# Saudi Arabian-French Joint Archaeological Project in al-Ukhdūd, Province of Najrān, Saudi Arabia. Report of the first field season - April 2025

Khalid Al-Zahrani, Jérémie Schiettecatte, Abdullah Al-Dawsari, Badriya Al-Ghuwairi, Mohammed Al-Marih, Ali S. Al-Marih, Khawla Al-Qahtani, Camille Hilaire, Antoine Laurent, Silvia Lischi, et al.

► To cite this version:

Khalid Al-Zahrani, Jérémie Schiettecatte, Abdullah Al-Dawsari, Badriya Al-Ghuwairi, Mohammed Al-Marih, et al. Saudi Arabian-French Joint Archaeological Project in al-Ukhdūd, Province of Najrān, Saudi Arabia. Report of the first field season - April 2025. CNRS; Heritage Commission. 2025. halshs-05292908v2

HAL Id: halshs-05292908

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-05292908v2

Submitted on 3 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
SAUDI ARABIAN-FRENCH JOINT ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT IN
AL-UKHDÛD

PROVINCE OF NAJRÂN, SAUDI ARABIA

REPORT OF THE FIRST FIELD SEASON – APRIL 2025

Directed by Khalid AL-ZAHRANI & Jérémie SCHIETTECATTE

with contributions by
Abdullah al-Dawsari, Badriya al-Ghuwairi, Mohammed al-Marih, Ali Saleh al-Marih, Khawla al-Qahtani, Khalid al-Zahrani, Camille Hilaire, Antoine Laurent, Silvia Lischi, Thomas Sagory, Jérémie Schiettecatte

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
SAUDI ARABIAN-FRENCH JOINT ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT IN
AL-UKHDÛD

PROVINCE OF NAJRÂN, SAUDI ARABIA

REPORT OF THE FIRST FIELD SEASON – APRIL 2025

Directed by Khalid AL-ZAHRANI & Jérémie SCHIETTECATTE

with contributions by
Abdullah al-Dawsari, Badriya al-Ghuwairi, Mohammed al-Marih, Ali Saleh al-Marih, Khawla al-Qahtani, Khalid al-Zahrani, Camille Hilaire, Antoine Laurent, Silvia Lischi, Thomas Sagory, Jérémie Schiettecatte
4
<table><tr><td>I - Introduction</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Geographic setting</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Interest and significance of an archaeological study of al-Ukhdûd</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Archaeology in al-Ukhdûd: past research and present issues</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>The town: archaeological data according to past researches</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Historical account of the site</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Lines of Research</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Chronology of the site</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Extension, evolution and urban dynamics</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Architecture</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Funerary practices, health of the population, mobility</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Linguistic and religious history</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Local economy: modes of subsistence, handicrafts</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>The 2025 field season</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Purpose of the 2025 season</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Team</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Logistics and financial support</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Storage of archaeological material</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>References</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>II - Archaeological map of al-Ukhdûd: Results of the 2025 field survey</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Method</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>A geodatabase of archaeological features</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Implementation of the database</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Results</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>III - Al-Ukhdûd - Mapping and modelling the site's surface</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>State of the art and Objectives</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Data acquisition</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Data treatment</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Method</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Results</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>3D acquisition with LIDAR</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>What next</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>IV - Excavation of Structure A43 (=UK004)</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>Placing of excavated areas</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>Archaeological Excavation of Building A43 (= UK004)</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Methodology</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Architectural Layout</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Stratigraphic Sequence</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Artefacts from building A43 (= UK004)</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Ceramic</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>Stone artefacts</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Glass vessel</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Jewellery</td><td>53</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Metal</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>V – Test-pit UK004-TP1 (Sq. Bl 88)</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Stratigraphical sequence</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Test pit 1, eastern part</td><td>62</td></tr><tr><td>Test pit 1, western part</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Radiocarbon dating</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Discussion and preliminary results</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>Phase 1</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>Phase 2</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Phase 3</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix 5.1 – UK004-TP1 – Stratigraphic units</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix 5.2 – UK004-TP1 – Samples</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>Appendix 5.3 – UK004-TP1 – Objects</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Beads, ring, ornament</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>Coin</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>Glass containers</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>Incense burners</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>Spindle-whorl</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>Stone tools</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>Stone vessels</td><td>89</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.1: First field season's team at al-Ukhdūd.</figcaption></figure>

From left to right: Khawla al-Qahtani, Badriya al-Ghuwairi, Manal al-Ghamdi, Camille Hilaire, Silvia Lischi, Thomas Sagory, Khaled al-Zahrani, Jérémie Schiettecatte, Jiza al-Harbi, Mohammed al-Marih, Ali Saleh Mohammed, Abdullah al-Dawsari (© SAFJAPU).
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.2 – Location of Najran, a modern city near the archaeological site of al-Ukhdūd (J. Schiettecatte).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.3 – Najran Valley and location of the archaeological site of al-Ukhdūd (J. Schiettecatte).</figcaption></figure>
I – INTRODUCTION

As part of the ongoing fieldwork conducted by the National Heritage Commission in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, archaeological investigations at al-Ukhdūd in the Najrān region in 1446H / 2025CE marked the 14th consecutive season of the Saudi team and the start of a joint Saudi Arabian-French team as part of a five-year collaborative project that builds upon previous field seasons.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

Al-Ukhdūd is the main archaeological site in the province of Najrān. It is located on the right bank of the middle course of Wādī Najrān, between the southern bank of the Wādī and Jabal al-Hamar (figs. 1.2-1.3).

The Najran valley is bordered by steep mountain ranges to the north, south and west, consisting of igneous and metamorphic rocks, while the valley floor is occupied by recent alluvial fillings composed of silt, sand and gravel deposited by regular flooding of the wādī. Recent surface formations bear witness to active erosion, sediment transport and fluvial accumulation processes, particularly during

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.4 – Map of the most significant ancient settlements in Arabia (J. Schiettecatte).</figcaption></figure>
flood events. These deposits are of hydrogeological importance as they form exploitable aquifers.

The site's location is crucial to its development. It benefits from a catchment area of approximately 5,000 km², a large cultivable plain and the surrounding hills provide abundant building materials (granite and basalt). The site is also located at the convergence point of caravan routes arriving from South Arabia, Eastern Arabia via Qaryat al-Fāw and al-Kharj, and those coming from North Arabia via Yathrib/Medina (fig. 1.4).

## INTEREST AND SIGNIFICANCE OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF AL-UKHDÛD

There are many reasons for the investigation of the archaeological site of al-Ukhdūd, the ancient city of Najrān (referred to in Ancient South Arabian as Zirbān and then Nagrān).

Al-Ukhdūd is one of the major ancient archaeological sites in present-day Saudi Arabia, alongside Madā'in Şāliḥ, Khuraybah/al-'Ulā, Qurayyah, Taymā', Thāj, and Qaryat al-Fāw. Covering an area of more than 50 hectares, it ranks among the ten largest archaeological sites in ancient Arabia. The site is exceptionally well preserved, with stone foundations reaching two to three metres in height in its central zone. These characteristics make al-Ukhdūd an exemplary field laboratory for the study of ancient Arabia and highlight its significant potential for touristic development.

Historically, ancient Nagrān—now identified with al-Ukhdūd—was integrated within the cultural sphere of the South Arabian kingdoms, which flourished from the 8th century BCE to the 6th century CE. The site shares linguistic, epigraphic, social, political, architectural, and artistic traits common to the broader South Arabian region, which includes present-day Yemen and border areas of Oman and Saudi Arabia. Given the current inaccessibility of archaeological sites in Yemen, al-Ukhdūd is a unique place for the continued exploration of Ancient South Arabian cultures.

Located at the interface between the Ancient South Arabian cultural area and the Arabian desert, the Najrān/al-Ukhdūd area is a significant linguistic boundary, demarcating South Arabian-speaking populations from those speaking Old Arabic dialects—a fact substantiated by local inscriptions. Consequently, the region offers a valuable context for analysing the formation of the Arabic language during the Late Antique period. Furthermore, al-Ukhdūd provides evidence for the early development of the Arabic script; some of the oldest attestations of the Arabic alphabet (dating to the 5th century CE) have been discovered in the Najrān region, underscoring the oasis's intellectual and cultural significance.

The historical importance of Najrān/al-Ukhdūd also stems from its strategic role in the trans-Arabian caravan trade. As a key junction for caravans arriving from Yemen and heading toward eastern Arabia (e.g., Gerrha) or northward toward Petra, Gaza, and Assyria, Najrān emerged as a major commercial centre on the eve of Islam. This prominence is reflected in the historical accounts of the distinguished Najrānite delegation to the Prophet Muhammad and the substantial tribute paid by the Christian community of Najrān in exchange for formal recognition and protection. Al-Ukhdūd holds promise for advancing understanding of artisanal production and commercial networks in pre-Islamic Arabia as well as in the early Islamic period.

It is one of the few urban centres in the region that did not experience significant decline prior to the rise of Islam, unlike other major sites such as Taymā', Madā'in Şāliḥ, Khuraybah/al-'Ulā, Qurayyah, Thāj, Qaryat al-Fāw, Mleiha, Shabwa, and Ma'rib. This continuity makes it a rare place for the study of Late Antiquity, a period that has received increasing scholarly attention from linguists and historians in recent years but remains underrepresented in the archaeological record.

In summary, al-Ukhdūd is a critical site for revitalizing South Arabian field archaeology within the dynamic landscape of Saudi heritage. It offers a rare opportunity to investigate the development of
ancient languages and scripts, the mechanisms of caravan trade, and the cultural transformations
that marked the transition to Islam—all within a context conducive to heritage preservation and
sustainable tourism development.

ARCHAEOLOGY IN AL-UKHDÛD: PAST RESEARCH AND PRESENT ISSUES

The epigraphist Joseph Halévy was the first European scholar to visit Najrân at the end of the 19th century, describing the oasis in these terms:

Nous entrons tout d'abord dans l'oasis de Nedjran, à la vue de laquelle je n'ai pas pu m'empêcher de pousser un cri d'admiration. Aussi loin que l'œil pouvait embrasser, on n'apercevait qu'arbres et verdure. Les villages sont cachés dans des forêts épaisses de palmiers d'une prodigieuse hauteur ; aux abords du wādī on ne voyait que des champs cultivés et verdoyants, partout le bien-être et l'abondance se faisaient remarquer à chaque pas. [...] Medinet el-Khoudoud [al-Ukhdūd] : Grande ruine représentant Nagara Metropolis de Ptolémée, du côté méridional du torrent. La partie sud et ouest du mur d'enceinte est moins détruite que les autres. Ce mur est construit avec du granit très dur et manque d'élégance. J. Halévy 1877: 479.

The site was subsequently visited and described by Harry St J. Philby in 1936 (Philby 1952) and then by the Ryckmans-Philby-Lippens expedition, during which fifty South Arabian inscriptions were recorded (Lippens 1956; Ryckmans 1981).

In 1980, an American-Saudi research programme carried out an initial survey of the site and the valley. This operation was completed in 1982 by an archaeological excavation (Zarins et al. 1981, 1983). This resulted in two site plans, which remain the most accurate documentation available to date (figs. 1.5-1.6). The archaeological zone of al-Ukhdūd became government property and was fenced off. Finally, since 1997, a Saudi archaeological mission has carried out a dozen of excavation seasons in the central part of the site (fig. 1.7), primarily aimed at uncovering and highlighting the remains on the western side of the rampart: excavation of domestic structures, a rampart gate and a platform place of worship. Excavation seasons took place between 1996 and 2022. Field reports of seasons 1 to 8 have been published in the journal Atlal (al-Zahrani et al. 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2012, 2019).

The town: archaeological data according to past researches

Housing and town planning

A fortified residential area

The fortified sector is made up of around a hundred structures whose stone bases have been preserved to a height of up to several metres (fig. 1.8). Around forty of these structures with thick, blind basements line the perimeter of the site. Juxtaposed or linked by a curtain wall, they form a defensive system of a type common in southern Arabia.

Each of these structures rests on a thick base of squared granite blocks topped by a mud-brick superstructure. The collapse of the superstructure led to the formation of a series of mounds up to eight metres high (fig. 1.9). Some of these were excavated by the Saudi archaeological mission (buildings nos. 39, 42, 44, 45 and 49) (fig. 1.10). All these buildings are sealed by a thick layer of ash, which suggests that the site was burnt down.

According to a survey carried out in the intra muros sector (dir. J. Zarins, 1981-82), occupation of the fortified sector is dated to the 4th-3rd cent. BCE to 3rd-4th cent. CE.
## Extra-mural settlement

Archaeological remains cover the zone surrounding the fortified residential area, covering dozens of hectares. An extra-mural sector to the south-west of the site, known as Ukhdūd al-Janūbī, whose extension joins the central fortified area, contains a number of structures made of granite blocks worked identically to those making up the structures in the fortified area. One of these is very unusual, divided into three long wings and reinforced with thick buttresses or small corner towers. Its unusual shape suggests a specific function that needs to be clarified.

The extra-mural area to the north-east of the fortified site yielded surface of a very different kind from that found in the fortified area, including many glazed sherds. This pottery would be characteristic of the Sasanian/early Islamic period (Zarins et al. 1981: 24, 1983: 25). A small survey was carried out in this sector in 2004 (al-Zahrani et al. 2006: 13). The excavator described the discovery of a structure with medium-calibre, gypsum-coated stone walls that stood out from the fortified sector. The decoration on a soft stone vase with no parallels in production prior to the 3rd cent. suggests a date in Late Antique/Early Islamic period (al-Zahrani et al. 2006: pl. 1.9b).

