How Petra was Built: An analysis of the construction techniques of the Nabataean freestanding buildings and rock-cut monuments in Petra, Jordan 9781841718989, 9781407329086

Citation preview

BAR S1460 2005

How Petra was Built

RABABEH

Shaher M. Rababeh

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

BAR International Series 1460 B A R

2005

How Petra was Built An analysis of the construction techniques of the Nabataean freestanding buildings and rock-cut monuments in Petra, Jordan

Shaher M. Rababeh

BAR International Series 1460 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1460 How Petra was Built © S M Rababeh and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718989 paperback ISBN 9781407329086 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718989 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

TO: MY PARENTS MY WIFE NAWAL MY CHILDREN (ASMA, SERINA, MOHAMMAD, AND AMEEN)

Abstract Until now, no study has been made of the construction techniques of the Nabataean freestanding buildings and the rockcut monuments of Petra (built from the 1stcent. BC to the 2nd cent. AD). Their technical features were documented by fieldwork, and this evidence was then analysed to determine precisely when and why these features appeared or evolved. This leads to explaining how the Nabataeans developed their architecture, and what types of construction techniques they used to bring Petra’s architecture to its peak. The historical and geographical context for the architecture of Petra is presented, with a summary of previous scholarship on the site. The focus moves to the building materials used by the Nabataeans which are found to influence the construction techniques they developed. This is followed by a detailed discussion of quarrying and the rock-cut techniques. The procedures for dressing ashlar blocks and the facades of the rock-cut monuments are analysed to determine the tools used by the builders, as well as the lifting devices necessary for construction of the freestanding buildings. The technical aspects of the construction of walls, columns, floors, the anti-seismic and stabilising techniques developed by the Nabataeans are considered. Finally, the construction of roofs is examined in detail. The results of the study reveal the sources of the building techniques used at Petra and why they were further developed there. A few features of Edomite and other local architecture are seen in Nabataean architecture. The Nabataeans also used construction techniques found elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world. However, detailed examination shows that the Nabataeans were selective in which of these techniques they used and how they refined these to suit the properties of the locally available building materials, most notably sandstone. This also led to some technical features not found elsewhere, and others which are the earliest surviving examples. Consequently, it is shown that the Nabataeans had their own construction techniques, which are as distinctive as their architectural style.

ii

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................. vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................................xi CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................1 I.a. Background............................................................................................................................................................1 I.a.1. Physical Environment....................................................................................................................................1 I.a.1.1. Location ...................................................................................................................................................1 I.a.1.2. Trade Routes.........................................................................................................................................2 I.a.2. The Nabataeans..............................................................................................................................................4 I.a.2.1. The Nabataeans before Petra ..............................................................................................................4 I.a.2.2. Their Later History and Contacts.........................................................................................................7 I.a.2.3. The Nabataean Architectural Style ....................................................................................................15 I.b. History of Research.............................................................................................................................................26 I.b.1. Visitors to and Documentation of the Site...................................................................................................26 I.b.2. Excavations .................................................................................................................................................27 I.c. Aims, Methods and Approaches.........................................................................................................................29 I.c.1. Aims and Problems......................................................................................................................................29 I.c.2.Book Structure..............................................................................................................................................29 I.c.3. Sources of Data............................................................................................................................................29 CHAPTER II: BUILDING MATERIALS ..............................................................................................................31 II.a. Stone ...................................................................................................................................................................31 II.a.1. Geology of Petra .......................................................................................................................................31 II.a.2. Sandstone ..................................................................................................................................................37 II.a.3. Limestone ..................................................................................................................................................39 II.a.4. Marble .......................................................................................................................................................40 II.a.5. Granite.......................................................................................................................................................43 II.b. Wood...................................................................................................................................................................45 II.c. Metals.................................................................................................................................................................46 II.d. Other Materials .................................................................................................................................................47 II.d.1. Mortar, Plaster, and Concrete...................................................................................................................47 II.d.2. Clay ..........................................................................................................................................................48 CHAPTER III: QUARRIES AND QUARRYING IN PETRA .............................................................................49 III.a. Typology and Location ...................................................................................................................................49 III.a.1. Primary Quarries ....................................................................................................................................49 III.a.2. Levelling Site Quarries ..........................................................................................................................56 III.a.3. Tomb Quarries ......................................................................................................................................56 III.b. Quarrying Techniques ....................................................................................................................................59 III.b.1. Methods of Extraction and Tools...........................................................................................................59 III.b.2. Scaffolding.............................................................................................................................................65 III.c. Transportation, Position and Landscape Effect ...........................................................................................76 III.c.1. Transportation .......................................................................................................................................76

iii

III.c.2. Position and Landscape..........................................................................................................................80 CHAPTER IV: STONE DRESSING AND LIFTING............................................................................................84 IV.a. Block Preparation ............................................................................................................................................84 IV.a.1. Splitting..................................................................................................................................................84 IV.a.2. Rough Dressing......................................................................................................................................86 IV.a.3. Fine Dressing .........................................................................................................................................87 IV.a.4. Final Abrasion .......................................................................................................................................93 IV.b. Dressing of the Rock-cut Tombs ....................................................................................................................93 IV.c. Measuring Tools ..............................................................................................................................................98 IV.d. Lifting .............................................................................................................................................................101 CHAPTER V: CONSTRUCTION OF WALLS, COLUMNS AND FLOORS ..................................................108 V.a. Walls ................................................................................................................................................................108 V.a.1. Foundations............................................................................................................................................109 V.a.2. Methods of Construction........................................................................................................................113 V.a.3. Bonding and Jointing .............................................................................................................................117 V.a.4. Covering.................................................................................................................................................120 V.b. Columns and Floors ........................................................................................................................................126 V.b.1. Columns .................................................................................................................................................126 V.b.2. Floors .....................................................................................................................................................134 V.c. Anti-Seismic and Stabilising Techniques .......................................................................................................137 V.c.1. Seismic Activity in Petra.......................................................................................................................137 V.c.2. Anti-Seismic Devices............................................................................................................................139 V.c.3. Tie-Beams .............................................................................................................................................143 V.c.4. Contraction and Expansion ...................................................................................................................146 CHAPTER VI: CONSTRUCTION OF ROOFS ..................................................................................................149 VI.a. Forces Existing in Roofing Structures .........................................................................................................149 VI.b. Arch Structures ..............................................................................................................................................149 VI.b.1. Principles of the Arch ..........................................................................................................................149 VI.b.2. Lintels and Relieving Arches...............................................................................................................151 VI.b.3. Vaults...................................................................................................................................................158 VI.b.4. Domes..................................................................................................................................................166 VI.c. Arch Structures Carrying a Flat Roof..........................................................................................................174 VI.c.1. Series of Arches Supporting Stone Slabs ............................................................................................174 VI.c.2. Series of Arches Supporting Wooden Beams ......................................................................................183 VI.d. Roofs Based on Both Tension and Compression Principles .......................................................................187 VI.d.1. Flat and Pitched ..................................................................................................................................187 VI.d.1.1. The Qasr el-Bint ...........................................................................................................................188 VI.d.1.2. The Temple of the Winged Lions ................................................................................................203 VI.d.1.3. The “Great Temple” .....................................................................................................................210 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................................223 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................................229

iv

Acknowledgements This book is based on my D.Phil thesis, University of Oxford, entitled “Construction Techniques of the Nabataean Freestanding Buildings and Rock-Cut Monuments in Petra, Jordan” with additional comments for publication suggested by my examiners Prof. R. R. R. Smith. Lincoln Professor, University of Oxford, and Amanda Claridge, Reader in Department of Classics, Royal Holloway, University of London. This book is the first step in my ongoing study of construction techniques of the architecture of Jordan. My interest in Nabataean construction techniques was first aroused during my studies of architecture in Yarmouk University 1982-7. As students in the Basic Design II course, we were asked to design a studio to be sited within Petra for the use of a researcher and then to make a scale model of this, not from cardboard but from rock. The task of creating ideas and architectural concepts on paper was easy, but representing them in rock was extremely difficult even though the size required was at a scale of 1:100. From that time on, I started to think about how the Nabataeans carved so many monuments, and I came to see the need to take a fresh look at them. Moreover, during my work as an architect in designing and supervising the construction of a number of both public and private buildings I included some classical elements (columns, cornices) in their designs without understanding the techniques used by the classical builders. This led me to think from an architect’s standpoint of how the architectural designs of the great classical monuments were executed. In this way my interest in the construction techniques of both freestanding and rock-cut monuments at Petra was born. This interest was cultivated during my studies in Oxford. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my great debt to my supervisor, Dr. J.J. Coulton, who has greatly influenced my method of study, and deepened my understanding of construction techniques. With his great ideas and wide knowledge of architectural details, I came gradually to the core of the subject. I particularly appreciate his patience and his attention to detail throughout my study. Without his invaluable assistance and encouragement this study could never have been completed. This study would not have been possible without the necessary permissions for access to material. My approach to this topic has been greatly influenced by work of Dr. J. McKenzie, who made the necessary contacts to ask for permission as well as making her photographs available. She gave me support and encouragement as well as assistance, information and suggestions that led to the final form of this work. I really have benefited greatly from her expertise and knowledge of Nabataean Architecture. To her I would like to extend my warmest gratitude. For permission to work at Petra and for facilitating my stay there I am most grateful to Dr. Fawwaz al-Khraysheh, Director General of the Department of Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, as well as to Suleiman Farajat the inspector at Petra. My study at Oxford 2001-5 would not have been possible without financial support. For my studies I have been sponsored by two foundations, which I have highly appreciated: the Hashemite University and the Karim Rida Foundation. As the research required, I have seen many of the chief buildings and ruins in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and Greece. My travels enabled me to examine buildings and to take many of the photographs and to make drawings. This fieldwork would not have been possible without travel grants from the Meyerstein Fund, the Craven Committee, Lady Margaret Hall, and the Karim Rida Foundation. In my first year in Oxford, when I did the MSt. I was privileged to have tutorials from Prof. Margareta Steinby, Dr. J. J. Coulton and Prof. R. R. R. Smith in their respective areas of expertise: Roman architecture, Greek architecture and the Hellenistic period. This provided me with a good grounding for this study. I received a great deal of help and lots of encouragement from many friends and colleagues in Oxford during my study. At Lady Margaret Hall, I would like to thank the Principal Dr. F. Lannon, my college advisor Dr. S. R. F. Price, tutor of graduates Dr. A. Doig, as well as Dr. F. Spensley, Dr. D. Graham-Vernon, and H. Post for their continuous support. At the Institute of Archaeology, thanks are due to I. Cartwright of the photographic laboratory for the assistance of developing the photographs and the loan of vital equipment, as well as to L. Lozano and L. Strange for their encouragement. I would also like to thank Prof. J. Johns at the Oriental Institute, as well as Dr. S. Abu Zayd and Dr. R. Kanaan for their encouragement. At the Language Centre I would like thank D. Mason for her support. Thanks are also

v

due to my fellow students in Oxford for their support: M. Kominko, A. Kropp; M. Kalaitzi, S. Skaltsa, Y. Galanakis, T. Ivins, L. Prelec, T. Papaioannou, L. Cherstich, E. Libonati, G. Goldschmid; and L. Wadeson. I would like to mention in particular the Oldham family who gave me much care and support at their home during the first three years of my stay in Oxford, with special thanks to Karin Oldham who read most of the first draft of the text and has been a constant source of support, with Jack. Between my stays in Oxford and fieldwork at Petra, I visited other sites in Jordan, as well as in Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey. For their generosity in allowing me to examine the freestanding buildings at Petra which they have excavated and for permission to include the material in this book I would like to thank Prof. Philip Hammond (Temple of the Winged Lions), Prof. Bernhard Kolb (az-Zantur houses), and Prof. Martha Sharp-Joukowsky (“Great Temple”). I am also particularly grateful to her and Mr. Artemis Joukowsky for their encouragement and support. The other major temple in Petra, the Qasr el-Bint, was the subject of an excellent and detailed study by Dr. F. Zayadine, Dr. F. Larché, and Dr. J. Dentzer. I deeply appreciative to Dr. M. Barjous, Mr. P. Parr, Prof A. Segal, Prof. J. Healey, Prof. E. Netzer, Prof. A. Kloner, Dr. Y. Nir, Dr. D. Milson, Dr. Bani Hani, Dr. L. Khouri, Mr. J. Bowsher, Eng. M. Khasawneh, and F. Balaawi for sharing their own work and for freely giving much welcome advice and criticism. I am much indebted to Prof. M. Ibrahim, Prof. Z. Kafafi, Prof. Z. el-Muheisen, and Prof. T. Akasheh to first introducing me to the exploration of ancient architecture through the discipline of archaeology. My great thanks are also due to Dr. M. Hatamleh, Dr. A. Zoabi, Dr. M. Jamhawai, Dr. A. Khuwaileh, Dr. H. al-Mogren, Dr. H. Hourani, and Dr. T. Xiao for their advice and for encouraging me to pursue my interests at Oxford. Thanks are also due to Mr. D. Qublan for his help and discussions during my work at Petra, and to Mr H. Debajah of the photographic laboratory at Yarmouk University for assistance in developing some of the photographs. Finally, a special expression of sincerest thanks is to my family: my children (Asma, Serina, Mohammed, and Ameen), and to my brothers-in-law Akram and Bashar and sister-in-law Maleeha, who each in their own way made it possible for me to complete this book. I owe my greatest gratitude to my wife, Nawal, who also spent many hours helping me take measurements and making drawings in all my fieldtrips to Petra, and to the other sites in Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey.

vi

List of Figures Unless otherwise stated, all photograph and drawings are by the author (except a few photographs of J. McKenzie). Frontispiece, el-Khazneh. Fig.1.1 Fig.1.2 Fig.1.3 Fig.1.4 Fig.1.5 Fig.1.6 Fig.1.7 Fig.1.8 Fig.1.9 Fig.1.10 Fig.1.11 Fig.1.12 Fig.1.13 Fig.1.14 Fig.1.15 Fig.1.16 Fig.1.17 Fig.1.18 Fig.1.19 Fig.2.1 Fig.2.2 Fig.2.3 Fig.2.4 Fig.2.5 Fig.2.6 Fig.2.7 Fig.2.8 Fig.2.9 Fig.3.1 Fig.3.2 Fig.3.3 Fig.3.4 Fig.3.5 Fig.3.6 Fig.3.7 Fig.3.8 Fig.3.9 Fig.3.10 Fig.3.11 Fig.3.12 Fig.3.13 Fig.3.14

Organisational chart showing the sources of data and their sequence. .........................................................1 Map of Edom and surrounding areas (Bienkowski 1991: Fig.1). .................................................................5 The possible Nabataean presence and the Mediterranean before campaigns of Alexander the Great. .........6 The Nabataeans between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids during the third century BC. .............................8 The Nabataean kingdom during the first half of the second century BC. .....................................................8 The Nabataean kingdom during the period, c. 150-88/7 BC. .......................................................................9 The Nabataean kingdom from the beginning of the second decade of the first century to Pompey (88/7-63 BC.)................................................................................................................................11 The Nabataean kingdom from 63 to 30 BC. ...............................................................................................11 The Nabataean kingdom from 30 BC to the beginning of the first century AD. ........................................12 The Nabataean kingdom from the beginning of the first century AD to the Roman annexation (AD 106).13 The Nabataean kingdom after its annexation, incorporated into the Roman Arabia Provincia. .................13 Map illustrating the trade routes of the ancient Middle East, Arabia, Parthia, and India (after Miller 1969: Map 5). .........................................................................................................................15 Detailed map illustrating Nabataean trade routes and contacts...................................................................16 Areas of Nabataean kingdom. Map illustrating the geographical limits of the Nabataean kingdom at its greatest extent.....................................................................................................................................17 Most recent map of the city centre of Petra (McKenzie 2004: Fig.3; Kanellopoulos and Akasheh 2001: Fig.1, with some additions)...............................................................................................................19 Typological-chronological table of the rock-cut monuments at Petra, each symbol represents one tomb, and the dating of all tombs is approximate and not absolute (Netzer 2003: Fig.53)............................. 20-21 Significant Hellenistic monuments and painting. .......................................................................................23 Plans of Nabataean Temples (Netzer 2003: Fig.48). ..................................................................................24 General plans, showing the source of influences on Nabataean temples. ...................................................25 The Structural Geology of the Wadi Araba and Petra. ...............................................................................32 Geological cross section of Wadi Araba and Petra, showing the rock units exposed in Petra and the surroundings (Paradise 1998: Fig.3.5)............................................................................................33 Generalized geological vertical section, showing the formation of the rock layers in Petra (Barjous and Jaser 1991: Map). ..................................................................................................................34 Geological map for Petra and the surroundings, showing the formation of sandstone, limestone, the locations of the quarries, and the sources of clay..................................................................................36 Geological section. Some of the rock-cut monuments and the primary quarries of Petra inserted into the geological section. (The section is adopted from Jaser and Barjous 1991: Map; Jaser and Bargous 1992; Pflüger 1995: 282). ......................................................................................................38 Wadi Zurrabeh, possible sources for the coarse limestone. ........................................................................41 Marble slabs................................................................................................................................................42 Coating walls with marble slabs. ................................................................................................................44 Metal fixtures found in the theatre scaena. Bronze and iron fixtures (Hammond 1965: Pls. XLIV, XLV).46 Wadi es-Siyyagh quarries. .........................................................................................................................50 Al-Turkmaniyah quarry. .............................................................................................................................52 Umm Sayhoon quarry.................................................................................................................................53 Umm Sayhoon quarry.................................................................................................................................54 Levelling site quarries.................................................................................................................................55 Bar chart, showing the volume of stone extracted from each primary quarry. ...........................................56 Bar chart, showing the outcrop and the volume of stone extracted from each of the tomb quarries chosen in this study.....................................................................................................................................57 Bar chart, showing the amounts extracted from the Disi, Honeycomb, Tear, and Smooth sandstones. ....57 The contributions made by each type of quarry to the freestanding buildings. ..........................................58 Extracting technique using trenches. ..........................................................................................................59 Extracting technique using trenches. ..........................................................................................................59 Extracting technique using trenches. ..........................................................................................................60 Unfinished blocks at Baalbek quarry. .........................................................................................................61 Masons iron pick discovered inside the unfinished tomb of el-Habis at Petra (Bessac and Nehmé 2001: Fig.6). ...............................................................................................................62

vii

Fig.3.15 Fig.3.16 Fig.3.17 Fig.3.18 Fig.3.19 Fig.3.20 Fig.3.21 Fig.3.22 Fig.3.23 Fig.3.24 Fig.3.25 Fig.3.26 Fig.3.27 Fig.3.28 Fig.3.29 Fig.3.30 Fig.3.31 Fig.3.32 Fig.3.33 Fig.3.34 Fig.4.1 Fig.4.2 Fig.4.3 Fig.4.4 Fig. 4.5 Fig. 4.6 Fig.4.7 Fig.4.8 Fig.4.9 Fig.4.10 Fig.4.11 Fig.4.12 Fig.4.13 Fig.4.14 Fig.4.15 Fig.4.16 Fig.4.17 Fig.4.18 Fig.4.19 Fig.4.20 Fig.4.21 Fig.4.22 Fig.4.23 Fig.4.24 Fig.4.25 Fig.4.26 Fig.4.27 Fig.4.28 Fig.5.1 Fig.5.2 Fig.5.3 Fig.5.4 Fig.5.5 Fig.5.6 Fig.5.7 Fig.5.8

Pick marks. .................................................................................................................................................63 Cleavage plane of rock. ..............................................................................................................................64 The wooden wedge quarrying technique. ..................................................................................................64 Diagrams showing method of extraction of blocks for the Parthenon in the Pentelicon quarry (Korres and Bouras 1983: 49).....................................................................................................................65 Horizontal platforms. ..................................................................................................................................66 Reconstruction drawings, showing the use of a cut or natural platform for access and working. ..............67 Rock-cut steps in ed-Deir, leading to the top of the monument..................................................................68 Scrambling up the vertical cliffs. ................................................................................................................68 Scaffolding techniques used in the conchoidal quarrying, es-Siyyagh. ......................................................69 Slots and carved tunnel in el-Khazneh........................................................................................................72 Slots of el-Khazneh and the DGTZ scaffolding..........................................................................................73 Unfinished Tombs in Petra. ........................................................................................................................74 Unfinished tombs in Petra...........................................................................................................................75 Unfinished tombs in Medain Salih and Caria. ............................................................................................76 Steps of quarrying rock-cut chambers (Arnold 1991: Figs.2.5, 6)..............................................................77 Unfinished block in situ, Umm Sayhoon quarry.........................................................................................78 Reducing the weight of one of the Parthenon column capitals in Pentelicon (Korres and Bouras 1983: 51). ...................................................................................................................78 Methods of transportation...........................................................................................................................79 Incised architectural sketch (found east of the Garden Tomb) showing a detail of column base. ..............81 Inset cornices. .............................................................................................................................................82 The sequence of operations and tools used in block preparation. ..............................................................84 Splitting stone blocks..................................................................................................................................85 Sawing a block of stone. .............................................................................................................................85 Iron (flat or drove) chisel discovered in the Temple of the Winged Lions (Petra Museum: J.P.3303).......86 Tools ...........................................................................................................................................................86 Coarse line dressing. ...................................................................................................................................87 Use of grid lines..........................................................................................................................................88 Drill holes and ripple technique in the capitals at Petra..............................................................................89 Drill holes in the capitals. ...........................................................................................................................90 Drill holes in the zoomorphic (elephant head) capitals carved from limestone, found in the Lower Temenos of the “Great Temple”......................................................................................................90 Drilling........................................................................................................................................................90 Mason marks in the “Great Temple”. .........................................................................................................91 Pounders, polishers and Catapults. .............................................................................................................92 The sequence of operations and tools used in the dressing of the carved monuments. ..............................94 Rough dressing. ..........................................................................................................................................95 Fine pecked dressing...................................................................................................................................95 Coarse line dressing. ...................................................................................................................................96 Fine line dressing. .......................................................................................................................................97 Stippling and smooth dressing. ...................................................................................................................97 Stippling and smooth dressing. ...................................................................................................................98 Rulers..........................................................................................................................................................99 Measuring and checking tools. .................................................................................................................100 Reconstruction of the scene of men working with the boning rod and dressing a limestone block from the Theban Tomb of Rekhmira (Arnold1991: Figs.6.7, 9). ......................................................................100 Ashlar entablature. Qasr el-Bint. ..............................................................................................................102 Corner blocks of pediment from Petra and Baalbek. ................................................................................103 Holes on the side of drums. ......................................................................................................................104 Handling bosses, grooved channel and methods of looping the blocks ....................................................105 Cranes. ......................................................................................................................................................106 Organisational chart showing the sequence and the interrelationships of the different stages of building.................................................................................................................................................109 Topographical south-north sections, crossing the Qasr el-Bint, the Temple of the Winged Lions, the Colonnaded Street, and the “Great Temple”.......................................................................................110 The Main Theatre......................................................................................................................................111 Foundations and walls in the Winged Lions Temple................................................................................112 Classification and general terms of walls. ................................................................................................114 Classification of walls according to their appearance...............................................................................115 Wall details, Qasr el-Bint..........................................................................................................................115 Corners and engaged columns, Winged Lions Temple.............................................................................117 viii

Fig.5.9 Fig.5.10 Fig.5.11 Fig.5.12 Fig.5.13 Fig.5.14 Fig.5.15 Fig.5.16 Fig.5.17 Fig.5.18 Fig.5.19 Fig.5.20 Fig.5.21 Fig.5.22 Fig.5.23 Fig.5.24 Fig.5.25 Fig.5.26 Fig.5.27 Fig.5.28 Fig.5.29 Fig.5.30 Fig.5.31 Fig.5.32 Fig.5.33 Fig.5.34 Fig.5.35 Fig.5.36 Fig.5.37 Fig.5.38 Fig.5.39 Fig.6.1 Fig.6.2 Fig.6.3 Fig.6.4 Fig.6.5 Fig.6.6 Fig.6.7 Fig.6.8 Fig.6.9 Fig.6.10 Fig.6.11 Fig.6.12 Fig.6.13 Fig.6.14 Fig.6.15 Fig.6.16 Fig.6.17 Fig.6.18 Fig.6.19 Fig.6.20 Fig.6.21 Fig.6.22 Fig.6.23 Fig.6.24 Fig.6.25 Fig.6.26 Fig.6.27 Fig.6.28 Fig.6.29 Fig.6.30 Fig.6.31

In-set/out-set technique.............................................................................................................................119 Wall paintings in Siq al-Barid, Garden scene. ..........................................................................................122 Wall paintings in Wadi es-Siyyagh cave. .................................................................................................123 Wall paintings in az-Zantur Houses..........................................................................................................124 Covering stages.........................................................................................................................................125 Covering stages.........................................................................................................................................125 Covering. ..................................................................................................................................................125 Covering of drums, “Great Temple”.........................................................................................................127 Column bases carved from two limestone blocks in the “Great Temple”. ..............................................127 Disc and Normal drums, “Great Temple”.................................................................................................128 Vertical supports: Cross sections. (McKenzie 1990: Diag.11). ................................................................128 Ring bases, marble, Temple of the Winged Lions. ...................................................................................130 Ring bases, soft limestone, az-Zantur IV..................................................................................................130 Engaged columns, the Winged Lions Temple. .........................................................................................131 Engaged columns as headers, the Winged Lions Temple.........................................................................131 Dry construction (limestone) with dovetail clamps. Khirbet et-Tannur....................................................132 Dry construction (limestone) with dovetail clamps. ................................................................................132 Centering techniques in Disc drums. ........................................................................................................133 Centering technique in Normal drums. .....................................................................................................133 Floors. .......................................................................................................................................................136 Floors. .......................................................................................................................................................137 Earthquake vibrations. ..............................................................................................................................138 Wooden course, “Great Temple”. .............................................................................................................141 Wooden course, the Urn Tomb.................................................................................................................142 Horizontal grooves between ashlar in the Iron Age and Hellenistic Levant.............................................143 The “Liwan”. The Winged Lions Temple. ...............................................................................................144 The “Liwan”, the Winged Lions Temple. ................................................................................................144 The “Liwan”, the Winged Lions Temple..................................................................................................145 The “Liwan”, the Winged Lions Temple..................................................................................................145 The “Liwan”, the Winged Lions Temple..................................................................................................146 Tie-beams, the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem...........................................................................................147 Lintel of the rear door way. The “Great Temple”.....................................................................................150 Lintel types used in Nabataean cities (a, b, d, e , after De Vries 1982: Fig.16) ........................................152 Flat arches.................................................................................................................................................152 Flat arch. The “Great Temple”..................................................................................................................153 Flat and relieving arches in Gerasa. ..........................................................................................................154 Flat arch. Baalbek. ....................................................................................................................................155 Semi circular vaulted doorway in the “Great Temple”. ............................................................................156 Relieving arch. Qasr el-Bint. ....................................................................................................................157 Relieving arches. ......................................................................................................................................158 Relieving arches built from basalt in Hawran (2nd -3rd cent. AD). ...........................................................159 Relieving arches built from basalt in Hawran (2nd -3rd cent. AD).............................................................159 Barrel vaults. Theatres in Petra.................................................................................................................161 Barrel vault, the Main Theatre. .................................................................................................................162 Stepped arches and vaults in Gerasa and Gadara......................................................................................163 Barrel vaults. Petra....................................................................................................................................163 Barrel vaults, gates. Petra and Bosra.........................................................................................................164 Vaults, and the “mixed technique”. The Palace Tomb. ............................................................................165 Domes. The Baths of Petra. ......................................................................................................................167 The northern dome. Baths of Petra. .........................................................................................................168 Technical details of the oculus in underground structures........................................................................170 Structural section of masonry domes. .......................................................................................................170 Structural details of the southern dome. The Baths of Petra....................................................................171 Pendentive domes. Sebastya and Gerasa. .................................................................................................172 The Pantheon, c. 118-c.128 AD. Rome. ...................................................................................................173 Subterranean rooms. The “Great Temple”................................................................................................175 Subterranean rooms. The “Great Temple”................................................................................................176 The painters’ workshop. The Winged Lions Temple................................................................................177 Az-Zantur houses, Area IV. ......................................................................................................................178 Subterranean room in az-Zantur, Area IV. ...............................................................................................179 Structural details of slab roofs. Az-Zantur IV...........................................................................................180 Series of arches. The Main theatre and the Urn Tomb. ............................................................................181 ix

Fig.6.32 Fig.6.33 Fig.6.34 Fig.6.35 Fig.6.36 Fig.6.37 Fig.6.38 Fig.6.39 Fig.6.40 Fig.6.41 Fig.6.42 Fig.6.43 Fig.6.44 Fig.6.45 Fig.6.46 Fig.6.47 Fig.6.48 Fig.6.49 Fig.6.50 Fig.6.51 Fig.6.52 Fig.6.53 Fig.6.54 Fig.6.55 Fig.6.56 Fig.6.57 Fig.6.58 Fig.6.59 Fig.6.60 Fig.6.61 Fig.6.62 Fig.6.63 Fig.6.64

Cisterns. Petra. ..........................................................................................................................................181 Series of arches spanned by stone slabs, covering cisterns.......................................................................184 Az-Zantur Houses. ....................................................................................................................................185 Az-Zantur houses, Area I..........................................................................................................................186 Ottoman arched roof house. Gadara. ........................................................................................................187 Table showing the dimensions of the arched-roof spaces in Petra............................................................188 General plan of western part of the Qasr el-Bint Temenos (Zayadine et al. 2003: 8). .............................189 Qasr el-Bint...............................................................................................................................................190 Qasr el-Bint. .............................................................................................................................................191 Qasr el-Bint...............................................................................................................................................192 Qasr el-Bint...............................................................................................................................................193 Qasr el-Bint...............................................................................................................................................194 Qasr el-Bint. Grooved blocks in situ.........................................................................................................195 Sockets and corbels. Qasr el-Bint. ............................................................................................................198 Cavity arches. Qasr el-Bint. ......................................................................................................................199 Sockets and corbels. Qasr el-Bint. ............................................................................................................200 Corbels, Gerasa.........................................................................................................................................200 Qasr el-Bint parapet. .................................................................................................................................201 Reconstructed roof of Qasr el-Bint as suggested by Wright. ....................................................................202 Reconstructed roof of Qasr el-Bint, first suggestion of Larché and Zayadine..........................................204 Reconstructed roof of Qasr el-Bint as Larché and Zayadine suggested in final report.............................205 Reconstructed roof. Qasr el-Bint. .............................................................................................................206 Temple of the Winged Lions. ...................................................................................................................208 Bearer beams. Temple of the Winged Lions.............................................................................................209 Reconstructed roof. Temple of the Winged Lions, as suggested by Netzer (2003: Fig.110)....................211 Reconstructed roof suggested here. Temple of the Winged Lions............................................................212 Khirbet et-Tannur Temple. .......................................................................................................................213 “Great Temple”.........................................................................................................................................215 The second phase of the “Great Temple”.. ...............................................................................................216 Reconstructed roof of The “Great Temple”, the second phase. ................................................................217 Meeting halls ............................................................................................................................................219 The Colonnaded Street, Petra, shops 23-32. .............................................................................................220 The Pool, island-pavilion, Petra................................................................................................................221

x

List of Abbreviations JOURNALS AND INSTITUTIONS AA AAAS AASOR ACORN ADAJ AJA ARAM BA BAR-IS BASOR Berytus of Beirut). BSAA BSOAS CMGR5 DaM DGTZ JHS JRA LCL Levant NRA PBSR PEFA PEQ QADAP QEDEM RB Semitica SHAJ

Archäologischer Anzeiger Les Annales archaéologiques Arabes Syriennes. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. The American Centre of Oriental Research Newsletter, Jordan. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. American Journal of Archaeology. ARAM: Journal of Society for Syro-Mesopotamian Studies. The Biblical Archaeologist British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Berytus: Archaeological Studies (published by the Museum of Archaeology of the American University Bulletin de la Société Archéologique d’Alexandrie. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Fifth International Colloquium on Ancient Mosaics, Bath 1987 1-2 (JRA Suppl.9, 1994, 1995). Damaszener Mitteilungen Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technishe Zusammenarbeit. The Journal of Hellenic Studies. Journal of Roman Archaeology. Loeb Classical Library (Texts quoted with name of editor and translators). Levant: Journal of the British School of archaeology in Jerusalem, Jordan. Natural Resources Authority, Jordan. Papers of the British School at Rome. Palestine Exploration Fund Annual. Palestine Exploration Quarterly. The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine. Jerusalem. QEDEM: Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Revue biblique. Semitica: Cahiers publiés par l’institut d’études sémitiques du Collége de France. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan.

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS AD anno domini (year). BC Before Christ. c. Circa, about. cent. Century(s). cm Centimetre. Ed. Edited by. et al. et alii, and others. Fig (s). Figure (s). Ftn. Footnote. i.e. For example. km Kilometre (s). m Metre (s). n. note. Pl (s). Plate (s). Trans. Translated by. Vol. Volume (s).

xi

xii

Chapter I Introduction From the fourth century BC the Nabataeans become noticeable as an identifiable group settled in southern Jordan. The great cultural centre of these people was the city of Petra, although they already had established other major areas of power. Eventually they founded a kingdom which came to include areas of Transjordan, the Negev of Palestine, the Sinai Peninsula, southern Syria, and north-western Saudi Arabia (Fig.1.14). It flourished from the late fourth century BC until the Romans annexed it in AD 106.1 Especially in the last two centuries of this period the Nabataeans developed and produced fine architecture of a distinctive type with certain characteristics. During this time the Nabataeans lived alongside Greeks (Ptolemies and Seleucids), Parthians, Romans, Jews and Arabs. The sources of technical influences, as well as architectural styles, are most likely to come from the Nabataeans’ contacts. Therefore, in order to understand the sources of the construction techniques, this chapter will discuss firstly the physical environment of Petra including the trade routes. This helps us understand the importance of the geographical position of Petra by knowing the important characteristics which made the Nabataeans to choose it as their political capital. The second and the third sections will explain the Nabataeans’ history and their contacts in a more detail, and the architectural styles of Petra (Figs.1.3-11). I.a. Background I.a.1. Physical Environment I.a.1.1. Location

Fig.1.1 Organisational chart showing the sources of data and their sequence.

Petra is situated in the southwest part of Jordan, about 75 km southeast of the Dead Sea (260 km south of Amman; and 133 km north of Aqaba)2 (Fig.1.14). The Petra area is located at the south edge of the highlands of the Wadi Arabah and the northern mountains of Jordan, and at the northern edge of the desert areas to the east and south. Petra, as will be discussed in the next chapter, is surrounded by towering ridges of Nubian sandstone on the east and west and by desert wilderness on the northeast and southwest.

Apparently, the main characteristics of Petra’s climate reflect the transitional location of the area between the Mediterranean climate to the west and north and the arid climates to the east and south. The average annual maximum temperature is 40°C, and the average annual minimum temperature is -1.6°C. The average annual rainfall ranges from about 50 to 300 mm.3 The summers (May to September) are moderately hot, and the winters (November to March) are cold and harsh. The climate which existed in antiquity can be determined with some accuracy from some natural characters, such as the rise in the level of the Dead Sea during the first century BC and the first two centuries AD.4 Shehadeh5 believes that the

1 I will use the term “Nabataean period” to cover the period from the first mention of the Nabataeans in 312 BC until the Roman annexation of Petra in AD 106. Therefore, in Petra the beginning of “Roman period” was after AD 106. I will use the term “Greco-Roman” to refer together to the Hellenistic period (332-31 BC) and the Roman period until the beginning of the Byzantine period in the East (31 BC-AD 325). 2 The names of sites and monuments in Petra and Jordan as used in this book are based on the official translation system used by the Royal Jordanian Geographic Centre (RJGC).

3

MacDonald 2000: 31. McDonald 2000: 33. 5 Shehadeh 1985: 27; see also MacDonald 2000: 33. 4

1

SHAHER M. RABABEH

climate from the fourth to the end of the second century BC was relatively moist, but that the following three centuries were somewhat drier. At the beginning of the first century BC, rainfall improved and the first two centuries AD were moist, and the rainfall was probably somewhat greater than at present.

both of these were only contributory factors to the height of Petra’s prominence. The advantages, as well as the importance of the geographical position of Petra, result from its location at the junction of the ancient caravan routes (Fig.1.12, 13). The earliest classical source shows the Nabataeans transporting bitumen from the Dead Sea through the Sinai desert to Egypt, where it was in high demand.12 It will be best to give a sketch of the Nabataeans’ role in Hellenistic and Roman trade, and then note its effects, particularly the cultural one.

The climate of the other neighbouring districts (to the south, west and east) is no better than Petra. The Negev, Sinai, and northwest Arabia lie in desert and suffer from a lack of rainfall, sometimes extending to total drought. However, in the north, the area of the Hawran is good for vegetation. Al-Eisawi6 points out that juniper forests occurred in the southern mountains of Jordan. These forests extended from the Wadi el-Hasa to Wadi Musa (Fig.1.14), where a few trees, up to 4 m high, are still seen. However, pine trees up to 10 m high occurred in northern Jordan in Ajlun and Gerasa, and are also still seen. To sum up, Nabataean settlements in these areas involved a constant struggle between the small areas of vegetation and the surrounding waste lands. As a result the Nabataeans had to use their ingenuity to collect and store water.7

I.a.1.2. Trade Routes The eastern trade in exotic goods was very important to the Ptolemies, Seleucids, Parthians and the Romans.13 Spices came from India via the three large ports on its west coast namely: Barbaricon,14 Barygaza,15 and Muziris.16 Frankincense and myrrh came from the coastal district of south Arabia. Hadramaut with its port of Cana and Dzofar with its port of Moscha were the source of these goods.17 Frankincense and myrrh were also brought from Africa. Part of the Somali Coast was the true home of myrrh.18 Silks came from China. Thina and Loyang were very great inland sources from which raw silk, silk yarn, and cloth were brought overland to Barygaza.19 The Periplus records other exotic goods, such as ivory and elephants, were brought from both India and Africa, and sesame oil from India. It seems, therefore, as shown in Fig.1.12 that India, Southern Arabia, China, and East Africa were primary producers for these goods. Their geographical position as well as other political factors determined the export and import traffic.

Although Petra has a semi-arid climate, three main factors brought the city to the height of its prominence. The first was the potential that the site has. Petra8 lies hidden in the mountains which overlook the eastern side of the Wadi Arabah, part of the Rift Valley. This topography made it as an ideal site for defence because of the encircling sandstone mountains. In this respect, Strabo stated that “the metropolis of the Nabataeans is Petra ‘rock’, as it is called; for it lies on a site which is otherwise smooth and level, but is fortified all around by a rock…”9 Undoubtedly, this characteristic, along with the Nabataeans’ knowledge of water holes in desert, made military campaigns against Petra liable to fail (see below). The second factor is the availability of a perennial water supply. The most important requirement for life in the desert is water. Wadi Musa passes through the city and floods annually, and it also carries the water of Ain Musa along with other little springs.10 Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the Nabataeans became well-experienced in hydrology, including collecting rain water. In this regard Strabo states “…the inside parts having springs in abundance, both for domestic purposes and for watering gardens”.11 However,

Some of the trade routes that stretched from the producing centres to the collecting centres of the Mediterranean went by sea, others by both sea and land, and others by land. From figures 1.12-13 three main roads and different sub-routes can be identified. The first (1) is the silk road, which went over land from China through Bactria, Merv to Seleuceia or Ctesiphon and then it forked going (1a) north to Antioch, (1b) across Palmyra to Phoenician parts, and (1c) south to the Persian Gulf. Different sections of routes forked from (1c). Route (1c1) came by land from Charax to al-Jawf then by (1c1a) to Petra. However, later in the second half of the first century AD, the route from al-Jawf (1c1b) led via Wadi Sirhan to Umm al-Jimal and finally to Bosra in the

6 Al-Eisawi 1985: 45-57, in the vegetation divisions he located Petra between the Mediterranean and the Irano-Turranian regions. 7 Negev 1966: 12. Essential reading on the Nabataean hydraulic techniques is in al-Muheisen 1986. 8 Negev 1976: 127-8; 2003: 101 placed the rock city to the west rather than to the east of the Wadi Arabah. Zayadine 2000: 56, 59, 60 agrees with this possibility, but he suggested that “as-Sela’ near Tafileh and Buseirah was the Rock captured by Amaziah in the 8th century BC, by Nabonidus in the 6th century BC, and the ‘Petra’ invested by Athenaeus at midnight in 312 BC”. This view is not accepted by most scholars, see Parr 2003: 27, n.3. 9 Strabo 16. 4. 21. 10 Nehmé 2003: 162-3. 11 Strabo 16. 4. 21.

12

Diodorus 19.94.4-5, 10. Essential reading about goods in the Periplus, see also Tarn 1966: 612, 252-61. 14 Periplus 38. This port was ruled by the Parthians. 15 Periplus 41, 46, 49, 64. This port is the beginning of the whole of India. 16 Periplus 54. 17 Strabo 16.4.4; Pliny 6.94, 12.32; Tarn 1966: 259-61; Groom 1981: 206-12. 18 Miller 1969: 103-5 19 Periplus 64; Ling 1984: 92; Tarn 1966: 256 13

2

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Hawran in Syria, as shown in Fig.1.13.20 Route 1c2 came by land from Gerrha to Taima and forked going either northwest to Petra or southwest to Hegra then Leuke Kome.21 Route 1c3 came from the Persian ports by sea to the eastern African and southern Arabian ports either to join the incense road (3) or to continue via the Red Sea then either (1c3a) to Alexandria via Berenice or Myos Hormos or (1c3b) to Petra via Leuke Kome.

The Chinese chronicles indicate route (1c); they do not mention Seleuceia but only Ctesiphon. The destination of the Chinese goods was reported to be Petra (in Chinese: Likan31) and not Antioch.32 It seems that towards the end of the second century BC, particularly after the Parthians established their control on Babylonia and Chaldaea with route (1) (Fig.1.12), the Nabataeans profited from this trade. The Chinese records also show that the traffic from the Persian Gulf to Petra was mainly by route (1c3) (Figs.1.12,13). Although the sea route in general is safer and more economic than the land one, it is sometimes longer. The Periplus describes sailing along the coast of the Arabian mainland as dangerous. On the one hand, the passage through Bab al-Mandab is rough and very narrow, and the people at the southern end of the Red Sea committed acts of piracy on the other.33 It was probable that the sailors did not prefer to go through the Red Sea to avoid the difficult sailing conditions.34 Therefore, such alternatives would have existed, and it seems that the routes themselves overlapped. Routes 1c1a, and 1c2 were two other land routes from the Persian Gulf to Petra (Fig.1.13). However, it was possible that the traders were forced to choose route 1c3 in order to collect exotic goods from the Eastern African and Southern Arabia ports, and there they had two choices of routes either continue sailing via the Red Sea (1c3) or by land via route 3.

The second main route (2), the Indian spice route, came by the Arabian Sea along the coasts of Parthia to join (1c3) to either (2a) the Persian Gulf or (2b) the southern Arabian ports.22 However, after the discovery of the monsoon winds during the first century AD, it was possible to sail safely across the Arabian Sea from India (2b) to the eastern Africa and southern Arabia. The Romans encouraged direct sea trade with India, cutting out all overland routes through Parthia.23 The coastal route of East Africa met this route in Arabia Eudaemon (Aden) and Muza. 24 In both cases, it was possible for the traders to collect Arabian and African products as well as those from Arabian ports and continue their journey (1c3) via the Red Sea or to join the incense road (3). The third main road (3) is the incense road25 which went over land from Southern Arabia to Marib via Najran and forked, going either northeast (3a) across Qaryat al-Faw to Gerrha or (3b) to Mecca then Ythrib (al-Medinah) to Hegra (Medain Saleh) then to either Leuke Kome or Petra.26

One big question which arises is the benefits that the Nabataeans gained from the trade in these exotic goods. This question can be best answered by considering the supply lines of the profits achieved by the major powers in the area. The Seleucids in the third century BC could get Indian spices and Chinese silks by using route 1a or 2a, and they also obtained incense from the Arabian and Eastern African Ports by using route 3a or 1c3. But it seems that this was difficult from the late 2nd cent. BC since the Parthians in Mesopotamia controlled these routes. The Ptolemies of Egypt had more choices and they could get these goods by using any of the trade routes which led to Petra (1c1a, 1c2, and 3b). Routes 1c1a, and 1c2 were good for Chinese silk and goods from India. Route 3b was good for Arabian incense and other goods from Indian and African coasts. All these routes were the most attractive to the Ptolemies during the first century BC, since they were shorter than route 1c3a and were well protected by many Nabataean guards.35 It is clear, therefore, that the Nabataeans did not get any

Notably routes 1c1a, 1c2, 1c3b, and 3b ended at Petra. From Petra the routes ran either to Gaza or via Sinai27 to Arsinoe (Suez), and then to Alexandria the greatest emporium of the eastern Mediterranean.28 Strabo and Pliny29 show that there was a trade route connecting Aila30 (Aqaba) and Gaza or Rhinocolura (Al-Arish).

20

Bowersock 2003: 22 The precise location of Leuke Kome is still debatable. Ball 2000: Fig. 10, Markoe 2003: 18; Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 67; Zayadine 1985b: 159 suggest ‘Aynunah as the site of Leuke Kome. Earlier scholars suggested modern Al-Wajh, Groom 1981: 208, ftn. 52, Browning 1989: Map 2, while Hogarth 1905: 11, 14 suggests that Leuke Kome was the port of inland Hegra. Strabo 16.4.23 describes Leuke Kome as a large emporium in the land of the Nabataeans. The Periplus 19 describes its location at Yanbu’ al-Bahr opposite Bernice and two or three days run from Myos Hormos, and from it there was a land route to Petra. Therefore, it is more likely that Yanbu’ al-Bahr was Leuke Kome, since it is almost on the direct line from Hegra to Berenice and Myos Hormos, while ‘Aynunah is further from Hegra than Yanbu’ al-Bahr. 22 Periplus 19; Tarn 1966: 240, 241-6. 23 Schoff 1914: 19. 24 Periplus 21,24,26,57. 25 After collapsing the Minaeans in South Arabia in 100 BC, the Nabataeans controlled the incense trade. Essential reading: Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 65-7. 26 Pliny 12.32.64; Groom 1981: 173-200. 27 Zayadine 1985b: 159. 28 Strabo 16.4.2, 23, 24; Pliny 6.3.144-146; 26.104 see also Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 67. 29 Strabo 16.2.31-2, 4.4, 4.24; Pliny 14.63. 30 Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 68 point out that Aila became important emporium in Roman times. 21

31 Graf and Sidebothan 2003: 65-6 states that the name Li-Kan “was initially taken to be the transcription of the ancient name of Petra, Rekem, but later sinologists preferred to view the term as a corrupt abbreviation for Ptolemaic Alexandria in Egypt. This proposal, however, ignores the fact that the initial a sound (Chinese Hau wu=western a) is present in the transcription of the cities named Alexandria in Asia that appear in the same records (wu-ch’in-san and wu-i-shan-li)…As a result, the original proposal that Li-Kan refers to Petra seems correct.” 32 Miller 1969: 132. 33 Periplus 6, 20, 25, 31; Pliny 6.34. 34 See also Graf and Sidebothan 2003: 68; Groom 1981: 208; Negev 1966: 10, 17. 35 Groom 1981: 208.

3

SHAHER M. RABABEH

benefits from routes 1a, 1b, 1c3a, and 3a, which did not pass through Nabataean territory. But when routes 1a and 1b were blocked by Parthians, and if route 1c3a could be blocked by piracy, the Nabataeans could control routes 1c1a, 1c2, 3b and 1c3b, so monopolising supplies to both Ptolemies and Seleucids.

and power to the Nabataean kingdom, which reached its greatest extent, shown in Fig.1.14, covering Jordan, the southern Negev, the Hawran, and the Wadi Sirhan as far as Jawf, the Sinai Peninsula and North West Arabia.45 Petra served as the centre of these areas and the organisational capital as well. This is evident from its large temples, rock-cut tombs, and other public buildings.

It becomes clear that the site of ancient Petra played an important role in the commercial history of the Near Eastern civilisations, and, thus the Nabataeans had control over the section of the caravan routes from southern Arabia to the Mediterranean and also part of the routes from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, and then to the centres of the Hellenistic and Roman empires (Figs.1.12,13). The city of Petra, strategically located, was the centre of this vast trade network.36 The Nabataeans maintained their own state, while at the same time, they were involved in the interchange of not only of material goods37 and wealth, but also culture, art and new ideas. Many inscriptions attest the close relations between the Nabataeans and other international Hellenistic trade centres, such as Alexandria, Rhodes, Cos, Delos, Tenos, Priene, Miletos and Puteoli.38 In this regard, it has been noted that during the second century BC several Arabian and Asiatic merchantsfirst appeared in Delos “Among these, the Arabs, that is the Petreans, were the most important”.39 Moreover, some inscriptions prove that among Syllaeus’ (called “brother”, who had previously served king Obodas III) stops along the way to Rome in 26 BC were Miletos and Delos.40 All these inscriptions indicate direct relations between Nabataean merchants and the Aegean.41

I.a.2. The Nabataeans I.a.2.1. The Nabataeans before Petra The Nabataeans’ first appearance in the historical record was in their confrontation with Antigonus in 312 BC. This is described by the Sicilian historian Diodorus, who wrote in the late first century BC, but whose main source here was one of Alexander the Great’s officers, Hieronymus of Cardia, who was himself involved in Antigonus’ dealings with the Nabataeans, and participated in Alexander’s campaign as a historian. Diodorus Siculus described the Nabataeans as an Arab people living in the region between Syria and Egypt. They were involved in the trade in incense and myrrh as well as exporting the asphalt thrown up from the Dead Sea, and were skilled in the construction of underground cisterns. On the other hand, Diodorus described them as having the typical characteristics of a nomadic life style in 312 BC, they did not live in houses, and they used the strong rock, Petra, though unwalled, as a refuge for their families and their goods.46 This account is the essential starting point for any investigation into the origins of the Nabataeans.47

This exchange was also occurring with other centres in a very large area of the world. Indirect contacts which were established between India,42 East Africa,43 and further to China, the Far East,44 and Petra are shown clearly in Fig.1.12. In turn, these contacts brought wealth, culture,

The precise origin of the Nabataeans remains rather obscure. Most scholars present early Nabataean history in terms of the area and not people. It may be important to discover where the Nabataeans thought their origin was, rather than where it actually was. It may be an unanswerable question if they were mobile and intermingled with neighbouring tribes. However, no Nabataean written source mentions the origins of the Nabataeans, and without written sources about themselves, it will be difficult to get an answer for the location of their homeland. It is a generally accepted fact that the Nabataeans were not Aramaeans and the evidence suggests that they might have been Arabs, although the term Arab is itself a tricky one in Greek hands, for they used it in their own subjective way. The Nabataeans spoke a form of Arabic although they used

36

Glueck 1934/35: 50; Lawlor 1974: 69; Zayadine 1992: 217-41, Fig.4; Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 65 37 Basic reading about trade items: Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 71-2; Ling 1984: 92; Groom 1981: 208-9 38 Rostovtzeff (1941: 702, note 124 in pages 1491-2) reports a group of merchants in the Delian inventories namely: Bactrian, Mineans and Nabataeans. He also mentions that the Nabataeans reached Rhodes, Puteoli, Cos, and Priene. Tarn 1966: 266 reports the presence of Nabataeans settled in both Puteoli and Miletos. Groom 1981: 209; Wenning 1987: 22-4; Roche 1996: 73-99; Schmid 2001: 371; 2002a: 45; Groom 1981: 208-9; Meza 1996: 174-5, all considered the presence of an Egyptian statuette in Petra as proof of the exchange of material culture between Egypt and Petra. See also Torrey 1949: 48; Starcky 1955: 100; Glueck 1966: 69. 39 Rostovtzeff 1941: 702, in pages 1491-2 n. 124. 40 Inscr. Délos 2321, see Rostovtzeff 1941: 702, in pages 1491-2 n. 124; Bowersock 2003: 22; 1983: 51, note 25; Lyttelton 1974: 78. 41 Schmid 1999: 279 suggested that head A 7403 from the museum of Delos (Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 in his article) was part of a statue of Obodas III (30-9 BC), and that this statue was accommodated at a sanctuary of Dusares on the island of Delos. 42 Groom 1981: 208-9. 43 Lawlor 1974: 68; Raschke 1978: 932, note 1137; Groom 1981: 204. 44 Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 65-6 locate two Chinese sources which mentioned Petra as a trade centre in 126 BC, see also Graf 1996: 208-9.

45 Tarn 1966: 253; Hammond 1973: 30-3; Ball 2000: 62; Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 68-71. 46 Diodorus Siculus 2.48.1-2,6; 19.94.2-9; 19.95.1. 47 Based on the names of gods reported in Herodotus’s account, who visited Egypt in the mid-fifth century BC, Knauf 1989: 59 called the Arabs in Herodotus “Proto-Nabataeans”. Parr 2003: 28 supported this view, based on the involvement of the Nabataeans in trading in bitumen from the Dead Sea. This kind of involvement needed some period to have become established.

