Reconstructing networks, linking spaces—the view from the Aqaba region (Jordan)

Reconstructing networks, linking spaces—the view from the Aqaba region (Jordan)Jens Notroff1, Klaus Schmidt*, Ulrike Siegel1 and Lutfi Khalil2

The southern Levant has to be regarded as an important centre of early metallurgy; in this region,the rise of this technological innovation appears closely connected to intensified exchangenetworks of increasing significance. Recent fieldwork and research undertaken by the Universityof Jordan and the Orient Department of the German Archaeological Institute in the southernWadi Araba near Aqaba (Jordan) has revealed new insights into the structure and progress ofLate Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age economic processes in the southern Levant. The sites of TellHujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tell al-Magass produced a rich material culture that attests to theexistence of an important centre of early copper metallurgy in the region, thus proving thattechnological and social innovations in the late 5th, early 4th millennia BC were not limited tonorth-western regions of the southern Levant. Material culture analogies from contemporaneoussites in the wider region, going beyond metallurgical activities and lithic industries, emphasize acommon workshop tradition in these areas and indicate that the Aqaba region was activelyparticipating in far-reaching communication and exchange networks at this time.Keywords Jordan, metallurgy, exchange networks, chronology, Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age transition

IntroductionThe prehistoric sites of Tell al-Magass and TellHujayrat al-Ghuzlan lie at the periphery of the stillgrowing modern town of Aqaba in southern Jordan,not far from the northern shore of the Red Sea.They are situated in the gravel desert of the Wadi al-Yutum fan, in the transitional zone from coastal toarid environments (Fig. 1).The earliest known descriptions of the two sites stem

from the German traveller Fritz Frank (Frank 1934:245), who referred to both sites as being ‘ruins’ in theearly 1930s (cf. Frank 1934: plan 7). Reference wasagain made by the British Engineer ThomasD. Raikes, who described Tell al-Magass (without men-tioning a specific name; the toponyms of these sites were

introduced later by Lutfi Khalil from the University ofJordan), noting the destruction of its western half, inthe course of construction work on the Wadi ArabaHighway from Aqaba to the Dead Sea (Raikes 1980,1985: 99). However, it was not until Lutfi Khalil beganexcavations in 1985 that systematic archaeologicalresearch could be undertaken at both sites (Khalil1987, 1995). In 1998 the Archaeological Survey andExcavation in the Yutum and Magass Area (ASEYM)project was established as a co-operation between theUniversity of Jordan and the Orient Department of theGerman Archaeological Institute, under the directionof Ricardo Eichmann (DAI) and Lutfi Khalil(University of Jordan),1 continuing Khalil’s previousresearch (Khalil 1995; Khalil and Eichmann 1999),and from 2002 onwards under co-direction of KlausSchmidt (DAI). Both sites, Tell al-Magass and TellHujayrat al-Ghuzlan, belong to an innovative period,the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age transition, that ischaracterized by cultural, technological, and social

*Sadly, Klaus Schmidt died during the course of the production of thispaper.

1Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin, Germany; 2Institute ofArchaeology, Amman, Jordan

Jens Notroff (corresponding author) Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,Podbielskiallee 69–71, D-14195 Berlin, Germany;email: [email protected]

1Between 2003 and 2010, research in the ASEYM project has been under-taken with financial support from the German Research Foundation.

© Council for British Research in the Levant 2014Published by ManeyDOI 10.1179/0075891414Z.00000000044 Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 249

mailto:[email protected]



change. At this time the first systematic metallurgy wasintroduced to the region and far-reaching contactsbecome ever more visible. Research at these sites isproving essential for our comprehension of the key pro-cesses during this pivotal period. Indeed, the Aqabaregion can be considered one of the most comprehen-sively researched areas, with Tell al-Magass and TellHujayrat al-Ghuzlan having the potential to becomekey sites for the Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age transi-tional sequence.To date, a total of 10 field campaigns have been

undertaken at these sites and in their immediate vicin-ity. The results of all seasons up to 2005 were pub-lished recently in a comprehensive monograph(Khalil and Schmidt 2009), and a second volume cov-ering subsequent seasons is in preparation.

State of research: Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan andTell al-MagassSo far, excavation and research conducted by the jointJordanian-German ASEYM project at the prehistoric

sites of Tell al-Magass and Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan,which lie just 1.5 km apart, have not only providedus with considerable new insights into the history ofthe immediate region, but have also illuminatedmore general developments for the southern Levantduring the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ageperiods. While in the first years of the project, researchconcentrated on Tell al-Magass, the focus later shiftedto Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, mainly due to its betterstate of preservation. In recent field campaigns,research efforts have again intensified at both sites.

While the preserved part of Tell al-Magass measuresabout 75 m × 50 m, with a height of 6 m at its highestpoint, Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan is approximately 5 mhigh and covers an area of around 120 m × 80 m.Excavations at both sites have exposed large architecturalstructures and units made of stone or mudbrick, as wellas combinations thereof. At both mounds some struc-tures appear to have been damaged in an earthquake(Korjenkov and Schmidt 2009), following which, retain-ing walls were added to some buildings to prevent them

Figure 1 Map of the southernWadi Arabah showing the location of sites investigated by the ASEYMproject, among them Tell al-Magass and Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan.After Brückner et al. (2002): 217 fig. 1

Notroff et al. Reconstructing networks, linking spaces

Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2250

from collapsing. Another earthquake seems to have beenmore destructive, apparently accompanied by heavyfires. A series of thick ash layers deposited within thearchaeological features at both mounds is attributed tothese events (cf. Eichmann et al. 2009: 23; Khalil 2009:5–7; Korjenkov and Schmidt 2009).It is especially (although not exclusively) these layers

that have produced many of the rich finds from bothsites. Pottery is known in abundance, represented bya large number of sherds, as well as semi-completeand complete vessels, including platters, bowls, andlarge storage jars. Fabric and typology have parallelsat other Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age sites inthe wider region (cf. Kerner 2000, 2002, 2009).Another important group comprises technical cer-amics, with crucibles and moulds—mostly fragmen-ted, rarely complete—for copper-metallurgicalprocesses (cf. Pfeiffer 2009); in contrast, the numberof copper objects is low. Ground-stone artefacts likemace heads, hammer, and grinding-stones, querns,

pestles, and stone vessels are also common. Inaddition, several thousand chipped-stone artefactshave been recovered, including forms typical to theChalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the southernLevant (cf. Hikade 2009). Owing to the arid con-ditions, bone artefacts, such as highly standardizedspindle whorls and awls, are well preserved. Shell arte-facts, mostly rings and fragments thereof, are alsocommon. Finally, figurines of sun-dried clay areknown from both settlements; noteworthy are twoanimal figurines from Tell al-Magass (Khalil 1988:105, fig. 17.12 and plate X.5; Herling 2002: 322, fig.69.3) and a female figurine from Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Schmidt 2009a: 294).Unlike typical tell settlements in the Near East,

where old walls were levelled and new structureswere erected leading to the development of a verticalsequence of successive buildings, at Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and al-Magass there is a more pronouncedcontinuity in the usage of architecture. This also

Figure 2 Plan of Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan showing the results of excavations and a reconstruction of the course of the enclosurewall.U. Siegel, DAI Orient Department, assisted by J. Sempf and D. Bodenmüller, DAI Orient Department