## Urbanisation of the site

The fortified residential area may have been part of an urban planification. Its almost square plan includes housing structures that all follow the same orientation, spread out on either side of a main circulation axis oriented SW-NE and dividing the site into two parts of roughly equal size. Such urban regularity could reflect the result of a planned construction, an exceptional phenomenon in ancient Arabia. This fortified area contrasts with the spaces built outside the walls. Inside the fortifications, the structures are made of squared granite blocks laid in regular courses; outside the walls, the ruins are arranged without regularity or common orientation and made of coarser stones and mud or fired bricks. It is debatable whether we are dealing with two contemporary sectors or a juxtaposition of several successive settlements. Assuming that these different sectors are contemporary, we can wonder about the social status of the occupants of each part.

The habitat presented above allows us to observe on the one hand that an extra-mural sector (Ukhdūd al-Janūbī), to the south-west of the fortified site, seems contemporary with the latter, while the extra-mural sector to the north-east of the fortified site seems of more recent date (Sasanian-Islamic glaze ceramics on the surface, fired brick structures). A detailed study of the buildings will enable us to identify the different components of urban society, as well as the variations in the distribution and density of buildings during the different periods of occupation of the site.

## The defensive system

The surrounding wall is made up of irregular curtain walls and bastions linking the buildings, the walls of which form part of the defensive system. The corners are reinforced by the presence of towers. The northern perimeter wall has been preserved to a height of 3.5 m. Two massive gateways in the centre of the eastern and western sides of the site provide access to the interior of the fortified area.

The intra-mural area is thought to have been abandoned around the 4th century. However, historical sources from the 6th century (Byzantine hagiography, South-Arabian inscriptions) mention the ramparts, the city gates and the siege made by the himyarite king Joseph (Yūsuf As’ar Yath’ar) at the foot of the city. This apparent contradiction could be explained in different ways:

* The extra-mural area had its own defensive system, an unlikely hypothesis which implies that such defences went unnoticed;

* The references to a rampart and the siege of the city in the *Martyrdom of Saint Arethas* were apologetic and aimed at drawing a parallel between the fate of Najrān and that of Jerusalem (inspiration from the history of the Maccabees and Daniel’s prophecy in the construction of the story of the Martyrdom of Saint Arethas).
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.5: Al-Ukhdūd, map of the site (Zarins et al. 1983, pl. 16).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.6: Al-Ukhdūd : map of the fortified area (after Zarins et al. 1983 : pl. 17).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.7: Al-Ukhdūd : areas excavated under the supervision of A. al-Zahrani (1996-2013) and J. Zarins (1982, in green) (al-Zahrani et al. 2022 : fig. 5.1).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.8: Solid base of a building in the fortified area (SAFJAPU / Th. Sagory, 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1.9: Superimposition of successive occupations within the city walls (G. Charloux / MAFSN, 2008).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Figure 1.10: Al-Ukhdūd, aerial view of the Saudi excavation of the eastern sector of the fortified area with the alignment of the foundations of the dwellings, the juxtaposition of which creates a defensive system (SAFJAPU, 2025).

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Figure 1.11 : Aerial picture of the so-called Mosque of ‘Umar to the north-east of al-Ukhdūd (SAF-JAPU / J. Schiettecatte 2025).
* The area within the walls would have been occupied for longer than we suppose. This hypothesis remains the most likely and needs to be verified.

## Remains of cult places

Religion plays a major role in the epigraphic and literary sources relating to al-Ukhdūd/Najrān. Yet the expression of this religiosity in the archaeological landscape remains discreet. A small oratory of dhu-Samawī was excavated by the Saudi mission on the edge of the fortified sector (al-Zahranī et al. 2006, 2012), sherds decorated with crosses were collected on the surface of the site and Christian rock inscriptions were recorded on the surrounding foothills (Robin 2025).

Finally, the Saudi excavators uncovered the remains of a former mosque to the north/north-east of the site, on the edge of the extra-mural settlement sector (al-Zahranī et al. 2001: 17-18). The rectangular structure comprises a vast square courtyard with, in its south-east and south corners, two staircases associated with several small rooms (fig. 1.11). The latter has a South-Arabian inscription indicating that it was possibly constructed on the site of a pre-Islamic religious structure, reflecting continuity of local religious architecture. It would be interesting to carry out another survey on the fringes of this structure in order to determine whether the building had a cultic function in both the pre-Islamic/Islamic period.

## A necropolis at al-Ukhdûd?

Zarins et al. (1981, p. 24) mention a cemetery to the south of the site, fifty metres from the walls, covering an area of 350 x 250 m. One section contains individual tombs lined up in rows, all facing north-east. The pottery collected on the surface is ascribed to the 4th-6th centuries (Zarins et al. 1981: 24-25). The nature of this necropolis and its extent need to be confirmed. This opens up new avenues of research into funerary practices as well as the diet and health condition of the population.

## Historical account of the site

Based on South Arabian inscriptions, Arab-Islamic sources, and Byzantine hagiographic literature, it has been possible to reconstruct the major stages in the history of Najran (Robin 2025). The main stages are summarized below.

In antiquity, the site was successively named Ṣirbān, Nagrān, then al-Hajar at the beginning of Islam before being renamed al-Ukhdūd due to an identification of the “people of al-Ukhdūd” (Aşhāb al-Ukhdūd) of the Qur’an with the Christians of Najrān massacred by the ḫimyarite king Joseph in 523.

The occupation of the Wādī Najrān is ancient. The valley is conducive to the establishment of irrigated agriculture and it is therefore not surprising to see an important kingdom/tribe, Muh’amir, mentioned there as early as the first half of the 1st millennium BCE (inscr. RÉS 3945). The Najrān valley was then the target of numerous Sabaean expeditions, revealing the importance of the kingdom and the opulence of its inhabitants, who profited from productive agriculture and their position at the crossroads of trans-Arab caravan routes.

The main site seems to have been Ragmatum, the exact location of which escapes us for no archaeological remains are known from this period.

From the middle of the 1st millennium BCE, the name Ragmatum disappears from the documentation, while a city developed on the site of al-Ukhdūd, the ancient Ṣirbān. Its shape and urban planning suggest a city founded or at least responding to a concerted organisation.

Around 300 BCE, inscriptions mention Amīr as the dominant tribe in a tribal coalition (‘kingdom’) that still included Muha’mir, and show that the cult of its main god, dhu-Samawī, spread to many
foreign cities with which the kingdom had established trade relations. A new route opened up towards the Arabian Gulf and the Seleucid domain, via the cities of Qaryat al-Fāw, Gerrha, and Thāj. One wonders whether the foundation of al-Ukhdūd might not have been the result of a concerted creation, following the rise of the Amīr tribe, which sought to distinguish itself from Muha'mir by establishing a capital of its own. Nor can we rule out the possibility that this foundation was due to environmental reasons: a need to retreat up the valley following a reduction in the flow of the wādī, as observed in other Yemeni valleys at the time (Jawf, Wādī Markha). These are all avenues worth exploring.

In 25 BCE, the city came under attack from the Roman expedition of Aelius Gallus and its king is said to have fled the city (Strabo Geogr. 16, 4, 24); it is said to have been destroyed (Pliny the Elder, Hist. nat. VI, 32, 160). The former refers to the city of the Nagrānites, the latter to Negrana, probably equating the name of the oasis (Nagrān) with that of the fortified site Ṣirbān in the heart of the oasis. Despite the passage of the expedition, the city reappears in classical sources in the 2nd century CE as a metropolis (Ptolemy, Geogr. VI, 7, 37).

The expedition of Aelius Gallus was followed by two centuries of documentary vacuum (no historical sources, no inscriptions). It would be interesting to see whether the occupation of the site then contracted. The inscriptions that once again document the history of the site from 175 CE onwards show that the entire valley alternated between being under the authority of the kingdom of Saba', centred on western/north-western Yemen (175-220 BC approx.), the kingdom of Aksum (215-245 CE approx.), Saba' again (245-275 CE approx.) and then Ḩimyar, centred on the south-west of present-day Yemen, which gradually unified the whole of southern and then central Arabia under its authority.

Inscription Ja 577, while revealing this balance of power in the region, also shows the wealth of the valley, the density of its population (68 villages) and the importance of its palm groves (6,000 trees). The situation changed considerably in the fourth century. There is no evidence of continued occupation within the fortified area of al-Ukhdūd. A thick level of ashes testifies to the fire of many structures. Could this be linked to one of the conflicts mentioned in the third-century texts? Or was it an accidental event? In any case, with this probable abandonment, the toponymy of the site changes. The name Ṣirbān is abandoned in favour of the name Nagrān alone. It is possible that occupation shifted from the fortified sector to the extra-mural sector to the north-east of the site.

Around the middle of the 5th century, historical accounts suggest that Christianity spread in the Najrān region. In 523, the martyrdom of this Christian community is the subject of several Greek, Syriac and South Arabian accounts. Inscriptions from the Bi'r Ḩimā region, north of Najrān (Ja 1028, Ry 507, Ry 508) document an attack on the city of Nagrān in 523 by the troops of the Ḩimyarite ruler Yūsuf As'ar Yath'ar. The same historical sources show how this event in turn provoked an intervention by the Abyssinians that led to the lasting occupation of the kingdom of Ḩimyar by princes of Aksumite origin. Their domination came to an end around 575 when, according to al-Ṭabarī, the Sasanians, called in by Sayf dhī-Yaz'an, made South Arabia a vassal kingdom under the authority of a satrap. From this date to 10 A.H., little is known of Najrān. Tradition records an attack on the oasis by al-Aqra' ibn Ḥabīs, after the battle of al-Kulāb al-Thānī.

Numerous sources from the Islamic period mention Najrān, reporting earlier episodes such as the embassy of the Christians of Najrān to the Prophet Muḥammad (Ibn Isḥāq, Ibn Hishām, 9th cent.), or contemporary events (al-Hamdānī, 10th cent.; Ibn al-Mujāwir, 13th cent.).

The oasis of Najrān has been continuously occupied since then. Not the settlement of al-Ukhdūd, the ancient Ṣirbān/Nagrān, which was abandoned between the Early and Middle Islamic period. The most recent material discovered there dates from the Abbasid period. It consists mainly of alkaline turquoise glazed ware, sgraffiato ware, and golden lustre ware. Al-Bakrī in the 11th cent.
says of al-Ukhdūd that everything is in ruins except for the mosque built by 'Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb. It is likely that the settlement declined during the early Islamic period before being abandoned. In the 13th century, Ibn al-Mujāwir said of this town that it "belongs to the people of al Ukhdūd", the last vestige of the past.

## LINES OF RESEARCH

As the presentation of the site and previous work has shown, we are not starting from scratch. From the results of past excavations, an initial summary of the archaeological data could be drawn up (Schiettecatte 2010, 2011). The entire epigraphic and literary corpus relating to ancient and medieval Najrān has been the subject of an encyclopaedic monograph which has just been published (Robin 2025).

However, many questions relating to the site of al-Ukhdūd, the ancient Žirbān / Najrān, and more broadly pertaining to ancient South Arabian history and culture remain unanswered.

## Chronology of the site

Basic questions relating to the chronology of the site's occupation need to be answered:

* When was the town founded?

* Does the lack of documentation in the classical sources and in South Arabian epigraphy between 25 and 175 BC find an echo in the occupation of the site? Was there a temporary decline?

* The area within the walls seems to have been subject to violent destruction (fire) followed by abandonment. When did this happen? Can it be generalised to the whole sector? Does the event correspond to documented violent events, e.g. the middle of the third century?

* When was the site finally abandoned? Was this the result of a historical event? The relocation of the Christians from Najrān under the caliphate of 'Umar (640-641) may have initiated a phase of decline. However, the extent of this expulsion remains undetermined, and the silence of the sources for the next 250 years is hardly helpful.

## Extension, evolution and urban dynamics

**A new town?** One of the starting assumptions is that ancient Žirbān/Najrān originally consisted solely of the fortified core (city intra muros) and that its development was planned. It would therefore be one of the very few new cities in ancient Arabia. The ancient Žirbān/Najrān is not a peripheral city but the central settlement of a valley, so the initiative for its foundation and realisation comes under a strong will, capable of mobilising the means for its realisation. We have hypothesised that this foundation could correspond to the Amīr tribe taking control of the kingdom. All these points need to be explored.

**What occupation took place outside the walls?** A vast extension of urban occupation outside the walls has been mentioned. It goes with inherent questions: At what rate did this expansion take place? Were the various extra-mural areas working-class and artisanal peri-urban spaces contemporary with the fortified town? Or were they later extensions of the inner city?

**A fortified site in the 6th century?** Hagiographic accounts of the martyrdom of Najrānites in 523 describe a fortified town, whereas archaeology tends to date the abandonment of the inner city area to the 3rd-4th centuries. There is a contradiction that needs to be clarified.

**How dynamic were the crafts and trade in the 6th and 7th centuries?** The town is thought to have been one of the most dynamic in Arabia, in particular because of its textile and leather crafts and its role in the caravan trade. Are there any traces of these craft activities?
## Architecture

The site of al-Ukhdūd is a formidable laboratory for the study of South Arabian architecture, with elevations that are sometimes several metres high (figs. 1.8-1.9). It provides an opportunity to study architectural techniques, stone cutting and the function of certain types of building.

