Transliterated Name | Source | Name |
---|---|---|
Khirbet et-Tannur | Arabic | خربة التنور |
As the Temple at Khirbet Tannur was built in a seismically active area, it is thought that most rebuilding episodes were initiated soon after earthquakes damaged parts of the Temple. Glueck (1965:128) and Glueck (1965:138) identified three separate building phases (Periods I, II, and III) and a post-Temple Byzantine squatter occupation. McKenzie et al (2013) redated Periods I, II, and III utilizing an improved understanding of the chronology that can be derived from pottery as well as comparison to other excavated sites in the region. Both Glueck (1965:138) and McKenzie et al (2013) anchored their chronology to the start of Period II which was then extrapolated to starting dates for Periods I and III. Glueck (1965:138) dated the start of Period II to the last quarter of the 1st century BCE based on a dedicatory inscription found during excavations. The inscription created a terminus ante quem of 8/7 BCE as it referred to the second year of a Nabatean King whose wife was named Huldu. This would refer to Aretas IV whose first wife was Huldu and whose reign began in 9 BCE. McKenzie et al (2002:50), however, noticed that the the inscription was not found in situ and that a bowl found underneath paving stones that were put in place soon before Period II construction dates to the late first century CE along with two other bowls which date to the first half of the second century CE. This pottery and comparison to other sites led them to date Period II construction to the first half of the second century CE. McKenzie et al (2013:72) considered it likely that the inscription with a 7/8 BCE date referred to the Period I Temple rather than the Period II Temple as was assumed by Glueck (1965:138). It is unclear why McKenzie et al (2013) date initial Nabatean worship at the site to the late 2nd century BCE if the inscription suggests that Period I construction began shortly before 8/7 BCE. Perhaps initial worship at the site preceded construction of surviving structures. McKenzie et al (2013)'s dates are used in the table below:
Period | Start Date | End Date | Comments |
---|---|---|---|
I | Late 2nd century BCE | 1st half of 2nd century CE |
|
II | 1st half of 2nd century CE | 3rd century CE |
|
III | 3rd century CE | 363 CE |
|
Byzantine | 363 CE | 634 CE ? |
|
A dedicatory inscription dated to 8/7 BCE indicates building activity around this time which could have been a response to seismic damage.
Glueck (1965:92) found Altar-Base I from Period I severely damaged
probably by an earthquake
which may have precipitated the rebuild that began Period II.
McKenzie et al (2013:47) dated Period II construction, which would have occurred soon after the End of Period I
earthquake, to the first half of the 2nd century CE.
McKenzie et al (2002:50) noted that a bowl found underneath paving stones that were put in place soon before Period II construction
dates to the late first century CE along with two other bowls which date to the first half of the second century CE.
This pottery and comparison to other sites led them to date Period II construction to the first half of the second century CE.
The end of Period II would have occurred shortly before Period III construction which
McKenzie et al (2013:62) suggests
probably began in the 3rd century CE in association with other repairs after an earthquake
. It appears that this date is
extrapolated from the date for Period II construction which is chronologically anchored by pottery found in stratigraphic position.
McKenzie et al (2002:73)
noted similarities in the sculpture of Period III with late antique sculpture in Egypt which suggests the
possibility of a date in the third century A.D.
.
Glueck (1965:106) was not entirely sure that Period II ended with an earthquake
stating that earthquake tremors or age or both may have brought about the collapse
of the Period II Altar-Base.
Glueck (1965:106) characterized Altar-Base II as aesthetically
attractive but architecturally weak
noting shoddy internal construction particularly the bottom foundation stones
(Glueck, 1965:107).
McKenzie et al (2013:62) reports a further earthquake
after Period II construction
damaged the colonnades of the Court
and that the steps of the Altar Platform were repaired using column drums.
Period III ended when a violent earthquake undoubtedly destroyed [the] entire temple
(Glueck, 1965:122).
McKenzie et al (2013:47,62) date the end of Period III to the middle of the 4th century CE attributing Period III destruction to the southern
Cyril Quake of 363 CE. McKenzie et al (2013:159) used the
southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE as a terminus ante quem for some glassware that they concluded
were of a 3rd or early to mid 4th century CE date indicating that they may have used the date of the 363 CE earthquake to refine dating of some artefactual remains rather than the other way around.
