Jabal Khubthah

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).

Petra - Introduction Webpage

from Petra - Introduction - click link to open new tab

Maps, Aerial Views, and Plans

Maps

Fig. 1 - Location Map from Tholbecq et al (2014)

Fig. 1

Localization of the Jabal Khubthah within Petra (S. Delacros).

Tholbecq et al (2014)

Aerial Views

Jabal Khubthah in Google Earth

Jabal Khubthah in Google Earth - structures are at bottom left

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Fig. 16 - 3D View of the

Fig. 16

3D Model of the Jabal Khubthah massif, seen from the northwest

(Th. Fournet, MAFP/Ifpo 2018)

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Jabal Khubthah massif from Tholbecq et al (2018)

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

Plan of Jabal Khubthah

Plan of Jabal Khubthah

Tholbecq et al (2019)

from Tholbecq et al (2019)
Fig. 17 - Plan of

Fig. 17

Plan of the Jabal Khubthah summit plateau

(Th. Fournet, MAFP/Ifpo 2018 on a topographic base map of S. Delcros/N. Paridaens)

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Jabal Khubthah summit plateau from Tholbecq et al (2018)
Fig. 25 - Plan of

Fig. 25

Plan Jabal Khubthah summit plateau highlighting structures that may belong to a first occupation of the sector

(Th. Fournet, MAFP/Ifpo 2018 on a topographic base map of S. Delcros/N. Paridaens)

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Jabal Khubthah highlighting structures that may belong to a first occupation of the sector from Tholbecq et al (2018)

Magnified

Plan of Jabal Khubthah

Plan of Jabal Khubthah

Tholbecq et al (2019)

from Tholbecq et al (2019)
Fig. 17 - Plan of

Fig. 17

Plan of the Jabal Khubthah summit plateau

(Th. Fournet, MAFP/Ifpo 2018 on a topographic base map of S. Delcros/N. Paridaens)

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Jabal Khubthah summit plateau from Tholbecq et al (2018)
Fig. 25 - Plan of

Fig. 25

Plan Jabal Khubthah summit plateau highlighting structures that may belong to a first occupation of the sector

(Th. Fournet, MAFP/Ifpo 2018 on a topographic base map of S. Delcros/N. Paridaens)

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Jabal Khubthah highlighting structures that may belong to a first occupation of the sector from Tholbecq et al (2018)

Area Plans

Sector 6000

Normal Size

Fig. 3 - Orthophoto of

Fig. 3

The ortho-photography of structure excavated in Sector 6000

By N. Paridaens

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Sector 6000 from Tholbecq et al (2019)

Magnified

Fig. 3 - Orthophoto of

Fig. 3

The ortho-photography of structure excavated in Sector 6000

By N. Paridaens

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Sector 6000 from Tholbecq et al (2019)

Bath Complex

Normal Size

Fig. 2 - Plan of

Fig. 2

Plan of the Jabal Khubthah bath complex at the end of the 2017 campaign

(MAFP/Ifpo - Th. Fournet 2018, on a topographic base map of S. Delcros/N. Paridaens)

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Jabal Khubthah bath complex from Tholbecq et al (2018)
Fig. 18 - Plan of

Fig. 18

Plan of Jabal Khubthah bath complex at the end of the 2017 season showing restoration work locations

(Th. Fournet, MAFP/Ifpo 2018 on a topographic base map of S. Delcros/N. Paridaens)

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Jabal Khubthah bath complex showing restoration work locations from Tholbecq et al (2018)

Magnified

Fig. 2 - Plan of

Fig. 2

Plan of the Jabal Khubthah bath complex at the end of the 2017 campaign

(MAFP/Ifpo - Th. Fournet 2018, on a topographic base map of S. Delcros/N. Paridaens)

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Jabal Khubthah bath complex from Tholbecq et al (2018)
Fig. 18 - Plan of

Fig. 18

Plan of Jabal Khubthah bath complex at the end of the 2017 season showing restoration work locations

(Th. Fournet, MAFP/Ifpo 2018 on a topographic base map of S. Delcros/N. Paridaens)

Tholbecq et al (2019)

Jabal Khubthah bath complex showing restoration work locations from Tholbecq et al (2018)

Phasing

East complex (Sector 6000 aka Secteur 6)

from Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019)
3 main phases of construction and occupation
two main occupation periods (Nabatean and Late Roman/Early Byzantine - 3rd-5th century CE)
two destruction episodes, probably both seismic; the first ending Phase 2 and the second ending the occupation in Phase 3

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

Discussion

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) acknowledged difficulties in dating this presumed seismic destruction arriving at a date based on ceramics of the 4th century CE. It was suggested that the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE could have been responsible.

References

Tholbecq et al (2019)

from Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019:122)

Dating. The dating of this phase is difficult. The post quem date for the beginning of this phase is the end of the 1st c. A.D. The relevant soil deposits located outside and against walls 6000/6001 are loci 6008 and 6016 (see Fig. 5). The former appears like a dump with a lot of mixed residual sherds, both Nabataean and Roman of the 2nd-3rd century date. On the other hand, locus 6017, i.e., one directly below locus 6008, contained only cooking pots and tableware dated to the 1st c. A.D. Pottery from the sounding inside the structure, i.e., the corner between walls 6000 and 6021 was only slightly more informative. Upon the removal of the pavement 6011, the soil loci excavated were from the top: 6020, 6022 and 6023 (see Fig. 6). All contained a mix of Nabataean, Late Roman and Byzantine sherds of the 2nd-3rd centuries, the latter date 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 A.D.

