• Fig. 1 Location Map
  Fig. 1
  
  Map showing the location of Khirbat Iskandar
  
  Richard et al. (2018)
  from Richard et al. (2018)

• Fig. 1 Location Map
  Fig. 1
  
  Map showing the location of Khirbat Iskandar
  
  Richard et al. (2018)
  from Richard et al. (2018)

• Fig. 5 Wall Collapse
  Figure 5
  
  Square C08: the Phase 3B structure at top, the Phase 3A pillar base at bottom (photo: G. Kochheiser)
  
  Click on image to open the image in a new tab
  
  Richard et al. (2020)
  from from Richard et al. (2020)
• Square C06 photo by JW
  Square C06 looking N
  
  Click on image to open in a new tab
  
  Photo by Jefferson Williams - 30 Jan. 2026

• Fig. 5 Wall Collapse
  Figure 5
  
  Square C08: the Phase 3B structure at top, the Phase 3A pillar base at bottom (photo: G. Kochheiser)
  
  Click on image to open the image in a new tab
  
  Richard et al. (2020)
  from from Richard et al. (2020)
• Square C06 photo by JW
  Square C06 looking N
  
  Click on image to open in a new tab
  
  Photo by Jefferson Williams - 30 Jan. 2026

• from Richard et al. (2020:605)

The 2016 season was extremely important for the new information uncovered about the architectural plan and the EB IV phasing/ceramics in Area C. We will, in the future, return to investigate the important EB III/IV transition and earlier EB III levels.

In Area B, the excavations in Square B01 provided us, finally, with information about the Phase C2 settlement, about which little was known beyond the fact that it was the construction phase of the outer fortifications. The significant, newly revealed work activity area is of great interest, along with the clarification of the earlier mudbrick/ ashy materials just below the Phase C1 settlement.

Although there are still questions about the fortifications vis-à-vis the EB III-IV occupational remains, we believe that we have a good grasp of the construction history of the fortification system at the site, and hope to find even more definitive evidence in future.

• from Richard et al. (2023:523)

Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan is one of the rare sites in the southern Levant to include substantial Early Bronze (EB) III and IV occupation on the tell. The 2019 excavations, which afforded stratigraphic evidence for continuous occupation at the EB III/IV nexus, affirm the earlier postulated view of cultural continuity between the two. These data shed light on the controversial “collapse” of EB III urbanism, the mechanisms of recovery in the post-“collapse” period, and the subsequent ruralization during the EB IV period. This new dataset questions traditional views of collapse, suggesting rather that societal transformation in current theory resonates with the Khirbat Iskandar evidence along with a range of social constructs, like recovery, resilience, agency, along with transformation.

• from Richard et al. (2023:523-525)

The backdrop to this paper is the long controversial history of scholarly debate over the causes for the demise of cities at the end of Early Bronze (EB) III (the urban “collapse”), the transition to the subsequent Early Bronze IV/Intermediate Bronze Age (EB IV/IBA) period (continuity or complete break), and the nature of the EB IV culture itself (nomadic interlude or rural period). For in-depth background on the history of these issues, see, e.g., Richard (1987; 2014; 2020), D’Andrea (2014), Dever (1980), Prag (2001; 2014), Philip (2001), Long (2003) and see below. Integral to these issues is the now widely accepted higher chronology for the Early Bronze Age of the southern Levant (Regev et al. 2012; Regev, de Miroschedji and Boaretto 2012; Höflmayer 2014). The recent radiometric (14C)/Bayesian modeling strategies (the so-called second radiometric revolution) have shifted traditional dates by some 250 years: EB III dates are currently thought to date to 2800/2750-2500 Cal (not 2500-2300) BCE. Even more significant, the EB IV – now a 500-year period – dates to 2500-1950 Cal (not 2300-2000) BCE.