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 251

means that the stratigraphy and relative chronology ofthe site are mainly reliant on these architecturalelements (Siegel in press). Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlanin particular, and in contrast to Tell al-Magass,which has lost more than half of its substance as aresult of recent destruction, offers unique insightsinto the layout and structure of a 4th-millennium BC

settlement. Large areas of the site were excavateduncovering some exceptionally well-preserved stoneand mudbrick architecture, which survived up to 4 min height. It soon became evident that in some areasof the Tell, the walls formed cell-like structures,showing a planned layout with a number of relatedbuilding complexes (Fig. 2). Beam holes and remainsof wooden beams in the upper parts of some wallsmay be interpreted as remnants of ceilings, thus indi-cating that these buildings originally had more thanone storey. Some structures were successfully exca-vated down to their foundation levels, leading notonly to the exposure of corresponding floor levels,but also to the discovery of preserved window anddoor openings—complete with wooden window anddoor lintels in situ (Fig. 3).One complex, which was excavated down to its floor

level, is a peculiar building (‘Building D’ after

Eichmann et al. 2009: 24–25) located in excavationareas F4, F5, G4, and G5 in the south-western partof Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (cf. Fig. 2). Indeed, it isof particular note due to some outstanding finds andfeatures. Several walls of this complex were adornedwith decorations made in impresso technique, i.e.using fingers in the still wet wall-plaster (Fig. 4). Thedepictions are dominated by horned animals (mostprobably ibexes) at least one other animal (probablya cheetah), as well as human beings, and they areaccompanied by numerous hand prints (Schmidt2009b). Further, a large number of horn cores fromgazelle, ibex, and goat were found in the fill of thisbuilding, as were two ceramic animal horn imitations,thus correlating with the animals depicted and under-lining the apparent special status of this structure. Thissuggestion gains support from the discovery of someminiature jars, which may be interpreted as a symboli-cally meaningful deposition of some kind (Notroff2011). Three further vessel deposits were discoveredin a neighbouring room: while one larger examplewas highly fragmented (and its content unknown),another large vessel was filled with around 12 kg ofsand; a third smaller vessel of round shape (unusualin the ceramic repertory of the site) was found underthe foundation of a pillar-like construction. This con-tained thousands of beads of different materials,shapes, and sizes (Fig. 5).2

Yet another outstanding feature of the architectureat Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan is a stone wall that wasdiscovered at the southern edge of the mound.Excavations at the western periphery of the settlementhave shown that this is neither an isolated structure,nor part of a building complex, which may indicatea protective character for this feature, perhaps shield-ing the settlement from wadi floods (which still occuralong this stretch of the Wadi al-Yutum), or alterna-tively as a defensive structure and/or as territorialindicator (Becker in preparation).

Reference should also be made to a number of struc-tures that have been documented in close vicinity tothe settlement mound. During the initial survey workin 1998, several terrace walls and stone structures werelocated and mapped (Kallweit 2002). In 2004 and 2005this survey work was continued, resulting in the dis-covery of more stone-built structures, including chan-nels and other installations, which could beinterpreted as part of an irrigation system (cf.Heemeier et al. 2009; Siegel 2009; Klimscha et al.2012). However, it is still unclear when this irrigation

Figure 3 Example of a preserved wooden door lintel fromTell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan still in situ.Photo: N. Becker, DAI Orient Department

2Detailed analysis of this find and its components are still pending. Theresults will be presented separately.


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2252

system was constructed and in use, because of thepaucity of datable finds and the inherent problems ofradiocarbon dating the limestone coating which isfound in some of these channels. A connection withthe Chalcolithic settlement seems at least plausible,especially given the arid environment and a local pre-historic climate that would not have differed massivelyfrom that currently prevailing, i.e. hot and also dry (cf.Neef 2009: 361–62). In particular, the presence ofbarley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum dicoc-cum, Triticum aestivum/durum) among the botanicalremains from both Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tellal-Magass corroborate a correlation between settle-ment and irrigation system (Neef 2009: 359–60).While these cereals are considered drought resistantto some degree, they could hardly thrive under suchconditions. Furthermore, the occurrence of flax(Linum usitatissimum) in the botanic samples, a cropthat requires continuous access to humid soil con-ditions, points clearly to irrigation agriculture (Neef2009: 360). Since crop processing remains (i.e. earrachis fragments and capsule fragments of flax) arepresent at Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan in large quantities,local production is more likely than importation, andin any case, it would be more practical to processthese plants before transport given the additionalweight of unthreshed cereal crops.

Considering chronologyChronology is always a major area of interest inarchaeological discourse and for the southern Levantthis is certainly no exception. The chronology of theChalcolithic to Early Bronze Age transition, in par-ticular, is not well understood (e.g. Milevski 2013),though with the research conducted by the ASEYMproject at Tells Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and al-Magass,there are now two sites with the potential to shednew light on developments for the whole regionduring this period, thus closing a previous researchgap.Three main phases (I–III) were previously identified

at Tell al-Magass (Khalil 2009: 11, Table 1), thoughthis classification is likely to be expanded upon andrefined following the evaluation of fieldwork under-taken in early 2013 which involved the cleaning andexamination of a section cut through the mound,some 80 m in length and up to 5 m in height3

Figure 4 Example of wall decorations at Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan carried out in impresso technique.Photo: I. Wagner, DAI Orient Department

3The section was the direct result of construction activity in 1967. Theseason at Tell al-Magass, which was directed by Lutfi Khalil and KlausSchmidt and supervised by Ulrike Siegel, took place between January14 and January 28, 2013. The team of archaeologists included from theUniversity of Jordan: Abdel Karem Habaschan, Mohamad Tantawi,Munjed Qassim, and Mohamad Adea as photographer, and from theGerman Archaeological Institute, Thomas Urban. Manal Basouni actedas the representative of the Department of Antiquities. Besides the clean-ing and documentation of the section, a small sounding (trench 3) wasexcavated to virgin soil.


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 253

(Fig. 6). Preliminary results already indicate that atleast two major entities can be distinguished in thestratigraphic sequence of the site. In the lowersection, a number of ash layers with only a few stonewalls and pits with clay-plastered walls were detected.Finds consisted of very few pottery sherds, numerousbone fragments, and some bone tools, includingneedles and awls. Above this horizon, a layer wasfound which produced significantly more stone wallsand, in contrast to the lower entity, several pieces ofcopper slag. A number of organic samples weretaken for radiocarbon dating in order to clarify thechronological situation of these stratigraphic units.In the course of the 2013 field campaign, a total of

nine new dates (Table 1) could be added to the fivedates already published for Tell al-Magass (cf.Görsdorf 2002: 335, table 3, fig. 3). At Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan favourable preservation conditions producedplentiful carbonized material, including in situ woodenbeams, as well as some unusual finds, including anumber of grapes (or raisins) discovered in a vessel in2003, from which samples for radiocarbon datingcould have been selected. A total of 20 radiocarbondates are now available for this site (cf. Klimscha2009, 2012; Klimscha et al. in press).Radiocarbon dates from Tell al-Magass cover a

period from about 4300 to 3600 cal BC. Accordingto earlier analyses, based on samples taken during asurvey in 1998 (Fig. 7A), the beginning of settlementactivity at this site falls within the 5th millenniumcal BC (Görsdorf 2002: 335; Klimscha 2009: 369). A

terminus post quem for the end of the settlement hasbeen narrowed down to 3705–3635 cal BC, based ona combination of two overlapping dates from a layerwhich is certainly not the youngest at the site(Klimscha 2009: 369). New samples taken from thesection through the mound in 2013 have recentlybeen analysed (Fig. 7B). Some of the oldest datesgained from these samples derive from tamariskwood and have produced dates spanning the period4336–4241 cal BC at the 95.4 probability level(UGAMS 13656; UGAMS 13664).4 It should benoted that these two samples were recovered fromadjacent features in the lowest excavated layer, closeto virgin soil. As such they appear to confirm the stra-tigraphic sequence, albeit that the effects of ‘old wood’must be taken into account. A further date, on tamar-isk (UGAMS 13659) from an ash layer that is linkedwith the earliest use phase of a building in thenorth-western part of the section, produced an ageof 4054–3967 cal BC at the 94.2 per cent probabilitylevel. Two other samples show greater blurring intheir age ranges. The first sample stems from a pieceof hardwood taken from a thin ash layer, which alsoproduced traces of copper smelting activity(UGAMS 13661: 4360–4315 cal BC [63.1%],

Figure 5 Hoard of beads of different shapes, sizes, andmaterials recovered from a vessel deposited at Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan.Photo: N. Becker, DAI Orient Department

4All samples discussed here in detail have been analysed by the Center forApplied Isotope Studies at the University of Georgia (USA); radiocarbondates mentioned in the text without further references were calibratedwith OxCal (V4.2.2, Bronk Ramsey 2009; r.5; Atmospheric data fromReimer et al. 2009).


