Khirbet en-Nahas

Khirbet en-Nahas

Fig. 2.2

Detailed aerial view of the northern half of Khirbat en-Nahas (view south) before the UCSD excavations took place. The photograph was taken in 1999 and shows the unexcavated gate house (Area A) associated with the fortress and the rubble rock pile indicating the monumental building (Area R) at the site directly south of the fortress. A small secondary drainage (left) bordering the eastern side of KEN. Down- cutting of this drainage eroded parts of the site, including slag mounds and other features.

Photo: UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory; Helicopter courtesy of HRM Queen Noor Al-Hussein and the Royal Jordanian Air Force.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

Names

**Khirbet en-Nahas**
Transliterated Name	Source	Name
Khirbet en-Nahas	Arabic	خربة النحاس
Khirbat en-Nahas	Arabic	خربة النحاس
Khirbet al-Nahas	Arabic	خربة النحاس
Khirbat al-Nahas	Arabic	خربة النحاس
Khirbat an-Nahas	Arabic	خربة النحاس
Nahas	Arabic	النحاس
Neḥoshet Edom	Hebrew (biblical scholarship)	נְחֹשֶׁת אֱדוֹם
Neḥoshet	Hebrew	נְחֹשֶׁת
Chalkos	Greek	χαλκός
Cuprum	Latin	cuprum
KEN	English (archaeological abbreviation)
Nahas Fortress	English
Slag Mound Fortress	English

Introduction

from Chat GPT 5.3, 11 March 2026
from Levy, T. E. et al. (2014)

Khirbet en-Nahas ("Ruins of Copper") is located in the Faynan district of southern Jordan near Wadi Feynan, an area that contains one of the largest ancient copper mining and smelting landscapes in the southern Levant. The site lies in the lowlands of Edom along the eastern side of the Wadi Arabah and forms part of a wider metallurgical landscape associated with the exploitation of copper ores throughout the Faynan region.

Excavations have revealed that Khirbet en-Nahas covers more than 10 hectares and contains over one hundred architectural features visible on the surface. The site is surrounded by massive slag mounds created by large-scale smelting activities and represents the largest Iron Age copper production center known in the southern Levant.

Archaeological investigations conducted between 2002 and 2009 as part of the Edom Lowlands Regional Archaeology Project documented extensive metallurgical installations, industrial debris, and large architectural complexes associated with copper production. Excavation areas included slag mounds, industrial workshops devoted to smelting and metal recycling, residential and administrative buildings, and storage areas for ground-stone tools used in metallurgical processing.

One of the most prominent architectural features at the site is a large square fortress measuring approximately 73 × 73 m with a four-chamber gatehouse, a form typical of Iron Age fortified sites in the southern Levant. Radiocarbon dating and stratigraphic excavations indicate that most of the major occupational phases date between the twelfth and ninth centuries BCE, with some early metallurgical activity beginning in the late second millennium BCE.

The importance of Khirbet en-Nahas for the study of Iron Age metallurgy was first recognized by Nelson Glueck, whose surveys in the 1930s identified numerous slag mounds and mining installations in the Faynan region. Glueck interpreted these sites as the remains of the "mines of King Solomon," associating them with the biblical kingdom of Israel. Later excavations and high-precision radiocarbon dating have shown that the large- scale industrial activity at Khirbet en-Nahas belongs mainly to the Early Iron Age rather than to the later biblical periods traditionally linked with Solomon, although the question of regional political organization during this period remains debated.

Khirbet en-Nahas formed part of a broader metallurgical landscape that included mines, smelting camps, and settlements across the Faynan district. A few kilometers to the north, the later Byzantine settlement of Khirbet Faynan occupied the same copper-rich region that had supported industrial activity for millennia. During the Roman period the district was known for the imperial mining settlement of Phaino, where copper extraction continued under Roman administration. Together these sites illustrate a long sequence of copper production in the Faynan district extending from prehistoric mineral exploitation through the Iron Age and into the classical and Byzantine periods.

The archaeological evidence from Khirbet en-Nahas therefore provides a key reference point for understanding the scale of copper production, the organization of early industrial activity, and the development of regional societies in the Iron Age southern Levant, particularly within the territory later associated with the polity of Edom.

The Feinan Region

Introduction

from Piotr Bienkowski in Stern et. al. (2008)

The term Feinan refers to the area around Wadi Feinan, which drains into the eastern part of Wadi Arabah c. 50 km south of the Dead Sea and c. 50 km north of Petra. Wadi Feinan is formed of three merged tributaries—Ghuweir, Sheiqar, and Dana—and its westernmost portion, which drains into the Arabah, is called Wadi Fidan. The wadi is mostly a low, broad basin, 100–200 m above sea level, with the upper wadis to the east and southeast rising to over 1,100 m. It is a dry desert climate, with a mean monthly rainfall of 17 mm, falling to 0–0.1 mm in June–September. In the upper reaches of the wadi, juniper and oak trees grow on the lower slopes, while to the west, the sandy edges of the wadi are home to acacia and tamarisk.

Before the Rift Valley was formed, about 30 million years ago, when the Arabian plate started to move northwards in relation to the African plate, Feinan was part of the sedimentary copper deposit of Timna‘-Feinan-Eilat-Abu Khusheiba, which is now divided by Wadi Arabah. The movement of the rift has been about 107 km so far, exactly the present distance between Feinan and Timna‘. Together, they form the largest copper production area in the southern Levant.

The Feinan area has been settled more or less continuously since the Paleolithic period, with intensive exploitation of the copper sources from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in the mid to late fourth millennium BCE; the latest smelting site so far discovered dates from the late Ayyubid–early Mameluke period. Surveys and excavations have investigated copper mines, smelting sites, settlements, cemeteries, hydrological and field systems, and Byzantine churches. The huge mound at the center of the area, Khirbet Feinan, has not been excavated: its visible stone ruins, including a large central rectangular structure, other buildings, and streets, appear to date to the Roman–Byzantine periods.