## Funerary practices, health of the population, mobility

The validation of the presence of a necropolis immediately to the south-west of the site opens the way to the study of funerary practices and the state of health of the ancient populations at al-Ukhdūd. While these aspects have been partially addressed for the populations of southern Arabia during the Bronze Age, we know almost nothing about those of more recent periods. The excavation of these burials, combined with palaeo-pathological and palaeoparasitological analyses, should enable us to reconstruct the state of health of the populations and identify any endemic pathologies or epidemics. At the same time, isotope analyses of bone remains (carbon, nitrogen) will provide valuable information on the diet of individuals (consumption of C3 or C4 plants, consumption of animal or plant proteins); the strontium isotope will shed light on the geographical mobility of individuals.

## Linguistic and religious history

Considerable progress has recently been made in the field of linguistic and religious history, thanks to Christian Robin's study of all the known inscriptions in the region. The result is two encyclopaedic works (Robin 2023, 2025). The political and event-based framework of the site that it is now possible to draw up (Robin 2025) is punctuated by ruptures and hiatuses that will be interesting to compare with the dynamics of the site's occupation.

Religion dominates the historical documentation relating to the site: South Arabian inscriptions emphasize the prevalence of the cult of dhu-Samawī until the fourth century CE; hagiographic sources underline the importance of the Christian community in the 5th-7th centuries amplified by episodes of martyrdom (470s, 523); and the Arab-Islamic tradition recounts a delegation of the Christians of Najrān to the prophet Muḥammad (620s) and the relocation of this community in Iraq (640-41).

In spite of this, the architectural manifestation of religious practice remains very discreet: an oratory of dhu-Samawī in the fortified area part and a small mosque possibly built in the remains of a pre-Islamic sanctuary (fig. 1.11). The rest of the documentation consists mainly of sherds decorated with crosses and rock inscriptions. In this respect, the site of al-Ukhdūd differs from the South Arabian sites in Yemen, where the temples are among the most monumental buildings. Conversely, it is closer to the sites of desert Arabia (e.g. Qaryat al-Fāw) where sanctuaries, although present, are often only very modest buildings.

In order to better understand the religious phenomenon from an archaeological point of view, it will be interesting to resume the study of the mosque built on a pre-Islamic temple. This building, known as the Mosque of 'Umar, appeared to be part of an earlier structure, possibly interpreted as a temple (al-Zahrani et al 2001: 17-18). This hypothesis of religious continuity of the site deserves to be explored further.

## Local economy: modes of subsistence, handicrafts

### Environment, agro-pastoral economy

The various excavation operations planned will systematically be accompanied by a bioarchaeo-
logical component aimed at shedding light on the environment and agro-pastoral economy of the
site at the various periods of its occupation.

Crafts

The site's central role in the production of leather and textiles in Late Antiquity has been mentioned. Other activities could be identified on the site (metallurgy, an oil press, as evidenced by a very large millstone, and a pottery workshop). Locating an artisanal area would be a major discovery as no pre-Islamic craft or proto-industrial production sites have been archaeologically excavated in southern Arabia. On the scale of the Peninsula, this aspect is largely understudied, as most of the sites are pottery production workshops.

Pottery

The corpus collected on the surface and during excavations will lead to the development of a pot-
tery typology defined on the basis of macroscopic observation and a morpho-typological cata-
logue.

In addition to any local production that could be clearly identified, one category will deserve a specific attention: organic tempered storage jars. This production is attested in the majority of sites in southern Arabia (Shabwa, Tamnaʻ, Najrān, Qaryat al-Fāw, Biʻr ʻAlī, Khawr Rūrī, Mleiha) and well beyond (Berenike and Myos Hormos in Egypt, Ayla in Jordan). Probably produced in different workshops between the 4th cent. BCE – 3rd cent. CE, these jars are certainly linked to caravan and maritime trade, possibly for transporting liquids (water, wine) (Tomber 2004, Buffa 2015). They were mass-produced (accounting for 97% of the thousands of sherds in the ancient rubbish dump at the caravan site of Qaryat al-Faw). Its precise function needs to be clarified by analysing the organic residues. In addition, in order to better define the hypothesis of a plurality of production centres, a petrographic study of the fabrics of the differ-ent sub-categories is envisaged.

THE 2025 FIELD SEASON

Purpose of the 2025 season

The objectives of this first season were:

1. Locate and date the different sectors in the fenced archaeological area of al-Ukhdūd, both in the fortified part of the site and outside the ramparts.

2. Update the topography and mapping of the site

3. Answer issues about the chronology of the site's occupation, in particular that of its date of foundation.

4. Collect surface material in order to elaborate a ceramic typology of the site.

5. Continue the extensive clearing of the remains in order to enhance the site's valorization and attractiveness.

To do so, field activites consisted in:

1. Field survey and mapping of the archaeological features within the fenced area (Chapter 2)

- Development of a Geographic Information System [GIS] of al-Ukhdud;

- Design a PostgreSQL database and a QGIS/Qfield project;

- Validate/adapt the performance of tools developed in anticipation of the field season;

- Implement the deodatabase with a pedestrian survey (acquisition of archaeological data).

- Collect surface pottery to implement an up-to-date pottery typology and date the archaeological features.

2. Mapping of the site (Chapter 3)

- Aerial photo acquisition
* Photographic processing

* Production of a Digital Elevation Model and contour lines

* Production of an orthophotograph

* Production of 3D models of archaeological features.

3. Extensive excavation of a residential structure in the fortified residential area (Chapter 4)

4. Deep sounding in the fortified residential area (Chapter 5)

## Team (fig. 1.1)

### European component

* **Dr Jérémie SCHIETTECATTE**, archaeologist, CNRS, head of the European component.

* **Camille HILAIRE**, archaeologist, Master's student, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

* **Dr Antoine LAURENT**, post-doctoral fellow, Université de Toulouse 2 (processing of orthophotographs and 3D models).

* **Dr Silvia LISCHI**, archaeologist, post-doctoral fellow at Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

* **Thomas SAGORY**, head of digital development at the National Archaeology Museum in St-Germain-en-Laye (photographs, processing of orthophotographs and 3D models).

### Saudi Arabian component

* **Khaled Mohammed AL-ZAHRANI**, archaeologist, Heritage Commission, ministry of Culture, head of the Saudi Arabian component.

* **Abdullah Mohammed AL-DAWSARI**, archaeologist, Heritage Commission, ministry of Culture

* **Manal Fahm AL-GHAMDI**, archaeologist, Majal Al-Injaz Company

* **Badriya Eid AL-GHUWAIRI**, archaeologist, Heritage Commission, ministry of Culture

* **Jazah Khaled AL-HARBI**, surveyor, Heritage Commission, ministry of Culture

* **Salman Abdullah AL-JARID**, architect, Heritage Commission, ministry of Culture

* **Mohammed Hajj AL MARIH**, Heritage Commission, ministry of Culture

* **Ali Saleh AL MARIH**, Heritage Commission, ministry of Culture

* **Khawla Ali AL-QAHTANI**, archaeologist, Heritage Commission, ministry of Culture

* **Dr. Awad Ali AL-ZAHRANI**, archaeologist and scientific Advisor, Majal Al-Injaz Company

## Logistics and financial support

Several institutions contributed by their financial, technical, logistics, administrative and human support to the field activities:

* Heritage Commission of the ministry of Culture of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh office and Najran branch

* French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, Paris

* French Embassy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh

* CNRS, lab "Orient & Méditerranée", Paris

* Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Programme Jaussen & Savignac

* Université Toulouse 2 Le Mirail

* Centre Français de Recherche en Péninsule Arabique (CEFREPA), Kuwait City

* Association Arabie Déserte – Archéologie et épigraphie, Paris.

We would like to thank all the above-mentioned institutions most warmly for their support as well as all the people who put their trust in our work and did their best to make fieldwork possible and easier in Saudi Arabia and France.
## Storage of archaeological material

The objects collected during the excavation were recorded, packaged and stored in boxes in the reserves of the Heritage Commission Najran office, pending the opening of the archaeological museum adjacent to the archaeological site of al-Ukhdūd. Planned for late 2025, this museum will provide permanent storage and access to the archaeological collections in the immediate vicinity of the excavation site.

## REFERENCES

* al-Zahrani, A., S. al-Mashari, A. al-Nafisa, A. al-Yahya & A. al-Basyuni. 2001. Preliminary Report on the Excavations of al-Ukhdoud, Najrān. Second Season 1996. *Atlal* 16: 13–21.

* al-Zahrani, A. et al. 2002. Preliminary Report on the Excavations of al-Ukhdoud, Najrān. Third Season – 2000. *Atlal* 17: 13-16 [En.], 13-28 [Ar.].

* al-Zahrani, A., S. al-Mashairi, A. al-Nafisa, A. al-Yahya & A. al-Baysani. 2005. Al-Ukhdoud excavation (Najrān) 4th season. *Atlal* 18: 13-17 [En.]; 11-33 [Ar.].

* al-Zahrani, A., S. al-Mishari, A. al-Hammad, M. al-Hamoud, A. Ba-Sanbal & K. al-Zahrani. 2006. Brief Report on al-Ukhdoud Excavations. Fifth Season - 2004AD. *Atlal* 19: 11-13 [En.], 11-33 [Ar.].

* al-Zahrani, A., S. al-Mishari, K. Hafi, M. al-Hamoud, A. Yahya, K. al-Zahrani, et al. 2012. Najrān excavations report for 6th and 7th seasons (2009-2010 AD). *Atlal* 22: 7-21 [En.], 6-26 [Ar.].

* al-Zahrani, A., S. al-Mishari, M. al-Hamoud, A. Yahya, K. al-Zahrani, F. al-Jabrin & S. al-Jaryed. 2019. Excavation Report of Najrān 8th Season - 2013 AD. *Atlal* 27: 107-111 [En.], 97-101 [Ar.].

* Buffa, V. 2015. Shape versus ware. The South Arabian Straw Tempered Ovoid Storage Jars. 3rd cent. BC - 5th cent. AD, in I. Gerlach (ed.) *South Arabia and its neighbours. Phenomena of inter-cultural contacts*. 14. *Rencontres Sabéennes*: 47–62 (ABADY XIV). Wiesbaden: Reichert.

* Halévy, J. 1877. Voyage au Nedjran. II. De Sana à Nedjran. *Bulletin de la Société de Géographie*, 6e série, janv.-juin 1877: 466-79.

* Lippens, P. 1956. *Expédition en Arabie Centrale*. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.

* Philby, H.St J.B. 1952. *Arabian Highlands*. New-York: Ithaca.

* Robin, C.J. 2023. *Le vieil-arabe de Najrān: une variété archaïque de la langue arabe dans la région de Najrān vers le début de l’ère chrétienne*. Paris, Turnhout: Geuthner.

* Robin, C.J. 2025. *Najrān en Arabie – la ville des 200 martyrs chrétiens. Histoire et archéologie antiques et médiévales* (Doumenta Coranica, 5). Leiden, Boston: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004706316.

* Ryckmans, J. 1981. Al-Ukhdūd: The Philby-Ryckmans-Lippens Expedition of 1951. PSAS 11: 55–63.

* Schiettecatte, J. 2010. L'antique Najrān. Confrontation des données archéologiques et des sources écrites, in J. Beaucamp, F. Briquel-Chatonnet & C.J. Robin (eds.) *Juifs et chrétiens en Arabie aux Ve et Vle siècles : Regards croisés sur les sources*: 11-37 (CHCByz, Monographie 32, Le Massacre de Najrān II). Paris: ACHCByz.

* Schiettecatte, J. 2011. Al-Ukhdūd et le peuplement antique du Wādī Najrān. In *D'Aden à Žafār. Villes de l'Arabie du Sud préislamique*: 296-308 (Orient et Méditerranée, 6). Paris: De Boccard.

* Tomber, R. 2004. Rome and South Arabia: new artefactual evidence from the Red Sea. *Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies* 34: 351–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/41223831

* Zarins, J., A. Murad & Kh. al-Yaish. 1981. The Second Preliminary Report on the Southwestern Province. *Atlal* 5: 9-42.

* Zarins, J., A. Kabawi & A. Murad. 1983. Preliminary Report on the Najrān/Ukhdūd Survey and Excavations 1982-1402 H. *Atlal* 7: 22–40.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Al-Ukhdūd — Field survey

SAFJAPU / J. Schiettecatte 2025
II — ARCHAEOLOGICAL MAP OF AL-UKHDŪD:
RESULTS OF THE 2025 FIELD SURVEY

By Jérémie Schiettecatte, Camille Hilaire, Abdullah al-Dawsari

The site of al-Ukhdūd, in its current state of preservation, covers a fenced area of 169 hectares. The monumental zone, known as the fortified residential area (sometimes referred to as the citadel in Arabic archaeological literature: *al-qaṣr*), occupies only 5.5 hectares (3.25%). Most of the work to date has focused on the fortified part, so we only have partial knowledge of the vast archaeological area outside the walls.

One of the priorities of this project is to establish a precise archaeological map of the entire site, to locate the archaeological features, determine the functions of the clusters (residential, crafts, funerary, religious, etc.) and to date their occupation. A detailed mapping of the organisation of the site period by period will thus be possible.

To do so, a systematic survey of the al-Ukhdud site was undertaken in order to positioning, recording, describing, photographing and sampling the ceramics of archaeological features visible on the surface.

METHOD

A geodatabase of archaeological features

A georeferenced database has been developped to record the archaeological features and associated photographs (fig. 2.1). The data is implemented in a PostgreSQL (v. 17) database with a PostGIS extension. The database is hosted at the CNRS, France, on the servors of the research infrastructure huma-num (postgresql17a.db.huma-num.fr). Photographs are stored on a SFTP server (najran.huma-num.fr) (fig. 2.2).