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2254

4300–4261 cal BC [32.3%]), while the second comesfrom another ash layer close to a stone wall furthereast (UGAMS 13663: 4331–4227 cal BC [78.1%],4203–4167 cal BC [12,5%], 4129–4118 cal BC [1.4%],4097–4076 cal BC [3.3%]). Again, in both cases theeffects of ‘old’ wood cannot be excluded. The remain-ing samples have provided ages with larger time ranges(UGAMS 13657: 4245–4050 cal BC [95.4%]; UGAMS13658: 4321–4293 cal BC [7.2%], 4265–4220 cal BC

[23.5%], 4211–4150 cal BC [33.1%], 4135–4054 cal BC

[31.6%]; UGAMS 4236–4051 cal BC [95.4%];UGAMS 13662: 4236–4042 cal BC [95.4%]). Thesecomparatively large intervals are very much an arte-fact of the calibration curve, which is relatively flatin this period (Fig. 8).

At Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, radiocarbon agescluster between 4000 and 3500 cal BC, with mostsamples covering a time span from 3700 to 3530 calBC (Klimscha 2009: 363–64 figs 1, 4; 2012: 194–205).The discovery in 2004 of a complete wooden beam atthe southern slope of the Tell meant that wiggle match-ing techniques could be applied as individual tree ringscould be sampled. According to these results, the treegrowth commenced in the 43rd or 42nd century, withthe last rings developing in the 40th or 39th centurycal BC (Klimscha 2009: 363 figs 2, 3; 2012: 197–99,figs 12–15). Once more the ‘old wood effect’ has tobe taken into consideration, since the dry climatewould have permitted re-use of old timber. Theexposure of large parts of the settlement in the course

Table 1 Relevant new radiocarbon samples and dates from Tell al-Magass (sample and context data recorded and provided byU. Siegel, DAI Orient Department, botanical determination by R. Neef, DAI Scientific Department) as discussed in thetext*

Sampleno.

Labno. Sample Context

δ13C,%

14C ageyears,bp (±)

Calibrated date(probability)

Ma 13-03 13656 Charcoal (tamarisk),5.00 g

Area T3, Loc. 23 (ash pit in virgin soil) −26.1 5420 (25) 4336 to 4241cal BC (95.4%)


General Section, Part 2, Sediment 9a (ashlayer beneath the foundation of stone wall’Sediment 6‘)

−26.4 5330 (25) 4245 to 4050cal BC (95.4%)

Ma13-05 13658 Charcoal (tamarisk),1.66 g

General Section, Part 3, Sediment 9b(bottom layer of a pit filled with charcoal)

−26.7 5350 (25) 4321 to 4293cal BC (7.2%)4265 to 4220cal BC (23.5%)4211 to 4150cal BC (33.1%)4135 to 4054cal BC (31.6%)


General Section, Part 2, Sediment 16 (ashlayer related to wall ’Sediment 6’, remainsof the building’s oldest utilization phase)

−28.4 5220 (25) 4146 to 4136cal BC (1.2%)4054 to 3967cal BC (94.2%)

Ma13-07 13660 Charcoal with botanicalmaterial (straw,twiglets), 0.75 g

General Section, Part 4, Sediment 9c(burned material at the bottom of a largeclay vessel)

−11.8 5320 (25) 4236 to 4051cal BC (95.4%)

Ma 13-08 13661 Charcoal (undeterminedhardwood), 1.17 g

General Section, Part 2, Sediment 12 (thinash layer with pieces of copper slag lyingabove the debris of mudbrick wall’Sediment 18’)

−23.4 5470(25) 4360 to 4315cal BC (63.1%)4300 to 4261cal BC (32.3%)


Area T3, ash layer under the stone wall Loc.1

−25.8 5300 (30) 4236 to 4042cal BC (95.4%)


Area T3, ash layer under the stone wall Loc.9

−24.9 5380 (25) 4331 to 4227cal BC (78.1%)4203 to 4167cal BC (12.5%)4129 to 4118cal BC (1.4%)4097 to 4076cal BC (3.3%)


Area T3, Loc. 21 −25.2 5420 (25) 4336 to 4241cal BC (95.4%)

*All analyses were undertaken by The University of Georgia, Center for Applied Isotope Studies (UGAMS): presented at the 95.4 probability level, datescalibrated with OxCal (V4.2.2, Bronk Ramsey 2009; r.5; Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. 2009).


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 255

Figure 6 Profile detail from the north-western part of the section through Tell al-Magass showing origin of samples Ma13-03–Ma13-11 taken for radiocarbon dating.Rectified photo: T. Urban, DAI Orient Department; sample documentation: U. Siegel, DAI Orient Department

Notro

ffet

al.

Reco

nstru

ctingnetw

orks,

linkin

gsp

aces

Levant

2014VOL.46

NO.2

256

of comprehensive excavations at Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan provided the opportunity to link the radiocar-bon dates as discussed above, to the site’s internal rela-tive chronology based on evaluation of thearchitectural features. In the course of her detailedanalysis of the buildings, Siegel (in press) was able togroup the cellular interlaced rooms, and rather maze-like structure of Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, into twomain settlement periods (I and II). While the first ofthese periods is further subdivided into different build-ing stages, the second settlement period appears to rep-resent a single building phase. On the basis of ourcurrent knowledge, settlement period I seems to com-mence in the middle of the 40th or at the latest in the39th century cal BC and must have ended prior to3650–3550 cal BC, as these dates already describe settle-ment period II (cf. Klimscha 2012: 194–203). A burialin a large pithos from the centre of the settlement hasbeen regarded as an indicator of the end of settlementactivity at Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan. Two samples provideda series of dates, of which the interval between 3582

and 3552 cal BC is the most probable, giving a terminuspost quem for the settlement in the middle of the 36thcentury cal BC (cf. Klimscha 2012: 202–03; Klimschaet al. in press).According to the radiocarbon record, both sites

were settled in around the 40th, and at the latest inthe 39th century cal BC, while data from Tell al-Magass might even indicate an earlier start. Activityat the sites seems not to have ended before the 36thcentury cal BC. Still, the important question, whythere were two such similar sites, located in suchclose proximity to one another and with such compar-able industries, remains. Although the exact dates oftheir abandonment are, as yet, not completely clear,it can be stated that the end of both settlementsseems to concur with the advance of the EarlyBronze Age, a period which witnessed technologicaland social innovations, the roots of which must besought in preceding events. Among these, the rise ofmetallurgy and the genesis of long-range contact net-works must have played an important role.