4

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT did not disappear overnight, and many of them may have adopted pastoralism. It is more likely that there was economic collapse throughout Edom as a result of Nabonidus’ (552-539 BC) campaign across Arabia to Taima and Didan (al-Ula) in 552 BC (Fig.1.2,3). In this regard, Bartlett52 suggested that when the kingdom of Edom collapsed, the area was filled by proto-bedouin who “made their living by sheep and camels, and their wealth by trade”. It is unlikely that all the people moved in from elsewhere, replacing previous ones. The Edomites were probably absorbed by the Nabataeans. The evidence shows that there was not a complete gap between the Edomites and the Nabataeans, and there was continuity between them. The Iron Age remains (8th-mid. 7th cent. BC) on Umm el-Biyara throw light on the initial stages of Edomite settlement during the Persian period (6th-4th cent. BC). Bennet’s53 excavations at Umm elBiyara, Tawilan and Buseireh (Fig.1.2) show similar results. Bienkowski54 discovered that Bennet’s work at Buseireh apparently presented evidence for continued occupation until the 4th cent. BC, and possibly into the 3rd cent. BC. Two sherds of pottery dated to 3rd/early 2nd cent. BC were found.55 However, the two sherds are not enough to confirm continuity. Therefore, archaeological evidence at present does not help us discern how much settled population in the area of the earlier Nabataean kingdom had continued from the later Edomite Kingdom. It is this population which might have had a relevant building tradition. The walls of the earliest Nabataean houses recovered by Parr56 were built of wadi sandstones and clay. The architecture of the Edomite and the earliest Nabataean walls mentioned does not differ from the general Iron Age tradition of the southern Levant.57 So this link can be added to the religion58 and pottery as few signs for the continuity of people. Fig.1.2 Map of Edom and surrounding areas (Bienkowski 1991: Fig.1).

Because earlier scholars had no evidence for continuity, some of them considered that the Nabataeans were not indigenous to the Levant, and might have immigrated there around the mid-first millennium BC. In this regard different theories based either on linguistic or religious grounds have arisen concerning the original homeland of the Nabataeans before they settled in Petra.

Aramaic for official correspondence.48 However, whether their heartland south of the Dead Sea was their original homeland or whether they had migrated there from elsewhere, are matters on which different views have been written.49

The first theory locates their original home in Mesopotamia. The evidence for this is the presence of a tribe called the nbtw or Nabatu, who are one of many rebellious groups mentioned in the Neo-Assyrian texts,

The theory of continuity from Edomites (the previous occupants of much of the later area of the Nabataeans around Petra) to the Nabataeans was suggested earlier by several scholars.50 Peter Parr51 assumed that the Edomites 48 They used Aramaic for official correspondence, probably to facilitate communication with their neighbours in Palestine. In 312 BC they wrote to Antigonus and complained about the actions of Athenaeus in Syrian letters. They also used Greek terms, which reflect the spread of Hellenism in the region. For more detail see Bowersock 2003: 21; Tarn 1966: 160; Littmann and Meredith 1953a: 3; Hammond 1973: 9-10; Lawlor 1974: 21, 27; Healey 1989: 42-3; Parr 1990: 14 noted that the sherds found in the southern shops of the Colonnaded Street have texts written on them in ink and the script is very close to early Arabic; Ball 2000: 60; Bowersock 2003: 21, note 9. 49 Healey 2001: 25; Schmid 2001: 367, see note 6. 50 Ball 2000: 61, n. 124; Browning 1989: 29, 31.

51

Parr 2003: 32. Bartlett 1990: 34. 53 In the absence of final reports by Bennet, see the summary of her work in Bienkowski 1990: 91-109. 54 Bienkowski 1990: 103. 55 Bienkowski 2002: 90-1. 56 Parr 1990: 16-17 57 Bienkowski 1995: 136. 58 Parr 2003: 33 presents the fact that the name of the Edomite national deity, Qaws, is found in Nabataean texts. Bartlett 1990: 34 argues that this appearance implies direct Edomite-Nabataean continuity. See also Bienkowski 1990a: 139-42. 52

5

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.1.3 The possible Nabataean presence and the Mediterranean before campaigns of Alexander the Great.

Ashurbanipal’s records (668-627 BC),59 and the Nebaioth the eldest “son of Ishmael” and the tribe descended from him in the Hebrew Bible.60 But most scholars discarded this theory because nbtw in the texts mentioned differs from that of Nabaiati.61

this is that the Nabataeans’ language, script, and gods have nothing in common with those of southern Arabia.64 The third theory suggests North Arabia was the Nabataean homeland. There are two versions of this theory; the first proposed northeast Arabia, el-Hufuf, opposite the island of Bahrain. This view offers at least some solution to the confusing problem of their earlier homeland and migration to Petra, by associating them with the earlier Nabayat residing at Sabu, based on a Palmyrene inscription where a “god of Sabu” is termed “the Fortune God of the Nabataeans.”65 The second view suggests the northwest, Hijaz region, of Saudia Arabia was their homeland.66 This is based on considering the ethnic tribe Qedarite as descendants of the Nabataeans.67 Although this view fails to explain the linguistic and cultural differences between the Nabataeans and the Qedarites, “there are several factors arising from this investigation of North Arabia, which suggest that the location of the Nabataeans was northwest Arabia.”68

A second theory argues that the Nabataeans came from the southwest of the Arabian Peninsula, known today as Yemen.62 In this respect, Nelson Glueck,63 assumed that as the Nabataeans’ skills in both water and architecture must have been learned in south Arabia, where urban civilisation had flourished for many centuries, therefore their origins must be sought there. The argument against

59

Graf 1990: 45; Abu Taleb 1984: 3-11. Genesis 25: 13; 28: 9; 36: 3; Isaiah 60: 7. Starcky 1955: 84-6; Hammond 1973: 10; Graf 1990: 45. Bowersock 1983: 14 states that “there is no secure basis for identifying them with the Nebaioth of the Old Testament or with peoples of similar name in Assyrian documents”. Also Parr 2003: 30 states that this theory is now rejected on the grounds that Nabatu “is spelled with an emphatic t and Nabayati / Nebaioth has an additional vowel y that Nabatu lacks.” However, it is worth noting that Hebrew also omits most vowels. 62 Starcky 1955: 88-101; Hammond 1973: 11; Ball 2000: 60 agreed that the Nabataean are known from Hebrew and Assyrian sources as early as the seventh century BC, and he located southern Arabia as their homeland. 63 Glueck 1965: 59. 60 61

64

Parr 2003: 30; Graf 1990: 45. Milik 1982: 261-5; Bowersock 1983: 7; Parr 2003: 30. 66 Hammond 1973: 11. 67 Knauf 1986: 74-86. 68 Graf 1990: 67-68. 65

6

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT presence in the Hawran in southern Syria by 259 BC.76 The First Book of Maccabees records that in 168 BC the Maccabee brothers, Judas and Jonathan, had a three-day long meeting with the Nabataeans in the Hawran.77 This meeting suggests that the Nabataeans helped the Maccabees in their revolt against Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). Moreover, the Second Book of Maccabees78 contains the first mention of the name of the ruler of the Nabataeans (Aretas, in 168 BC). This name also appears in the earliest Nabataean inscription, found in Elusa, probably also from the second century BC.79 However, to get a clear picture of the extent of Nabataean control during the third and the second centuries BC, it is important to establish an understanding of the cultural geography of the whole area (Figs.1.4-6).

None of these theories is conclusive and so far the origin of the Nabataeans is still obscure. I.a.2.2. Their Later History and Contacts It seems that for the Nabataeans we cannot say anything useful before the report of Hieronymus of Cardia preserved by Diodorus Siculus. Hieronymus had at least been in contact with people he thought of as Nabataeans and Arabs. It is more likely that his description reflects the situation in the late fourth century BC. When the Nabataeans first arrived at Petra, and they had not yet decided to settle there permanently, probably they lived in a mixture of tents and houses.69 Since there is no evidence for natural caves (and neither Diodorus nor Strabo mentions caves), it is more probable that the Nabataeans later carved them. Hieronymus of Cardia sees Petra as an occasional refuge and market place rather than a permanent settlement. Whatever proves to be true, this description throws light on the first contact since the end of the fourth century BC between the Nabataeans and the Macedonian rulers in Syria. Antigonus the one eyed, one of Alexander the Great successors, sent Athenaeus and then his son Demetrius to take over Petra in 312 BC.70 The interesting point, which arises from this description, is that the Nabataeans wanted peace with Antigonus. Undoubtedly, peace brought trade and prosperity. More to the point is the reference to frankincense and myrrh, which indicates that Petra was already established as a trading centre. Contact with the Greek world is confirmed by the stamped amphorae handles and black glazed pottery of Greek manufacture (Rhodian potter and eponym, late 3rd cent. BC)71 which have been found in Petra near the Faroun Pillar. Similar material has been found in the excavations of the Colonnaded Street.72 Moreover, Hieronymus reports contact between the Nabataeans and Egypt by their involvement in marketing Dead Sea bitumen,73 which was an important component for mummification and waterproofing for coffins.74 Therefore, it appears that the Nabataeans’ link with the Egyptians was both strong and friendly, whereas their relationship with the Seleucids was one of confrontation. This is why, as will be discussed later, the architectural links with Alexandria seem stronger than those with Antioch.

During the third century BC the Ptolemies and the Seleucids were fighting over control of the Levant (Fig.1.4). The quarrel between them was more than just a conflict between two Hellenistic dynasties. The Seleucids’ main interest remained concentrated on the west, i.e. in Syria and Anatolia, but in addition to that they made great efforts to maintain the eastern part of their empire, Mesopotamia and beyond, under their control (Fig.1.4). However, the rise of the Parthians,80 the nomadic people (the Parnes), from the middle of the third century BC onwards spoiled the Seleucids’ efforts (Fig.1.6). Under the leader Arsaces they started their movement from Scythia towards Partyene during the last years of the reign of Antiochus II (216-246 BC.). During the long reign of Mithradates I of Parthia (175-138 BC.) the Parthian kingdom began to expand gradually to cover the whole of Iran, and to control large areas of Seleucid territory (Fig.1.12). Mithradates II (124/3-87 BC.) extended the empire up to the line of the Euphrates (Fig.1.6). Parthia became the dominant power in the East, not always in control of Mesopotamia, but often. The Seleucids’ main target then was to expand their control towards Egypt and Palestine, probably to gain control over the trade routes leading to Gaza, after they lost the Persian Gulf trade routes. Therefore, the Syrian wars81 between the two powers focus on Coele-Syria,82 for military and economic 76

Graf 1990: 53, with text, translation and commentary pp 69-74, the text says that Drimylos and Dionysios went north as far as the Hawran, but met the Nabataeans on their return, i.e. not necessarily in the Hawran; Bowersock 2003: 21; 1983: 17, see also note 20. Zenon, a native of Caunos in Caria, was a high official in the service of Apollonius, the finance minister of Ptolemy II see Avi-Yonah 1966: 33. 77 1 Macc. 5.24-28; 9.35; 77a. 78 2 Macc. 77a. 79 Graf 1990: 53; Bowersock 2003: 21; 1983: 18 80 Tarn 1966: 34; Colledge 1977: 1-20; Musti 1984: 214-5; Heinen 1984: 422; Smith 1988: 118. 81 Essential reading: Heinen 1984: 412-46; Lloyd 2000: 399. 82 Coele-Syria is the geographical area, which consists the long depression stretching from the Lebanon and Antilebanon through the Litani and Jordan valleys to the Dead Sea, and beyond to Aqaba on the Red Sea. This name appeared for the first time in the official terminology of the Seleucids calling it “Coele-Syria and Phoenicia”. Avi-Yonah 1966: 44-5; Heinen 1984: 412, note 2.

During the third and second centuries BC, there are only a few texts, which describe the contacts of the Nabataeans and their expansion.75 A papyrus from the Zenon Archive in Egypt may provide proof of Nabataean

69

Schmid 2001: 371, see also Fig. 11. Diodorus Siculus 19.95.2-6; 96.4; 97.2-6. Horsfield and Conway 1942: 131-4; Parr 1960: 135; 1990: 15; Schmid 2001: 367. 72 Browning 1989: 32. 73 Diodorus Siculus 2.48; 19.98; 99.1-3. 74 Lawlor 1974: 72-3; Groom 1981: 208. 75 Schmid 2001: 367 states “there seems to be almost no material evidence that could be assigned to the Nabataeans during the third and the second centuries BC.” 70 71

7

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.1.4 The Nabataeans between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids during the third century BC.

Fig.1.5 The Nabataean kingdom during the first half of the second century BC.

8

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.1.6 The Nabataean kingdom during the period, c. 150-88/7 BC.

reasons. Under the latter, the timber sources and the caravan trade were important. Similarly, the southern part of Coele-Syria and northern Arabia were very attractive to the Ptolemies, as these areas were very important for trade, as mentioned earlier. About 280 BC Ptolemy II explored the Arabian coast in order to get the benefits of the incense route from the Nabataeans.83 In addition to controlling the Cyclades, Samos, and most of the coast of Asia Minor during the third century,84 the Ptolemies held southern Syria as far as Lebanon and much of Phoenicia (Fig.1.3).85 They refounded Ake (Acre) and RabbathAmman (Philadelphia).86 This means that in the third century BC Nabataean contacts would have been mainly with the Ptolemies. However, the Battle of Raphia in 217 BC was an important stage in the conflict between Ptolemies and Seleucids. In the fifth Syrian war (202-200 BC) the Coele-Syria fell to the Seleucids87 (Fig.1.5) and the Ptolemies were never able to control it again except for a short period under Ptolemy VI and Cleopatra VII in the first century BC, as we will see later.88

Although the Nabataeans during the 3rd cent. BC remained independent, they were not able to act as a political force, but undoubtedly, they were preparing for that. An inscription from Priene, dated to 129 BC, mentions a local ambassador named Moschion son of Kydimos, who undertook diplomatic missions in various parts of the Mediterranean world, including embassies to both Alexandria and to Petra.89 This source provides us with evidence of two important possible contacts for the Nabataeans. The first contact was with the Attalid kingdom, of which Priene was a part before 140 BC. The second was with the Ptolemies of Alexandria. It is not clear why an ambassador from Priene was called in or by whom, or if he came to act as independent arbitrator. But he may have come to solve the problems of the piracy which were recorded briefly by Athenodorus.90 It is probable that these problems appeared when the Ptolemies tried to bypass the Nabataeans by bringing goods to Alexandria through the sea route (1c3a) (Fig.1.13). If so, it would have been in Nabataean interest to upset this. This also may give us an indication of the competition between the carvaneers of Petra and

83

89

Tarn 1966: 245; Parr 2003: 35. Tarn 1966: 181. 85 Judaea was included, Tarn 1966: 212. 86 Heinen 1984: 441. 87 In 200 Antiochus III wrested all southern Syria from the Ptolemies, and in 169 Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, invaded Alexandria, see Tarn 1966: 24, 34, 213. 88 Heinen 1984: 440-1.

Inschriften von Priene 108. 163-74, see Rostovtzeff 1941: note 124 on pages 1491-2; Bowersock 1983: 22, note 35. 90 Strabo 16. 4. 18; Tarn 1966: 183. It is probable that the problems appeared after activating the route 1c3a, which came from Aden to Berenice then to Coptos and then to Alexandria. The caravan route from Coptos to Berenice was equipped with wells and block-houses during the reign of Ptolemy I (305-283 BC). Ptolemy II (283-246 BC) introduced camels to run from the south to Alexandria.

84

9

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Alexandria in the second century BC.91 However, as mentioned earlier, the Periplus92 describes the piracy of the people at the south of the Red Sea and not the Nabataeans. Perhaps the ambassador came in to get the Nabataeans’ support to stop the people who engaged in piracy. To sum up, in the 3rd cent. BC in general the Ptolemies held southern Syria, the Seleucids northern Syria and Mesopotamia (Fig.1.4). In the second century BC, the Seleucids ruled the Levant, but they lost Mesopotamia and Iran (Figs.1.5,6). The Nabataeans had contact with Ptolemies in second century BC. For the Nabataeans this period in many respects was the most crucial as far as the establishment of their culture is concerned. 93

This failure freed the Nabataeans from the Seleucid threat in the north. Aretas III Philhellene (84-62 BC), was able to expand the Nabataean kingdom to Damascus and to rule it for fifteen years (84-69 BC)99 (Fig.1.7). The earliest Nabataean coins, modelled on Hellenistic prototypes, were minted in Damascus by order of Aretas III from 84 BC onwards.100 Furthermore, it is probable that Nabataean power in the Negev increased as a result of the weakness of the Seleucids who had ruled the Levant since the end of the third century BC. This situation affected the free flow of trade to the Mediterranean via Gaza and Sinai, thus a strengthening of Nabataean control in the Negev was absolutely vital for the traffic.101 Another reason for this expansion was possibly to gain control the city of Gaza102 from the forces of Alexander Jannaeus.103 At all events, it seems that Petra flourished towards the end of the second century BC and during the course of the first century BC. The Nabataean kingdom became stronger and wealthier, and the Nabataean kings established direct relations with the Syrians to the north and with Mediterranean ports to the west.104

In the first century BC the Nabataeans came into contact with the Jews on several occasions, as Josephus describes (Figs.1.6, 7, 8). Their relationship varied between conflict and alliance, and involved intermarriage. This contact can be interpreted in terms of their geographical location, but a border between their territories is hard to draw. In 96 BC the inhabitants of Gaza invited Ptolemy IX of Egypt to visit them, but the Jewish leader Alexander Jannaeus son of Hyrcanus (103-76 BC) became angry and took over the city.94 The second event described is the war between the Nabataean king Obodas I (c. 96-85 BC), and Alexander Jannaeus in 93 BC in the northern part of the Nabataean kingdom at the city of Garada near the Golan Heights.95 This campaign reflects the Nabataeans’ continuing control over the former areas of Biblical Moab and Gilead in this period.96 This can be linked thus to their earlier presence in the Hawran recorded in the history of the Maccabees.

The prosperity and the power achieved by the Nabataeans drew the attention of the Romans. In 64 BC, Pompey arrived in Damascus and organised Syria as a new province of Rome (Fig.1.8). He then founded new cities and re-organised old ones to form the so called Decapolis cities, most of which are located at the northwest margins of Nabataean territory.105 But it appears to have had no effect on the Nabataeans’ expanding trade. The Romans were clearly envious of Nabataean commercial power, and for this reason, Pompey’s officers undertook two campaigns to take Petra by storm.106 In 62 BC M. Aemilius Scaurus undertook a military expedition against the Nabataeans, but they bought him off with 300 talents of silver.107 In 55 BC, A. Gabinius undertook another unsuccessful expedition.108 After this, several alliances were formed between the Nabataeans and the Romans; probably the Nabataean kingdom became a client kingdom of Rome, as suggested by coins showing the Nabataean king with his camel kneeling in front of the Roman ruler.109 In 47 BC, the Nabataean king Malichus I (54-30 BC) sent cavalry to Alexandria in support of Julius Caesar against Pompey.110 But when Parthian forces arrived at Jerusalem in 40 BC (Fig.1.8), Malichus

The Nabataeans’ contact with the Seleucids in the north during the first quarter of the first century BC deserves special mention. In 88/87 BC, Antiochus XII, after making a successful expedition down into Damascus and Judaea, undertook two campaigns against Petra. In the second one, he was defeated and slain by Obodas I.97 This campaign may be considered as a sign of the growth of the Nabataean kingdom, which had become a concern to the Seleucid regime in Syria.98 However, by the gradual failure of the Seleucid kingdom, all the regions of their territory were by this time lost, namely; Judaea, through the revolt of the Maccabees in 168 BC; and the cities of Phoenicia and southern Syria, Asia Minor, and parts of Iran and Mesopotamia through the expansion of the Parthians as mentioned earlier (Fig.1.7).

99

Josephus AJ 13.392; BJ 1.103. Bowersock 1983: 25; Schmid 2001: 368, 370-1. 101 Hammond 1973: 65; Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 68. 102 The city of Gaza was one of the important ports for the Nabataeans from their early history. Tarn 1966: 260 reports that when Alexander the Great arrived the city he captured more than 500 talents weight of frankincense. 103 Hammond 1973: 30-2. 104 Bowersock 2003: 21; Rostovtzeff 1941: 702. 105 Bowersock 2003: 19; 1983: 29-30. 106 Josephus AJ 14.80. 107 Josephus AJ 14.80-81. 108 Josephus AJ 14.103; BJ 1.178. 109 Schmitt-Korte 1991: 145, Fig.69. 110 Josephus AJ 14.128. 100

91

Bowersock 1983: 21; Zayadine 1990: 151. Periplus 6. 93 Lawlor 1974: 37; Bowersock 1983: 17. 94 Josephus AJ 13.3. 95 Josephus AJ 13.383. The location of Garada is unknown, see Bowersock 1983: 24, n. 44. 96 Hammond 1973: 17. 97 Josephus AJ 13.387; BJ 199-102; Bowersock 1983: 24. 98 Bowersock 1983: 24. 92

10

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.1.7 The Nabataean kingdom from the beginning of the second decade of the first century to Pompey (88/7-63 BC.).

Fig.1.8 The Nabataean kingdom from 63 to 30 BC.

11

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.1.9 The Nabataean kingdom from 30 BC to the beginning of the first century AD.

give her some Nabataean territory,116 probably along the Gulf of Aqaba.117 She also urged Antony to let Herod the Great go to war with the Nabataeans in order to weaken the two kingdoms so that she could control both of them.118 But it is recorded that Cleopatra’s representative in the region gave the victory to the Nabataeans by fighting on their side against Herod.119 This led Herod to send ambassadors to Malichus I to appeal for peace.120 In 31 BC the Nabataeans had lent Octavian some troops for the Actium campaign against Antony.121 This was followed by the Roman annexation of Ptolemaic Egypt in 30 BC, and Octavian (later the emperor Augustus) sat on the throne of the Ptolemies (Fig.1.9).

either made an alliance with the Parthians or remained neutral.111 Herod the Great, who had fled first to Alexandria then to Rome,112 returned as king of Judaea with Roman assistance, and expelled the Parthians back to Mesopotamia (Fig.1.9). During the first century BC, after the Parthians occupied Babylonia and controlled routes 1a,b,c from India and China to the Mediterranean via the Persian Gulf and Mesopotamia, strong relations and real cooperation existed113 between the Ptolemies and the Nabataeans. Accordingly, Nabataean ties with Ptolemaic Egypt became considerable during this century. This can be evidenced by the permanent colony of Nabataean guards, which was settled inside Egypt on the Wadi Tumilah to protect the trade route leading to the Delta.114 In the second part of the first century BC Queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt intrigued to utilise the exotic goods from India for her kingdom. She suggested abandoning the Mediterranean and ruling the Indian seas instead.115 Moreover, the accumulation of trade being brought to Petra over the traditional incense route 3b was also one of her goals (Fig. 1.13). For this reason, she asked Antony to

In 26 BC the Nabataean king Obodas III (30-9 BC) faced a military expedition under Aelius Gallus sent into South Arabia by Augustus, who wanted to control the wealth derived from routes 1c3, 2b, and 3 (Figs.1.12,13). This could not be achieved without the help of a Nabataean guide Syllaeus who, as mentioned earlier, served king

116

Josephus AJ 15.92. Bowersock 1983: 41. Josephus AJ 15.159. 119 Josephus AJ 15. 115-16; BJ 1. 367-8. 120 Bowersock 1983: 42. 121 Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 68 point out the Nabataeans burned Cleopatra’s ships after Actium. 117

111

118

Hammond 1973: 19-20. Josephus AJ 14.370; BJ 1.246-7. 113 Schoff 1914: 17-20; Tarn 1966: 249; Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 68. 114 Groom 1981: 208. 115 Tarn 1966: 248. 112

12

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.1.10 The Nabataean kingdom from the beginning of the first century AD to the Roman annexation (AD 106).

Fig.1.11 The Nabataean kingdom after its annexation, incorporated into the Roman Arabia Provincia.

13

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Obodas III and had been to Rome twice.122 However, this expedition failed.123 Hammond 124 suggested that after this Augustus diverted the incense road (3) from PetraGaza to Coptos-Alexandria by route 1c3a and then directly to Rome (Fig.1.13). This seems unlikely as the best monuments at Petra and Medain Saleh were built after this date. Moreover, the early Roman emperors supported the Nabataeans as a client kingdom for over a century before it was annexed.125

Romans and many other foreigners there.131 Moreover, their homes were built of stones and costly. Petra, at that time, was well governed by a king of the royal family, and had a large population who lived a peaceful life.132 Athenodorus’ description is an important source for understanding Nabataean culture, even if some scholars see his observation about the Nabataean treatment of the dead “they have the same regard for the dead as for dung, and they bury even their kings beside dung-heap”133 as wrong. The confusion comes from understanding the Greek for dung (kopros) which sounds like the Semitic term for tomb (kpr).134 Wright135 considered the Nabataean treatment of their dead was closely related to the Iranian manner, and interpreted the Nabataeans’ inactivity during the Parthian campaign at Jerusalem in 40 BC as an indicator of the close relationship between the Nabataeans and the Parthians.

The golden age126 for Nabataean building activity was the second half of the first century BC and the first and early second centuries AD, especially the long reign of Aretas IV, lover of his people, (9 BC-AD 40). Bowersock127 stated that “Aretas IV sent ambassadors to Rome where they and their king were commemorated in a grand marble inscription on the Capitoline”. In this period the Nabataean kingdom reached the height of its prosperity and started to achieve monumentality in its architecture, with buildings such as the Khazneh, the theatre, and the Qasr el-Bint (Fig.1.15). It is worth noting that part of this period overlapped with a major period of building in Rome, during the reign of Augustus (29/26 BC-AD 14), and that of the Judean building programme under Herod the Great128 (40-4 BC).

During the first century AD, particularly in the reign of Malichus II (AD 40-70), control of the Romans increased in the area (Fig1.10), and they started to bypass routes 1c1, 3b, and 1c3b from Petra (Fig.1.13). It is likely that the Romans fostered these routes during the reign of Rabel II (AD 70-106), who transferred the Nabataean capital to Bosra in Syria in AD 93. The precise nature of this shift is unclear, as Petra continued to be a major centre.136 It seems that the main factor for the move to Bosra was a response to the shift to use of the land trade routes which forked from routes 1 and 2a at the Persian Gulf. These routes went to southern Syria by (1c1b) and (1b) instead of route 1c1a which went to Petra (Fig.1.13). Undoubtedly, Bosra and Palmyra benefited from this change.137 Moreover, Roman Egypt took over more of the routes (1c3 and 2b), and all the goods of southern Arabia were delivered directly to Alexandria. After losing control of the trade routes, the Nabataeans started to rely more on agriculture, as happened in the Negev.138 It is possible that the agricultural wealth of Hawran was one factor for moving the capital there.139 This, however, did not keep the kingdom strong enough to survive. The situation brought Petra into gradual economic decline.140 Petra and its domain were incorporated into the Roman

A series of inscriptions, beginning in 1 BC and continuing through the reign of Aretas IV and later kings until AD 70, have been found in Medain Saleh (Hegra). These indicate that Aretas IV was turning his interests to the south, probably trying to control the trade routes (3b, 1c2, and 1c3b) near to Medain Saleh, which was a major commercial centre in the south (Figs.1.13).129 In AD 36 Tiberius Caesar ordered Lucius Vitellius, the governor of Syria, to attack the Nabataeans, but the emperor’s death called the expedition off and made Vitellius send his troops home.130 We find a full description of Petra’s prosperity towards the end of the first century BC in the Geography of Strabo (written in c. 25 BC). Strabo’s source, Athenodorus of Tarsus, who had been to Petra, described the city with admiration, and said that he found many

131

Strabo 16. 4. 2.; Tarn 1966: 262 reports that the Romans reached Petra, “but only when Petra was almost a Roman protectorate”. Strabo 16. 4.18,26. 133 Strabo 16. 4. 26. 134 Healey 2001: 28; Bowersock 2003: 22, Wenning 2003: 142. Browning 1973: 39 supposes Athenodorus was blind, followed by Groom 1981: 202. But this is a misunderstanding of Wright 1969: 112, who states that “A most unlikely explanation, since in this event Athenodorus, who resided for a considerable time among the Nabataeans, was a blind man who relied entirely on his (untutored!) ears and not his eyes for information”. 135 Wright 1969 114-5; Lyttelton 1974: 76. 136 Bowersock 2003: 22-3; Ball 2000: 63. 137 Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 68; Buranski 1995: 233. 138 Negev 2003: 103. 139 Dentzer 2003: 109. 140 Hammond 1973: 27-8.

122

Hammond 1973: 22; Bowersock 2003: 19, 22. 123 Strabo 16.4.22-25 described the expedition in detail, using Aelius Gallus, his friend and patron, as the eyewitness source for his knowledge. Ball (2000: 110-4, Fig. 18) provides a map showing Aelius Gallus’ campaign. 124 Hammond 1973: 22. 125 Bowersock 2003: 19. 126 Healey 2001: 31. 127 Bowersock 2003: 22, ftn 19. 128 The Jews opposed Hellenism, but Herod the Great Hellenised Judaea, where Antiochus IV had failed. Hellenism was the best system to apply by Herod to his mixed realm. Monumental architecture is known there from the time of Herod. This is a nice parallel to Nabataean Hellenism. Fundamental reading Tarn 1966: 226-39; Fischer 1998: 36. 129 Hammond 1973: 26, 33-34. 130 Hammond 1973: 27; Ball 2000: 63.

132

14

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.1.12 Map illustrating the trade routes of the ancient Middle East, Arabia, Parthia, and India (after Miller 1969: Map 5).

end of the second century BC, the Nabataean merchants strengthened their contacts with Syrian and Aegean trade centres.143 From that time onwards, their economy diversified and agriculture developed through the increased use of irrigation. Therefore, it is clear that Diodorus Siculus’ description reflects the situation in its early stages, while, after two and half centuries, Strabo described the city towards its peak, when the Nabataeans had both power and wealth, which allowed them to develop their construction techniques, and brought their architecture to the level described in general by Strabo.

province of Arabia in AD 106 (Fig.1.11). The annexation was apparently peaceful, on the death of Rabel II. At this juncture, we must consider the differences between Strabo’s description and the earlier information provided by Diodorus Siculus. Diodorus Siculus141 described the people of Petra, the Nabataeans, as having a nomadic life style in 312 BC. On the other hand, Strabo142 observed that in 24 BC the Nabataeans had costly stone houses and painted and moulded works. These accounts demonstrate the remarkable changes in the Nabataean way of life between the third and the first centuries BC. Diodorus went back to Hieronymus of Cardia, but Strabo turned to an eyewitness of his own day, Athenodorus. Both accounts recorded the situation in very different terms. The best explanation for this is that there was major development from the 3rd to 1st cent. BC, even their location between the two great Hellenistic powers of the Seleucids in Syria and the Ptolemies in Egypt limited their expansion during this period. However, this period was a formative one, in which the Nabataeans tried to establish the basic structures of their kingdom. After the decline of the Seleucids in Syria at the 141 142

I.a.2.3 The Nabataean Architectural Style The transition to settled life in Petra occurred sometime between the third century BC, at the earliest, and the first century BC, at the latest. This picture can be reached based on the two Greek accounts. Clearly, the picture of the Nabataeans, painted by Hieronymus in Diodorus account is emphatic that the Nabataeans had no building tradition at the end of the fourth century BC, except their experience in collecting water. Although this description depicts the Nabataeans as traders, they had all the typical

Diodorus Siculus 19.93-97. Strabo 16.4.26.

143

15

Rostovtzeff 1941: n. 124.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.1.13 Detailed map illustrating Nabataean trade routes and contacts.

characteristics of nomads, including laws forbidding them to build houses and cultivate plants. Although Strabo shows the Nabataeans of the last quarter in the first century BC as a modernised and settled people, his account lacks a detailed description of their unique architecture. Here one may see Athenodorus’ “blindness”; he did not describe what he saw of the rockcut facades and the freestanding buildings. Archaeological evidence for Nabataean architecture, as

for other material culture (pottery and coins), does not occur before the end of the second century or the beginning of the first century BC.144 Relying on the architectural details of the facades and the archaeological excavations, we are able to establish at least some basic concept of the architectural styles of Nabataean buildings.

144

16

Schmid 2001: 368-71.

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.1.14 Areas of Nabataean kingdom. Map illustrating the geographical limits of the Nabataean kingdom at its greatest extent.

Earlier studies which offer an analysis of the architectural styles at Petra have been broadly based on the features of the tomb facades, and they have used two main tools of analysis: stylistic developments and stylistic influences. The study of the stylistic choices reveals the affect of cultural influences. Additionally, this was the essential element in a typological development of the rock-cut monument facades as has been suggested, based on the details of the architectural decoration. During the last hundred years a number of attempts have been made to

divide the rock-cut facades into typological groups. Brünnow and von Domaszewski145 divided them into seven groups. The first type, the Pylon Tombs, have one or two rows of crowsteps, and are followed by the Step, Proto-Hegr, and Hegr type tombs. Kennedy and Browning146 established typologies similar to the system of Brünnow and von Domaszewski, while Browning 145 146

17

Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904 vol.1: 137-91. Kennedy 1925; Browning 1989: 82-101.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

divided them into five groups. Although he only named the first type Assyrian because it only has crowsteps, the other four types have single or band of multiple crowsteps in addition to a cornice. McKenzie147 established a new system of chronology for the main classical monuments of Petra, both tombs and public buildings, based on the details of the architectural decoration. Ball148 divided the rock-cut facades into two categories, the first of which forms the bulk of the rock cut monuments in Petra and Medain Saleh, and is labelled the Assyrian style. The second is classical, but also includes crowsteps. Schmid149 divided the facades roughly into two groups “more oriental” and more “Hellenistic”. Netzer150 followed the basic divisions of the facades established by von Domaszewski (Fig.1.16). The results of such analyses show that the basic styles seen in the rock-cut facades have some features of Hellenistic appearance, but in other cases the Nabataeans tried to orientalise the style, as on the crowstep tombs and ed-Deir.151 Besides these features, there are some details which are Egyptian, Syrio-Phoenician, Assyrian, Parthian, as well as Roman.152

latter is evidenced by the inscription, ascribed to the king himself, which was recovered at Harran in Turkey.155 It gives a picture of Nabonidus’ flight in 539 BC to reside in Taima, where he hid far away from the Persian king Cyrus the Great, who started the Achaemenid Empire. In Taima he made the town beautiful, established military colonies along the line of the famous incense road (3b) and (1c2) (Fig.1.13), and built a palace comparable to that of Babylon itself.156 Unfortunately, so far nothing is known for certain of this palace from archaeological sources, and thus, there is no evidence of crowsteps in Nabataean area before first century BC. But this feature did not suddenly appear from nowhere, and the architecture of Arabia remains a missing link in understanding the source of crowsteps in Nabataean architecture. Taima was part of Edomite territory in the 6th cent. BC,157 so the crowsteps may relate to the continuity from the Edomites to the Nabataeans. Secondly, It is possible to suggest that the crowstep element may have been a two dimensional symbol for the Assyrian and Babylonian ziggurat, and that its intensive use by the Nabataeans may have been a gesture of tribal solidarity, like the stylistic choice of the classical orders in Greek architecture during the fifth and the fourth centuries BC.158 If we apply this model to the use of crowsteps in Nabataean monuments as a real case of identity, then the first theory of Nabataean origin, which locates Mesopotamia as their homeland would be more likely, and consequently, both the religious and linguistic grounds would have to be reconsidered. Graf himself supports this view. Although Graf prefers the northeast of Arabia as the Nabataeans’ homeland, he states “what can be stated emphatically is that the linguistic and geographical factors at present suggest the Nabataeans arose in the Mesopotamian sphere. Their relationship with the Nabayat of the earlier period should not be removed from consideration.”159

Obviously, most of the Nabataean rock-cut monuments in both Petra and Medain Saleh contain crowsteps carved in relief. Previous studies have generally suggested that the crowstep motif was probably the earliest architectural feature of the Nabataeans,153 and that it was from Mesopotamia that the Nabataeans inherited this basic idea. Some scholars compared the number of steps. It has been found that the original Assyrian version of this motif has only three steps, whereas the number of steps in Petra and Medain Saleh varies between 4 and 6.154 However, in this sense, I believe that this connection shows that we are dealing with more than just describing the similarity or the difference of the number of steps and, I want to substitute alternative models of stylistic explanation for the introduction of the crowstep element into the Nabataean rock-cut facades.

However, the use of crowsteps may be no more reliable as an indication of homeland than the use of Corinthian on other Nabataean buildings. Although I believe that architecture is a powerful indicator, and that “in no art are the modes so clearly identifiable as in architecture,”160 it is an indicator of what was thought at the time it was built. No rock-cut tombs are firmly dated to earlier than the first century BC, and for a Nabataean of the first century BC the link of the crowsteps would be with Parthian Mesopotamia, rather than Assyria 700 years earlier. This view should not surprise us and can be supported by two historical events mentioned earlier: the Nabataeans’ inactivity in the Parthian campaign in

I first suggest that the Nabataeans probably inherited this element during the reign of Nabonidus the last NeoBabylonian king (555-539 BC). The contact could have taken place either during his Arabian Campaigns, in which the kings of both Taima and Dedan (al-Ula) were killed, or during his residence in Taima (Fig.1.14). The 147

McKenzie 1990. Ball 2000: 72. 149 Schmid 2001: 384. 150 Netzer 2003: 13-67; for more details see McKenzie 2004: 1-14. 151 Lyttelton 1974: 74, 80, 82-3; Stewart 2003: 193-4. 152 The other Nabataean material cultures; pottery and coins, show Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek, Parthian, and Roman influences. Essential reading is Schmid 2001: 371-4. 153 Schmid 2001: 388 says that there is no good reason to believe that “the simpler facades, showing stronger oriental influence, would be older than the richly decorated ones like al-Khazna.” See also Wenning 2003: 137-41. However, the Proto-Hegr type tombs recently discovered at the base of the Khazneh are earlier than it. 154 Browning 1989: 85 wrongly says that there are always four steps on each side of a crowstep at Petra. 148

155

Abu-Duruk 1986: 6, see also the bibliography. Parr 2003: 33; Browning 1989: 30; al-Khowaiter 1975: 38; Graf 1990: 45; Abu-Duruk 1986: 6, 97. 157 Abu-Duruk 1986: 7. It is mentioned in Ezekiel 25 v.13; Isaiah 21. 158 Onians 1979: 72. 159 Graf 1990: 68. 160 Onians 1979: 72. 156

18

19

Bint; G: Temenos Gate; ST: South Tower; BS: Baths Complex; NT: North Tower; ST: Small Temple; GT: “Great Temple”; B: Bridges; RC: Ridge Church; CS: Colonnaded Street; PC: Pool Complex; MM: “Middle Market; UM: “Upper Market”; BT: “Byzantine Tower”; TA: “Trajanic” Arch; SN: South Nymphaeon; NN: North Nymphaeon; PC: the Petra Church; TWL: Temple of the Winged Lions; RP: “Royal Palace”; BC: Blue Chapel; ZH: az-Zantur Houses.

Fig.1.15 Most recent map of the city centre of Petra (McKenzie 2004: Fig.3; Kanellopoulos and Akasheh 2001: Fig.1, with some additions). Q: the Qasr el-

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.1.16 Typological-chronological table of the rock-cut monuments at Petra, each symbol represents one tomb, and the

20

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

dating of all tombs is approximate and not absolute (Netzer 2003: Fig.53).

21

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Jerusalem in 40 BC and the conditions which led to the choice of Petra as the main conduit for Chinese silk. Although we do not know the exact role of the Nabataeans in the Parthian campaign, the silk trade is nevertheless a pivotal clue to the better understanding of strong relationship between the Nabataeans and the Parthians. Silk could not have passed through Petra without first passing through Parthia (route 1) (Figs.1.12, 13). This appears to be the case, and it is reflected in Nabataean culture, including the popularity of the crowstep motif after the first century BC. This view is best articulated by Anderson,161 who compared the use of the crowstep motif in Nabataean tombs with its use in the royal iconography of the Achaemenid Empire, c.550-330 BC. Examples of these are the crenelated crown of Darius I on the rock relief at Bisitun,162 and later (c.100 BC-AD 100) in the crown of Queen Musa or, more likely, the goddess Fortune (Tyche) at Susa.163

(Fig.1.17e, c), the Northern Palace of Masada (30-29 BC), the description of the famous river boat of Ptolemy IV, and Qasr al-Abd (182-173 BC)170 (Fig.1.17b, a). This is because Alexandria was the source of inspiration for all these examples. Further architectural influence can be found in the results of the archaeological surveys and excavations in Petra, such as of temples and houses. Some scholars have divided Nabataean temples into typological groups according to the form of their architectural plans.171 Netzer prefers to concentrate on the main features of the design rather than on the typology. He defines some of the characteristics of Nabataean temples, as: a plan in the form of a square within a square, an ambulatory, a broad naos and a tripartite adyton, a temenos with an external altar, and a forecourt with benches (Fig.1.18).172 Other characteristics such as the roof terrace, an ascent to the roof, and a naos open to the sky cannot be confirmed without careful study of the roof structure. Moreover, Nabataean temples are typically more square than rectangular in plan (Fig.1.18). Netzer173 suggests that the origin of the naiskoi or altars and adytons is in the SyroPhoenician region. The building surrounding the nucleus was like a classical temple. The huge courtyards with porticoes in front of the temples, like the “Great Temple”, the Qasr el-Bint, and the Temple of the Winged Lions are a typically Roman feature, but also possibly reflect Egyptian influence. This feature can be seen in every Egyptian temple from the Ptolemaic period. For example, the one from Edfu has a huge courtyard (Fig.1.19b). The tripartite adyton, the additional shrine, the inner courtyard and the square plan also possibly show South Arabian influences. These features can be seen, for example in Temple of Bar’an at Marib (Fig.1.19a; Saba on Fig.1.13). Schmid174 notes that although these examples (700 BC) are earlier than the Nabataean ones, they remained in use until the fourth century BC or later. Other scholars attributed the source of the square form to Parthian architecture, such as the temples at Kuh-i Khwaja, Hatra and Ai Khanum (c. 300-250 BC)175 (Fig.1.19c). The square plan and the tripartite adyton can also be seen in the temple of Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates.176 Its plan is not well preserved, but the suggested reconstruction is a reasonable deduction from the foundations (Fig.1.19d). The date is not discussed in detail, but the site seems to belong essentially to between the late 3rd and early 1st cent. BC.

Along with the crowsteps some facades, the Proto-Hegr and Hegr types, have a large cavetto cornice. This is a feature of Egyptian architecture.164 The same feature, however, can be found in Persian architecture, assumed to be because of Egyptian influence. It is possible, therefore, that the concept also came from that direction. The larger and more richly decorated facades are more complicated and show stronger classical influences. Several scholars165 have noted that the architectural images of some of Petra’s monuments are shared with other Hellenistic and Roman buildings or monuments (Fig.1.17). McKenzie166 concluded the baroque architecture of Ptolemaic Alexandria as depicted in second style Pompeian wall-painting and reflected in the classical architecture of Petra. The use of decorative stucco and wall paintings in temples, rock-cut facades, and private houses was very rich.167 Since there is no support for direct cultural influence between Pompeii and Petra, scholars have tended to accept Alexandria as the source of these influences. Zayadine168 suggests that paintings in Wadi es-Siyyagh show a link to the Hellenistic tradition of Ptolemaic Egypt. McKenzie proved that the architectural details such as the capitals and cornices of Petra are closely related to the examples in Alexandria. Some scholars169 have connected the architectural composition of el-Khazneh with that of Palazzo delle Colonne in Ptolemais, Cyrenaica 161

Anderson 2003: 7. Anderson 2003: Fig.3. Colledge 1977: Plate.9c. 164 Wenning 2003: 133; Browning 1989: 86. 165 E.g. Robertson 1943: 221; Lyttelton 1974: 70-83; Wright 1962: 3336. 166 McKenzie 1990: 100. 167 Kolb 2003: 234-5. 168 Zayadine 1987: 140. 169 Lauter 1971: 149-78; Lyttelton 1974: 53-60, 83; McKenzie 1990: 7577; Wenning 2003: 14; Schmid 2001: 386-7. To prove the similarity between el-Khazneh and the Thalamegos Schmid suggests that elKhazneh was set behind an artificial lake. However, the discovery of the subterranean chambers recently shows that this was not possible. 162

In the private houses of Petra there are clear features indicating that the Nabataeans were inspired by the

163

170

Will and Larché 1991. Wright 1961a: 29; Netzer 2003: 110-14, looking at the Bibliography is recommended. 172 Wright 1961a: 29; Netzer 2003: 115; McKenzie 2004: 8. 173 Netzer 2003: 112-3. 174 Schmid 2001: 379; Fig.11.10. 175 Colledge 1986: 9-12. 176 Clarke 1999: 205-25; 2000: 123-27; 2003: 171-75, Figs.1,2. 171

22

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

b

a

d c

e f nd

Fig.1.17 Significant Hellenistic monuments and painting.

a. Qasr el-Abd, early 2 cent. BC (Will and Larché 1991: Fig.100). b. The riverboat (Thalamegos) of Ptolemy IV (Schmid 2001: st Fig.11.18). c. El-Khazneh, Petra (late 1 cent. BC). d. Library of Celsus at Ephesos (c. AD 117-120). e. The Palazzo delle Colonne, reconstruction of the upper order of the north side of the Great Peristyle court (Lyttelton 1974: Fig.14). f. Roman wall painting from Boscoreale (c. 50 BC) (Stewart 2003: Fig.209).

23

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.1.18 Plans of Nabataean Temples (Netzer 2003: Fig.48).

24

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a

b

c d Fig.1.19 General plans, showing the source of influences on Nabataean temples. a. Temple of Bar’an, Marib (700-300 BC) (Schmid 2001: Fig.11.10b). b. Ptolemaic temple of Edfu (Schmid 2001: Fig.11.9c). c. Ai Khanum Temple, Parthia (c. 300-250 BC) rd st (Colledge 1986: Pl.11.a). d. Jebel Khalid Temple, north Syria (late 3 to early 1 cent. BC) (Clarke 2003: Fig.2).

25

SHAHER M. RABABEH

current type of late Hellenistic house and palace in the Near East. One of the most characteristic features in this context is the courtyards seen in the two storied houses at az-Zantur (Figs.6.28; 34; 35),177 and even in the rock-cut houses, such as the house opposite to the Main Theatre. Moreover, the houses of al-Katute offer a clear example of this feature in addition to the presence of cistern under the main courtyard. Similar examples to both features can be seen in the houses of Mampsis and Delos. It should be mentioned that the peristyle courtyard can be seen also in the Nabataean rock-cut monuments, such as the Urn Tomb and the structure between the Roman Soldier Tomb and the triclinium opposite.178

trade of the region. It is right to say that the Nabataeans’ prosperity was from trade, but much of their domination should be regarded as cultural and economic rather than political.181 In this sphere, they came in contact with the great empires namely, those of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, and later the Romans in the West, and the Parthians in the East. This vast geographical domain and these cross-cultural contacts left clear marks on the remains of Nabataean material culture, the best of which can be seen in their architecture (Fig.1.15), which took on a new dimension. The most significant contact was with Ptolemaic Egypt during the first century BC, as reflected in Nabataean architecture.

Therefore, the Nabataeans developed their architecture in a surrounding containing Hellenistic and later Roman cultures in addition to Eastern ones. This is reflected in the different choices for the architectural styles. It can be said that the simpler rock-cut facades show stronger oriental influences, while the more complicated ones show western influences (Fig.1.16). It is probable that the shift from crowstepped facades represents the shift of the Nabataean cultural orientation from East to West. Beside these influences, some architectural features which are characteristically Nabataean can be found, such as the Nabataean and pseudo-Ionic capitals.179 Moreover, the combination of the elements together in the Nabataean monuments gives them their own character, as seen in the simplicity of el-Deir compared to the complexity of alKhazneh.180

I.b. History of Research Petra, as an impressive Greco-Roman site, has long attracted travellers and explorers from different countries and disciplines. Archaeologists, historians, epigraphers, geologists, geographers, photographers, and architects have all turned their attention to this site. However, the aim of this section is to present largely the archaeological work, but also some other research, which has occurred there during the last two centuries. Research in Petra can be divided into two phases: visitors to and documentation, and excavations. I.b.1. Visitors to and Documentation of the Site Exploration and recording of the secrets of Petra by several visitors is the first phase, which began with the first visit in 1812 by the Swiss explorer Johann Ludwig Burckhardt.182 Many visitors followed during the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. All concentrated on describing, drawing, and photographing the ruins. One of the most important of these visits was by the classical historian A. von Domaszewski and the orientalist R. Brünnow in 1897-8. They surveyed the site and published the three-volume Die Provincia Arabia (1904-1909), in which they recorded the rock-cut facades and divided them into seven types for the purposes of chronological and architectural analysis.183 This was followed by the visit of G. Dalman who explored the high places of worship and the necropolis between 1896 and 1907.184 Soon afterwards, R. Dussand, A. Jaussen, R. Savignac, and M. Dunand did the first comparative study, which links Petra culture with other sites. In 1907, Jaussen and Savignac explored the rock-cut monuments at Medain Saleh.185 This study not only gave a more accurate basis for the stylistic analysis of Nabataean rock architecture, but also the first real evidence for its chronology because the tombs at Medain Saleh have inscriptions. In 1910, H. Kohl documented the architectural details of the Qasr el-

The study of architectural styles shows how the diversity of the Nabataean contacts mentioned earlier is clearly visible in the different choices of architectural forms they used. On the one hand, the Nabataeans kept their connections with the East in the continued use of the crowsteps, which should be linked to the Parthian Mesopotamia. On the other hand, as the contact of Petra with the Ptolemies was strong, and not good with Antioch, the classical architecture at Petra is a reflection of Ptolemaic Alexandrian architecture rather than Seleucid (Fig.1.17). In freestanding buildings, there are strong oriental elements mixed with other influences from the Hellenised and Romanised East. Similarly, house design reflects late Hellenistic houses in the Near East. To sum up, the Nabataeans were influenced in the choice of Petra as their capital in the harsh desert by its site, which had a perennial water supply and was well protected. Moreover, this location was at the heart of important ancient trade routes, by which the Nabataeans not only brought luxury goods to the Mediterranean, but also brought many direct and indirect contacts (Fig.1.12). These factors together brought the Nabataean power into existence especially as a result of their control over the

181

‘Amr 1987: 3. Burckhardt 1822. 183 Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904, 3 Vols. 184 Dalman 1908; 1912. 185 Jaussen and Savignac 1909; 1914.

177

182

Kolb 2003: 232. 178 Schmid 2001: 374, 399; 2002b: Fig.1. 179 McKenzie 2001: 105. 180 McKenzie 1990: 117, Diagram 14.

26

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Bint.186 In 1916-17 W. Bachmann, C. Watzinger, and T. Wiegand investigated the freestanding monumental structures in the city centre under the Committee for the Preservation of Monuments of the German-Turkish Army.187 In 1925, with the help of the British Royal Air Force, the first aerial photographs were taken of the site, and Sir Alexander Kennedy took more photographs of the rock-cut facades.188 There have been numerous visits since then, but the focus of research has shifted to excavation.

city centre and the Temenos of the Qasr el-Bint, where a high marble faced podium was found.194 The striking result of his work is that “the earliest Nabataean buildings were simple houses built of wadi stones and clay and that these were replaced probably in the first century BC, by structures of ashlar masonry”.195 Along with Parr’s excavations, G.R.H. Wright undertook detailed architectural studies of the Qasr el-Bint and the Temenos Gate.196 Between 1962 and 1964 clearance work on the Qasr elBint by the Jordanian Department of Antiquities and the British School in Jerusalem revealed an important inscription, which indicated that the Qasr el-Bint was built before the end of the first century BC, probably during the reign of Obodas II (28-9 BC).197 In 1962, Philip Hammond, of the University of Utah, started excavation of the Main Theatre (Fig.5.3).198 Between 1968 and 1969 the Jordanian Department of Antiquities excavated part of the Baths, just south of the Temenos Gate, but unfortunately this excavation was not completed.199

I.b.2. Excavations The first organized archaeological excavations were begun at the site in 1929 under the supervision of G. Horsfield and A. Conway.189 They investigated the tombchambers, town rubbish dumps on the al-Katute ridge, some of the rock-cut houses and the city wall in order to throw light on the history of occupation in Petra. Sherds of imported Greek black-glazed pottery, which could be securely dated to c. 300 BC, and stamped amphora handles from Greece, were found.190 In 1933, the British School of Archaeology in Egypt sponsored excavations by M. Murray, J. Saunders, and J. Ellis, who continued the clearance of more rock-cut houses and tombs. They found a street of houses, partly rock-cut and partly freestanding. They also drew attention to evidence for architectural features, such as wooden doors and plastered walls, and levelled rock floors covered with beaten earth.191

In 1973, Philip Hammond started excavation of a major building on the north side of the Wadi Musa opposite the Temenos Gate. It had already been noted by earlier visitors who suggested that it was a gymnasium, but the excavations revealed the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.1.15). A complete dedicatory inscription was found in the adjoining naos dated to AD 27-28.200 This possibility suggests the date by which this temple was built, but this is not certain as the inscription was not found in situ.