This new periodization effectively makes moot several issues outstanding and controversial in the past. For example, as regards the demise of cities, the accepted view held that Egyptian raids of the 5th-6th dynasties were almost certainly germane in some fashion to the destruction/abandonment of EB III cities ca. 2300 BCE (the urban collapse). The new radiometric-derived dates locking in the end of EB III to 2500 Cal BCE militate against and indeed eliminate such raids as contributory cause for the “collapse” of EB III. Similarly, dramatic climate change (see especially Weiss 1997) must now also be considered moot, as the 4.2 ka BP climatic event (ca. 2300/2260 BCE) is far too late to have factored into the EB III collapse (Richard 2020: 423). Regarding the transition to EB IV, 14C determinations at several sites have tended to support the higher date for the beginning of EB IV to around 2500 BCE, for example Abu en-Ni‘aj (Falconer and Fall 2016: 7; 2017; Fall, Falconer and Höflmayer 2021) and Khirbat Iskandar (Holdorf 2010b; see Regev, de Miroschedji and Boaretto 2012: 546, fig. 2). A new AMS 14C sequence of dates from the latter site affirms this early date (Fall et al. 2022). A notable challenge posed by the modified dates is a lack of stratified sites and sequences of 14C determinations to stretch EB IV occupation for 500 years, e.g., Bayesian modeling of the multiple phases at Abu en-Ni‘aj suggests EB IV ends ca. 2200 Cal BCE (Fall, Falconer and Hoflmayer 2021). Nevertheless, the late EB IV materials are harbingers of the local Middle Bronze Age (MB I) tradition and suggestive of late occupation in the southern Levant (D’Andrea 2018).

The above rather dramatic re-evaluations of the second half of the third millennium, BCE notwithstanding, arguably the most consequential change in scholarly views is the noticeable absence of the terms “Dark Age/Nomadic Interlude” for the EB IV (and see earlier, Dever 1973: 56). In the past, it was assumed that after collapse there followed a dark age. Excavation, however, has revealed a far more complex organizational system in the EB IV than mere pastoral-nomadic subsistence. A range of permanent settlement sites (e.g., Khirbat Iskandar, Bab adh-Dhra‘, Khirbet el-Meiyiteh, Tell Abu en- Ni‘aj, Tell al-Hammam, Khirbat al-Batrawy, Hazor, Megiddo) belie the nature of the period as a nomadic interlude. An earlier paucity of settlement sites (and no “urban traits”) appeared to support the view of nomadism for the period (Dever 1980: chart, p. 26). The number of permanent sites today displaying “urban traits” has, however, led to the proposal that the EB IV be reevaluated as a “rurally complex” period, in which pastoralism co-existed (Richard 2020: esp. 424). Other notable shifts in traditional views find most scholars now embracing the idea of cultural continuity at the EB III/IV interface; even the break at the EB/MB transition (Dever 1980) is now being questioned (Cohen 2009; D’Andrea 2018; Kennedy 2015).

This article reconsiders traditional views on “collapse” at the end of the EB III period. There have been myriad explanations for the destruction and/or abandonment of the fortified EB III settlements: Egyptian raids (above), climate change (above), nomadic infiltration, the ebb and flow of ruralism, the cessation of Egyptian trade, etc. (see history of research cited above). That the transition from urban to rural was a complex, probably multifactor process (Richard 1987; 2014) that began as early as EB II (Dever 1980) is likely. Whatever the ultimate causes driving the “collapse,” its lengthy demise militates against a sudden and/or devastating catastrophic event (Diamond 2005; Tainter 1988; Yoffee and Cowgill 1988; Weiss 1997). In a reconsideration of collapse theory, recent scholarship posits “collapse” as “part of a normal cyclical pattern” (Middleton 2017: 42), a process that presupposes and encompasses a post-collapse period: in la longue durée, collapse invariably leads to a period of transformation (eventually). For example, that transformation often leads to the regeneration of complex societies e.g., the regeneration of MBA urbanism in the northern Levant (Schwartz and Nichols 2006; McAnany and Yoffee 2010, and see Höflmayer 2017); notably, current theory looks to comprehend the post-collapse period, no matter what the outcomes (and see Faulseit 2016b: 18). These newer views on collapse theory have much to commend them for the EB III/IV interface as well. For a complete range of views on collapse, see McAnany and Yoffee (2010); Faulseit (2016a; 2016b: 3-26); Tainter (2016: 27-39); and Middleton (2017: 1-50).

This article maintains that post-collapse societal recovery and regeneration is applicable to rurally complex societies as well, in particular, the EB IV permanent sites of the southern Levant (Richard 2020). Thus, we look to contextualize the stratigraphic profile at Khirbat Iskandar within the framework of collapse as a continuum or a process, utilizing several theoretical constructs, such as resilience, agency, transformation /metamorphosis, as vehicles of explanation for the stratified evidence from seven continuous phases at Khirbat Iskandar

• from Richard et al. (2023:526-528)

The superposition of EB III/IV strata in both Squares C6 and C8 offers a new and extraordinary lens through which to view the post-collapse trajectory at the site. Assuming that the above stratigraphic analysis is correct, then following the EB III destruction: 1) there was no occupational break on site; 2) there was an EB III recovery in 3 phases, and 3) there is continuity at the EB III/IV nexus. These three inferences will serve as hypotheses to test next season.