Figure 7 (A) Calibration of the radiocarbon dates from samples taken at Tell al-Magass in the 1985, 1990, and 1998 excavationseasons. The confidence limit of the hatched boxes is 68.2 per cent and of the unfilled boxes 95.4 per cent (afterGörsdorf 2002: fig. 3). (B) Calibrated radiocarbon dates from samples taken from the section through Tell al-Magass in 2013.


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 257

Reconstructing networksThe material culture discovered at Tell al-Magass andHujayrat al-Ghuzlan (which was more comprehen-sively excavated) strongly implies that these placeswere embedded within large-scale communicationand exchange networks. Indeed, the considerablerange of finds from the two sites sheds some light onthe character of these contacts, which can be describedas reciprocal, as suggested by a number of parallelsreported from other sites spanning a region from theNile Valley to the Levant.The pottery assemblage from the two sites, which is

completely hand-made, using locally available rawmaterials (Kerner 2009: 151; Khalil 2009: 12–13),finds parallels at Teleilat Ghassul, Abydos, and

Nahal Tillah, as well as at Wadi Fidan 4 and WadiFeinan 100 (Kerner 2000, 2002, 2009; Khalil 2009:13). Among the numerous finds of chipped flint arte-facts uncovered at the two sites, the large number ofcortical tools is noteworthy; especially since no signifi-cant evidence of on-site primary production has beendetected at either site. Generally speaking, assem-blages are dominated by tools and re-sharpening deb-itage. Cortical tools (also known as ‘fan scrapers’ or‘tabular scrapers’) are a characteristic ‘type fossil’ forthe Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Levant(Rosen 1983a, 1997). Production centres, i.e. miningregions where blanks were produced at an almost‘industrial’ scale, have been discovered on the northernedge of the el-Jafr Basin in south-eastern Jordan

Figure 8 Calibrated radiocarbon dates from Tell al-Magass (cf. Fig. 7B) and calibration curve.


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2258

Figure 9 Bracelets from molluscs, crafted onsite at Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan.Photo: N. Becker, DAI Orient Department

Figure 10 Fragment of a female figurine discovered at Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan.Photo: N. Becker, DAI Orient Department


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 259

(Quintero et al. 2002) and in the Wadi ar-Ruwayshidregion in eastern Jordan (Müller-Neuhof 2013a inpress, 2013b): both regions are characterized by theirremote locations and arid environments. Further

evidence for mining activity and cortical tool pro-duction comes from the Qa’ Abu al-Tulayha at thenorth-western fringe of the el-Jafr Basin (Fujii 2000,2003), and more production sites may exist in southern

Figure 11 (A) and (B) Fragment of a basalt vessel from Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan; (C) wide brimmed jar (‘Libyan Vase’) fromMaadi(after Rizkana and Seeher 1988: plate 107.1).Photo: I. Wagner, DAI Orient Department

Figure 12 Fragments of stone vessels with geometric decoration, (A) from Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan; (B) from Wadi al-Yutum.Photos: I. Wagner, DAI Orient Department


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2260

Sinai (Schmidt 1984), from whence—as well as in theNegev—workshops with a smaller cortical tool pro-duction are reported (Rosen 1983b: 80).Large-scale analyses, seeking to identify the origin

of raw materials used for tool production at severalsites, are currently in progress. While results are stilloutstanding, in the case of Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlanit can be stated that tools show a very homogeneouscomposition with respect to their raw materials, thusindicating a single source region (personal communi-cation, B. Müller-Neuhof). In the current state of

research, the Jafr Basin appears to be the closestknown source. Interestingly, cortical tools of thesame type are also known from Predynastic Egypt(Schmidt 1996: 92, fig. 82). Uncovered in largenumbers at the site of Maadi near modern dayCairo, they were regarded as imports from furthereast (cf. Rizkana and Seeher 1988: plate 49–67,IV.1–6). Other aspects of the local lithic industryshow affinities to the Nile Valley, strongly suggestinga similar workshop tradition (Hikade 2009). Twistedbladelets and micro endscrapers, as found at

Figure 13 Above: Technical ceramic from Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan: (A) rectangular mould; (B) oval-shaped mould (Drawings:H. Kosak, DAI Orient Department). Below: copper ingots from Maadi: (C) flat rectangular ingot, (D) naviform ingot(after Rizkana and Seeher 1989: plate 4.9–10).


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 261

Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Herling 2002: 294), are notviewed as a genuine Chalcolithic type from southernJordan, but regarded as ‘type fossils’ of the EgyptianButo-Maadi culture, not uncommon in Egypt and inthe southern Levant (Gilead 1984; Holmes 1989;Schmidt 1992, 1993). Since no bladelet cores havebeen recovered, these tools are most likely to havebeen manufactured elsewhere. The micro endscrapersfrom Maadi also show a strong resemblance to thosefrom Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and may denote acomplementary influence.Relations with Predynastic Egypt can be demon-

strated through other classes of material. A greenish-gray slate plaque discovered at Tell al-Magass, andresembling cosmetic palettes found in Egypt in largenumbers (Brückner et al. 2002: 323–24, fig. 70) mayalready point in this direction, and is reinforced bythe find of a pear-shaped stone mace head atHujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Klimscha 2011: fig. 17). Whilenot unknown from the Levant (cf. Bar-Adon 1980;Gopher 1996), mace heads of this type are consideredto be characteristic of Predynastic Egypt (Quibell1898: plate 12; Firth 1927: 205, fig. 8; Craig Patch2011a: 156–59) rather than the Levant (Moorey1988: 174).The large group of worked shells among the finds

adds to the evidence for these contacts. Many findsof pendants, complete and fragmented braceletsmade from molluscs, as well as pre-products and pro-duction waste, indicate local fabrication of theseobjects at Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Fig. 9). Amongthe shell raw material, Tridacna sp. and Lambis sp.are locally available resources; on the other handAspatharia rubens, of which three examples werefound at the site, originates in the River Nile(Benecke 2009: 354). Furthermore, similar braceletslike those from Tells al-Magass and Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan are known from other locations in thesouthern Levant, and from the Egyptian sites ofMaadi, Wadi Digla, and el-Omari (Rizkana andSeeher 1989: 21, 29, plate 6.10–11, IV. 9–10).The find of a steatopygous female figurine in the

northern centre of Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, ofwhich only the lower part is preserved (Fig. 10),emphasises this link, as it does not follow theLevantine tradition of violin-shaped idols, or haveclear parallels in Mesopotamia or Anatolia (cf.Hansen 2007). Rather it is reminiscent of the highlyschematic figurines from the Badarian period, i.e.Predynastic Egypt (Brunton and Caton-Thompson1928: plate 24.3; Craig Patch 2011b: 112, cat. 93).A particularly prominent group among ground-

stone artefacts are stone vessels of different shapes.

Within this category, a base fragment from a basaltvessel unearthed in the northern area of TellHujayrat al-Ghuzlan gains importance. This vesselcan be identified as the so-called Libyan Vase(Fig. 11), a term first introduced by Petrie (1920:36). The term is, however, misleading, as recentresearch has demonstrated that this form of vesselis common in Lower Egypt (Klimscha 2011:193–94, with further references). These vessels tooare characteristic of the Buto-Maadi Culture, wherethey are classified as ‘wide brimmed jars’ (Rizkanaand Seeher 1988: 62, plate 106.1–12; 107.1–12,XI.6–11) and ‘kegelstumpfförmige Gefäße’ (von derWay 1997: 108). Another stone vessel fragmentfrom Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan is decorated with ageometric relief (Fig. 12). It shows close parallelswith another fragment found in 2000 during thesurvey work in Wadi al-Yutum (Site 244, Yutum A;Herling 2009) and at Khirbet Rizqeh in the deserteast of Aqaba, where such vessels are also known(Kirkbride 1960, 1969; Carter 1970). A furtheranalogy comes from Eilat Tumulus VI about 6 kmto the west of Aqaba across the Red Sea (Avner2002: fig. 10.25).

