Fig 1.
Bronze Age walled oases and main settlements in Northwestern Arabia, with the location of Khaybar Oasis and the Harrat Khaybar walled oases complex (dashed red oval).
Source: Esri, DAAHL online Database, QGIS OSM.
Fig 2.
Al-Natah site in Khaybar Oasis.
Fig 3.
Map showing the location of the al-Natah site in Khaybar Oasis.
Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Fig 4.
Map of the al-Natah site (KH02434), with plan of the architectural features identified on the surface (black lines; grey lines for reconstructions; dashed red line: Reconstructed layout of the rampart; numbers are written here without prefix KH for simplification).
Fig 5.
Orthophotogrammetry of the al-Natah site (KH02434).
Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Fig 6.
A tower in the southern rampart of al-Natah site, facing southwest.
Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Fig 7.
The residential area of the al-Natah site, looking west.
Fig 8.
A quadripartite unit (sounding 8) during excavation (left, looking north) and a tripartite dwelling with an added platform(?) on its smaller side (looking north-west) at the al-Natah site.
Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Fig 9.
Sounding 3, plan and archaeological sections A & B with SU numbers and location of 14C datings (Section A in SD3a, Section B in SD3b). Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Table 1.
14C dates from the al-Natah site (date in italics is rejected due to incomplete treatment of the sample).
Fig 10.
The central sector of the al-Natah site.
Fig 11.
The rampart of al-Natah: A. Traces of mudbrick in the masonry; B. Plan of soundings 6a-c in and around tripartite tower KH09077; C. Sections in sounding 6b; D. Sections in sounding 6c. Description of the layers (SD6b-c): the grey sandy-gravelly basal unit SU1 is the first unit lying on the basaltic substratum. No weathering layer of the substratum is observed. The presence of pebble beds of varied lithology within an otherwise fairly homogeneous unit indicates the probably anthropogenic origin of this deposit, which could not be transported by runoff. A dark brown anthropogenic paleosoil with granular structure, composed of ceramic sherds, bones and numerous charcoal pieces, was identified and described (SU2). Its presence is discontinuous: it is well developed to the west of SD6b, where it is beveled under SU3, and present in the form of a thin partial layer in SD6c. This layer could be evidence of a very local reworking of the occupation levels at the site. Both layers seem to predate the construction of the bastion and the rampart, but could also constitute pre-construction preparation. SU4 corresponds to run-off facies that fill in the gaps between the blocks of the built elements. The concordance of the sedimentary facies and geometry of the units located between the masonry blocks of the structures (SU 3 and 4), suggests that the deposition of SU4 results from the same sedimentary process, probably post-construction. We assume here that these runoff facies mark the very local movement of material eroded from the top of the dismantled structures, filling the partially empty spaces between the blocks. This raises questions about the construction method, which potentially combines dry stone construction with the use of raw earth. Finally, in SD6c, SU5 is mainly composed of blocks with a sandy matrix marked by these runoff facies which fill the gaps between the blocks. It constitutes a deliberate filling of the tripartite bastion, with probable collapse of the wall, and marks the end of the use of the structure. Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Fig 12.
Schematic representation of the al-Natah Bayesian model in ChronoModel V2.0.18: A. set of dated "events" between which stratigraphic constraints can be applied (arrows), B. grouped by phase for which a succession constraint is applied, C. a posteriori phase start and end distributions and 90% phase time range (horizontal bar above the two distributions). Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Table 2.
Results of Bayesian modelling in ChronoModel V2.0.18, calibrated in BCE with Intcal20.
HPD, Highest Probability Density region at 90% for phase start and end dates; MAP, Mode a posteriori for phase start and end dates.
Fig 13.
Bronze Age archaeological occupations in the Khaybar oasis, Khaybar LDAP.
Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Fig 14.
3D virtual reconstruction of the Bronze Age site of al-Natah.
Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Fig 15.
Types of archaeological objects found at al-Natah (KH02434) and at Snake site (KH09079, KH00647: A. fragments of ceramic crucibles with metallic remnants on the inside, B. pestle and mortar, C. bone and carnelian beads and fragment of metal. Reprinted under a CC BY license, with permission from AFALULA-RCU-CNRS, 2024.
Fig 16.
Late Early Bronze Age-Middle Bronze Age vessels from the al-Natah site.
Fig 17.
Comparison of the dimensions of the main Bronze Age walled oases−and their settlements in red−in Northwestern Arabia (except iron age Dumat al-Jandal).