In the nineteen-fifties, after the Second World War, scholarly attention once again turned to Petra. In 1954, the Department of Antiquities of Jordan started a programme of conservation and excavation. They started reconstructing the ancient dam at the entrance of the Siq to prevent the enormous damage caused by the flood waters each spring. This was followed by the first attempt at reconstructing of the ancient embankment wall alongside the southern bank of Wadi Musa in the city centre, particularly near to the Temenos Gate (Fig.1.15). From 1955-6, the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem started a series of archaeological excavations. Diana Kirkbride excavated the Colonnaded Street and a few of the shops bordering it,192 and dated the street to after the Roman annexation. After further excavations P. Parr dated it not before AD c. 76.193 Parr excavated the Temenos Gate, the Colonnaded Street where he discovered walls of buildings dating from the third century BC, and a domestic structure on al-Katute. In 1958, with C-M. Bennet of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, Parr began excavation of the

In 1973, the Department of Antiquities began a series of archaeological works under the direction of Fawzi Zayadine. This included clearance of some of the Siq and restoration of the main entrance and the southeast corner of the Qasr el-Bint with the help of the architect G.R.H. Wright. From 1979 until 1984 excavations were conducted near the road to the village of Wadi Musa (Fig.2.4), at the Zurrabah kilns.201 Zayadine restored some of the floor of the Siq, and parts of the Qasr el-Bint, and the Urn Tomb. In 1983/4 he dug inside the Qasr elBint and a full detailed architectural record of the temple was made by F. Larché.202 Moreover, during this period further excavation in the area of el-Katute was carried out in 1981 by Nabil Khairy of Jordan University, to gain an idea of Nabataean houses.203

194

Parr 1960: 124-35. Parr 1990: 16-17. 196 Wright 1961a: 8-37; 1961b: 124-35; 1970: 111-5; 1985: 321-6 197 Parr 1967/8: 5-19. 198 Hammond 1965. 199 Parr 1990: 16-17. 200 Hammond 1977/8: 81-101. For more details see his final field report 1996. 201 Zayadine 1974: 135-50; 1979: 185-97; 1981: 341-55; 1982: 356-95. 202 Zayadine 1985a: 239-49. 203 Khairy 1990: 3. 195

186

Kohl 1910. Wiegand et al. 1921. 188 Kennedy 1925. 189 Horsfield and Conway 1938: 1-42; 1939: 87-116; 1942: 105-204. 190 Horsfield and Conway 1942: 131-4. 191 Murray and Ellis 1940. 192 Kirkbride 1960: 117-22. 193 Parr 1990: 17. 187

27

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Other archaeological activities were also taking place in Petra in the nineteen-eighties. In 1981, Judith S. McKenzie began extensive fieldwork recording the rockcut facades and their detailed forms, and she made a comprehensive survey of the rock-cut plans of the main monuments in 1986.204 She suggested a new basis for the chronology of the monuments of Petra, both tombs and public freestanding buildings, based on the details of the architectural decoration, rather than previously used typological sequence.205 This involved using the dated tombs from Medain Saleh and the evidence from the excavations in Petra itself. However, McKenzie examined the architectural details of the non-classical facades (Pylon, Step, Proto-Hegr, and Hegr) and was unable to solve the problem of their chronology.206 Therefore, it is still difficult to date the non-classical ones with the current evidence.

This project concentrated on exposing several shops as an important part of the city centre.211 From 1998, L. Bedal undertook survey and excavation in the so-called Lower Market unexpectedly discovering a pool complex212 (Fig.1.15). This supports Strabo’s description of the interior of Petra “…the inside parts having springs in abundance, both for domestic purposes and for watering gardens”.213 Since 1999, a French mission directed by C. Augé has been carrying out new excavations in the Temenos of the Qasr el-Bint (Fig.6.38). Their aim is to explore the surrounding buildings and to further set the temple in its architectural and archaeological context.214 In 2000, S. Schmid215 started the excavations on the upper and lower terraces of the Wadi Farasa to find out the connection between the Roman Soldier Tomb and the opposite Triclinium. In 2000, S. Reid216(excavations directed by Martha Sharp-Joukowsky) started a season of surveying in the Small Temple, located between the Qasr el-Bint to the west and the “Great Temple” to the east (Fig.1.15). In 2001 she started the first full season of excavation. The aims of her field research were to establish the building’s historical development, function, and relationship to other structures in the centre of Petra. Both the excavations in the apse in the Temenos of the Qasr el-Bint and in the Small Temple have uncovered evidence of the Imperial Cult in Petra after the Roman conquest of Arabia in AD 106. This indicates that Petra was affluent into the second century AD.

In 1988 the Archaeological Institute of the University of Basel and the Swiss-Liechtenstein Foundation started excavations on the az-Zantur terraces above the “Great Temple” (Fig.1.15). These excavations, so far, show two architectural phases of houses: Nabataean and Roman.207 In 1993 the Brown University Centre for Old World Archaeology and Art under the direction of Martha Sharp-Joukowsky started to excavate the “Great Temple” (Fig.1.15), showing that this was the largest freestanding structure in Petra.208

With these discoveries, Bachmann’s plan was no longer adequate. For this reason, between 1999 and 2001, a new map was drawn by the Hashemite University of Jordan and the American Centre of Oriental Research217 at a scale of 1:500 (Fig.1.15). This map includes all the discoveries mentioned above, whilst still adding some interpretive details.218

In 1991, the American Centre of Oriental Research in Amman undertook the excavations of the main Petra Church (Fig.1.15), under the direction of Kenneth Russell, continued after his death by Pierre Bikai and Zbigniew Fiema.209 One of the most important discoveries was the burnt papyri in an adjoining room. In 1994, the American Centre of Oriental Research in Amman began the excavation of the Petra Blue Chapel (Fig.1.15) under the direction of Patricia Bikai.210 Both of these excavations show that a larger community survived in Petra into the Byzantine period than had previously been thought.

However, despite 75 years of excavation, only one percent of the city has been investigated. More excavations in the future will further interpret and evaluate what we have accomplished. From this survey one might classify the research mentioned above, according to their achievements, into three phases. In the first phase, which extends from 1812 to 1929, the aim of research was mostly to describe the rock-cut monuments and some of the freestanding ones. This record established a corpus of knowledge and typology of the tomb facades, which formed the basis for the next stage. In the second phase, which extends from 1929 to 1960, scholars aimed, by emphasising excavation, at finding the range of the occupational history of the site, particularly

In 1996, C. Kanellopoulos and Z. Fiema investigated the Colonnaded Street (Fig.1.15). This was followed between 1996 and 1998 by fieldwork for the Petra Roman Street project by the American Centre of Oriental Research. 204

There are c. 500 left to do. McKenzie 1987: 295-305 McKenzie 1990 J. McKenzie 2005, personal communication, 2005. 207 For the excavation reports see Stucky 1995: 193-98; Stucky et al. 1990: 249-84; 1991: 251-74; 1992: 175-92; 1994: 271-92; 1995: 297316; Kolb et al. 1993: 417-26; 1997: 231-55; 1998: 259-78; 1999: 26178; 2000: 355-72; 2002: 279-94; Bignasca et al. 1996; Schmid and Kolb 2000. 208 For the excavation reports see Joukowsky 1994: 293-333; 1996: 177207; 1997: 195-219; 1998b: 136-41; 1998c: 293-318; 1999: 195-222; 2000: 313-35; 2002: 331-5; 2003: 214-22; Joukowsky and Basile 2001: 43-58; Joukowsky and Schluntz 1995: 241-67. 209 Fiema et al. 2001. 210 Bikai 2002: 1-4. 205 206

211

Fiema 1998: 395-425; Kanellopoulos 2001: 9-22; 2002: 295-308. Bedal 2001: 23-41; 2002: 381-9. 213 Strabo 16.4.21. 214 Augé et al. 2002: 309-13. 215 Schmid 2000: 257-77. 216 Reid 2002: 363-79. 217 Kanellopoulos and Akasheh 2001: 5-7. 218 Detailed analysis of it in McKenzie 2004: Fig.3, with an updated plan provided by Kanellopoulos and Bikai. 212

28

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT when the Nabataeans exchanged their nomadic way of life for a sedentary one. The third phase of research, which extends from the 1970s to present, focused on the excavation of the monumental buildings in the city centre, and of houses as well as establishing their chronological development and that of the tomb facades. Some of the previously acquired data were incorporated in this research.

since most previous studies argue that the Nabataeans borrowed many elements from other civilisations in the region. Did they borrow the technique with the form? And how? It is also necessary to examine the origin of the techniques that the Nabataeans used for rock-cut monuments; from where did these techniques come? No similar tombs existed in the ancient world. How did they carve these monuments? What tools did they use? Did they have engineering plans and measured drawings for the facades before starting the carving? How did they reach the top of the monuments, such as el-Khazneh, and ed-Deir the height of which is almost 40 m? What procedures did they follow in carving these monuments from the beginning to the end? How and why did they mix rock-cut and freestanding building techniques?

However, none of the research mentioned above has been focused on the technical aspects of Nabataean architecture, although some studies have described briefly some technical details.219 I.c. Aims, Methods and Approaches I.c.1. Aims and Problems

I shall discuss and analyse these problems and examine the evidence collected in order to attempt to find answers to the questions raised and to clarify the construction techniques of the Nabataean freestanding buildings and rock-cut monuments in Petra.

Until now, no study has been made of the construction techniques of the freestanding buildings and the rock-cut monuments in Petra,220 comparable to the studies of their architectural style and designs. This is the main goal of this book, which will be developed along two lines. Firstly, it is necessary to collect and document the technical features of the construction of the rock-cut and the freestanding monuments in Petra during the Nabataean period. This covers the period from the first mention of the Nabataeans in 312 BC until the Roman annexation of Petra in AD 106. Secondly, it is aimed at determining precisely when and why these features appeared, and investigating the changes or differences detectable in the construction process and its organization as reflected in the development of new techniques.

I.c.2. Book Structure This dissertation is divided into six chapters. The present chapter, the introduction, has investigated the history of the Nabataeans and their contacts, and presented the previous scholarship on the site. Chapter 2 surveys the building materials used by the Nabataeans. This study is based on the results of excavations and my own fieldwork. The geology of the site is examined on the basis of recent Jordanian work on this subject. Chapter 3 includes a detailed discussion of quarrying and rockcutting techniques. It has four subsections covering: the typology and location of quarries, the techniques and tools, the carving techniques in the rock-cut monuments, and the transportation of quarried blocks. Chapter 4 presents the procedures for the dressing of the blocks and of the rock-cut facades, the measuring tools used by the builders, and lifting devices necessary to erect parts of some of the freestanding buildings. In Chapter 5, emphasis will be on studying the technical aspects of construction of walls, columns, and floors. In this discussion, anti-seismic and stabilising techniques are considered. These aspects will be compared with similar features at other Nabataean and Greco-Roman sites. In the last chapter the construction of roofs will be discussed in detail. This discussion includes the techniques used in arches, vaults, and domes, and roofs using a series of arches to support either stone slabs or wooden beams, and in flat and pitched roofs.

As part of the second aim, this research will explain how the Nabataeans changed and developed their architecture, and what types of construction techniques they used to bring Petra’s architecture to its peak. We have seen that the Nabataeans used the benefits of the city’s site to found a wealthy and powerful kingdom, but how far did the Nabataean architects use the benefits of the site in their architecture? Naturally, the form of their architecture indicates that the Nabataeans accepted aspects of Hellenism, and scholars have pointed out the Hellenistic influences on their architecture. Moreover, most scholars argue that the Nabataean architects borrowed some stylistic elements from a variety of sources, Roman, Phoenician, Assyrian, Egyptian, and perhaps even Indian. Therefore, this book, besides analysing the construction techniques used in Petra, needs to compare them with other places, in order to understand the impact of their techniques on those used in Petra. It will be useful to concentrate on the relationship between the transmission of form and techniques applied in Petra,

I.c.3. Sources of Data. As the Nabataeans did not produce any history of their own, we are largely restricted in our knowledge to archaeological evidence. Some of the evidence used here comes from published work but it mostly results from my

219

Hammond 1995: 215-21; Pflüger 995: 281-97; Shaer and Aslan 1997: 219-31; 2000: 89-109; Netzer 2003: 67-116 attempts to reconstruct the temples roofing arrangements. 220 Further work on the tombs of Hegra (Medain Saleh) is being done by a French team directed by L. Nehmé.

29

SHAHER M. RABABEH

own fieldwork, including photography and drawing. A variety of published material exists in the form of publications, excavation reports and papers. I have also had access to unpublished material. Analysis and comparative studies will be the instruments used for data evaluation as shown in the diagram (Fig.1.1). Clues that we have from one place can form a reasonable background for our attempts to understand what happened in another place. Taken together, these various sources of evidence reveal certain common elements and even common technical features. One of the aims is to gather together all the material and integrate it into single study. Clearly in the broad span of Nabataean history there have been important changes, but the whole subject needs to be examined closely by using archaeological excavation reports and considering the direct evidence, which can be found in the hundreds of rock-cut monuments and many freestanding buildings. Undoubtedly, Nabataean art and architecture of Petra as well as at other Nabataean sites, such as Medain Saleh and Khirbet et-Tannur, have provided us with certain lines of cultural influence. These will provide a considerable corpus of technical features, as well as an enormous corpus of excavation results. These materials may give us some clues about Nabataean construction techniques. It is hoped that the comparisons of the Nabataean technical features with those used in Greco-Roman sites will reveal aspects of interaction between the Nabataean and the Greco-Roman communities themselves. The parallels are from other Nabataean sites as well as from other Mediterranean sites where such techniques help to throw light on the history of those used in Petra. It is, thus possible by the use of comparison and analogy, to arrive at some sort of picture of Nabataean building techniques.

30

Chapter II Building Materials Romans imported granite and basalt from Egypt.5 Before discussing the stone used in the freestanding buildings and the rock-cut monuments in Petra, an interdisciplinary approach using the geological record will add a variety of new aspects to our understanding of the stone there. At Petra, as elsewhere, the materials used by builders were mainly determined by the geology, and without the results of this approach, it would be premature to describe the properties of the stone.

Building materials play a definite role in architecture and even in the style of buildings. In general terms, building technique is concerned with two things, the use of the available materials, and the technical solutions to the problems that were raised by the use of these materials in carrying out the designs of the architect. This chapter is concerned with the materials available to, and used by the Nabataeans at Petra during the period treated in this thesis. This is undertaken by surveying the different building materials found during previous excavations as well as those still in situ. The intention is to find out the sources of the building materials and to consider what the Nabataean builders used them for, and why.

II.a.1. Geology of Petra In this section I shall give a brief account of the geological aspects of the ancient city Petra. The study will concentrate on understanding the rock properties and its distribution over the area studied by checking the stratigraphy of the exposed rock. The geology of the site needs to be examined using recent Jordanian studies, such as those by Bender,6 and Abed,7 the recent geo-technical,8 and geo-archaeological studies9 and the maps, which were published by the NRA.10 Thus, the main aim of this study is to determine the engineering characteristics, physical and mechanical properties of the rock, so that later the monuments can be inserted into the geological context.

II.a. Stone As might be expected, it is expensive to carry stone for long distances; therefore, the type of stone available in a region has usually been used for building within that region. For example, in the alluvial plain of Iraq buildings have always been made of brick, because stone is not available locally. In Egypt, on the other hand, building stone is abundant; so it was used extensively by the ancient Egyptian builders.1 Similarly, building stone, chiefly limestone and marble, is abundant in Greece, and important buildings in the classical period were of one or other of these materials. Corinthian poros limestone was found especially in the northeast Peloponnese and Delphi. Therefore, then, most of the buildings there used poros. Marble was found at Mount Pentelicus in Athens, and the Pentalic stones were largely used in the Parthenon.2

The landscape of southwestern Jordan is a very attractive combination of valleys and broad plateaus and deep gorges. The physical setting of the whole area relates to the great Wadi-Araba-Jordan Rift (Fig.2.1a), which separates the western block of the West Bank from the Trans-Jordan Block in the east. The Rift runs from the Gulf of Aqaba for 200 km to the Dead Sea, at an angle of 15˚ east of north to the line between these two points. At the Dead Sea its direction changes due north to Lake Tiberias, for 160 km. The width of the rift ranges between 5 km and 20 km. It represents a small portion of the east African-North Syrian Fault, which measures about 6000 km.11 Therefore, the Wadi Araba, which links the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba,12 represents a part of the whole Rift Complex (Fig.2.1a). The rock complex of the pre-Cambrian basement and the overlying thick Cambrian sandstones at the eastern side of this portion

In Rome the most popular building stone was travertine, which was quarried near Tivoli. Other examples were tufa, peperino and stone quarried from Grotta Rossa, Palla, Fidenae and the Alban Hills.3 Marble was introduced into Roman buildings in the first century BC especially during the reign of Augustus. However, the availability of a specific kind of stone does not necessarily mean that only this stone will be used in constructing buildings in the area where it is found. Economic aspects, political factors, and stone properties may lead to the import of high quality material. Adam4 argues that the masons looked for certain mechanical and aesthetic qualities from stone, and this led the Romans not only to select local materials but also to import stone, sometimes over considerable distances. For example, the

5 Adam 1994: 267, Fig.265; Taylor 2003: 129; Galetti et al.: 167-179; Hill 1984: 105. 6 Bender 1974. 7 Abed 1982. 8 Jaser and Barjous 1992. 9 Pflüger 1995: 281-95. 10 Jaser and Barjous 1991; Barjous 1995. 11 Bender 1974: 121. 12 Bender 1974: 121 has called this portion south graben, and the north portion north graben. Most of the scholars used this type of name in their works.

1

Clarke and Engelbach 1930; Arnold 1991; Aston et al. 2000: 5-78; Lucas 1962: 50-74. 2 Korres 1995a, b. 3 Vitruvius 2.7. 1-5; see also Adam 1994: 21. 4 Adam 1994: 20.

31

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a

b Fig.2.1 The Structural Geology of the Wadi Araba and Petra. a. Wadi-Araba-Jordan Rift. Digital elevation (Paradise 1998: Fig.3.1). b. The topography of Petra. Digital elevation (Paradise 1998: Fig.3.2).

32

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.2.2 Geological cross section of Wadi Araba and Petra, showing the rock units exposed in Petra and the surroundings (Paradise 1998: Fig.3.5).

are mostly fractured into numerous blocks (Fig.2.2).13 This thick sandstone layer, is found between the preCambrian basement and the Calcareous deposits of the lower Cretaceous, called the “Upper Nubian Sandstones”.14

the south, and Jebel el-Meisarah and Jebel ad-Deir are in the north (Fig.2.4). The chronological sequence of the lithological units exposed in the city area and the surroundings is shown in the geological cross section (Fig.2.2). It consists mainly of three units: granite, sandstone, and limestone. The first unit is the lowest and crops out partly in the west of Petra in a form of porphyry granite. The second unit appears extensively in the mountains of Petra. Finally, the third unit appears on the top surface of Wadi Musa town east of the Visitors’ Centre. This formation is shown in the vertical geological section (Fig.2.3), and in the geological map (Fig.2.4). The lithostratigraphy used in the figures is that adopted by the Jordan 1:50,000 geological mapping projects in the NRA.15 I shall describe the formation of this vertical section (Fig.2.3) from base to top.

Petra is seated on the edge of the eastern side of this portion of the rift, where blocks are down-faulted along major fault systems. Faulting, jointing, and gentle stratigraphic dipping dominate the structural geology of the ancient city (see Fig.2.1b, 2). These two major faults, which dominate the topographical composition of the city, are the Wadi el-Mataha and Wadi Abu Olleqa faults (Fig.2.4). The two valleys extend from north to south and very close to each other in the city centre creating a semiflat area. This is where most of the freestanding monuments have been built (Fig.1.15). The Abu Olleqa valley runs downhill from Umm Sayhoon village in the north, forming the northern entrance to the city, and divides the city geographically into two parts, east and west. In the east lie two massive rocky mountains; elKhubtha in the northeast and Jebel al-Madhbah in the southeast (Fig.2.4). The steep-sided valley of the Siq, which is formed by extensive faulting and jointing, runs in a zigzag fashion from east to west, forming the eastern entrance to the city, and separates the two mountains. Wadi Musa becomes the Siq at the mouth of the Siq, known as Bab el-Siq (gate of the Siq) which is also at the dam to the west of the Obelisk Tomb and the Bab el-Siq Triclinium (Fig.2.4). From this point, Wadi el-Mudhalim runs to the north through Siq al-Barid, which ends at Wadi el-Mataha. The Siq runs to the west until it reaches the city centre. There, it intersects the two main faults and continues along Wadi es-Siyygh, which is considered the third entrance to the city from the Wadi Araba in the west. Wadi es-Siyygh divides the western area of Petra into two. Umm el-Biyara and el-Habis mountains are in 13 14

The first unit of the stratigraphy is al-Bayada Porphyry. It is a unit of the Ahaymir volcanic suite, which is a phase of the Araba complex. Al-Bayada rock is exposed west of the Wadi Abu Olleqa fault in the western part of Wadi esSiyyagh. The rock consists of phenocrysts of quartz and feldspar set in a matrix of cryptocrystalline quartz, feldspar, and chlorite.16 The rock of this unit has a pink to red colour and forms a massive homogeneous layer beneath the overlying sandstones. This steep hard igneous rock becomes a solid base upon which the Cambrian sandstone unit sits. The second unit in the main stratigraphy is the Ram group sandstones, which range from lower Cambrian to Ordovician. This unit is the most important and I will return to it in more detail after going through the main units. Above the Ram unit of sandstones the Kurnub sandstone forms the third main unit in the lithological sequence 15

Bender 1974: 40, 116. Bender 1974: 39.

16

33

Jaser and Bargous 1991: Map. Bender 1974: 110,118; Abed 1982: 33; Paradise 1998: 154.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.2.3 Generalized geological vertical section, showing the formation of the rock layers in Petra (Barjous and Jaser 1991: Map).

34

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT (Fig.2.3). It can be seen in the eastern part of Petra, and above part of the Disi stratum in the eastern part of the city. This unit consists of multicoloured (grey, yellow, pink, violet), medium-to-coarse, friable sandstone.

Some of the limestone layers appear to have been metamorphosed in a sealed system by the heat of the earth and the pressure caused by the weight of superimposed layers (II.a.4). The chief chemical component is still calcium carbonate as it is in limestone. Many of these are hard, compact limestones and can be seen in most of the limestone formations to the north, east, and south of Wadi Musa.

Some of the units mentioned and strata are covered with superficial deposits, such as the Pleistocene gravels in Wadi el-Mataha and Wadi Abu Olleqa, the debris layer over the ancient settlement in the urban centre, wadi sediments, and a small area of soil covering the southeast part of the Siq entrance. After analysing the geological formation within Petra, it is obvious that the dominant rock is sandstone. No limestone formation appears in the city area.

We will return to detail the second unit: the Ram group sandstones. This formation has been sub-divided into three members, from base to top: the Salib Arkosic (SB), the Umm Ishrin21 (IN), and the Disi sandstone (DI).22 The first member, The Salib Arkosic, forms the lower most part of the Ram sandstones, and as mentioned, overlies the Araba complex. It crops out in a belt across the area with a variable thickness, and forms steep strong cliffs. It ranges in thickness from zero to about 30 m, and is exposed in Wadi es-Siyyagh. The beds are characterised by yellow-brown, purple, and violet colours. This formation consists of a conglomerate23 of angular to wellrounded pebbles, and rhyolite rock fragments derived from the local volcanic rocks.

To the east of the Wadi Musa Visitors’ Centre the sandstone dips beneath the surface and above it various limestones of the Ajlun17 group appear (Fig.2.4). The Ajlun group starts to be exposed along faults parallel to the Dead Sea Rift. This group consists of a light grey, banded limestone, which overlies the Kurnub sandstone. One of these is the cap rock visible above Jebel ashShahar, which forms one part of the ash-Sherah18 mountains chain, which borders the east side of Wadi Musa town. The Ajlun group contains various other limestone layers that appear in the area surrounding Wadi Musa and extend in striplike shapes from south to north. Firstly, the Na’ur limestone (NL) ranges in thickness 6075 m, and consists of two massive carbonate layers up to 15 m thick, which comprise massive, nodular, light grey, brown dolomitic19 limestone. Secondly, the Fuhays/ Humar/ Shuayb (FHS) limestone which overlies the Na’ur (NL) formation ranges in thickness between 80110 m. It consists of grey green to pink red calcareous siltstone and marly limestone. Above this again, the Wadi as-Sir limestone (WSL) which is about 120 m in thickness, consists of massive, buff, grey dolomitic limestone. These layers crop out in the topmost part of the modern town of Wadi Musa (Fig.2.4). The grains are cemented together by a matrix consisting of carbonate of lime, called calcite, or a mixture of carbonate of lime, silica, alumina and magnesia. The Wadi Umm Ghudran chalk (WG) at the base of the Balqa group overlies the whole Ajlun group. It consists of massive bed of chalk with very thin beds of light brown, grey chart. Al-Hisa Phosphorite limestone (ASL) formation is above (WG) with a thickness of about 70 m thick. This layer is characterised by its hardness, dark grey colour, and is interbedded with dolomitic limestone.20

The second member of the Ram unit is the Umm Ishrin sandstone formation, which is spread over most parts of the Petra area, and led to its early description as “a rose red city, half as old as time”.24 It ranges in thickness between 300 to 350 m. The formation has been subdivided in the area into three layers,25 from base to top: the lower “Smooth” sandstone, the middle “Tear” sandstone, and the upper “Honeycomb” sandstone.26 The oldest member is the Smooth sandstone, which consists of mauve-white, medium- to coarse-grained hard, massive sandstone with scattered quartz pebbles, especially in the lower part of this layer. It shows smooth massive faces with fine horizontal bedding, which has given it its informal name. The middle layer is called Tear sandstone because water streaming down the rock faces has produced tears. This layer is characterised by its many colours: yellow, grey, reddish, brown, and mauve-red. It consists of medium- to fine-grained particles, which are well bedded, but friable. It is also composed of the ferruginous and manganiferous layers and cements. Oxides of iron have been deposited 21 Most of the geological names of formations are derived from known places in Jordan. The abbreviations used here are based on the geological map (Barjous 1995: Map). 22 Jaser and Bargous 1992: 6; Paradise 1998: 154. 23 Conglomerate is a type of rock made of small stones held together by dried clay. 24 The words of Dean Burgon’s prize sonnet “Petra”; Burgon was a 19th British cleric, see Lawlor 1974: 127-8, ftn.1. 25 Pflüger used this type of division (1995: 282). He called the lower esSiyyagh and Nabataeica sandstone, the middle temple sandstone, and the upper ed-Deir and el-Habis depending on the location of the monuments. But I prefer to use smooth, tear, and honey comb sandstones as Jaser and Bargous 1992 did since they are closer to the geological names, and easy to recognise according to their general characteristics in the facades of the cliffs in Petra. 26 Jaser and Bargous 1992: 29-35.

17 This name refers to a well-known geological formation, which appears around the city of Ajlun in the northern of Jordan. This city is famous as a source of high quality limestone. Now most of the new buildings in Jordan use this stone. Geologists call this formation the Ajlun formation. It extends from the north of Jordan to the south, decreasing from north to south, and appears at Wadi Musa town. 18 The name of these mountains is derived from the Nabataeans deity, their god Dusharah. 19 If magnesium carbonate and calcium carbonate are present in approximately equal proportions the rocks are called dolomites or dolomitic limestones. 20 Barjous 1995: Map.

35

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.2.4 Geological map for Petra and the surroundings, showing the formation of sandstone, limestone, the locations of the quarries, and the sources of clay.

36

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT dwelt in the stone, and Pflüger28 suggests that their use of the beauty of the rocks for sacred building was a natural way of worshipping. But others with different religions also used stone for sacred buildings, so this may not be a strong factor. However, it is expected that the Nabataean architects used the benefits of the availability of sandstone; they obtained whatever they needed of stone for architectural purposes and for monumental work.

from solution, and this influences the colour of the sandstone. Yellow silty sand and shale beds are interbedded within this member. This phenomenon has caused sliding of the blocks as the shale became soaked. This formation is often banded and sensitive to moisture changes; it may be affected by frost action in very exposed situations. Finally, the top layer in the Umm Ishrin formation is called Honeycomb sandstone because of its general character.27 It is characterised by white, yellow, and mauve-red colours. It consists of coarse- to medium-grained particles, forming a hard, massive sandstone. The high and steep natural rock faces as well as the carved faces indicate the considerable strength of this homogeneous sandstone.

Throughout Petra, the freestanding structures were built of sandstone. Walls, most of the floors, and column drums were all quarried from one or other of the Smooth, Tear, or the Honeycomb sandstones. The blocks used can be traced back to their stratigraphic origins through collaboration with other disciplines that specialise in chemical and geological materials. Pflüger29 carried out the first step by using a variety of petrological and sedimentary characteristics to trace the blocks of the Qasr el-Bint to the Smooth sandstone, except the orthostate blocks which he showed were extracted from Tear sandstone. Moreover, he showed that the flagstones of the procession road west of the Temenos Gate could also be traced back to the Tear sandstone.

Above the three layers of the Umm Ishrin formation is the Disi sandstone the third member of the Ram unit. Part of this formation is exposed to the east of Petra, forming the upper part of Jebel el-Khubtha, el- Mataha, the entrance of the Siq, the High Place of sacrifice, Zib Atuff ridge, the top of Umm el-Biyara, and the Visitors’ Centre area (shown in Fig.2.4). The visitor from the east of Wadi Musa can see this stratum clearly as capstone beds covering the areas mentioned. It is characterised by its massive rounded pale, grey-white colour, and is shaped like an elephant head. It consists of medium- to coarsegrained sandstone. The difference in colour between this layer and the one beneath, the Honeycomb sandstone is due to the fact that the latter contains the ferruginous and the former does not.

The rock-cut monuments and the quarries can more easily be assigned to a specific sandstone layer, since they are all were carved from the natural cliffs, which already have been studied by geologists and can be distinguished on the site. Figure 2.5 shows in detail the stratigraphic positions of the rock-cut monuments and the quarries. Judging from the geological maps, the lithostratigraphy, and site investigation, no rock-cut or freestanding monuments were derived from al-Bayada Porphyry member.

In conclusion, let us sum up the kinds of stone layers in and near Petra. Firstly, the Ahaymir Volcanic, which consists of the al-Bayda Porphyry member. Secondly, the Ram sandstone, which is the most important formation in Petra and consists of three members: the Salib Arkosic, Umm Ishrin, and Disi sandstones. The Umm Ishrin member, the dominator, is subdivided into Smooth, Tear, and Honeycomb sandstones. The Smooth and Honeycomb sandstones seem to be more resistant than the Tear sandstone, but all are characterised by a softness that allows very easy carving. Thirdly, above the Ram sandstone comes the Kurnub sandstone. To the east of Petra and to the west of Wadi Musa various limestone formations appear in shallow layers extending from south to north. Some layers of these formations appear to be marble.

The es-Siyygh east and most parts of the west quarries were carved in the Smooth sandstone and, as mentioned above, the normal wall-blocks of the Qasr el-Bint were brought from this layer. Most of the rock-cut monuments were carved in Tear sandstone. This layer, as mentioned earlier, is friable and so is easy to carve, but it is poorly cemented and so is likely to decay quickly. However, since the Tear sandstone is exposed on the side of the mountains, it would have been uneconomical and difficult to carve the monuments at a higher level or below ground. For this reason, all the rock-cut monuments, which face the outer Siq west of el-Khazneh and the city centre, were carved in this layer. The position of el-Khazneh in this layer is a controversial matter. Jaser and Barjous placed it in the Honeycomb sandstone.30 Pflüger31 placed it in the Tear sandstone, while Barjous32 placed it partly in the Tear and partly in the Honeycomb layer. All are partly right, but

II.a.2. Sandstone As has already been mentioned, sandstone was the most readily available construction material to hand for the Nabataean masons. The Smooth, Tear, Honeycomb, and Disi sandstone series surround the civic centre, which is the large main open area in the city (Fig.2.4). The Nabataeans believed that their highest deity Dhushara

28

Pflüger 1995: 286, 293. See also Khouri (forthcoming). Pflüger 1995: 288. 30 Jaser and Barjous 1991: Map. 31 Pflüger 1995: 282. 32 M. Barjous, personal communication, 2002. He did not make the decision based on measurements. 29

27 Pflüger 1995: 285 divided this layer into two parts, “Al-Habis” sandstone, yellowish and light coloured. The second part is “ad-Dayr” sandstone, a dark brown diffusion.

37

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.2.5 Geological section. Some of the rock-cut monuments and the primary quarries of Petra inserted into the geological section. (The section is adopted from Jaser and Barjous 1991: Map; Jaser and Bargous 1992; Pflüger 1995: 282).

38

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT none completely. By using the maps, section drawings, and site investigation, the location of el-Khazneh can be fixed in the cross section A.Á.Ä. in the NRA map.33 I found that the lower c. 10 m of el-Khazneh was carved in Tear sandstone, and the rest, c. 30 m height, was carved in Honeycomb sandstone.

Temenos Gate, which connected the Temenos Gate with the theatre area in the east. The western part of this pavement still exists. The second road is in the Siq. Both are still paved partly with rectangular limestone flagstones. It is probable that these two paved roads joined in the Outer Siq area, close to the Main Theatre. It is probable that due to the hardness of this limestone the Nabataeans also used it to pave uncovered floors, which were exposed directly to the effects of weather, or in places that required a high level of hardness.

The Honeycomb sandstone was also used for some rockcut monuments. In addition to the upper three quarters of el-Khazneh, ed-Deir was also carved in the lower part of this layer.34 Jaser and Barjous35 state that the “old Nabataean quarries” lie in this layer, but they did not give them a name, so it is not clear whether they meant the esSiyyagh or Umm Sayhoon or al-Turkmaniyah quarries. Pflüger36 showed that the es-Siyyagh quarries are in the Smooth layer. From geological maps and site investigation, Umm Sayhoon and al-Turkmaniyah quarries can be located in the Honeycomb layer. Moreover, the quarries located on the stepped path between the Street of Facades and the High Place can be inserted into this layer too.

The fine soft limestone was used for column bases, floral capitals, and rarely in walls and stairs. In the “Great Temple”, the bases of the columns in the Upper Temenos were made out of this type of stone38 (Figs.5.16a,17). Moreover, fine soft limestone was used for the ring bases of the columns recovered in Room 19 of az-Zantur (Fig.5.21b).39 The fine soft limestone was also used for the best architectural capitals. The floral Nabataean capitals of type A, characterised by good workmanship, were carved from it, while those of type B, characterized by cruder workmanship and less inventive designs, were carved in sandstone.40 The floral capitals of type A in the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.4.8a), and the floral capitals in the “Great Temple”, based on the Corinthian order, were also carved from fine soft limestone, as were thousands of other elaborate floral and vegetal elements from the “Great Temple”.41 The zoomorphic or elephant-headed Ionic capitals of the “Great Temple” (Fig.4.10), two similar capitals found in the late 1950s east of the monumental gate of the Temenos of the Qasr el-Bint42 (and now known to belong to the Lower Temenos columns) and many other fragments found in the Lower Temenos of the “Great Temple”, are all of this type of limestone.

Finally, the following rock-cut monuments are found in the Disi sandstone layer (as shown in Fig.2.5): the Djin blocks, the Obelisk Tomb and the Bab el-Siq Triclinium and the surrounding monuments, the Bab es-Siq, and Siq el-Barid monuments. So too are some of the quarries in the High Place. II.a.3. Limestone Limestone consists mainly of carbonate of lime. The grains are cemented together by a matrix consisting of carbonate of lime called calcite, or a mixture of carbonate of lime, silica, alumina and magnesia. This combination makes it hard, and due to this property, limestone has a greater strength and more resistance to erosion than sandstone. While surveying building materials in Petra,37 I found that the Nabataeans used three different types of limestone for different purposes. The first type is hard, crystalline white, with shell fragments like nail clippings. Because of its crystalline structure it is related to marble. The second type is a fine soft, yellowish white limestone. The third is a coarse white limestone. All types, as discussed previously, are not technically from Petra. However, before discussing their sources something should be mentioned about their uses.

The use of this fine soft limestone for walls or stairs so far seems very rare in the freestanding buildings, but one exception is the southern city wall. The wall courses were made of this type of stone, in contrast to the sandstone of the main building in the complex.43 In the second phase of the “Great Temple”, the two well constructed staircases, leading from the Lower Temenos to the forecourt were executed of fine soft limestone. So too is the well-built limestone staircase with six treads which leads down into the west exedra, and is probably late Roman or Byzantine in date.44

The first type was employed only in paving Petra’s two main roads. The first is the Colonnaded Street, east of the

Coarse white limestone was used in paving some courtyards, and in decorative architectural elements. Most

33

Jaser and Barjous 1991: Map. Jaser and Barjous 1991: Map; Pflüger 1995: 281. Jaser and Barjous 1992: 29. 36 Pflüger 1995: 282. 37 In order to differentiate between limestone and sandstone, I used vinegar (CH3COOH). This, being an acid, reacts with limestone (CaCO3) to produce a salt plus water and carbon dioxide (CO2). The latter being a gas can be seen bubbling off the surface of limestone. Sandstone is basically composed of silica (SiO2), which is very unreactive and shows no reaction to vinegar. 34

38

Joukowsky 1998a: Figs. 2.37; 5.41, 42. Kolb 2000: 356. 40 Lyttelton and Blagg 1990: 96. 41 Schluntz 1998a: 210; 1998b: 225. 42 Schluntz 1998b: 232. Blagg 1990: 131-137 suggested that the two zoomorphic capitals came from nearby buildings, perhaps the Temple of the Winged Lions. 43 Parr 1960: plate XVIA. 44 Basile 1998: 195, 203.

35

39

39

SHAHER M. RABABEH

examples of this belong to the second phase of the “Great Temple”. The extensive pavement of the Lower Temenos and the forecourt of the Upper Temenos were paved with hexagonal flagstones of this coarse limestone (Fig.5.28b; 6.60). In the southern portion of the west colonnade a reused platform was paved by slabs of the same limestone over a fill of sandstone column drums.45 Similar hexagonal pavements were discovered in the floors of Nabataean and Roman houses at az-Zantur, as well as rectangular flagstones.46 Another example is the landing that leads to the propylaea of the “Great Temple”, which was paved by well cut coarse limestone flagstones,47 whereas the curb of the Colonnaded Street was made of sandstone blocks. In addition to paving, the stylobates of the colonnades that surround the court of the Lower Temenos of the “Great Temple” were made of the same limestone. The coarse limestone was also used for decorative purposes, for example the bust of a god in a circle found in Wadi Musa now on the museum steps, the panels containing floral rosettes on the pilasters of the west face of the Temenos Gate, and the panels in the rock-cut façade of Tomb 452. Not being of sandstone, they are less weathered, and much better executed.48

Logically, the Wadi Musa area would have been the most probable site to provide the limestone, since its distance is not more than 4 km from the city centre of Petra and presumably this is from where the flood limestone came (Fig.2.4). For this reason, in the field trips to Petra I investigated this possibility by questioning the local people in Wadi Musa area and surveying the limestone layers in the surroundings. I found that in Wadi Zurrabeh (Ayn at-Tinah), 500 m to the east of the Visitors’ Centre along the main road, there is a possible source of the coarse limestone (Fig.2.4). The cliffs of this valley are stepped and many blocks of limestone have fallen (Fig.2.6). No tool-marks appear on the faces of the rock or the blocks. I could not identify a source for the hard and soft fine limestones, but since lumps of these are delivered by the annual flood it is certain that these limestone layers exist somewhere to the east of Petra in ash-Sherah mountains range.

There is no limestone in Petra’s rock formation; we have seen previously that it appears only in the area of the modern town of Wadi Musa, c. 4 km to the east of Petra (Fig.2.4). Pflüger49 suggested that before the Bab es-Siq dam was built, winter floods brought into the city lumps of limestone of a suitable size for paving slabs, and that the amount of limestone, which had been brought into the wadi since prehistoric times, would have been sufficient. While surveying in the wadi, I found that all three types of limestone mentioned are represented. However, although the use of limestone lumps brought by the annual flood as suggested by Pflüger would reduce the efforts of quarrying and transport, two problems arise. The first is that the annual flood carried the lumps from one place to another; as they came so they would have gone. Thus they would not have accumulated in the wadi. For this reason I suggest that the quantity of lumps present at any one time was not enough. It would probably take more than one year for them to pass through Petra. It is unlikely that the Nabataean builders waited for a number of years to collect enough material to complete their projects. The second problem is that the size of the lumps, c. 90 x 60 x 40 cm, is enough to cut slabs but not for column bases or capitals like the zoomorphic capitals of the “Great Temple” (Fig.4.10) or the floral capitals (the size is approximately 1.8 x 1.8 x 1.5 m) (Figs.4.8,9). In the absence of further evidence it may be agreed that this source possibly contributed to paving, but its product was sufficient neither in quantity nor in size to carve large capitals.

To sum up, the harder limestones was used as flagstones for paving exposed directly to the weather. The softer finer limestone was used as a suitable material to carve the floral capitals and other architectural decoration. The Nabataeans used the limestone only in sites exposed to the weather and with heavy use, or in situations which required accurate workmanship. But they used sandstone much more widely, because it was the most abundant local material. It seems that they even tried Tear sandstone for paving thoroughfares, such as the area west of the Temenos Gate, and for carving decorative elements, such as type B capitals. Yet, they found it unsuitable for these purposes and it decayed easily.

At present, the hard limestone with shell fragments like nail clippings is extracted from the modern quarries of Maan (40 km east of Petra, Fig.1.14). It is very likely that the Nabataean builders brought this type from Maan.

II.a.4. Marble Marble is a metamorphic rock, which has been metamorphosed from limestone by heat or pressure or a combination of both. It consists of aggregates of rectangular crystals of calcium carbonate, with traces of magnesium carbonate, silica, and iron oxide of iron. Many hard, compact limestones, which can be polished, are referred to in the trade as marbles.50 Masons consider stone that can be polished marble. But for geologists it must not only be crystalline but also be the result of metamorphism involving heat and pressure.51 Marbles are obtained in great variety of colours, some of which are richly patterned due to the presence of iron oxides. Others are rich in fossils, although these are not strictly marbles. Many types of marble are finely grained and can be elaborately carved.

45

Basile 1998: 198. Schmid and Kolb 2000. 47 Basile 1998: Figs.5.3, 4. 48 Lyttelton and Blagg 1990: 98. 49 Pflüger 1995: 290. 46

50 51

40

McKay 1970: 105. Zim and Shaffer 1957: 127, 134.

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. The stepped cliffs of the valley, looking north.

b. The stepped cliffs with one fallen block, looking northeast. Fig.2.6 Wadi Zurrabeh, possible sources for the coarse limestone.

41

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Marble slabs cover the floor of the naos of the Temple of the Winged Lions.

b. Marble slabs cover the floor of the naos of the Qasr el-Bint. Fig.2.7 Marble slabs.

Evidence for the local working of marble in Petra comes from the recent recovery of a marble workshop in the subterranean room in the Temple of the Winged Lions. Hammond52 reported one thousand pieces of marble in this room. In the cistern area of the “Great Temple”,53 similar pieces of marble slabs were recovered, and the 52 53

excavator suggests that the structure might have functioned as a store room for stone as it was stripped from the temple complex or other buildings nearby. The fragments found suggest that this marble was used for veneers, not for capitals. However, marbles are also preserved in use, as floor coverings, wall veneer, column bases, and stair treads.

Hammond 1987: 130-41; 1996: 50. Basile 1998: 200.

42

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Marble of various colours was used in the floors of some buildings. White and grey, light yellow, black with white or yellowish streaks, or brown-banded marble slabs covered both the cella floor and the altar platform of the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.2.7a). In the Qasr elBint, the rectangular marble slabs, which still lie in situ in the south east of the cella, provide evidence for this use (Fig.2.7b).

marble has recently been extracted from the vicinity of Karak, and it is possible that the marble used by the Nabataeans was extracted from Dhat Ras, except that found in the Small Temple (2nd c. AD). Reid62 suggests that this marble was imported, but does not mention from where. It includes the same colours with grey and white veins, as that produced from the Carrara quarries in northern Italy.63 It is still imported from there by Jordan and used in most of the opulent buildings in flooring or as wall veneer or even for stairs. Italian Carrara could have been transported to Petra via the Mediterranean Sea to Gaza and brought overland to Petra (Fig.1.12).

Marble was most widely employed as veneer. In the 1959 excavation of the Qasr el-Bint, trenches at the northeast exterior of the Qasr, showed that the building originally stood on a podium over 2 m in height, and had been faced with marble veneer, one slab of which was still in situ.54 In the Small Temple the interior walls were certainly covered with marble slabs, and two slabs still cover its northeast corner (Fig.2.8b). The huge number of marble fragments, 4669, shows the extensive use of marble. A similar use of veneer was probably made in the Temple of the Winged Lions, in the front of the south wall of the cella. The evidence for this is a number of plug holes, which were probably used in fixing marble veneer (Fig.5.4a).55 Similar holes were discovered in the interior wall of the Main Theatre (Fig.2.8a).56

To summarise, it appears that marble was introduced into the Nabataean buildings for high status paving, wall veneer, some stairs, and rarely for column bases and capitals. It might be suggested that the intensive use of the marble in the Small Temple may have been a clue to trading activity of the Nabataeans.64 Imported marble was also used for sculpture including statues of the gods, such as Herakles (Hercules) with his lion skin, and a naked torso of Aphrodite (Venus) found in the Main Theatre.65 II.a.5. Granite Granite is a crystalline granular rock which varies in colour and texture. Its colour and texture are influenced mainly by the feldspar crystals. Granite is extremely hard, durable and strong, and capable of taking a high polish. The Egyptians were the first to quarry granite since the beginning of the Old Kingdom. The Mesopotamians and the Greeks did not use granite for their monuments or works of art.66 Although granite is difficult to work and expensive, it was used in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt67 for plinths, columns, capitals, bases and for statues.

Only one marble capital (normal Corinthian) has been found at Petra.57 The lack of further examples might reflect few examples or possibility that they were burnt for lime. Carving column bases from marble was rare in Petra; usually soft fine limestone was used. But there is a unique example of using marble for bases on the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.5.20), where bases were carved in at least two separate pieces (see V.b.1). The colours of these bases range from banded beige, banded brown, and black with white band.58

The only example of the use of granite at Petra are the four columns (each consisting of three drums; not monolithic) found in the Blue Chapel Church on the north side of the city centre, above the Petra Church. Bikai states that this is “a building originally constructed in the Nabataean period and was converted to a church”, and “the columns were reused from a Nabataean monument.”68 Bikai suggested that these blue granite columns were imported from Egypt,69 probably from Mount Claudianus.70 However, Kozani granite (from the

Marble was also used in stair treads. The first discovery of this was in the steps of the Qasr el-Bint, which were added at a later stage of construction, and some fragments of which are still in position.59 The source of marble has not been investigated yet. Hammond60 claimed that the source of the marble was in the vicinity of Maan, c. 40 km east of Petra (Fig.1.14). However, although as mentioned earlier, today Maan is still an important source of building stone, it is not a source of marble. Hammond61 also cited a report by Dought, in which he suggests that a white marble quarry near Dhat Ras, near al-Karak approximately 100 km north of Petra, may have been the source. A type of

62

Reid 2002: 366-8. Walker 1988: 187-95; Dean 1988: 315-23; Fischer 1998: 40-1; WardPerkins 1992: 23 states that “these quarries were probably worked from not long after the foundation of the colony in 177 BC, and large-scale exploitation and export did not begin until the first century BC”. 64 Fischer 1988: 161-70; 1998: 67. The results of scientific analysis showing that the Small Temple included a number of imported marbles are presented in Reid’s thesis which is currently being prepared for publication, McKenzie 2005: personal communication. 65 McKenzie 2003: 169, Fig. 173. 66 Galetti et al. 1992: 167. 67 Coulton 1977: 140-1; McKenzie 2003a: 46, 53; Galetti et al. 1992: 167; Adam 1994: 267, Fig.5; DeLain 1997: 120; Taylor 2003: 118, 129. 68 Bikai 2002: 1-2. 69 Bikai 2002: 2. 70 Galetti et al. 1992: 167, Fig.3; Peacock 1988: 97-101. 63

54

Parr 1960: Plates XXXIIIA, B. Hammond 1996: 55. 56 Hammond 1965: Plate XXII 3. 57 McKenzie 1990: 95, Pl. 39c. 58 Hammond 1996: Plates 9.2; 10.1; 13. 2-3. 59 Wright 1961a: 20. 60 Hammond 1995: 45. 61 Hammond 1996: 38. 55

43

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Plug holes, possibly for marble slabs facing the front wall of the theatre.

b. Marble slabs cover the walls of the Small Temple, northeast corner. Fig.2.8 Coating walls with marble slabs.

Troad, northwest Turkey) is very similar to Mount Claudianus granite and was not under imperial control.71 Kozani granite could have been transported from any of the Levant ports, overland to Petra. Mount Claudianus granite could have been transported to Petra via the Nile, Arsinoe, overland to Petra, or overland to Red Sea, 71

Aqaba and then Petra (Fig.1.13). Pink/ Red Granite from Aswan in Egypt was also used in other cities in the area (2nd -3rd c. AD), for example Gerasa, Palmyra, Baalbek, and Hippos-Sussita.72

72 Segal et al. 2003: Figs.28,29,39,40. For Aswan Quarries see Peacock 2000: 430-32.

Galetti et al. 1992: 167, Fig.3.

44

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT tree trunks as a roofing system in the Nabataean and Late Roman houses at az-Zantur (Fig.6.28e).

II.b. Wood The uses of wood as a building material are well known. Roofs, columns, doors, door frames, staircases, and decorative work are all known uses of wood. Wood was certainly a very valuable structural material, but in comparison with masonry little of it has survived, because wood is much more perishable than stone, and direct evidence is not easy to obtain. In Petra, as mentioned in section I.a.1.1, trees are rare,73 so wood was probably taken away when a building fill into disuse, and reused. Nevertheless, traces are sometimes left. Holes may appear in masonry, charcoal may testify to the fact of wood having been used, and occasionally pieces of the actual wood itself may remain. In Nabataean freestanding buildings and rock-cut monuments, part of it can still be seen in situ.

Other situations in which wood was used can be suggested, namely as scaffolding. Browning79 suggested that wooden scaffolding was used in carving el-Khazneh. Moreover, Pflüger80 suggested that wooden scaffolding was perhaps used in quarrying. These suggestions will be discussed briefly in section III.b.2. There is also the likelihood that wooden wedges were used in stone extraction, which will be discussed in detail in section III.b.1. Furthermore, it is probable that frames of wood would have been needed to build arches or vaults. Their use is evidenced by the square holes in the springing course of the arches in the Urn Tomb (Fig.5.32b). Another example of the use of wood is in the Palace Tomb vault, where wooden beams are laid lengthwise and cross-wise along the top of the vault (Fig.6.17b). It can be suggested that this device was used to distribute the load to either side of the vault. The final example use of wood is as dowels. For example, a wooden plug to hold the plaster coating and cornices was found in the Triclinium of the Tomb of the Roman Soldier,81 and wooden dowels were used in the cavity walls in the Qasr el-Bint.82 Wooden plugs were probably also used for attaching veneers.

One use for wood was to give tensile reinforcement to freestanding buildings and to provide them with earthquake protection. Here I shall show for what the Nabataeans used wood and in chapter IV I shall analyse this technique structurally. The incorporation of wood into walls can still be seen in the Qasr el-Bint. Courses of wood run along the length of the walls and around vulnerable corners (see Figs.6.41b; 42a; 43a). Adjoining the Temple of the Winged Lions there are timber-filled cavities below the springing of arches in the southeast complex, the “Liwan” area (Fig.5.35).74 In the “Great Temple”, the reconstructed parts of the exterior wall contain a wooden course similar to that of the Qasr elBint (Fig.5.31). Wood is also used in the arches below the Urn Tomb (Fig.5.32).