A number of beads manufactured from seashell, andmore micro-beads of faience and talco-steatite arereported from Eilat Tumulus V (Avner 2002:Fig. 10.29–30). These pieces resemble some of thenumerous examples deposited in the western part ofTell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (see above). Micro-beadsof a similar type are widely distributed atChalcolithic and Early Bronze Age sites, where theyare known for instance from burial contexts of theBadari and Naqada culture in Egypt (Brunton andCaton-Thompson 1928; Beck 1934; Tite and Bimson1989; Bar-Yosef Mayer and Porat 2010), as well asfrom the mortuary caves of Peqi’in in Israel (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2004; Bar-Yosef Mayer and Porat2010). Further examples are reported from AlisarHöyük and Çamlıbel Tarlası in Anatolia (von derOsten 1937; Pickard and Schoop 2012), Ra’s alHadd and Samad Al Shan in Oman (Rösch et al.1997; Panei et al. 2005), Arpachiyah, Tepe Gawra,and Nineveh in Iraq (Mallowan and CriukshankRose 1935; Tobler 1950), as well as Harappa andMehrgarh in Pakistan (Mackay 1937; Hedge 1983).For most of these finds (including those fromHujayrat al-Ghuzlan), detailed scientific analyses arestill pending or absent. However, archaeometric analy-sis of some of these pieces (e.g. among the finds fromPeqi’in; cf. Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2004: 493) indicatesthat they are made of an artificial enstatite and cristo-balite from a powdered talc paste fired with a flux (see


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2262

also Pickard and Schoop 2012: 21–30). So far, tracesof the on-site production of such beads are lackingfrom Chalcolithic Levantine sites, while significanttalc deposits are unknown in the region (Pickard andSchoop 2012: 30). However, potential mineral depositsexist in Central Anatolia and Egypt (personal com-munication, U.-D. Schoop). On the other hand,Klimscha (2011: 189–90) recently pointed out thatthe complex production of such beads would haverequired the application of copper powder at hightemperatures (see also Bar-Yosef Mayer and Porat2010: 118). As such, the manufacture of these beadsmay be related to the technological knowledge associ-ated with early copper working.This scenario gains weight when it is considered that

the most important contribution of Tell al-Magass andTell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan to the exchange networksoutlined above would have been the technologicalknowledge around copper production. In particular,at Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, the relevant material cultureallows us to reconstruct the complete chaîne opératoirefor copper metallurgy, with the exception of theactual mining, the raw material for which can beassigned to the nearby copper ore deposits of Timna(Israel) and/or Wadi Feinan (Jordan), on the basis oflead isotope and trace element analyses (Hauptmannet al. 2009).5 Saddle-shaped querns showing traces ofmalachite indicate that these were used to crushchunks of copper ore, which are also present in thefind material. Numerous crucibles made of clay, manyfragments of moulds, and quantities of copper slagwere found at both sites thus providing clear proof ofmelting and smelting activities (Hauptmann et al.2009; Pfeiffer 2009). Some of the crucibles even showlayers of vesicular vitrification and traces of copper.While the majority of moulds were discovered in a frag-mented, and therefore a clearly used state, a few com-plete examples permit the identification of twodifferent types of moulds. Significantly, these were notdesigned for casting tools but instead for the productionof ingots: oval-shaped moulds for naviform ingots, andrectangular moulds for flat, tabular ingots (Fig. 13Aand B).6 The fact that the metal was converted intothese shapes clearly implies the intention for further

distribution, underlining the existence of the aforemen-tioned networks. Therefore, it should come as no sur-prise that finds of ingots are much rarer than finds oftheir moulds. Considering that ingots were destined tobe melted down and recast into other objects, their dis-covery in the archaeological record is largely a questionof chance. Therefore, the known examples have to beemphasized even more. A complete naviform ingotwas discovered in a debris layer in the southern partof Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Eichmann et al. 2009:29), and a fragment of a similar ingot at Tell al-Magass (Khalil 1988: fig. 17.11). Oval and rectangularingots of the same shape and dimensions as the mouldsare known from Maadi (Fig. 13C and D; Rizkana andSeeher 1989: plate 4). Archaeometallurgical analysesalso suggest that the copper from Maadi originatesfrom Timna or Wadi Feinan, therefore providing a con-nection to the production activities at Tells Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and al-Magass (cf. Klimscha et al. in press),especially as no such production has so far been attestedat Maadi itself. If nothing else, this allows us at least tostate that the sites in the Aqaba region belonged to thesame workshop tradition as that from which Maadireceived its copper. Sites such as Tell Abu Matar, Biras-Safadi, Shiqmim, and Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan,when taken together, point to a noticeable concen-tration of early metallurgical activity in the southernLevant (Golden et al. 2001: 961; Rowan and Golden2009: 14–20). This gives additional substance to thenotion of a common copper workshop tradition inthe area, and of which Tell al-Magass and Hujayratal-Ghuzlan formed a part.

ConclusionAmong the archaeological material discovered at thesites of Tell al-Magass and Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlanin southern Jordan, a great many of the finds have par-allels at other contemporary sites in the southernLevant and beyond, in particular Predynastic Egypt.The ‘participation’ of these sites in large-scaleexchange networks covering these regions is attestedby a number of these artefacts. Cortical tools, animportant and characteristic type of the Chalcolithicand Early Bronze Age in the Near East (includingEgypt), make up a large component of the lithic indus-try at both sites. Beyond suggesting a common lithicworkshop tradition, recently analysed mining areasand production sites for these tools further demon-strate that large-scale cortical tool production was animportant part of the exchange networks establishedin these regions. Micro-beads similar to those founddeposited in great number at Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan have to be considered as objects of far-

5In the current state of research it is not possible to differentiate betweenores from Timna and ores from Wadi Feinan; both belong to the same geo-logical mineral deposit (cf. Khalil and Riederer 1998; Klimscha et al. inpress). However, the geographical situation of Timna only about 30 kmfrom Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tell al-Magass may favour this depositas the place of origin of the ore processed at these sites. Wadi Feinan issituated at a distance of about 150 km from the sites.6About 10 fragments of similar moulds, a wider and a narrower examplepossibly reflecting these two different types, were reported among themetallurgical debris from the 4th millennium BC site of Tell ash-Shuna innorthern Jordan (Rehren et al. 1997).


