at the end of Phase 3.

While the spatial extent of the structure did not change, the door in wall 6002 was blocked, two arch-supporting pilasters were constructed on each side of the blocked door, the flagstone pavement was laid out (or partially re-laid or vide supra) inside and a small "banquette" 6015 was inserted in the corner space between wall 6000 and the eastern pilaster. The combined walls 6000 and 6001 were raised up by constructing a section 6027 on their preserved tops. Furthermore, a large support, locus 6007, was constructed on the exterior and abutting wall 6000. While being practical measures to strengthen the overall design of the structure, these changes also bear a somewhat haphazard, makeshift appearance; perhaps reflecting some kind of impoverishment of the site.
...
Pilasters for transversal arches running NW-SE were installed on each side of the blocked door. The NE pilaster, locus 6013, is 0.59 x 0.27 m and of the preserved height of 0.79 m (three courses high; masonry featuring stretcher, stretcher and 2 headers). It appears as if integrating with wall 6002 but in fact it is "pushed" into the southern face of this wall, perhaps indicating that wall 6002 was indeed damaged in the destruction ending Phase 2.
...
On the exterior, the combined line of walls 6000 and 6001 was reinforced by a very poorly constructed superstructure, locus 6027, which is currently the uppermost course (ca. 0.55-0.67 m wide and ca. 0.30-0.35 m high) for both walls in the outer face and 2-3 uppermost courses in the inner face (See Fig. 10). Very irregular and often broken stones of varying sizes were used for this purpose. Again, this indicates that these walls suffered at the end of Phase 2 but it is also possible, although much less likely, that the reinforcement took place after the final collapse (i.e., a casual re-occupation?).

End of Phase 3 Earthquake - 5th or 6th centuries CE

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) described seismic effects as follows:

The structure had suffered a massive destruction at the end of Phase 3, which bears strong features of tectonic origins. Both arches collapsed on the floor, the eastern one preserving the original pattern of several voussoirs.
...
At locus 6004 was the main, very dense, stone tumble (Fig. 15 ), the other loci mentioned in this section were also parts of the overall collapse and differed from each other only by the intensity and the slightly varying color of soil matrix. There is no reason to suggest that there was more than just one collapse but the uppermost layers (6003, 6005) may also have resulted from the gradual decay and the further deterioration of the walls.
Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) described the collapsed arches as follows:
Of the two arches, the southern portion of the eastern one had collapsed in an uniform row at the end of Phase 3 and the remains of the western one were also evidenced on the southern side of the pavement (Fig. 11 )

Intensity Estimates
End of Phase 2 Earthquake - 4th century CE ?

Effect Description Source Location Intensity
Collapsed Walls inferred from rebuilding evidence VIII +
The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

End of Phase 3 Earthquake - 5th or 6th centuries CE

Effect Description Source Location Intensity
Collapsed Arches Both arches collapsed on the floor VI+
Collapsed Walls At locus 6004 was the main, very dense, stone tumble (Fig. 15 ) VIII +
The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Notes and Further Reading
References