These examples show that the Nabataeans used wood in their monuments in various situations. The area has suffered from progressive deforestation except for some Juniper and olive trees. As mentioned in section I.a.1, these can only provide short trunks (less than 4 m), which are not suitable to span large structures like the Qasr elBint with a c. 9 m span, or the Temple of the Winged Lions, c. 10.8 m span, or even the “Great Temple”, c. 16.8 m span. Thus, the question of the source of the wood used arises. Meiggs83 reports that Palestine and Jordan were not the treeless lands of recent times. The oaks of Bashan, between Gilead and Mt. Hermon, were famous and pine grew well. The mountains of Ajlun and Gerasa in northern Jordan, and the Carmel Mountains in Palestine are part of the area described by Meiggs, and still have trees. Most of the trees, which grow there now, however, are small trees of oak, olive, bushes, and some pine. Therefore, it would be logical to investigate further possible sources of suitable timber.

A second use for wood is to span roofs, as will be detailed in chapter 6. Wooden beams ran north-south on the level of the roof of the cella of the Qasr el-Bint.75 This is evidenced by the sockets, which pierced the inner layer of the rear wall. In the Temple of the Winged Lions, some wooden fragments have been recovered, but not enough to suggest extensive use and, therefore, Hammond suggested that wooden beams might not have been used in roofing it. But he argued also, from the ash deposit found, that the wood might have been reused for firewood.76 The use of bundles of reeds can also be considered here. Bundles of reeds wrapped with string served as the supports for plastered ceilings in the Temple of the Winged Lions. A large section of ceiling was found in the metal workshop with the impression of the stringwrapped reeds and a few specimens of the actual reeds.77 Similarly, Kolb78 has proposed the use of reeds laid over

The countries of the Mediterranean have suffered from progressive deforestation over centuries. The timber used in the string courses on the Qasr el-Bint was cedar.84 The Cedars of Lebanon were the most important wood resource of the eastern Mediterranean lands. These trees still exist, and the literary sources prove the availability

73 The same can be applied to the Negev, which lacks trees of any size suitable for construction and roofing, see Negev 1986: 49. 74 Hammond 1996: Plate 31. 2. 75 E.g. Wright 1961a: 11. 76 Hammond 1996: 30. 77 Hammond 1996: 37. 78 Schmid and Kolb 2000: Fig.53.

79

Browning 1973: 50. Pflüger 1995: 292. Zayadine 1987: 132. 82 Wright 1961a: 25. 83 Meiggs 1982: 61. 84 Identified by Peter Cuniholm from sample in possession of P. Parr. J. McKenzie, personal communication, 2003. 80 81

45

SHAHER M. RABABEH

of the cedars in Lebanon in antiquity. In the Old Testament Ezekiel reports “Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and an high stature; and his top was among of thick boughs”.85 Moreover, Diodorus Siculus86 describes the building of a large fleet in 31 BC by Antigonus in Phoenicia saying that the Lebanon forest is full of cedar and cypress timbers of extra beauty and size. In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, papyri show clearly that wood was scarce in Egypt. The extreme dryness of the climate had always limited the size of trees that could survive. The great bulk of Egypt’s timber imports will have come from Phoenician ports, particularly Byblos. The cedars of Lebanon may have been used for Baalbek Temple, and the Temple at Jerusalem built by Herodes Agrippa II, AD 50-68.87 Since the cedars of Lebanon were the most available building timbers in the ancient Near East, it is reasonable to assume that the Nabataeans also imported the wood they needed from Lebanon. This is also suggested by the large quantity of cypress and pine beams which was found in Mampsis.88

Copper or bronze fixtures were used to fix marble veneer panels to the walls of the Temple of the Winged Lions, the Main Theatre,93 the Qasr el-Bint,94 and the Small Temple (Fig.2.9).95 Large iron nails were used to secure plaster coatings in most of the freestanding buildings, as well as in the rock-cut monuments.96 For example, in the interior walls of the Temple of the Winged Lions large iron nails were placed between the courses of ashlars as ties to fix plaster onto the walls. Iron spikes and nails were used to secure the wooden course that was used as earthquake protection between courses of ashlars. This type of fixing was found in the Temple of the Winged Lions,97 and in the Qasr el-Bint.98 Moreover, this was possibly used in the “Great Temple”, and in the exterior arches of the Urn Tomb. But this is not certain, since these buildings have been restored.

II.c. Metals Metals served a variety of purposes in early buildings. The Greeks used iron in forming hooks, lifting tongs, and for many kinds of clamps, dowels, fixings and fittings. They also occasionally used iron as a structural material, for example as cantilevers to support the heaviest statues in the pediment of the Parthenon.89 Strabo90 tells us that the Nabataeans produced gold and silver, but bronze and iron were imported. Under Seti I and Ramses III, mining expeditions were dispatched into the Arabah to develop the mineral resources. The actual mines opened by Ramses III were described in the famous Harris I papyrus.91 The Wadi Arabah is liberally dotted with ancient copper slag heaps denoting extensive mining and working of the metal. The Khirbet Nahas site in particular was a great copper mining and smelting complex dating from well before Solomon. The riches of the Arabah were originally as much the cause of the Edomite/ Judean wars as a device to control the trade routes. Excavations have revealed iron, bronze, copper, lead, gold, and silver in different sites in Petra. The present intention is to reveal the role of metals used architecturally in Nabataean buildings.92

Fig.2.9 Metal fixtures found in the theatre scaena. Bronze and iron fixtures (Hammond 1965: Pls. XLIV, XLV).

85

Ezekiel 31: 3 Diodorus Siculus 19. 58. 3; Fischer 1998: 35. Meiggs 1982: 57, 62, 84. 88 Negev 1988a: 117, photo 78. 89 Dinsmoor 1975: 174-75. For other uses see Coulton 1977: Figs.65, 67. 90 Strabo 16.4.26. 91 Browning 1973: 16. 92 The use of metals in manufacturing coins, jewellery, and figurines is outside the scope of this discussion. 86 87

93

Hammond 2000: 146. Wright 1960: 20. 95 Reid 2002: 367. 96 Zayadine 1987. 97 Hammond 2000: 14. 98 Wright 1960: 25; Ward-Perkins 1981: 334. 94

46

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Metal hooks of either iron or lead were also found. Twisted lead hooks were found near the altar platform in the Temple of the Winged Lions. Hammond99 suggested that probably these hooks were used to hold a curtain used to veil the cult image. Iron hooks and rods in different shapes were discovered in various locations in the Temple of the Winged Lions. They appeared to be devices for hanging objects. Connected rings, or chains, were also found and probably used either to serve as animal harnesses or to secure loads on them. Lifting tongs of iron possibly were attached to ropes to lift loads using pulleys, as will be discussed in chapter IV.d. The evidence for this is based on the presence of the holes in column drums and the descriptions of Vitruvius.100

are the property of craftsman and not the workshop owner. However, further excavations may reveal clues regarding stone working tools. Studying the parallels in Egypt, Greece and Rome aids the identification of the tools used, as we will see in chapters III and IV. To sum up, the use of metals was restricted to fixtures, fittings, hooks, and rods. No evidence has been found to indicate their use between wall blocks, as clamps. This may be because sandstone was not suitable for this as will be discussed below. II.d. Other Materials In this section I shall cover the other materials namely mortar, plaster, concrete, and clay. Most of these materials will be considered later in chapters V and VI. For the time being, it will be helpful to identify the components of these materials and their availability in Petra and its surroundings.

Hammond101 notes a cut socket, grooves and rust marks visible on the marble paving slabs next to the western stairway of the altar platform of the Temple of the Winged Lions. He suggests that iron gates fenced off the stairs to the altar platform. Other recognisable examples of metal from the temple are a door lock in the shape of a box with four sets of cross bolts, various key fragments and a number of door-latches.102 In the “Great Temple” quantities of iron were found around the cavities on the threshold of the walkway entry between the stage platform and the orchestra of the second phase. Joukowsky103 suggests that the cavities probably contained a metal frame, which supported a gate by means of metal fittings. Moreover, two examples of the use of bronze and lead, which still exist in situ, are found in the “Great Temple”. The first is the drain fittings in the Lower Temenos, which consists of hexagonal bronze plates. The second is the lead pipe, which was discovered in front of the east-west retaining wall in the curb.104

II.d.1 Mortar, Plaster, and Concrete Mortar is a mixture of cement with a base of gypsum or lime. Quick lime is obtained by the calcination of limestone at high temperature, which is then mixed with water to give slaked lime.107 Heating limestone to produce quick lime can be shown chemically in this reaction: CaCO3 (Heat) --------- CaO + CO2 And combining it with water to make slaked lime: CaO + H2O-------------Ca (OH)2 This (Calcium hydroxide) can be added to sand with water to get mortar or plaster paste. The first use of mortar to bond stones was in the third millennium BC in Egypt, and the first plaster was used in the sixth millennium BC in Catal Hüyük.108 The Greeks were familiar with lime, but they used it essentially for “stucco”, painted rendering and the lining of cisterns. Dry masonry was normal in Greek buildings. They employed wooden, lead, iron, or bronze clamps for bonding blocks of stone instead of mortar.109 The technique of using mortar was not introduced until the Hellenistic period, as at Dura-Europos. In the Roman period, the use of lime for the manufacture of mortar to bond rubble masonry was very common.

The most important architectural use of metals was for stone working tools; they must certainly have been used in quarrying, carving the monuments, and block preparation. But, as will be shown in chapters III and IV, so far only two iron tools have been discovered in Petra (Figs.3.14; 4.4). The local Bedouin, the Bedoul,105 believe that a large quantity of stone tools exist hidden in a large cave on Jebel Haroun. Although this story is not true, it is mentioned here to draw attention to the absence of stone-workers’ tools from the corpus of excavated artefacts. Hammond106 assumed that this was because the masons owned their own tools and took them from job to job. This assumption is plausible because nowadays tools

In Petra, the production of mortar, concrete, and plaster was probably a local industry. Available materials like gypsum and limestone in the area were adequate to supply those needs, and kilns for lime burning have been found.110 No examples have been noted of dry masonry cramped in the Greek manner, and setting the blocks on mortar was normal.

99

Hammond 1996: 33. Vitruvius 10.2.2; see also Hammond 1996: 40. 101 Hammond 1996: 31. 102 Hammond 2000: 146. 103 Joukowsky 1998a: 121. 104 Basile 1998: Fig. 5.23. 105 The Bedoul tribe lived in the caves of Petra in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries until 1986. Nowadays, most of the restoration teams working in Petra use the skills of the Bedoul in restoration work, for example in carving the floral relief of the Temenos Gate and some of the structural details of the “Great Temple”. Basic reading about the Bedoul see McKenzie 1991: 139-46 106 Hammond 1996: 80 100

107

Vitruvius 5. 5-9; Lucas 1962: 75-80. Adam 1994: 65. Dinsmoor 1975: Fig. 64. 110 Hammond 1996: 24. 108 109

47

SHAHER M. RABABEH

of the west exedra in the “Great temple”.121 Fragments of ceramic drain pipes have been found in the Temple of the Winged Lions. Hammond122 suggested that these pipes served for the roof. In addition, ceramic pipes brought water along the Siq to the city centre.

Resistance to weathering is highly variable between the sandstone types. But in general their resistance to weathering was low and for this reason it is likely that most of the facades of the freestanding buildings and the rock-cut monuments were plastered. It has been suggested that the extensive use of plaster for covering the stone ashlars was a characteristic of the early Imperial period.111 Similar examples existed in Pompeii.112 Therefore, this functional need may be added to our general understanding of the use of plaster. However, this technique will be covered in chapter V.a.4 in my discussion of built walls and coatings on monuments.

Pflüger123 doubts whether there was enough local clay for building use in Petra. He considers that the clay source, which was found by Zayadine124 in Ain at-Tinah125 in Wadi Musa near the road to Umm Sayhoon (Fig.2.4), was probably only just sufficient to manufacture pottery. Moreover, the sandstone provides only a few hard clayey silt bands, which are unsuitable for the production of roof tiles. He therefore proposed that the Nabataeans brought clay from the Wadi Araba or some place higher up the ash-Sherah mountains. However, I suggest that the area of vegetation in Wadi Musa town and to the east of it might have provided clay, since the area is rich in clay and closer to Petra than the ash-Sherah mountains or the Wadi Arabah. A search for clay sources has been done by ‘Amr,126 who recognised six localities with clay deposits in the region of Petra namely: the Zurrabah, Ain at-Tinah, Asem, al-Moalaq, Ain Musa, and the area near Tawilan. She concluded that Ain at-Tinah (Fig.2.4) is the most probable source from which the Nabataeans obtained their clay.

Mortar is also observed between some ashlar blocks on the outer surface of some walls. It also appears in the central sections of walls, which are filled with rubble held together by cement.113 Mortar was also found under slabs to bond to the floor in the platform of the Temple of the Winged Lions.114 Traces of mortar can still be seen in the floor of the Small Temple. It is certain that concrete (mortar with an aggregate of small stones) was known to the Nabataeans. Concrete mixed with Nabataean sherds was used as filler for the pendentives of the vaulting of the vomitoria passages on the theatre.115 Hydraulic concrete was also used for lining the reservoirs, as in the reservoir of Umm el-Biyara, and the container in front of the Tomb of the Broken Pediment.116 A further use of concrete was to form a thin layer above the slabs covering loculi in some of the later tombs.117

To conclude, this survey of the materials used in Nabataean buildings suggests that the local materials were used in preference to those from further a field. Thus, the builders avoided consuming their economic resources, while also minimising labour, time, and transport costs. This was especially true for residential buildings. However, in public buildings, we can occasionally see a variety of imported materials in use such as wood, granite, and marble. These were brought to Petra by means of the Nabataeans’ extensive trade network. It seems that the private buildings were funded by their owners, while public buildings were paid for by the local authority, who wanted to display its wealth and power. However, by far the largest volume of building material used was sandstone. The rock-cut monuments were carved in Smooth, Honeycomb, Tear, and Disi sandstone layers, and these layers were also used to provide blocks for freestanding buildings.

II.d.2 Clay Clay was an essential building material in regions where vegetation or stone were scarce. It could be used unbaked as mudbricks or it could be baked. In Mesopotamia, as mentioned, clay was baked to form bricks. In the Greek and Roman periods, tiles and roof decoration used baked clay. In Petra, excavations show clear evidence for the use of baked clay as a building material, with roof tiles discovered in the Temple of the Winged Lions,118 the Qasr el-Bint, the Small Temple, and in the “Great Temple”.119 Another use for baked clay was in the manufacture of drain pipes.120 Ceramic pipes were discovered leading away from the platform to the cistern, and under the floor 111

Ward-Perkins 1981: 324; McKenzie 1990: 117; Adam 1994: 225. Adam 1994: 217. 113 Hammond 1996: 24-5; McKenzie 1990: 139. 114 Hammond 1996: 33, 37. 115 Hammond 1965: 28, 29, 31-32; McKenzie 1990: 144. 116 McKenzie 1990: 109, 158. 117 McKenzie 1990: 114. 118 Hammond 1996: 35. 119 Basile 1998: 201. 120 Negev 1986: 49 states that “although the plain of Negev are rich in brick making materials, the Nabataeans never restored to bricks except in making the hypocausts in bath houses”. 112

121

Joukowsky 1998b: 87. Hammond 1996: 36. 123 Pflüger 1995: 284. 124 Zayadine 1986: 200. 125 Ain at-Tinah means the spring of clay. 126 Mason and ‘Amr 1990: 287-307, Fig. 1; ‘Amr et al. 1999: 175-94. 122

48

Chapter III Quarries and Quarrying in Petra Quarrying is an integral part of the processes of stonemasonry.1 Stone blocks with specific dimensions are the chief product of quarries. Egypt played a major role in the development of quarrying techniques since the second Dynasty.2 The quarrying techniques, which originated in Egypt, consisted of isolating blocks from the parent rock by cutting narrow trenches around them.3 It is generally agreed, that the basic principles of quarrying remained virtually unchanged from Early Dynastic times throughout the classical period.4 But the ways of splitting off the blocks show much greater variation.5 From Egypt these techniques must have spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean, including in the Aegean. Besides Egypt, the neo-Hittite empire of the northern Levant may have passed some quarrying techniques on to the Greeks in the Archaic period. The blocks quarried there were not only used for building, but also for sculptures.6

III.a. Typology and Location As might be expected, quarries in Petra are spread widely in the sandstone mountains. The Nabataean quarries were opened in every area of the city, but there were certainly different factors which played a decisive role in choosing quarry sites. Some of these factors were: the distance from the building, the geomorphology and geological settings, the effect of landscape, the purpose of opening any particular quarry, as well as the quality and the dimension of the blocks required. These factors will be discussed in detail in this chapter. Based on the factors mentioned above, in particular the reason for opening a quarry, I suggest that Petra’s quarries can be classified into three types: primary, levelling, and tomb quarries. III.a.1. Primary Quarries Primary quarries were excavated in the hillsides mainly to produce blocks of sandstone. Quarries of this type have survived in some areas of the city, giving clear evidence for them. Although sandstone’s resistance to weathering is low, the traces of the extraction are very well preserved. Fortunately, it appears that these quarries were in use only in antiquity, since no later buildings using the same stone have been found. Moreover, there is no sign of the use of either explosives or mechanical drills indicating that they have not been used in modern times. This degree of preservation allows us to recognise the extraction techniques used and to estimate the total volume of the blocks extracted from some quarries. It is worth mentioning that some stone is always wasted in the process of quarrying, shaping and dressing. The waste should be taken into account by calculating the volume of the trenches. In addition to this there would have been blocks damaged during the process of preparing and transporting the blocks. This could partly have been due to the variable quality of stone. Using my own experience as an architect, I suggest that the wastage would be around 30 percent. However, this wastage was probably used as fill in buildings and street foundations.

In Petra, although the city has been explored and archaeologically surveyed, the quarries have not been studied adequately. None of the studies mentioning them7 shed light in great detail on quarries. Up to the present not all the sandstone quarries have been located. In this chapter, an attempt is made to present the places where stone was exploited for the purpose of construction. The careful recording and analysis of the technological aspects of the quarries is the primary aim of this chapter. This will include the documentation of the quarry features namely: their typology, and location in relation to the city centre. This chapter also aims to record the traces of extraction which can still be seen, then examine the quarry faces in order to show the methods of extraction used. This will include the kinds of tools, and methods of scaffolding used in carving vertical surfaces. The last section will focus on discussing the positions of the quarries and how this effected both transportation and landscape.

It would be hard to think of a more diverse range of disciplines involved in dating the quarries, whose interrelation and interaction is enormously fruitful. As mentioned in section II.a.2, chemical research using microscopic examination, petrological analysis, mineralogy and other forms of chemical rock analysis can tell us from which particular spot a given lump of rock was taken.8 In addition, during my fieldwork I observed that it became easy to distinguish between different sources of rock when they were wet. The colours of the

1 The natural work of craftsmanship in masonry work differs from stage to stage. For this reason, I have divided the masons into three main groups according to their activity and role in stone carving using the terms: quarrymen, stone cutters, and sculptors. 2 Bibliography for ancient quarrying given in Coulton 1977: 45; Dworkowska 1983: 10; White 1984: 78; Waelkens et al. 1988: 81-117; Waelkens et al. 1988a: 12; Waelkens et al. 1990: 47-67; Waelkens 1992: 5-21; Ward-Perkins 1992: 13-21; Chiotis and Papadimitriou 1995: 7; Aston et al. 2000: 5-78; Lucas 1962: 50-74. 3 Adam 1994 23; Arnold 1991: 31, Figs. 3,4; Clarke and Engelbach 1930: 18-9; Waelkens et al. 1990: 48, 50. 4 Ward-Perkins 1992: 17, 23. 5 Waelkens 1990: 60. 6 Waelkens 1990: 53-4.

7 Pflüger 1995: 281-95; Shaer and Aslan 1997: 219-31; 2000: 89-109; Lindner and Gunsam 2002: 225-42. 8 Dworakowska 1975: 22, 40-4; Pflüger 1995: 288; Šrámek et al. 1992: 223-30.

49

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Stepped quarries, looking north west.

b. General plan, showing the layout of the stepped, curved, and conchoidal types (after Pflüger 1995: 288). Fig.3.1 Wadi es-Siyyagh quarries.

50

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT wet rock are very distinctive. Alternatively, examining the dumps of the quarries for pottery or other objects can provide a clue as to when a quarry was in use.

The second primary quarry, the Turkmaniyah quarry, is located c. 300 m southwest of the Turkmaniyah tomb (Fig.2.4), about c. 200 m northwest of the city centre. The outcrop of this quarry lies in the lower third of the lightcoloured yellowish Honeycomb sandstone layer (Fig.2.5).13 The hill extends from west to east and shows artificial stepped cuts (Fig.3.2a). The quarry contains three quarried areas surrounding the hill on the north and east as detailed in the plan (Fig.3.2b). The south-eastern part, area A, has a semi-circular shape c. 30 m in radius. To the east of this area lies the double cornice tomb no. 616 (Fig.3.2a, b).14 The floor of the central part, area B, c. 43 m long east-west, was extracted on two levels. The average width for each level is 11 m and the difference in height is approximately 2 m. The most northern part, area C, is 20 x 25 m with an average height of 10 m, and lies in front of a rock-cut monument. The total volume extracted, after subtracting the waste, from this quarry, as calculated in Fig.3.2b, is approximately 22,000 m3.

The first group of primary quarries, Wadi es-Siyyagh quarries, lies just west of the city centre and northwest of el-Habis on the other side of Wadi es-Siyyagh (Fig.2.4). The distance between the Qasr el-Bint and the Wadi esSiyyagh quarries is at most 500 m. These quarries are mentioned by a number of scholars.9 The quarries, as shown in the plan (Fig.3.1a, b) consist of three zones and shapes: the east part cut in vertical steps, the west part with conchoidal niches, and the central one cut in vertical curved surfaces. The outcrops of the east and the central quarries lie in the Smooth sandstone layer,10 whereas the west part of the quarries extends about 80 m vertically from the Smooth into the Tear sandstone as shown in Fig.2.5. The Wadi es-Siyyagh east quarry has a vertical stepped shape, with an average height of 25 m (Fig.3.1a). The extraction area cannot be determined easily since the area in front is planted with olive trees. Wadi es-Siyyagh west quarries have a conchoidal shape, which is unique to Petra. The surface of these quarries consists of conchoidal excavations, like niches (Fig.3.1b). Each niche is about 14 to 25 m high, c. 20 m wide, and a maximum of 8 m deep at the base, narrowing towards the top (Fig.3.23a).11 These niches lie on the vertical rock faces on either side of the wadi. The purpose of choosing this shape of quarry was to extract building blocks from the massive and highquality Smooth sandstone without having to cut down through the Tear sandstone to reach it. This Smooth layer is exposed in the lowermost 35 m of the 250 m tall southwest cliff of Jebel ed-Deir and the north cliff of Umm el-Biyara (Fig.3.1b). The last zone, the central quarry, has a vertically curved shape, and extends along most of the southern side of the lower Wadi es-Siyyagh between the east and west quarries.

The Turkmaniyah quarry is a new discovery, which contradicts the remarks of Browning15 who described the back of a large double cornice tomb as “cut away to form a deep couloir”. But it really fits into our picture of using the back of the tomb as a quarry. Only the upper third of the tomb belongs to the quarry outcrop, whereas the lower part belongs to the Tear sandstone layer (Fig.3.2a). One can recognise the natural black bed, which separates the two parts, in the facade of the tomb and on the floor of the extracted area. The date of working the quarry must be after the date of the creation of the tomb. This tomb possibly can be dated to the second half of the first century BC or later.16 This date also fits with the chart shown in Fig.1.16. Another piece of evidence, which provides more help in dating, is the symbol of a Nabataean god, carved in the east face of the quarry. This symbol is similar to those carved in the right cliff of the Palace Tomb (Fig.3.15b) which dates from about the last quarter of the first century AD,17 and in the cut niches with betyls carved into a rock face of the Siq.18 Based on this, it would suggest that the Turkmaniyah quarry was in use during the second half of the first century BC and in the first century AD.

The stone blocks used in the buildings can be traced back to distinct quarry sites from specific sandstone types. As mentioned in section II.a.2, Pflüger12 found, on the basis of a variety of petrological and sedimentary characteristics, that the fine- to medium-grained yellowish rose coloured sandstone used in building the Qasr el-Bint probably came from the Wadi es-Siyyagh quarries. In consequence, one would have to conclude that the Wadi es-Siyyagh quarries were in use from the second half of the first century BC. It is estimated that, after subtracting the waste, a total of 31,500 m3 of stone, was extracted from these quarries (Fig.3.1b), 7000 m3 of which would have been required for the Qasr el-Bint.

The third primary quarry, the Umm Sayhoon quarry, lies north east of the civic centre in the extension of the Turkmaniyah valley, on the main road just below the new village of Umm Sayhoon (Fig.2.4). The distance between the civic centre and the Umm-Sayhoon quarry is about 2 km. The rock extracted belongs to the upper part of the Honeycomb sandstone layer of reddish and mauve red colours as shown in the geological section (Fig.2.5). Remains of this quarry are shown in Fig.3.3a; b. 13

Pflüger 1995: 285 considers this third as el-Habis sandstone. Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: 361, Figs. 115, 390, map 16. Browning 1989: 239, Fig. 157. 16 J. McKenzie, personal communication, 2004. 17 Netzer 2003: Fig. 53. 18 Similar to this symbol can be seen in Guzzo and Schneider 2002: 85; also essential reading Patrich 1990: 59-60, 76.

9

14

Browning 1989: 178-9, Fig. 93; Pflüger 1995: 291-2, Fig. 3; Shaer and Aslan 1997: 219-20. 10 The properties of the Smooth, Tear, Honeycomb, and Disi sandstone are given in the geology section II.a.1. 11 Pflüger 1995: 292. 12 Pflüger 1995: 288.

15

51

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General view, showing the stepped faces and the rock-cut tomb, looking west.

b. Detailed plan, showing the locations of the quarried area, the adjacent rock-cut tombs, and the calculations of the volume of the extracted blocks. Fig.3.2 Al-Turkmaniyah quarry.

52

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General view, showing the zig-zag facade and cutting on the top of zone A, looking south west.

b. General view, showing the main cut of zone B1, looking west. Fig.3.3 Umm Sayhoon quarry.

Kennedy19 mislabelled the quarry as a cultic site, because he identified the blocks with trenches around them as “Idol Blocks”. However, it appears from the stepped plan and the herringbone pick marks (used for quarrying rather 19

than finished work) on the faces that the site was used as a quarry. The quarry, as shown in the detailed plan (Fig.3.4a, b) consists of three adjacent zones. Zone A is the largest and has a stepped back (Fig.3.3a), and the area quarried is in the shape of a three-quarter circle. Its average diameter is 44 m, and as seen in the section

Kennedy 1925: Figs. 39-41.

53

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a

b

Fig.3.4 Umm Sayhoon quarry. a. Detailed plan, showing the zones extracted and the volume calculations. b. South-north section through the three zones, showing the height of the cut.

(Fig.3.4b), the height of the stepped faces varies between 14 and 21 m. The second zone B consists of two parts. Part B1 measures 22 m long and the average width of the area extracted is 5 m (Fig.3.3b). The average height is 15 m. Part B2 belongs to the same hill as zone B but the area extracted lies to the south and west, measuring 30 x 20 m. The last zone is C, in which the area extracted has a 30 m diameter semi-circular shape. The average height of extraction is 3.15 m. As shown in (Fig.3.4a) it is calculated that a total of about 25,400 m3, excluding wastage, was extracted from these zones.

of argument could be proposed for other freestanding buildings, but it needs further specialised study. Other quarrying activities can be found in a few scattered places showing traces of stone cutting. But these are smaller quarries and possibly were used to provide a limited product. Examples of these are the quarries located on the stepped path between the Street of Facades and the High Place. The rock extracted from these quarries is of the Honeycomb and Disi sandstone types. A further example can be seen at Shammāsa of mostly whitish-yellow Disi sandstone.21 However, the total volume extracted from the primary quarries excluding waste is 78,900 m3. The bar chart of Fig.3.6 shows the outcrop and the volume of stone extracted from each quarry. How far this volume contributed to constructing the freestanding buildings is somewhat difficult to determine. This will be discussed more fully after presenting the other types of quarries.

The colour of the fallen drums of the pronaos columns of both the “Great Temple” and the Temple of the Winged Lions shows that they were extracted from the Umm Sayhoon quarry.20 Since these buildings date from the last quarter of the first century BC, and the first quarter of the first century AD respectively, this quarry was in use during the last quarter of the first century BC. This kind 20 The best time to do this test in wet weather, when the natural colours are clearer.

21

54

Lindner and Gunsam 2002: 234-6.

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. The High Place. Detailed plan and sections, showing the shallow cuts (Brünnow and Domaszewski 1904: Fig.270).

b. The Obelisks on the Attuf Ridge. General view showing the two rock-cut obelisks and the quarrying trenches. Fig.3.5 Levelling site quarries.

55

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a height of 3 m was made to accommodate the temple plan. It is clear that the quarrying activity on these sites resulted in the formation of flat surfaces for the foundation of buildings as will be discussed in section V.a.1. At the same time they provided stone blocks for construction. It is estimated that the total volume extracted from the back of the “Great Temple”, the pool complex, and the “market area” is about 25,000 m3,28 whereas the volume extracted from the High Place and the obelisks is 2500 m3. This will give a total volume of 27,500 m3, excluding wastage. III.a.3. Tomb Quarries Rock-cut facades had a long history in the East. The earliest examples, in the third millennium BC, can be seen in the Egyptian tombs at Beni-Hasn and Gizeh,29 and later in the magnificent Temple of Ramses II (12791213 BC), and Abu-Simbel. The latter with a facade with four seated figures was cut out of the living sandstone cliff, which bordered the Nile in Nubia.30 Moreover, in the fourth century BC, the tombs of the Phoenician site of Amrit were carved entirely out of bedrock.31 Other magnificent examples can be found in Anatolia such as the Lycian rock-cut tombs at Xanthus, Telmessos, Myra, Limyra,32 Pinara, Termessos,33 Araxa, Daedala, Cyaneae, Teimiussa, and the Carian tombs at Caunus.34 Moreover, the custom of placing burials in rock-cut chambers was widespread in Cyrenaica,35 Alexandria,36 near Jerusalem,37 Maresha,38 and elsewhere.39 But the most outstanding rock-cut facades are those of Petra and Medain Saleh.

Fig.3.6 Bar chart, showing the volume of stone extracted from each primary quarry.

III.a.2. Levelling Site Quarries Additional material seems to have been quarried from the city centre itself, by levelling the site for further development, for example, the back of the “Great Temple”, the pool complex,22 and the “middle and upper markets”.23 Also the levelling process seems to have been used in several places creating rock-cut monuments such as the High Place (Fig.3.5a), and the nearby obelisks (Fig.3.5b).24 The outcrop on which these quarries are based is Honeycomb sandstone.

As will be shown later, the Petra and Medain Saleh tombs were carved using the same techniques as those used in primary and levelling quarries. But their main aim was to cut the slopes sufficiently to obtain a flat vertical surface for carving the facade. In order to prepare the vertical rock surface for carving a monument, a great deal of the

Similar activities can be seen in the Nabataean sites of the Negev, for example at Oboda, where this method was used in order to level off a site for construction, and the builders were able to extract large blocks of stone.25 A comparable example is to be found in the shaping of the terraces and the surrounding areas of the Temple of Athena, the Propylon, and the Temple of Apollo in ancient Karthaia, Greece. The terraces were quarried and levelled off to provide an even surface for the foundation of the buildings.26 A further example can be seen clearly in the Temple of Apollo in Letoon.27 The eastern cut with

28 Bedal 2001: 24 calculated the volume of extracted stone in the pool area as 33,280 m3, but by revising the calculations I found that she used the full height of the cliff in her calculations without considering the natural slope of the hill, nor did she allow for the volume of waste. My calculations making allowances for these points showed the quarried volume from the pool area to be approximately 8000 m3. 29 Fedak 1990: Fig.48; Statham 1950: 13, Fig. 5. 30 Pijoan 1927: 79, Figs. 117-9; Gates 2003: 118, Fig. 6.17. 31 Fidak 1990: Fig.9; Pijoan 1927: 144, Fig. 210; Ball 2000: 366-7, Pls. 128-9; Netzer 2003: 39-40, Figs. 48-9. 32 Bean 1978: Pls. 1-3, 29-30, 32-4, 57-60, 69-72, 81-3. 33 Bean 1968: 119, 133-5, Pls. 60-61; 1978 Pl. 3. 34 Bean 1980: 146-7, Pl. 38. 35 Thorn (forthcoming); Parr 1968: 9. 36 Fedak 1990: 129-33; McKenzie 1990: 61-9. 37 Fedak 1990: 140-8; Kloner 1980; 2000; 2001; 2003a: 41-42. In all see the plates. 38 Kloner 2001-2: 461-85; 2003b: 4. 39 For other rock-cut tombs see Fedak 1989: 47-56; Boardman 2000: 4457; Statham 1950: 14-5, Figs. 55, 89; Ball 2000: 370 with bibliography; Netzer 2003: 39-40 with bibliography.

22 Bedal 2001: 24 suggested that the stone quarried was used in the front retaining wall of the pool and the “Great Temple”. 23 Kanellopoulos 2001: 11, 21 suggested that the stone extracted from the cliffs of the “Upper Market” was used in the construction of the propylaea. 24 See the figures in Kennedy 1925: Figs. 163-4. 25 Negev 1986: 49-50. 26 Kolaiti and Mendoni 1992: 30-1. 27 I noticed that when I visited the site during my field trip to Turkey in 2004.

56

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT was the least 1,700 m3. It is worth mentioning here that the monuments selected in this study are the largest and were carved probably before the Roman annexation of AD 106.41 Further studies are needed to survey the rest and then to calculate the volume extracted. But for the present research, I have allowed for the smaller tombs by calculating the volume extracted from the largest tomb quarries without subtracting the stone wasted during the process of quarrying and dressing. Since there are about eight hundred smaller tombs, the material extracted from these is likely to account for more than the wastage from the large tombs: 30% of 62970 = 18,891 m3.

hillside had to be removed, and this could be another source of material for construction. Therefore, almost every rock-cut monument, and especially the larger ones, could have been a quarry. Thus, it is probable that when the Nabataean masons attempted to carve any of their monuments, they thought of it first as a quarry project. Consequently, I will call them tomb quarries. In terms of distribution, tomb quarries extend throughout Petra from the Obelisk Tomb in the east to ed-Deir in the west. The outcrops in which they were based differ, but most of them belong to the Tear sandstone layer (Fig.2.5). Tomb quarries can be divided into open and covered parts. The open parts are the rock-cut façades, and the covered parts are the tomb chambers. Tomb chambers are in effect covered quarries. Normally, covered quarries were excavated when massive stone was found under heavy layers of low quality material, which was too thick to be removed from above. This is the situation in the Wadi es-Siyyagh conchoidal quarries. However, in the tomb chambers in Petra the situation is rather different. Covered quarries were carved beautifully to create the chamber for use as a tomb, triclinium, temple or temple-tomb.40

Fig.3.8 Bar chart, showing the amounts extracted from the Disi, Honeycomb, Tear, and Smooth sandstones.

To conclude, the total volume of the stone extracted from all quarries mentioned is 169,400 m3. The bar chart of (Fig.3.8) classifies the stone extracted according to the geological stratigraphy of Petra. It shows that the largest volume of stone was extracted from the Honeycomb sandstone layer 73,000 m3, and the Tear sandstone one 63,200 m3. Whereas the amounts extracted from the Smooth sandstone and the Disi sandstone layers are 31,500 and 1,700 m3, respectively. This finding accords with the appearance of Honeycomb sandstone and Tear sandstone in the surfaces of the hills bordering the city centre. To what extent this total volume of stone was sufficient to erect the freestanding buildings is difficult to determine accurately. Browning42 assumes that the primary quarry of Wadi es-Siyyagh was sufficient in size as a source for all buildings. Pflüger43 contradicts Browning’s view. However, neither of them mentioned all the primary quarries in Petra when they argued about

Fig.3.7 Bar chart, showing the outcrop and the volume of stone extracted from each of the tomb quarries chosen in this study.

It is estimated that a total of 63,000 m3 was extracted from the Tomb quarries. The bar chart (Fig.3.7) shows the volume extracted and the size of the outcrop of each rock-cut monument. Moreover, it shows that the largest volume of stone came from the Tear sandstone layer 35,670 m3 and Honeycomb sandstone 25,600 m3, whereas the total volume extracted from Disi sandstone 40

41 I used the plans and description of these tombs made by McKenzie 1990. 42 Browning 1980: 168. 43 Pflüger 1995: 289.

Essential reading on the function of these tombs is Ball 2000: 372-5.

57

SHAHER M. RABABEH

the sufficiency of building stones, nor did they or other scholars mention the contribution of the tombs and levelling quarries to the Nabataean construction process. Two important questions arise: how could one estimate the volume of stone used in the freestanding buildings of Petra?, and how could we deduce the percentage contribution made by each type of quarry to the freestanding buildings? As mentioned in section I.b.2, the discoveries from excavations in Petra at present are too few to reconstruct plans for all the Nabataean freestanding buildings. Thus, the volume of stone blocks used in the freestanding buildings cannot be calculated exactly. But a rough estimate can be made from the Qasr el-Bint, which is still standing to its full height. The volume of stone used in a building is calculated by multiplying the total length of the walls by their width and height, which gives 7,000 m3 for the Qasr el-Bint. This procedure can be applied to several excavated buildings such as the “Great Temple”, and the Temple of the Winged Lions, where the volumes are 15,000 and 3,000 m3, respectively.44 The footprints of these three buildings cover only about 10 percent of the total area of the city centre and az-Zantur. Together they required c. 25,000 m3 of stone. Thus, it appears that the remaining product of the primary quarries, 53,800 m3 (from 78,900 - 25,000) would have been insufficient for the remaining 90% of the freestanding buildings. Therefore, the stone extracted by levelling sites and from the tombs must have formed a valuable part of that used for the freestanding buildings. Alternatively, assuming the same density of buildings over the whole area of the city, the total volume of stone blocks used in the freestanding buildings would be 25,000 x 10 = 250,000 m3. Since the various types of quarries mentioned earlier yielded only about 169,400 m3, it is likely that all of this material would have been used in the freestanding buildings.

a. Bar chart.

Thus, surprisingly, we may deduce, as shown in Fig.3.9a, b, that the stone extracted from the primary quarries contributed only approximately 47 percent of the total stone. The rest was produced from the levelling and Tomb Quarries. The levelling quarries contributed 16 percent of the total and 37 percent came from the Tomb Quarries, as shown in the bar and pie charts (Fig.3.9b). My argument depends on whether the primary quarries would have provided all the stone required for built monuments. It does not depend on the existence of tomb or levelling quarries. Tomb cutting did not depend on the existence of a demand for the stone, while primary quarries did. Levelling for a building created both supply and demand. The primary quarries do not produce Tear sandstone, so they represented the positive choice of material. Clearly, the Nabataean builders were obliged to produce this type of stone from cutting tombs and levelling sites since its layers appear in the civic centre 44

b. Pie chart, showing the ratio of contributions. Fig.3.9 The contributions made by each type of quarry to the freestanding buildings.

and the surrounding hills as mentioned in section II.a.1. In other words, Tear sandstone was used only when available as the product of tomb-cutting and levelling sites. However, we have to consider the contributions made by the levelling site quarries and the rock-cut monuments as Tomb Quarries. The material produced, Tear sandstone, can be seen in the freestanding buildings.

In these two buildings the heights were deduced in section VI.d.

58

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT III.b. Quarrying Techniques No Nabataean texts or inscriptions dealing directly with the quarries have survived. As mentioned in section II.c, only two iron tools for quarrying and finishing of stone blocks have been found: a pick and a chisel. However, tool marks on the faces and the bed of the quarries and the rock-cut monuments provide clues to how the blocks were extracted from the rock. Such marks are still visible in the quarries of Petra (Figs.3.15b, c; 16b). The good preservation of the rock cutting allows us to study the quarrying techniques. The kind of conclusions that may be reached by examining these marks will indicate what kind of technical methods were used to obtain the stone required. The technical knowledge of quarrying by the Greeks,45 Romans,46 and Egyptians47 also helps to throw light on the quarrying techniques used by the Nabataean masons.

a

III.b.1. Methods of Extraction and Tools Basically, the normal steps of extraction are similar. After choosing the quarry site it should be prepared to extract the stone. Roads had to be constructed, and the places where the waste could be dumped had to be marked, too. These are the general rules required for the quarries of today as in the past. Since most of the quarries of Petra are in the hills in the open air, the initial step was to establish access to the top of the quarry. Then the top surface of the hills had first to be cleared of weathered rock debris, probably by picks and spades. Structurally, it is safest that the extraction should be from the top down. This leads us to examine the kind of scaffolding that might have been used, as will be discussed later. But first, something should be said about the basic technique of extraction using trenches.

b Fig.3.10 Extracting technique using trenches. b. Detailed plan, showing the size of blocks and the steps. a. Top view of the left cliff of ed-Deir.

Cutting trenches into the rock to make blocks can be seen in different places in Petra, for example, in ed-Deir (Fig.3.10a,b), the Obelisk Tomb and Bab el-Siq Triclinium (Fig.3.11a,b), in front of the Renaissance Tomb façade, inside the Palace Tomb (Fig.3.12a), in front of the Lion Triclinium, below the two obelisks in the High Place (Fig.3.5b), in Tomb 808, and inside the vault of the west entrance of the Main Theatre (Fig.3.12b).48 The width of the trenches ranges from 20 to 30 cm. It is probable that these trenches were carved with a pick,49 which left curving furrows corresponding to the quarryman’s hand movements. The traces are usually arranged in a herringbone pattern. The grooves are

a

45 Martin 1965; Dworkowska 1975; Hellmann 2002: 73-8; Bessac 1986; 1988: 41-55; Bessac 1996; Waelkens et al. 1988: 11-29. 46 Adam 1994; Dworkowska 1983. 47 Clarke and Englebach 1930; Arnold 1991. 48 For those examples, which are not shown here see the pictures in McKenzie 1990: 159-72 49 Bessac 1988: 42; Waelkens 1992: 7. Waelkens et al.1990: 48 states that picks do not appear to have been used as a quarry tool before the Ptolemaic period. Traces of the use of this tool can be found in some quarries of soft limestone near Alexandria.

b Fig.3.11 Extracting technique using trenches. a. Front view of the Bab el Siq Triclinium, looking south. b. Detailed view of Fig.3.11a, looking west.

59

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a

always slightly curved, and the spacing between them varies between 2 and 4 cm, as seen in Fig.3.15b, c. Whereas those made by a chisel and mallet are generally straight or quite irregular. One complete iron pick was found inside the unfinished tomb of el-Habis.50 It has two pointed ends with a total length of 32.6 cm (Fig.3.14). Its width and thickness at the middle are 4 cm and 3 cm, respectively. It looks larger than those illustrated in Martin.51 Bessac and Nehmé52 suggest that the pick was probably left by one of the stonemasons when the tomb was abandoned. They suggest that the Nabataean masons used it in the initial phase of carving the chambers and was probably not suitable for work in the quarries. Bessac53 suggested that this shape of pick is very specialised and used in south France for cutting narrow trenches (9 to 18 cm wide). However, I suggest its size and use relate to the relatively soft sandstone of Petra. Similar to the shape of this pick is the incised pick found on the way to the High Place.54 Another incised drawing of a pick found on the rock mountain of el-Khubtha implies its use by Nabataean quarrymen (Fig.3.15a). It is difficult to establish the measurements of the picks in these incised drawings, because the pictures were published without scale and their location is hard to find. However, it appears to have pointed ends, swollen in the middle, and to be shorter than the incised one found at the High Place or the real one found inside the unfinished tomb of el-Habis. The incised pick of el-Khubtha looks like a pick-hammer. Bessac55 suggested that similar to

b Fig.3.12 Extracting technique using trenches. a. Interior view of the unfinished chamber at the rear of the Palace Tomb, showing the unfinished trenches and the inset cornice, looking east. b. Interior view of the unfinished vault of the west entrance of the Main Theatre, looking south.

50 This tomb was recognised earlier by Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: 17, Fig.196. 51 Martin 1965: Figs.70, 72, 73. 52 Bessac and Nehmé 2001: 83-88. 53 Bessac 1988: 42; Fig.2. 54 Kühlenthal and Fischer 2000: Pl.VIII, 1. 55 Bessac 1988: 42, Fig.1.

60

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Unfinished trenches.

b. One of the blocks left in the quarry, measuring 21.5x4.3x4.2 m and weighing 970 tons. Fig.3.13 Unfinished blocks at Baalbek quarry.

61

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Smooth sandstone than that in the Tear and the Honeycomb sandstones, because the maximum height of a block depends on the vertical distance between the natural cleavage planes. On the other hand, as shown in Fig.3.16a, b, the cleavage planes made the extraction much easier with the use of a crowbar to finish detaching the block. Otherwise, wooden wedges57 were presumably used. Information from local people in Jordan shows that this technique was in common use until the 1960s. The wooden wedge technique is based on forcing very dry wooden wedges into the carved grooves, then soaking them with water. This causes the wood to swell and split the block from its parent (Fig.3.17a, b). Cracks normally form at the bottom of the groove. The wedges would have been forced into two adjacent sides of the block, to avoid the effect of opposing forces which would have been created by placing wedges on opposite sides of the block. Quarrying using this method normally took place in steps as can be seen on top of ed-Deir and in the Umm Sayhoon quarry (Figs.3.3a; 16a). There are several advantages in using stepped or different level quarries. The first is that at least the top and front planes of the block are already defined before it is quarried,58 and this allows much quicker exploitation. The second is the high efficiency afforded for the quarrymen in splitting blocks from the edges of different areas at the same time. This advantage allows more than one crew to work on the site, so that the amount of stone produced can be increased and time saved.

Fig.3.14 Masons iron pick discovered inside the unfinished tomb of el-Habis at Petra (Bessac and Nehmé 2001: Fig.6).

this pick was used to cut large trenches (30 to 40 cm) and in quarries for dressing blocks.

This method was already applied in the numerous Nubian sandstone quarries in ancient Egypt.59 Moreover, the recent survey carried out by Abu Dayyah60 shows that in the selected Roman stone quarries in central Jordan this method was used. It is also found at several sites in and around Jerusalem.61 This technique is similar to the system proposed by Korres62 for the extraction of the stone for the Parthenon from Mt Pentelicon (Fig.3.18). Specific evidence for the use of trenches around blocks and wooden wedges soaked in water can be seen in the Hellenistic period at Kefalos Bay on the southeast of the Island of Kos.63 One iron chisel and a wooden wedge of pine were found there in the excavations. This is a significant and rare discovery. In many cases it is clear that the quarrymen made a groove under the block to simplify the operation. The blocks here were extracted in a stepped way, and iron picks and crowbars were used for the isolation of the blocks from the parent rock. This

The length and width of the extracted block can be measured easily from the configuration of the unfinished trenches, and the height from the tool traces left on the quarry faces such as those in ed-Deir, in which the typical size of the block is 3.20 x 1.70 m, as shown in Fig.3.10a, b. Elsewhere in the Mediterranean area the trenches could be enlarged both in depth and width when the block being cut was of a considerable size. Examples of this can be seen in the limestone drums intended for Temple G at Selinous still in the quarry at Rocche di Cusa near Selinous56 and in the limestone quarries of Baalbek (Fig.3.13). But this has not been observed in Petra, and the sandstone itself should show the average height. The quarry face shows that the depth of the trenches is usually 60 cm, from which it can be concluded that the blocks were less than 60 cm high. In the Wadi es-Siyyagh quarries no trenches have been found, but the maximum depth of the trenches can be suggested based on the height of the drums of the columns of the pronaos of the Qasr el-Bint, c. 1.2 m. This height indicates that the maximum distance between natural faults is greater in the

57 In Egypt, iron wedges and fins or ‘feathers’ were not used before the Ptolemaic period. See Arnold 1991: 33 with bibliography. 58 Waelkens 1990: 51mentioned that a grid of incised lines was used to serve as guidelines cutting the trenches in a quarry. 59 Klemm and Klemm 1992. 60 Abu Dayyah 2001: 521-31. 61 Kloner 2003a: 42. 62 Korres 1995a: 11; 1995b: 1-7. 63 Chiotis and Papadimitriou 1995: 7.

56

Peschlow-Bindokat 1990; Martin 1965: 148, Fig. 61; Adam 1994: 23-4, Fig. 26; Hellmann 2002: 77-8, Fig.73; Bessac 1988: 44, Fig.4.

62

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

b

a

c Fig.3.15 Pick marks. a. The impression of the incised pick found on the rock mountain of el-Khubtha (Shaer and Aslan 1997: Fig.17). b. Herringbone pattern and the symbol of God as they appear in the right cliff of the Palace Tomb, looking south. c. Herringbone pattern on the surfaces of the stepped zone of Umm Sayhoon quarry.

groove has not been found in any place in Petra, nor any trace of cuttings for crowbars. Possibly, the property of the sandstone in Petra made this unnecessary, or natural

faults, similar to those shown in Fig.3.16b, were used in place of a lower horizontal groove.

63

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.3.16 Cleavage plane of rock. a. Top view, showing the natural cleavage plane, and the stepped quarrying at ed-Deir, looking south. b. The natural cleavage plane and pick marks in top of ed-Deir, looking north.

a. Reconstructed plan, showing method of extraction of blocks in a quarry.

b. Detailed axonometric. Fig.3.17 The wooden wedge quarrying technique.

64

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.3.18 Diagrams showing method of extraction of blocks for the Parthenon in the Pentelicon quarry (Korres and Bouras 1983: 49).

As already mentioned, in Petra there are three groups of primary quarries, which can be recognised from the shape of their faces. The Turkmaniyah and Umm Sayhoon quarries have a stepped shape, whereas some of the quarries in Wadi es-Siyyagh have a stepped shape while the others have conchoidal and curved sections. In these with a stepped shape, the extraction was started from the top of the quarry, and not from the central part of the cliff. In view of that, the quarrymen found access to the top of the hill without scaffolding by following the contours of the hill (Figs.3.19a, b; 20a, b). If they had difficulty in getting up they carved steps in the steepest parts of the hill (Figs.3.21a, b; 22a). In addition to this,

III.b.2. Scaffolding It is clear that the Nabataean masons cut their monuments from the top down. But the question remains unsolved as to whether they used one stage in cutting the facades, or carried out the work in several different stages, each of which would have required working on a specific area of the façade or chamber. A further unsolved problem, which will be discussed, is the kind of scaffolding used during the work. The aim of this section is to discuss the scaffolding techniques used in the quarries; the primary and the tomb quarries of Petra.

65

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General view, showing the horizontal platforms in the east hill of the Main Theatre, looking south.

b. The west hill of the Main Theatre. Fig.3.19 Horizontal platforms.

66

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.3.20 Reconstruction drawings, showing the use of a cut or natural platform for access and working.

67

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General view, looking east. Fig.3.21 Rock-cut steps in ed-Deir, leading to the top of the monument. b. Detailed view.

a

b Fig.3.22 Scrambling up the vertical cliffs. a. Using rock-cut steps in the Outer Siq, looking east. b. Using ropes to reach the Neo-Babylonian relief sculpture of Edomite Sela’ (Dalley and Goguel 1997: 171).

68

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Wooden scaffolding suggested by Pflüger (1995: Fig.4).

b. Reconstruction drawings showing the steps of quarrying the niches using ladder, slots and ropes.

Fig.3.23 Scaffolding techniques used in the conchoidal quarrying, es-Siyyagh.

69

SHAHER M. RABABEH

after they started quarrying, sometimes the quarrymen needed to go up or down from one level to another within the quarry. For this they carved vertical single or double rows of slots as hand and footholds, as seen on the surfaces of the primary quarries. These prevented slipping while workers were scrambling up the cliffs.

the top of the monument. This access was used by the Nabataean masons to reach the top of the working area to carve the different elements required. We next need to elucidate the process of carving used by the Nabataean masons. In the absence of a precise survey of the unfinished tombs in Petra and other sites, I have examined the cutting of several unfinished monuments and, based on this survey, I suggest that the masons cut their rock-cut facades from top to bottom adopting two different methods.

In some cases, the workers possibly climbed up with the aid of ropes. These ropes could have been attached by threading them through pairs of holes higher up the cliff such as a hole recorded in the façade of Tomb 825.64 This method was used by Dalley and Goguel65 to explore the Neo-Babylonian rock relief of Sela’, 50 km north of Petra (Fig.1.2). Part of their study was to find out how access was obtained and what kind of scaffolding had been used to carve the relief. Using ropes, three professional rock climbers reached the relief sculpture (Fig.3.22b). No traces of any substantial scaffolding were found, but some small holes, 3 to 6 cm across, were observed in the rock. As a result, Dalley and Goguel concluded that “the use of ropes must have been well-known, combined with agility and ingenuity”.66 Thus, the technique of using ropes for scaling cliffs was traditional in the Edomite area and could have been continued by the Nabataeans. Even today, to go up, the leading climber usually climbs unaided to take a rope to the top of the cliff and secure it for the rest of the team. There is also the possibility of letting rope down from the top. It would be possible to lower men on a suspended stage, such as are now used by window cleaners on high buildings (Fig.3.23b). As mentioned above, if the cliff surface is very smooth and steep, footholds can be cut. A similar example of this can be seen in the quarry face in a gallery at the Ma’asara quarries in Egypt.67 In Petra, traces of such slots, steps and holes can be seen in all of the primary quarries. Moreover, slots can be seen clearly, as will be discussed later, only beside one rock-cut monument: el-Khazneh (Figs.3.24; 25a).