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

Discussion

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) acknowledged difficulties in dating this presumed seismic destruction arriving at a date based on ceramics of the 5th or early 6th century CE.

References

Tholbecq et al (2019)

from Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019:125)

Dating. Notable is the presence of the 5th century pottery (loci 6003 and 6005, 6009, 6010). All loci mentioned here also contained 4th century sherds and locus 6010 yielded fragments of ceramic lamps decorated with crosses. As mentioned above, installation 6007 stands on soil locus 6008 which contained 4th century sherds with a lot of residuals (Nabataean-Roman of the 2nd-3rd century date) and also one Robinson M334 amphora (see Fig. 5). It is therefore reasonable to suggest that of the earthquake of A.D. 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 A.D. 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

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed walls inferred from rebuilding evidence	East complex (Sector 6000 aka Secteur 6) Plan of Jabal Khubthah Tholbecq et al (2019) Fig. 3 The ortho-photography of structure excavated in Sector 6000 By N. Paridaens Tholbecq et al (2019)		Description Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019:122-123, 125) 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 inferred from rebuilding evidence such as blocking of doors and strengthening of walls in Phase 3 construction. Phase 3 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 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. The main change was the blocking of door 6012, which took the form of a very irregular six courses of stones, measuring altogether 0.68 x 0.60 x 0.80 m (see Fig. 9). The blocking is tight but made of very irregular stones or fragments and, in fact, resembles more of “pilaster” 6026 (Phase 1) than the masonry of wall 6002. 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?). - Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019:122-123, 125)

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

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed arches and Stone Tumble suggesting Wall Collapse	East complex (Sector 6000 aka Secteur 6) - locus 6004 Plan of Jabal Khubthah Tholbecq et al (2019) Fig. 3 The ortho-photography of structure excavated in Sector 6000 By N. Paridaens Tholbecq et al (2019)	Figure 15 The main stone tumble, locus 6004. View from SE. By N. Paridaens Tholbecq et al (2019)	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 - Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) 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)
Collapsed arches	East complex (Sector 6000 aka Secteur 6) - locus 6004 Plan of Jabal Khubthah Tholbecq et al (2019) Fig. 3 The ortho-photography of structure excavated in Sector 6000 By N. Paridaens Tholbecq et al (2019)	Figure 11 Remains of both arches as collapsed on pavement 6011. Walls 6000/6001 and superstructure 6027 on the left side. View from the NW. By Z.T. Fiema Tholbecq et al (2019)	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) - Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019)

End of Phase 2 Earthquake - 4th century CE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed walls inferred from rebuilding evidence	East complex (Sector 6000 aka Secteur 6) Plan of Jabal Khubthah Tholbecq et al (2019) Fig. 3 The ortho-photography of structure excavated in Sector 6000 By N. Paridaens Tholbecq et al (2019)		Description Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019:122-123, 125) 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 inferred from rebuilding evidence such as blocking of doors and strengthening of walls in Phase 3 construction. Phase 3 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 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. The main change was the blocking of door 6012, which took the form of a very irregular six courses of stones, measuring altogether 0.68 x 0.60 x 0.80 m (see Fig. 9). The blocking is tight but made of very irregular stones or fragments and, in fact, resembles more of “pilaster” 6026 (Phase 1) than the masonry of wall 6002. 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?). - Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019:122-123, 125)	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 early 6th centuries CE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed arches Stone Tumble suggesting Wall Collapse	East complex (Sector 6000 aka Secteur 6) - locus 6004 Plan of Jabal Khubthah Tholbecq et al (2019) Fig. 3 The ortho-photography of structure excavated in Sector 6000 By N. Paridaens Tholbecq et al (2019)	Figure 15 The main stone tumble, locus 6004. View from SE. By N. Paridaens Tholbecq et al (2019)	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 - Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) 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)	VI+ VIII +
Collapsed arches	East complex (Sector 6000 aka Secteur 6) - locus 6004 Plan of Jabal Khubthah Tholbecq et al (2019) Fig. 3 The ortho-photography of structure excavated in Sector 6000 By N. Paridaens Tholbecq et al (2019)	Figure 11 Remains of both arches as collapsed on pavement 6011. Walls 6000/6001 and superstructure 6027 on the left side. View from the NW. By Z.T. Fiema Tholbecq et al (2019)	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) - Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019)	VI+

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).

References

Books and Articles

FOURNET & PARIDAENS 2018 T. Fournet & N. Paridaens, « Les Bains du Jabal Khubthah. La campagne d'octobre 2017 », In L. Tholbecq (Ed.), Mission archéologique française à Pétra (Jordanie). Rapport des campagnes archéologiques 2017-2018, Bruxelles, Presses de 1'ULB, p. 93-116.

Tholbecq, L., et al. (2014). "The “high place” of Jabal Khubthah: new insights on a Nabataean-Roman suburb of Petra." Journal of Roman Archaeology 27: 374-391.

Excavation Reports

Tholbecq, L., et al. (2018) Mission archéologique française à Pétra. Rapport des campagnes archéologiques 2017-2018

Tholbecq, L., et al. (2019). Mission archéologique française à Pétra. Rapport des campagnes archéologiques 2018-2019.

Websites

Jabal al-Khubtha at Universes in Universe

Petra - Jabal Khubthah