Feinan is mentioned twice in the Bible, as one of the tribes of Edom (Pinon, Gen. 36:41) and as a road station probably in Wadi Arabah (Punon/ Pinon, Num. 33:42–43). It is possible that pwnw in the inscriptions of Ramesses II in the thirteenth century BCE, referring to a region inhabited by Shasu nomads, should be identified with Feinan. In the Roman–Byzantine periods, the area was called Phaino. Eusebius (The Martyrs of Palestine) describes the harsh conditions in the mines of Phaino/Feinan in about 300 CE, where Christians, slaves, and criminals were sent to work. In the Byzantine period, Feinan became the seat of a bishopric under the metropolitan city of Petra within Palaestina Tertia. Its latest known bishop is recorded on a building inscription dated to 587–588 CE.

Exploration

from Piotr Bienkowski in Stern et. al. (2008)

The first western scholar to relocate the ruins of Feinan and associate them with Pinon and Phaino was M. Lagrange in 1897. A. Musil made the first detailed description of Feinan and its vicinity, following his visit in 1898. In the 1930s, F. Frank and N. Glueck discovered ancient copper-smelting sites north of Wadi Feinan. Geologists and engineers (H. D. Kind, T. D. Raikes) working in the Feinan and Wadi Arabah area in the 1960s and 1970s described ancient mining sites. The Feinan area was included in the wider surveys of G. King and B. MacDonald. Since 1983, the Deutsches Bergbau-Museum, Bochum, has studied ancient copper mining, ore exploitation, and metallurgical technology in Feinan, discovering more than 250 ancient mines. They have traced the development of copper metallurgy at Feinan from the use of copper ores for beads in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, through the first intensive use in the Early Bronze Age, to industrial-scale mining and smelting of the Iron Age and Roman–Byzantine periods. A. Hauptmann has calculated approximately 200,000 tons of copper slag (producing a yield of 20,000 tons of copper) in the Feinan district, dating to the Iron Age and Roman–Byzantine periods alone. Their work has managed to distinguish Feinan copper from deposits elsewhere, based on lead isotope ratios, although it is still difficult to distinguish between Feinan and Timna‘ copper. Restricted excavations at Barqa el-Hetiye and Khirbet en-Nuh ̣as were carried out in 1990 (V. Fritz).

A new phase of survey and excavation by the Council for British Research in the Levant began in the mid-1990s. It comprised several multi-disciplinary projects. Their combined aims were to explore long-term land use, human adaptations, and social change; and to integrate geomorphological, paleoecological, archaeological, and hydrological studies to construct a model of landscape and human development for the past 10,000 years in Wadi Feinan. A regional survey of early prehistoric sites (B. Finlayson and S. Mithen) found a wide range of open sites and rock-shelter occupation dated to the Middle Paleolithic and Neolithic periods. There are indications that floodwater farming began in Wadi Feinan already in the Chalcolithic period or in the Early Bronze Age, perhaps using a complex of circular catchments, cairns, and terrace walls, although the principal use of the field system was in the Nabatean and Roman periods, when it is thought that the entire agricultural landscape was managed as a single integrated system. A substantial Iron Age site (Wadi Feinan 424) at the center of the region was associated with a field system of boulder-built walls. The independent Jabal Ḥamrat Fidan Project (T. E. Levy, R. B. Adams, and M. Najjar) has been studying the role of copper ore procurement and early metallurgy and its social context in Wadi Fidan from the Neolithic period to the Iron Age. In 2002, the project renewed excavations at the Iron Age copper-working site of Khirbet en-Nuh ̣as. For later periods, palynology shows that Roman–Byzantine agriculture and mining greatly impacted the Feinan landscape in terms of deforestation; and geochemistry indicates that Roman–Byzantine mining severely polluted the landscape. Industrial pollution had already begun on a small scale in the Early Bronze Age, increased significantly in the Iron Age and the Nabatean period, and intensified dramatically in the Roman period. Its effects are still apparent in the modern ecology of the area.

Brief History of Copper Mining in Wadi Feinan

from Andreas Hauptmann in Meyers et al (1997)

Archaeological excavation and the radiocarbon dating of fifty-two samples have made it possible to trace the exploitation of the ore deposit over a period of nine thousand years. The earliest settlements belonged to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period, when copper ores ("greenstones") were utilized for making beads and for cosmetic purposes. The ores were traded as far as 'Ain Ghazal in Transjordan and Jericho in ancient Palestine. Samples of pure copper ores have also been found at Tell Wadi Feinan (sixth/fifth millennium), some 2 km (1 mi.) west of the ruins of Feinan. Pyrometallurgy developed in the middle of the fourth millennium. Metal was smelted on a small scale inside of settlements ("household metallurgy"). High-grade secondary ores were used that left only very small amounts of slag. Copper ore was also traded to Abu Matar, Shiqmim, Wadi Ghazzeh, and Tell Maqass/'Aqaba, where it was smelted inside the Chalcolithic settlements.

At Feinan, mining and smelting peaked in the Early Bronze Age II—III (first half of the third millennium). New technologies, such as the use of manganese oxide for fluxing, increased the exploitation of ores considerably. Twelve slag heaps in the area of Feinan point to a large-scale copper production that was the basis for the export of metal to cities in the Levant. The survey produced only sparse evidence for metal production there in the Middle Bronze Age. As at Timna', production increased again in the Late Bronze Age. Excavations at Barqa el-Hetiye/Feinan revealed Midianite pottery from the thirteenth/twelfth centuries BCE.

Innovations in mining and smelting developed during the Iron Age IIB and IIC, and copper was produced on an industrial scale. The industry was organized by the Edomite towns on the Jordanian plateau, such as Buseirah and Umm el-Biyara. Remote parts of the ore deposit were made accessible by sinking shafts as deep as 70 m. Smelting was concentrated at two major centers—at Khirbet en-Nahas ("ruins of copper") and at Feinan—and led to the formation of the largest slag heaps in the southern Levant. This copper boom, which is paralleled in other copper districts in the Old World, arose in a period when the popularity of iron and steel increased.

Major mining activity resumed centuries later, in the Roman period (first century BCE—fifth century CE). By then the richest minerals appear to have been so completely exhausted that the Romans had to resort to low-grade copper ore. The church fathers Eusebius and Hieronymus (see Geerlings, 1985) describe the cruelty of the work in the mines of Feinan (" damnatio ad metallam"). One of the most impressive technological monuments is the mine at Umm el-Amad (6,600 sq m), some 15 km. (9 mi.) south of Feinan. It is the only complete mine known from the Roman period. The Romans transported the ore over a distance of 12 km. (7 mi.) to a central site located very close to the ruins of Byzantine Feinan. The large amount of metal produced here is demonstrated by the 50,000-70,000 tons of slag left behind.

After 500 CE, Feinan's role as a major copper supplier in the southern Levant ended; however, textual evidence and the remains of churches and a monastery indicate that the town maintained a certain importance as the bishop's see in the Early Byzantine period. In the Mamluk period, some minor mining and smelting activities took place there.

The copper produced at Feinan throughout history is characterized by a low trace-element content—except for lead, which sometimes ranges up to the percent level. This indicates that high-purity copper must not necessarily derive from native copper, clearly distinguishing Feinan copper from the copper-arsenic-antimony alloys found at Chalcolithic sites such as Nahal Mishmar, Shiqmim, and Tell Abu Matar. The lead isotope ratios are clearly different from ore deposits in Cyprus, Anatolia, and the Aegean Sea, but it is difficult to distinguish between Timna' and Feinan.

Aerial Views, Plans, Sections, and Photos

Aerial Views

Normal Size

Fig. 2.2 Aerial View of Khirbet en-Nahas

Fig. 2.2

Detailed aerial view of the northern half of Khirbat en-Nahas (view south) before the UCSD excavations took place. The photograph was taken in 1999 and shows the unexcavated gate house (Area A) associated with the fortress and the rubble rock pile indicating the monumental building (Area R) at the site directly south of the fortress. A small secondary drainage (left) bordering the eastern side of KEN. Down- cutting of this drainage eroded parts of the site, including slag mounds and other features.

Photo: UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory; Helicopter courtesy of HRM Queen Noor Al-Hussein and the Royal Jordanian Air Force.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.3 Aerial View of Khirbet en-Nahas

Fig. 2.3

Overview of Khirbat en-Nahas taken with the ELRAP helium balloon platform showing the seven excavation areas, 2009 season.

Photo: UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas labelled from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.4b Satellite View of Khirbat en-Nahas

Fig. 2.4b

GeoEye satellite image of Khirbat en-Nahas with excavation areas.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas from Levy et al. (2014)
Khirbet en-Nahas in Google Earth

Khirbet en-Nahas in Google Earth

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

Magnified

Fig. 2.2 Aerial View of Khirbet en-Nahas

Fig. 2.2

Detailed aerial view of the northern half of Khirbat en-Nahas (view south) before the UCSD excavations took place. The photograph was taken in 1999 and shows the unexcavated gate house (Area A) associated with the fortress and the rubble rock pile indicating the monumental building (Area R) at the site directly south of the fortress. A small secondary drainage (left) bordering the eastern side of KEN. Down- cutting of this drainage eroded parts of the site, including slag mounds and other features.

Photo: UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory; Helicopter courtesy of HRM Queen Noor Al-Hussein and the Royal Jordanian Air Force.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.3 Aerial View of Khirbet en-Nahas

Fig. 2.3

Overview of Khirbat en-Nahas taken with the ELRAP helium balloon platform showing the seven excavation areas, 2009 season.

Photo: UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas labelled from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.4b Satellite View of Khirbat en-Nahas

Fig. 2.4b

GeoEye satellite image of Khirbat en-Nahas with excavation areas.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas from Levy et al. (2014)
Khirbet en-Nahas in Google Earth

Khirbet en-Nahas in Google Earth

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

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

Fig. 2.3 Aerial View of Khirbet en-Nahas

Fig. 2.3

Overview of Khirbat en-Nahas taken with the ELRAP helium balloon platform showing the seven excavation areas, 2009 season.

Photo: UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas labelled from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.4a Topographic map of Khirbat en-Nahas

Fig. 2.4a

Topographic map of Khirbat en-Nahas with excavation areas and architectural units visible on the site surface.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas and architectural units from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.4b Satellite View of Khirbat en-Nahas

Fig. 2.4b

GeoEye satellite image of Khirbat en-Nahas with excavation areas.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas from Levy et al. (2014)

Magnified

Fig. 2.3 Aerial View of Khirbet en-Nahas

Fig. 2.3

Overview of Khirbat en-Nahas taken with the ELRAP helium balloon platform showing the seven excavation areas, 2009 season.

Photo: UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas labelled from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.4a Topographic map of Khirbat en-Nahas

Fig. 2.4a

Topographic map of Khirbat en-Nahas with excavation areas and architectural units visible on the site surface.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas and architectural units from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.4b Satellite View of Khirbat en-Nahas

Fig. 2.4b

GeoEye satellite image of Khirbat en-Nahas with excavation areas.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

with excavation areas from Levy et al. (2014)

Area Plans

Area A Gatehouse

Normal Size

Fig. 2.6 Plan of Area A gatehouse

Fig. 2.6

Map of the gatehouse (Area A) at KEN following the excavations. This map highlights the earliest construction phase at KEN (with the exception of the wall that closes the passage through the gatehouse on the east). Three of the chambers were excavated. The southwest chamber was intentionally left untouched for future investigators.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.7 Overview of the gatehouse

Fig. 2.7

Overview of the gatehouse excavations in Area A at Khirbat en-Nahas following the 2006 UCSD ELRAP expedition.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

excavations in Area A from Levy et al. (2014)

Magnified

Fig. 2.6 Plan of Area A gatehouse

Fig. 2.6

Map of the gatehouse (Area A) at KEN following the excavations. This map highlights the earliest construction phase at KEN (with the exception of the wall that closes the passage through the gatehouse on the east). Three of the chambers were excavated. The southwest chamber was intentionally left untouched for future investigators.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.7 Overview of the gatehouse

Fig. 2.7

Overview of the gatehouse excavations in Area A at Khirbat en-Nahas following the 2006 UCSD ELRAP expedition.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

excavations in Area A from Levy et al. (2014)

Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 2.8 Stone collapse on top

Fig. 2.8

Stratigraphic profile in Chamber 1 of the Khirbat en-Nahas gatehouse, 2002 excavation season.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

of the gatehouse prior to excavation from Levy et al. (2014)

Magnified

Fig. 2.8 Stone collapse on top

Fig. 2.8

Stratigraphic profile in Chamber 1 of the Khirbat en-Nahas gatehouse, 2002 excavation season.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

of the gatehouse prior to excavation from Levy et al. (2014)

Photos

Normal Size

Fig. 2.5 Stone collapse on top

Fig. 2.5

Overview of the stone collapse on top of the gatehouse at KEN prior to excavation in 2002.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

of the gatehouse prior to excavation from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.7 Overview of the gatehouse

