![]() ![]() The fruit is pressed in local olive mills. Olives are harvested in October-November, after the first autumn rains wash away the summer dust. It was particularly thrilling to dig our trenches through this ancient olive factory at the same time as farmers were picking olives in the orchards that surround the site. The single phase of unmodified architecture is consistent with limited occupation, and the paucity of domestic debris such as cooking pots and hearths suggests non-domestic activity. These data suggest that olive fruit was pressed for oil and olive wood was burned as fuel, likely stockpiled as orchard prunings.įurthermore, the absence of other plant species such as domestic cereal grains and legumes suggests that people did not live at Khirbet Ghozlan permanently rather, they probably visited the site seasonally to harvest and maintain their orchards. Using Scanning Electron Microscopy, Dr Caroline Cartwright (Senior Research Scientist, British Museum), identified crushed olive stones and carbonized olive wood in the organic remains obtained through soil flotation. However, the most compelling data lies in the microscopic botanical remains. FIGURE 4: Broken and complete Canaanean blades found during the 2019 excavation season. FIGURE 3: Archaeologist Sarah Carter excavating a broken-but-complete store jar in an EB IV storage compound (Trench 600). Several long, notched Canaanean flint blades were possibly used as pruning saws, and four rock-cut olive presses were recorded nearby. Excavations uncovered a large architectural compound with several storage bins, and storage wares dominate the ceramic assemblage, including 26 partly-complete store jars and spouted decanting vats. The results strongly support the olive hypothesis. To test this model, a team from the British Museum and University of Sydney undertook excavations at Khirbet Ghozlan in March 2017 and November 2019. In other words, could Khirbet Ghozlan be a 4,500 year-old olive oil factory and storehouse? FIGURE 2: Storage compounds separated by a narrow street. As these hills are well-suited to horticultural production, I propose that small enclosure sites served as specialized processing centers for upland tree crops such as olive ( Olea europaea), and were defended to protect seasonally-produced stockpiles of high-value liquid commodities such as oil. Khirbet Ghozlan is one of several EB IV enclosure sites, all located on the well-drained slopes of the Jordan Rift Valley escarpment. The answer probably lies in the site’s upland location. The monumental enclosure is visible running across the low saddle over which the site is accessed. Why defend such a tiny site? FIGURE 1: View to Khirbet Um al-Ghozlan in the Wadi Rayyan, Jordan. Built partly as a double wall of massive, megalithic slabs, this enclosure controlled access to the Ghozlan knoll. ![]() However, Khirbet Ghozlan is remarkable for a monumental enclosure wall. In this respect, Khirbet Ghozlan sits comfortably with our traditional understanding of the Early Bronze IV period (2600-2000 BCE), during which people abandoned large, fortified, mounded sites and dispersed into small, undefended villages. Most archaeologists would classify the site as a hamlet or village, as it is only 0.4 ha in size. The site of Khirbet Um al-Ghozlan (the “Ruins of the Mother of the Gazelles”) sits on a steep knoll overlooking the stunning Wadi Rayyan in north Jordan. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |