Filling gaps in Middle Islamic settlement
My colleague and good friend Kyle Knabb just posted an abstract for a paper he’s giving at the SAAs in Honolulu this year, and I thought, “Oh, I’m also presenting half of that paper. I should probably mention it.”
So, as Kyle said, we’re working together right now to analyze some of the pottery from an intensive survey he led in Wadi al-Faydh, near Petra, in 2009. I was a member of his survey team, so it’s exciting to get to analyze a lot of this material finally. As Kyle also mentioned, the majority of the assemblage is made up of rather coarse hand-made pottery (how coarse, you ask? Here’s an example collected in Petra by the International Wadi Farasa Project, which gives you an idea of what we’re talking about). In addition to not being the most attractive pottery (though I would argue that it has its charms), much of it is also rather difficult to date, especially when it comes from surveys, rather than excavations. One of our arguments, however, is that recent (and in some cases not-so-recent) excavations have produced evidence that enables us to date some of the ceramics Kyle found – especially some distinctive decorated forms – to the 11th and early 12th centuries AD.
Our abstract begins with a related problem, which is that evidence of settlement during this period has been somewhat tricky to actually find. To get an idea of this, we just have to check out the DAAHL’s (that’s the Digital Archaeological Atlas of the Holy Land, for those not yet in the know) Archaeological Periods page. If you zoom to the study area and select Fatimid or Crusader, you see relatively little settlement. If you click Ayyubid, Ayyubid/Mamluk, or Mamluk, the picture is different (and this is also true if you select ‘Abbasid/Fatimid, actually). If, as we’re going to argue, many ceramics of the Fatimid and Crusader periods have been misclassified as Ayyubid/Mamluk – especially in the south – we have to wonder how good our understanding of settlement patterns in the Middle Islamic I (1000-1200 AD) actually is.
These dating concerns have implications beyond simply establishing the chronology of settlement in the region. The biggest issue for me is that sites which weren’t occupied during the same period obviously can’t be directly connected to one another. This is important for reconstructing local patterns of trade, and one of the things I’m concerned with in terms of my work in Faynan. As the dating of sites becomes more precise, connections that seemed obvious when all the ceramics were lumped together as “Ayyubid/Mamluk” suddenly disappear. But that’s a different story for another day. . .