Fig. 2.7

Overview of the gatehouse excavations in Area A at Khirbat en-Nahas following the 2006 UCSD ELRAP expedition.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

excavations in Area A from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.16 Layers A1b and A2a in Area A

Fig. 2.16

The northern section of the southern Probe 6 with the gatehouse in the background. Above: the debris from the com- pound wall. Layer A2a is represented by the dark layer sandwiched beneath the debris from the fortifcation wall (seen on left) and the lighter tenth-century BCE material associated with the base of this massive wall.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.17 Layers A1b and A2a in Area A

Fig. 2.17

Layer A2a industrial ash layers under the superstructure debris layer (A1b), eastern end of the central passageway interior.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.23 Tilted Wall at

Fig. 2.23

The three A3a pilasters at the gate’s entrance that would have prevented the entrance of large animals and wheeled vehicles into the gatehouse passageway.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

the gatehouse from Levy et al. (2014)

Magnified

Fig. 2.5 Stone collapse on top

Fig. 2.5

Overview of the stone collapse on top of the gatehouse at KEN prior to excavation in 2002.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

of the gatehouse prior to excavation from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.7 Overview of the gatehouse

Fig. 2.7

Overview of the gatehouse excavations in Area A at Khirbat en-Nahas following the 2006 UCSD ELRAP expedition.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

excavations in Area A from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.16 Layers A1b and A2a in Area A

Fig. 2.16

The northern section of the southern Probe 6 with the gatehouse in the background. Above: the debris from the com- pound wall. Layer A2a is represented by the dark layer sandwiched beneath the debris from the fortifcation wall (seen on left) and the lighter tenth-century BCE material associated with the base of this massive wall.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.17 Layers A1b and A2a in Area A

Fig. 2.17

Layer A2a industrial ash layers under the superstructure debris layer (A1b), eastern end of the central passageway interior.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

from Levy et al. (2014)
Fig. 2.23 Tilted Wall at

Fig. 2.23

The three A3a pilasters at the gate’s entrance that would have prevented the entrance of large animals and wheeled vehicles into the gatehouse passageway.

Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory.

click on image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

the gatehouse from Levy et al. (2014)

Archaeoseismic Chronology

Stratigraphy

Entire Site

from Levy et al. (2014)

Table 2.1

Correlation of Strata from all Excavation Areas (A, M, F, S, T, R and W) at Khirbat en-Nahas. The Roman numerals in the first column (St. = Stratum) represent the general strata that are used to compare these different areas at the site. The main tool for correlating cross-cutting contexts was the high resolution radiocarbon dating. Color key:

white = unoccupied / post-abandonment context
orange = mainly smelting and other pyrotechnological activities
green = mainly architectural remains (buildings)
blue = unexcavated contexts; pink = virgin soil

Click on Image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

Area A

from Levy et al. (2014)

Table 2.2

Stratigraphic layers in Area A, KEN.

Click on Image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

Radiocarbon Area A

from Levy et al. (2014)

Table 2.1

Radiocarbon dates from 2002 and 2006 excavations at Area A gatehouse, Khirbat en-Nahas.

Click on either image to open in a new tab

Levy et al. (2014)

Layer A1b Earthquake (?) - Iron II - 9th century BCE or slightly later

Discussion

References

Levy et al. (2014)

Chapter 2: Excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas, 2002–2009

Fortress Gatehouse—Overview of Area A

from Levy et al. (2014:93-97)

The fortress was excavated during two major excavation seasons— first in 2002 and then in 2006 (Table 2.2). During these excavations, the gatehouse, labeled Area A, was the primary focus of exploration. As will be described below, only the interior of the fortress was sampled in 2006 in Area F. In Nelson Glueck's (1935) original survey report, he suggested that the huge mound of rock rubble visible on the western side of the large square fortress was the gatehouse. During our first excavation season at KEN, we decided to excavate the perimeter of this rubble mound to delineate the dimensions of the possible gatehouse and sample its two northernmost chambers (Figure 2.3). The 2002 excavations revealed that this structure was in fact a chambered gatehouse. After the second excavation season was carried out in the KEN gatehouse in 2006, some minor changes were observed in the gatehouse stratigraphy in light of the much larger exposure. As will be shown below, by 2006, three of the four "guard rooms" were excavated, shedding important light on changing social, political, military, and industrial activities at KEN during the tenth to ninth centuries BCE. To give future researchers a chance to explore the gatehouse with better methods, one pristine guardroom was left unexcavated. We should note that this guardroom is the best preserved and may contain evidence of a stairwell. Much of what is said in this introduction of Area A follows the reanalysis of the stratigraphy at KEN for a recent preliminary study of the ceramics at the site (Smith and Levy 2008).

During the 2006 excavation season, the main roadway or passageway separating the two sets of guard chambers was excavated, making it possible to view the outside of the doorways leading into all four guard chambers (Figure 2.6). This large excavation revealed two distinct building phases in the gatehouse: Layer A3b, the original tenth-century BCE construction of the gatehouse and fortification wall (KEN Stratum IV), and Layer A3a, a major ninth-century BCE restructuring of the gatehouse that included narrowing all the doorways leading into various guard chambers, building balustrades in the gateway entrance to block the passage of wheeled vehicles and large animals, and closing the other end of the roadway that passes directly into the fortress with a well-built wall first exposed during the 2002 season (Levy et al. 2004) (KEN Stratum III). The reorganization of the architecture in Layer A3a represents a "decommissioning" of the gatehouse from its former military function into a possible large residence or public building of some kind. In light of the 2006 excavations, it is now clear that inside the guard rooms, our original division of slag layers into Layers A2a and A2b was artificial and that they in fact represent one massive phase of metal production and debris now referred to simply as Layer A2b—a phase that reflects a decision to change the use of the A3a residence/public building into a copper production facility. The 2002 ascription of Layer A2a to a later, more ephemeral phase of metal production that took place only on the exterior of the gatehouse still holds.

These minor changes in the gatehouse stratigraphy have little effect on the radiocarbon dating. Of the 15 radiocarbon dates modeled and published earlier (Higham et al. 2005; Levy et al. 2004; Levy, Najjar, van der Plicht, et al. 2005), none are later than the ninth century BCE. Thus, even without Bayesian modeling, which helps researchers attain subcentury dating, all the radiocarbon dates fall before the eighth century BCE. As far as the Bayesian modeling and the minor stratigraphic changes outlined here, only one sample out of 15 comes from a context (L58; GrA-25320), which now must be moved from Layer A4a to Layer A3 in light of the 2006 excavations. Following the 2006 excavations, when the interior of the passageway in the gatehouse was exposed for the first time (Figure 2.7), it was apparent that the context of L58 was above the Layer A4 crushed slag horizon that predates the construction of the fortress gatehouse but below the major Layer A2b metallurgical activities in the guard rooms.

When the suite of 15 Area A dates obtained during the 2002 excavations is run again with the Oxford Bayesian model placing GrA-25320 in Layer 3, little change occurs in the model (see original model in Higham et al. 2005). The boundary transition between Layer A4a, which is a thin layer of metallurgical activity predating the original construction of the fortress gatehouse in Layer A3, is during the mid-tenth through the mid-ninth centuries BCE (95.4 percent probability). These data are illustrated in Table 2.4 and discussed in more detail in the summary of the radiocarbon dates from Area A below. While these data do not contribute directly to subcentury historical issues during this part of the Iron Age, they demonstrate conclusively that the fortress was not built during the eighth or seventh centuries BCE as some scholars have suggested (Finkelstein 2005). In light of the discussion above, the basic stratigraphy and dating for the gatehouse can be delineated as follows according to layers (see also profile in Figure 2.8; see Appendix 2.A.9,10 for Harris matrix of Area A):

In summary, during Layer A4a and perhaps earlier, metallurgical activity and occupation occurred at the site. Crushed slag layers from this occupation were used as a foundation on which the gatehouse was initially built and used during the tenth century BCE (Layer A3b) and as shown in the 2006 excavations (Figure 2.8). Following the initial building phase, the gatehouse was modified and redesigned in the ninth century BCE (Layer A3a—based on evidence discovered during the 2006 season). After the decommissioning of the gatehouse and fortress in the ninth century BCE, the gatehouse (no longer part of a defensive system) and the fortress area were used for intensive metallurgical activities (Layer A2b)—nothing to do with military activities. Layer A2b (mid-ninth century BCE) was the last layer of Iron Age occupation inside the gatehouse, after which it was sealed by massive collapse and/or intentional filling in of the gatehouse superstructure. The Layer A1 collapse of the gatehouse superstructure consists of massive stone blocks that accumulated shortly after the A2a ninth-century BCE occupation. This precludes the possibility that squatters from the eighth century BCE or later centuries used the gatehouse area as it was sealed by the stone collapse. Thus, the latest Iron Age occupation around the gatehouse occurred in Layer A2a, which shows limited metallurgical activity, as evidenced by very small shallow installations radiocarbon dated to the end of the ninth century BCE.

Iron Age Gatehouse Typology

from Levy et al. (2014:99-101)

Before discussing our stratigraphic observations in detail, we will provide an overview of the gatehouse's form and place it within the broader context of southern Levantine gates. One of the hallmarks of the renewed wave of urbanization in the southern Levant that began at around 1000 BCE is chambered gatehouses. The typical gatehouse is a rectangular building with a passage directly through the center, with piers projecting toward the central passage and chambers in between the piers. These gatehouses, built with two, four, or six chambers, are the standard gatehouse type, used almost without exception in the southern Levant until the end of the Iron Age. Many of the gatehouses discussed below are from cities, and others, such as Khirbat en-Nahas, are from fortresses. Whether this is significant in terms of Iron Age architectural planning is beyond the study presented here.

The gatehouse at KEN is a typical four-chambered gatehouse and one of the earliest such gates in the region (see Table 2.3 for a list of tenth-century gates). The gatehouse's overall dimensions are 16.8 m wide (as one faces the façade) and 10.6 m deep; in this respect, its closest parallels are the Palace 1567 gatehouse at Megiddo St. VA–IVB, `En Haseva St. V, the inner gate of Tell en-Nasbeh, and the inner gate at Tel Dan (see Table 2.3 for a list of all IA four-chamber gates). The gate passage, at 3.6 m in width, is slightly narrower than the average 4.0-m-wide gate passage.

A few particular features of this gatehouse require comment. First, the gate is built such that the entrances to the chambers are partially blocked (see Figure 2.9). What is more, the walls, which narrow the chamber entrances, are integral to the original design of the gatehouse and appear to be load bearing: they are around 1.5 m thick, which is not substantially different from the walls of the rest of the gatehouse, which vary between 1.5 and 2.0 m thick.

Similar blocked chambers have been found at four of the five excavated Transjordanian gatehouses, including at Tall Jawa (Daviau 2003:382–384), Khirbat al-Mudaybi (Andrews et al. 2002:134), and Khirbat al-Mudayna ath-Thamad. The only gate in which walls along the passage have not been discerned—Tall Jalul—is preserved very poorly, to the extent that its basic floor plan cannot be determined. On the other hand, a few Cisjordanian gates have been excavated with similar walls blocking at least some of the chambers—namely, at Beersheba St. II (Aharoni 1973:pls 8, 84), both the outer and inner gate of Tel Dan (Biran 1994:236), Tel Kinneret (Fritz 1996:197), and Lachish St. III (Ussishkin 2004:640–641). In the Cisjordanian examples, however, the walls are never found blocking all of the chambers (as they are for all of the Transjordanian gates, save Khirbat al-Mudaybi) and, because of their relatively thin construction, do not seem to have played an important structural purpose.

It seems, then, that these walls along the gate passage constitute a feature that is characteristic of Transjordanian (Moabite and Edomite) gatehouses. Although the specific purpose for this construction technique is not clear, it must have affected the construction of the wood-beamed roof and, because of the extra load-bearing walls, the floor plan of the second story as well.

Another noteworthy feature of the gatehouse at KEN is the pair of two-tier benches that line the sides of the gate passage (see Figure 2.31). The benches lie at the feet of the walls discussed above and thus do not block the doorways into the chambers. They range from 0.6 to 0.9 m wide and are topped by medium-sized dolomite slabs. Significantly, these benches are part of the original A3b stratum—that is, they were part of the original phase of the gatehouse's use—and were thus not added in the later domestic or industrial phases. Benches are well-known features of Iron Age gate complexes; they appear within gate chambers, along the façades of gatehouses, and along the walls of interior and exterior plazas. It is somewhat unusual, however, to have benches that line the gate passage itself. In fact, the only other gate with similar benches thus far excavated is from Khirbat al-Mudayna. The benches at Mudayna, which also run along the bottom of the walls along the gate passage and are topped with stone slabs, are from 0.4 to 0.6 m wide. Thus, two of the five gates unearthed in Transjordan have passage benches. Since this feature has not been found in any of the 30-plus excavated gates from Cisjordan, these benches also appear to be characteristic of Moabite and Edomite gates.

Finally, we should also note the role of a city gate within the urban context of the Iron II period. One of the characteristic features of Iron Age urban centers is not simply that they had a chambered gatehouse but that the gatehouse itself was built within a larger gate complex, consisting of plazas (both intramural and extramural), bastions or blocking walls, and often a secondary outer gatehouse. The purpose of such a gate complex must have been military in the first instance—creating a defensive gauntlet for would-be attackers—but it also accommodated the vast array of social functions that were typically carried out in a gateway. Since KEN is not an urban center and the gate was thus not the civic center, we shall focus on the [] aspect here, where two points deserve consideration.

First, it is a nearly universal feature of gatehouses that they have towers projecting from their façade, flanking the entrance. Towers are described in the Hebrew Bible as being built "on" or "next to" gates (2 Chron 26:9), they are depicted in the Neo-Assyrian reliefs of Syro-Palestinian towns without exception, and are attested archaeologically at nearly every city gate that has been excavated. The purpose of these towers was to recess the gatehouse entrance, so that the town's defenders—stationed atop the city wall and towers—could give flanking fire toward the gatehouse doors in the event they were under assault. Without the ability to give such flanking fire, the defenders on the city wall would be forced to lean precariously over the wall to fire on those at the foot of the same wall, thus exposing themselves to enemy fire or a fatal fall. In the absence of towers, the same effect was achieved by recessing the entire gatehouse relative to the city wall, such that the gap between the two ends of the city wall formed the same small court immediately in front of the gate doors (see Figure 2.10).

Second, as mentioned above, outworks such as blocking walls, plazas, approach ramps, and outer gatehouses are common features in Iron Age settlements. There are a number of gatehouses where such features have not been found, but outworks were, nonetheless, a common feature. It is therefore interesting to note that the KEN gatehouse has no defensive towers, is not recessed relative to the circumvallation wall, and has no outworks. These curious omissions would have handicapped the defensive capabilities of the KEN fortress. The main difference is that KEN was designed specifically as a military installation— a desert fortress closely linked to the activities associated with the organization of copper production in tenth-century BCE Faynan.

A few parallels exist for the KEN gatehouse in this respect. The closest parallel is Tell el-Kheleifeh, which is also an independent fortress whose gatehouse has no outworks or towers (Pratico 1993:173, pl. 4). Similar cases are the royal compound gate at Tel Jezreel (Ussishkin and Woodhead 1997: Figure 5), and the gates of palaces 1567 and 338 from Megiddo (Lamon and Shipton 1939:Figures 12, 49). These latter three are functionally similar to a fortress—since they are surrounded by their own defensive walls—and also have no towers or outworks. On the other hand, many small fortresses or gated compounds do have defensive towers or even outworks, such as Kuntillet `Ajrud, Vered Yericho, and Ramat Rachel. Thus, the lack of towers or outworks at Tell el-Kheleifeh and KEN remains a rather puzzling element in their construction and warrants further investigation and explanation. That said, the stone collapse covering the unexcavated southwest chamber at KEN may reflect the presence of a single tower. The stairways discovered in Areas R and T demonstrate that the architects at KEN were fully capable of constructing second floors on large buildings.

Stratigraphic Observations

Layer A1a

from Levy et al. (2014:101-103)

This layer consists of the upper layer of debris that accumulated over the entire gate structure (Figure 2.11). Similar layers of debris appear over most of the structures at the site, in particular the large buildings (Areas R and T; see below), as well as by the collapsed defensive wall of the fortified compound (L152). The destruction may have been due to earthquakes over the generations but was probably not the direct cause of the abandonment of the site (see Layer A3). The debris layers, represented in Layer 1, are subdivided into two parts: the uppermost layer (Layer A1a) and the lower debris (Layer A2b) beneath this. The division is technical, aimed at isolating the lower layers from the possibly contaminated surface debris that remained exposed to the elements over the years. The main distinction of Layer A1a is the lack of sediment between it and the debris below in A1b. The layer consists entirely of large, roughhewn stones (the building blocks) that accumulated on one another after having fallen from the upper courses of the building. The lack of sediment between the stones can be explained by natural formation processes (Schiffer 1987, 2010)—its drainage into the lower courses of the debris by rain and removal by wind. Stones in this collapsed debris comprise the wide variety of geological types present in the local and regional environment: dolomite, monzogranite and other granites, and sandstone used in the gatehouse architecture. Basalt and flint are rarer and appear primarily in the form of small stones used for consolidation between wall courses. Occasionally, these rock types are represented as grinding stones in secondary use contexts. This is different from Area S (see below), where the majority of ground stones can be associated with industrial activities. In other areas at KEN (Areas T and R), the relative height of debris accumulation may indicate variations in the original plan of the building, including evidence of second floor construction. This is readily seen in the Area R monumental building (see below) where a well- preserved stairway was found leading to a second floor level. In the gatehouse, the three excavated guard rooms and passageway showed little evidence of a second floor. However, the unexcavated guard room (southwest) may have had a second floor. Collapse debris in the southwest guard room was twice as high as the other areas, suggesting a second floor "tower" of some kind. Artifacts were retrieved from Layer A1a loci and include occasional sherds—three painted (B4223, B4227, and B4243) and one incised (B4226) (see Chapter 4, this volume)—and some grinding stones that may have been abandoned on the later collapsed floors or were later incorporated in the construction of the walls of the gate.

It should be noted that roughly circular installations made of rocks from the upper layer of debris were detected in two places in the area: above the blocking of the inner access between the passageway and the inner compound of the fort and over the upper crust of debris in the southwestern chamber, which remains unexcavated. A similar installation was found and systematically removed in Chamber 1 of Area R (see Area R report below). In a recent analysis of remote sensing data from the research area, Ian Jones notes that in earlier satellite imagery of the KEN gatehouse dating to 1971, these circles are absent. By 2000, the circles are readily seen, providing a terminus post quem. Thus, the stone line pens were probably constructed by local Azazmeh Bedouin herders as small corrals to house their goat herds (see Figure 2.12).