The first was to cut the hillside rock in order to prepare a vertical, smoothly dressed surface. This surface was produced by the quarrymen as follows. After reaching the top, they used the trench technique to detach blocks. Then they left a ledge for the sculptors to enable them to start carving and shaping the decoration required (Fig.3.20). They removed the bulk of the rock to leave a vertical surface a short distance in front of the intended one. This can best be seen in the unfinished tomb of el-Habis (Fig.3.26a), in which the quarrymen had finished their work and the sculptors had started shaping the entablature and capitals. The tunnels leading to the rock-cut chambers also had to be opened. A further example of the first stage can be seen in the unfinished surfaces located north of the Palace Tomb. The quarrymen had made the vertical surface, but it was left unshaped. An example from Caria can be seen in the largest tomb of Caunus.69 It looks as if the vertical face has been cut back. The pediment and the frieze were finished by the sculptors, as shown in Fig.3.28b, but the capital and the tops of the column shafts have been blocked out square, and below them nothing has been done. As the stone was sound in these examples, one may assume that there were other reasons for stopping the work, such as political or financial reasons. The second method was to carve both stages mentioned above simultaneously and of course from top to bottom, as shown in Fig.3.20. Examples of this approach are evident in Petra in the unfinished tomb no. 396 opposite to the Obelisk Tomb and Bab el-Siq Triclinium (Fig.3.26b),70 and in two of the tombs in the Street of Facades in the Outer Siq (Figs.3.27a, b). Similar examples demonstrating this method can be seen also in Medain Saleh, as shown in Fig.3.28a.71

However, in the conchoidal quarrying of the Wadi esSiyyagh the stone was extracted from the near-vertical central part of the sloping cliff. It was too difficult to find access from above as mentioned in the stepped quarries. This indicates that the masons must have used scaffolding. Pflüger68 hesitatingly suggested the use of wooden scaffolding, as shown in Fig.3.23a. I will discuss this suggestion below. It may be of value now to see how the Nabataeans solved the problem of access in the tomb quarries. The use of natural access is clear in most of the tomb quarries, such as ed-Deir, and the Obelisk Tomb and Bab el-Siq Triclinium. In ed-Deir the steps still exist, (Fig.3.21), and even now are good enough to use as a means of access to

Neither of these methods requires wooden scaffolding. Wooden scaffolding would be astonishing in a city like Petra, which is poor in wood. There is no reason for believing that the Nabataean masons used wooden scaffolding, which would have required enormous quantities of wood to reach the top of quarries. Even Pflüger72 in labelling the reconstruction drawing in

64

Shaer and Aslan 1997: 223-4. Dalley and Goguel 1997: 169-77. 66 Dalley and Goguel 1997: 171. 67 Clarke and Engelbach 1930: 13, Fig. 10; Arnold 1991: 31. 68 Pflüger 1995: 291-2. 65

69

Bean 1980: 147, Plate 38. Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: Map III. Schmidt-Colinet 1987: 149, Fig. 10. 72 Pflüger 1995: Fig. 4. 70 71

70

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Fig.3.23a stated that “scaffolding may or may not have been used in this type of quarry”. For this reason, I suggest that quarrymen would have used horizontal rockcut platforms, as seen in different places in Petra. This gave the hillsides the appearance of being terraced, as can be seen clearly in the hillside surrounding the Main Theatre (Fig.3.19a, b). As additional climbing aids, they carved rows of slots in the rock surfaces like those seen in the primary quarries. Similarly, I suggest the use of movable ladders and slots to climb up the conchoidal quarries of the Wadi es-Siyyagh, or ropes to climb down, as shown in Fig.3.23b. The work was carried out in several steps.

sufficient to hold wooden beams for constructing the scaffolding structure. Another reason against the use of wooden scaffolding at el-Khazneh is the length of time required. It is most likely that it was necessary for craftsmen to stay on the scaffolding for a long period to finish carving the monument. Obviously, the period of carving any monument differed from one monument to another depending on the size of the monument and the richness of its decorative elements. Through personal discussion with some of the Bedoul craftsmen, and using my own experience as an architect, I suggest that it would have taken approximately three years to complete el-Khazneh. No wonder, the DGTZ needed two years simply to carry out the restoration of the tomb mentioned. In three years the scaffolding would have rotted or buckled, and even more reserving the costly wood in one site for this period makes it implausible.

The slots beside el-Khazneh have led some people73 to imply that wooden scaffolding was used. This is the remaining question which urgently requires an answer. As shown in Figs.3.24; 25a, on the recessed walls on each side of the façade there are two vertical rows of holes.74 These holes are approximately square or rectangular. The distance between the adjacent rows varies from 30 to 45 cm. The height and width of the holes range from 25 to 30 cm. The vertical distance from the base of one step to that of the next is approximately 55 cm. A vertical section through one hole shows that it has a greater depth at the bottom, c.10 cm, than at the top, zero. The question as to what was the function of the rows of the slots beside el-Khazneh has not been answered satisfactorily because of their absence in other rock-cut monuments in Petra. This rock-cut monument is the only one I have found to have such cuttings. The idea that these slots were used for scaffolding to any extent is incredible, for several reasons. The slots do not form a vertical line, instead the lines appear curved, and no two holes coincide horizontally, as shown in Fig.3.25a. This arrangement is similar for foothold mountaineers. The slots start at 10 m above the floor, and reach only as far as the eagle acroterion of the upper order (Fig.3.24a). A ladder might have been used to climb the first ten metres.

To sum up, to the Nabataeans it would have been time consuming, cumbersome and expensive to erect scaffolding. With the huge number (approximately eight hundred)76 of rock-cut monuments in Petra, one must assume the use of rock-cut horizontal working platforms as the only practical and economical solution. Therefore, it is improbable that the slots which appear on the façade of el-Khazneh could have been used to hold wooden beams for constructing scaffolding. Such footholds, as has been mentioned, occur on the walls of the primary quarries. Thus, this leads us to suggest that a working platform was used in carving the different stages of elKhazneh, and it is more likely that they used the adjacent hillside to reach the monument during the period of the work. This is suggested by the two carved tunnels, which still exist in the west cliff of the monument, as seen in Fig.3.24a, b. As they were not used for scaffolding, the question of the use of these slots remains unanswered. Peter Parr77 suggested that these were footholds carved and used by the iconoclasts to deface the images of the statues, and not by the original masons. The statues (animal and human images) are located in each outer bay of the lower order, and between each of the front and back supports on the upper order.78 Two dates were suggested by Parr for this defacement, either sometime before AD 417 when the Urn Tomb was converted to a church or in AD 720-24 when the Caliph Yazid II sent a decree to destroy images and pictures throughout the Muslim world. The second suggestion is more likely, since the Byzantines did not deface animals.79 However, all busts on facades were defaced such as the inset bust on the Urn Tomb,80 and the

To carry the weight of the masons and the quarried blocks, a huge quantity of wooden beams would have been needed to construct firm scaffolding for el-Khazneh. As we have just seen, this is not readily available in Petra. One can imagine the amount of wood needed by looking at the DGTZ steel scaffolding, which was constructed to enable conservation work75 to be carried out on the façade of the rock-cut monument adjacent to the Tomb 825. Ten levels of steel were used to secure the scaffolding, as shown in Fig.3.25b. If the structure had been built of wood a much greater volume of material would have been required, since the tensile strength in a wooden beam is less than that in a steel beam of same cross section. Also we note the stages of DGTZ scaffolding are about 2 m apart. The holes in el-Khazneh are only 55 cm apart, and the depth of the holes is not

76 Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904 documented all these monuments. 77 Parr 1968: 10-11; see the defaced images in Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: Figs. 207-16. 78 McKenzie 1990: 140-1, Pls. 79, 80, 84-86. 79 Besancon 2000. 80 Parr 1968: 10-1; McKenzie 1990: Pl. 96d.

73

E.g. Browning 1973: 50. See McKenzie 1990: Pl. 80. 75 Kühlenthal and Fischer 2000. 74

71

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General view, showing the slots and the carved tunnel of the western cliff, looking south.

b. Detailed view. Fig.3.24 Slots and carved tunnel in el-Khazneh.

inset statues in facade of the Roman Soldier Tomb.81 Notably, these examples do not have footholds carved, since the position of the statues above the ground is only about 10 m and can thus be reached by means of ladders. It is possible that the cuttings could still have been made by the carvers of el-Khazneh to move during work and then re-used by iconoclasts as a device to deface the figures in a later period. 81

So far, the two methods of carving the tomb quarries by using rock-cut platforms have been described. The first was to quarry the vertical first surfaces and do the carving of the decoration separately. The second was to do both works simultaneously. It still remains for us to find the conditions that determined which of the two methods was used. It seems to me most likely that the first method was used in carving the major monuments such as elKhazneh, the unfinished tomb of el-Habis, and ed-Deir,

McKenzie 1990: Pls. 98, 102a.

72

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a

b Fig.3.25 Slots of el-Khazneh and the DGTZ scaffolding. a. Detailed view of the carved slots of el-Khazneh at level of upper storey. b. DGTZ scaffolding built on the façade of the rock-cut monument adjacent to Tomb 825.

carved a bit, then quarried more, carved some more and so on.

whereas the second was used for the smaller monuments. There are three reasons for this. The first reason is that the natural slope before cutting the tomb might affect the choice of technique. The second is that the volume of blocks extracted from the large monuments is greater than those extracted from the smaller ones. It is assumed that there was an authority, who probably gave permission to create a tomb and ordered the quarrymen to choose the first method to provide the freestanding buildings under construction with stone blocks in a limited period. By this means, both the carving and the building process would have followed a fixed schedule prepared and planned by the local government. Alternatively it could have been worthwhile to sell or use a significant number of blocks, so no instruction from above was needed. The third reason is that a large monument needed more labourers including the teams of quarrymen and sculptors. Together the two teams would have contained a considerable number of workers, thus creating a very crowded work space. If the quarrymen’s team started first and after preparation of the surface, some of them left the site it would allow space for the team of the sculptors to take over. Only some of the quarrymen stayed to prepare the blocks for the sculptors and to cut the rock chambers. In the second method there may have been only one team, who quarried a bit, then

In quarrying the rock chambers the principle technique used to detach the blocks was the same as in the open quarries. The Nabataeans probably began the extraction inside the tombs by means of tunnels as evidenced in the unfinished tomb of el-Habis (Fig.3.26a). The problem here is how to get started. Once the first layer of blocks is removed, the process is not much different from an open quarry (Fig.3.29). A relatively small opening was made in the façade and the vein of sandstone was followed horizontally. The quarryman started first to create an area with sufficient height to kneel or squat in. The faces were nearly always kept vertical.82 The carving of the main chamber was carried out simultaneously with that of the main façade at the same level. This can be seen clearly to be the case in the unfinished tombs of el-Habis and at Caunus in Caria (Figs.3.26a, a; 28b). However, working in open quarries was easier because there were fewer problems with light,83 dust,84 and even breathing. 82

Clark and Engelbach 1930: 13; Arnold 1991: 32. During the excavation in the subterranean chambers in front of elKhazneh 2003, I visited the site and entered the two chambers. These chambers were very dark during the day while work was going on, and the excavation team could not work without a source of electric light. 84 Arnold 1991: 31. 83

73

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. The unfinished tomb of el-Habis.

b. The unfinished tomb 16, opposite to the Obelisk Tomb. Fig.3.26 Unfinished Tombs in Petra.

74

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. The unfinished tomb in the Outer Siq, looking north.

b. The unfinished (possibly unfinished) tomb in the Outer Siq, looking south. Fig.3.27 Unfinished tombs in Petra.

75

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. The unfinished tomb of Medain Salih (Schmidt-Colinet 1987: Fig.10).

b. The unfinished tomb of Caunus at Caria. Fig.3.28 Unfinished tombs in Medain Salih and Caria.

III.c.1. Transportation

quarries. Clues relating to transportation methods could perhaps be found. It is worth adding that further study and excavations are needed to identify the nature of the routes, which might have been used to transport the product. Soil erosion and the seasonal floods have covered these routes.

When blocks of stone had been detached, what was the next step that the Nabataeans would have used? Did they transport the blocks just as they were? Or did they rough them out as near as possible to their final size? In seeking to answer these questions, archaeological excavation needs to be done in the area surrounding the

There is an initial problem in how blocks were moved from high quarry locations to the floor such as in ed-Deir and upper levels of Wadi es-Siyyagh. It is possible that the quarrymen used ropes and pulleys to lower the blocks used, but no evidence from any quarry shows how this was done. The normal maximum size of stone used in

Additionally, in open quarries many more blocks could be cut at the same time. III.c. Transportation, Position and Landscape Effect

76

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT wide distribution of sandstone sources shortened the transport distances to a few hundred metres. As shown in the bar chart (Fig.3.8), the largest number of blocks came from the Honeycomb and the Tear sandstones which appear in the surfaces of the hills bordering the city centre. Although no primary quarries lie in the Tear sandstone layer and Smooth sandstone was preferred, they are all located within 2 km of the city centre (Fig.2.4). In view of this, the problems of transportation were not so serious. This leads us to suggest that the product from some of the tomb-cutting away from the city centre was used in buildings close to them. For example, I suggest that the rock extracted from ed-Deir, 18,300 m3 (Fig.3.7), was used in the nearby buildings, since it lies a long way from the city centre, and the topography would make transporting the stone very difficult. The way up to ed-Deir is very difficult, consisting of rocky ledges and about 900 steps. Ball85 records evidence for building activity adjacent to ed-Deir. The remains of columns and the outline of a circular plaza can be seen clearly from the top of ed-Deir. Similarly, the stone extracted from the High Place and the Obelisks Tomb and Bab el-Siq Triclinium might have been used in buildings near them. However, the question arises: does the proximity of a quarry to the building site mean that the Nabataeans did not need to transport their stone blocks? In order to define the need for such means, the weight of the detached blocks should be calculated using the dimensions of the unfinished blocks and the height of the courses left on the quarry face. In ed-Deir, for example, the normal horizontal dimension is 1.5 x 2.0 m, and the normal height is approximately 60 cm (Fig.3.10). The estimated weight for each block is 1.5 x 2.0 x 0.60 x 2300 = 4140 kg.86 However, the heavier drums of the Qasr el-Bint pronaos, each weighing approximately 8 tons (Fig.4.26b) had to be moved from the Wadi es-Siyyagh quarries to the Qasr el-Bint. This weight is less than for those quarried in Greece (5th- 4th cents. BC) where weights were normally kept to 10-12 tons.87 Moreover, it is in no way comparable with the detached blocks found at Baalbek, where the average is 800 tons, and the largest is 970 tons (Fig.3.13),88 or the unfinished granite obelisk at Aswan of approximately 1250 tons. Apart from these exceptional examples, it is impossible to assume the use of men or animals to carry a 8 ton load. Such a load undoubtedly would have required the use of other means of transportation. It is likely that the detached blocks were roughly shaped in the quarry to simplify and lighten the burden of transportation. I found a half worked block (Fig.3.30) at point A above the dump of the Umm

Fig.3.29 Steps of quarrying rock-cut chambers (Arnold 1991: Figs.2.5, 6).

buildings in Petra is 90 cm long by 40 cm high and 40 cm deep (Figs.4.24; 5.4), and that of the blocks extracted is 1.5 x 2 x 0.60 m (Fig.3.10). This suggests that the quarrymen possibly dropped the detached block onto the levelled and covered floor with soft material to prevent the blocks breaking. However, even if a quarried block broke, it is likely that the pieces would still be bigger than those used in building. In considering these quarries, we must bear in mind the distance to where the final product was to be used. In selecting the site for a quarry, Nabataean masons had to consider the transport distance, the efforts required to quarry and dress the stone, and the quality of stone available in the size of the blocks demanded by the architect. As mentioned previously, the positions of the quarries were fairly near the main building sites. The

85

Ball 2000: 375. For the calculation of the approximate weights of sandstone blocks in Petra, Hammond 1996: 43 presents this formula: The weight in kilograms= (the volume in cubic metre) S.G/1000, where S.G is the specific gravity of sandstone (calculated as 2.3). 87 Coulton 1974: 1-19. 88 Adam 1994: 29, also see Figs. 34, 36 which shows one of the blocks “the Southern Stone” left in the quarry, measuring 21.5 x 4.3 x 4.2 m and weighing 970 tons. 86

77

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General view, looking east.

Fig.3.31 Reducing the weight of one of the Parthenon column capitals in Pentelicon (Korres and Bouras 1983: 51).

as the column drums and the orthostat blocks93 of the Qasr el-Bint has not been solved yet. The Nabataeans would have had to use some means to transport their blocks. After the blocks were roughly shaped, they were transported possibly by one of the known ways (Fig.3.32): timber sledges (Fig.3.32a), or timber sledges on rollers pulled by workers or animals such as the Egyptians and Assyrians used, or wagons on wheels as used by the Greeks, or by the methods of Chersiphron and Metagenes94 which used pivots in the centre of each end of the column drums placed in wooden frames and drawn along like rollers (Fig.3.32c, d).95 In Petra one or more of these aids would have been used, but no evidence has been found to show which of these devices were adopted. Chersiphron and Metagenes methods were only used for very large blocks, say 20-30 tons, which are not found in Petra. The deep wheel ruts found in the Siq show that wagons were in use, and Bellwald et al.96 suggested these were used for transporting limestone blocks from Wadi Musa into Petra. The paved street inside the city was almost completely washed away by flash floods except the portion which appears in the

b. Detailed of Fig. 3.30a. Fig.3.30 Unfinished block in situ, Umm Sayhoon quarry.

Sayhoon quarry (Fig.3.3a; 4). The block measures approximately 2 m long by 1.2 m high and 60 cm deep. The mason started carving the upper left corner, where tool marks appear. This shows that at Petra blocks were not only extracted but also roughly shaped in the quarry area (Fig.3.30). This accords with the results of the survey of selected Roman quarries in central Jordan carried out by Abu Dayyah.89 He reported that some column drums were cut and roughly carved and left at the quarry, presumably not still attached. This method is also observed at several of the sites in and around Jerusalem.90 Blocking out in the quarry was the common practice in ancient Egypt91 and other Greek and Roman quarries, as for example in the Pentelicon quarries (Fig.3.31),92 and plenty of others.

93 Wright 1961a: 24-25 described the orthostates of the Qasr el-Bint as made from reused column drums. However, current excavations will reveal whether or not there was an earlier building on the site of it. Otherwise, if the Qasr el-Bint is the earliest surviving freestanding monumental building in the centre of Petra, the questions would arise as to where on buildings these drums were used first. It is possible that the orthostates were rounded to roll them from the quarry and then not squared off properly. 94 Paconius’ method did not use pivots, and Vitruvius 10.2.11-12 says it did not work. 95 Vitruvius 10.2.11-4; Coulton 1977: 45-6, 141, 143, Fig. 62; Adam 1994: 27-9. 96 Bellwald et al. 2003: 33.

However, despite the relatively small sizes and short distances, the problem of transporting heavy blocks such 89

Abu Dayyah 2001: 524, 9. Kloner 2003a: 42. Arnold 1991: 57-66, 43-7; Waelkens et al. 1988a: 18. 92 Korres and Bouras 1983: 51; Korres 1995a: 28-32. 90 91

78

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Wooden sledge drawn by a team of oxen from the Tura quarries, XVIII dynasty (Clarke and Engelbach 1930: Figs.84, 85).

c. Metagenes’ method, c.550 BC, (Coulton 1977: Fig.62).

b. Wooden sledges used at Pentelicon (Martin 1965: Fig.66).

d. Paconius’ method, first century, (Coulton 1977: Fig.62).

Fig.3.32 Methods of transportation.

79

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Colonnaded Street. There are no wheel ruts in this portion which seems to have been made later than the paving in the Siq. Therefore, timber sledges pulled by workers or animal, or wagons are likely to have been used.

architectural sketch, which I found, can be seen on the way to the High Place from the Garden Tomb. The drawing shows a detail of column base (Fig.3.33).101 The Nabataean architect had to accommodate his design with the geomorphology and the quality of the rock. I can imagine that the architect would have looked at several sites in order to pick the most suitable rock face. The various heights of the natural cliffs which were available gave the architect the flexibility to produce a number of different designs to suit the landscape. However, in some cases he found difficulty in positioning the whole of his design on the chosen site. An example for this can be best seen in the Palace Tomb, which was partly built and partly carved (Fig.6.17). The masons could not fit the dimensions of the facade on the cliff, because of the natural downward slope of the chosen hill from south to north and the hill already had other facades in the way. The ingenuity of the architect is shown by mixing two techniques; freestanding and rock-cut to complete his design. Another significant example can be seen in the layout of the Main Theatre (Fig.5.3), in which the masons used the benefits of the geomorphology of the site to accommodate the plan of the theatre by using the mixed technique; the seating was carved, whereas the stage was built freestanding.

III.c.2. Position and Landscape Builders wanted the quarry location to be as near to the building site as possible. This is why the primary quarries of Petra are found as near as possible to the city centre. This was not possible in most Greco-Roman sites, since most of their quarries were outside of the city, for example the limestone quarry for the Bel Temple at Palmyra was 10 km to its north.97 As mentioned above, the quarries of Petra were cut within the context of the city, and the facades of the quarries are directly visible from the centre. Tomb quarries lined the surrounding hillsides. The stepped quarries, the Turkmaniyah and Umm-Sayhoon quarries appear like staggered blocks, which can be seen from every point in the city centre. Furthermore, noticeable aesthetic features made by the Nabataeans masons are concentrated in the main passages, for example, in the Siq, in the Outer Siq, and in some places surrounded by major monuments, such as those in front of the Palace Tomb and the Urn Tomb. All in all it seems that the Nabataean masons paid attention to the main features of the landscape. They did their best to carve out the sides of cliffs aesthetically. Because of this, wherever one stands in the city centre, one sees wellfinished cliffs, partly shaped by the masons with the rest naturally formed. This is an indicator of the Nabataean builders’ control of their physical environment. As a result of this, both the primary and tomb quarries added beauty to the natural landscape. In this regard Pflüger98 assumes that the ancient sandstone quarry walls in Petra are aesthetic, and the whole topography of the city was shaped by the hands of Nabataean masons to suit the needs and aesthetic preferences of their growing community.

It is quite evident that the use of the mixed technique is widespread in Petra and can be seen in most of the monuments, but sometimes it had to be adopted due to the poor quality of some parts of the rock-cut facade.102 For example, the masons used inset pediments and cornices in different places such as above the second doorway of the Corinthian Tomb,103 the cornice of the unfinished niche at the rear of the Palace Tomb 101 J. Healey, personal communication, 2005. I am grateful to him in helping me to read the inscription beside the incised column base shown in Fig.3.33. He states “It says ‘Remembered be Huru’ (H with a dot under it and both u’s have macrons). This name is quite common, but only occurs a few times at Petra (as can be seen in Cantineau’s grammar). Of the two Petra occurrences (CIS 402bis and CIS 426c), one is relevant CIS 402 bis. The description, drawings and squeezes in CIS are pretty obscure, but it comes under the heading ‘on the path from El-Mer to El-Farasa’. I take it that this is roughly in the Garden Tomb area (descent on other side of the High Place). And this one, 402 bis, seems to be the ‘Remembered be Huru’ inscription you sent. The only hesitation in identifying the two is that the CIS 402 bis text has a second line ‘son of Taymu’. As if to confirm the above, however, there is in CIS plate xlix a drawing of the column-base which is 99% certainly the same one as in the photo in your Fig.3.33. In CIS it is associated with inscription 404b from the same location as 402 bis. There is no trace of 404b on the material you sent. The other bit of text in what you sent appears to be CIS 402 (or the last bit of it: see plate xlix). If so, it is not copied very well, but would read as a personal name, Shullay. Again there should be another line under it. There appear from CIS to be other bits of Nabataean on the same rock-face. So I think this is the same rock-face and that the stuff is basically already published in CIS. Better pictures and ‘autopsy’ would be needed to confirm this and to fill in the gaps”. I have also added to my drawing the corrections which Prof. Healey made to it. Notably, the name Huru occurs in the inscriptions at Medain Saleh as one of the stone-cutters in the school of Aftah (AD 2731). For more details see McKenzie 1990: 14-15, also Table 4 on p. 27. 102 Shaer and Aslan 1997: 281. 103 McKenzie 1990: Pls. 146, 149.

Before starting to carve any of the rock-cut monuments in a suitable cliff, the Nabataean architect would have had a clear image of the façade he wanted to create. This can be proved by the presence of an architectural sketch which was found incised on the rock-cut façade of Tomb 825 mentioned by Shaer and Aslan.99 They did not illustrate it, but stated that “it was probably done by the architect or master mason for the craftsmen as an explanation for what was required to be executed”. Like most Greek drawings, this sketch shows a detail and not a complete façade. The use of plans and elevations occurred by the end of the Hellenistic period.100 Another incised 97

Baranski 1995: 231. Pflüger 1995: 291. Shaer and Aslan 1997: 226. 100 Coulton 1984: 104-108. 98 99

80

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General view.

b. Drawing Fig.3.33 Incised architectural sketch (found east of the Garden Tomb) showing a detail of column base.

81

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Inset cornice in the Djin blocks.

b. Inset cornice in pediment above the main doorway of Tomb 825. Fig.3.34 Inset cornices.

(Fig.3.12a), and in the cornice above the main doorway of Tomb 825 (Fig.3.34b). Moreover, inset cornices can be seen clearly in the Djin blocks (Fig.3.34a). The use of inset elements of sandstone can be explained as either a fault appearing in the rock or possibly a mistake made by the masons. Finer stone was also used for inset blocks, such as the cornice of the interior niche in the back wall of ed-Deir.104 104

To conclude, firstly, the Nabataean builders were fortunate in the choice of the site of their capital, as sandstone was easily available as a construction material. But it is not a high quality material compared to limestone or granite. However, despite its high availability, they used the stone economically to save on labour costs. The Nabataeans did not rely completely on the products of the primary quarries, which were opened in a limited number of sites. By examining these quarries, it is obvious that they would have yielded approximately

McKenzie 1990: Pls. 142b, 143a.

82

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT half of the stone blocks for the freestanding buildings in the city. The other half was obtained from the rock-cut monuments, and from the process of levelling the building sites. Secondly, the Nabataean quarrymen used the trench and wedge techniques to extract the blocks; this is evidenced by the trenches, which can be seen in a number of different sites in the city and in tombs. The quarrymen used picks in carving these trenches, but there is no evidence showing the use of crowbars. It is more likely that the presence of natural cleavage planes in the sandstone made its extraction quite easy without the need for a crowbar. Moreover, to save time and to simplify the process of exploitation, they extracted the quarries in a stepped shape, using this procedure to create horizontal platforms for working, in place of scaffolding. This technique was adopted to carve both the exterior and interior of the tombs. In small monuments, cutting the cliff to a vertical face and carving the decoration could have been done simultaneously, whereas larger monuments would have required the work to be done in two stages. The reasons for this would be practical, such as the work space available on the ledge or the requirement of stone blocks for use in freestanding buildings under construction at the time. In some cases, where the extraction of blocks took place in the centre of cliffs, the quarrymen used ladders, ropes and slots to reach the working level. Thirdly, although the quarries lay as near as possible to the intended building sites, the stonecutters roughly shaped the stone blocks in the quarry to reduce their weight. It is also certain that they used one or more of the known transportation devices to move the extracted stones to their final destination, such as sledges, sledges on rollers, or wagons with wheels. It is worth emphasising that the Nabataean masons considered not only the transportation distance and cost, but also the effect on the landscape. They did not change the landscape adversely, but added harmony and rhythm to the natural formations. When the architect faced difficulties due to the geomorphology or quality of stone he resorted to using the mixed construction technique to produce something pleasing to the eye. Therefore, the landscape effect was aesthetically driven. This picture suggests that there may have been an authority to assign plots for the quarries and for the tombs. Opening quarries might have been a useful source of income to the city, which it would want to keep control of them.105 Yet, there must have been restrictions or laws controlling quarrying, otherwise ill-sited quarries would have been seen in the city, particularly when we imagine that the Nabataeans had two products to prepare: the extracted blocks, and the rock faces of their tombs. The control of stonemasons and the material they used would also have extended to the later stages of stone preparation and dressing.

105 Nothing is known of Petra’s legal system or property law. This aspect could be done with more research in the future.

83

Chapter IV Stone Dressing and Lifting The quarrying activity resulted in two types of stone preparation work: shaping the extracted blocks, and carving the surfaces of the rock-cut monuments. While blocks of stone were being extracted from the quarry, they were roughly shaped. Most of the blocks were approximately rectangular in shape, normally much larger than the blocks used in coursed masonry, but easy to divide into smaller parts. This first stage in stone production has been discussed in chapter 3. This chapter will be concerned with four topics: block dressing, in which the block surfaces pass through a sequence of operations to give them accuracy and aesthetically desirable regularity; dressing of the rock-cut monuments; the tools and methods used for measuring; and the devices used to lift the dressed blocks. As for quarrying, there are no written documents which describe the dressing technique. Moreover, the only evidence of the masons’ tools, which might shed light on the technique used, is the pick mentioned earlier (Fig.3.14), and an iron chisel discovered in the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.4.4). Hammond1 was unable to decide whether it was used for wood or stone. However, since there is evidence from the product that certain techniques were used, the necessary tools must have been available. Thus, we have to rely on deductions based on clues, which may be found in the monuments themselves. In the light of this, the required information will be gleaned in an indirect way by three methods: firstly, by observing the traces left on the surfaces of the stone; secondly, by making deductions from known parallels in antiquity, and finally; by proposing hypotheses to describe the actual practice and then testing their accuracy.

Fig.4.1 The sequence of operations and tools used in block preparation.

Roman period for splitting stone.2 To do this the stonecutter first marked straight lines on at least one face of the block to be quarried. He then made holes for the wedges at intervals along each of these marked lines, by means of a punch or chisel and a mallet. It is probable that the distance between the holes depended on the hardness of the stone and the thickness desired. Fins and metal or wooden wedges were placed in the holes, then, the wedges were gradually and uniformly hammered in until the stone split (Fig.4.2a). To accelerate and simplify the operation, a series of pick marks could be made on the marked lines and between the wedges and in the side faces of the block in the same vertical plane. A wooden beam might have been placed under the stone below the line of wedges to help split the block along the desired line (Fig.4.2b). Although no evidence has been found in Petra showing that this method was used, it is probable that it was made use of in producing blocks (with specific dimensions) for walls, drums, capitals, bases or other decorative elements. These blocks are thick enough to allow wedges to be introduced. For veneer slabs, this technique might have not been used. This point will be discussed more fully below.

IV.a. Block Preparation The following are the operations used in block preparation; these are set out in the accompanying flow chart (Fig.4.1). IV.a.1. Splitting A large rough block of stone is split into smaller units as required by the architect. Two methods of splitting the rough blocks were used. The first involved the use of wedges in holes, as in quarrying (see chapter III.b). It seems likely that this technique has been used from long before the Greco1

2 Adam 1994: 30; Bessac 1986: 17, Fig.3; Drachmann 1963: 204; Dworakowska 1975: 104; Pliny Natural History 36.14.

Hammond 1996: 26, 80.

84

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Back of basalt triad of king Menkewre, showing marks left by a saw (Clarke and Engelbach 1930: Fig.247).

b. A saw (Martin 1965: Fig.72).

a. Splitting a block using wedges (Adam 1994: Figs.39, 42).

c. Temenos bench at Petra, showing marks left by saw in the first course. Fig.4.3 Sawing a block of stone.

The second method is to use a saw to cut the rough block of stone brought from the quarry (Fig.4.3b). The saw can be used to divide the block into a number of regular slabs. Saws are generally associated with woodwork, but sawing large blocks of stone has remained a method in common use from Roman times until today. In Egypt, the sawing of limestone blocks was done as early as the Third Dynasty with a copper bladed saw3 (Fig.4.3a). Using this tool avoided the risk of making an error during

b. Drawing showing splitting a block using wedges. Fig.4.2 Splitting stone blocks.

3

85

Arnold 1991: Figs. 22, 24.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

cutting, and it would have been economical by avoiding the wastage from the formation of chips of stone, which commonly occurred using the first technique. Adam4 explains that the saw blade was serrated for soft stones, but untoothed and used with an abrasive sand for the hard ones. Rockwell5 also states that samples of softer sandstone can be sawed with metal saws without abrasives. Both types of saw would have been used by the Nabataean stonecutters; the untoothed one with an abrasive was probably needed for cutting limestone slabs while the toothed one without abrasive for soft sandstone.

Fig.4.4 Iron (flat or drove) chisel discovered in the Temple of the Winged Lions (Petra Museum: J.P.3303).

In order to saw off a block, the line of the cut had to be scratched with a point so that the saw did not deviate from the groove. Moreover, water might have been poured along the groove to avoid overheating the blade. Hammond6 notes the presence of saw marks on stonework in the Temple of the Winged Lions. He supposes that this indicates the use of saws for the initial shaping of the material. Another piece of evidence which shows that the stonecutters in Petra used the toothed saw is found on the Temenos Gate, where the saw lines are parallel at uniform intervals7 (Fig.4.3c). At Khirbet etTannur, sawing can be seen in the east façade of the altarpedestal.8 In addition to these blocks, slabs of paving and veneer are likely to have been cut using a saw.

a. The Roman stonemason’s essential tool kit (Adam 1994: Figs.45, 46).

IV.a.2. Rough Dressing Once the block had been split and squared, the stonecutter started to give it its final shape and to test its flatness using different tools. Adam,9 following A. LeroiGourhan, divided these tools into two major categories: first, the tools involving direct percussion, which are used alone for squaring and for the rough shaping of faces. Examples of this category are the pick and hammer. The second category consists of tools involving indirect percussion, which are used in pairs, a punch or a chisel placed on the surface and struck by a percussor such as a mallet. Both categories are shown in Fig.4.5a. One point, which should be remembered here, is that the softness of the sandstone in Petra allows for very easy carving. Rockwell10 states that tools normally associated with wood carving, such as gouges, are very frequently used in carving sandstone. This is the reason why Hammond could not determine exactly how the iron chisel he found was used (Fig.4.4). Carvers often work with wooden or soft metal mallets instead of steel hammers. Rockwell adds also that the most important factor in influencing the carving technique used is the softness of the stone.

b. A chemin-de-fer with several variants on its cutting edges (Rockwell 1993: Fig.8).

4

Adam 1994: 31. Rockwell 1993: 22. 6 Hammond 1996: 80. 7 Bessac 1988: 45-6, Fig. 6. He states that the marks left by saws form very fine, parallel grooves. 8 Glueck 1965: Pl. 103. The saw was also used in the Petra Church in the Byzantine period, see Kanellopoulos 2001: 193, Figs. 1, 2, 3. 9 Adam 1994: 33. 10 Rockwell 1993: 22. 5

Dakhilallah Qublan’s tool kit in use in the “Great Temple” today. Fig. 4.5 Tools

86

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT However, as has been pointed out earlier in this chapter, no direct evidence of the tools themselves has been found to support their existence. But while I was doing my fieldwork in January 2003 I met Dakhilalleh Qublan11 restoring the arches of the east entrance of the “Great Temple”. I observed the kit of tools (Fig.4.5c) that he used and discussed the process of finishing the stone blocks. His tools are almost the same as those reported by Adam (Fig.4.5a).12 Similarly, Korres13 in his study of the Pentelicon quarries and block preparation, states that the ancient tools were similar to modern ones. The interesting exception which I noticed among Qublan’s tools is the presence of very broad chisels14 (Fig.4.5c). Qublan uses them for sandstone, which is soft. He uses them to knock the protrusions off the blocks. It is reasonable to suggest that tools involving direct and indirect percussion such as a pick, point, and flat chisels were probably used to rough out the block initially by knocking off protrusions, see Fig.4.23. IV.a.3. Fine Dressing When the rough dressing had been completed, the block would have been refined using chisels. The roughly dressed blocks for courses of masonry walls, for drums, or for decorative elements, such as bases or capitals, had to be further dressed. The stonecutter will refine the ashlars, while the sculptor will start carving the motif of his designs. At this stage both of them would have used indirect percussion tools, such as mallets and straight or claw chisels, and drills to work critical details, as we will see later. No evidence has been found in Petra showing that the blocks were given their final dressing in position the way the Greeks did when they feared chipping and other damage in rolling and hauling the blocks,15 as in the unfinished column bases of the Temple of Didyma.

a. Drawing showing the lines tilted at 54 degrees.

Hellmann16 insists that a distinction should be made between two types of claw chisels: the “ciseau grain d’orge” with pointed teeth and the “gradine” with straight-edged or rectilinear teeth. Therefore, it is obviously important to analyse the traces left on the stone blocks in Petra to distinguish the kind of tool used and to understand the stages of stone dressing. One piece of evidence is provided by the width of the grooves and the number of them per cm, as the distance between the grooves depends on the distance between the teeth of the claw chisel. As today, it is likely the three or four-toothed chisel was used in Petra by the Nabataeans. The traces of chiselled lines tilted at 35 to 55 degrees to the horizontal

b. Diagonal marks left on one sandstone block.

11 Joukowsky 1998b: 109, mentions this workman as their intrepid foreman, who was responsible for carrying out the consolidation and conservation of the “Great Temple”. 12 Adam 1994: 45-46. 13 Korres 1995: 76-77, Fig. 10. He publishes the principal ancient and modern tools of quarrying and cutting marble. 14 These broad chisels are not pitchers or bolsters with a slanted cutting edge. 15 Plommer 1956: 150. 16 Hellmann 2002: 82-3. See also to Bessac 1986: 139-48, Figs.32, 33; 1988: 48-50.

c. Marks from test using a claw chisel (Done by the author on limestone block). Fig. 4.6 Coarse line dressing.

87

SHAHER M. RABABEH

(Fig.4.6a) are the most common feature resulting from fine dressing; see Figs.4.6a,b. Vertical lines have also been noted in the column drums in the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.4.26a).

For the regularly spaced coarse and fine lines, I would argue the use of a claw chisel with pointed teeth rather than one with rectilinear teeth or a pointed chisel.19 I observed Qublan using both claw chisels with 4 teeth to produce both these types of lines, but preferring the use of a claw chisel with four sharp teeth in his restoration work in the “Great Temple”. To the east of Petra, in Maan, I tried myself to produce lines like these by using a claw chisel with 4 rectilinear teeth and a metal mallet. The same pattern of lines was produced, although I did it on limestone, see Fig.4.6c.

Harding was one of the first to report these tilted lines. He stated that “the Nabataeans’ method of dressing stone is equally individual: they used a single ended pick and ran the cutting lines at an angle of 45 degrees across the face of the block, column rock face or whatever they were shaping. Many examples of this can of course, be seen in Petra”.17 In fact two types of lines can be observed: coarse and fine lines. By analysing these, one may safely assume that either a point or a claw chisel “gradine” with a mallet has been used for the coarse type. A similar example of coarse diagonal lines, carved by using a point, was found in Delphi.18 However, one can distinguish a single point or pick from a toothed chisel by the regular spacing, as well as the fineness of the lines.

So far, the argument that the block was first roughed out with the usual tools, and then was worked either by a rectilinear or sharp-toothed claw chisel is quite strong. The question of the treatment of the mouldings can be studied in the same way. But their preparation would have been laborious. Their exact shape had to be carved on the surface of the rough block, probably by using a

a. Tracings for capitals on blocks in the quarry of Gebel Abu Fedah, Egypt (Arnold 1991: Fig.2.26).

b. Diagram showing the Archaic and Classical Greek method of stone carving (Woodford 1982: Fig.1.4). Fig.4.7 Use of grid lines. 17

Harding 1967: 120. Martin 1965: Pl. XVI, 2, see also Pl. L112, which shows lines tilted at 45 degrees and lifting bosses at Delphi. For the use of the point see Bessac 1988: 47, Fig.8. 18

19 Hammond 1996: 81 suggests that the typical Nabataean diagonal dressing would have involved toothed hammers, or special chisels.

88

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.4.8 Drill holes and ripple technique in the capitals at Petra. a. Temple of the Winged Lions.

b. Khazneh, north vestibule doorway.

some of the floral capital fragments, there are guidelines in the form of 9 cm squares with diagonals to assist sculptors in the carving process.23 In the marble workshop beside the Temple of the Winged Lions, coloured lines for drafted margins were used to indicate the required details to be cut.24 Also surviving from the Temple of the Winged Lions are painted spots on the floral capitals marking the drill holes for the sculptor. Thus, guidelines were commonly used by the sculptors in Petra.

full-scale drawing from which the measurements could be transferred, or by using a template. The sculptor probably had model drawings of the desired decorative elements. This technique would allow the sculptor to visualise the finished moulding initially, and to start sculpting with sufficient accuracy. Therefore, the problem of calculating the slowly diminishing size of the decorative details could have been solved with the help of a full-scale drawing, then by projecting the view by using grid lines, which permitted the decorative details to be drawn in the correct proportions. This technique was commonly in use in Dynastic Egypt20 (Fig.4.7a). Woodford21states that the Greeks must have learnt this technique from the Egyptians. This is why early Greek statues look much like Egyptian ones. She presents a diagram showing the Archaic and Classical Greek method of stone carving, see Fig.4.7b. However, it is not clear that squares were used in Greek architectural dressing. There are two Corinthian capitals from the House of Augustus in Rome, one of which was left unfinished with one side subdivided into small rectangular blocks.22 These blocks are blocked out acanthus leaves indicating the use of a variation of this technique.

It seems certain that the Nabataean builders used a drill of some sort.25 The use of the drill can be seen in both the rock-cut monuments and the freestanding decorative elements. McKenzie26 noted some of these drill holes, which were still visible and left unfinished on the floral capitals of the Temple of the Winged Lions and the Khazneh (Figs.4.9a, b; 10). Treatment of the small details in Petra, therefore, often involved the drill. The tool may have been of one or more of three types.27 The one shown in Fig.4.11a is based on a crank and flywheel similar to those used in Egypt in the Third Dynasty. The second type is the bow drill (Fig.4.11b). The third type is larger with a driving belt operated by a second workman (Fig.4.11c). As far as I can see any of these could use a

In Petra, clear evidence of the use of guidelines is found in different places in the Temple of the Winged Lions. On 20

23

Arnold 1991: 47, Fig. 2. 26; Clarke and Engelbach 1930: 199, Figs. 242, 243. 21 Woodford 1982: 7. There is strong evidence of Egyptian influence on early Greek statues, for this see Richter 1988: 4, 17, Pls. I, a-f; Coulton 1977: 32-3. 22 For the two capitals see Wilson-Jones 2000: Fig. 7.12.

Hammond 1996: AEP 76, R1#4. Hammond 1996: 80. 25 Lyttelton 1974: 66 considered that there is no sign of the drill having been used. She based her suggestion on the capitals of the Qasr el-Bint. 26 McKenzie 1990: 51. 27 Bessac 1986: 231-52, Figs. 53-7; 1988: 51-2. 24

89

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a

b Fig.4.9 Drill holes in the capitals. a. Fallen capital in front of the Nymphaeum. b. Floral Corinthian capital found in az-Zantur IV.

b

a

Fig.4.10 Drill holes in the zoomorphic (elephant head) capitals carved from limestone, found in the Lower Temenos of the “Great Temple”.

a

b

c

Fig.4.11 Drilling a. Man drilling out the interior of stone vase, based on a crank and fly wheel, fifth dynasty, Abusir (Clarke and Engelbach 1930: Fig.246). b. Bow drill (Orlandos 1968: Fig.45). c. A funerary relief from the via Labicana shows the working of a drill. Driving belt operated by a second workman (Adam 1994: Fig.74).

90

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Letter marked in the base of the drum.

b. Numbers marked in the upper half of the side of the drums. Fig.4.12 Mason marks in the “Great Temple”.

tubular drill bit. The first type of drill is not attested in Greek and Roman use.

inscribed ashlars. He suggests that these blocks represent surplus materials left over from the original construction. Secondly, there are mason marks, letters and numbers on the column drums of the Main Theatre.31 Thirdly, I noted inscribed drums and wall blocks among the artefacts collected in the “Great Temple”. The mason marks appear on the drums in two forms, the first consists of letters on the base of the drum (Fig.4.12a), and the second consists of numbers on the upper half of the side of the drum (Fig.4.12b). Moreover, some blocks in the southwest corner of the walkway wall of the “Great Temple” are inscribed with Nabataean letters. It should be stressed here that the use of Nabataean letters is clear

After finishing this stage of dressing, the stonemasons started to mark the necessary symbols on the blocks to indicate their order in the building process. This technique was very common in Greek28 and Roman architecture.29 Three important examples of this technique can be seen in Petra showing the use of masons’ marks, which consist chiefly of Nabataean letters and numbers. Firstly, in the west corridor of the Temple of the Winged Lions, Hammond30 found a row of 28

Martin 1965: 225-31; Hellmann 2002: 88-91. Adam 1994: 40. 30 Hammond 1996: 28, Pls. 6, 7, 15. 2. 29

31

91

Hammond 1965: 13, 45-6, 49, 70-1, Pls. XXXIII.34, XLVII-L.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Pounder

Polisher

Polisher

a. Dolerite pounders from the area of the pyramid of Amenemhat I at Lisht, twelfth dynast (after Arnold 1991: Fig.6.16).

b. Limestone spherical balls (catapults and polishers) discovered at the “Great Temple”.

c. A sketch showing the difference in use between pounders and polishers. Fig.4.13 Pounders, polishers and Catapults.

evidence that the Nabataean masons themselves were the master builders. Foerster32 states that “the use of mason marks, probably for the assembly of the columns in this period is known from the Herodian sites like Jericho, but also from the Nabataean realm”. Similarly, Hammond33 states “Such locational coding of drums is reported from Masada, where it is seen to be Nabataean in origin, although not done in Nabataean script”. Hammond means 32 33

here that the Masada builders borrowed this use from the Nabataeans. However, apart from the alphabet used, both the Nabataean and the Masada systems are the same as the Greek system. Further preparations at the end of this stage were the holes used for lifting. This technique required special preparations of the stone blocks, as we will see in section d below.

Foerster 1995: XIX. Hammond 1996: 42.

92

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT IV.a.4. Final Abrasion

the protruding parts and to make the surface as flat as possible. From this, the surface will be ready for the next stage. Examples of this type of work can be seen in the interior of the Tomb of the Broken Pediment (Fig.4.15b), and the ceiling of Tomb 813.

As a rule most sandstone cannot be polished,34 but hard stones can be. The finishing of most sculpted pieces either in the rock-cut monuments or the freestanding buildings indicates the use of rasps or grinding stones to smooth and then to decorate the final surface. In Egypt, grinding was done on hard stones, such as alabaster, marble, granite, diorite, and basalt.35 The abrasion of the surfaces was possibly carried out while sprinkling with water. The size of grinding tool would have varied depending on the size of the element to be decorated. Small rasps might have been used to finish stone surfaces at Petra in neatly carved delicate waves especially on the petals of flowers, see Figs.4.8; 9; 10. McKenzie36 called this process of dressing the “ripple technique”.

Fine pecked dressing is the third type, in which a point was used with a mallet. The markings run in dotted straight lines (Fig.4.14c). The straight lines indicate the use of a mallet to strike on a point involving indirect percussion. If a pick had been used without a mallet, the markings would have been curved due to the movement of the workman’s arm, as in Fig.4.15b. It is worth noting the change of tools used to obtain a finer surface than in the second type. Examples of fine pecked dressing can be seen in the façade of Tomb 343 on the right and left sides below the pediment, see Fig.4.16a. Another example can be seen in the interior of the Tomb of Sextius Florentinus on the surface of the engaged column, see Fig.4.16b.

IV.b. Dressing of the Rock-cut Tombs Dressing of the rock-cut monument surfaces is the most characteristic feature of Nabataean carving. A systematic study of their forms and techniques has never been made. As was explained in the study of quarries in chapter 3, we can visualise the first stage of the carving, which was presented in considering the monuments themselves as a place for producing rough stone blocks. In this section attention will focus on classifying the finishing processes that were carried out on the rock-cut monuments after the first stage was completed. Since we have no direct evidence for the processes, the observations and the analyses of the markings will be the key to obtaining a reasonable description of the sequence of processes followed. The main aim here is to introduce clear examples for each type, and then to define the tools that might have been used for them. This will help further detailed research on individual monuments in the future. The various types37 of markings on the rock-cut monuments, in order of fineness, are shown in the accompanying flow chart (Fig.4.14). The first type is roughly quarried, which represents the first stage of working a rock cut surface. This usually consists of long coarse straight or curved lines of peck38 marks, which may run in various directions (Fig.4.14a). These marks were left by the quarryman, and might have been done using a pick involving direct percussion. Examples of this type can be seen in the ceiling of the Turkmaniyah Tomb (Fig.4.15a), and in the ceiling of the north chamber of the Palace Tomb and the walls and the ceiling of its south chamber.

The fourth type of dressing involves coarse lines. These usually consist of horizontal, vertical, curved, or diagonal lines. The lines were carved in a regular pattern, and the composition of the grooves is homogeneous (Fig.4.14d). Their characteristics are similar to the lines carved on the freestanding blocks (Fig.4.6). For this type the stonemason used a claw chisel and mallet. I would argue here that they used claw chisel with rectilinear teeth, with more widely spaced teeth (Fig.4.17a). Examples of horizontal lines appear beneath the ceiling and the band of the Urn Tomb, see Fig.4.17a. Vertical lines always appear in the corners of the interiors of the tombs. These form a band, measuring 10 cm in width, probably made with a toothed chisel. The stonemasons carved this band in this way because it was impossible for them to manipulate their arms above the height of the ceiling to hit their tools diagonally. In addition to being a solution to a technical problem, this aesthetically enhanced the interior of the tomb. Examples of this technique appear in the interior of most of the finished tombs, such as Tomb 813, the Obelisk Tomb, and the Urn Tomb, see Fig.4.17a. Curved lines appear in the main chamber of the Corinthian Tomb (Fig.4.17b). Lines tilted at about 45 degrees are the most common type similar to those carved in the blocks used in the freestanding buildings. An example of lines at an angle can be seen in the interior walls of Turkmaniyah Tomb (Fig.4.15a). Fine line dressing is the fifth type in this classification. It is similar to the coarse line type, but the density of lines per cm is greater and the lines are finer. Examples of this appear in the façades of Tomb 825 (Fig.4.18a) and Tomb 813 (Fig.4.18b). It seems probable that a sharp-toothed claw chisel was used for this type. However, the regularity of the carved lines in all of the rock-cut monuments led me to argue for the existence of a further tool. A rasping tool, made of metal, like a hairbrush or a comb might have been used. This alternative tool could be driven by hand or with a wooden mallet. The reason for suggesting this is the difficulty of obtaining regular

The second type is a roughly or coarsely pecked surface, in which the stonecutter started to roughly smooth the marks of the first stage that were left by the quarryman’s pick (Fig.4.14b). Here the main concern was to remove 34

Rockwell 1993: 22. Arnold 1991: 263. 36 McKenzie 1990: 184 37 McKenzie 1990: 184, in the glossary, defines eight types of stone dressing. This is the first attempt at this kind of study. 38 The pecked marks are similar to the marks made by a bird’s beak. 35

93

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.4.14 The sequence of operations and tools used in the dressing of the carved monuments.

94

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Façade of Tomb 343, showing the fine pecked marks to the right and left of the pediment.

a. Roughly quarried marks in the ceiling of the Turkmaniyah Tomb with finer marks of toothed chisel below.

b. Roughly pecked marks in the Tomb of the Broken Pediment.

b. Engaged column inside the Tomb of Sextius Florentinus.

Fig.4.15 Rough dressing.

Fig.4.16 Fine pecked dressing.

fine lines in sandstone despite its softness. In principle, it would be difficult to distinguish the marks of tool from sharp-toothed chisel marks or marks from the so-called chemin-de-fer (Fig.4.5b).39 The chemin-de-fer certainly exists now, and it is doubtful if it was used in antiquity.40 But traces of it at Petra can be distinguished from those of a sharp-toothed chisel, for example in the façade of Tomb

813 (Fig.4.18), in which the fine lines are slightly curved, as if a tool like a hand plane or hairbrush was used (Fig.4.5b). The curved lines show the use of a tool like a chemin-de-fer rather than a sharp-toothed chisel. The chief difference between them is that the sharp-toothed chisel involves more skilled labourers working over a longer time, while the chemin-de-fer involves unskilled labourers working and producing a higher output over a shorter time. As the sandstone in Petra is fairly soft, this would enable the stonemasons to achieve both regularity and fineness in their work.