Hence although they may be right that Period III ended in 363 CE, I am expanding the possible dates for this seismic destruction to the 3rd-4th centuries CE.
perhaps by an earthquakeexcept for part of the molded angle block on the southeast corner.
down to the bases of three of it's columns
because it had been damaged severely, probably by an earthquake. In addition to the east face being
almost completely destroyed, it's
north side [was] leaning dangerously outward
ornate pylon of the east facade of the raised inner temple enclosure collapsed at the end of Period II.(Glueck, 1965:156) - speculative
Near the northeast corner of the forecourt are the remains, now only one course high, of the outline of a 2 m square altar, seemingly originally to have belonged to Period II. Destroyed or badly damaged at the end of that period, it was repaired and enlarged in Period III. (Glueck, 1965:157)
aesthetically attractive but architecturally weaknoting shoddy internal construction particularly the bottom foundation stones. (Glueck, 1965:107)
earthquake tremors or age or both may have brought about the collapseof the Period II Altar-Base indicating that he was not entirely sure that the end of Period II coincides with earthquake destruction.
further earthquakeafter Period II construction damaged
the colonnades of the Courtand that
the steps of the Altar Platform were repaired using column drums.
The violent earthquake that undoubtedly destroyed the entire Temple of Tannur in Period III, caused what was left of the south wall of Altar-Base III to bulge out and made its steps sag.(Glueck, 1965:122)
Effect | Description | Intensity |
---|---|---|
Collapsed Walls | Glueck (1965:90) found that
the entire eastern face facade of the Period I Altar had been destroyed, perhaps by an earthquakeexcept for part of the molded angle block on the southeast corner. |
VIII + |
Tilted Walls | Glueck (1965:92) reports that the walls of the Period I Altar
was leaning dangerously outwardon it's north side ![]() ![]() Sub-II pavement laid against base of north side of Altar-Pedestal of Period I Glueck (1965 |
VI + |
Fallen Columns | Glueck (1965:142) reports that
the eastern facade of the Period I Altar had been destroyed, down to the bases of three of it's columns |
V + |
Effect | Description | Intensity |
---|---|---|
Displaced Walls | The ornate pylon of the east facade of the raised inner temple enclosure collapsed at the end of Period II.(Glueck, 1965:156) - speculative |
VII + |
Collapsed Walls | Near the northeast corner of the forecourt are the remains, now only one course high, of the outline of a 2 m square altar, seemingly originally to have belonged to Period II. Destroyed or badly damaged at the end of that period, it was repaired and enlarged in Period III. (Glueck, 1965:157) |
VIII + |
aesthetically attractive but architecturally weaknoting shoddy internal construction particularly the bottom foundation stones (Glueck, 1965:107). Glueck (1965:106) was also unsure that an earthquake damaged Period II structures stating that
earthquake tremors or age or both may have brought about the collapseof the Period II Altar-Base. Considering this, the Intensity estimate is downgraded to VI-VII (6-7).
Effect | Description | Intensity |
---|---|---|
Fallen Columns | McKenzie et al (2013:62) reports a further earthquakeafter Period II construction damaged the colonnades of the Courtand that the steps of the Altar Platform were repaired using column drums. |
V + |
Displaced Masonry Blocks in Columns | McKenzie et al (2013:62) reports a further earthquakeafter Period II construction damaged the colonnades of the Courtand that the steps of the Altar Platform were repaired using column drums. |
VIII + |
Effect | Description | Intensity |
---|---|---|
Displaced Masonry Blocks | The violent earthquake that undoubtedly destroyed the entire Temple of Tannur in Period III, caused what was left of the south wall of Altar-Base III to bulge out and made its steps sag.(Glueck, 1965:122) |
VIII + |
Folded steps and kerbs | The violent earthquake that undoubtedly destroyed the entire Temple of Tannur in Period III, caused what was left of the south wall of Altar-Base III to bulge out and made its steps sag.(Glueck, 1965:122) |
VI + |
Articles and Books
Glueck, N. (1965). Deities and Dolphins.
McKenzie, J., et al. (2002). "Reconstruction of the Nabataean Temple Complex at Khirbet Et-tannur." Palestine exploration quarterly 134: 44-83.
McKenzie, J. S., Reyes, A. T., and Greene, J. A., “The Context of the Khirbet et-Tannur Zodiac, Jordan” ARAM 24 (2012 [2014]): 379–420.
Excavation Reports
McKenzie, J. S., et al. (2013)
The Nabataean Temple at Khirbet et-Tannur, Jordan, Volume 1
Architecture and Religion. Final Report on Nelson Glueck's 1937 Excavation. Annual of ASOR. 67
McKenzie, J. S., et al. (2013). The Nabataean Temple at Khirbet et-Tannur, Jordan, Volume 2 —
Cultic Offerungs, Vessels, and other Specialist Reports. Annual of ASOR. 68
Websites
Khirbet et-Tannur Nabataean Temple Project, Jordan - University of Oxford
Khirbet et-Tannur Nabataean Temple Project, Jordan - University of Oxford - Another webpage
Khirbet Tannur Booklet from Oxford University
Khirbet Tannur photostream from APAAME