The database was designed based on the model exposed on fig. 2.1, with two related tables ("archaeological features" and "photographs") and contains 5 schemas:

* data – tables containing site data (features and photos),

• public – storage of the PostGIS extension's geographic repositories,

* ref – tables containing foreign key reference data,

* save – storage of backups,

* temp – temporary data storage.

The data has been formatted in a QGIS project (GIS software) which allows us to view and manage
the database. The spatial data and the project are in the WGS 84 / Pseudo-Mercator (EPSG 3857)
projection system.

It is possible to create/edit/delete objects and attribute data on the QGIS project. On QGIS, the attribute data for the Features and Photos layers has been formatted to make it easier to read and update using several tabs:

- Metadata tab (fig. 2.3)

- Description tab (fig. 2.4)

- Notes tab (fig. 2.5)

- Photos tab (fig. 2.6)
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.1: Structure of the geodatabase (© Cartodia SAS, 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.2: Diagram of the connections between the database, the photos stored on the web server, QGIS software (data administration) and the QFIELD application (data acquisition on the field) (© Cartodia SAS, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.3: Archaeological features card on QGIS, Metadata tab.</figcaption></figure>

o Automatic filling

o selection from a drop-down list (linked to ref.a_* layers)

o auto-fill

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.4: Archaeological features card on QGIS, Description tab.</figcaption></figure>

o selection from drop-down list (linked to ref.a_* layers)

o free text area

o multiple choice checkbox (linked to layers ref.a_*)

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.5: Archaeological features card on QGIS, Notes tab.</figcaption></figure>

o free text area

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.6 Archaeological features card on QGIS, Photos tab.</figcaption></figure>

o auto-fill via QFIELD

o Automatic filling and viewing of photos stored online
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.7: Screenshot of the Qfield recording system used on the field (tablet and smartphone).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.8: Implementation of the Qfield recording system on the field (SAFJAPU / J. Schiettecatte).</figcaption></figure>
# Implementation of the database

## Field implementation

Archaeological features were recorded during a field pedestrian survey, on Samsung tablets, in a mapping project developed using the Qfield application (figs. 2.7-2.8). The geolocation of archaeological features was extracted from the location of the device (connected on the 5G network), with an accuracy of ± 3m. Data were directly stored on the remote server.

Each archaeological features was documented with photographs stored locally on the device, and exported on a SFTP server during post-field treatment.

To ensure an exhaustive survey, a virtual grid was dividing the site into squares, 50 x 50 m wide (i.e. 0.25 ha). The squares were systematically surveyed. After completion of the survey of a square, the achievement was informed on the Qfield survey system and the square turned into green color (fig. 2.9), helping to monitor the survey.

## Remote implementation

In addition to field implementation, it is possible to document the archaeological features of al-Ukh-dud using QGIS software and photo interpretation. The satellite image has insufficient resolution, so a high-definition orthophoto was realised on site using drone photography and post-processing (see next chapter). This image, with a resolution of 1 cm per pixel, will be analyzed to locate addi-tional features and complement the fieldwork. This step has not yet been initiated. It will be carried out in the coming months to process:

* the southern cemetery (field survey was not exhaustive here);

* the fortified residential area (field surveyed to document only the features which are not visible on aerial pictures, e.g. inscriptions, graffiti).

* the still unsurveyed area, in preparation for the next field season.

# RESULTS

The following is the status of the 807 squares (201.75 ha) of the grid that divides the al-Ukhdūd site after three weeks of intensive pedestrian surveys (fig. 2.9):

* 130 squares (32.5 ha, i.e. 16.1%) located on the edge of the site were considered empty of archaeological features because affected by modern urban development.

* 350 squares (87.5 ha, i.e. 43.4%) extensively surveyed, identification of 559 archaeological features.

* 327 squares remain unsurveyed (81.75 ha, i.e. 40.5%) and will be explored during the next field season. It comprises the fortified residential area (where only inscriptions and petroglyphs have been documented), and a large part of the northern half of the site.

Among the 559 archaeological features, different categories of remains have been tentatively iden-tified because of their shapes, building material and surface artefacts (fig. 2.10):

* 104 buildings considered as residential (fig. 2.10: Building - Domestic);

* 3 places of worship were identified: a masjid (fig. 2.10: Building - Mosque) and two pre-Islamic temples (fig. 2.10: Building - Temple).

* 43 workshops, including pottery workshops (fig. 2.10: Building - Workshop).

* 166 buildings for which no information is available to suggest a specific function (fig. 2.10: Building - Indeterminate).

* 2 fortified towers and 2 long and thick walls, possibly part of a defensive complex.

* 111 tombs forming two clusters, one extensively documented to the east (all the structures were recorded), one partially documented to the south (only a sample of structures determining the
extent of the graveyard were recorded, the rest will be done by photo-interpretation).

* 2 possible cisterns due to the presence of walls coated with hydraulic mortar.

* 3 wells.

* 57 inscriptions in Ancient South Arabian script (fig. 2.10: Inscription - ASA) and 3 written in Arabic (fig. 2.10: Inscription - Arabic).

* 17 petroglyphs, either the motif of a hand, a foot, snakes, a horse, an ibex, etc. (Petroglyph).

* 18 isolated and well-circumscribed areas covered with a high density of pottery sherds (Scattered pottery)

* 5 areas with ancient or modern spoils.

* 23 indeterminate features (e.g., heap of melted mudbrick) or other features (e.g., bronze figurine, stone statue).

Pottery sherds were sampled from 101 of them, leading us to the identification of several distinct areas (fig. 22):

* The fortified residential area in the centre, mostly occupied in the pre-islamic area (ca. 4th cent. BCE-4th cent. CE) with traces of limited late antique/Early Islamic occupation.

* Settlements west and south-west of the fortified city, coeval to the latter (ca. 4th cent. BCE-4th cent. CE). This area yielded several bronze artefacts (figs. 2.11-2.14)

* A wide graveyard south of the fortified city which appears to date from before the 7th century.

* Another graveyard east of the archaeological area, also from before the 7th century.

* A wide workshop area immediately to the north-east of the fortified city, with traces of pre-Islamic and Islamic periods of activity.

* A supposedly late antique settlement to the east/south-east of the fortified city

* Two Early Islamic settlements (7th-10th cent. CE), one around the mosque, north of the site and another to the extreme east of the site (fig. 2.15).
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.9: Completion of the survey by the end of the first field season (59.5%). The green squares correspond to fully surveyed areas (SAFJAPU / J. Schiettecatte, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.10: Al-Ukhdūd archaeological site. Distribution of the archaeological features in the extra muros area (SAFJAPU / J. Schiettecatte, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.11: Figurine in copper-based alloy (reg. nb. UK268-000-1) found on the surface of archaeological feature UK268, an indeterminate building in grid square 233 (see fig. 2.9), in the pre-Islamic settlement to the south-west of the site. Left: front; right: back (SAFJAPU / Th. Sagory, 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.12: Figurine in copper-based alloy (reg. nb. UK069-000-1) found on the surface of archaeological feature UK069, a domestic building in grid square 314 (see fig. 2.9), in the pre-Islamic settlement to the south-west of the site. Left: front; right: back (SAFJAPU / Th. Sagory, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.13: Inscription in copper-based alloy (reg. nb. UK069-000-2) found on the surface of archaeological feature UK069, a domestic building in grid square 314 (see fig. 2.9), in the pre-Islamic settlement to the south-west of the site. Left: front; right: back (SAFJAPU / Th. Sagory, 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.14: Figurines in copper-based alloy (reg. nb. UK072-000-2 and UK072-000-3) found on the surface of archaeological feature UK072, an indeterminate building in grid square 274 (see fig. 2.9), in the pre-Islamic settlement to the south-west of the site. Left: rider; right: camel with an Ancient South Arabian inscription on the flank (SAFJAPU / Th. Sagory, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.15: Islamic glazed ware sampled on the surface of archaeological feature UK122, a domestic (?) building in grid square 1051 (see fig. 2.9), in the Islamic settlement north-east of al-Ukhdūd (SAFJAPU / C. Hilaire, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

Al-Ukhdūd — Aerial photo coverage

SAFJAPU / J. Schiettecatte 2025
III — AL-UKHDŪD - MAPPING AND MODELLING
THE SITE'S SURFACE

By Antoine Laurent, Thomas Sagory & Jérémie Schiettecatte

STATE OF THE ART AND OBJECTIVES

Until now, the only previously published plan of the site was produced by a joint American-Saudi
team in the journal *Atla* in 1983 (Zarins et al. 1983, pls. 16–17). While this plan is both accurate and
detailed, an update was necessary. Our objective was to produce a new site plan that:

* highlights the structures excavated since the 1980s;

- identifies features that may have been overlooked during the initial survey;

* situates the site within its current urban context (including the perimeter fence, recent developments such as the construction of a museum, a visitor center, and circulation pathways, as well as the removal of modern residential structures);

* is georeferenced, allowing its integration into a Geographic Information System (GIS) centralizing all data related to our work at the site.

To this end, we undertook the production of several geolocated and superimposable data layers,
based on a systematic drone-based photographic survey, in order to generate:

- a digital surface model from which contour lines could be derived;

- an orthophotograph serving as the basis for drawing the new site plan.

DATA ACQUISITION

The acquisitions mainly used photogrammetry, a method commonly used in archaeology that in-
volves taking a large number of photographs to create a high-resolution 3D model based on the
common points between the images and the optical characteristics of the camera. The photos
were taken by drone and pole. RAW format was preferred, as was the use of colour charts to opti-
mise the rendering after developing series of photos taken in different lighting conditions.

Several series of aerial photographs were taken by drone to cover as large an area as possible. The work focused on the western three-quarters of the site. These photos were taken at low altitude (approx. 30 m) with light drones (DJI Mini Pro 4). In order to enable topographical calibration of the model, targets were placed upstream of the acquisitions and located with a high resolution D-GPS (RTK). The intra muros area was photographed with zenithal and oblique drone photographs, and supplemented by a ground coverage using a pole, particularly on the outer face of the rampart. The rest of the site was covered using drone imagery (zenithal views only). Additional pole acquisitions could be considered for certain elevated structures.

This made it possible to cover 73.6% of the site this season (109 ha out of the 148 ha of the fenced
area). We now have a clearer idea of the time needed to cover the entire site (coverage slowed
down by the short flight time and by the heat, which causes the equipment to overheat when the
temperature in the shade exceeds 32°C). The data analysis will also enable us to define areas of
interest where lower altitude acquisitions will need to be scheduled in order to obtain very high
resolution. Given the nature of the remains in the intra muros area, significant additional work will
need to be carried out using drones and poles in order to optimise the model produced.
# DATA TREATMENT

## Method

All photographic and topographic data acquired by the team on site were processed on an ongo-
ing basis. Although all photographs were captured in both raw (DNG) and JPEG formats, only the
JPEG images were transmitted in order to expedite the transfer and compilation of the documenta-
tion. The raw files were nonetheless preserved and archived, allowing for the possibility of future
post-processing.

To ensure full coverage of the archaeological site, more than 10,000 photographs were processed using the photogrammetry software Agisoft Metashape 2.2. The primary objective was to produce a Digital Surface Model (DSM) and an orthophotograph. The creation of a 3D mesh was considered secondary, though it remains a potential deliverable. Georeferencing was achieved by placing checkerboard targets prior to image acquisition and recording their precise locations using RTK surveying with a differential GPS (Trimble R8). The selected projection system was KSA-GRF17/ UTM Zone 38N (EPSG: 9358).

In parallel, excavation areas were independently photographed by drone every one to two days, with the aim of generating orthophotographs and DSMs documenting the progress of the excavation. The adopted methodology involved processing each day's dataset separately. Only the topographic control points were shared with the general site coverage in order to minimize discrepancies resulting from different survey sessions.

For the general mapping of the site, both within and beyond the enclosure, a cumulative data pro-
cessing approach was employed—treating each sector individually before assembling the resulting
tiles. This method addressed the impracticality of capturing the entire site in a single drone flight
given the available equipment. The main drawback of this approach is the increased complexity
caused by variations in lighting conditions from one day to the next.

Several challenges inherent to the terrain were encountered, notably the presence of sand and clusters of vegetation. These elements introduced reconstruction errors in the 3D mesh and DSM, though such discrepancies are minimally perceptible in the orthophotographs.

## Results

The daily processing of data enabled the production of high-quality outputs for the monitoring and documentation of excavation activities. As a result, five orthophotographs of the excavation area were generated (fig. 3.1).

The intra muros sector was documented through three sets of zenithal photographic acquisitions (east, center, west). These three segments were processed separately and subsequently merged during the overall computation. The resulting model comprises 661 images covering an area of 8 hectares. The following products were extracted from this model:

* An orthophotograph of the fortified residential area (fig. 3.2).

* A Digital Surface Model (DSM) of the fortified residential area (fig. 3.3).

The model of the extra muros area includes nearly 8,000 zenithal photographs, covering approximately 109 hectares. Due to time constraints, data acquisition for the eastern quarter of the site was postponed to fall 2025. From this model, the following products were extracted:

* An orthophotograph of the archaeological site (fig. 3.4).

* A Digital Surface Model (DSM) of the archaeological site (fig. 3.5).

The produced orthophotographs have a resolution of 1 cm per pixel, while the DSM was limited to
a resolution of 5 cm per pixel in order to reduce reconstruction noise. The positional error margin for the ground control points is 2.5 cm, which aligns with the D-GPS measurement system and the resolution of the input images.