39 40

Bessac 1986: 211-21, Figs.46-50; Rockwell 1993: 22, Fig.8. Ginouvés and Martin 1985: 74.

95

SHAHER M. RABABEH

teeth striking the stone directly.41 The sculptor then smoothed surfaces while sprinkling them with water. Grinding involves repeating this process more than once, which is the last type of dressing, see the cornices in Figs.4.16a; 4.18a, b.42 A bush hammer could not have been used to stipple fine details such as those on Corinthian capitals. Using a bush hammer would have damaged the delicate details of the decoration. The fine surface must have bee produced with either a fine chisel and/or an abrasive. The points just discussed lead to further consideration of the kinds of tools, which have been used to smooth the surfaces of both the freestanding buildings and the rockcut monuments. It is worth noting that the grinding tool must be harder than the stone surface to be ground. Since the stone surface in the rock-cut monuments consists of soft sandstone, a limestone grinder could have been used.

a. Horizontal lines in the ceiling of the Urn Tomb.

I observed suitable stones, mainly of limestone, among the artefacts collected during the excavations in the “Great Temple”, and placed to the west of the temple (Fig.4.13b). No information has been published concerning their uses. They have a diameter of 15-30 cm and weigh about 4-8 kg each. Each one could only be lifted with two hands. Some of them are completely spherical, while the others are spherical with one side smooth and flattened (Fig.4.13b). At first sight, the spheres are similar to balls used in catapults43 but also to the pounders used in Egyptian quarries. Pounders, which are roughly, or completely spherical balls of dolerite, were used in Egyptian quarries for knocking chips off granite and perhaps other hard stone44 (Fig.4.13a, c). Pounding probably was one of the methods used in producing the finish on the hard stones such as the granite columns in the Blue Chapel on the north ridge of Petra.45 To pound granite needs harder stone than granite, and limestone cannot be used. So the spheres were probably used in times of conflict as projectiles. However, the flat surfaces of some of these spheres indicate their use as a grinding tool. When held in two hands and moved horizontally across a sandstone surface they would have been an effective heavy grinder (Fig.4.13c). Perhaps, these spherical balls were initially made as catapult balls, but the Nabataean stonemasons used them as grinders, or vice versa. Since they are of limestone, they are harder than the sandstone on which they would have been used.

b. Curved lines in the walls of the main chamber of the Corinthian Tomb. Fig.4.17 Coarse line dressing.

The next type of dressing occurs after the surface had been given a high degree of fineness, and the sculptor started to remove the fine lines from the elements which he intended to sculpt. The surface then became stippled, with lines of tool marks visible. The surface of the interior of Tomb 813 is one example of this type of dressing, see Fig.4.19a. Similar examples can be seen in el-Khazneh (Fig.4.19b), ed-Deir (Fig.4.20a), and in the interior of Triclinium 21 (Fig.4.20b). In all these examples the stippled surfaces look as if they were produced with a bush hammer or similar tool with the

However, for the limestone capitals and other elements, basalt grinders or other kinds of harder stones might have 41

Bessac 1986: 77-85, Figs.21-3; Rockwell 1993: Fig. 7. For other examples see McKenzie 1990: Pls. 40b Urn Tomb entablature; 42c the fine carving of capitals; 118b below moulding. 43 Joukowsky 2003: personal communication. She thinks they are all catapults. 44 Arnold 1991: 37, 262-3. 45 Bikai 2002: 2 suggests that the Blue Chapel was built using Egyptian blue granite columns reused from a Nabataean monument. 42

96

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.4.18 Fine line dressing. a. Detail of the façade of Tomb 825.

b. Detail of the façade of Tomb 813.

a. Interior surface of Tomb 813. b. El- Khazneh. Fig.4.19 Stippling and smooth dressing.

97

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.4.20 Stippling and smooth dressing. a. Detail of façade of ed-Deir.

b. Interior of Triclinium 21.

been used. Most of the visible polished elements in the monuments of Petra were decorative elements such as Corinthian capitals, statues, floral friezes, bases, and cornices. Large grinders could be used to work on broad surfaces, but complex capitals needed small grinders or metal rasps. When the stone surfaces had been dressed to the required smoothness, it was complete as far as the architects were concerned and the artists began their work, such as painting.

use of a pick to a coarse toothed chisel. Fig.4.17a shows coarser horizontal to finer diagonal chiselling, and Fig. 4.18 shows what seems to be finer diagonal lines to a ground surface. Similar examples are standard in Greek and Roman practice where a clear sequence was followed, as inscriptions as well as tool marks show.46 The flow charts (Figs.4.1, 14) show that the number of stages of dressing the freestanding blocks is less than those on the rock-cut monuments. Probably, because of the large number of finished and unfinished tombs we can see different surfaces exhibiting various phases of the dressing process. This difference also relates to the features of the surface received by the stonemasons after the quarrying has been finished. On the one hand, the blocks were mostly split using wedges or the sawing. These would leave fairly homogenous surfaces, which would have required less stages of dressing. On the other hand, all the surfaces in the tombs were left by a quarrymen roughly shaped, which would have required more dressing.

So far, most of the discussion in the previous two sections has concerned the types of stone dressing. The questions which still remain unanswered are: did the dressing process really follow the sequence mentioned above? Could the sculptor have started the work to obtain fine lines immediately after quarrying or at the pecked lines stage? Why is there a difference in the number of stages of dressing between blocks and rock-cut tombs? A polished surface could not be achieved without passing through the stages mentioned above. Stone masons used separate tools of different coarseness to wear down the surface, and from the coarsest to the finest. The tools used were changed in sequence for each of these types of dressing; starting with a pick and finishing with small chisels and grinders (Figs.4.1; 14). Much care was taken at each stage to get a perfectly homogeneous surface. Clearly each stage existed, but it is difficult to find examples containing the whole sequence together. It is possible that there are different methods being used for different forms of work, for example sub-groups of two or three tools in a sequence geared to particular purposes. Fig 4.15a shows what seems to be a sequence from the

IV.c. Measuring Tools The process of producing stone, starting from its extraction to the last step of dressing, would make demands involving accurate measurement and levelling. This was vital in both freestanding masonry and in the rock-cut monuments. The stonemasons used different implements to ensure the correctness of the 46 Conclusive examples are in Martin 1965: Pl. XXVII; Ginouvés and Martin 1985: Pls.36, 37; Adam 1994: Figs.61, 69.

98

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Modern replica of wooden cubit rod in the Metropolita Museum of Art, New York (Arnold 1991: Fig.6.1).

b. Surveying fields with ropes, as depicted in the Theban Tomb of Menna (Arnold 1991: Fig.6.2).

c. Graduated ruler from the funerary stele of a naval carpenter. Ostia, Cardo Maximus (Adam 1994: Fig.77). Fig.4.21 Rulers.

measurements, and to obtain the required dimensions. Although no such instruments have been discovered at Petra, the accuracy in the dimensions of the monuments could not have been obtained without the use of measuring tools. In other words, since geometrical shapes can be observed, specific measuring tools certainly would have been used. Several questions may be raised relating to tools used for measuring: how did the stonemasons obtain right angles? How did they reproduce similar carved elements? How did they control the levelling of horizontal and vertical lines? How did they draw curved and circular elements with high accuracy? These questions can be answered by studying the tools used by the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans.

subdivisions. The length of a cubit rod varies from 52.3 to 52.9 cm. Two-cubit rods 104.89 cm long were found in the tomb of the architect Kha at Deir el-Medina. The rear and under surface of the rod was often inscribed with the name of the owner. Hard stone or wood was used to make the cubit rods, see Fig.4.21a. For measuring great distances, the Egyptians used measuring ropes of 100 cubits (52.5 m), see Fig.4.21b. Moreover, the Egyptians also used foot rulers in the Roman period. The Romans used the foot and its subdivisions and multiples as their standard unit, equal to 29.57cm.48 They also used 12 inches or 16 digits as equal to one foot. The Roman rulers were made of bronze or wood or bone. An example is represented on a funerary stele with scored markings dividing it at Ostia, see Fig.4.21c. This is an unusual ruler consisting of a foot of 16 digits plus 5 half-palms (double digits) which gives a total length of 6.5 palms.

A ruler was used to determine the dimensions of length, height, and width of the stone elements. In Dynastic Egypt,47 the stonemasons used graduated rulers or socalled cubit rods with 7 palms and 28 digits as their 47

48 Adam 1994: 41 presents the values of the foot and its multiples. For the value of Roman foot see also Wilson Jones 2000: 41, 72, 83.

Arnold 1991: 251.

99

SHAHER M. RABABEH

In Petra, it has been noted that in the Qasr el-Bint the Egyptian unit cubit was used,49 as found earlier in Qasr el-Abd.50 However, several details concerning Nabataean units of measurement still need further study, and without photogrammetric work51 it is difficult to induce the precise unit used for any monument.

Squares would also have been needed to obtain right angles in various situations. Throughout Egyptian, Greek, and Roman construction, different kinds of squares and plumb line were used such as L-squares for checking right angles, A-squares with a plumb line for horizontals, and the plumb line for verticals,52 see Fig.4.22a,b. Hammond53 states that Nabataean masons use of squares for squaring blocks, and making straight edges can be seen at the Main Theatre. Boning54 rods were used in Egypt to check for protrusions and in order to obtain completely flat surfaces. An example of this technique is shown in the representation in the Tomb of Rekhmira (Fig.4.23). Other measuring tools, which would have

a. A set square, a square level, and a plumb line from the Tomb of Senedjem at Deir el-Medineh (Arnold 1991: Fig.6.4).

Fig.4.23 Reconstruction of the scene of men working with the boning rod and dressing a limestone block from the Theban Tomb of Rekhmira (Arnold1991: Figs.6.7, 9).

b. Relief of Diogenes Structor, a Pompeian mason, showing a plumb line, compass, L-square and ruler (Adam 1994: Fig.48; Orlandos 1966: Pl. 78d). Fig.4.22 Measuring and checking tools.

52 See Orlandos 1968: Fig. 75, the tool in this figure looks more intended for testing horizontals and verticals than for right angles. 53 Hammond 1996: 81; 1965 Pl. xxxvi, 4. 54 Clarke and Engelbach 1930: 105-6; Arnold 1991: 256.

49

Zayadine et al. 2003:77-9. 50 Will and Larché 1991: 133-140. 51 Parr 1975: 31-45.

100

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT middle of the first century BC,64 the Nabataeans began to construct monumental buildings involving large blocks of stone and sculptures. That is about thirty centuries after the Egyptians65 erected their first monuments with megalithic blocks and six centuries after the Greeks began to build large monuments,66 and four and half centuries after pulleys were first used. The Nabataeans would have been able to draw on other people’s experience not only in the building of monuments, but also probably the techniques for lifting blocks. However, before discussing this point, the question we face now concerns the sizes of blocks used in the Nabataean buildings.

been required, are templates for carving mouldings and in making moulds for plaster flutings. Compasses were needed to draw circles and segments of circles, and to record dimensions with a high degree of accuracy in both carving capitals and cornices.55 Examples of the use of these tools appear in nearly every rock-cut monument as well as the freestanding buildings in Petra, such as elKhazneh, ed-Deir, the Palace Tomb, the Main Theatre, the Temple of the Winged Lions, and the floral capitals of az-Zantur IV, where guide lines on columns and other elements have been reported.56 It is probable that the tools mentioned were made of metal and wood. IV.d. Lifting

The major freestanding monumental buildings in Petra are: the Qasr el-Bint, the Temple of the Winged Lions, the “Great Temple”, the stage building of the Main Theatre, the freestanding part of the Palace Tomb, and the Colonnaded Street and the Temenos Gate. Accepting the weight of Petra sandstone as 2300 kg per cubic metre,67 then the average weight of most normal wall blocks varies from about 150 to 330 kg, except in the orthostate course of the Qasr el-Bint, in which the average weight of each block is about 3 tons. Thus, these orthostate blocks were the heaviest ones. However, they could have been moved in place by means of levers because they are built in the first course and would not need lifting devices. The same situation pertains to column bases, which could have been coaxed into place without needing to be lifted into their final position.68 Four men would be required to raise a weight of 150 kg to a height of one meter. If, however, wall blocks had to be laid on higher courses it would have been necessary to use other means. If we suppose that ladders were used, four men could not climb up together carrying such a load. It is also difficult to argue for lifting by means of a ramp. The topographical features and the distance available between buildings would not permit the builders to construct a temporary ramp of earth against the walls under construction. It should be stressed, therefore, that mechanical devices would have been necessary.

Once the stone blocks had been prepared, the builders had to haul them into their final position. The size of blocks can be divided into two classes: firstly, the small blocks, which were sufficiently light to be lifted by a party of men,57 and secondly, the megalithic blocks, where the builders faced a problem in lifting them. This problem was usually solved by using various cranes and hoists based on compound pulley systems, which are described by Vitruvius58 and Heron of Alexandria.59 Very large blocks cannot be lifted with simple cranes. The purpose of the present section is twofold. The first aim is to examine the weights of the Nabataean blocks, to see whether they would have needed mechanical devices or not, and to observe the technical features which could be considered as evidence for the use of lifting devices. The second aim is to understand how the Nabataeans learnt to handle heavy loads. Did they borrow the technique of the Assyrians’60 and the Egyptians’, which involved using artificial ramps61? Levers and rockers were used in Egypt, too. Or did the Nabataeans use simple or compound pulley systems, which had been in use in Greece since c. 515 BC,62 and continued in use throughout the Roman period? Generally speaking, the problem of lifting first arose with the introduction of monumental architecture.63 The heavy sculptures and large stone blocks used in building monuments were normally larger than those which could be lifted by a man’s labour alone. In Petra, in about the

The Nabataeans built most column shafts up from small drums, because as has been noted in section III.c.1, the quarries would not easily yield any larger blocks. The normal height of each drum was about 50 cm, but its diameter differed according to the size and the location of the column in the building. Most drums used inside buildings and in the Colonnaded Street had a diameter of

55

Adam 1994: Fig. 84; Korres 1995: Fig. 10. Hammond 1996: 81. B. Kolb, Personal communication, 2003. 57 Coulton 1974: 3, note 15, where he cites different suggestions about the load carried by a man: 41 kg for a full day, 82 kg on shoulder, 113 kg a coal heaver. I intend to use the load 41 kg in this research. 58 Vitruvius 10. 2. 59 Hero, Mechanik und Katoptrik 3. 2-5. 60 Coulton 1974: 2, 10, states that the first simple pulley is known in an Assyrian relief of the ninth century B.C., but it was used there to raise up water. 61 The ramp was the method most clearly used by the Assyrians and the Egyptians for raising heavy blocks of stone. The same method was used in the Archaic period by Chersiphron to raise the architraves of the temple of Artemis at Ephesos in the mid-sixth century BC as stated in Pliny 36. 14. This assumption was rejected by Orlandos, see Coulton 1974: 1, n. 3. 62 Coulton 1974: 16. 63 Vitruvius 10. 2. 1. 56

64 This conclusion is based on the chronology of the principal monuments, which was proposed by McKenzie 1990: 121-22. 65 In Egypt the monumental buildings using large scale blocks had started with the first pyramids from the Third Dynasty onwards. See Clarke and Engelbach 1930; Arnold 1991. 66 In Greece monumental architecture and sculptures began in about the middle of the seventh century BC. See Coulton 1977: 45, 140. 67 For the calculation of the approximate weights of sandstone blocks in Petra, Hammond 1996: 43 presents this formula: The weight in kilograms= (the volume in cms) S.G./1000, where S.G. is the specific gravity of sandstone (calculated as 2.3). 68 Plommer 1956: 149.

101

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a

c

b

Fig.4.24 Ashlar entablature. Qasr el-Bint. a. East entablature of the Qasr el-Bint, showing the arrangement of the blocks, looking west. b. Triglyph block (c.100 kg). c. Horizontal cornice block (c.180 kg).

which is insufficient to allow eleven men to lift the drum directly, since each man needs a width of 60 cm, and eleven need 6.60 m (three times the total circumference 2.20 m). The same argument can be applied to the Temple of the Winged Lions and the “Great Temple” drums, which require the strength of approximately fifty workers to raise them. A space of 50 x 0.6 m = 30 m long would be required for them to work freely, whereas the actual circumference of the drum is only 4.71 m. It is important to point out that no evidence has been found of loops used to lift drums using poles.70 The drums of the Qasr el-Bint would be even more difficult to lift as 167 workers would have been required.

c. 70 cm. Therefore, their average weight (π x r x r x h) is 3.14 x 0.35 x 0.35 x 0.50 x 2300 = 442.3 kg. The drums found in the pronaos of the Temple of the Winged Lions, and the “Great Temple” have the same average height as the smaller type, but their average diameter is 1.50 m, so their average weight is 3.14 x 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.50 x 2300 = 2031.18 kg. The main exception to the general rule is on the Qasr el-Bint (Fig.4.26b), where the diameter of the drums is 2 m and the average height is 1 m, so the average weight was 3.14 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 2300 = 7222 kg. Even for the smaller type of drums, eleven men would have been needed to carry one drum. The total circumference69of a drum (π x r) is 0.70 x 3.14 = 2.20 m,

70 Coulton 1974: 3, Fig.3, suggests that the 300 kg weight in the temple of Athena Pronaia could be raised by four men using a pole passed through two loops of rope.

The circumference = rπ, where r is the diameter and π is constant 3.14. 69

102

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a

b Fig.4.25 Corner blocks of pediment from Petra and Baalbek. a. Temple of the Winged Lions Temple (c.150 Kg). b. Temple of Jupiter, Baalbek (colossal weight, c.100 ton).

Architraves were normally the heaviest blocks in a classical building. In Petra, as will be discussed in section VI.b.2, no stone architrave blocks have been found. If they had been of stone the central one of the Qasr el-Bint for example would weigh c. 8 x 1 x 0.75 x 2.3 = 18 tons. This may be because sandstone was not suitable for this, it is friable and cannot withstand high tensile forces as will be discussed in section VI.b.2.

pronaos columns, since it has approximately the same diameter. The part of the drum with one boss on it can be seen but the dump covers the rest so we have no confirmation of the existence of bosses on the other side of the drum (Fig.4.27e). It is difficult to suggest the total number of bosses in the drum. However, the location of the boss is higher than the centre of gravity, and it is probable that the amount it projects was sufficient and a suitable shape for holding a loop of rope.74 Thus, it seems likely that this boss was intended for use with loops of rope and not with a lever. In describing this technique it will be better to give a parallel example commencing from the older Parthenon, and the Propylaea,75 see Fig.4.27c. No further evidence for bosses survives in either wall blocks or column drums in Petra. It is possible that the stonemasons removed them after lifting. But no evidence of this has been found.

It is correct that these loads of the blocks and column drums seem insignificant compared to some of those lifted in Assyrian, Egyptian, and Greek and Roman buildings (Figs.4.24; 25).71 But they are still too heavy and difficult to lift directly by a number of labourers. A means of mechanical lifting would be needed to raise both the wall blocks and the column drums, especially the drums of the pronaoi, which are extremely heavy. Greek builders used different ways of attaching blocks to a hoist72: projecting bosses, side grooves, top channels or grooves, lewises or lifting pins, and also tongs (Fig 4.27b, c, d). The Romans later took over two of the Greek techniques: bosses and lewises. Adam73 states that they added another technique, which involves the use of grips (Figs.4.26c; 27b). Three of these techniques have been noted in Petra. One drum with weathered handling bosses can be seen in the dump of the pronaos of the Qasr elBint (Fig.4.27e). This drum had fallen from one of the

There are holes or slots on the sides of drums in both the Temple of the Winged Lions and the Qasr el-Bint (Fig.4.26a, b). They are relatively small nearly square tapering shape, each approximately 8 x 10 and 5 cm deep. Two squared slots, opposite to each other, appear in each drum of the Temple of the Winged Lions. They are positioned above the centre of gravity. These slots indicate the use of lifting hooks, which were connected by rope to the lifting machine. In the Qasr el-Bint, the situation is rather different. There are actual six slots per drum, and these are distributed equally around the circumference. Their position is above or at the centre of

71

To compare the loads of most of the Greek buildings see the table in Coulton 1974: 9-10, 14-15. 72 Coulton 1974: 1-8; 1977: 48; Dinsmoor 1975: 173-4; Martin 1965: 209-22; Orlandos 1968: Figs. 93, 97, 104, 106; Hellmann 2002: 86-8. 73 Adam 1994: 48, Figs. 106, 110.

74

Coulton 1974: Fig. 5b. Taylor 2003: 115-6, Fig. 63; Korres 1995: Figs. 19, 20, 21; Bundgaard 1957: Figs. 43, 44, which show the bosses in the Propylaea. 75

103

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Column drums from the Temple of the Winged Lions, showing the holes.

c. Lifting block by using grips technique (Adam 1994: Fig.110).

b. Column drums from Qasr el-Bint, showing the holes.

d. Proposed lifting device for raising the drum with six slots.

Fig.4.26 Holes on the side of drums.

104

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a

b

c

d

Fig.4.27 Handling bosses, grooved channel and methods of looping the blocks

a. Column drum from the Temple of the Winged Lions, showing the grooved channel on the top side (Hammond 1996: Pl.11.3). b. Interior grips or self-adjusting Lewises (Adam 1994: Fig.106). c. Lifting drums by using bosses in the earlier Parthenon (Orlandos 1968: Fig.97.2). d. Proposed method for lifting the grooved drum. e. One drum with handling boss from the Qasr el-Bint. e

gravity. Dentzer-Fedy,76 as will be discussed in section V.b.1, suggests that these slots were used to secure the rings of stucco decoration, which covered the columns and divided them into drums. As will be mentioned in V.a.4, the size of the holes used for iron and wooden pegs to fix stucco are smaller. However, the two slots in the Temple of the Winged Lions drums could not be explained by this. Although the slots are big for grips, it is more likely that they were probably carved in this size in order not to chip the sandstone while lifting.

raised. Since 10 ton drums of limestone were lifted elsewhere using a single lewis,77 the problem is not the tension in the rope. Similar examples can be seen in the cornice blocks of the Temples Zeus and Artemis at Gerasa, and in the porch ceiling blocks of the Temple of Dionysus at Baalbek.78 In this connection, 55-60 tons architraves at the Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek were lifted using 8 lewises, with 7.5 tons per lewis.79 Here the tension of the rope is the problem. A similar example can be seen in the Temple of Zeus at Nemea, where eight holes were used for one heavy block.80 In all these examples, the blocks have double rows of lewis holes at either end at their top surfaces, and the stone used is limestone not sandstone. Concentrated pressure on the sandstone, leading to fracture of the top side of the slots, might be more of a danger. The question, which is still unsolved, concerns the method of connecting the six slots to the lifting devices. I suggest that the six metal hooks

The difference in the number of slots could be due to the difference in weight. The average weight of the normal drums in the Temple of the Winged Lions is 330 kg, and this weight could be supported either by two hooks or by tongs (Fig.4.26c). It is likely that it was more difficult to use only two hooks to raise the much heavier drum of the Qasr el-Bint which weighed c. 7 tons. The distribution of pressure on the sandstone over six points was preferable. It gave greater stability to the drum while it was being

77

Taylor 2003: 118, ftn 54; Lancaster 1999: 436. Taylor 2003: 120, Fig. 59. Lancaster 1999: 436, ftn. 78. 80 Cooper et al. 1988: Figs. 59, 61. 78 79

76

In Zayadine at al. 2003: 114, Fig. 48a.

105

SHAHER M. RABABEH

could have been connected to one or two circular metal rings, which were in turn attached to the lifting device by means of hooks and ropes (Fig.4.26c, d). If the forces were equally distributed among the hooks so that they stayed in the holes during lifting, this would be similar to the “crab” or forceps with three or four arms, which is described by Hero of Alexandria.81 There are horizontal channels across either the top or the bottom surfaces of one of the drums in the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.4.27a). These channels, c. 12 cm wide and 8 cm deep, also suggest the use of a lifting machine to raise the drum into its final position. But the question is how did they connect this drum to the machine? If there had been another channel in the bottom, then one could assume the use of a loop of rope around the drum passing through both channels, but this is not the case. Since the drum does not taper, it is not immediately clear whether this groove is in the top or the bottom surface. Grips would be used if it were in the top surface; a lifting rope if it were in the bottom surface. Therefore, two possibilities present themselves. The first involves the use of interior grips or self-adjusting lewises (Fig.4.27b). This solution is unlikely because lewises cannot work well with shallow grooves with vertical sides. The second method would involve a loop of rope being placed around the drum above the centre of gravity. Another rope would be passed from one side of this loop to the other side passing through the channel in the bottom of the drum. Hooks could then be used to lift the drum. When the drum is in position, it would be easy to remove the rope from the channel (Fig.4.27d). As the second suggestion is more likely, the channel must have been in the bottom surface.

a. Crane with winch and pulley shown on painting from Stabiae (Adam 1994: Fig.89).

The evidence discussed so far for the methods used for lifting has been from drums. It remains to find evidence for the methods used for lifting wall blocks. Some blocks have small plug holes (Figs.2.8b; 5.4a), which were mentioned in section II.a.4. The size of these holes is sufficient to receive tongs, but the absence of holes in the back of the blocks makes it unlikely they were used for lifting. A more satisfactory explanation is that these holes were for fixing cladding such as marble veneer. Therefore, the most acceptable explanation is that the wall blocks were raised by means of ropes passed right around them, and raised to its position, where it rested on rollers. The rope, thus, could be removed, and the block could be moved to its final position using levers. This technique possibly was used to lift cornice blocks, which had weights similar to those of the wall blocks as seen in the Qasr el-Bint (Fig.4.24).

b. Reconstruction of the machine shown in Capuan relief (Adam 1994: Fig. 93).

In view of the above, the use of machines for lifting blocks in Petra is certain. A simple pulley was probably used to lift wall blocks, but not for heavy drums, since

c. Reconstruction of the machine shown in the relief of the Haterii (Adam 1994: Fig.95).

81 Hero Mechanik und Katoptrik 3.7; Taylor 2003: 115; ftn. 46; Drachmann 1963: 104-5.

Fig.4.28 Cranes.

106

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT the load hoisted by a pulley could not exceeded the weight of the workman. Therefore, a system of compound pulleys must have been used,82 see Fig.4.28. Using several pulley wheels the force needed would be reduced. Coulton83 states that with a six wheel pulley system, and a winch with four men, the maximum load raised would theoretically be 10 x 6 x 100 kg = 6000 kg. This system would be suitable for the Qasr el-Bint drum. However, with two hoists the load could be doubled. To summarize, the Nabataean masons were responsible not only for the block preparation for the freestanding buildings but also the dressing of surfaces of the rock-cut monuments. Block preparation, from splitting or sawing to the fine dressing stage, was simpler than dressing the rock-cut surfaces, since the stonemasons dealt with blocks on the ground in the former and with elevated surfaces in the latter. However, in both of them the processes of dressing were carried out in sequence, and in each stage different tools were used. It is likely that the types and shapes of the Nabataean tools were similar to Greco-Roman ones. Tools of direct and indirect percussion were used such as the saw, pick, bush hammer, hammer, mallet, point, flat and claw chisels, and probably the chemin-de-fer. Rasps or grinding stones were used to smooth the final surfaces. In addition, a drill was used in the preparation of the decorative elements. The accuracy in dimensions of the monuments suggests that the stonemasons used a variety of implements to insure exact measurements such as rulers, set-squares, templates, and compasses.

82 Adam 1994: 44. He also presents this formula to calculate the load: P=FLK/r, where P is the load to be raised, L is the length of the turning handle, F is the force exerted, r is the radius of the drum, K is the coefficient of friction. This is for a winch alone P=FLKN/r, where N is the number of pulleys. 83 Coulton 1974: 13.

107

Chapter V Construction of Walls, Columns, and Floors The essential function of any building, whatever its size, is to protect its inhabitants from external environmental dangers by offering a high degree of physical protection. Achieving this objective is certainly the main concern of the designer today just as it was in the ancient buildings. This chapter will attempt to identify the technical aspects of the various components of the Nabataean buildings at Petra. To achieve this objective, emphasis is placed on the discussion and illustration of both the structural and non-structural systems. The first section illustrates the construction techniques used in the walls: building foundations, methods of construction, bonding and jointing methods, and finally types of wall coverings. The second section discusses the kinds of columns and floors and the techniques used in their construction. The last section deals with the different types of anti-seismic and stabilising techniques. Excavation reports, fieldwork investigations, and comparative studies, both local and regional, will be the main methods of approach towards understanding the construction techniques of the structures mentioned.

V.a. Walls Some freestanding Nabataean public buildings3 certainly existed by the first century BC. The outstanding monument of Petra, the Qasr el-Bint (end of 1st c. BC), the walls of which stand in parts to their original height of c. 23 m high,4 is solid evidence for this. Excavations have also revealed other, later, massive buildings of the 1st to early 2nd c. AD, such as the Temple of the Winged Lions,5 the “Great Temple”,6 the Colonnaded Street,7 the Main Theatre,8 and the Temenos Gate.9 In addition to these, there are several structures (Fig.1.15), which have been not excavated yet such as the Market Complex, the Gymnasium, the Baths, and the Nymphaeum. Remnants of their walls can be seen level with the top soil of the city centre. The question of the existence of buildings for private housing was a crucial point of discussion10 before the Swiss excavations11 of the az-Zantur terraces were started (Figs.6.28; 34; 35). The results, so far, of these excavations show two phases of the houses: Nabataean and Roman. Other houses were also excavated in various parts of Petra.12 The results, so far, show that “The stone built houses gradually started to supersede the nomadic tents during the late second and first centuries BC”.13 As mentioned in section I.b, the earliest Nabataean walls were built of wadi stones and clay and that these were replaced by structures of ashlar masonry probably in the first c. BC.14 From that time onwards, the Nabataean architects started to build different kinds of ashlar walls, which will be discussed more fully below.

The sequence of the sections here is not the same as the order in which the building work was carried out. The actual building process can be determined logically, and for this purpose the organisation chart in Fig. 5.1 shows the approximate sequence and the interrelationships of the building stages, which are to some extant similar to the processes of building today.1 Three main stages can be seen. The first consists of design, planning, and site investigations. Vitruvius notes that architects provided drawings before construction began.2 The second is the stage in which the skeleton of the building is completed. This stage consists of constructing the structural components including the foundations, walls, columns, and roof. These parts give significant strength, stability, and integrity, and form the principal structural elements of the building. The sequence of these two stages is consistent whatever the time and the place. Finally, the finishing stage, which consists of covering walls, tiling floors, and finishing the exteriors. These parts of the building are non-structural components. They can help a structure, but their contribution cannot be relied upon in a significant way. However, this stage can be the most expensive and uses the largest number of labourers.

3 McKenzie 1990: 132-45 surveyed most of the freestanding public buildings in the city centre of Petra. 4 Wright 1961a; 1985: 321-5. 5 Hammond 1996. 6 Joukowsky 1998a. 7 McKenzie 1990: 132. 8 Hammond 1965. 9 Parr 1960: 124-35; Wright 1961a: 124-35; 1970: 111-15. 10 Negev 1986: 34-5. 11 Stucky 1995b: 193-98; Stucky et al. 1995: 297-316; 1994: 271-92; 1992: 175-92; 1991: 251-74; 1990: 249-84; Schmid and Kolb 2000; Kolb 2000: 355-72; Kolb et al. 2003: 230-2; 1999: 261-78; 1998: 25977; 1997: 231-54; 1993: 417-26. 12 Hammond 1977/8: 82-4 excavated a Nabataean house lying to the east of the Temple of the Winged Lions. Khairy 1990 excavated a dwelling room in the area south of the Qasr el-Bint, which dates from the second half of the first century BC. Zayadine 1973: 138-40 excavated houses on the western slope of el-Khubtha in area B, which dates from the first century AD. Zeitler 1990: 385-420 excavated private buildings from the first century BC to the west of the Palace Tomb. 13 Stucky 1995: 198; Stucky et al. 1992: 262 see also Schmid 2001: 370: Kolb 2003: 230-2. 14 Parr 1990: 16-7.

1 However, in the case of the ancient buildings there was neither electricity nor plumbing. So it may need some modification for ancient building. For this the accounts for the Asklepios Temple at Epidauros and the Baths of Caracalla may help see Burford 1969: 88-158; DeLaine 1997. 2 Vitruvius 1.2.1- 3.

108

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT V.a.1. Foundations The foundations of a building are the structural element that takes all the loads, live and dead, of that building and spreads the accumulated loads over the ground. The ground has to be sufficiently compact to carry the load, to maintain the stability, and to prevent the building sinking. On the contrary, if the ground failed beneath a structure, it would be severely damaged. For this reason, the search for good ground was a main concern of builders through the ages. The type of foundations which are suitable depends not only on the size and function of the building but also on geographical, topographical, and geological features. Greek and Roman builders relied on their experience in choosing the suitable ground, on which the foundations could be built, or what foundations would suit the ground which had to be used. Buildings were constructed in accordance with what the builders knew had worked previously, and they avoided constructions that had failed to perform. The technical assessment was based on experience rather than calculation. Vitruvius left a few rules15 about the technical features of the foundations. He recommends that the foundations be laid on a solid base. However, if no solid ground is found, he recommends piles made of olive or oak wood to be driven into the ground, on which the foundation can be laid. Two different examples clarify Vitruvius’ first recommendation; the first is the buildings on the Athenian Acropolis such as the Parthenon, which lies on solid bedrock.16 The second example is the krepis raft, where the building lay on a solid platform. There was apparently one example at Ephesus but it is a bit doubtful since little is left, but the Tholos at Delphi has a good raft. The logical conclusion of this is that for the Greeks the preferred option was to build directly on the bedrock, which is the most economical method. Moreover, it is the most commonly used foundation as buildings on bedrock would not be likely to sink into the ground nor to become cracked or distorted.

Fig.5.1 Organisational chart showing the sequence and the interrelationships of the different stages of building.

The public freestanding buildings were built on both sides of Wadi Musa (Fig.1.15). These sides are steep and mostly covered by a layer of soil of variable thickness. The Nabataean builders constructed all their large scale structures directly on the Tear sandstone layer after removing the topsoil. Therefore, the foundations of the buildings are rarely in valley alluvium, but mostly cut into compact bedrock, which serves the building as a natural foundation.17 The bedrock in Petra as a whole and in the city centre area in particular is steep. Presumably, terracing was necessary in order to create a flat site. Additionally, as has been discussed in section III.a.2, the Nabataeans extracted some of the blocks required for buildings while levelling the terraces. This is evidenced by the way in which the rear cliff of the “Great Temple” was cut, see Fig.5.2a, b. The height of this cut is about 10 m. The difference in height between the floor of the Upper Temenos and the Colonnaded Street is nearly 14 m.

Examination of its geological formation, as in section II.a.1, will show that Petra has certain geological peculiarities which are not common in other cities. The rocky surface makes a firm and suitable basis on which to build. Because of this, the rock could be used and practically no foundations were necessary, other than levelling the surface when the site on which a building was to be constructed was on a slope. Sometimes, the foundation trench consisted of a series of steps (Fig.5.2). Surely this is when the building is stepped. The goal was to achieve consistent resistance to subsidence, and this was best done by digging down to a bedding of uniform consistency regardless of the sloping topography. The stepped version was an alternative to cutting down to a uniform level, and undoubtedly more solid and more economical. 15 16

17 Kolb et al. 1997: 231; 1998: 260, 265; Zeitler 1990: 387; Pflüger 1995: 283.

Vitruvius. 3. 4.2,5. Plommer 1956: 149.

109

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.5.2 Topographical south-north sections, crossing the Qasr el-Bint, the Temple of the Winged Lions, the Colonnaded Street, and the “Great Temple”.

This shows that the Nabataean builders levelled the bedrock, and divided it into levels which were determined by the dimensions of the building itself (Fig.5.2). The problem of checking if each terrace was horizontal may have been solved using a method similar to that which Vitruvius18 recommended. He described an instrument called a chorobates (Fig.5.2c), as “a large builder’s level consisting of a straight piece of wood, 20 ft long. This was supported on legs and the joints strengthened by knee braces. There were plumb lines at each end and when the lines coincided with marks on the braces the level was horizontal. If the wind prevented the bobs from coming to rest, a groove on top of the level was filled with water to indicate when the beam was horizontal”.19 When ground level was reached, the builders started constructing their walls. Substructure walls, which were often necessary in buildings, such as cisterns, hypocaust installations, and drains,20 could be bonded using the same technique used in ashlar walls.

where most terraces were half cut and half fill. Pergamon21 offers a clear example of fitting the buildings on a steep rocky site by using terracing and retaining walls. Other examples can be seen in Priene, Assos, Kos, and Lindos.22 It is well known that these cities were planned adopting different urban designs, but their topography is similar. In this respect, the central area of Petra is closer to Priene and is less steep than Pergamon. However, this does not mean that Petra had a Hippodamian layout. Its urban plan grew gradually and followed the topography. The precisely engineered buildings were laid out to fit with the natural features. The final layout was similar to Pergamon23 and characterised by irregular streets which run smoothly with the direction of the contours. If they were too steep then a system of stairs was used. An exception to this is the Colonnaded Street, which was laid parallel to the wadi where the topography is less steep (Fig.1.15). Similar examples in the Roman period can be seen in the Sanctuary of Hercules Victor at Tivoli and the nearby Sanctuary of Fortuna at Palestrina, where terracing and retaining walls constituted a large part of the overall

Terracing was normally used when the topography was steep. It was traditionally used in most Hellenistic cities, 18

Vitruvius. 8. 5.1- 2. Hill 1984: 117. 20 Kolb et al. 2000: 361-2, Fig.7; Stucky et al. 1995: Fig.3; 1994: Figs. 7,8. To compare the hypocaust installation techniques in EZIV, azZantur houses with those recovered in Herod’s Third Palace in Jericho see Netzer 2001b: 73-4. 19

21

Coulton 1977: 136-7, Figs. 9, 10; Lyttelton 1974: 216; Owens 1991: Figs. 18, 28, 29, 31, 32; Ward-Perkins 1974; Wycherley 1951; 1962. 22 In addition to the references in the previous note see Lawrence 1996: Figs.258, 340, 358, 359. 23 Lyttelton 1974: 208.

110

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

b. General view, looking east. (Hammond 1965: Pl. XVII, 1).

a. General plan (McKenzie 1990: Pl.90).

d. Section elevation, showing the original slope and the line of cut. (after Hammond 1965: Pl. XVI).

c. Stage area, showing the construction of the hyposcenium walls on bedrock layer. (Hammond 1965: Pl. XIII, 3).

Fig.5.3 The Main Theatre.

construction.24 The same was applied to the two massive temples Zeus and Artemis at Gerasa.25 Both temples stand on hilltops. The aim was, on the one hand, to achieve the factor of height, as Vitruvius26 recommends, and on the other hand to allow the temples to be seen from a distance in the city. Each temple was built within a complex sanctuary, which consists of a complex system of staggered terraces connected by monumental staircases. In Petra, the Main Theatre, the Temple of the Winged Lions, the Qasr el-Bint, and the “Great Temple” are examples with terrace foundations (Fig.5.2).

up of masonry and partly made of bedrock piers. The main walls of the scaena complex were built firmly on a foundation of levelled bedrock (Figs.5.3c; 6.31a). The Temple of the Winged Lions was erected on the northern side of the wadi (Fig.1.15). The cella floor lies about 18 m above the main entrance of the main court to the east of the Temenos Gate. The builders divided the area, measuring 90 m from south to north and 40 m west to east, into three levels (Fig.5.2b). The first, which is the most northerly, consists of the central complex. The second and the third to its south consist of the upper and lower courts of the temple. A group of subterranean rooms and the “Liwan” were built beneath the pronaos in an attempt to use the benefits of the difference in slope (Fig.5.2De), resembling the technique used in the two storeyed stoa in the agora at Pergamon.27 The two levels were connected by means of stairs, similar to those in the “Great Temple” (Figs.1.15; 6.59a; 60a). Similarly, as will be mentioned in section VI.c, the temple complex was connected with the Colonnaded Street by means of a

The most striking example of both landscape use and terracing is the Main Theatre. Its foundations were a combination of rock-cut and built masonry. The site chosen was a high slope of Tear sandstone. The auditorium and the orchestra of the theatre were cut into the original surface (Fig.5.3b, d). But the seating was cut more into the bedrock. The hyposcenium was partly built 24

Taylor 2003: 64, Fig.28. Browning 1982: 116, 166; Khouri 1986: 99; Kraeling 1938; Segal 1997: 104, 119, 121, 125; 1975. 26 Vitruvius 1.7.1. 25

27

111

Coulton 1977: 136; Lawrence 1996: 203.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. View of the front wall of the pronaos and retaining wall, showing the details of courses, the levelling course, and the plug holes which were used to secure either stucco or marble panels.

b. View of the exterior of the east wall of the naos, showing the headers and stretchers. Fig.5.4 Foundations and walls in the Winged Lions Temple.

bridge, possibly carried over a series of arches or barrel vaults, which crossed the wadi area (Figs.1.15; 5.2Dd).

beyond the temple outer walls except on the northern side. It consisted of a rubble core retained by ashlar masonry laid in courses 40-60 cm high.29 I would suggest that this extension was erected to be the foundation for the columns, each 70 cm diameter, surrounding the temple30 to the east, south, and west sides (Fig.6.38). However, it should be stressed here that the lack of a podium in most of the Nabataean buildings is due to the

As has been mentioned above, the Nabataeans extracted some of the blocks required during levelling the terraces. This can be seen at the rear of the “Great Temple” where the slope was cut (Fig.5.2b). The situation in the Qasr elBint differs. It is located on a less steep slope, where the difference in height is only c. 4.0 m, as shown in Figs.1.15;5.2a. The temple was built on a podium,28 (Fig.5.2Da). This podium, 4 m high, extends 3.7 m 28

29

Parr 1960: 133; Wright 1961a: 20-1; Zayadine et al. 2003: 107, Netzer 2003: 69. 30 Netzer 2003: 72 reports that the columns surrounding the temple are an exception in temple architecture of the classical world, and they were not part of the temple’s plan.

Parr 1960: 133, Pls. XXIIIa, XXIVa.

112

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT use of terracing. It would be assumed that the upper terrace with its front retaining wall could serve technically and aesthetically as a high podium. This would have been reached via a broad staircase. In view of this suggestion, it seems important to emphasise that the podium of the Qasr el-Bint was due to the less steep site.31 As the first big building in the city centre it probably used the most level site, since it was the easiest available. This certainly required placing the main temple on a high podium. However, to turn to the other buildings in Petra we can see that the Colonnaded Street and the Temenos Gate are located on the lower strip of the side of the valley, which is naturally level (Fig.5.2b). For this reason, levelling was not required. The az-Zantur houses were built directly on the level rocky plateau on the top of the hill (Figs.1.15; 5.2b; 6.28a). Further evidence of levelling comes from the acropolis of Oboda in the Negev, where the Nabataean builders started levelling the site for the construction of a proposed building.32

the stones in the wall, the pattern of the joints, and the treatment of the visible surfaces forming the skin. Vitruvius33 divides this type of wall into two. The first is the isodomic masonry with all the courses are of equal height. All the blocks are often also the same length, as in Fig 5.6a, but Vitruvius does not say this. This method was most frequently used when the pattern of joints was used to contribute to the decoration of the wall faces, as seen in the Parthenon and the Hephaisteion.34 The second masonry type is called pseudoisodomic. This consists of courses of ashlars of unequal height (Fig.5.6b). The term now usually also implies ashlars of equal length although Vitruvius does not specify this. The coursing in buildings in Petra is neither isodomic nor pseudoisodomic. The joints of the beds are usually continuous along each stretch of walling, but the height varies on an average from c. 40 to c. 60 cm, and the length of blocks also varies, from c. 30 cm to c. 1.00 m. Therefore, I would call the masonry in Petra either regularly coursed ashlar masonry, or, more commonly, irregularly coursed ashlar (Fig.5.6c, d). Examples of coursed ashlar masonry in Petra can be seen in most its main public buildings, such as the Temple of the Winged Lions35 (Fig.5.4a, b), the “Great Temple” (Fig.5.31a,b), and the Qasr el-Bint (Figs.6.41b;42a;43a) . One exception is the massive cross wall, c. 2.70 m thick, which divides the cella from the pronaos in the Qasr el-Bint. The jambs of the huge central door way were built in pseudoisodomic masonry36 (Fig.5.7a). The regular courses of the jambs were interrupted by low levelling courses. This technique resembles the construction of strong walls, such as on temple pylons, in the Old and Middle Kingdoms in Egypt.37

From the previous discussion it is evident that in Petra there are two common ways of constructing foundations for terraces. The first was to build the foundations directly on the levelled bedrock with the same width as the wall. The main axes of the foundations are normally perpendicular to the contour lines and to the wadi direction. The second type of the foundation was built parallel to the contour lines and the wadi. The foundations of this type separated the terraces and served as massive retaining walls, see Figs.5.2Dc; 4a. The position of the floor level is clearly indicated by a levelling course, as can be seen in the Temple of the Winged Lions, in which the levelling course of ashlars, about 12 cm high, separates the foundation from the upper courses of the wall (Fig.5.4a). A further example can be seen intact in the “Great Temple” where the levelling course of the walls was built above the bed rock. Its variable thickness, 10-15 cm, indicates that the bedrock was not levelled perfectly.

Walls of isodomic masonry usually have a higher first course made up of orthostates. This may act as a reminder of the stone socle on mud brick walls.38 Adam reports that its use in the Roman period was less frequent than in the time of their predecessors, and he considers its later use as an imitation of the Greek examples. The unique example of orthostates at Petra is in the lower part of the outer walls of the Qasr el-Bint (Fig.6.41b). These orthostates, c. 1.6 m high, were not squared off properly, mortared into position, and separated by narrower stacks of blocks.39 This use of orthostates is unique in Nabataean architecture. The question arises whether these orthostates had a structural reason or were incorporated in the wall courses for other reasons. Netzer40 claims that the orthostates of the Qasr el-Bint lack any structural significance and considers that they could have had another purpose, such as ritual ones. Since walls were

V.a.2. Methods of Construction Nabataean builders used the Smooth, Tear, and the Honeycomb types of sandstones to construct their walls. Methods of constructing walls cannot be completely understood without considering their forms and types. For the classification of masonry walls, generally two approaches are used. The first is to consider their appearance as seen on the wall faces. The second is to consider the structure of a wall as seen in cross section, revealing its masonry core and covering at the same time. These two aspects will be discussed more fully. Firstly, the appearance of facing made of rectangular stone blocks can differ depending on the arrangement of

33

Vitruvius 2. 8. 5-6. Adam 1994: 112; Martin 1965: 397; Orlandos 1968: 142-52. 35 Hammond 1996: 22. 36 This part has been restored with the original sandstones in 1961/2, for this see Zayadine 1985: 245-6. 37 Arnold 1991: 149, 153, see also Figs. 4.77, 4.87. 38 Coulton 1977: 48; Adam 1994: 115. 39 McKenzie 1990: 136. 40 Netzer 2003: 71. 34

31

It is true that there are some examples of temples built on top of hill having podiums such as the Capitolium at Rome and the Temple of Artemis at Gerasa. Here the podium as an architectural element also helps in showing the temple mass from a long distance in the city. 32 Negev 1986: 49.

113

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Features of early Greek monumental masonry. (Coulton 1977: Fig.12).

c. Band anathyrosis detail in the Propylaea. (Orlandos 1968: Fig.109).

b. The names of the different positions of stones in walls of block construction (Adam 1994: Fig. 245). Fig.5.5 Classification and general terms of walls.

114

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Isodomic. b. Pseudoisodomic. h1 is cpnstant; h2 is constant; w is variable or constant

c. Regularly coursed ashlar. h is constant; w is constant

d. Coursed ashlar. h is variable between courses, but constant in each course; w is variable

Fig.5.6 Classification of walls according to their appearance.

a. The east jamb of the huge central doorway.

b. The interior of the east wall of the pronaos, showing the wooden course and holes for stucco.

Fig.5.7 Wall details, Qasr el-Bint.

115

SHAHER M. RABABEH

plaster coated, if the builders had merely wanted to recreate the appearance of orthostates for ritual purposes they would presumably have relied only on the final plastering stage. It is incredible that they would have cut and prepared massive orthostates if they served no structural purpose. But I cannot see why these orthostates would help structurally. If orthostates are needed to carry 21.5 m of masonry, how can the next low course carry 21 m of masonry. In Greek buildings orthostates are usually 2 blocks deep, while the upper wall is of blocks which run its full section. I would have thought that continuing the structure to the ground would have been safer, as usually done with ashlar masonry fortifications. This would imply that for the Greeks orthostates were a formal device, not a structural one. Therefore, it is more likely that their use on the Qasr el-Bint could represent an initial borrowing from Greek practise, coming with Greek forms, which was later rejected. However, this use is useful as a clue to whence the Nabataeans brought in foreign building expertise.

the whole arrangement strongly recalls Roman concrete construction.48 The second version involves the use of headers and stretchers bonding with the core. It is not the core that differs, but the relationship of the facing to the core. The blocks, as shown in Fig.5.15a, were laid in alternate courses consisting of two rows of blocks laid lengthwise alternating with single blocks running right through the wall. In this way the headers run through the core, and the rest is filled with rubble and mortar. An example of this can be seen in the east wall of the cella of the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.5.4b). The temple has walls of double-faced ashlar. The exterior wall faces are well coursed with headers and stretchers, while the interior faces are less well coursed and built of irregular stones. The core is of rubble and mortar.49 More examples of this method can be seen clearly in az-Zantur houses (Fig.6.34d). Wall thickness, as discussed previously, varies in the buildings in Petra. Various factors can be suggested for this variation. The first factor was the structural requirements of the building. This had to take into consideration the static loads on the walls and lateral forces such as wind. The thickness of the walls can also be affected by the width of the building. The greater the interior span of the building, the wider the wall needed to support it. Wall thickness also relates to its geometry, including its height and length, and to its position in the structure. A taller wall is thicker as evident from the Qasr el-Bint walls. There, the walls are 23 m high and their thickness ranges from 1.4 to 2.7 m. Secondly, wall thickness was related to the need for insulation. As mentioned in section I.a.1, the differences in temperature between day and night and summer and winter in Petra are extreme. It is reasonable to suggest that the exterior walls were normally made of three layers to prevent the penetration of moisture, and to provide good protection from the summer heat. Vitruvius50 drew the attention to climate as a factor, but he did not mention the wall thickness as important for insulation. However, examples of these two factors can be found readily through studying some of the major buildings in Petra.

When we turn to their cross section, walls can be categorised into two types. The first type consists of walls which were built from one row of blocks. At Petra this type, c. 40 cm thick, was used normally for interior walls to separate rooms. An example can be seen in the azZantur houses, EZI.41 The second type of walls was built of two rows or skins of blocks. This category includes walls, 0.7 - 2.7 m thick, with masonry and mortar cores, and can be seen in most the Nabataean buildings. This type comes in two versions. In the first version the space between the two skins is filled completely by small broken stones and mortar and there is little bonding between the skins and the core. This makes three different sections in the same structure; the inner facing, the core, and the outer facing (Fig.5.2Db). Vitruvius42 described this method and called it emplecton. He describes the Italian form of it as a quickly built one, where the workmen were in a hurry to finish. It differs from the Greek version of emplecton, where they built the wall completely of stone masonry without a core (Fig.5.5a). Walls with two-skins and a core, (Fig.5.2Db), are found in the Temple of the Winged Lions (c. 70 cm thick),43 the scaenae frons in the Main Theatre (1 m thick),44 the Small Temple (1.5 m thick),45 the “Great Temple” (1.3-1.9 m thick), and the Qasr elBint (1.3- 2.7 m thick)46. Another example can be seen in the Temenos Gate,47 in which the courses vary from c. 40-60 cm in height, the core is of rubble and mortar, and

In the Temple of the Winged Lions, the wall width at the rear corners was 1.3 m because they functioned as buttressed corners, which will be discussed in more detail later (Fig.6.54a). The width of the walls between the engaged columns ranges from 68 to 73 cm (Fig.5.8a,b), and the width of the front wall varies from 1.6 to 1.7 m because it is a retaining wall, and also carries the columns of the pronaos (Figs.5.4a;6.54a). In the Qasr el-Bint the thickness of the walls varies too (Fig.6.40a), the cross wall is 2.7 m thick and the outer ashlar walls are 1.4 m

41

Kolb et al. 1998: Fig.12. Vitruvius 2.8. 7. What Vitruvius, or Greek architects, meant by emplecton is much argued. See for instance Tomlinson 1961: 133-41. 43 Hammond 1996: 22 calls this system “inplicton” or “weaving”. 44 Hammond 1965: 38. 45 Reid 2002: 363-79. 46 Wright 1961a; McKenzie 1990: 132. 47 Wright 1961a: 21-22; McKenzie 1990: 136. 42

48

Wright 1961a: 128; McKenzie 1990: 132. Hammond 1996: 22; McKenzie 1990: 139. 50 Vitruvius 6. 1. 1-12. 49

116

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Detailed plan of the northeast corner showing the engaged half and quarter columns and the niches between.

walls in the rear corners with a width of 1 m to contain the staircase that leads to the mezzanine level (Figs.6.40a; 41d; 43c). In the “Great Temple”, in addition to the normal walls, 1.9 m thick, walls 1.3 -1.8 m thick were built to carry the sloping vaults below the cavea seating. Moreover, curved walls (Fig.6.60a) were used in the exedrae of the lower temenos built of well-cut Tear sandstone ashlars. The largest of these blocks, measuring 1.5 m in width, follows the interior curvature of the apse. V.a.3. Bonding51 and Jointing The structural importance of bonding is that it makes the wall into one unified mass. It transfers the compressive forces from other members of the building along the wall blocks. Consequently the pressure is transferred completely and uniformly through each block. In antiquity, two techniques were used to achieve this unified mass. The first is the use of dowels and metal clamps for bonding blocks of stone, i.e. dry masonry.52 In Dynastic Egypt,53 the builders used dovetail clamps (with a bow tie shape) to connect the blocks. These were copper, wooden, bronze cramps or stone dowels. The Greek borrowed this technique from Egypt and developed new forms of clamps with smaller sizes (Fig.5.5a). In addition, Greek builders used anathyrosis in order to make joints tight with less work (Fig.5.5c).54 This reduced the area of contact between the faces of the blocks to a narrow band at the edges, c. 6 cm wide. The second technique is the use of mortar for bonding, which was introduced in the Hellenistic period (in section

b. General view of the northeast corner. Fig.5.8 Corners and engaged columns, Winged Lions Temple.