This stratigraphic evidence for EB III/EB IV continuity at Khirbat Iskandar, along with the 7-phase post-collapse trajectory, is unique in the southern Levant. The urban/rural transition finds its closest parallel in the Stratum 6/Period E settlement at Beth Yerah, described as a transitional phase from urban to post-urban. The latter, suggested to resemble early EB IV at Jericho, Phase Sultan IIId1 seems, however, to be more of an abatement, followed by an abandonment (Greenberg and Eisenberg 2006: 157). At the micro level, the new evidence from Khirbat Iskandar affords insight on antecedent forces driving the transformation to this prosperous EB IV settlement (as early as Phase 1); on a macro level, the new dataset has the potential to elucidate the Transjordanian regional development of EB III-IV strata on the mounded sites.

Granted the need for further exposure of these levels, the new dataset, nonetheless, hints at the dynamics underlying momentous events along the collapse/post-collapse continuum. It also alludes to the mechanics of continuity and change in sociopolitical organization, highlighting tradition and memory, the dynamic of growth, resilience, and finally transformation. The following interpretive framework tentatively links the 7 stratified occupational phases to a range of social constructs, like recovery, agency, and transformation in the second half of the third millennium BCE.

Beginning with the probable collapse/destruction in Area C EB III Pre-Phase 1d (equals the Area B destruction), there is no clear picture to draw yet as to its cause(s), whether natural or military or a combination. The pertinent issue here concerns the recovery set in motion by the agency of survivors looking to maintain the sustainability of the site in the aftermath of collapse (evident in EB III Pre-Phases 1a-c). Adapting antecedent Early Bronze Age traditions – the notion of keeping traditions alive being a defining concept of resilience (Middleton 2017: 42) – testifies to the resilience of the surviving population in the aftermath of collapse. Although speculative, the late defensive rebuild in Area B may be an indicator of surviving elites re-establishing a traditional symbol of urban power. Despite the geomorphological data suggesting anthropogenic and climatic degradation of the floodplain beginning in the latter part of EB III (Cordova 2007; Cordova and Long 2010), the maintenance of a traditional agricultural/horticultural/ herding regimen is certainly indicated, another driver of the recovery.

The unbroken stratified profile at the interface of EB III/IV now raises questions about describing the EB IV period as a recovery (see earlier Richard and Long 2010; D’Andrea 2014). EB III Pre-Phases 1a-1c identify the recovery and reoccupation within the EB III. Absent evidence for a destruction layer in Area C at the EB III/IV nexus, it may be more accurate to describe the transition to the EB IV as a transformation to rural organizational strategies enabling the continuation of settlement, but on an alternative orbit in the absence of urban infrastructure. Although without more comparative analysis of EB III/IV material culture and economic foundations, the mechanisms of this transformation remain shrouded, still the stratified profile of 7 phases depicts a picture of continuity amid change. Phases 1a-c exhibit Early Bronze Age urban traditions gradually transforming and inaugurating ruralism at the site, which by all accounts, is visible in the EB IV Phase 1 settlement. It is almost as though the settlers and settlement imperceptibly metamorphosized from a complex sociopolitical and economic organization into a rurally complex organizational system at the EB III/IV interface. It is hoped that the stages of this transformation will become clearer with more extensive exposure of the EB III Phases 1a-c in future seasons. Be that as it may, the only logical inference is that the EB III survivors were the agents of recovery, continuity, and change as evidenced in the Phase 1 early EB IV ceramic corpus, in which the first appearance of new influences becomes apparent.

On firmer ground, it is safe to infer that the process was gradual and perhaps inevitable, again with reference to the geomorphological study showing accelerated erosion of the flood plain occurring concurrently at the start of the EB IV period, ca. 2500 Cal BCE (Cordova 2007; Cordova and Long 2010). This underscores the lessened fertility of the fields, yet pollen and seeds pointing to a diverse agricultural corpus of grapes, olives, dates, and barley witness to a level of sustainability. Such a continued diverse agricultural regime must have underpinned the continued EB IV occupation at the site, along with trade and interconnectivity with Syrian traditions. Given the hybrid nature of the Phase 2-3 ceramic corpus – Early Bronze Age tradition merged with the dominant Syrian EB IV “caliciform” culture – it is reasonable to surmise the direction from which the impetus to growth and prosperity originated. The Phase 2 settlement, which developed into a gateway in Phase 3 points to a reinvigoration of social organization at the site. Ultimately, however, the destroyed floodplain and eroded wadi cumulatively led to abandonment of the site sometime near the end of the third millennium BCE, probably hastened by the 4.2 ka BP event.