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 263

ranging exchange, especially as there is currently noevidence for on-site production at any LevantineChalcolithic site. Bracelets and pendants craftedfrom molluscs testify to contacts in Egypt, both interms of the raw materials used and the typology ofthe finished objects. Finally, the metallurgical outputof Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, which clearly exceedsthe ‘cottage industry’ of a small village community,7

strongly emphasizes the existence of exchange net-works and a developing trading system in the firsthalf of the 4th millennium BC, with finds of copperingots from the Nile valley matching moulds fromHujayrat al-Ghuzlan and al-Magass, again underlin-ing an important thrust of these contacts towardsPredynastic Egypt. The intensification of large-scalecontacts, and the genesis of a trade network closelylinked to sites with an almost ‘industrial’ scale of pro-duction mark an important step in the developmenttowards urbanization and complex societies.Still, the density of research activity in the

Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age southern Levant isvery diverse and work has been particularly sparse insouthern Jordan. The fact that radiocarbon dates nowplace the sites of Tell al-Magass and Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan exactly at the transition from theChalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age means thatresearch conducted in the ASEYM project providesus with the chance to shed new light on the develop-ment of coeval communication and exchange networks,and on the cultural framework within which these wereembedded. Be this as it may, the exact role that the Tellsal-Magass and Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan played withinthese networks requires further clarification. Not onlyare there questions as to the reason for the presence,so close together, of two contemporaneous sites withsimilar specialization and focus, but their very geo-graphical position in a far from favourable environment— dry, arid, and rather hostile — requires consider-ation. Perhaps these settlements should be regarded asoutposts that benefitted from their peripheral location.In fact, the archaeobotanical evidence indicates thatefforts were made to compensate for the unfavourableenvironmental conditions, with agricultural subsistenceat both sites based on the cultivation of cereals (comple-mented by animal proteins, cf. Benecke 2009; Neef2009), which demanded an enhanced availability ofwater. Irrigation was also an important factor for thecultivation of flax as attested at Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan(Neef 2009: 360). Large numbers of perforated sherds

from that site, which might be interpreted as spindlewhorls, indicate local linen production and underlinethe economic relevance of agriculture beyond subsis-tence strategies (Müller-Neuhof et al. 2003). However,water management and availability was limited bylocal climate conditions. In particular, extensive metal-lurgical production must have caused a high demandfor fuel to keep the furnaces running at high tempera-tures. As the thick domestic ash layers from both sitesindicate, dung was the prevalent material for fires(Neef 2009: 361). Wood was presumably a scarceresource and thus itself probably a valuable commoditywithin the exchange relations characterized here.Recalling Renfrew’s 10 ‘modes of trade and theirspatial implications’ (Renfrew 1975: 41–46), thisexchange might be characterized as ‘free-lance (middle-man) trading’ (Renfrew 1975: 48–51). The fact thatboth sites were established in this rather harsh environ-ment indicates a pre-existing infrastructure for thesupply of those resources that were essential to ensurethe existence of these settlements, but were hard-to-access in this location. Rather, in the same way, as an‘oasis station’, Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and al-Magassmay be considered as contact points for passing cara-vans, in which case we could probably imagine themfulfilling intermediary roles in these networks. Alocation close to the Gulf of Aqaba, offering a routeto Egypt via the Red Sea (i.e. an alternative to the searoute through the Mediterranean Sea or the over-landroute via Sinai) may have compensated for climatic dis-advantages in this region and justified efforts to estab-lish settlements in this harsh environment. Passinggroups would have provided the community withimportant resources (i.e. things complementary tolocally sourced food, firewood, and raw materials tokeep local production running), in exchange for goodsproduced on site, which again would be tradedfurther. However, the evidence for craft specialization(e.g. related to metallurgy) at Hujayrat al-Ghuzlanand al-Magass may already indicate a step towards asystem of redistribution (Polanyi 1957: 250–56).Without actually ascribing the character of a ‘centralplace’ to any or both sites (the evidence is currentlytoo sparse to allow this argument) such an institutiona-lization of production and exchange is also detectable inthe layout of Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, and a specialbuilding complex with a possible administrative and/or cultic function. Furthermore, distribution of cruci-bles, moulds, and slag at the site suggests a spatialorganization of the chaîne opératoire, with differentactivities taking place in particular areas (Klimscha2013: 45–50, fig. 29, 30, 32). This degree of specializ-ation (in addition to metallurgy this also involved the

7To date, Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan has produced more than 630 crucibles andcrucible fragments (combined weight over 30 kg) and around 300 mouldfragments (combined weight c. 8.5 kg) (information kindly provided byF. Klimscha, personal communication).


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2264

manufacture of jewellery from molluscs and linen pro-duction), as well as efforts to secure the supply offood and water by agriculture and irrigation, all pointto a planned division of labour and co-ordination ofthe available workforce, something that would haverequired a regulating force with its authority based onaccess to, and control over, resources (Klimscha et al.2012: 135–36). Maintaining this control, and expandingit from modes of production to ways of distribution,could be considered a driving factor in the developmentfrom scattered, decentralized communities, to centraland more stratified units as known in the EarlyBronze Age (Joffe 1991). If this hypothesis is correct,Tell al-Magass and Tell Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan wouldhave constituted major nodal points in a growingnetwork comprising a number of innovative techniques,social as well as technological, helping to pave the wayfor the rise of complex Bronze Age societies.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank the Department of Antiquities ofJordan and its representatives Sauzan al-Fakhri andManal Basouni for the opportunity and kind per-mission to conduct research at the Tells al-Magassand Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan. Further thanks go toRicardo Eichmann for initiating and supporting theASEYM project and the German ResearchFoundation (DFG) for financially supporting theresearch. Finally, thanks are also due to Lee Clare,who helped with the English language; any remainingmistakes, however, are solely those of the authors.

BibliographyAvner, U. 2002. Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev

and Sinai Populations, during the 6th–3rd Millennia BC.Unpublished PhD thesis. Institute of Archaeology, HebrewUniversity Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

Bar-Adon, P. 1980. The Cave of the Treasure: The Finds from the Caves ofNahal Mishmar. Judean Desert Studies. Jerusalem: IsraelExploration Society.

Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. E. and Porat, N. 2010. Glazed steatite paste beadsin the Chalcolithic of the Levant: long distance trade and manufac-turing processes. In, Rosen, S. and Roux, V. (eds) Techniques andPeople: Anthropological Perspectives on Technology in theArchaeology of the Proto-historic and Early Historic Periods in theSouthern Levant (Memoires et travaux du Centre de recherchefrançais de Jérusalem): 111–23. Archéologie et Sciences del’Antiquité et du Moyen-Age 9. Paris: de Boccard.

—, Porat, N., Gal, Z., Shalem, D. and Smithline, H. 2004. Steatite beadsat Peqi’in: long distance trade and pyro-technology during theChalcolithic of the Levant. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:493–502.

Beck, H. C. 1934. Notes on glazed stones: part I—glazed steatite.Ancient Egypt and the East 1934: 69–88.

Becker, N. in preparation. The enclosure wall from Chalcolithic Hujayratal-Ghuzlan. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie.

Benecke, N. 2009. Faunal remains of Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (exca-vations 2000–2004). In, Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. (eds)Prehistoric Aqaba I: 339–54. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates.Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–60.

Brückner, H., Eichmann, R., Herling, L., Kallweit, H., Kerner, S.,Khalil, L. and Migdadi, R., 2002. Chalcolithic and Early BronzeAge sites near Aqaba, Jordan. In, Eichmann, R. (ed.)Ausgrabungen und Surveys im Vorderen Orient 1: 217–331. Orient-Archäologie 5. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Brunton, G. and Caton-Thompson, G. 1928. The Badarian Civilisation.London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

Carter, T. 1970. The stone spirits. Expedition 12(3): 22–40.Craig Patch, D. 2011a. Early dynastic art. In, Craig Patch, D. (ed.)Dawn of

Egyptian Art: 137–79. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.— 2011b. The human figure. In, Craig Patch, D. (ed.) Dawn of Egyptian

Art: 97–135. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Eichmann, R., Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. 2009. Excavations at Tall

Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Aqaba/Jordan): excavations 1998–2005and stratigraphy. In, Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. (eds) PrehistoricAqaba I: 17–33. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Firth, C. M. 1927. The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. Report for1910–1911. Cairo: Government Press.

Frank, F. 1934. Aus der Aqaba I: Reiseberichte. Zeitschrift desDeutschen Palästina-Vereins 57: 191–280.

Fujii, S. 2000. Qa’ Abu Tulayha West: an interim report of the 1999season.Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44: 149–71.