51

Bonding also means alternation of joints. Dinsmoor 1975: 174-5, Fig. 64; Martin 1965: 263-89; Orlandos 1966: 102-14, Fig. 113; Plommer 1956: 49; Robertson 1943: 4, 42; White 1984: 78; Coulton 1977: 49. We can have dry masonry without clamps and dowels. 53 Arnold 1991: 124; Clarke and Engelbach 1930: 112-4, Figs. 121-4; Coulton 1977: 49. 54 Coulton 1977: 46-8; Dinsmoor 1975: 173, 387; Martin 1965: 196-7; Orlandos 1968: 108-9, Fig. 113; White 1984: 78. 52

wide, in some parts solid and in other parts filled with a core of rubble and mortar. The back wall of the centre adyton is a single stone thick, c.1 m (Fig.6.39c). It seems probable, as will be discussed in section VI.b.2, this reduction was to make space to hold the cult statue. Moreover, the most interesting aspect is the use of cavity 117

SHAHER M. RABABEH

II.d.1), and continued during the Roman period and until the present.55

the old Egyptian construction technique, in which the walls appear almost dry-jointed externally, but are largely mortared inside. However, the points just discussed lead to interesting questions: firstly, what sort of strength would the mortar offer as a binding method, and secondly, did the builders rely on other factors for stability in addition to the mortar?

The use of dry construction with clamps and dowels has never been found in Petra. However, there is a unique example of this in a Nabataean building found in the Temple complex at Khirbet et-Tannur (70 km north of Petra, see Fig.1.14). Three cavetto cornice blocks were found with dovetail-shaped slots, 18 cm wide, 15 cm long and 12 cm deep (Fig.5.24). The size and shape of these dovetails are similar to those employed in Dynastic Egypt and in Archaic Greek construction.56 Since there are no traces of mortar or metal, the material used for these cramps can not be identified. I found similar examples to these dovetails in the Temple at Didyma,57 see Fig.5.25a, and in the walls of the altar of the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek (Fig.5.25b). The former has the same shape (a bow tie) and size, as at Khirbet et-Tannur, while the latter differs in shape being rectangular and its wooden clamp is intact. This similarity suggests that Khirbet et-Tannur clamps were probably made of wood.

Structurally, it is certain that the mortared joints alone could not give the walls the required stability, and undoubtedly the Nabataean builders took a number of other structural aspects into consideration in addition to the mortar. The first aspect was reliance on weight of the ashlar blocks as well as the thickness of the walls. The second was the popularity of using three-layer walls, where the core could be considered as forming a strong connection between the outer skins. This certainly required strong mortar. The third aspect was a strong bond between alternate courses of stretchers and headers. This was the method most commonly used by Nabataean builders because of its systematic nature, efficiency and speed of execution, as well as its high stability. The fourth factor was the use of wooden beams, embedded in wall courses, in order to give the walls stability against any unexpected movement. This technique will be discussed in more detail below in section V.c.2. The last factor was the reliance of the builders on the corner construction as forming a strong bond, which will now be discussed.

Mortar, in addition to its use in the core of the walls, was used in Petra to connect the ashlar blocks. The thickness of mortar for joints varies considerably from one place to another in the same building and also from building to building. The thickness of the horizontal and vertical joints ranges from 2 to 12 cm. This range could have been influenced by two factors. The first was certainly the uneven dressing of the block beds. In this case a bed of mortar was used to allow the blocks to be placed on a level surface. The second factor was probably the reliance of the builders on other wall coverings, such as stucco, which concealed the irregular appearance of joints.

Two types of corner construction can be seen in Petra. The first was the technique, which was commonly used in Greek and Roman buildings. The corners are coursed with the length of the corner blocks running alternately along each wall (Figs.5.5b; 9c). When a corner has a header on its main face in one course, there is a stretcher joining it to the courses below and above.61 The second type of corner construction is more complicated and can be seen only in the rear exterior corners of the cella walls in the Temple of the Winged Lions (Figs.5.8a, b; 9a, c). Hammond62 called this “the in-set/out-set technique”, and related it to the freestanding part of the Urn Tomb and to the later Byzantine East Church at Mampsis. Moreover, he notes that the outer corners of the Nabataean temple at Qasr Rabbah (near Karak) are slightly off set.63 Negev64 considers that the builders of the church followed the Nabataean method of construction, but he does not discuss technique used for the corners.

These variations in joint widths can be seen clearly in the interior faces of most buildings, whereas the joints in the external walls were regular. In the “Great Temple”, the exterior walls of the building are constructed of ashlar masonry, 1.9 m thick (Fig.5.31). The exterior blocks are closely fitted and horizontally coursed (Fig.5.31a). The interior surfaces of the walls are not as finely finished, especially the interior face of the rear wall in which the thickness of the joints is about 12 cm. In the Qasr el-Bint, the facing blocks also consists of dressed ashlars on the exterior and rough ones on the interior walls which were hidden behind the top surface of stucco. For this reason the mortared joints are less apparent on the exterior. The same can be seen clearly in the ashlar walls of the Temple of the Winged Lions.58 The ashlars were left partially dressed on the interior and well finished on the exterior. This phenomenon was also reported in the walls at Mampsis.59 Wright60 noted that this feature is similar to

However, in the Urn Tomb and the Mampsis church walls, the in-set/out-set technique was used along the walls, but not at the corners. In the Urn Tomb it was used in the northern part of the wall (Fig.5.32a), and in Mampsis (Fig.5.9d) it was used in the east wall in the

55

Adam 1994: 65; Robertson 1943: 4. Arnold 1991: 125-7, Figs. 4.25, 32; Coulton 1977:49; Dinsmoor 1975: 174-5. 57 This could be from the Archaic temple. 58 Hammond 1996: 24. 59 Negev 1988a: 51, 64-65, 77-78, 82, 163; 1988b: 35. 56

60

Wright 1961a: 22. Adam 1994: Fig. 245. 62 Hammond 1996: 20. 63 Hammond 1996: 90. 64 Negev 1988b: 30. 61

118

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

d. In-set/out-set technique used in the body of the exterior wall of the east wall of the east church at Mampsis. (Negev 1988b: Photo.23).

c. General view of the corner shown in the reconstructed axonometric drawing, looking southwest. Fig.5.9 In-set/out-set technique.

119

SHAHER M. RABABEH

same way that was used in the Urn Tomb. The appearance of these walls is similar to the technique used in the outer walls of the cella of the temples at Khirbet etTannur65 and Khirbet edh-Dharih.66 In these, the inset/out-set projecting strips are distributed equally over the body of the walls, and when two strips met at the corner, they formed off-set corner. In this sense the intended role of the corner changed from being structural to a decorative element, whereas in the Temple of the Winged Lions no pilasters were constructed in the body of the walls (Figs.5.4; 6.54; 55). It is more likely that the architect designed the rear corners of the temple to work as structural and decorative elements (Fig.5.9a). It is quite possible that they may have been decorated with pilaster bases similar to those in the rear corners of the “Great Temple” (Fig.5.9b). Apparently, this technique mixes two ideas, how corners are formed structurally and how they are shaped aesthetically. But the bonding system is the same in the inset/out-set corner. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn is that this technique was not used on the corners of the Urn Tomb and the east church of Mampsis in the same way as it was used in the Temple of the Winged Lions. It is likely that the thickness of the rear and the side walls of the Temple of the Winged Lions is the reason for the use of these corners.

BC - AD 79, the Romans built on attainments of their Greek predecessors. Their Hellenistic background is also seen in the stuccoed walls of Macedonian tombs, such as the facade of the Tomb of Philip II, the Tomb of Prince, the Tomb of Eurydice, and the Tomb of Lefkadia at Vergina.70 There are also examples in Alexandrian Tombs such as at Shatby, Mustapha Pasha, and Anfoushy.71 However, the origins of this ornament do not fall within the scope of this research.72 The main focus here is twofold: firstly is to determine the physical conditions that brought about the use of renderings, and secondly to investigate the technical aspects of this. The daily and yearly balance of moisture and heat cycles to which the external faces at Petra are exposed increase weathering, and erode the stone facades. Recent geotechnical studies73 of monuments at Petra have proved that the destruction of the decoration of the monuments has been caused by weathering. This is a chemical process by which the stone is dissolved. Acid gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and sulphur trioxide (SO3), react with water forming acid solutions. These acids attack the calcium carbonate, which is the binding material holding the crystals of silica together in sandstone. In the case of sulphur trioxide, the strongest, the reaction with water yields sulphuric acid (H2SO4). This attacks the calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the bonding material forming calcium sulphate CaSO4, carbon dioxide, and water, thus destroying the structure of the stone surface. The main product of this, calcium sulphate, is slightly soluble. This chemical process can be summarised in the following equation74: SO3 + H2O-------------→H2SO4 (Sulphuric acid) CaCO3 + H2SO4-----→CaSO4 + H2O+ CO2

V.a.4. Covering Nabataean buildings, like those of other Hellenistic cities, were envisioned not only as masonry forms but also as vehicles for decorating with plaster, paint, and stucco patterns. The extensive use of coatings on the monuments of Petra, both rock-cut and freestanding, is one of the most revealing aspects of the Nabataeans’ art and architecture. Two methods were normally used to cover the interior and the exterior surfaces. The first was veneer, which consisted of marble panels and was restricted to a few freestanding buildings. This technique was mentioned above in section II.a.4.

In the case of carbon dioxide, the acid produced is carbonic acid, which is a very weak acid. This reacts with calcium carbonate forming calcium bicarbonate, which is soluble in water. This can be represented75 by the following equations: CO2 + H2O-------------→H2CO3 (Carbonic acid) CaCO2 + H2CO3-----→Ca(HCO3)2

A more common method of covering was the use of renderings, namely plaster, stucco, and paint. Browning67 states that “what the painted plaster does signify is the Nabataeans’ cultural connections with the Hellenistic world, and with Ptolemaic Alexandria in particular”. On the other hand, Zayadine68 observes that “at Petra even if we admit the external influence of the stucco decoration, we have to consider the possibility of local internal evolution of the Nabataean moulded and painted plaster”. However, as mentioned in Section I.a.2.3, these are evidence of the wide cultural contacts of the Nabataeans with Hellenistic Greece, Alexandria and Italy. Although the stuccoed and painted wall decoration evolved in Italy with the four Pompeian Styles69 used in the period c. 200

Attack by carbonic acid would have been the more likely cause of weathering at the time of the Nabataeans. The gases derived from sulphur are largely products of modern industrial civilisation, especially car exhaust, although some would have been produced as result of volcanic activity. 70

Andronicos 1984; Lawrence 1996: Fig.251; Lyttelton 1974: 39. Lawrence 1996: Fig.321; Lyttelton 1974: 41-5, Figs. 7,8,10; McKenzie 1990: 124-5, also Pls. 178, 184, 191. 72 For a further discussion of the origin see Ling 1988b: 12-99; McKenzie 1990: 85-104; Zayadine 1987: 131-42; Kolb et al. 1997: 23155. 73 Kühlenthal and Fischer 2000; Jaser and Bargous 1992. 74 Fadi Balaawi, personal communication, 2003. He is a graduate student in University College London, doing his PhD on weathering and conservation in Petra. 75 K. Oldham (C.C.), personal communication, 2003. 71

65

McKenzie et al. 2002: Figs. 3, 4, 21, 26. Dentzer-Feydy 1990: Fig.1; 1995: Fig.5. 67 Browning 1989: 84. 68 Zayadine 1987: 142. 69 Ling 1998b; Plommer 1956: 239. 66

120

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Another important contribution to weathering is related to the structures of the different types of sandstone in Petra. The presence of clay minerals in sandstone accelerates weathering. However, it was found that iron in the rock matrix reduced weathering. The whitish Disi sandstone weathers faster because it contains little iron. Tear and Honeycomb sandstones contain more iron in their matrices, which is apparent from the deeper colour of the sandstone. Normally, lighter colours of sandstones contain less iron than the darker ones.76

preparation of either external or internal surfaces, which matches the evidence in Petra. Hammond81 reported that the external and internal wall coverings in the Temple of the Winged Lions were made up of three successive layers82 (Fig.5.13b; 15a). The first two layers, applied directly on the surfaces, adhered well to masonry walls. They were made of coarse plaster, lime and unsifted sand. The thickness of these coats varied according to the smoothness and the vertical accuracy of the wall masonry. The normal thickness varies from 5 to 15 cm. The final coat, the finest, was often made of fine lime plaster. This thin coat was keyed to the base coat by small copper tacks, or more rarely, small iron tacks.83

It can be assumed that the Nabataean builders recognized the mechanism of destruction from experience rather than science. They would have noticed that water and wind carrying sand are the agents affecting the decay of most structural elements. In addition to this, frost damages masonry. Consequently, they plastered the facades of the monuments meticulously. They aimed both to protect the surfaces against weathering, and to achieve a decoratively pleasing result. The covering of plaster had a protective effect as it hindered the erosion of the sandstone by wind and rain. For the same reason, channels were cut in the rock above and on the sides of the facades in order to divert rainwater from the facades.77 In extreme cases, the entire drainage system was planned and constructed in conjunction with the building. In the freestanding buildings, damp rising through the walls was prevented by ensuring the ground is well drained. A network of drains, consisting of either built or rock-cut channels can be seen in and around the buildings. The “Great Temple”, for example, reveals a network of drains of various capacities (Fig.6.60b), some principally for open courtyard areas and others to handle the water coming off the roofs in down spouts. A similar network of drains can be seen also in az-Zantur houses, the Temenos of Qasr elBint, and the Temple of the Winged Lions. The channels were led normally to subterranean cisterns beneath the ground floor. These cisterns were either built or cut in the sandstone layers, and sometimes the builders used both techniques together due to the slope of some sites as mentioned in section V.a.1 above. So far we have spoken of the reasons for the use of covering; it now remains to consider the techniques used for them.

The term “stucco” is used to refer to all relief decoration in plaster. Its composition was a mixture of white limestone and gypsum (CaSO42H2O). Enormous quantities of stucco were recovered in most of the monuments of Petra. Examples of these are cornices and other mouldings, panel fragments, frieze fragments, and other elements.84 This leads to consideration of the weight and depth of some motifs, and the techniques used to fix them on walls. There is one problem, which is always raised by a heavy wall coating. The Nabataeans tended to use very thick stucco. The thickness of their stucco varies from 10-15 cm. Because of its weight, unless the stucco was fixed firmly to the walls it would not have stayed in place. This led the builders to use different kinds of fixtures to secure stucco panels to walls. The diagonal dressing and the roughness of the stones’ surface were certainly good aids for holding the plaster in place. The two coats were also affixed to the wall ashlars by heavy iron nails driven between adjacent blocks. Iron nails were used to secure stucco in the “Great Temple”, and Schluntz85 considered this to be uncommon in Petra. But recent excavations at az-Zantur houses area IV have recovered many stucco fragments, and both wooden and metal fixtures were used.86 Moreover, iron nails were certainly used in the Temple of the Winged Lions Temple.87 Additionally, some individual elements in the Temple of the Winged Lions have empty holes still showing the impression of wooden pegs.88 Empty holes can be seen elsewhere (Figs.5.4a; 5.7b; 6.40c; 42b, c, d; 43a, b). Therefore, the use of wooden pegs was commonly used at Petra to hold plaster and stucco decoration. In addition to those on the Qasr el-Bint, the use of wooden pegs has been reported by Zayadine89 in Tomb 813, Tomb 676 of the Nasara

The method of application was generally similar for all decorative plaster. Vitruvius78 recommends seven successive layers of plaster. A first rough layer, three layers of mortar made with sand, and then three layers of mortar made with powdered marble. Pliny79 recommends only five layers instead of seven; three of mortar made with sand and two made with limestone and marble. But Adam80 suggests that neither of these recommendations were applied in Roman monuments, and they were a sign of luxury. He proposes three successive layers for the

81

Hammond 1996: 61. The plasterers in modern buildings in Jordan also make the plaster up of three layers. The first is the coarsest, which they call “nail face”, i.e. render coat. The second is the medium or the floating coat, and the final is the finest base, which will be painted. 83 Hammond 1995: 219; 1996: 61. 84 Zayadine 1987: 131-43; Lyttelton 1974: 67. 85 Schluntz 1998a: 213. 86 B. Kolb 2003: personal communication. 87 Hammond 1996: 62. 88 Hammond 1996: 62. 89 Zayadine 1982: 374; 1987: 131-2. 82

76

Paradise 1998: 156. I thank Suleiman Farajat for drawing this to my attention. See also Hammond 1995: 219; Kolb et al. 1993: 422; 1998: 267; 2000: 364-5. 78 Vitruvius 7.3.5-6. 79 Cited by Adam 1994: 217. 80 Adam 1994: 217. 77

121

SHAHER M. RABABEH

necropolis, the rear wall of the Tomb of Sextius Florentinus, Tombs in the 526 and 576 in Mueisrah el-Wusta ridge, Tomb 808 in the western Khubtha cliff, in the eastern cliff face of el-Habis, and in the Baths.90 Wall paintings, as in other Hellenistic sites, were evidently quite common in Nabataean monuments, both rock-cut and freestanding. The three important examples which can be considered are the best preserved paintings. The first appears in the painted rock-cut biclinium in Siq alBarid,91 (Fig.5.10a, b). The scene is inhabited by different kinds of a. Eros with bow and arrow. (Taylor 2001:118) birds, storks, lapwing, woodcocks, Eros with bow and arrow, and a young flute player. The total effect resembles the garden scene in the Villa of Livia at Primaporta (just north of Rome), which is dated to c. 20 BC.92 A second example is in the painted dwellings of the Wadi es-Siyyagh cave.93 The pattern here differs from the first example. It consists of geometric panels forming simple door ways divided by flat bands (Fig.5.11a, b). The main colours used in this fresco were pale-blue bands, red background, and red or yellow for the door frames. Zayadine94 notes that rather than being related to the patterns in the second style houses of Pompeii and the Villa of Oplontis, this Nabataean example shows “little perspective, and it rather belongs to the known Alexandrian blind doorways depicted in the necropolis of Hadra and Mustapha Pacha”.95 The third example is the wall paintings recovered in room 1, area IV of the az-Zantur houses.96 It consists of two-dimensional geometric panels divided alternately by engaged columns with freestanding columns depicted in front of them and a broken forward entablature (Fig.5.12a, b). This gives a slight illusionistic effect, but as it lacks a blue background there is no sense of looking through the wall. The architectural elements in the painting, such as the volute pediment, however are related to those used in Pompeian second style wallpaintings. As has been mentioned earlier in this section, the surface that was intended to be painted would have been smoothed. Before the painter started his work the surfaces had to be cleaned to apply the base. Then, the background

b. A young flute player. (Augé and Dentzer 1993: 63). Fig.5.10 Wall paintings in Siq al-Barid, Garden scene.

90

al-Tell 1969: Pl.12. Zayadine 1987: 141-2; McKenzie 1990: Pls. 114-5. Coloured picture of this painting, Taylor 2001: 118. 92 Ling 1998: 45, 149-50. 93 Zayadine 1987: 141-2. 94 McKenzie 1990: Pls. 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 237-41. 95 Zayadine 1987: 141. 96 Kolb 2003: 234-7, also Figs. 257-60; 1997: 234-7. Detailed coloured picture in Taylor 2001: 115. 91

122

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General view, south wall (Augé and Dentzer 1993: 72).

b. Reconstructed drawings of the paintings on south and west walls. (Zayadine 1987: Figs. 22, 23).

Fig.5.11 Wall paintings in Wadi es-Siyyagh cave.

colours were added. The last step was to paint the pictorial scenes. Two methods of affixing paintings were used. The first was to apply the colours carefully on the wet rendering (fresco). Vitruvius1 recommends this technique because the colours do not come off and last forever. The second technique2 was to fix the colours by an adhesive made up of gum-arabic, which is a substance of vegetable origin. Alternatively, egg white was mixed with a solution of the pigment in water. This mixture acted as an adhesive undercoat (tempera).

“Great Temple” (Fig.5.15b;16b). Blue was widely used above the moulding and cornice elements, with red only slightly less common. Black was extremely common, and generally used to divide zones of colour and to outline design borders. White was simply painted in pure lime on the coloured back ground, or possibly left as the unpainted face of the finished plaster. It was widely used for dividers, and for backgrounds, as found in the Temple of the Winged Lions. The paints were made up of different materials. Hammond discovered: “The spectroscopic analyses of paint samples taken from the painted plaster at the Winged Lions Temple have indicated that the Nabataeans were using the basic chemistry of paints to be found in Vitruvius VII”.3 The colours were normally made up of mineral origin, or

The surviving materials show a rich palette of red, yellow, blue, black, and white. Yellow and red hues are found in the painting of various mouldings and other elements in the Temple of the Winged Lions and the 1 2

Vitruvius 7. 3. 7. Adam 1994: 221.

3

123

Hammond 1995: 216.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Paintings on walls A and C, room 1. (Kolb et al. 1997: Fig.8).

b. Reconstructed drawing of painting on wall C. (Kolb et al. 1997: Fig.7). Fig.5.12 Wall paintings in az-Zantur Houses.

found naturally. Black was obtained from carbonised organic materials, such as bones or fats. Purple was extracted from murex. Red and yellow were found in nature as minerals or from plants.4

see Figs.5.13; 14. After examining these figures, the conclusion drawn is that plastering, stucco, and painting work had to be started at the top of the wall and with work proceeding downwards so as not to spoil the finished surfaces. Because of the heights of the walls decorated in Petra one may safely assume the use of scaffolding. Plasterers certainly used trowels. The painters usually used a cord, ruler, strings and compasses to draw the axes and the divisions of the circles of their wall paintings (Fig.5.13a). Painters would have used different sized brushes. Presumably templates were used to check the accuracy of mouldings.6

During the course of the execution of most of the types of coverings mentioned, the craftsmen used a variety of implements and tools. In the absence of the tools themselves in Petra, parallel examples should be studied. Usually, detailed consideration of paintings casts some light on the implements used to make them, and also the process of work. Examples of that are those reconstructed by Adam in Pompeii, and in the Musée de Sens in Gaul,5 4 5

Vitruvius VII, VII, 2, 7; Adam 1994: 222. Adam 1994: 222-3.

6

124

Martin 1965: Figs. 188, 189; Orlandos 1966: Figs. 85, 88, 89.

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

b. The different stages of preparation and execution of plaster, and fresco wall painting. (Adam 1994: Fig.521).

a. Preparatory incisions for decoration, consisting of straight lines and angles, using a cord or a ruler and a stiletto. (Adam 1994: Fig.519).

Fig.5.13 Covering stages.

a. Reconstruction from the Sens relief, showing rendering the wall. (Adam 1994: Fig.522).

b. The methods of creating stucco, by using a template, mould, and a spatula for sculpted decoration (Adam 1994: Fig.528). Fig.5.14 Covering stages.

a

b Fig.5.15 Covering. a. Plastering layers. (after Adam 1994: Fig.507). b. The west wall of the west walkway in the “Great Temple”, showing stucco panels painted red.

125

SHAHER M. RABABEH

found in Petra. The first is seen only in Disc columns, as detailed in Fig.5.26a, b. The drums of these have a shallow recessed square, 34 x 34 x 10 cm, with an internal circular hole 20 cm in diameter and 15 cm deep, similar to those I observed in Qasr el-Abd (Fig.5.26c). The recessed square and the circle at the centre were carved in the centre of the upper and lower surfaces of each drum. A hard wood plug would probably have been fitted into the circular hole, and this would have been bored to receive a circular wooden pin.12 The recessed square would have been filled with mortar or metal plate after securing the pin and before positioning the upper drum over the protruding pin. The addition of the mortar or the metal plate increased the strength of the arrangement by making the pin rigid.13 The second technique of centring column drums can be seen in the Normal columns. These drums show a square hole, 10 x 10 x c. 15 cm, as shown in Fig.5.27a,b. A hard wood plug would probably have been fastened into this square hole, and this would have been bored to receive a circular wooden pin. The real difference between the two forms is that the first has the recessed square, while the second has not. This can be traced back to the difference in the drum sizes, and thus, to the load carried, and the column height. However, in both it is possible that the hole in the centre (circular or square) could have been used to allow the drum to be turned in situ.

V.b. Columns and Floors V.b.1. Columns Columns are the vertical supports which together with the walls hold up the ceiling and roof. Stone columns were extensively used in classical monumental architecture. Their shafts can be made of either one long block, a socalled monolithic shaft, or by superimposing smaller blocks drums) on top of one another. The first method produces a strong and very stable column, but it is technically more difficult and requires strong stone. As mentioned in chapter 3, the problems encountered in building include the availability of rock suitable for producing long blocks, and quarrying, transporting, and lifting the shafts. Using drums presents an alternative solution to some of these technical problems, but raises new ones related to the bonding of the drums. In Petra, columns were made up of Smooth, Tear, and Honeycomb sandstone drums.7 The drums had different diameters, as already stated in chapter 3, according to which they have been divided into two types, the “Normal”8 and the “Disc”9. It is worth clarifying the reasons that determined the diameter of the drum. Structurally speaking, the column had to be of sufficient diameter to carry the weight placed on it. Drums with large diameters were expected to carry heavier loads than those of smaller diameters. However, in theory this may be correct, but in classical practice diameter always relates to height and not directly to load, so it is also a question of the scale of the order, as we will see in section VI.d.1.2. In Petra, the Disc drums appear in massive pronaos columns. Theses drums have diameters between 1.3-2 m, and a height of c. 60 cm, except those of the Qasr el-Bint, which are 1 m high. The difference between their diameter and height made the drums look like huge discs (Fig.5.18a). Examples of columns made of them can be seen in the Temple of the Winged Lions and the “Great Temple”. These columns carried the heavy load of the entablature of the main façade, and presumably its pediment. On the other hand, Normal drums are proportionally taller because the columns have a smaller diameter (0.70 - 1.00 m) but a similar height to the Disc drums. Examples of columns made of Normal drums appear in the Colonnaded Street, the cella of the Temple of the Winged Lions, the Temenos Gate, the Baths, the “Great Temple”, and in az-Zantur Houses.

Covering the drums with stucco fluting was a popular technique in Petra. The fillets between flutes measure c. 2 cm, and the flutes 6-8 cm. This depends on the size of columns, for example the drum in Figure 5.18b (70 cm diameter) has c. 32 fillets. Some examples show that the lower third of the columns was left unfluted. This area was normally painted red as can be seen in the wellpreserved example in the “Great Temple” (Fig.5.16a, b). The lifting holes would also help to secure the stucco. The shafts of the columns and pilasters of Qasr el-Bint, as mentioned in chapter 4, were covered in stucco decoration which divided them into drums of equal height.14 There is no evidence for any wooden or metal plugs being used to secure the stucco to the drums. I suggest that both the diagonal dressing and the joints of the drums were effective in securing the stucco (Fig.5.18b). Stucco fluting was a decorative element used whenever the carving of fluting was seen to be difficult. Fluting in sandstone would be liable to damage. However, the method was frequently employed in limestone in the Hellenistic period. Examples of this can be seen in

To accurately centre the column-drums, the pin10 technique was used.11 Two forms of this technique can be

12 Pins were normally made of wood, but in Greece were usually square plugs with round pins made as a set. Bronze pins were rarely used, as in the Tholos at Delphi and Philon’s porch at Eleusis. See Dinsmoor 1975: note 3, Fig. 61. 13 In Greek examples, the jointing of drums was without mortar. The anathyrosis technique was employed to reduce the amount of surface that was actually in contact. See Dinsmoor 1975: 172, Fig.61; Martin 1965 Pl. XXI; Plommer 1956: 149. 14 Zayadine et al. 2003: 114, Fig. 48a.

7

Except the Egyptian granite columns reused in the Blue Chapel, see Bikai 2002: 2. 8 “Normal” drum has a diameter of c. 70 cm, and normal height c. 50 cm. 9 “Disc” drum varies in diameter (1 to 1.5 m), and the height is c. 50 cm. So each drum looks like a disc. 10 Usually called empolion in Greek architecture. 11 Dinsmoor 1975: 171-2; Martin 1965: 292-3; Orlandos 1968: 100-13.

126

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.5.16 Covering of drums, “Great Temple”. a. Stuccoed column at the west corner of the west back stair, showing the size of the flutes, and the unfluted lowest third of the column. b. Column with a limestone base, showing the unfluted stucco painted red.

a

b

Fig.5.17 Column bases carved from two limestone blocks in the “Great Temple”. a. A column base made of two limestone blocks, indicating from the joint. b. Detailed view of Fig.5.17b. c. Detailed drawing of the inner wall of the west corridor, showing the two phases of the construction.

c

127

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Drums, like huge discs.

b. Normal drum covered with fluted stucco. Fig.5.18 Disc and Normal drums, “Great Temple”.

Masada,15 in the Herod’s Third Palace in Jericho,16and Pompeii,17 but limestone was rarely used at Petra. In addition to the sandstone limit, the Nabataeans aimed to save both time and money by the use of this technique. The types of columns at Petra can be divided into freestanding, engaged, and heart- shaped piers (Fig.5.19). Engaged columns can be further divided into half, quarter, and double quarter columns (Fig.5.19d, g, i) which occur in “baroque” architecture. 18 However, the purpose of studying the types of columns is not to determine their origins,19 but to differentiate between the functions of engaged columns used in Petra’s buildings. Lyttelton20 discusses two functions of columns in general. The first is classified as tectonic, in which the elements support other elements, such as the entablature, and the roof, as was defined earlier. In this case, if the columns were removed then the supported elements would collapse. The second function is non-tectonic, in which

Fig.5.19 Vertical supports: Cross sections. (McKenzie 1990: Diag.11).

the columns were used as surface decoration and their absence would not affect the static situation of the elements carried. That means their presence was only to decorate the architectural façade. This decorative use can be seen in the rock-cut monuments in Petra, such as those in the interior of the Roman Soldier Triclinium. Pilasters, engaged quarter, and half columns were also used to decorate the west façade of the Temenos Gate (Fig.6.16a, b). Such supports are indications, as Lyttelton suggested, of the baroque architectural style. But their use in case of the other freestanding buildings differs, and needs to be clarified.

15

Foerster 1995: 80. Netzer 2001a: 57. De Franciscis 1978: 117, Pl. 160. 18 Lyttelton 1974: 26-39. 19 Adam 1994: 118; Lyttelton 1974; McKenzie 1990: 87- 88, Robertson 1943: 123, 130, 136; Ward-Perkins 1981: 331. 20 Lyttelton 1974: 12-13. 16 17

128

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Two aspects of these uses appear when the engaged columns are examined. The first is the use of engaged columns as structural elements sharing the loads with the bearing walls. There are several examples of this. In the Temple of the Winged Lions, the engaged half columns attached to the wall faces look like headers (Figs.5.22a; 23). Therefore, it appears that the construction of these half columns was similar to that of the walls. This method of bonding provides firm evidence for the use of engaged columns as structural elements. One further piece of evidence occurs in the temple. At the point where a thick wall narrows to 70 cm engaged columns were built (Fig.5.8a, b). Comparing this wall thickness to those mentioned earlier for the walls in the “Great Temple”, the Qasr el-Bint, and the Small Temple we may wonder why there is such a big difference although all the buildings have approximately similar interior widths and functions. Additionally, we should take into consideration that the presence of the niches between each pair of engaged columns in the Temple of the Winged Lions would reduce the strength of the wall (Fig.5.8a; 22b). Based on the discussion of roof structures in chapter 6, I would suggest that the weight of its roof could not be supported solely by the narrow walls, but required the additional support provided by the engaged columns which are in alignment with the freestanding columns in the cella (Fig.6.55). This proves that the engaged columns carried the weight of the roof together with the walls. So they were used structurally in addition to their decorative appearance. A similar example can be seen in the central adyton of the Qasr el-Bint. The architect reduced the thickness of the walls probably, as mentioned earlier, in order to create more space for the cult statue (Fig.6.39c), while the engaged columns possibly compensated for this reduction in wall thickness, in addition to their role in decorating the interior space of the adyton.

We will now discuss two unusual features relating to the use of column bases. Column bases are usually made out of one solid block. In addition to its decorative function, the base is intended to prevent the column from sinking by spreading the accumulated loads evenly over the foundation. Attic bases consist of a scotia with a fillet and a torus above and below, a form that had been developed in Greece in the fifth century BC and spread over the Greek and Hellenistic world. Columns in Petra usually have Attic bases made out of a single solid block23 (Figs.5.16b). But two limestone blocks side by side are used for some of the larger examples, such as those in the columns of the upper temenos of the “Great Temple” (Fig.5.17). Similarly, I noticed this technique used on the temple at Qasr Rabbah. This use is rare elsewhere. Even more surprising are the few examples, in which the bases do not support the columns but were rings attached round them as independent units. In the Temple of the Winged Lions (early 1st c. AD, possibly 27/28),24 for example, the bases recovered are Attic in appearance (Fig.5.20a, b), but consist of a ring of marble or hard limestone with shell fragments like nail clippings around the bottom of the sandstone column. They were fitted around the lowest drum to achieve the appearance of a true base element (Figs.5.20c; 22a). These ring bases were made of at least two separate pieces. They are in four pieces in case of Fig.5.20a. The same technique is attested in Room 19 of az-Zantur IV,25 where the bottom drums, diameter 75 cm, are fitted with ring bases of the Ionic type (Fig.5.21). Each ring consists of two separately carved pieces of limestone mortared to the drums. Moreover, it is possible that this technique was used in the columns of the lower temenos of the “Great Temple” because they lack bases; but no pieces of such rings have been recovered during any excavations. McKenzie26 has recently suggested that this technique might have been used in Khirbet et-Tannur Temple, where some limestone columns do not have any bases. In the absence of fragments of such bases, the suggestion cannot be regarded as settled.

The second application of engaged columns is the aesthetic use of quarter columns or double quarter columns at points where the architect intended to change the thickness of the walls to soften sharp edges or corners. Quarter columns occur in the rear wall of the cella of the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.5.8a), and in the rear wall of the central adyton of the Qasr el-Bint (Fig.6.39c). Double quarter columns can also be seen in the rear corners of these buildings. They were joined to the wall as headers to strengthen the corner as well as to beautify the interiors (Figs.5.8a; 22a). In freestanding colonnades, freestanding heart-shaped piers were used instead of double quarter columns. This was widespread from Hellenistic times in Asia Minor and Alexandria. Freestanding heart-shaped piers can be seen in the first phase of the “Great Temple” (Figs. 5.9b; 6.60a). These are similar to the four heart-shaped piers recovered in Khirbet adh-Dharih,21 and the columns in the northern wing in the Third Palace in Jericho.22

However, the important question is why did the Nabataean architect use ring bases? Their use did not reduce the time required for carving. Viewed from this perspective, the ring bases were a cost-effective method, to give the columns the appearance of having normal bases of a more expensive stone than the column shaft. Structurally they did not spread the load on the foundations,27 because they were not under compression. So the most likely reason for their use could be lack of limestone, which, as mentioned in section II.a.3, was not available in the city. The pieces which had come into the city in the wadi flood were in small sizes not enough to carve solid bases. Moreover, the coloured marble used for 23

McKenzie 1990: Pl. 50, Diagram 12. Hammond 1977/8: 81-101. 25 Kolb et al. 2000: 356. 26 McKenzie et al. 2002: 67-8. 27 Although this was not necessary in the Doric order. 24

21 22

Dentzer-Feydy 1990: 229-34. Netzer 2001b: Plans 34, 37.

129

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a

b

c

Fig.5.20 Ring bases, marble, Temple of the Winged Lions. a. Ring base, made of four separated pieces. b. Profile of the ring base. (Hammond 1996: 45). c. Ring base fitted to column.

a. General view of rooms 7, 19, 15, showing the four column shafts with ring bases.

b. Detailed view of a ring base. Fig.5.21 Ring bases, soft limestone, az-Zantur IV.

130

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.5.22 Engaged columns, the Winged Lions Temple.

a. Double quarter column with marble ring base.

b. Two engaged columns and a niche between.

a

b Fig.5.23 Engaged columns as headers, the Winged Lions Temple. a. Half circle engaged columns in the east wall of the naos. b. Detail showing the drums as headers.

131

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Dovetail clamps on a long block to join on both sides, cross shaped (ASOR Nelson Glueck Archive).

c

b

Fig.5.24 Dry construction (limestone) with dovetail clamps. Khirbet et-Tannur. b. Dovtail clamp on corner block of cavetto cornice. c. Dovtail clamp on a block, possibly cavetto cornice.

b

a Fig.5.25 Dry construction (limestone) with dovetail clamps. a. Dovetail clamp at the Temple at Didyma. b. Wooden clamp at the altar of Temple of Jupiter, Baalbek. Note the wooden clamp in situ.

132

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Disc drum from the Winged Lions Temple, Pronaos, showing the recessed square and the circular hole.

b

c

Fig.5.26 Centering techniques in Disc drums. b. Detailed drawings show centering using wooden pins. (after Martin 1965: Figs. 135-7; Orlandos 1968: Figs.125-8). c. Limestone drum from Qasr el-Abd, showing the recessed square and the circular hole.

b

a Fig.5.27 Centering technique in Normal drums. a. Normal drum from the Colonnaded Street, showing the square hole. b. Detailed drawings show the centering technique by using square pin of wood. (after Martin 1965: Figs. 135-7; Orlandos 1968: Figs.125-8).

133

SHAHER M. RABABEH

cella of the Qasr el-Bint34 (Fig.2.7b) and in the Small Temple,35 but the pattern of flagstones here appears to have been regular. The flags were laid in straight east west rows and parallel to each other.

some of the ring bases on the Temple of the Winged Lions was imported from much further away. As mentioned in II.a.3, the source of hard limestone, crystalline white, with shell fragments like nail clippings is Maan (Fig.1.14).

Marble was also used for the opus sectile floors. Normally, in Hellenistic and Roman architecture this was the richest of all decorative techniques used in walls and floors. It was reserved for the most opulent spaces. Its materials were more expensive than any other. In Petra, it was used for the flooring of the platform of the altar of the Temple of the Winged Lions, see Fig.5.29a. It consists of modular, repetitive patterns, and of various colours of marble. Five square panels, with a mosaic-like pattern, are evidenced from the impressions left in the cementing agent.36 This resembles the floor treatment seen in Herod’s palace at Jericho.37 In Roman imperial buildings it was used to pave some of the grand central spaces.38

The technique is found in Rome by the Flavian period (AD 69-96) in Domus Falvian on the Palatine hill, and porticus of the Stadium.28 Rings were applied to brickfaced concrete columns. However, it is of particular note that the use of ring bases occurs later, in the early Islamic period, in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.29 The bases of the columns of the octagonal arcade were not solid bases, but rather marble rings or collars clipped round the shaft. It has been suggested that this use represents continuation of Nabataean architectural tradition into the Islamic one.30 No later examples other than those in the Dome of the Rock have been noted in any building between the Nabataean and Islamic periods. V.b.2. Floors

Marble or opus sectile pavements could have been used in the cellas of the Nabataean temples either as an expensive luxury or for reasons of ritual purity like the halls of mortuary temples in Egypt,39 which were fitted out with a pavement of alabaster slabs. If this was the rule in Petra, it is reasonable to look at the floor of the “Great Temple”. What can be seen now is the rectangular limestone pavement of the second phase. It is possible that the numerous slabs of marble recovered in the cistern,40 had been removed from the cella of the “temple” when the pavement of limestone was laid down later. If so, the cella of the “temple” in the first phase was paved using marble slabs to like the other temples in the city.

In buildings in Petra, the floor covering could be made of clay, plaster, or stone. Clay and plaster floors were employed in the earlier phases of the Nabataean buildings.31 Pavements of thin stone slabs were employed from the early first century BC onwards. These thin slabs were made of marble, limestone, or sandstone to cover both unroofed and roofed floors. The floors were paved with different geometrically shaped flagstones, some rectangular, others hexagonal, and yet others in elaborate opus sectile work. In the following discussion, the types of pavements are classified below according to the material used. Marble slabs were often used in the main cellas of the temples. The colours of marble slabs were normally white and grey. Different patterns appear to have been followed. In the cella of the Temple of the Winged Lions, rectangular flagstones were laid in straight east-west rows (Fig.2.7a), with broken joints between the rows. They were set in grey cement and grouted with a white plaster, probably to prevent water from penetrating through the joints.32 With regard to this, Vitruvius33 mentions the use of lime and oil to prevent water penetration. The flagstones used on the west side of the temple are slightly larger than those on its east side. The lengths of the flagstones vary from 0.29 to 1.20 m, and the widths vary from 11 to 47 cms with a thickness of 2-3 cm. This is rather thin for the floor of a public place. The slabs were generally bevelled and trimmed to accommodate the bases of columns. The same features can be seen in the

Two patterns of slabs were used for limestone paving. The first pattern consists of rectangular slabs. This was employed in the Colonnaded Street, two parts of which are still well preserved, to the east of the Temenos Gate (Fig.5.28a), and in the Siq. The flagstones of these were laid in straight rows across the axis of the street. The lengths of the flagstones vary from 30 cm to 1 m, and their widths vary from 20 to 40 cm. The thickness varies from 10 to 12 cm. The slabs were made of hard crystalline white limestone (with shell fragments like nail clippings), which as mentioned in section II.a.3, were partly collected from the lumps of limestone brought by winter floods. It is probable that they were chosen and set in a foundation of one or two layers of stones, gravel and sand, to make them resistant to the extensive day use. This technique resembles that employed in the streets of 34

Zayadine 1985a: Pl.LVIII 2-3. Reid 2002: 363-79. 36 Hammond 1996: 32-3. 37 Ward-Perkins 1981: 310; Hammond 1996: 32; Netzer 2001a: 54. 38 Taylor 2003: 234-6, Figs. 136, 137, 138. 39 Arnold 1991: 147. 40 Basile 1998: 200 considers that the cistern may have functioned as a storage room for marble slabs being stripped from other nearby buildings. 35

28

Gibson et al. 1994: Fig. 24; Pierre 2001: Figs. 286-7. Creswell 1989: 29, Fig. 4. 30 Hammond 1995: 217; 1996: 44. 31 Kolb et al. 2000: 359. 32 Hammond 1996: 37, Pls.9.2; 10.2. 33 Vitruvius 7.1 7. 29

134

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Gerasa, where the wheels of carts marked the pavement. Although, unlike at Gerasa, no cart traces have been found in the Colonnaded Street of Petra, the deep wheel ruts, as mentioned in section III.c.1, in the Siq show that wagons were in use a long it. The Siq and Colonnaded Street were exposed to the weather all the time, and this was a reason to use harder limestone, which does not contain clay minerals. Rectangular slabs of white coarse limestone, containing clay minerals, were used earlier in the Temenos of the Qasr el-Bint and in interior courtyards and in the rooms of az-Zantur houses (Fig.6.34c, d).41

comparable with the painted decoration of the upper zone in room 1 (Fig.5.29b). Kolb49 suggested that the mosaic probably covered the upper floor of room 6. The second example was recovered during the salvage excavation in one of the Nabataean houses in Wadi Musa. This house was built in the early first century AD. Its mosaic floor consisted of geometric designs in white, black, yellow, and red.50 This mosaic is exhibited in the museum of Petra, where one will be able to gather more detail. The art of mosaic work is indicative of the transformations that took place during the Hellenistic period. These were not only indicative of changes within society and its tastes, but also of experimentation and innovation in art. The art of mosaic work also reflects the taste of the elite, such as the royal court and the aristocratic classes or rich traders. It is an art that enriched the private life of the Hellenistic centres such as Delos, Pergamon, and Alexandria.51 Therefore, the two examples mentioned were probably not the only examples in Petra. Hopefully, future excavations will recover more, as was the case in other Hellenistic cities.

The second pattern used for limestone slabs consists of two different sizes of hexagonal slabs. Coarser softer limestone than that used in the Colonnaded Street was used in both.42 The first appears only in the Lower Temenos of the “Great Temple”.43 Each side of the paving stones measures approximately 52 cm. Their thickness varies from 10 to 12 cm (Figs.5.28b; 6.60c). The use of second smaller size of hexagonal slabs has been found in different places such as el-Katute,44 the Upper Temenos of the “Great Temple” (Fig.6.60a, c), and az-Zantur houses (Fig.6.34c).45 Similar slabs were recovered in the Nabataean temple at Wadi Ramm.46 However, the sizes of this type vary from one building to another. Each side of the paving stones varies from 15 to 20 cm.

These two examples, however, do not shed light on the technique used in laying down the mosaic originally, and examination of the az-Zantur mosaics shows their careful arrangement. Regular squared tesserae of cut stone were used. This method was used for rendering of geometrical patterns in the Hellenistic period. It could be assumed that the mosaic and opus sectile floors were all set in the same way, and similar to Vitruvius’ recommendations.52 That is, first, a layer of coarse plaster is laid as a foundation, and above that one a layer of finer quality into which the tesserae were pressed. The mosaicist laid only as much of the fine layer at a time as he could before it hardened. He worked from one edge and moved backwards across the hard surface of the coarse plaster, laying the fine plaster and setting the tesserae in it.53

Sandstone slabs were employed extensively in paving both the floors of private houses and in public buildings. The most obvious example of the former can be seen in az-Zantur houses.47 In the public building, rectangular slabs were used in paving the porticoes around the temples, such as in the “Great Temple” and the Temple of the Winged Lions. The size of these slabs is c. 20 x 40 cm and c. 7 cm thick, and they were cut from a variety of types of sandstones: Disi, Honeycomb, and Tear. Although sandstone is more liable to wear than limestone, its high availability and its relative ease of cutting were possible factors for its choice for floors which were in roofed areas.

The floor construction under the marble, limestone, and sandstone pavements is of two types. When the paved area was directly laid down on the bedrock, as seen in rooms 6, and 7 in EZIV at az-Zantur,54 a layer of mortar was placed on the levelled bedrock, and then the paving slabs were laid down. When the level of the bedrock was farther below the level required for the pavement, a subfloor was made of compact layers of rubble, as seen clearly in the hole in the lower temenos of the “Great Temple” (Fig.5.28b). Vitruvius tells us about the aids

Although the art of mosaic work was carried out with most realistic and most subtle work in Hellenistic centres, excavations in Petra to date have revealed only two mosaic floors of the Nabataean period.48 First, countless small and large fragments of a black and white mosaic were found in the debris of room 6, area IV in az-Zantur (Fig.6.28c). The geometrical design of the mosaic consisted of squares and triangles and is directly

49

Kolb et al. 1998: 261-2. ‘Amr et al. 1997: 469-75. 51 Dunbabin 1999: 10-32; Bruneau 1972; Politt 1986; Daszewski 1985; Robertson 1965: 75-90; Ling 1998a: 23-28. 52 Vitruvius 7.1.1-4, 6. Dunbabin 1999: 281. 53 There is another technique used later. It is the reverse technique, in which the tesserae are laid face down on a cartoon drawn on cloth, then turned and set in position. Dunbabin 1999: 289 states that “there is no proof that the Romans used the reverse method for mosaics, and many of the arguments of the arguments that have been invoked in support of this theory are very doubtful”. See also Ling 1987: 77-88. 54 Kolb et al. 1998: 264.

41

50

Kolb et al. 2000: 358; 1998: 261; Stucky et al. 1991: 252, Fig.1. 42 It is easy to recognise the difference between the soft and hard limestone. The latter is whiter especially in the wet season as it shown in figure 5.28a, while the softer limestone is yellowish, because it contains clay minerals. 43 Basile 1998: 193. 44 Khairy 1990: 3-6, Maps I-IV; Schmid and Kolb 2000: Fig.15. 45 Schmid and Kolb 2000: 244-5, Fig.39, 41; Stucky 1995: 195. 46 Khairy 1990: 5. 47 Kolb et al. 1998: 263. 48 Later examples survive on the Petra Church.

135

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Rectangular limestone (hard crystalline white, with shell fragments like nail clippings) pavement in the Colonnaded Street.

b. Hexagonal limestone (coarse white) pavement in the lower temenos of the “Great Temple”, showing the treatment of the layers below the slabs. Fig.5.28 Floors.

136

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Opus Sectile floor on the altar platform of the Temple of the Winged Lions (Hammond 1996: 31).

b. Black and white mosaic fragment, room 6, area IV, az-Zantur. (Kolb et al. 1998: Fig.5). Fig.5.29 Floors.

occurred in 31 BC,55 AD 114 and AD 363.56 The main cause of these earthquakes is the presence of the rift fault in the Jordan Valley-Wadi Arabah-Gulf of Aqaba, and the sub faults of the city. Moving plates of the earth’s surface, or the so-called plate tectonic,57 provides an explanation for much of the seismic activity in Petra. Such movement could have been either a slow slip, which does not cause shaking ground, or sudden earthquakes. In the latter, the earth is gradually distorted about the fault, in response to distant forces. Therefore, the earthquake may have followed the fault line along the Wadi Arabah

used to set floors. A rule or straight piece of wood served as a guide against which lines of tesserae could be adjusted. A level, an A-shaped device with a plumb line suspended from its apex, was used to ensure that the pavement was horizontal. Other implements, such as set squares or compasses, could be used to confirm the regularity of the geometric shapes. V.c. Anti-Seismic and Stabilising Techniques V.c.1. Seismic Activity in Petra Petra is subject to occasional seismic shocks or earthquakes, some of which helped to bring down most of the freestanding buildings, and created various cracks in the rock-cut monuments. The three major earthquakes

55

Hammond 1996: 56. Browning 1989: 199; Hammond 1965: 15 mentions the second in 130 AD; Hammond 1996: 57; Russell 1980: 47-64; 1985 37-59 ; Stucky et al. 1992: 178; 1995 194; Pflüger 1995: 283. 57 Bolt 1989: 4, Fig. 1-10 which shows the fault types. 56

137

SHAHER M. RABABEH

in its southern route. Although the earthquakes mentioned caused damage to many of the freestanding buildings, some of them are still standing. The Qasr el-Bint, part of the Temple of the Winged Lions, the “Great Temple”, the freestanding part of the Urn Tomb, and the freestanding part of the Palace Tomb are all examples of the survival of the structures in spite of the earthquakes mentioned. It is the aim of this section to analyse the possible antiseismic devices used. Before achieving this, something should be mentioned briefly about the nature of the movement of the ground in earthquakes. The strong shaking associated with an earthquake consists of a mixture of various kinds of seismic waves. These waves are similar in many ways to the waves familiar in air and water. Bolt58 divides these waves into three types. The first is called the primary or P wave, which is the fastest of the seismic waves. Its motion is the same as that of a sound wave, and is able to travel through both solid rock and liquid material. The second type is the secondary or S wave, which is slower and can produce both vertical and horizontal movements. This type of wave was probably responsible for Petra’s destruction on 19 May AD 363.59 The third type is called a surface wave. Its motion is normally restricted to near the ground surface.

a. The movement of body waves through the layers of rock. (Bolt 1989: Fig.1.16a).