The total volume of acquired data amounts to 400 GB, of which 250 GB are allocated to the photo-graphic data. The processed outputs were reduced to 87 GB by discarding the keypoints (except those used in the global model) and the depth maps. The remaining volume corresponds to the various exports, including a 44 GB global orthophotograph (fig. 3.4).

## 3D ACQUISITION WITH LIDAR

The excavation area (structure UK004) was also scanned in 3D using a mobile Lidar device and two software programs: Scaniverse and/or RealityScan. These two practical and lightweight tools can be easily used in the field to document archaeological research in record time. They complement photogrammetric acquisition.

It was also possible to use Lidar with the same two applications as in the field to digitise a few re-markable objects discovered this year (fig. 3.6): an incense burner, a bronze human figurine and a fragment of an offering table with a bull-shaped spout.

## WHAT NEXT

The next field season will be devoted to acquiring aerial photographs of the 39 hectares still miss-ing to the east of the fenced area in order to complete the DSM and orthophotography of the site. In the fortified intra muros sector, photographic surveys using a pole will complete the detailed cover-age of the most significant elements (engravings, inscriptions, masonry) with a view to developing an enriched 3D model accessible online.
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.1: Squares Bl 86, 87, 88, orthophotographs of the work in progress on Building UK004 and Test pit UK004-TP1.</figcaption></figure>

A — April 9, 2025

B — April 10, 2025

C — April 12, 2025

D — April 14, 2025

E — April 21, 2025
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.2: al-Ukhdūd: orthophotograph of the fortified residential area (© SAFJAPU / A. Laurent, Th. Sagory, J. Schiettecatte).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

Figure 3.3: al-Ukhdūd: Digital Surface Model of the fortified residential area (© SAFJAPU / A. Laurent, Th. Sagory, J. Schiettecatte).
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.4: al-Ukhdūd: orthophotograph of the archaeological site (© SAFJAPU / A. Laurent, Th. Sagory, J. Schiettecatte).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.5: al-Ukhdūd: Digital Surface Model of the archaeological site (© SAFJAPU / A. Laurent, Th. Sagory, J. Schiettecatte).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.6: al-Ukhdūd: 3D acquisitions with a Lidar embedded in a mobile device. Top: excavated structure UK004; bottom: incense burner from text pit UK004-TP1 (object UK004-TP1-011-01) (© SAFJAPU / Th. Sagory).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

Al-Ukhdūd - Building UK004, work in progress

SAFJAPU / J. Schiettecatte 2025
IV—EXCAVATION OF STRUCTURE A43 (=UK004)

By Khalid al-Zahrani, Abdullah al-Dawsari, Badriya al-Ghuwairi, Mohammed al-Marih, Ali Saleh al-Marih, Khawla al-Qahtani

PLACING OF EXCAVATED AREAS

Before the arrival of the French part, in anticipation of the operations to come, Jazah al-Harbi, surveyor, marked out several 10 x 10 m squares in the eastern part of the fortified sector of al-Ukhdūd using stakes and ropes. This layout conforms to the grid long established by the Saudi mission to al-Ukhdūd (figs. 4.1-4.3).

In consultation with Khalid al-Zahrani, it was decided to undertake two parallel excavation operations:

* Excavation of house A43 [Saudi labelling] (= UK004 in the current undertaking of labelling all the structures from the fenced area), under the responsibility of Kh. Al-Zahrani, with the aim of continuing the extensive clearance of the dwelling area of the eastern part of the fortified site.

* Deep test pit UK004-TP1 to the west of house UK004, under the responsibility of Dr S. Lischi, in order to obtain a chronological sequence of the site's occupation and to reach the oldest levels of its occupation (see chapter V).

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.1 - Grid map of the al-Ukhdūd site used to locate the excavated Building A43 (= UK004) (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.2 – Location of the working area, east of the fortified sector (SAFJAPU / A. Laurent, Th. Sagory, J. Schiettecatte, 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.3 – Working area and excavated squares: House A43 = UK004 on the right; test pit UK004-TP1 on the left (SAFJAPU / J. Schiettecatte, A. Laurent, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
## ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION OF BUILDING A43 (= UK004)

During the present field season, the Saudi team designated Building A43 (UK004) as the primary focus of excavation, concentrating efforts on grid squares B1.87, B1.88, and Bk.87. These units encompass the remains of a large structure, with preserved wall sections standing between 1 and 2 meters in height. Prior to excavation, the building was systematically documented and photographed to establish a baseline record of its condition and to delineate the excavation area.

The structure, approximately square in plan and covering 424.05 m², is interpreted as a residential building, with its entrance likely located along the southern façade. The walls were constructed from medium-sized stones arranged in courses, with an average thickness ranging between 80 cm and 1 m. Surface finds recovered from the area include fragments of grinding stones, pottery sherds of various forms and dimensions, and a selection of soapstone objects.

## Methodology

The fieldwork employed a range of standard archaeological tools and techniques, including excavation implements, reference stakes, measuring devices, photographic equipment, surveying instruments, and drafting tools. The following procedures were undertaken during the season:

* Aerial photography of the designated excavation squares, both pre- and post-investigation, to record site conditions and changes (figs. 4.4-4.5).

* Ground-level photographic documentation of the excavation sequence, including pre-excavation, ongoing work, and post-excavation stages.

* Sorting, classification, and description of finds in accordance with established archaeological protocols for excavation reporting.

* Surveying and documentation of architectural features revealed during the campaign (figs. 4.6-4.7).

* Detailed illustration of selected artefacts, including ceramic vessels, glazed wares, soapstone items, and glass fragments.

* Architectural drafting of significant structural components for inclusion in the final scientific report.

* Stratigraphic drawings of selected layers to reconstruct the occupational sequence of the site.

* Compilation of an inventory of significant finds, recording item number, description, depth of recovery, dimensions, and high-resolution photographs.

## Architectural Layout (figs. 4.6-4.7)

Previous excavations at al-Ukhdūd have revealed several residential buildings, which together provide insights into local construction techniques and architectural planning. These structures generally conform to a standardized layout with minor variations.

In the present season, Building A43 complied with these standards, progressively revealing the following architectural features:

* The walls were constructed of roughly hewn stones, consistent with building practices documented elsewhere on site. Foundations were laid with coarse stones, upon which finely dressed stones were set (figs. 4.8-4.9). Traces of mud plaster survive on some interior surfaces. Masonry was laid in tightly packed courses, with walls measuring between 70 and 90 cm in thickness. Interior walls are preserved to a height of approximately 70 cm, while exterior walls stand up to 180 cm.

* Evidence indicates that sections of the building, particularly along the northern and eastern sides, had collapsed over time.

* The plan is organized around a rectangular corridor, likely serving as an entrance or foyer. This
space opens into a principal room, flanked to the north and south by additional rooms and storage areas. The rooms measure approximately 2-2.5 m across, while the storage spaces range between 1 and 2 m in width (figs. 4.6-4.7).

* Analysis of construction techniques and building materials suggests that this structure was erected later than some neighboring buildings.

## Stratigraphic Sequence

### External Stratigraphy (fig. 4.10)

Excavation commenced with the removal of the surface deposit, a light brown sandy soil containing small stones, clay fragments, plant root remains, and a limited number of pottery sherds, extending to a depth of approximately 35 cm. Beneath this lay a 25 cm-thick stratum of fine-textured light brown soil containing small stones, faunal remains, and abundant ceramic fragments.

Further excavation revealed a compact clay layer, approximately 25 cm thick, containing larger stones, limestone fragments, faunal remains, and ceramics, with occasional ash lenses. Below this, a fourth deposit was encountered, consisting of hard, compact soil extending to a depth of 35 cm, representing a distinct depositional phase within this sector.

The final stratum comprised compact soil mixed with medium-sized stones, interpreted as collapse debris from the adjacent outer wall. This deposit, approximately 5 cm thick, contained higher concentrations of charcoal and ash than earlier layers.

### Internal Stratigraphic Sequence (fig. 4.11)

Within Sq. Bl.87, excavation began with the removal of a surface layer of sandy soil intermixed with medium-sized stones. Beneath this lay a finer, light brown sandy stratum containing small to medium stones, pottery sherds, charcoal traces, and localized ash deposits, particularly concentrated in one of the rooms.

Deeper excavation exposed a distinct layer marked by a reddish hue and scattered pottery sherds. At the base, a compact soil deposit incorporated medium-sized stones—likely wall-collapse material—together with ceramics and ash patches, possibly associated with burning activities.

## ARTEFACTS FROM BUILDING A43 (= UK004)

Excavations conducted within Squares Bl.87, Bl.88, and Bk.87 yielded a broad assemblage of artefacts. These materials were carefully cleaned, classified, and representative samples were selected to encompass the full range of finds, as outlined below.

### Ceramic (fig. 4.12)

The ceramic assemblage comprises a wide variety of vessel forms, indicating diverse functions ranging from everyday domestic use to roles in trade and ritual practice. The pottery reflects differences in manufacture, raw materials, and finishing techniques. On the basis of form and function, the ceramics may be grouped as follows:

* **Jars:** Large, wide-mouthed vessels with thick bases; some with spouts. Clay pastes range light-dark brown with lime, grit, and sand inclusions; surfaces often incised (braided, fingertip, wavy-line motifs). Wheel-thrown, firing moderate-good, fabrics hard (fig. 4.17: a).

* **Pots:** Medium-sized, ring-based vessels. Clay pastes range light-dark brown. Rims everted or vertical. Well-finished exteriors with incised parallel/wavy lines or sickle-tooth patterns. Hard, wheel-thrown, consistently well fired.
<figure><img src="image_41.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.4 - Aerial view of Building A43 (UK004) before excavation (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.5 - Aerial view of Building A43 (UK004) after excavation (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
* **Dishes**: Single dish fragment in a light-brown clay. Straight rim, wheel-made, well finished, hard-fired.

* **Colander**: Base fragment of a colander, perforated. Light brown clay, both wheel- and hand-shaped. Hard, well fired.

* **Bowls**: Brown/greenish fabrics, moderately thick walls, everted rims. Some slipped with red ochre. Decoration minimal (incised wavy/straight lines).

* **Wavy-rimmed vessels**: Several fragments of vessels with distinctive wavy rims were recovered. These are made from light brown clay, sometimes with a slight greenish tint. The exterior finish is generally good. The rims, often hand-formed, indicate a combination of wheel-throwing and manual shaping. The ceramic fabric is hard and the firing quality good.

* **Lid**: One brown clay fragment with incised decoration on the upper face (fig. 4.12: UK14-004-32). Handmade. These kinds of lids were used to cover ceramic vessels and stone containers.

* **Incense burner**: A fragment of a ceramic incense burner was found (fig. 4.12: UK14-004-33, fig. 4.17: c). Brown clay, traces of decoration and a concave cavity on its upper face. The piece is solid and entirely handmade.

* **Glazed Pottery**: Fragments of glazed ceramics—possibly including bowls—were recovered. These vessels, made from clay ranging from dark to light brown, preserve traces of glaze in green, light brown, and occasionally white. Several fragments are incised with lines encircling the body. The pieces are wheel-thrown, hard-fired, and well finished.

* **Handles**: Handle fragments were also recorded, made from dark brown clay and in some cases showing traces of brown glaze (fig. 4.12: UK14-004-36). These handles were primarily hand-shaped. The fabric is hard and well fired.

## Stone artefacts

The inhabitants of Najran made skilled use of locally available raw materials to craft a range of utilitarian and decorative objects. These artefacts are classified as follows:

* **Soapstone vessels**: Fragments of carved soapstone vessels were recovered, some bearing external handles (fig. 4.13: UK14-004-40, fig. 4.17: d). Tool marks are visible on both interior and exterior surfaces. Several fragments preserve through-holes, interpreted as lashing points for repairs using bronze clasps.

* **Stone crucible**: A fragment of a small black granite basin, approximately 3 cm deep, was uncovered (fig. 4.13: UK14-004-44). The exterior is irregular, and the basin was likely used for grinding and preparing cosmetic or medicinal substances.

* **Alabaster vessels**: A fragment of an alabaster dish, approximately 2 cm in height, was recovered. The outer surface bears traces of an Ancient South Arabian inscription (fig. 4.17: e).

* **Incense burners**: A cubic sandstone block (c. 9–9.5 cm) was found, probably intended for further carving into a stone incense burner, comparable to examples from earlier excavations.

* **Millstones (fig. 4.14)**: Fragments of both upper and lower sandstone millstones were recovered. Several have perforations, some designed to secure the stones together and others facilitating rotational movement.

* **Inscription**: A stone fragment bearing a faint Ancient South Arabian inscription was identified. The piece is incomplete, with portions of the inscription missing and the preserved text only partially legible.

## Glass vessel

Glass was also well represented among the finds. The assemblage includes fragments of vessels and bottles made from green and black glass. Some retain outward-flaring rims, and several are relatively large, having been produced by glassblowing techniques.
## Jewellery (fig. 4.15)

Personal adornments include beads made of shell, agate, and semi-precious stones. These were likely used in necklaces or other decorative arrangements.

## Metal (fig. 4.16)

Fragments of metal artefacts with oxidised surfaces were recovered. Conservation and restoration are required to assess potential inscriptions or further details.

## CONCLUSION

The artefacts and architectural features uncovered at Building A43 (= UK004) provide significant insight into the character of the local community in Najran. The inhabitants constructed sturdy dwellings, with stone foundations supporting superstructures probably made of mudbrick or similar materials. Domestic architecture was both practical and organised, with designated storage areas and separate cooking spaces, as evidenced by ash and charcoal deposits found in one of the rooms.

