Open this page in a new tab

Khirbet Tannur

Khirbet Tannur Aerial view of Khirbet Tannur

APAAME

  • Reference: APAAME_20141019_DLK-0146.jpg
  • Photographer: ?
  • 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
Khirbet et-Tannur Arabic خربة التنور
Introduction
Introduction

Khirbet Tannur, a Nabatean Temple located atop a flat desolate summit in southern Jordan, was excavated by Nelson Glueck in 1937. The Temple contains three central altars nested like Russian Nesting Dolls. The smallest altar was built first in Period I after which a second altar was built around it during Period II. Finally, a third altar was built encompassing the first two. Khirbet Tannur is close to the King's Highway and is 7 km (4 mi.) north of another temple, Khirbet edh-Dharih, in Wadi La'ban (Marie-Jeanne Roche in Meyers et. al., 1997). Khirbet edh-Dharih is apparently architecturally and stylistically similar to Khirbet Tannur but is better dated which can help sort Khirbet Tannur chronology.

Identification

Khirbet et-Tannur is situated on top of Jebel et-Tannur in Jordan (550 m above sea level, map reference 217.042). It is an isolated mountain between Wadi el-Hesa (Zared) and Wadi el-'Aban. The site is approached from the southeast by a single path with ancient banking that is cut in the rock. It may also have had a flight of steps in its upper part. The top of Jebel et-Tannur is fairly flat. The temple, situated on the east side, is the only building on it.

Excavations

In 1937, excavations were carried out at the site by a joint expedition of the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Jordan Department of Antiquities, under the direction of N. Glueck. Several outside rooms and walls remained unexcavated.

Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, Drawings, and Photos
Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, Drawings, and Photos

Maps

Normal

  • Fig. 2 - Location Map
    Figure 2

    Map showing the location of Khirbet et-Tannur, other Nabataean sites, and the King’s Highway

    Whiting and Wellman (2016)
    from Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • Location Map from Meyers et al (1997)
    Wadi el-Hasa

    Map of Wadi el-Hasa Archaeological Survey territory

    (Courtesy B. MacDonald

    Meyers et al (1997)

Magnified

  • Fig. 2 - Location Map
    Figure 2

    Map showing the location of Khirbet et-Tannur, other Nabataean sites, and the King’s Highway

    Whiting and Wellman (2016)
    from Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • Location Map from Meyers et al (1997)
    Wadi el-Hasa

    Map of Wadi el-Hasa Archaeological Survey territory

    (Courtesy B. MacDonald

    Meyers et al (1997)

Aerial Views

  • Khirbet Tannur in Google Earth
    Khirbet Tannur in Google Earth

    click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth

Plans and Drawings

Normal Size

  • Fig. 1 - Plan of Khirbet
    Figure 1

    Plan of the site

    Courtesy ASOR/Nelson Glueck Archive—Semitic Museum, Harvard University

    Meyers et. al. (1997)
    Tannur from Meyers et. al. (1997)
  • Fig. 6.4 - Plan of Khirbet
    Fig 6.4

    Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

    Mckenzie et al (2013)
    Tannur from McKenzie et al (2013)
  • Fig. 1 - Axonometric reconstruction
    Figure 1

    Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

    (Sheila Gibson)

    Whiting and Wellman (2016)
    of Khirbet Tannur from Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • Fig. 54 - Axonometric reconstruction
    Figure 54

    Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

    (Sheila Gibson)

    Whiting and Wellman (2016)
    of Inner Temple of Khirbet Tannur from Whiting and Wellman (2016)

Magnified

  • Fig. 1 - Plan of Khirbet
    Figure 1

    Plan of the site

    Courtesy ASOR/Nelson Glueck Archive—Semitic Museum, Harvard University

    Meyers et. al. (1997)
    Tannur from Meyers et. al. (1997)
  • Fig. 6.4 - Plan of Khirbet
    Fig 6.4

    Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

    Mckenzie et al (2013)
    Tannur from McKenzie et al (2013)
  • Fig. 1 - Axonometric reconstruction
    Figure 1

    Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

    (Sheila Gibson)

    Whiting and Wellman (2016)
    of Khirbet Tannur from Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • Fig. 54 - Axonometric reconstruction
    Figure 54

    Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

    (Sheila Gibson)

    Whiting and Wellman (2016)
    of Inner Temple of Khirbet Tannur from Whiting and Wellman (2016)

Photos

  • Plate 112a - Inclined Wall
    Plate 112a

    Sub-II pavement laid against base of north side of Altar-Pedestal of Period I

    Glueck (1965)
    from Glueck (1965)

Chronology
Phasing

Phasing Explanation

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 phasing table.

Phasing Table

Period Start Date End Date Comments
I Late 2nd century BCE 1st half of 2nd century CE
  • Glueck (1965:138) describes the first altar as box-like and resting on top of a crude rubble platform.
II 1st half of 2nd century CE 3rd century CE
  • Glueck (1965:138) reports construction during this period of an inner Altar-Base with steps on its west side which was built around the previous altar.
  • 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.
  • McKenzie et al (2013:62) suggests that Period III construction which would have occurred soon after the end of Period II probably began in the 3rd century CE in association with other repairs after an earthquake.
III 3rd century CE 363 CE
  • McKenzie et al (2013:62) suggests that Period III construction probably began in the 3rd century CE in association with other repairs after an earthquake
  • McKenzie et al (2013:47,62) dates 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.
Byzantine 363 CE 634 CE ?
  • A squatter's house was later constructed on the site. Based on pottery finds, this construction was dated to the Byzantine period. (Glueck, 1965:140).

Dedicatory Inscription Earthquake - Late 1st century BCE

A dedicatory inscription dated to 8/7 BCE indicates building activity around this time which could have been a response to seismic damage.

End of Period I Earthquake - 1st half of 2nd century CE

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.

End of Period II Earthquake (?) - 3rd 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).

"Further" Earthquake of McKenzie et al (2013) - 3rd - 4th century CE

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.

End of Period III Earthquake - 3rd-4th centuries CE

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.

Seismic Effects
End of Period I Earthquake - 1st half of 2nd century CE

Effect Location Image(s) Description
  • Collapsed Walls           
  • Destroyed Columns           
  • Tilted Walls           
 Period I Altar
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Plate 112a

Sub-II pavement laid against base of north side of Altar-Pedestal of Period I

Glueck (1965)
  • Glueck (1965:90) found that the entire eastern face facade of the Period I Altar had been destroyed, perhaps by an earthquake except for part of the molded angle block on the southeast corner.
  • 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
  • Glueck (1965:92) reports that the Period I Altar had to be rebuilt 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 (see Photo).

End of Period II Earthquake (?) - 3rd century CE

Effect Location Image(s) Description
  • Collapsed Walls?           
 ornate pylon of the east facade of the raised inner temple enclosure
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • The ornate pylon of the east facade of the raised inner temple enclosure collapsed at the end of Period II. (Glueck, 1965:156) - speculative
  • Collapsed Walls?           
 Period II altar near the northeast corner of the forecourt
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Glueck (1965:106) states that earthquake tremors or age or both may have brought about the collapse of the Period II Altar-Base indicating that he was not entirely sure that the end of Period II coincides with earthquake destruction.

"Further" Earthquake of McKenzie et al (2013) - 3rd - 4th century CE

Effect Location Image(s) Description
  • Collapsed Arches           
  • Collapsed Columns           
 colonnades of the Court
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • 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.