Fujii, S. 2003. Qa’Abu Tulayha West, 2002 an interim report of the sixthand final season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan47: 195–223.

Gilead, I. 1984. The Micro-Endscraper: a new tool type of theChalcolithic period. Tel Aviv 11: 3–10.

Golden, J., Levy, T. E. and Hauptmann, A. 2001. Recent discoveriesconcerning Chalcolithic metallurgy at Shiqmim, Israel. Journal ofArchaeological Science 28: 951–63.

Gopher, A. 1996. The Nahal Qanah Cave. Earliest Gold in the SouthernLevant. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel AvivUniversity 12. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of the Universityof Tel Aviv.

Görsdorf, J. 2002. New 14C-datings of prehistoric settlements in thesouth of Jordan. In, Eichmann, R. (ed.) Ausgrabungen undSurveys im Vorderen Orient 1: 333–39. Orient-Archäologie 5.Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Hansen, S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zurAnthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit inSüdosteuropa. Archäologie in Eurasien 20. Mainz: von Zabern.

Hauptmann, A., Khalil, L. and Schmitt-Strecker, S. 2009. Evidence ofLate Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age I copper production fromTimna ores at Tall al-Magass, Aqaba. In, Khalil, L. andSchmidt, K. (eds) Prehistoric Aqaba I: 295–305. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Hedge, K. 1983. The art of the Harappan microbead. Archaeology 36:68–72.

Heemeier, B., Rauen, A., Waldhör, M. and Grottker, M. 2009. Watermanagement at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan. In, Khalil, L. andSchmidt, K. (eds) Prehistoric Aqaba I: 247–71. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Herling, L. 2002. The lithic artefacts from Tall al- Magass, Chalcolithicand Early Bronze Age sites near Aqaba, Jordan. In, Eichmann, R.(ed.) Ausgrabungen und Surveys im Vorderen Orient 1: 286–321.Orient-Archäologie 5. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

— 2009. Aqaba. From the land. Ergebnisse des ASEYM-Surveys.Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 2: 290–308.

Hikade, T. 2009. The lithic industry at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan—cam-paigns 2000—2003. In, Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. (eds) PrehistoricAqaba I: 233–45. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Holmes, D. L. 1989. The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Upper Egypt. AComparative Study of the Lithic Traditions of Badari, Nagada andHierakonpolis. British Archaeological Reports International Series469. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Joffe, A. 1991. Early Bronze Age I and the evolution of social complexity inthe Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 4: 3–58.

Kallweit, H. 2002. Archaeological and geomorphological survey to theeast, southeast and south of Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan. In, Brückner,H., Eichmann, R., Herling, L., Kallweit, H., Kerner, S., Khalil,L. and Migdadi, R. (eds) Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age sitesnear Aqaba, Jordan. In, Eichmann, R. (ed.) Ausgrabungen und


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 265

Surveys im Vorderen Orient 1: 228–40. Orient-Archäologie5. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Kerner, S. 2000. The Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant. In,Bienert, H. D. and Müller-Neuhof, B. (eds) At the Crossroads.Essays on the Archaeology, History and Current Affairs of theMiddle East: 35–46. Amman: German Protestant Institute ofArchaeology in Amman.

— 2002. The pottery assemblage from Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Wadıal-Yutum B. In, Brückner, H., Eichmann, R., Herling, L.,Kallweit, H., Kerner, S., Khalil, L. and Migdadi, R. (eds)Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age sites near Aqaba, Jordan. In,Eichmann, R. (ed.) Ausgrabungen und Surveys im Vorderen Orient1: 244–56. Orient-Archäologie 5. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

— 2009. The pottery of Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan 2000–2004. In, Khalil,L. and Schmidt, K. (eds) Prehistoric Aqaba I: 127–232. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Khalil, L. 1987. Preliminary report on the 1985 season of excavation at alMagass-Aqaba. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan31: 481–84.

— 1988. Excavation at Magass-Aqaba 1985. Dirasat 15(7): 71–117.— 1995. The second season of excavation at al-Magass – Aqaba 1990.

Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39: 65–79.— 2009. The excavations at Tall al-Magass. Stratigraphy and architec-

ture. In, Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. (eds) Prehistoric Aqaba I:5–15. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

— and Eichmann, R. 1999. Archaeological survey and excavation at theWadi al-Yutum and Tall Magass Area—al-Aqaba (ASEYM). Apreliminary report on the first season 1998. Annual of theDepartment of Antiquities of Jordan 43: 501–20.

— and Riederer, J. 1998. Examination of copper metallurgical remainsfrom a Chalcolithic site at el-Magass, Jordan. DamaszenerMitteilungen 10: 1–9.

— and Schmidt, K. (eds). 2009. Prehistoric Aqaba I. Orient-Archäologie23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Kirkbride, D. 1960. Khirbet Rizqeh. Revue Biblique 67: 232–35.— 1969. Ancient Arabian ancestor idols 1. Archaeology 22(2): 116–21

and Archaeology 22(3): 188–95.Klimscha, F. 2009. Radiocarbon dates from prehistoric Aqaba and other

related sites from the Chalcolithic period. In, Khalil, L. andSchmidt, K. (eds) Prehistoric Aqaba I: 363–401. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

— 2011. Long-range contacts in the late Chalcolithic of the southernLevant. Excavations at Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tall al-Magass near Aqaba, Jordan. In, Mynárova, J. (ed.) Egypt andthe Near East: 177–210. Prague: Charles University in Prague,Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts.

— 2012. Die absolute Chronologie der Besiedlung von Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan bei Aqaba, Jordanien, im Verhältnis zum Chalkolithikumder südlichen Levante. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 5:188–208.

— 2013. Innovations in Chalcolithic metallurgy in the southern Levantduring the 5th and 4th millennium BC. Copper-production at TallHujayrat al-Ghuzlan and Tall al-Magass, Aqaba Area, Jordan. In,Burmeister, S., Hansen, S., Kunst, M. and Müller-Scheeßel, N.(eds) Metal Matters. Innovative Technologies and Social Change inPrehistory and Antiquity: 31–63. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

—, Siegel, U. and Heemeier, B. 2012. Das wasserwirtschaftliche Systemdes Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan, Jordanien. In, Klimscha, F.,Eichmann, R., Schuler, C. and Fahlbusch, H. (eds)Wasserwirtschaftliche Innovationen im archäologischen Kontext.Von den prähistorischen Anfängen bis zu den Metropolen derAntike: 123–38. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

—, Schmidt, K., Siegel, U. and Notroff, J. in press. New data on thesocio-economic relations between Egypt and the southern Levantin the 4th millennium BC. A perspective from southernTransjordan. In, Höflmayer, F. and Eichmann, R. (eds) Egyptand the Southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age: C14,Chronology, Connections. Proceedings of a workshop held inBerlin 14th–16th September 2011: 161–176. Orient-Archäologie31, Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Korjenkov, A. and Schmidt, K. 2009. An archaeoseismological study atTall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan: seismic destruction of Chalcolithic andEarly Bronze Age structures. In, Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. (eds)Prehistoric Aqaba I: 79–97. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Mackay, E. 1937. Bead making in ancient Sind. Journal of the AmericanOriental Society 57: 1–15.

Mallowan, M. E. L. and Criukshank Rose, J. 1935. Excavations at TellArpachiyah 1933. Iraq 2: 1–178.

Milevski, I. 2013. The transition from the Chalcolithic to the EarlyBronze Age of the southern Levant in socio-economic context.Paléorient 39(1): 193–208.

Moorey, P. R. S. 1988. The Chalcolithic hoard from Nahal Mishmar,Israel, in context. World Archaeology 20(2): 171–89.

