Mountain settlements in Edom – New perspectives on an Iron Age tribal kingdom
Interview with archaeologist Katharina Schmidt about her research at the Cluster of Excellence "Religion and Politics"
Archaeologist Katharina Schmidt is conducting a project at the Cluster of Excellence "Religion and Politics" on the Iron Age kingdom of Edom (c. 700-500 BCE), located in what is now southern Jordan. What distinguishes this kingdom were small mountain settlements, which, being remote and with poor water supplies, are usually now thought to have been temporary refuges for pastoral tribes. However, recent investigations as part of a survey project that examined 12 of these mountain settlements in more detail suggest that, rather than being inaccessible and temporary refuges, they were in fact permanent and agriculturally self-sufficient settlements that were farmed sustainably over generations. The project Mountain-top sites in Edom: Disentangling politics, religion and economy in an Iron Age tribal kingdom is examining the religious, political and economic entanglements and disentanglements that the mountain settlements had with the rest of Edom. Katharina Schmidt talks here about her research.
Your project deals with the Iron Age kingdom of Edom. What do we know today about its religion, politics and economy?
Katharina Schmidt: It had previously been thought that Edom was a highly centralised state with the capital Busayra as the seat of the king and the central administration, and that it had a uniform cult centred on the god Qaus. However, more recent archaeological searches, including our own research on the mountain settlements, paint a more accurate picture.
Politically, Edom was probably organised along tribal lines. Although kings resided in Busayra, representing Edom to the outside world and being documented in Assyrian sources as tribute payers, their power was possibly limited to the region, with many tribal groups living largely independently and considering themselves only loosely part of the kingdom. Economically, Edom’s strength lay in long-distance trade: through its territory ran central routes transporting incense, spices and other luxury goods from Arabia to the Mediterranean. As finds of fine ceramics and imported objects at some sites show, it was the elites in Busayra who benefited most from this trade. At the same time, there was a broad agricultural base, which, as studies of the mountain settlements show, were not, as researchers had previously believed, merely places of refuge, but rather permanent and self-sufficient communities with sufficient water supplies and terraced fields for agricultural use.
Religiously, the god Qaus was central – as royal names and a building in Busayra that may be interpreted as a temple suggest. However, there are no traces of official cults dedicated to this god in the mountain settlements that we investigated. But some architectural structures identified in our project could indicate separate cult practices in some of the mountain settlements, these practices perhaps being based more on nature phenomena or nature deities. All in all, then, Edom consisted of several levels: an elite in Busayra that had strong networks, and numerous smaller, agricultural communities, which were only loosely connected politically and religiously to the nominal capital. Our project seeks to find out exactly what the dynamics between the communities were like.
Studying the mountain settlements thus provides a completely new picture of the ancient kingdom of Edom. How have your investigations changed the way that researchers perceive these settlements?
What is special about the mountain settlements in Edom is that they expand and complicate our previous image of the kingdom. Because they are mentioned in Biblical texts, these sites were long viewed primarily as having been mere refuges – remote, difficult to access, without water sources, more like emergency shelters for nomadic groups. These interpretations were also strongly influenced by the current view of researchers, since the sites are indeed completely remote today and some can only be reached by climbing. However, our research shows that many of these settlements were in fact permanently inhabited. They had sufficient water resources, as evidenced by cisterns or springs, and were surrounded by terraced fields that allowed for agriculture and that we can still identify archaeologically. Our hypothesis is that those living in the mountain settlements formed an independent social and economic community – self-sufficient, only loosely connected politically and with remarkably little involvement in the official cult of the god Qaus. This opens up a new perspective on Edom, one that stresses the very different ways of life there.
How do you go about studying the mountain settlements archaeologically?
Our project has investigated a total of 12 mountain settlements, including Qurayyat Mansur, Al-Qulaiah, Jabal Qsayr and Baʿja III. In doing so, we combine various techniques: systematic field surveys (terrestrial surveys), aerial photography with drones and the evaluation of satellite images. We also carry out precise GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) measurements and create comprehensive photographic documentation in the field.
We conduct the surveys on foot directly on site in order to document walls, terraces, cisterns and other architectural structures accurately using GPS measurements, photographs and descriptions. Many sites are difficult to access today and are rarely visited, which is why we first have to locate them using aerial photographs and often undertake long hikes to explore the paths and access routes to the settlements.
The drone images are used to create high-resolution 3D models that allow us to compare the settlements with each other and systematically record architectural structures such as terrace walls or cisterns, as well as the access routes to the sites that were often built.
We are also collecting pottery shards on site. The petrographic analyses that we are planning will enable us to determine the exact composition of the clay and provide insights into production sites, trade relations and economic networks. We are also collecting sediment and rock samples to perform OSL (optically stimulated luminescence) analyses on them. Such analyses use the naturally occurring radioactivity in rocks, which causes certain materials to glow (luminescence) when exposed to heat or light. The luminescence increases over time, making it possible to date the stone terrace walls in the mountain settlements, for example.
What do you find particularly interesting about your research?
What fascinates me is that, although the mountain settlements are all located on mountain plateaus, there are clear differences in how the houses were built, with landscape and geology obviously determining the method of construction in each case. In Qulaia and Qusayr, for example, the rocks were carved to create platforms and terraces for houses – a technique that is almost or completely absent in other places. Despite structural and architectural differences, though, the same pottery was found in all locations, which shows that, while the communities found different building solutions, they were also directly or indirectly connected with each other culturally and temporally.
What is also particularly interesting is that we have been able for the first time to identify structures in the mountain settlements that may have had cultic functions. Since very little is known about religion and cultic practices in Edom, apart from the fact that there may have been a temple for Qaus in the capital Busayra, this is an important finding. It suggests that those living in the mountain settlements deliberately created places where they may have worshipped their own deities and performed ritual acts. Such practices are often difficult to identify in archaeological finds.
Why is studying mountain settlements still relevant today?
Our research shows that, rather than being a homogeneous state, Edom in fact consisted of very different life realities. It’s fascinating how these rural communities developed strategies over generations to survive in such a barren environment. Studying the mountain settlements shows that even small, self-sufficient communities in remote regions developed their own strategies for long-term survival, independent of global trade networks. The questions that this raises – of resilience, adaptation to the landscape and sustainable use of resources – are still relevant today. (fbu/pie)