End of Period III Earthquake - 3rd-4th centuries CE

Effect Location Image(s) Description
  • Wholesale destruction           
  • Bulged Wall           
  • Sagging Steps           
 various locations
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • 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)

Deformation Maps
End of Period I Earthquake - 1st half of 2nd century CE

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 6.4 of McKenzie et al (2013)

End of Period II Earthquake (?) - 3rd century CE

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 6.4 of McKenzie et al (2013)

"Further" Earthquake of McKenzie et al (2013) - 3rd - 4th century CE

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 6.4 of McKenzie et al (2013)

End of Period III Earthquake - 3rd-4th centuries CE

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 6.4 of McKenzie et al (2013)

Intensity Estimates
End of Period I Earthquake - 1st half of 2nd century CE

Effect Location Image(s) Description Intensity
  • Collapsed Walls           
  • Destroyed Columns           
  • Tilted Walls           
 Period I Altar
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Plate 112a

Sub-II pavement laid against base of north side of Altar-Pedestal of Period I

Glueck (1965)
  • Glueck (1965:90) found that the entire eastern face facade of the Period I Altar had been destroyed, perhaps by an earthquake except for part of the molded angle block on the southeast corner.
  • 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
  • Glueck (1965:92) reports that the Period I Altar had to be rebuilt 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 (see Photo).
  • VIII+
  • VIII+
  • 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).

End of Period II Earthquake (?) - 3rd century CE

Effect Location Image(s) Description Intensity
  • Collapsed Walls?           
 ornate pylon of the east facade of the raised inner temple enclosure
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • The ornate pylon of the east facade of the raised inner temple enclosure collapsed at the end of Period II. (Glueck, 1965:156) - speculative
  • VIII+?
  • Collapsed Walls?           
 Period II altar near the northeast corner of the forecourt
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Glueck (1965:106) states that earthquake tremors or age or both may have brought about the collapse of the Period II Altar-Base indicating that he was not entirely sure that the end of Period II coincides with earthquake destruction.
  • 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). However, there are indications that this may have been a weak structure. 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). 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 collapse of the Period II Altar-Base. Considering this, the Intensity estimate is downgraded to VI-VII (6-7).

"Further" Earthquake of McKenzie et al (2013) - 3rd - 4th century CE

Effect Location Image(s) Description Intensity
  • Collapsed Arches           
  • Collapsed Columns           
 colonnades of the Court
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • 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.
  • VI+
  • V+ or VIII+
This Intensity estimate should be considered tentative as it is based on secondary use of building stones making it difficult to know how those building stones were damaged and when they were damaged. Although 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), the Earthquake Archeological Effects listed are speculative and beset with uncertainty. Because of this Intensity is bracketed to between V and VIII.

End of Period III Earthquake - 3rd-4th centuries CE

Effect Location Image(s) Description Intensity
  • Wholesale destruction (collapsed walls)         
  • Bulged Wall (displaced wall)
  • Sagging Steps (subsidence)
 various locations
Fig 6.4

Khirbet et-Tannur, plan with the terms used here for the parts of the site, and their equivalents in Glueck's journal

Mckenzie et al (2013)
Figure 1

Khirbet et-Tannur, axonometric reconstruction

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
Figure 54

Khirbet et-Tannur, reconstruction of Inner Temenos Enclosure and Altar Platform

(Sheila Gibson)

Whiting and Wellman (2016)
  • 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+
  • VII+
  • 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).

Notes and Further Reading
References

Articles and Books

Glueck, N. (1965). Deities and Dolphins. - open access at archive.org

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 - at JSTOR

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

Bibliography from Meyers et. al. (1997)

Avi-Yonah, Michael. "Oriental Art in Roman Palestine." In Avi-Yonah's Art in Ancient Palestine: Selected Studies, pp. 119-211 , pis. 23 - 3 0 . Jerusalem, 1981 . Landmark study on Nabatean art, originally published in 1961 , which develops die concept of "orientalizing" art

Glueck, Nelson. Deities and Dolphins: The Story of the Nabataeans. New York, 1965 . Synthesis of Nabatean civilization focused on Khirbet et-Tannur; replaces the final report, although the preliminary reports provide useful additional information.

Glueck, Nelson. The Other Side of the Jordan. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass., 1970 . General presentation of Glueck's survey in Transjordan, with a concise description of the temple of Khirbet et-Tannur.

McKenzie, Judith. "The Development of Nabataean Sculpture at Petra and Khirbet Tannur." Palestine Exploration Quarterly 120 (1988) : 81-107 , Fig.s 1-15. Recent work on Nabatean sculpture critiquing Glueck's three phases of the temple building; based on a detailed stylistic analysis.