Müller-Neuhof, B. 2013a in press. The Wadı ar-Ruwayshid miningcomplex: Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age cortical tool productionin N/E Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan.

— 2013b. South-west Asian Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Agedemand for ‘big-tools’: specialized flint exploration beyond thefringes of settled regions. Lithic Technology 38(3): 220–36.

—, Schmidt, K., Khalil, L. and Eichmann, R. 2003. Warenproduktionund Fernhandel vor 6000 Jahren. Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan beiAqaba. Alter Orient Aktuell 4: 22–25.

Neef, R. 2009. Living in the desert: plant remains from Tall al-Magass.In, Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. (eds) Prehistoric Aqaba I: 355–62.Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Notroff, J. 2011. Vom Sinn der kleinen Dinge. Überlegungen zurAnsprache und Deutung von Miniaturgefäßen am Beispiel derFunde von Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 4: 246–60.

Panei, L., Rinaldi, G. and Tosi, M. 2005. Investigations on ancient beadsfrom the Sultanate of Oman (Ra’s al-Hadd—southern Oman).Revue d’Archéométrie 29: 151–55.

Petrie, W. M. F. 1920. Prehistoric Egypt as Illustrated by over 1000Objects in University College. London: British School ofArchaeology in Egypt and Bernard Quaritch.

Pfeiffer, K. 2009. The technical ceramic for metallurgical activities inTall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan and comparable sites in the southernLevant. In, Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K. (eds) Prehistoric Aqaba I:305–38. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Pickard, C. and Schoop, U.-D. 2012. Characterization of LateChalcolithic micro-beads from Çamlıbel Tarlası, north-centralAnatolia. Archaeometry 55(1): 14–32.

Polanyi, K. 1957. The economy as instituted process. In, Polanyi, K.,Arensberg, C. M. and Pearson, H. W. (eds) Trade and Market inthe Early Empires: 243–70. New York: Free Press.

Quibell, J. E. 1898. El Kab. Egyptian Research Account 3. London:Bernard Quaritch.

Quintero, L. A., Wilke, P. J. and Rollefson, G. O. 2002. From flint mineto fan-scraper: the late prehistoric Jafr industrial complex. Bulletinof the American Schools of Oriental Research 327: 17–48.

Raikes, T. D. 1980. Notes on some Neolithic and later sites in WadiAraba and the Dead Sea Valley. Levant 12: 40–60.

— 1985. The character of the Wadi Araba. In, Hadidi, A. (ed.) Studies inthe History and Archaeology of Jordan 2: 95–101. Amman:Department of Antiquities.

Rehren, T., Hess, K. and Philip, G. 1997. Fourth millennium BC coppermetallurgy in northern Jordan: the evidence from Tell esh-Shuna.In, Gebel, H. G. K., Kafafi, Z. and Rollefson, G. O. (eds) ThePrehistory of Jordan, II. Perspectives from 1997: 625–40. Berlin:ex oriente.

Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W.,Blackwell, P. G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S.,Edwards, R. L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P. M., Guilderson, T. P.,Hajdas, I., Heaton, T. J., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kaiser,K. F., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S. W., Reimer,R. W., Richards, D. A., Southon, J. R., Talamo, S., Turney,C. S. M., van der Plicht, J. and Weyhenmeyer, C. E. 2009.IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves,0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51(4): 1111–50.

Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as action at a distance: questions of integrationand communication. In, Sabloff, J. A. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (eds) Ancient Civilization and Trade: 3–59. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.

Rizkana, I. and Seeher, J. 1988. Maadi II. The Lithic Industries of thePredynastic Settlement. Abhandlungen des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts Kairo 65, Mainz: von Zabern.

— and Seeher, J. 1989. Maadi III. The Non-Lithic Small Finds and theStructural Remains of the Predynastic Settlement. Abhandlungen


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2266

des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 80. Mainz: vonZabern.

Rösch, C., Hock, R., Schuessler, U., Yule, P. and Hannibal, A. 1997.Electron microscope analysis and X-ray diffraction methods inarchaeometry; investigations on ancient beads from the Sultanateof Oman and from Sri Lanka. European Journal of Mineralogy 9:763–83.

Rosen, S. A. 1983a. The Canaanean Blade and the Early Bronze Age.Israel Exploration Journal 33: 15–29.

— 1983b. Tabular scraper trade: a model of material cultural dispersion.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 249: 79–86.

— 1997. Craft specialization and the rise of secondary urbanism: a viewfrom the southern Levant. In, Aufrecht, W. E., Mirau, N. A. andGauley, S. W. (eds) Urbanism in Antiquity from Mesopotamia toCrete: 82–91. Sheffield: Academic Press.

Rowan, Y. M. and Golden, J. 2009. The Chalcolithic of the southernLevant. A synthetic review. Journal of World Prehistory 22: 1–92.

Schmidt, K. 1984. Zur Frage der ökonomischen Grundlagenfrühbronzezeitlicher Siedlungen im Südsinai. Herstellung undVerhandlung von Plattensilexabschlaggeräten. Mitteilungen desDeutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo 40: 261–64.

— 1992. Tell el-Fara’in—Buto and el-Tell el-Iswid (south): the lithicindustries from the Chalcolithic to the Early Old Kingdom. In,van den Brink, E. M. C. (ed.) The Nile Delta in Transition;4th–3rd Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the Seminar held inCairo, 21–24 October 1990 at the Netherlands Institute ofArchaeology and Arabic Studies: 31–41. Jerusalem: The IsraelExploration Society.

— 1993. Comments to the lithic industry of the Buto-Maadi culture inLower Egypt. In, Krzyzaniak, L., Kobusiewicz, M. and Alexander,

J. (eds) 1993. Environmental Change and Human Culture in theNile Basin and Northern Africa until the Second Millennium B.C.Proceedings of the International Symposium at Dymaczewo nearPoznan, 5–10 September, 1988. Studies in African Archaeology 4:267–77. Poznan: Poznan Archaeological Museum.

— 1996. Norsuntepe. Kleinfunde I. Die lithische Industrie. Mainz: vonZabern.

— 2009a. Aqaba (Jordanien). In, Jahresbericht des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts 2008. Archäologischer Anzeiger, Beiheft1: 293–95.

— 2009b. Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan—the wall decorations. In, Khalil, L. andSchmidt, K. (eds) Prehistoric Aqaba I: 99–112. Orient-Archäologie23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

Siegel, U. 2009. Hydrological structures in the Wadi al-Yutum Fan in thevicinity of Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan. In, Khalil, L. and Schmidt, K.(eds) Prehistoric Aqaba I: 273–94. Orient-Archäologie 23. Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf.

— in press. Die Baugeschichte der prähistorischen Siedlung Tall Hujayratal-Ghuzlan/Jordanien. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 7.

Tite, M. S. and Bimson, M. 1989. Glazed steatite: an investigation of themethods of glazing used in Ancient Egypt. World Archaeology 21:87–100.

Tobler, A. J. 1950. Excavations at Tepe Gawra II. Philadelphia, PA:University of Pennsylvania Museum.

von der Osten, H. H. 1937. The Alishar Hüyük: seasons of 1930–32:Volume I, Oriental Institute Publications XXVIII. Chicago:Chicago University Press.

von der Way, T. 1997. Tell el-Fara’în. Buto I. Ergebnisse zumfrühen Kontext. Kampagnen der Jahre 1983–1989. Mainz: vonZabern.


Levant 2014 VOL. 46 NO. 2 267

Reconstructing networks, linking spaces—the view from the Aqaba region (Jordan)

Documents