Layer A1b

from Levy et al. (2014:103-105)

Layer A1b potentially contains information about the time and circumstances of the final destruction, or destructions, of the site. Covered by the upper crust of debris of Layer A1a, A1b represents the lower debris covering all rooms of the gate structure as well as the grounds adjacent to the gate walls. Layer A1b also covers the fortified compound perimeter wall (see Probe 7, L169, L175, where deep debris layers were found descending along the wall). This layer also provides evidence for the latest activity phase within the structure. This lower debris fill includes the full assortment of rocks found in Layer A1a (Figure 2.13S).

The A1b debris inside the gatehouse (Figure 2.16) passageway contained more finds than the upper collapse, although the quantity and quality were poor.¹⁹ Due to the nature of the layer, it is difficult to determine the origins of the finds. Notable are a tube-like object of undetermined material carrying stamped or carved botanical impressions (L153, B4120), a stamped sherd (L157, B4030), a piece of crucible (curiously rare at this industrial site—L163, B4130), and a Busayra ware sherd found in the western perimeter wall of the central passageway (L158, B4147) (see DVD photographic archive). Other finds include scattered pottery (including some painted sherds), grinding slabs, and copper industrial waste such as furnace fragments, tuyere pipes, and some slag. It should be emphasized that the amount of copper waste is nowhere near the volume of copper industrial debris found in the occupation ninth-century BCE levels of Chambers 1 and 2 excavated in 2002. Here they were sporadic.

Footnotes

19 There are a number of possible origins for the Layer A1b fill: (1) the fill was intentionally used for consolidation material between the stones of the walls, (2) it is remnant mud brick material that washed down from the upper crust of debris, and (3) it represents wind-blown sediment. A very similar fill appeared in all the rooms of the gatehouse and in the building in Area R (see below). The fill is light brown, dense, and dry and contains a large number of stones of various sizes, all of which were part of the collapse of the structure's walls. No plaster was identified and no inner stratigraphy in this layer was detected in the sections. The appearance of this debris layer is uniform and should be attributed to a single "traumatic" event or to several events of the same nature within a relatively short span of time that did not allow other materials, such as wind-blown sediment, to settle in. It should also be noted that no installations or structures were identified in this debris.

Layer A2a

from Levy et al. (2014:105-106)

This layer represents the latest phase of activity in and around the gate structure, after its military function ceased and an intermediate phase in which several architectural changes and additions were introduced perhaps to serve a residence (Layer 3a). This latest phase appears immediately beneath the debris of Layer A1b (Figure 2.15S).

This layer does not show signs of trauma—rather, it seems that activities had long ceased and the structure was abandoned by the time the final infilling of the gatehouse superstructure occurred, most probably by an earthquake. Layer A2a consists of limited evidence of copper production activity, both inside the gate and next to it. During this Iron Age phase, the gatehouse was no longer an active structure and was used for industrial waste dumping and sporadic production activity.²⁰

No A2a surfaces were detected in either the central passageway or in the southeastern chamber—only outside the gatehouse (Figure 2.16). Superimposed layers of ash lacking surfaces between them were found along the inside of the main blocking wall used to decommission the gatehouse passageway and in probes along the eastern, northern, and southern sides of the structure (Figure 2.17).

In addition, two unusually compact concentrations of ash (L170, L171) were discovered covering the southern bench that belongs to the previous phases of utilization (A2b–A3b; Figure 2.18S). Metallurgical installations were also unearthed in Layer A1b (Figures 2.19S and 2.20).

It seems, therefore, that all three phases of utilization of the gate structure can be placed within a relatively short period during the tenth through the early ninth centuries BCE, leaving no time for decay and formation processes to produce new surfaces for the later occupations (see radiocarbon discussion for Area A below).²¹

During the ninth-century BCE Layer A2b occupation of the gatehouse, the guard chambers fell out of use as both military and residential structures. Instead, they were used as dumps and possible work surfaces for metallurgical activities. This can be seen in the northeast chamber (L70) where a well-defined surface of stones was laid on top of an ashy fill deposit (Figure 2.21). This pattern was found in the other chambers and reflects the "demilitarized" function of the structure when metalworking activities were carried out. This pattern is highlighted in the Layer A2b deposits found in the northwestern chamber where large in situ tuyeres, typical of the late tenth to early ninth centuries BCE, were discovered in close association with a furnace base (Figure 2.22). This furnace base is similar to a virtually complete example found in the Layer R3 courtyard, which dates to the same occupation phase at KEN.

Footnotes

20 The industrial waste is manifested mainly in thin ashy layers containing slag and other related waste such as tuyere and furnace fragments. Nowhere was the appearance of copper production in the passageway or the southeastern chamber waste as substantial as discovered in the season of 2002 in the two northern chambers. No sign of furnaces or significant smelting or melting activities were detected in the main passageway between the guard rooms. This picture contrasts with that found outside the gate structure, in the southern probe (Probe 6, Figure 2.16). There, a layer (L157) contained many pieces of slag along with furnace fragments and tuyere pipes (Figure 2.15S). Apparently the area outside the gate structure was used for industrial waste disposal, along with portions of the gatehouse structure that were not used in the industrial process itself.

21 Artifacts from Layer A1a are mainly related to copper production waste. They include a relatively large number of pounding and grinding artifacts, as well as some tuyere and occasional furnace fragments. Only two unusual artifacts emerged from this layer: a stamped sherd (L157, B4030) and what may be a fragment of a hematite mace head (L171, B4225). A number of metallurgical installations were found in Layer A2b, including a well-preserved circular one attached to the southern wall of the gatehouse (Figures 2.19S, 2.20). The installations by the southern wall (L30, L31, L39, and L62) are all circular, of various sizes, and built of small- and medium-sized field stones (Figure 2.20). Size ranges between 40 and 80 cm in diameter. These structures are probably associated with metallurgical activities that took place during the ninth century BCE.