Pottery made up the bulk of the portable finds and was the main type of household utensil uncovered during the excavation. The diversity of vessel forms, decorative treatments, and manufacturing quality indicates both functional variety and a degree of social differentiation. The assemblage also includes alabaster vessels, jewellery, stone and metal artefacts, and incense burners, suggesting engagement in ritual as well as domestic practices.

Taken together, these finds highlight aspects of daily life, economic activity, and cultural expression within the household, and by extension provide a valuable window into the broader lifeways of the al-Ukhdūd community.
<figure><img src="image_43.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.6 – Aerial view illustrating the layout of rooms inside Building A43 (UK004). North at the top (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.7 – Floor plan of Building A43 (UK004) (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.8 - Southern façade wall of Building A43 (UK004) showing the foundations at the bottom (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.9 - Drawing of the Southern façade wall of Building A43 (UK004) showing the foundation stone course at the bottom (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.10 – Stratigraphic profile of the external section, south of Building A43 (UK004) (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.11 – Stratigraphic profile of the internal section of a southern room in Building A43 (UK004) (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.12 – Fragments of common and glazed pottery from Building A43 (UK004) and its immediate surroundings (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025)</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.13 – Stone vessels from Building A43 (UK004) and its immediate surroundings (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.14 – Some finds (stone tool, millstone, grinder, and pebble) from Building A43 (UK004) and its immediate surroundings (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.15 – Shells of various shapes and colors from Building A43 (UK004) and its immediate surroundings (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.16 – Oxidized metal fragments from Building A43 (UK004) and its immediate surroundings (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>(b)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /><figcaption>(c)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>(d)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /><figcaption>(e)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

Figure 4.17 – Finds from Building A43 (UK004) and its immediate surroundings: (a) jar; (b) jug spout (UK14-004-07); (c) incense burner (UK14-004-33); (d) soapstone vessel (UK14-004-40); (e) stone vessel (UK14-004-45) (SAFJAPU / Heritage Commission, 2025).
<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>
# V — TEST-PIT UK004-TP1 (SQ. BL 88)

By Silvia Lischi

The excavation of test pit UK004-TP1 was carried out under the supervision of Silvia Lischi, from April 9 to April 23, 2025. The test pit was excavated immediately adjacent to the north-west corner of structure UK004, with the aim of investigating the structure's foundation and earlier occupation phases. The test pit was 5 x 5 m wide and 2 m deep (fig. 5.1).

Its objective was to identify and characterize the successive phases of occupation of the site from its foundation onwards. The virgin soil was not reached this season. The test pit will be expanded and continued next season. In the meantime, it has already brought to light different phases of use of the area. It is also evident that, at first glance, the storage containers prevail in the pottery assemblage.

## STRATIGRAPHICAL SEQUENCE

The surface layer (UK004.001), approximately 3–4 cm thick and covering the entire area, was removed (fig. 5.2). It consisted of very soft and loose sandy sediment. In the north-west corner, several masonry stones of varying sizes were found within this layer. It remains unclear whether these were in situ or the result of later excavation or remodelling activities that happened at the site more recently. Evidence of structural collapse associated with building UK004 was especially clear in the

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.1: Working Area and squares excavated: House UK004 on the right; test pit UK004-TP1 on the left (SAFJAPU / J. Schiettecatte, A. Laurent, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
north-east corner, where small, medium, and large stones were present. A coin and two fragments of glass vessels were recovered from this area, along with pottery sherds (1 bag) and a stone tool.

The removal of UK004.001 revealed two distinct zones: an eastern area near the western wall of Building UK004 (wall UK004.020), and a western area. Adjacent to wall UK004.020, collapse layer UK004.002 was identified, characterised by a mixture of large, medium, and predominantly small stones, embedded in a slightly less sandy and more reddish soil than the overlying UK004.001 (fig. 5.3). Charcoal fragments, burnt brick, slag, pottery (1 bag) and animal bones (1 bag) were also present. This layer sits at a higher elevation in relation to wall UK004.020 and slopes steeply to the west and south. In the south-east corner of the test pit, it is overlain by UK004.003.

UK004.003 is a stratified accumulation layer present across the remainder of the test pit. It comprises micro-laminated sequences resulting from water accumulation (likely from rain events) and aeolian deposition (fig. 5.4). Notably, a concentration of camel dung was observed along the southern edge, near the section. Aside from a few ceramic sherds (1 bag) and animal bones (1 bag), the layer was relatively sparse in finds. A modern fabric fragment and a bullet were also recovered. The layer appeared particularly thick in the westernmost area.

## Test pit 1, eastern part

In the eastern part of the pit, where UK004.003 is thin or absent, the removal of the collapse layer UK004.002 exposed layer UK004.004. This more compact, clayey brown layer was rich in charcoal, with some pottery sherds (1 bag) and animal bones (1 bag). The eastern section reveals that wall UK004.020 is founded on this layer. UK004.004 is overlain by UK004.002 to the east and by UK004.003 toward the centre of the test pit. Its composition and stratigraphic position suggest it was the occupation surface during the construction of structure UK004.

Below this was UK004.005, a moderately compact, dark brown layer containing medium-to-large stones, charcoal fragments, charred wooden beams, and pottery (2 bags). It dips westward and thins accordingly (figs. 5.5, 5.12). A large, square stone slab lay horizontally within this layer. The presence of charred wooden beams and blackened animal bones (2 bags) indicates that this layer may represent another collapse phase.

Beneath UK004.005, about 40 cm from the test pit's eastern edge, the upper part of a north-south oriented wall (UK004.014) was uncovered (figs. 5.6, 5.11, 5.13).

To the west of UK004.014, UK004.006 was exposed. This layer is rich in charcoal and charred beams, and also contains numerous medium and large stones. The lower portion included many lumps of white lime adhered to pottery, bones, and stones (figs. 5.7, 5.12). The finds include well-preserved ceramics (14 bags) and blackened animal bones (5 bags), likely from large animals, as well as fired brick fragments. UK004.006 dips east to west. Numerous objects were also found inside, the most interesting being two incense burners made of ceramics (UK004TP1-006-5 and UK004TP1-006-17) (figs. 5.8-5.9).

To the east of UK004.014, and immediately beneath wall UK004.020, lies UK004.011. Only the upper portion of this layer was excavated, but it displays similar characteristics to UK004.006. Finds included pottery (1 bag), blackened bones (1 bag), and a complete square incense burner (UK004TP1-011-1) inscribed with Ancient South Arabian words on all sides (fig. 5.10), each corresponding to a differnet aromatic (rnd = Artemisia abyssinica (?); drw = unidentified aroma; qs¹t = Kostus; hdk = unidentified aroma).

Layer UK004.012, underlying UK004.006, is a very compact, clayey grey deposit with ash- and charcoal-filled depressions on its surface. This floor is leaning on the wall UK004.014. After the big stone slab and UK004.006 were removed, wall UK004.015 was discovered, running north-east to south-west and tied to UK004.014 (figs. 5.11, 5.13). UK004.012 also leans against this wall.
For safety reasons, the excavation area was reduced. The floor UK004.012 was removed in the area between UK004.014 and UK004.015 to clarify stratigraphic relationships.

Beneath UK004.012 lies UK004.013, a very compact, brown clayey deposit with a good amount of finds (3 bags of pottery, and 4 bags of animal bones). This layer rests on UK004.016, a compact grey clayey deposit with ash lenses, pottery (1 bag), and blackened bones (2 bags) (fig. 5.15). UK004.014 and UK004.015 terminate within this layer, suggesting it functioned as a walking surface when these walls were constructed. The removal of UK004.016 revealed the upper part of a new wall, UK004.019, oriented east-west (figs. 5.14-5.15). This wall was completely buried under UK004.016. To the south of the wall, the removal of UK004.016 revealed UK004.018, a friable brown accumulation with ceramics (3 bags), bones (3 bags), and charcoal, abutting UK004.019 (fig. 5.15).

Under UK004.018 lies UK004.021, a moderately compact, grey clayey layer containing some finds and charcoal. Its removal exposed wall UK004.023, which UK004.021 previously obliterated (fig. 5.15). In the south-east part of the test pit, it was possible to identify a medium compact, brown deposit (UK004.022), which also leans against UK004.019 (fig. 5.15). Excavation of this layer remains incomplete due to space constraints.

## Test pit I, western part

In the western part of the test pit (fig. 5.16), a compact, grey clay floor (UK004.007) was uncovered beneath UK004.003 and also beneath the western portion of the large square slab that was moved horizontally in front of the walls UK004.014 and UK004.015. It seems possible that the slab may have collapsed onto it. This floor was not observed in other areas affected by layers UK004.005 and UK004.006, possibly due to disruption by collapse events (UK004.002).

Beneath this, UK004.008 was identified—similar in composition to UK004.003, comprising alternating water-laminated and windblown sediments. This layer rests on UK004.009, a more compact, friable brownish deposit sloping southward and rising toward the north section. In the centre of the west section, it appears to rest directly on UK004.012, although this area was disturbed by large stones collapse in the south-western corner. This collapse is labelled as UK004.025 and has been only partially excavated. It overlies another collapse layer rich in medium and small stones (UK004.024), which in turn obliterated the westernmost part of wall UK004.023. This wall, only partially exposed so far, is tied to UK004.019, although this relationship remains to be confirmed.

## RADIOCARBON DATING

Five samples of charcoal were sent to Beta Analytics lab for AMS radiocarbon dating. No preliminary archaeobotanical determination have been carried out on the samples, so that an old wood effect on some of them cannot be totally precluded.

Samples come from occupation layers UK004.006, UK.004.011, UK.004.012, UK004.016 and UK004.022.

They range from the 4th century BCE to the 6th century CE. However, at this stage, the bedrock was not reached and an older occupation remains possible. The latest occupation in this test pit also needs to be confirmed by additional samples.

The results are presented in **Table 5.1**.
<table><thead><tr><th>Lab Nb</th><th>Site</th><th>Building</th><th>Sounding</th><th>SU</th><th>Nature</th><th>Analysis</th><th>Conventional Radiocarbon Age</th><th>Calibrated Ranges<br>95.4% Probability Calibrated Range(s)<br>INTCAL20</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Beta-754713</td><td>al-Ukhdud</td><td>UK004</td><td>TP1</td><td>22</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>AMS</td><td>2220 +/- 30 BP</td><td>(20.6%) 383 - 334 cal BCE<br>(74.6%) 329 - 196 cal BCE</td></tr><tr><td>Beta-754712</td><td>al-Ukhdud</td><td>UK004</td><td>TP1</td><td>16</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>AMS</td><td>2290 +/- 30 BP</td><td>(60.4%) 403 - 350 cal BCE<br>(32.8%) 289 - 225 cal BCE<br>(2.3%) 220 - 208 cal BCE</td></tr><tr><td>Beta-754711</td><td>al-Ukhdud</td><td>UK004</td><td>TP1</td><td>12</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>AMS</td><td>2080 +/- 30 BP</td><td>(89.1%) 174 - 31 cal BCE<br>(0.4%) 29 - 25 cal BCE<br>(5.9%) 16 cal BC - 7 cal CE</td></tr><tr><td>Beta-754710</td><td>al-Ukhdud</td><td>UK004</td><td>TP1</td><td>11</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>AMS</td><td>2160 +/- 30 BP</td><td>(36.2%) 354 - 279 cal BCE<br>(1.0%) 255 - 246 cal BCE<br>(56.1%) 231 - 96 cal BCE<br>(2.1%) 70 - 56 cal BCE</td></tr><tr><td>Beta-754709</td><td>al-Ukhdud</td><td>UK004</td><td>TP1</td><td>6</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>AMS</td><td>1440 +/- 30 BP</td><td>(95.4%) 577 - 653 cal CE</td></tr></tbody></table>

OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey (2021); r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2020)

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /><figcaption>Table 5.1. Radiocarbon dating obtained by AMS analysis of five charcoal samples (calibration with OxCal v4.4.4 Bronk Ramsey, 2021; r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al., 2020).</figcaption></figure>

## DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS

The excavation of the test pit UK004-TP1 has brought to light different phases of occupation of the area (figs. 5.17-5.18). It is also evident that, at first glance, the storage containers prevail in the pottery assemblage.

### Phase I

The first phase, the most recent, is characterised by structure UK004 and the walking surface (UK004.004). Towards the west, this surface does not appear to have been preserved. However, it should be noted that this area was affected by the collapse of the same structure, UK004, so it is possible that the walking surface is only partially preserved. Floor UK004.007 may be the contemporary floor of UK004.004. The deposit above it seems to indicate that this was an open-air area.
The material preserved for this phase is limited.

## Phase 2

The second phase is characterised by a structure consisting of walls UK004.014 and UK004.015. It should be noted that they have a different orientation from those of structure UK004. The quantity and type of materials found in the layer immediately above the floor (UK004.006) and in the floor (UK004.012) suggest that we are in the interior of the structure. However, it is difficult to make any definitive statements at this stage, given the limited area of excavation. It should be noted that three of the four incense burners were found in relation to this phase, two in the area between the two walls that may relate to the interior of the structure and one to the east of UK004.014. These walls are based on an even earlier phase of use, characterised by floor level UK004.016, which covers much of the area to the west of UK004.014 and UK004.015 and is contemporary with their construction.

The ceramic assemblage of this phase, like the others, is characterised by storage vessels. We note the presence of ovoid jars with vegetal temper (fig. 5.19 top) and wavy rim bowls (fig. 5.19 bottom), which are considered chronological markers of the period between the 3rd century BCE and the 3rd century CE. This dating is consistent with radiocarbon dating of samples Beta-754710 and Beta-754711 respectively dated to 354-56 cal-BCE and 174 cal-BCE-7 cal-CE, and which overlap on the 2nd cent. BCE.