Starcky, Jean. "Le temple nabateen de Khirbet Tannur: A propos d'un livre recent." Revue Biblique 7 5 (1968) : 206-235 , pis. 15-20 . Penetrating critique of Glueck's Deities and Dolphins, challenging many of his conclusions.

Zayadine, Fawzi. "Sculpture in Ancient Jordan," In The Art of Jordan: Treasures from an Ancient Land, edited by Piotr Bienkowski, pp. 51 - 5 7 . Liverpool, 1991 . Includes a short classification of Khirbet etTannur's sculptural styles.

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (1993 v.4)

N. Glueck, AJA 41 (1937), 361-376; id., BASOR 65 (1937), 15-19; 67 (1937), 6-16; 69 (1938), 7-18; 85 (1942), 3-8; 126 (1952), 5-10; 141 (1956), 22-23; id., El7 (1964), 40*-43*; 8 (1967), 37*-41 *; id., Deities andDolphins,NewYork 1965;id., Die Nabataar(ed. H. J. Kellner), Munich 1970, 31-34

R. Savignac, RB 46 (1937), 401-416; id. (and J. Starcky), ibid. 64(1957), 215-217

P. Thomsen, Archivfiir Orientforschung 12 (1937-1939), 93, 184-185

M. Avi-Yonah, QDAP 10 (1944), 114-118; id., Oriental Art in Roman Palestine, Rome 1961, 49-50

J. Starcky, RB 75 (1968), 206-235

R. D. Barnett, NEAT, 327-330

A. Negev, PEQ 106 (1974), 77-78; American Archaeology in the Mideast, 98, 107

J. S. McKenzie, PEQ 120 (1988), 81-107.

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (2008)

M. -J. Roche, ACOR Newsletter 5/2 (1993), 10; id., ASOR Newsletter 45/2 (1995), 21–22; id., OEANE, 5, New York 1997, 153–155; id., Transeuphratène 13 (1997), 187; 18 (1999), 59–69

A. Negev, Aram 6 (1994), 419–448; id., EI 25 (1996), 105*–106*

J. Dentzer-Feydy, SHAJ 5 (1995), 161–171

K. S. Freyberger, Damaszener Mitteilungen 9 (1996), 143–161; id., Topoi. Orient-Occident 7 (1997), 851–871; id., Die Frühkaiserzeitlichen Heiligtümer der Karawanenstationen im hellenisierten Osten: Zeugniss eines kulturellen Konflikts im Spannungsfeld zweier politscher Formationen (Damaszener Forschungen 6), Mainz am Rhein 1998

J. Patrich, Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence, Göttingen 1996, 197–218

L. Tholbecq, Topoi. Orient-Occident 7 (1997), 1069–1095

L. J. Ness, Astrology and Judaism in Late Antiquity (Ph.D. diss., Miami 1990), Ann Arbor, MI 1998

J. S. McKenzie, BASOR 324 (2001), 97–112; id. (et al.), ADAJ 46 (2002), 451–476; id., PEQ 134 (2002), 44–83; id., Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans (ed. G. Markoe), London 2003, 164–191

R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, Measuring and Weighing in Ancient Times (Reuben & Edith Hecht Museum Catalogues 17), Haifa 2001, 51*–54*; id., ibid., new ed., Haifa 2005, 51*–54*

T. Weber, Gadara-Umm Qes I (Abhandlungen des Deutschen-Palästina-Vereins 30), Wiesbaden 2002

E. Netzer, Nabatäische Architektur: Insbesondere Gräber und Tempel (Sonderbände der Antiken Welt; Zaberns Bildbände zur Archäologie), Mainz am Rhein 2003, 89–91

F. Villeneuve & Z. al-Muheisen, Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans (ed. G. Markoe), London 2003, 83–100.

Wikipedia pages

Khirbet et-Tannur

  • from Wikipedia - click link to open new tab


Khirbet ed-Dharih

  • from Wikipedia - click link to open new tab


King's Highway

  • from Wikipedia - click link to open new tab