Archaeoseismic Effects

Layer A1b Earthquake (?) - Iron II - 9th century BCE or slightly later

Damage Type	Location	Image(s)	Comments
Debris (due to collapsed walls)	Area A Fig. 2.4a Topographic map of Khirbat en-Nahas with excavation areas and architectural units visible on the site surface. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014) Fig. 2.6 Map of the gatehouse (Area A) at KEN following the excavations. This map highlights the earliest construction phase at KEN (with the exception of the wall that closes the passage through the gatehouse on the east). Three of the chambers were excavated. The southwest chamber was intentionally left untouched for future investigators. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014) Fig. 2.7 Overview of the gatehouse excavations in Area A at Khirbat en-Nahas following the 2006 UCSD ELRAP expedition. Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014)	Fig. 2.16 The northern section of the southern Probe 6 with the gatehouse in the background. Above: the debris from the com- pound wall. Layer A2a is represented by the dark layer sandwiched beneath the debris from the fortifcation wall (seen on left) and the lighter tenth-century BCE material associated with the base of this massive wall. Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014) Fig. 2.17 Layer A2a industrial ash layers under the superstructure debris layer (A1b), eastern end of the central passageway interior. Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014)	"Layer A1b potentially contains information about the time and circumstances of the final destruction, or destructions, of the site. Covered by the upper crust of debris of Layer A1a, A1b represents the lower debris covering all rooms of the gate structure as well as the grounds adjacent to the gate walls. Layer A1b also covers the fortified compound perimeter wall (see Probe 7, L169, L175, where deep debris layers were found descending along the wall). This layer also provides evidence for the latest activity phase within the structure. This lower debris fill includes the full assortment of rocks found in Layer A1a (Figure 2.13S). The A1b debris inside the gatehouse (Figure 2.16) passageway contained more finds than the upper collapse, although the quantity and quality were poor" - Levy et al. (2014:103–105) "There are a number of possible origins for the Layer A1b fill: (1) the fill was intentionally used for consolidation material between the stones of the walls, (2) it is remnant mud brick material that washed down from the upper crust of debris, and (3) it represents wind-blown sediment. A very similar fill appeared in all the rooms of the gatehouse and in the building in Area R (see below). The fill is light brown, dense, and dry and contains a large number of stones of various sizes, all of which were part of the collapse of the structure's walls. No plaster was identified and no inner stratigraphy in this layer was detected in the sections. The appearance of this debris layer is uniform and should be attributed to a single "traumatic" event or to several events of the same nature within a relatively short span of time that did not allow other materials, such as wind-blown sediment, to settle in. It should also be noted that no installations or structures were identified in this debris." - Levy et al. (2014:n.19)

Archaeoseismic Intensity Estimates

Layer A1b Earthquake (?) - Iron II - 9th century BCE or slightly later

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

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

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

Damage Type	Location	Image(s)	Comments	Intensity
Debris (due to collapsed walls)	Area A Fig. 2.4a Topographic map of Khirbat en-Nahas with excavation areas and architectural units visible on the site surface. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014) Fig. 2.6 Map of the gatehouse (Area A) at KEN following the excavations. This map highlights the earliest construction phase at KEN (with the exception of the wall that closes the passage through the gatehouse on the east). Three of the chambers were excavated. The southwest chamber was intentionally left untouched for future investigators. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014) Fig. 2.7 Overview of the gatehouse excavations in Area A at Khirbat en-Nahas following the 2006 UCSD ELRAP expedition. Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014)	Fig. 2.16 The northern section of the southern Probe 6 with the gatehouse in the background. Above: the debris from the com- pound wall. Layer A2a is represented by the dark layer sandwiched beneath the debris from the fortifcation wall (seen on left) and the lighter tenth-century BCE material associated with the base of this massive wall. Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014) Fig. 2.17 Layer A2a industrial ash layers under the superstructure debris layer (A1b), eastern end of the central passageway interior. Photo: T.E. Levy, UC San Diego Levantine Archaeology Laboratory. click on image to open in a new tab Levy et al. (2014)	"Layer A1b potentially contains information about the time and circumstances of the final destruction, or destructions, of the site. Covered by the upper crust of debris of Layer A1a, A1b represents the lower debris covering all rooms of the gate structure as well as the grounds adjacent to the gate walls. Layer A1b also covers the fortified compound perimeter wall (see Probe 7, L169, L175, where deep debris layers were found descending along the wall). This layer also provides evidence for the latest activity phase within the structure. This lower debris fill includes the full assortment of rocks found in Layer A1a (Figure 2.13S). The A1b debris inside the gatehouse (Figure 2.16) passageway contained more finds than the upper collapse, although the quantity and quality were poor" - Levy et al. (2014:103–105) "There are a number of possible origins for the Layer A1b fill: (1) the fill was intentionally used for consolidation material between the stones of the walls, (2) it is remnant mud brick material that washed down from the upper crust of debris, and (3) it represents wind-blown sediment. A very similar fill appeared in all the rooms of the gatehouse and in the building in Area R (see below). The fill is light brown, dense, and dry and contains a large number of stones of various sizes, all of which were part of the collapse of the structure's walls. No plaster was identified and no inner stratigraphy in this layer was detected in the sections. The appearance of this debris layer is uniform and should be attributed to a single "traumatic" event or to several events of the same nature within a relatively short span of time that did not allow other materials, such as wind-blown sediment, to settle in. It should also be noted that no installations or structures were identified in this debris." - Levy et al. (2014:n.19)	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

Articles and Books

Jenkins, E. (2018). WF16 Excavations at an Early Neolithic site in southern Jordan: stratigraphy, chronology, architecture and burials. - open access

Jones, I. W. N. (2021). "The southern Levantine earthquake of 418/419 AD and the archaeology of Byzantine Petra." Levant: 1-15.

Excavation Reports

Levy, T. E. et al. (2014) Excavations at Khirbat en-Nahas 2002–2009 An Iron Age Copper Production Center in the Lowlands of Edom in Levy, T. E., Najjar, M., Ben-Yosef, E., Smith, N. G., Beherec, M. A., Muniz, A., Higham, T., Knabb, K. A., Arbel, Y., Gidding, A. D., Jones, I. W. N., Frese, D., Goren, Y., Münger, S., Smitheram, C., & Rollston, C. A. (2014). New Insights into the Iron Age Archaeology of Edom, Southern Jordan. Volume 1. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press at UCLA.

Websites

FaynanHeritage.org

FaynanHeritage.org Publications - open access but one link is broken

Wikipedia pages

Khirbat Faynan