An additional radiocarbon dating obtained from SU006 (577-653 cal CE), however, does not accord either with the ceramic evidence or with the stratigraphic sequence. The collapse layer to which it refers was sealed by floor SU004 and therefore predates the construction of building UK004, which, on the basis of the excavated material, cannot plausibly have been erected as late as the 6th-7th centuries CE. The most likely explanation for this inconsistency is the intrusion of later material, probably associated with subsequent activities in the area, as attested by at least one pit (SU010-SU017) cut after Phase 1 (SU004-SU007).

## Phase 3

The third, older phase has been completely obliterated by the floor of UK004.016. This phase is characterised by a new structure consisting of UK004.019 and UK004.023. They show a different orientation than the two phases just described, and in an advanced phase, are related to the floor of UK004.021. Unfortunately, it was not possible to determine the foundation phase of this structure, but future investigations will be able to clarify the situation.

The ceramic assemblage of this phase is still characterised by containers that appear to be large in size. However, the absence of ovoid jars with vegetal temper and wavy rim bowls is compelling. Radiocarbon dating points to the 4th-3rd cent. BCE: samples Beta-754712 and Beta-754713 respectively dated to 403-208 and 383-196 cal-BCE.
<figure><img src="image_67.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.2. Test pit before (top) and after the excavation of layer UK004.001 (bottom) (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

Figure 5.3. Orthophotograph of sounding UK004-TP1 on April 10, 2025. On the left, western perimeter wall UK004.020 of building UK004. Stratigraphic unit UK004.002 corresponds to the collapse of the wall. SU.UK004.003 is a laminated natural accumulation (SAFJAPU / A. Laurent, J. Schiettecatte, 2025).
<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

Figure 5.4. Sounding UK004-TP1: Upper western section of the test pit, showing UK004.003 (SAF-JAPU / S. Lischi 2025).

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

Figure 5.5. Sounding UK004-TP1. On the left: laminated natural accumulation SU.UK004.003; on the right, layer SU.UK004.005 (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi 2025).
<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

Figure 5.6. Discovery of wall UK004.014 (section on the upper left). A square slab is visible in front of it, lying flat (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi 2025).

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

Figure 5.7. Excavation of UK004.006, showing large stones, blackened bones, pottery sherds, and lime lumps (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi 2025).
<figure><img src="image_73.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.8. Incense burner UK004TP1-006-17 (SAFJAPU / C. Hilaire 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.9. Incense burner UK004TP1-006-5 (SAFJAPU / C. Hilaire 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_75.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.10. Incense burner in sandstone found in UK004.011 (UK004TP1-011-1) (SAFJAPU / J. Schettecatte 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

Figure 5.11. Orthophotograph of sounding UK004-TP1 on April 16, 2025. To the east (left), wall UK004.014 appears below the collapse layer of wall UK004.020, it is tied to wall UK004.015 running east-west (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi, J. Schiettecatte, 2025).
<figure><img src="image_77.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.12. Eastern upper section of the test pit. Collapse layers at the top (UK004.002, UK004.005) and occupation layer UK004.006 (SAF-JAPU / S. Lischi 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.13. Walls UK004.014 and UK004.015 in connection with floor UK004.012 seen from west (left) and south (right) (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

Figure 5.14. Orthophotograph of sounding UK004-TP1 at the end of the excavation season (April 22). Two walls UK004.019 and UK004.023 are observed under walls UK004.014 and UK004.015, they belong to an earlier phase (SAFJAPU / Th. Sagory, 2025).
<figure><img src="image_80.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.15. Stratigraphic detail of the lower part of the eastern section (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi 2025).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.16 (A). Western stratigraphic section of test pit UK004-TP1, in grey, the two floors, UK004.007 and UK004.012 (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi, J. Schiettecattev 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_82.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.16 (B). Eastern stratigraphic section of test pit UK004-TP1 (left) and altimetric profile (right) (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi, J. Schiettecattev 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_83.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.17. Schematic plans of the 3 different phases identified in Test pit UK004-TP1. Phase 1: Sky blue. Phase 2: Grey. Phase 3: Violet (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi, J. Schiettecatte, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_84.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.18. Stratigraphic matrix of test pit UK004-TP1 (grey: walls; blue: floors) (SAFJAPU / S. Lischi, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_85.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5.19. On the left, some fragments (rims, bases and walls) of ovoid jars with vegetal temper, on the right, some examples of wavy rim bowls, all from layer UK004.006 (Phase 2) (SAFJAPU / J. Schettecatte, 2025).</figcaption></figure>
APPENDIX 5.1 — UK004-TP1 — STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS

<table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td>Locus Number</td><td>Test Pit</td><td>Nature</td><td>Phase</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.001</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Accumulation</td><td>Surface</td><td>Very soft layer of loose sandy sediment. It covered the entire area of the test pit. In the north-west corner, a number of masonry stones of various sizes were placed on or inserted in this layer (it is unclear whether they were in situ or the result of later excavation/remodelling of the site). In the north-east corner, however, the collapse of feature UK004 is evident. There are indeed small, medium, and large stones. A coin was found during the excavation in connection with the collapse of the wall, and two fragments of glass containers were also found in connection with the collapse. Some fragments of pottery and a stone tool were also found.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.002</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Collapse</td><td>Phase 1</td><td>It is located immediately below UK004.001 in front of the wall and below UK004.003 in the north-eastern corner of the test pit (the area closer to the wall of UK004). The collapse layer is associated with the building UK004. It is characterised by the presence of large stones (a few), but mainly medium and small stones mixed with slightly less sandy and reddish soil than in UK004.001. Charcoal fragments, burnt brick fragments, slag and a larger quantity of pottery are also found in this layer.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.003</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Accumulation</td><td>Surface</td><td>This layer characterises most of the area, particularly in the south and north-west. It is a layer composed of a series of micro-layers of accumulation and water lamination (most likely due to rainfall and rain accumulation/retention events). Within it, in the area to the south, immediately adjacent to the section, some concentration of camel dung was found. Otherwise, the layer appears to be rather sparse in terms of the amount of material, with the presence of a few ceramic fragments and animal bones being recorded. It should be noted that a fragment of modern fabric and a rifle pellet were found inside it. It is located below UK004.001, it leans on UK004.002 and covers UK0004.004, UK004.007, UK004.010.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.004</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Accumulation</td><td>Phase 1</td><td>This layer mainly characterises the easternmost half of the trench, towards the perimeter wall of UK004. It is brown in colour, with numerous fragments of charcoal and traces of burning, and its composition is clayey. The perimeter wall of building UK004 is built on this layer. In the easternmost part the layer is directly overlain by UK004.002, while moving towards the centre of the test pit the layer becomes thinner and is overlain by UK004.003 and UK004.007. This layer also directly covers UK004.005.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.005</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Collapse</td><td>Phase 1</td><td>Collapse and destruction layer, dark brown, with fragments of fired brick, many fragments of charcoal, charred wooden beams, pottery, and medium and large stones. It is directly covered by UK004.004, with UK004.007 and UK004.008 lying on it in the westernmost part. It directly overlies UK004.014 and UK004.006.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.006</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Collapse</td><td>Phase 2</td><td>Layer of destruction, large amount of charcoal and charred wooden beams. A lot of pottery. Well preserved animal bones, almost all completely blackened. High presence of white lime balls, sometimes completely adhering to stones or bones. Presence of fired brick and in the lowest part, just above UK004.012, presence of mudbrick, especially in the northernmost part. This layer tends to slope from east to west. To the east it is directly covered by UK004.005 and at the eastern end by UK004.007. This layer covers UK004.012 and therefore leans against the two walls UK004.014 and UK004.015, which delimit the space to the east and south.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.007</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Floor</td><td>Phase 1</td><td>Very compact layer of grey clay, 1 to 3/4 cm thick towards the west where it is best preserved. It appears to be quite flat, towards the east it is partially visible under the large square stone that was placed near the corner between UK004.014 and UK004.015. It appears to rest on UK004.005, at least in the centre of the trench where the collapse layer starts to be less thick. In the area closest to UK004 it may have been disturbed by the collapse of structure UK004 (UK004.002). It is covered by UK004.003. Towards the northernmost part, near UK004.014, there is a pit which cuts through this and the underlying layers (UK004.004, UK004.005 and part of UK004.006).</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.008</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Accumulation</td><td>Phase 1</td><td>This layer characterises the south-west corner of the test pit. It appears to have been only partially excavated due to the narrowing of the test pit to ensure the stability of the section. This light brown layer appears to be poor in material and consists of alternating layers of accumulation and compaction due to the presence of water (similar to UK004.003). It is covered by UK004.007 and partially lies above UK004.005.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Under locus</td><td>Over locus</td><td>Top levels</td><td>Bottom levels</td><td>Date</td><td>Bags of material (pottery, fauna, etc.)</td><td>Objects identified in locus</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Surface</td><td>UK004.002<br>UK004.003</td><td>1295.60</td><td>1295.51</td><td>09/04/25</td><td>Pottery (1 medium bag)</td><td>UK004TP1-001-1 (stone tool)<br>UK004TP1-001-2 (coin)<br>UK004TP1-001-3 (glass fr.)"</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.001<br>UK004.003</td><td>UK004.004</td><td>1295.57</td><td>1295.18</td><td>09/04/25</td><td>Pottery (1 big bag)<br>Animal bones (1 big bag)<br>Fired bricks (1 bag)<br>Metal slag (1 bag)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.001</td><td>UK004.002<br>UK004.004<br>UK004.007<br>UK004.010</td><td>1295.51</td><td>1294.66</td><td>10/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (1 big bag)<br>Animal bones (1 bag)<br>Plaster (1 bag)<br>Charcoal (1 small bag)<br>Camel dung (1 smal bag)</td><td>UK004TP1-003-1 (stone bead)<br>UK004TP1-003-2 (handmill)"</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.002<br>UK004.003<br>UK004.007</td><td>UK004.005<br>UK004.015</td><td>1295.47</td><td>1295.26</td><td>12/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (1 big bag)<br>Animal bones (1 bag)</td><td>UK004TP1-004-1 (shell bead)<br>UK004TP1-004-2 (undefined bronze/<br>copper obj.), "</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.004<br>UK004.008</td><td>UK004.006<br>UK004.014</td><td>1295.26</td><td>1294.72</td><td>12/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (2 big bags)<br>Animal bones (2 big bags)<br>Metal slag (1 bag)<br>Fired brick (1 bag)<br>Charcoal (2 bags)<br>Charred wooden beam (1<br>bag)</td><td>UK004TP1-005-1 (shell bead)<br>UK004TP1-005-2 (carnelian bead)<br>UK004TP1-005-3 (stone tool), "</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.005</td><td>UK004.012<br>UK004.014<br>UK004.015</td><td>1294.72</td><td>1294.18</td><td>13/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (14 bags)<br>Animal bones (5 bags)<br>Fired brick (3 bags)<br>Charcoal (1 small bag)<br>Charred wooden beam (1<br>bag)</td><td>UK004TP1-006-1 (glass fr.) /<br>UK004TP1-006-2 (ceramic spindle-<br>whorl) / UK004TP1-006-3 (glass fr.)<br>/ UK004TP1-006-4 (bone bead) /<br>UK004TP1-006-5 (incense burner) /<br>UK004TP1-006-6 (handmill) / UK004-<br>TP1-006-7 (handmill) / UK004TP1-006-8<br>(handmill) / UK004TP1-006-9 (handmill)<br>/ UK004TP1-006-10 (handmill) /<br>UK004-TP1-006-11 (stone tool) /<br>UK004TP1-006-12 (stone vessel)<br>/ UK004TP1-006-12 (handmill) /<br>UK004TP1-006-13 (handmill) /<br>UK004TP1-006-14 (handmill?) /<br>UK004-TP1-006-15 (stone tool) /<br>UK004TP1-006-16 (stone tool) /<br>UK004TP1-006-17 (incense burner)</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.003<br>UK004.010</td><td>UK004.004<br>UK004.008<br>UK004.009</td><td>1294.66</td><td>1294.63</td><td>14/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.007</td><td>UK004.005<br>UK004.009</td><td>1294.63</td><td>1294.26</td><td>14/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td>Locus Number</td><td>Test Pit</td><td>Nature</td><td>Phase</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.009</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Accumulation</td><td>Phase 2</td><td>Light brown, medium compact layer with material visible in section. It is located in the northwest corner of the test pit and appears to be dump shaped. It is covered by UK004.007, to the north by UK004.012 and to the east by UK004.012. Due to the narrowing of the excavation area, the lower part was not excavated to allow identification of the underlying stratigraphy.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.010</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Pit</td><td>Phase 2</td><td>Pit cutting UK004.007 and underlying stratigraphy (UK004.004, UK004.005 and part of UK004.006). It is located in the northern section, close to wall UK004.014. The fill of the pit (UK004.017) is devoid of any material, except for the presence of a large stone in its lower part, possibly related to the collapse of UK004 (and therefore contemporary with UK004.002?).</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.011</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Collapse</td><td>Phase 2</td><td>Dark brown, fairly compact, charcoal-rich layer. Similar to UK004.005 but to the east of wall UK004.014. It lies below UK004.004. The inscribed incense burner was found within. Only partially excavated as it is just below the section under the perimeter wall of UK004.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.012</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Floor</td><td>Phase 2</td><td>The compact layer lying on UK004.014 and UK004.015 continues towards the limit of the northern section and is lost towards the western section. The greyish layer is compact and clayey, a stone vessel fragment and many blackened bones were found on its surface. UK004.006 rests on it in the easternmost part, and to the north UK004.009 also rests on it. It rests on UK004.013.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.013</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Accumulation</td><td>Phase 2</td><td>Very compact, brown clayey layer. Limited amount of material in it, presence of small charcoal fragments. It is covered by UK004.012 and covers UK004.016.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.014</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>wall</td><td>Phase 2</td><td>The wall is composed of medium to large stones rather irregular in shape, with no evidence of mortar between them. The outer surface to the west is rich in small fragments of lime attached to the stones. North-east/south-west orientation.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.015</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>wall</td><td>Phase 2</td><td>The wall is composed of medium to large stones rather irregular in shape, with no evidence of mortar between them. The outer surface to the west is rich in small fragments of lime attached to the stones. East/west orientation.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.016</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Floor</td><td>Phase 3</td><td>A compact layer of clay consistency and grey colour, it shows the presence of large lenses of ash and many charcoal. Fragments of pottery and animal bones are present but in smaller quantities than in the layers above. Identifiable as the walking surface on which walls UK004.0014 and UK004.015 were founded.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.017</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Pit filling</td><td>Phase 2</td><td>Fill of pit UK004.010. It is devoid of material, but a large stone can be seen at its base, possibly related to the collapse of UK004.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.018</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Accumulation</td><td>Phase 3</td><td>Brown, rather friable layer with the presence of archaeological material and charcoal. It is located on both sides of wall UK004.019.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.019</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Wall</td><td>Phase 3</td><td>An east-west trending wall consisting of a single row of stones of varying sizes but rather irregular. It is covered by UK004.016, and UK004.018 leaning on its sides.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.020</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Wall</td><td></td><td>Eastern perimeter wall of building UK004. Consists of roughly hewn large stones, no mortar visible. The wall rests on UK004.004, UK004.002 leaning on the wall.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.021</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Surface of use (?)</td><td>Phase 3</td><td>Medium compact grey clayey layer rich in charcoal. Clearly visible to the south of UK004.019, but not in the section to the north. This layer completely covered wall UK004.023.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.022</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Accumulation</td><td>Phase 3</td><td>Reddish-brown layer rich in bone and material, moderately compact. The excavation was not completed as we stopped because the area was too small to continue.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.023</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Wall</td><td>Phase 3</td><td>North-south trending wall at the west end of the test pit. Large stones at least at the top. Due to the limited excavation area and the presence of the collapse in section, only the top could be clarified. It appears to be linked to UK004.019.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.024</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Collapse</td><td>Phase 3</td><td>The collapse layer, rich in stones of various sizes, was located in the western part of the test pit, in the lower part. It was only partially excavated due to the interruption of the excavation. It is brown with charcoal. It is located under UK004.012 and under UK004.025.</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004.025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>Accumulation/ Collapse</td><td>Phase 3</td><td>Poorly visible layer in the corner of the western part of the test pit. It is light brown and contains some large stones. It may be part of a collapse (perhaps of UK004.015?). It lies above UK004.024 and below UK004.012.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Under locus</td><td>Over locus</td><td>Top levels</td><td>Bottom levels</td><td>Date</td><td>Bags of material (pottery, fauna, etc.)</td><td>Objects identified in locus</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>UK004.007<br>UK004.008</td><td>UK004.012</td><td>1294.73</td><td>1294.20</td><td>15/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (2 bags)<br>Animal bones (1 bag)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.017</td><td>UK004.007<br>UK004.004<br>UK004.005<br>UK004.006</td><td>1294.81</td><td>1294.49</td><td>15/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.004</td><td>UK004.014</td><td>1294.82</td><td>unexcavated</td><td>16/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (1 bag)<br>Animal bones (1 bag)<br>Charcoal (2 bags)</td><td>UK004TP1-011-1 (incense burner)</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.006<br>UK004.009</td><td>UK004.013<br>UK004.014<br>UK004.015</td><td>1294.19</td><td>1294.07</td><td>16/04/2025</td><td>Charcoal (1 small bag)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.012</td><td>UK004.016</td><td>1294.07</td><td>1293.80</td><td>17/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (3 bags)<br>Animal bones (4 bags)<br>Plaster (1 bag)<br>Charcoal (1 bag)</td><td>UK004TP1-013-1 (stone tool)<br>UK004TP1-013-2 (stone tool)</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.005<br>UK004.012</td><td>UK004.016</td><td>1295.04</td><td>1293.93</td><td>17/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.004<br>UK004.012</td><td>UK004.016</td><td>1294.87</td><td>1293.95</td><td>17/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.013<br>UK004.014<br>UK004.015</td><td>UK004.018<br>UK004.019</td><td>1293.80</td><td>1293.68</td><td>19/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (1 bag)<br>Animal bones (2 bags)<br>Charcoal (1 small bag)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.003</td><td>UK004.010</td><td>1294.81</td><td>1294.49</td><td>19/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.016</td><td>UK004.019<br>UK0040.21</td><td>1293.68</td><td>1293.43</td><td>19/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (3 bags)<br>Animal bones (3 bags)</td><td>UK004TP1-018-1 (stone tool)<br>UK004TP1-018-2 (incense burner)<br>UK004TP1-018-3 (stone vessel)<br>UK004TP1-018-4 (stone vessel)</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.016<br>UK004.018<br>UK004.021<br>UK004.022</td><td>unexcavated</td><td>1293.80</td><td>1293.06<br>(unfinished)</td><td>19/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.001<br>UK004.002</td><td>UK004.004</td><td>1297.38</td><td>1295.47</td><td>19/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.018</td><td>UK004.019<br>UK004.022</td><td>1293.43</td><td>1293.30</td><td>20/04/2025</td><td>Charcoal (1 small bag)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.021</td><td>UK004.019<br>unexcavated</td><td>1293.30</td><td>1293.06</td><td>20/04/2025</td><td>Pottery (2 bags)<br>Animal bones (1 bag)<br>Slag (1 bag)<br>Charcoal (1 small bag)</td><td>UK004TP1-022-1 (millstone?)<br>UK004TP1-022-2 (stone tool)<br>UK004TP1-022-3 (stone vessel)<br>UK004TP1-022-4 (stone vessel)</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.021</td><td>unexcavated</td><td>1293.28</td><td>(unfinished)</td><td>20/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.012 -<br>UK004.025</td><td>unexcavated</td><td>1294.06</td><td>1293.48<br>(unfinished)</td><td>20/04/2025</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>UK004.012</td><td>UK004.24</td><td>1293.98</td><td>1293.56<br>(unfinished)</td><td>20/04/2025</td><td>Charcoal (1 small bag)</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
APPENDIX 5.2 — UK004-TPI — SAMPLES

<table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td>Test pit</td><td>Sample nb</td><td>Sample type</td><td>Weight (in g.)</td><td>Nb of bag(s)</td><td>Analysis</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-001-1</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-002-1</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-002-2</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>88</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-002-3</td><td>Fired bricks</td><td>1546</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-002-4</td><td>Metal slag</td><td>1707</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-003-1</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-003-2</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>134</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-003-3</td><td>Plaster</td><td>290</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-003-4</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-003-5</td><td>Camel dung</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-004-1</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-004-2</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>462</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-005-1</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-005-2</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>250</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-005-3</td><td>Metal slag</td><td>773</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-005-4</td><td>Fired bricks</td><td>1217</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-005-5</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-005-6</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>590</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-005-7</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>36</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-005-8</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>20</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-005-9</td><td>Charred wooden beam</td><td>21</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-1</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-10</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-11</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-12</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-13</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-14</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-15</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>953</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-16</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>1790</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-17</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>1064</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-18</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>403</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-19</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>606</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-2</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-20</td><td>Fired bricks</td><td>1471</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-21</td><td>Fired bricks</td><td>2559</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-22</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>10</td><td>1</td><td>14C dating</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-23</td><td>Charred wooden beam</td><td>71</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-24</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-3</td><td>Fired bricks</td><td>1787</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-4</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-5</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-6</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-7</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-8</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-006-9</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td>Test pit</td><td>Sample nb</td><td>Sample type</td><td>Weight (in g.)</td><td>Nb of bag(s)</td><td>Analysis</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-009-1</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-009-2</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-009-3</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>53</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-011-1</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-011-2</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>210</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-011-3</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>25</td><td>1</td><td>14C dating</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-011-4</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>384</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-012-1</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>14C dating</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-013-1</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-013-2</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-013-3</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>580</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-013-4</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>454</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-013-5</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>477</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-013-6</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>16</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-013-7</td><td>Plaster</td><td>315</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-013-8</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>220</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-013-9</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-016-1</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>555</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-016-2</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>321</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-016-3</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-016-4</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>14C dating</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-016-5</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-018-1</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>341</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-018-2</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>451</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-018-3</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>494</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-018-4</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-018-5</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-018-6</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-021-1</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-022-1</td><td>Slag</td><td>118</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-022-2</td><td>Animal bones</td><td>301</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-022-3</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-022-4</td><td>Pottery</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>Pending</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-022-5</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>14C dating</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>S_UK004-TP1-025-1</td><td>Charcoal</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
APPENDIX 5.3 — UK004-TP1 — OBJECTS

<table><thead><tr><td>Year</td><td>Test pit</td><td>Object number</td><td>Type of object</td><td>Subtype</td><td>Main material of object</td><td>Secondary material of object</td><td>State of conservation</td><td>Nb of fragm.</td><td>Altitude (by default the SU's)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-001-1</td><td>Stone tool</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Almost complete</td><td>1</td><td>1295.60-1295.51</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-001-2</td><td>Coin</td><td></td><td>Metal</td><td>Copper alloy</td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1295.60-1295.51</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-001-3</td><td>Container</td><td></td><td>Glass</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>2</td><td>1295.60-1295.51</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-003-1</td><td>Bead</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td>Black stone</td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1295.51-1294.66</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-003-2</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Handmill</td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1295.51-1294.66</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-004-1</td><td>Bead</td><td></td><td>Shell</td><td>Cypraea</td><td>Half</td><td>1</td><td>1295.47-1295.26</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-004-2</td><td>Undefined</td><td></td><td>Metal</td><td>Copper alloy</td><td>ND</td><td>2</td><td>1295.47-1295.26</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-005-1</td><td>Bead (?)</td><td></td><td>Shell</td><td>Nacreous shell</td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1295.26-1294.72</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-005-2</td><td>Bead</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td>Carnelian</td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1295.26-1294.72</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-005-3</td><td>Stone tool</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Half</td><td>1</td><td>1295.26-1294.72</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-1</td><td>Container</td><td></td><td>Glass</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-10</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Handmill</td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-11</td><td>Stone tool</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Complete</td><td>2</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-12</td><td>Stone vessel</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td>Steatite</td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-12</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Handmill</td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-13</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Handmill</td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-14</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Handmill</td><td>Sandstone (?)</td><td></td><td>Half</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-15</td><td>Stone tool</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-16</td><td>Stone tool</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-17</td><td>Incense burner</td><td></td><td>Ceramic</td><td></td><td>Almost complete</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-2</td><td>Spindle-whorl</td><td></td><td>Ceramic</td><td></td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-3</td><td>Container</td><td></td><td>Glass</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-4</td><td>Ring</td><td></td><td>Bone</td><td></td><td>Complete</td><td>2</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-5</td><td>Incense burner</td><td></td><td>Ceramic</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-6</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Handmill</td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-7</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Handmill</td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-8</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Handmill</td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-006-9</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Handmill</td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.72-1294.18</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-011-1</td><td>Incense burner</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td>Sandstone</td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1294.82</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-013-1</td><td>Stone tool</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1294.07-1293.80</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-013-2</td><td>Stone tool</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1294.07-1293.80</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-018-1</td><td>Stone tool</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1293.68-1293.43</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-018-2</td><td>Incense burner</td><td></td><td>Ceramic</td><td></td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1293.68-1293.43</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-018-3</td><td>Stone vessel</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td>Steatite</td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>4</td><td>1293.68-1293.43</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-018-4</td><td>Stone vessel</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td>Steatite</td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1293.68-1293.43</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-022-1</td><td>Stone tool</td><td>Millstone (?)</td><td>Stone</td><td>Sandstone</td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1293.30-1293.06</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-022-2</td><td>Stone tool</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td></td><td>Complete</td><td>1</td><td>1293.30-1293.06</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-022-3</td><td>Stone vessel</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td>Steatite</td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1293.30-1293.06</td></tr><tr><td>2025</td><td>UK004-TP1</td><td>UK004TP1-022-4</td><td>Stone vessel</td><td></td><td>Stone</td><td>Steatite</td><td>Fragmentary</td><td>1</td><td>1293.30-1293.06</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Beads, ring, ornament

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-003-1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-004-1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-005-2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-006-4</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-005-1</figcaption></figure>

## Coin

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-001-2</figcaption></figure>

## Glass containers

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-001-3</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-006-1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-006-3</figcaption></figure>

## Incense burners

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-006-17 (see fig. 5.8)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-006-5 (see fig. 5.9)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-011-1 (see fig. 5.10)</figcaption></figure>
Incense burner

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-018-2

Spindle-whorl

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-006-2

Stone tools

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-001-1

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-003-2

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-005-3

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-006-6

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-006-7

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-006-9

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-006-10

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-006-11

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-006-12

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>

UK004TP1-006-13
<figure><img src="image_110.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-006-14</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-006-15</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-006-16</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-013-1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-013-2</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-018-1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-022-1</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-022-2</figcaption></figure>

Stone vessels

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-006-12</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-018-3</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /><figcaption>UK004TP1-022-3</figcaption></figure>