In all three types the waves radiate outwards from the earthquake source into the layers of rocks, they are reflected at the interfaces between rock types (Fig.5.30a). Therefore, the surface is affected almost simultaneously by upward and downward moving waves, which are reduced as they travel due to the inelastic properties of the rock and soil. The ground acceleration, velocity, and displacements when transmitted through a structure, can produce forces, which may exceed those the structure can sustain. This depends on several factors, such as the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the fault, the duration of strong shaking, and the soil conditions at the site. On the basis of the intensity of these waves, the earthquake magnitude or scale can be determined, normally on the Richter scale.60 On the Richter scale 5 is very strong and causes cracks in walls. 6 and 7 are disastrous and cause demolition of buildings. Russell61 suggested that the intensity of the earthquake, which occurred in 363 AD in Petra, was at least 7 on the Richter scale.

b. The torsion response through as-symmetrical building. (Arnold 1989: Fig.5.17).

58 Bolt 1989: 12-13, also Figs. 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, which show the ground movement due to the seismic waves. 59 Hammond 1996: 57; Stucky et al. 1991: 255 presents solid proof, the skeleton of a woman and a child killed during the earthquake. He recovered their skeletons together with a purse of coins in room 1, EZI. The skeletons in situ are laid on the rectangular pavement, see Bignasca 1996 Abb. 77. The same thing has been reported by Browning 1989: 199; Russell 1980: 47-64. 60 Bolt 1989: 21. 61 Russell 1985: 37-59.

c. The torsion response in the Qasr el-Bint as symmetrical building. Fig.5.30 Earthquake vibrations.

138

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT V.c.2. Anti-Seismic Devices

considered as anti-seismic devices. The clamping techniques used in Greek architecture may also be considered as anti-seismic device. The earthquake which occurred in Athens, in 1999, was recorded as a strong one, 5.9 on the Richter scale. Many houses in the Plaka close to the Acropolis, and the Temple of Zeus were damaged, whereas the monuments mentioned did not collapse, although there were a few displacements in some of the elements.65 This reflects the efficiency of bonding and jointing techniques in providing seismic resistance. Furthermore, the civil engineering team which was required to do a restoration proposal for the Qasr elBint, recommended the reinforcement of the walls by using clamps.66

In shaking a building, the earthquake ground motion will damage every structural weakness. Therefore, structural and architectural design can play a major role in determining a building’s seismic performance. This can be achieved by various means. The first is the choice of the type of foundation, since earthquake forces are generally greatest at ground level. The bottom part of the building is required to carry its own lateral load in addition to the shear forces of the parts above. As mentioned in sectionV.a.1, the ideal base is bedrock. As Adam states: “rocky ground was more resistant to the effects of tremors and those fissures, cracks, and land slides, due to rising underground water in alluvial plains, did not occur there”.62

One of the most important features of Nabataean construction is the extensive use of timber string-courses and tie rods. This technique has aroused the interest of a number of scholars,67 but no study had yet been able to explain the origin and the structural function of these wooden string-courses. Hammond68 reported that the origin of this technique is not clear, it does not seem to have been used in Roman engineering, and “this device would appear to be a Nabataean innovation.” On the other hand, Thomson69 reports that in the second millennium BC wood was extensively employed to strengthen the mud-brick upper portions of walls. This is found in Anatolia and in Babylon in the Mesopotamian plains. A similar practice is found in Minoan Crete and also in Bronze Age Greek architecture. In the Levant, long narrow gaps, 6-10 cm were recovered between the masonry courses (both fieldstones and ashlars) in Iron Age buildings at Hazor (Fig.5.33a), Samaria and Megiddo.70 I observed similar gaps, 10 cm wide and 10 cm deep, in the second course of the interior walls of Qasr el-Abd (early 2nd cent. BC) near Amman (Fig.5.33b).

The second way involves the design the configuration of the building. This is the size, shape, and proportions of both the two and the three dimensional form of the building. To make this aspect clearer, it is useful to present the Great Pyramid at Gizeh Egypt, as an example. Arnold63 considers this pharaonic monument as the best seismic shape, which has the desirable attributes of symmetrical plan, short span, direct load paths, low unit stress, broad base, reduction in the plan size with height in a gradually symmetrical shape, and lastly large structural density. We can conclude from this that the design of the composition of a building mass is of major importance as an anti-seismic device. Symmetrical plans achieve the coincidences, geometrically, between the centre of mass and all possible earthquake directions, by which the torsion moments would be reduced through the structure. As a result of this, the building will not tend to rotate around the centre of resistance (Fig.5.30b, c). In most classical and Syrian buildings the basic design was very symmetrical.64 Their plans vary in details, but the basic symmetrical form is remarkably constant. So too are the Nabataean buildings designed. Although this symmetry is normally only about one axis, not about two axes, as a pyramid, it helps to reduce the moments of torsion. It is difficult to suppose that the architects adopted this from of design to give their buildings the ability to sustain tremors. But their intention was mainly to achieve balance and beauty in both plan and facades.

In Petra, our best sources of information on this technique are the buildings themselves. The best dated example of this technique is in the superstructure of the Qasr el-Bint, the last quarter of the 1st c. BC. Its survival is useful for understanding the structure’s behaviour during earthquakes. Kohl and Wright drew the detail of the wooden beams in the walls which he observed before the southeastern corner has been restored with the original sandstones (Fig.6.41c, d).71 The cedar wooden beams, some of which have survived, were imbedded lengthwise along the walls (Figs.5.7b; 6.41b, c; 42a; 43a). There are

The third way of improving seismic performance lies in the choice of structural material and the way in which it is used in the construction. Sandstone ashlars masonry is relatively heavy at 2300 kg/cu.m. It has a very small tensile strength, and thus its flexibility per unit weight is small. Ashlar masonry is capable of being damaged by the ground vibration during an earthquake. Therefore, bonding and jointing, and the techniques for centring columns, which have been mentioned previously, can be

65 This is what was announced in the TV news. See Korres and Bouras 1983. 66 K. Bani Hani 2003: Personal communication. He is one of the team members, and assistant professor in seismic engineering in the University of Science and Technology in Jordan. 67 Kohl 1910: 3; Zayadine et al. 2003: 37-9; Hammond 1996: 57; Wright 1961a: 22 notes 3, 24; Ward-Perkins 1981: 334; Lyttelton 1974: 65. 68 Hammond 1995: 219; 1996: 56. 69 Thomson 1960: 60-2. 70 For more details see Shiloh 1979: 61, Pls. 21:2, 22:2, 26:1, 28:2. 71 Kohl 1910: Figs. 2, 12; Wright 1961a; Zayadine 1985: 245.

62

Adam 1994: 107. Arnold 1989: 144. 64 Taylor 2003: 48-9. 63

139

SHAHER M. RABABEH

two or three beams of rectangular cross-section on the one course (Fig.6.41c, d). The beams (c. 15 x 20 cm in section) were positioned with a small gap between them, approximately 20 cm wide, which was filled up with rubble and mortar to form a stable course. Flat ties were placed at intervals across this course. When the wood has not survived it leaves a hollow line along the wall. Kohl noticed that the first course of wooden beams in the east facade was embedded only c. 3m above the ground.72 As the Iron Age examples are primitive it is likely that this traditional technique was further developed by the Nabataeans as seen in the complex method described on the Qasr el-Bint.

were used as fixtures (Figs.5.7b; 6.42 b, c, d; 43b; 44; 47b). Larché suggest their use to strengthen the walls.78 To what degree did the use of wooden string-courses help with seismic resistance? As has been noted previously, the main cause of damage to structures during an earthquake is their response to motion of the ground, which yield new types of forces. In normal conditions the structures lie under static loads, but in seismic disasters they are subject to dynamic forces, such as tension, compression, torsion, and bending. During an earthquake the waves reach the foundation of the walls and are transmitted to the courses until they reach every element in the building. The stone blocks are strong and can sustain the purely compression forces of the static situation, but not lateral ones, which result from the new dynamic situation. On the other hand, because of its flexibility, wooden beams show more resistance to both forces, and, thus, they serve as an elastic joint to absorb the dynamic vibrations and to reduce the seismic response of structure. The wood can absorb torsion forces and contraction caused by earthquake.79 The When lateral forces are exerted between courses no tensile stresses develop and the maximum shearing force to be withstood is friction. This leads to a significant reduction of both translational and torsional responses. As a result of this, the structure remains flexible and intact during the earthquake, thus preventing the walls from falling outward or inward. In view of this, wooden beams function as springs, which can be pulled or pressed but which return to their original position when released. One would imagine that the building was dancing in response to the vibrations of the earthquake.80

Similar devices have been found on most of the freestanding buildings at Petra. These include the huge arches of the “Liwan” in the southeast of the temple of the Winged Lions (detailed in V.c.3, see Fig. 5.35a), the arches of the Qasr el-Bint compartments, the freestanding arches of the Urn Tomb (Fig.5.32a, b), and the freestanding vault of the Palace Tomb (Fig.6.17b). In all, the springing voissoirs rested on both mortared fill and wooden beams which rested on the top of the pillars. Recent excavations recovered the use of the same technique in the “Great Temple”. But here the wooden course has been restored as a single beam (Fig.5.31a, b). It is more likely that the original course was similar to those on the Qasr el-Bint, see the detail in Fig.6.41c and compare it with Fig.5.31a, b. No evidence of reinforcing timbers has been found in the Main Theatre or in the azZantur Houses.73 Different views have been suggested regarding to the structural function of this use.74 Thomson75 states that “it seems most probable that structural reasons lie at the root of this practice… the most probable explanation is that the protection against shock lies at the heart of this problem. Earthquakes are quite common in this part of the Near East, and a number of famous ones have been recorded”. In comparing these gaps with the building method in Anatolia, Reich76 suggested that wooden beams were imbedded in the masonry course to stabilize the walls, leaving gaps when they decayed. Contrary to what Robinson77 suggests, the sort of arrangement for the wooden beams in the Qasr el-Bint does not indicate the possibility of using the wooden beams for the attachment of stucco. As mentioned in V.a.4, circular holes (c. 5 cm diameter) with different kinds of iron and wooden pegs

The technique was widely used in the realm of the Nabataeans, such as in the Negev in building I at Mampsis,81 at Wadi Ramm, at Khirbet edh-Dharih, and possibly in Qasrawat.82 This technique was also used in Egypt on Coptic Churches of the fifth and sixth centuries AD at Abu Mina83, Barbara84 and at Baouit.85 It was used also in southern Arabia. Later, it was used to reinforce the masonry walls in the monument Ghazévide in Afghanistan during the tenth and the twelfth centuries, and in Islamic buildings in Cairo.86 Grossmann87 reported 78

Zayadine et al. 2003: 39. Grossmann 1991: 60. At present seismic base isolation is an effective method used to protect structures against earthquakes. Architects use different modern materials such as rubber bearings to reduce the seismic response of structures. A similar technique was used on Temple of Apollo at Bassae, McKenzie 2005: personal communication. 81 Negev 1988a: 50. 82 Hammond 1996: 88, 91, 94. 83 Grossmann 1991: 62, Figs. 1; 2a; 3a, b. He suggests that at Abu Mina Church it is probable that this technique was used to strengthen the walls rather than to protect them from earthquakes because the walls are very thin. 84 Grossmann 1991: 60, Fig.3b. 85 Chassinat 1911: Pls. VIII, IX, X, XII. 86 Besenval 1984: Pls. 9, 10, 11. 87 Grossmann 1991: 60. 79 80

72 Kohl 1910: 3, Pl. III. It is difficult for current scholars to notice the existence of the first course of wooden beam because of the weathering of the stone since 1910 when Kohl observed the building. 73 Hammond 1965; Bignasca et al. 1996; Schmid and Kolb 2000. 74 Hammond 1996: 57, states “The precise manner in which such use of timber actually operated has not been examined, but would provide an interesting engineering study”. Wright 1961a: 24 states that “the eventual result of this wooden reinforcement has thus been somewhat curious”. 75 Thomson 1960:61. 76 Reich 1992: 8. 77 cited in Kohl 1910: 3.

140

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General view of the east façade, looking southwest and showing the restored wooden course.

b. Section drawing through the southern door of the east walkway, looking south to show the joints and the location of the restored wooden course.

Fig.5.31 Wooden course, “Great Temple”.

141

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. The main façade shows the possible wooden course and the in-set /out-set technique in the body of the northern part of the freestanding wall.

b. Detailed picture showing groove for the wooden course. Fig.5.32 Wooden course, the Urn Tomb.

142

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a

b Fig.5.33 Horizontal grooves between ashlar in the Iron Age and Hellenistic Levant. a. Horizontal groove between ashlar courses at Hazor, area B, stratum VIII (Shiloh 1979: Pl.21.2). b. Groove in the interior walls of Qasr el-Abd.

this use in late antique in Balkan. During my fieldtrip in Turkey, I found also that this technique was in use in the nineteenth century mud-brick houses at Sariköy and Hacilar, c. 40 km east of Aphrodisias. The wooden beams were embedded in the wall courses in intervals, each of which is about 1.2 m high. The local people there confirmed this use as an anti-seismic device.

In addition it seems unlikely that the building would have been used as a stable. The arrangements of the piers of “Liwan” are not similar to those found in the stable 431 in building XII at Mampsis. The hole in the stable was made in the shape of a dovetail, and only c. 10 cm deep, but the main objection is that the height of the hole from the floor level at Mampsis is c. 50 cm.89 By contrast, in the “Liwan” the hole is rectangular and the inner tube pierced the piers completely, and its height from the floor level was at least 4 m (Fig.5.35a; 37a).

V.c.3. Tie-Beams A remarkable feature, which should be discussed here, is the use of timber in the arches of the “Liwan” in the Temple of the Winged Lions. The springers of these arches rest on timber-filled channels (Fig.5.34b; 35a, b) which probably provide an example of an anti-seismic device, as discussed above. A further purpose can be inferred by analysing the detail of the cavities. The timber course measures c. 18 cm in height and extends around the four sides of each pier. Traces of the mortar, which was probably used to fix the wooden beams, still exist in the external grooves of the piers. A cylindrical hole runs in a straight line, east-west, through the centre of each pier within each row (Fig.5.36a, c). The mouth of this tunnel is rectangular, 18 x 15 cm, and lies between two courses of stone as shown in detail in Fig.5.36b, c. Further in, the cross section is circular. The evidence for this is the circular tube of mortar, 12 cm in diameter, remaining within the rectangular tunnel. Therefore, wooden circular beams would have been inserted into the tunnel, and the mortar used to fix them.

Even more important, structurally speaking, is the presence of the rectangular holes in the imposts of the arches in the eastern lateral wall (Fig.5.38). As will be mentioned in section VI.c, the arches sprang directly from this wall, and consequently one would not have expected to find the inner tunnel piercing the imposts of this wall. However, there are c. 20 cm holes in the imposts of the lateral wall, which coincide with the line of the tunnels in the piers. An explanation can be given for this. The circular wooden beam probably pierced the piers and the spans of arches until it rested in the impost of the lateral wall. From this observation alone, we can now apply the same explanation to the cavity holes discovered in the Qasr el-Bint. As will be mentioned in section VI.d.1.1, the columns in the front façade of each compartment were spanned by arches as shown in (Fig.6.51b), and two cavity holes are visible in the lateral walls at the level of the cornice. This has led Zayadine90 to propose that the arches were spanned by wooden or marble slabs as decorative elements. I believe that these holes would have held wooden beams (Fig.6.51b). In fact, the beams penetrated the imposts of the arches, and were secured in the lateral holes in a similar manner to those of the “Liwan”.

At first sight, one may suggest that the inner row of beams was used for centring, or as a device to tether horses beside mangers similar to those recovered at Mampsis.88 However, the hole, which is needed for centring usually measures c. 10 cm deep and does not penetrate the whole width of the pier.

Structurally, there is every reason for believing that the wooden beams described were intended to take a thrust, 89

88

90

Negev 1988a: 138.

143

Negev 1988a: Plan 32, clear details of manger. Zayadine 1982: 377, Pl. CXXIX2; 1985a: 239.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General plan.

b. Detailed plan of the northern row, showing the grooves of the wooden beams. Fig.5.34 The “Liwan”. The Winged Lions Temple.

a. Detailed drawing of two arches, showing the groove, the wooden tie beams, and the arrangement of voussoirs.

b. General view of the two arches in the northern row, looking Fig.5.35 The “Liwan”, the Winged Lions Temple.

144

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a

b

Fig.5.36 The “Liwan”, the Winged Lions Temple.

c

a. General view of the second row, showing the continuity of the groove running through the piers, looking east. b. Detailed view of one of the piers, showing the configuration of the grooves and the springer blocks. c. Reconstructed section, showing the grooves.

a

b

Fig.5.37 The “Liwan”, the Winged Lions Temple. a. General view of the eastern arch of the second row, showing the height of the grooves from the floor level, and the springer blocks in the lateral wall. b. Detailed view of the groove.

145

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General view showing the continuity of the holes through the impost of the arches to the lateral wall, looking northeast. b. Detailed view showing the hole penetrating the lateral wall. Fig.5.38 The “Liwan”, the Winged Lions Temple.

V.c.4. Contraction and Expansion

as shown by the fact that they run from pier to pier and their ends rested on the lateral walls (Fig.5.38a). From a structural point of view, this technique would have required the tie-beam to penetrate the piers and to pass through the arches, in order to connect the feet of the arches together. The weight of stone could actually function as ties to pin wooden beams into the slots. It is likely that the three wooden rows in each row of arches in the “Liwan” were used together as an anti-seismic device. But, the inner row was quite possibly also intended to act as a tie beam, which runs through the piers in a straight line.

Structural movement occurs all the time, and usually its magnitude is too small to be noticed. This movement is inevitable and can be caused by settlement, wind, moisture, and heat and cold. But changes in temperature and moisture generally are the main causes of movement in masonry walls. Thus, stone blocks are subject to physical changes in length, width, height, and volume of their mass when subjected to environmental changes and mechanical conditions surrounding them. The effects may be permanent contraction from drying or shrinkage, creep, or abnormal changes from chemical reactions of the sulphate attack as mentioned in section V.a.4. As movement of blocks occurs, they can relieve the internal stresses by cracking forming a new joint. In other words, as the temperature rises the blocks lengthen, and unless sufficient spaces are left between the blocks to allow for expansion, the blocks are likely to crack. To minimise this, joints may be used between blocks to accommodate for the movement without loss of structure integrity.

The tie beams of the “Liwan” arches are of seminal importance for the history of Nabataean architecture. This technique forms a precedent for similar structures found later in early Muslim architecture. Two striking examples of such use come from the Dome of the Rock (Fig.5.39), AD 691-2, and from the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.91 In both of these, the wooden tie-beams are painted and decorated to very high standards (Fig.5.39b). Moreover, this technique became very common later and examples of it can be observed in different geographical areas in the Islamic world. Some of these are the Mosque of Qairwan, AD 670, Tunis,92 the Mosque of Amr, AD 827 in Fustat, Egypt,93 most of the Seljuk mosques in Konya, Turkey, and the Great Mosque in Susa, AD 850-1, Iran.94

In this light, mortar used for bonding, mentioned in section V.a.3, can be considered as a contraction and expansion joint. Joints divide a structural unit into smaller elements by forming a complete separation from the adjacent element. Moreover, contraction and expansion joints may be made by forming the joint to a beam of wood. Modern architects use wood or rubber or polyester to make these joints. But nowadays the joint is inserted vertically in the structure and not horizontally as seen in the Nabataean buildings. However, by considering the height of the Qasr el-Bint (23 m), it certainly required an expansion joint to maintain the

91

Creswell 1989: 29 Figs. 4, 6, 8, 11, 48. Creswell 1989: 323 Fig. 204. Creswell 1989: 307 Figs. 192, 193. 94 Creswell 1989: 356 Fig. 230-1. 92 93

146

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General view of the inner ambulatory, showing the decorated wooden tie-beams (Creswell 1989: Fig.4).

b. Detailed view (Creswell 1989: Fig.11).

c. General view of the central part under the dome, showing the iron tie-beams (Creswell 1989: Fig.6).

d. Detailed section, showing the wooden tie-beams and the impost-block of the intermediate octagon (Creswell 1989: Fig.8).

Fig.5.39 Tie-beams, the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem.

rigidity of the exterior walls and to prevent horizontal or vertical cracks. Wooden beams prevent blocks from crushing, distorting, displacing, buckling, or warping from compressional forces caused by expansion. In addition, they divided the large solid walls into panels, which facilitate longitudinal movement, thereby reducing the chances of cracks. One further observation is that, since wood is softer than a stone block, it will form an

elastic joint that always seeks to balance the movement of the stone blocks. This observation can be applied to the use of wooden beams as both anti-seismic and contraction and expansion devices. To conclude, the site of Petra offered a firm layer for the foundations of the buildings. The builders, as elsewhere, used terracing to minimize the amount of fill and to avoid 147

SHAHER M. RABABEH

constructing very high retaining walls. The walls of the buildings were built using two methods: header and stretcher or two-skinned construction. The Nabataeans certainly knew about dowels and clamps, as is evident in the temple at Khirbet et-Tannur. It is built of limestone, whereas sandstone is more likely to have chipped around the clamp hole and so was not suitable for use with clamps. Consequently, instead they concentrated on the use of mortar. Egyptian influence can be seen in both of these methods. Wooden beams as stabilizing aids were imbedded between the courses of the walls. This technique had been in use in the East since the Iron Age, and thus its frequent use in Petra can be attributed to local tradition. The use of wood was intended to provide earthquake protection, and also to allow for expansion and contraction. It is probable that a strong earthquake in the Jordan Valley in the first century BC would have awakened the Nabataean architects to the need to use this technique. It is, therefore, fair to point out that the Nabataean builders certainly had seismic protection in mind when they used it. This knowledge also can be seen extended to the use of wooden tie-beams connecting arches, as it found in the “Liwan” of the Temple of the Winged Lions and the arches of the two compartments of Qasr el-Bint. But this technique is unprecedented and there are so far no later examples may support its use until the early Islamic period in Jerusalem. Similarly, the use of ring bases around columns, which are unique to Petra in antiquity, is later found in the Dome of the Rock. Nabataean builders also used the wooden pin technique of centring Disc and Normal column-drums. For paving both roofed and unroofed floors, despite its friable nature and lack of resistance to weathering, Nabataean builders used sandstone, presumably because of its availability and its relative ease of cutting. However, limestone slabs were used in paving the Colonnaded Street which was subjected to the most traffic. Marble slabs were used to pave the cellas of the temples and as cladding for walls. Stucco was used extensively to coat the sandstone walls and columns whatever the type of sandstone. Therefore, the Nabataean builders in Petra, as elsewhere, adopted and further developed different technical approaches. The techniques they chose or developed were those most suited to the available materials, taking into account the qualities of those materials as well as cost and the topography of the site and other local conditions. The Nabataean builders did not only aim to achieve a high degree of physical protection from the external environment, but also to obtain firm walls and columns which can carry the different loads imposed by the roofs and ceilings.

148

Chapter VI Construction of Roofs compression and tension principles are used together. The third type of roof is resistant to tension. In this type of roof, wooden beams were the basic material used because of their ability to withstand tension, owing largely to their fibrous composition. It makes no difference whether wooden beams are used in flat or pitched roofs.

In a static situation, transmission of forces through a perpendicular structural element takes the form of compression resulting from the different loads to which it is subjected. If the structure remains firm under these loads the type of force experienced does not change. But when architects and builders desired to create functional spaces, such as rooms, halls, and openings, horizontal structural elements have to be built over the space. In this case, the forces must be transferred to the edges of the space, so changing the forces from compression to tension. This structural phenomenon can be understood as roofing. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to report on the current state of research, and to analyse the methods and techniques used by Nabataean builders in solving roofing problems. A preliminary study of the structural forces existing in roofs and ceilings will be used to classify roofs and ceilings according to the forces applied and the resistance to them.

VI.b. Arch Structures Boyd1 in his valuable study argued that no examples of the true arch in the Greek world can be dated certainly to earlier than the late fourth century BC. At that time, Macedonian military engineers introduced the true arch into Greek architecture. They learned this structural form from Mesopotamia or Egypt,2 where the arch and vault had been known for at least two preceding millennia. Boyd went on to state that “the earliest securely dated examples of the true arch in the Roman world are from the earlier decades of the third century BC at a time when there is demonstrable Hellenistic military activity in south Italy.”3 Therefore, roofs based on the compression principle were used in Greek architecture mostly later than 300 BC. The earliest examples of its structural use in Greece are in Macedonian tombs, such as the “Tomb of Philip” at Vergina, the tomb at Pydna,4 and the Ionic Tomb at Vergina.5

VI.a. Forces Existing in Roofing Structures As explained in the previous chapter, the wall materials are resistant to pressure stresses. However, the materials in roofing structures must resist tensile stresses caused by both dead and live loads. The dead loads are represented by the fixed loads, in particular the weight of the roof or the ceiling itself. The live loads, in general, are movable, for example, people and furniture or external forces such as the weight of snow and the force of the wind. As a result of all these loads, the ceiling or roof tends to buckle. The magnitude of the deflection caused by a given load depends on the span and the material chosen for the roof. But generally, the lower part of the roof structure is subject to tension, while the upper part is subject to compression. For example, when a hand is cupped the texture of the skin shows that the palm is under compression and the back is under tension.

VI.b.1. Principles of the Arch In stonemasonry, a true arch is produced when several stones are cut in wedge shapes or voussoirs and fitted into one continuous curve.6 Each voussoir is wider at the top than at the bottom. This prevents the voussoirs from sliding down under the action of gravity. The form and placement of the voussoirs illustrates how the pressure from each stone is not directed exclusively downwards, but also to the side. Structurally speaking, sliding is prevented by sufficiently high friction at the interface between the voussoirs, and by the resistance of the abutments to lateral force. If friction was enough on its own, voussoirs would not have to be wedge-shaped. Moreover, this arrangement makes each voussoir transmit its thrust to the adjacent one. This, as we will see, explains the lack of need for mortar between the voussoirs. Arches can be classified into a number of variants. When the lower joint faces of the springer are

This structural phenomenon was the dominant factor in choosing the shape of the roof and ceiling, and the materials used to construct them in the past as today. Roofs and ceilings in antiquity can be classified into three types according to their resistance to specific types of stress. The first type of roof is resistant largely to compressive forces. This usually involves the use of arches, vaults, or domes as structural shapes, in which the stresses are compressive rather than tensile. In this case the basic material used is stone, which can withstand great pressure. The quality, size, and shape of the stone affect its durability. The second type of roof can be seen in the arch structures carrying a flat roof. Here arches are built over the space at fixed intervals, and stone slabs or wooden beams are laid between them. Thus, both

1

Boyd 1976: 1-5; 1978: 83-100. In Egypt, barrel vaults with wedge-shaped voussoirs were first used about 750 BC, Arnold 1991: 200. 3 Boyd 1976: 104. 4 Lawrence 1996: Fig. 252. 5 Andronicos 1984; Lawrence 1996: Fig. 249. 6 The component parts of perfect and simple arches can be seen in Adam 1994: Figs. 401, 403; Boyd 1978: ILL.2. 2

149

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Plan and detail of one slab. b. Elevation.

c. General view, looking northwest.

Fig.6.1 Lintel of the rear door way. The “Great Temple”.

set lower in elevation than the centre of curvature of the arch, the arch is described as stilted. When they are higher, the arch is described as segmental. Also, when the wedge-shaped voussoirs have a horizontal intrados and extrados, the arch is then described as flat.7

window or even forming part of the wall structure as a relieving arch (see below). A barrel vault covering a room can be considered a longitudinally extended arch. Similarly, a domical vault or a dome can be defined as a three-dimensional shape created by rotating an arch to form a hemisphere.

The principles of arch construction can be applied to vaults.8 An arch is a curved span, covering a door way or 7

Adam 1994: 168; Boyd 1978: 90. Boyd 1978: n. 2, states that it is difficult to define the precise point at which an arch becomes a vault. He adds, “An arch might be considered

a vault if its voussoirs were exceedingly long with respect to the span of the opening so bridged.” Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a 2dimensional arch; they all have some depth.

8

150

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT The questions which need to be answered are: How far did the Nabataean builders rely on the arch and its derivatives? What are the structural conditions which limit their use? Answers can be found in surveying the application of each type of arch in Petra. This will be discussed in the next three subsections, starting first with lintels and relieving arches.

question of the technique and materials used by the Nabataean builders to construct the architraves is still unanswered. Such long blocks (if they had existed) were often robbed for later reuse as lintels. One possibility is that the spans between the columns of pronaoi of the temples and the Colonnaded Street11 were bridged by wooden architraves supporting stone friezes and cornices. In early Greek architecture wooden architraves were perhaps used, as in the seventh century temple of Apollo at Thermon.12 But it had no stone above. Once monumental architecture was widespread in the Greek world, wooden architraves were generally rejected.13 But the stone available there was limestone or marble, not sandstone as at Petra. Moreover, wood is scarce in Petra, and even if they were able to import it, the wooden architraves could not carry the heavy load of stonework above. To solve this problem, it is probable that the Nabataean builders used arches to spanning the columns of the pronaoi of the temples, as they did for example in spanning the columns of the compartments and the main doorway of the Qasr el-Bint. The wooden architraves then could have been used as a decorative element in covering the opening of the arcades.

VI.b.2. Lintels and Relieving Arches Generally, doorways and windows weaken load-bearing walls. The usual structural design for a lintel is to use a large horizontal block of stone or wooden beam to span the opening. The lintel in this case, structurally, withstands tensile forces in its lower part. Since stone is weak in resisting this kind of force, the Nabataean builders, as elsewhere used large stones of suitable height. Several examples of these are preserved perfectly in Mampsis, such as the lintel of room 410, building XII, and room 354 in building I.9 In the latter, the lintel was made up of one single limestone block (95 cm wide x 35 cm high), spanning 65 cm. An interesting point to note at Mampsis is that hard limestone blocks, similar to the lintel block, were normally used to build the jambs, probably for aesthetic and structural reasons. The use of single blocks as lintels was common also in Umm elJimal,10 Bosra, Gerasa and elsewhere.

Therefore, one problem which the builders had to face was the protection of the lintels from the tremendous weight of the stone mass above them. A simple way is the placement of a second lintel above the first with a few centimetres space between them (Fig.6.2a), At Mampsis a number of lintels were built using this technique. A few used one piece of limestone, which was laid to cover the door lintel and to reduce the load on it, another stretcher was laid above the lintel with a slightly concave shape at its base, apparently acting as relieving arch (Fig.6.2b). Examples of this can be seen in rooms 417, 402, Building XII. 14 I observed examples at Bosra and Kanawat (from the 2nd and 3rd cents. AD) of basalt lintels show slightly reduction in the second span (Fig.6.11a). This space was probably developed into in a flat arch (Fig.6.2b). Another way used to reduce the span was to build the lintel above corbel blocks as seen at Kanawat (Fig.6.2d).

In Petra, Nabataean builders do not appear to have favoured the use of large single blocks. The only surviving example there is the lintel of the doorway in the rear façade of the “Great Temple” (Fig.6.1c). The width of the doorway is 70 cm, and its depth is equal to the wall thickness, 1.75 m, but the width of the slabs which span it is less than the wall thickness so that a total of five slabs are used. The slabs are 14 cm high (Fig.6.1a, b). Technically, this is similar to roofing by the use of slabs, as we will see in the next section. Jambs of the doorways and windows were made of blocks of the same quality as the stones of the lintel and the walls (Fig.6.1c). Probably the quality of sandstone determined whether or not the builders could use large single blocks horizontally. I would suggest that they considered the use of single blocks for lintels in freestanding buildings unsatisfactory. Rock-cut long sandstone lintels and architraves were found in the rock-cut facades, for example in el-Khazneh, where the span of the main door is c. 4.35 m long, and the intercolumniations range from 2.75 m to 4.5 m, but they were carved and not built. The consistency of the rock is homogeneous, and structurally the architrave stops at the second storey (over 5 m). Thus, they gain their strength from being part of the parent rock.

So far we have considered the use of a second lintel as an initial step, but other techniques (Fig.6.2d, e) can be observed in the rock-cut facades. The placement of a circular opening can be seen above the main entrance of el-Khazneh,15 and of the Lion Triclinium.16 These elements suggest the awareness of the builders of this principle. This can illustrate the ingenuity of the builders in reducing the load above lintels. The flat arch is another solution. The most elaborate example of this can be seen in the rooms lying to the east of the “Great Temple” (Figs.6.3a, c; 4). This flat arch

As mentioned in section IV.d, no identified architrave fragments have been found in any excavation and the 9

11

Kanellopoulos 2001: 19. Orlandos 1966: 57-67, Fig. 45. 13 A few later examples in Coulton 1976: 144. 14 Negev 1988a: 113-4 photos. 89, 92. 15 McKenzie 1990: Pl. 82. 16 McKenzie 1990: Pl. 135. 12

Negev 1988a: 59, Photo 19. De Vries 1982: 16, Fig. 7.

10

151

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Double lintel.

b. Relieving arch above lintel.

d. Relieving square window.

e. Relieving circular window.

c. Corbelled lintel at Kanawat. Fig.6.2 Lintel types used in Nabataean cities (a, b, d, e , after De Vries 1982: Fig.16)

b

c

a Fig.6.3 Flat arches. a. General view of the east part of the “Great Temple”, showing the flat arch and the restored semicircular arch, looking east. b. Flat arch lintel at Sufetula, middle of the first century AD, showing the gripping holes designed for lifting tongs (Adam 1994: Fig.410). c. Detailed view of the flat arch in Figs.6.3a, 4.

152

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.4 Flat arch. The “Great Temple”.

consists of seven wedge-shaped voussoirs, and covers a span of 1.30 m. In addition, the end voussoirs are specially shaped and seated on the wall and hook over the course below, creating a strong overlap (Fig.6.4a, c, d). In this arrangement, the force is transmitted laterally across the adjacent voussoirs. A similar example can be observed at Mampsis in the staircase-tower 351 of building I, where the first flight of stairs was entered by an opening covered by a flat arch.17 In Roman buildings flat arches of similar nature were commonly used for the

lintels of buildings, for example the Peribolos of the Capitol at Sufetula (Fig.6.3b),18 the temple at Neha in Lebanon,19 the Temple of Bacchus at Baalbek (Fig.6.6) and the Cathedral south of the Nymphaeum in Gerasa (Fig.6.5a). Another approach to the problem of spanning doorways was the use of semi-circular arches, which would give the builder much greater freedom in the spans of the lintels. 18

17

19

Negev 1988a: 71, Photo 44.

153

Adam 1994: 69-72, Fig. 410. Taylor 1967: Pls. 6, 7, 8, 42, 43, 45.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Richly decorated flat arch of the doorway of the Cathedral, looking west.

b. General view, showing the relieving arches in the rear wall of the Artemis Temple, looking west. Fig.6.5 Flat and relieving arches in Gerasa.

154

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Rich decorated flat arch of the main doorway of the Temple of Bacchus.

b. Detailed view of the flat arch. Fig.6.6 Flat arch. Baalbek.

155

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a

b Fig.6.7 Semi circular vaulted doorway in the “Great Temple”. a. General view, looking northwest. b. Detailed drawing.

relieving arches22 still exist in the Qasr el-Bint. The first is the arch over the main doorway. It was built to reduce the load over the horizontal lintel, c. 6 m wide (Fig.6.8b) similar to the relieving arch in the Capitol of Sufetula, c. 4 m wide (Fig.6.8c), middle of the first century AD.23 The arch of the Qasr el-Bint still exists, but the lintel does not. However, two cavities, which would have accommodated the ends of the lintel, are clearly visible. The height of the cavities is about 30 cm, which would not be sufficient for a lintel made of stone. However, a wooden beam of this height would certainly have been able to act as lintel (Fig.6.8a), but could not carry any load of stonework above. Thus, I suggest that the area between the lintel and the arch would have been left open. The same technique was perhaps used for the lintel of the main doorway of the Temple of the Winged Lions which was c. 5 m wide (Fig.6.57a). Relieving arches over stone lintels are also found in the Temple at Kanawat (western entrance),24 the north façade of Shuhba theatre,25 the south gate of Shuhba (Fig.6.11b), the west gate at

Semi-circular arches were used widely in Petra, for instance in the western entrance of the “Great Temple” (Fig.6.7a, b). This arch consists of ten wedge-shaped voussoirs and spans 1.78 m. The western arch of the “Liwan” of the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.5.34a; 35a, b) consists of six voussoirs, each of which was shaped to receive the adjacent one. The eastern arch consists of seven voussoirs, arranged in the same way. As will be detailed in section VI.c.2 the spans of arches in the “Liwan” range from 1.5 to 2.85 m. In the series of arches supporting the floor above the proscenium of the Main Theatre,20 there is one intact arch (Fig.6.31) which spans c. 1.5 m, and consists of eight voussoirs. These examples show that in Petra arches have odd and even numbers of voussoirs, and span openings up to 2.85 m. Whatever the number, there is a last voussoir to be laid, and this has a special form like a wedge. Relieving arches were used elsewhere to reduce the load on other structural elements, such as wide lintels. An early example of this is the Porta Rosa at Velia, 340 BC,21 in which the arch relieves the barrel vault (Fig.6.9c). In Petra, two interesting examples of use of

20 21

22 In Egypt relieving arches were used from the sixth Dynasty at Saqqara, but these arches were built of fieldstones and spanned a distance of only c. 1.00 m (Arnold 1991: 200 Fig. 4.140). 23 Gros 1996: Pl.x. 24 Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: Fig. 1034. 25 Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1909: Fig. 1059.

Hammond 1965: Folding Plate E. Adam 1994: 161, Fig. 382.

156

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Reconstructed detail, showing the wooden (?) lintel relieved by segmental arch.

b. General view, showing the main entrance, looking south.

c. A stone lintel relieved by arch in the Capitol of Sufetula, middle of the first century AD (Adam 1994: Fig.400). Fig.6.8 Relieving arch. Qasr el-Bint.

157

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Qasr el-Bint. General view of the south façade, showing the wooden beams below the springing of the relieving arch.

b c b. Qasr el-Bint. Detail of the treatment of the voussoirs. c. The Porta Rosat at Velia, c.340 BC, showing the relieving arch above the barrel vault (Adam 1994: Fig.382). Fig.6.9 Relieving arches.

Bosra (1st quarter of the 2nd cent. AD),26 and the scaenae frons of theatre at Bosra (Fig.6.10).

VI.b.3. Vaults The earliest vaulted roofs were barrels. In Petra, vaulted recesses were cut inside the chambers of rock-cut monuments perhaps to accommodate either graves or cult statues, for example as seen in the in the back walls of the Obelisk Tomb,27 the Painted House,28 the Tomb of the Roman Soldier,29 the Urn Tomb,30 and ed-Deir.31 However, the aim of this section is to study the freestanding vaults in Petra. The vaults in Petra were purely structural and can be classified into four groups.

The second relieving arch in the Qasr el-Bint is in the rear wall (Fig.6.9a, b). It can be seen from inside and outside (Fig.6.51b). This was not built over a doorway but to reduce the load over the rear wall of the adyton (Fig.6.39c), which, as mentioned in section V.a, was reduced in thickness in order to give more space to the cult statue (Fig.6.40a). To make up for this reduction in thickness, the compression on the wall had to be shifted to the sides using the relieving arch. A similar example can be observed in the relieving arch set in the interior of the rear wall of the Temple of Artemis in Gerasa, where it reduces the pressure on the arch below (Fig.6.5b). 26

27

McKenzie 1990: Pl. 125a. McKenzie 1990: Pl. 113b. 29 McKenzie 1990: Pl. 101a, b. 30 McKenzie 1990: Pl.94a. 31 McKenzie 1990: Pls. 142b, 143a. 28

Segal 1997: 90, Figs. 91, 93.

158

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.10 Relieving arches built from basalt in Hawran (2nd -3rd cent. AD). a. General view of the scaenae frons of Bosra Theatre showing the two relieving arches.

b. Detailed view.

a. Kanawat.

b. The south Gate of Shuhba. Fig.6.11 Relieving arches built from basalt in nd rd Hawran (2 -3 cent. AD).

159

SHAHER M. RABABEH

First, barrel vaults were used to support the heavy weight of the seating of the cavea in theatres. This can be seen in a number of vaulted rooms below the cavea of the “Great Temple”. These vaults were carried on unusually thick walls, 1.3-1.8 m. Two of the barrel vaults are sloping, and covering staircases, leading to the rear of the cavea, as seen in Fig.6.12a. The slope of these vaults corresponded to both the slope of the stairs and the rising tiers of seats in the cavea (Fig.6.60d). The use of vaults in the ceilings of earlier Greek theatre passageways can be seen at Sikyon, and the theatre of Eretria, both dated to the early third century BC.32 A similar vaulted passage can be seen in the Temple of Apollo at Didyma, from the first half of the third century BC. A sloping barrel vault covered the passageway, which leads from the pronaos to the hypaethral adyton or the court.33 This example is more like the theatre vaults. In the Roman world, a similar example is the Theatre of Marcellus in Rome. In the Roman East the most impressive example is the theatre of Bosra, built on level ground with all its seating carried on an artificial substructure consisting of radial vaults.34 Elsewhere in the Roman East, as at Philadelphia, Gerasa, Pella, and Gadara, the cavea was partially or wholly built on a hillside, but in all of them barrel vaults support the summa cavea. Instead of sloping barrel vaults, stepped arches were used to support the cavea seating in the northern entrance of Gadara Theatre (Fig.6.14b), and under the east part of the Hippodrome cavea in Gerasa (Fig.6.14a).

prove which technique was used. Several examples show that barrel vaults were used in earlier Greek bridges, for example in the monumental propylon of Ptolemy at Samothrace, c. 3rd cent. BC.35 A further example of using this technique is the vaulted bridge on Rhodes.36 It is the only known example, in which a three-centred arch has been used. Its height is less than half its span. A barrel vaulted bridge was used in late Nabataean times in constructing the dam at the entrance of the Siq, which diverts the water of the Wadi Musa from the Siq to Wadi Mudhlem37 (Fig.6.15a). Structurally, vaults are stronger than arch and slab construction, and give the structure above them more rigidity in resistance against floods. Therefore, I suggest the use of barrel-vaulted bridges over the wadi. Barrel vaults were also used to carry staircases, as in the main entrance of the pavilion in the Pool Complex.38 It was constructed inside the pool, connecting the east-west wall to the north face of the island and allowing easy access to the island pavilion through its front entrance (Fig.6.64b). A number of voussoirs are still in situ as evidence for the use of this technique.39 Furthermore, it has been suggested that the complex was connected with the “Middle Market” by a sloping vaulted ramp,40 but no evidence has been discovered to prove this suggestion, since the area has not been excavated yet. The third application of barrel vaults was their use in gates. The arch at the main entrance to the Siq was certainly vaulted by a true arch, Fig.6.15b, for a number of voussoirs still exist in situ, seated on a bedrock impost Fig.6.15c. It was visible in nineteenth century photographs before it fell down. This use finds many parallels in the Greco-Roman world. Archways like these are more parallel in the entrance to Priene agora, and many cities in Roman Asia Minor. In the Roman east this technique was used in all monumental gates, such as the north and south gates in Gerasa,41 and the Nabataean arch at Bosra (Fig.6.16c). The Temenos Gate of Petra presumably consisted of three vaulted doorways like other Roman gateways of this kind, but none of these exists today (Fig.6.16a, b).

Of special interest is the use of rock-cut and freestanding building techniques together, called here the mixed technique, for the barrel vaults over the passageways of the Main Theatre in Petra. As the theatre cavea was nearly all rock-cut, a sloping vaulted structure was not required to carry the cavea. Barrel vaults were only needed to cover the entrances. But, due to the topographical features mentioned in section III.c.2, both the vomitoria and tribunalia had to be roofed by using a mixed technique. Part of the vault was built freestanding, and part was rock-cut, as shown in Fig.6.12b. The best preserved barrel vault is the one which covers the eastern vomitorium (Fig.6.13a, b). It consists of seventeen voussoirs, most of which are approximately the same in size and shape. This vault covers a 3.4 m span. The eastern springer rests on a rock-cut seat which serves as a natural impost (Fig.6.13c).

The last application of the use of the barrel vaults was their use to support and buttress facades. A unique example of this in Petra can be seen in the Palace Tomb (Fig.6.17b). As mentioned in section III.c.2, for topographical reasons, the architect of the Palace Tomb had to construct the upper third of the northern part of the

The second application of barrel-vaulting was for bridges crossing valleys or for carrying stairs or ramps. Most of the entrances of the buildings to the north of Wadi Musa (Fig.1.15) were probably reached via either barrel-vaulted bridges or by bridges consisting of two or three arches side by side joined by slabs, as will be discussed in section VI.c.1. No firm evidence has been recovered to

35

Frazer 1990: 25-7, Figs.23, 26-8, Pls. III, V-VIIII. Boyd 1978: 91 Fig. 6. Browning 1989: 114-5. 38 This was identified earlier as the Lower Market, Bachmann et al. 1921; Browning 1989: 144, map 4. Bedal 2001: 23 excavated the site and discovered the pool complex, which was dated to the last quarter of the first century BC. 39 Bedal 2001: 31, Figs. 8, 9. 40 Kanellopoulos 2001: 13; Bedal 2001: 25, n. 1. 41 Segal 1997: 84-149. 36 37

32

Boyd 1978: 84-5, Fig.2, ILL. 1. Coulton 1977: 154, Fig.68; Boyd 1978: 86, Fig.4. 34 Segal 1995: 8. 33

160

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Slopping barrel vault, covering staircase and supporting the cavea seating of the “Great Temple”, looking west.

b. Barrel vault, covering the eastern passageway, which leads to the orchestra of the Main Theatre, showing the rock-cut and the freestanding parts, looking east. Fig.6.12 Barrel vaults. Theatres in Petra.

161

SHAHER M. RABABEH

b. Detailed drawing of Fig.6.13a.

Fig.6.13 Barrel vault, the Main Theatre

162

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.14 Stepped arches and vaults in Gerasa and Gadara. b. Detailed view of the northern entrance of the western theatre at Gadara, showing the stepped barrel vaults. a. Detailed view of the shops beneath the cavea of the Hippodrome at Gerasa, showing the stepped arches.

a

b

Fig.6.15 Barrel vaults. Petra.

a. A reconstruction of the bridge, which was built across the main entrance of the Siq in late Nabataean times (Browning 1989: Fig.50). b. A reconstruction of the Arch in the Siq (Browning 1989: Fig.53). c. A detailed view, showing the northern voussoirs of the arch.

c

163

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Reconstructed east façade and plan, showing the vaulted doorways of the Temenos Gate in Petra (Netzer 2003: Fig.181).

b. A reconstructed view (Browning 1989: Fig.78).

c. The Nabataean arch (with blocked out capitals) at Bosra (Ball 2000: Pl.47).

Fig.6.16 Barrel vaults, gates. Petra and Bosra.

164

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.17 Vaults, and the “mixed technique”. The Palace Tomb.

façade freestanding (Fig.6.17a). To make this part firm and give it the structural ability to resist lateral forces, the architect secured this part to the rear bedrock by a segmentally arched vault creating a buttress (Fig.6.17b). Above this there was a bed of timber beams on top of which ashlar masonry was built.

None of the barrel vaults recovered in Petra was used to cover rooms or cisterns or to support landings of stairs. However, examples of these were recovered in the Nabataean cities at Negev. A barrel vault covering a room was found in locus 306 in building XI in Mampsis. In the eastern side of the room there is a large segmental vault built against the wall. It is 1.5 m deep and occupies the full width of the room. It has been suggested that the 165

SHAHER M. RABABEH

flat roof above the vault possibly supported an altar, on which libations were poured and incense was burned.42 Moreover, in building I, the cistern in locus 450, 4.4 x 6.1m, was covered by a barrel vault.43 This use resembles more or less the unique example in Greek architecture found in Assos.44 The staircases in buildings I, XII at Mampsis show the use of segmental barrel vaults supporting their landings. In addition to this main function, Negev45 suggested that the spaces under the barrel vaults were used for keeping cool jars of water, like the niches discovered in buildings I, XI. A further example of a barrel-vaulted ceiling can be seen in the cistern (6.30 x 4.80 m) below the cella of the temple at Dhat-Ras.46 Therefore, although there are no surviving examples of this use in Petra, it can be speculated that similar methods were used.

is the only one which can be measured, since its underside is visible from inside the groove. Each of the other courses ranges in height from 20 to 30 cm. The joints are mortared but the mortar is not more than 1.5 cm thick. As mentioned in section V.a.3, mortar was used only to fill the rough surfaces of the block beds, and does not serve any structural purpose as it does in the walls. At the top of the dome, a one-meter opening has been left as an oculus (Fig.6.18b, c; 19a; 20a, b). This reduces the weight of the dome and allows for ventilation and the entry of daylight. The oculus consists of 10 vertical blocks, each range from 20 to 30 cm in width and 70 cm in height (Fig.6.18c; 20a, b). The width of each block is larger at the top than at the bottom. The difference ranges between 5-7 cm, which prevents any of the blocks from slipping down, and allows them to join together as the voussoirs in the flat arch do, as discussed in sectionVI.b.1 (Fig.6.3; 4). The oculus tapers, with its top circumference c. 60 cm greater than at the bottom. The total height of the chamber from the floor to the oculus is c. 6.4 m. The inside of the dome, the walls, engaged columns, and niches with conches were stuccoed. Remains of red wall stucco and coloured marble facing were found in the fill,52 and some stucco still appears on the inner surface of the domes (Fig.6.19a).

VI.b.4. Domes The earliest domes probably roofed primitive huts and consisted of bent branches plastered with mud. Another primitive form is constructed of concentric rings of corbelled stones and has a conical shape, as in the tombs of Mycenae.47 True domes in Petra appear in the Baths complex south of the Temenos Gate (Fig.1.15). The building consists of two chambers with an adjoining square staircase. All are underground, and so far only the northern chamber has been cleared.48

The southern chamber of the Baths is square with sides 4.7 m long (Fig.6.18a). It was entered through the south wall of the circular chamber. Measuring it is difficult due to the oculus being largely blocked by a recently fallen stone. However, in the middle of each side of the square there is a 15 cm deep recess in the wall, which measures 2.6 m in length and 2.9 m in height. The edges of the recesses begin 1 m from the corners of the chamber. The recesses are flat topped. Semi circular arches surmount the sides of the squares; each 4.7 m in diameter and c. 2.25 m high (Fig.6.18b). Each adjacent pair of arches meet at the corners of the chamber at a height of 2.2 m above the floor, and between them are four spherical triangle pendentives built of eight courses of various heights, 30-35 cm (Fig.6.22d). The total height of the pendentive is 2.55 m, including the thickness of the arch voussoir. Above the pendentives a segmental dome was built (Fig.6.22b, c). The base line of the segmental dome is slightly off the horizontal, unlike that of the dome of the circular chamber, which is accurately built. This feature is reflected in the joints of the dome courses. The roof consists of an intact dome of eight stone courses with an oculus at the top (Fig.6.18b). The oculus blocks have the same technical features as those in the northern dome. The total height of the chamber is also approximately equal to that of the circular dome (Fig.6.18b). I found, while finalising the drawings, that the centres of the segmental dome and the pendentive arches are on the same axis (Fig.6.18b; 22b).

The northern chamber, (Fig.6.18a), is circular and approximately 5.30 m in diameter. The interior circular surface is divided by engaged columns into eight bays, measuring 2.09 m from centre to centre. Every second bay contains an apse-shaped niche, crowned by a conch, having a stilted arch in elevation and plan, 1.05 m diameter and 80 cm deep (Fig.6.18b). Two of these niches have been blocked up. Each engaged column is 2.72 m high, and 30 cm in diameter. The columns have limestone floral capitals of McKenzie’s Type 2.49 The capitals and cornices show strong Alexandrian influence.50 The capitals are surmounted by a continuous groove, 23 cm high (Fig.6.19b), which held a stucco cornice recorded by al-Tell in 1969.51 It might have had a wooden beam running behind it. Above the circular groove the sandstone courses of the dome start. There are 12 such courses. The first is 40 cm high and 80 cm deep (Fig.6.18b; 19a). It is not certain that all courses are only one block deep. The first course 42

Negev1988a: 108. Negev 1988a: 83. 44 Boyd 1978: note 51. 45 Negev 1988a: 69, 129, Photos 42,48, 129. 46 Eddinger 2004: 14-25. 47 Lawrence 1996: Figs. 58, 59; Dinsmoor 1975: Pl. XIV; Orlandos 1968: 185-221, Figs. 222-3, 234, 240, 244. 48 McKenzie 1990: 138. 49 McKenzie 1990: 138, Diagram 14c. 50 McKenzie 1990: 95, Pl.45b. 51 al-Tell 1969: Pl.12a. Also illustrated in McKenzie 1990: Pl.23b, c. 43

52

166

Bachmann et al. 1921: 47; al-Tell 1969: 35-6, Pl.12.

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.18 Domes. The Baths of Petra.

167

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. The interior of the dome, looking up.

b. The groove course. Fig.6.19 The northern dome. Baths of Petra.

The construction techniques of these chambers are surprising in their variety. On the one hand, the internal stonework in both domes is very similar showing great precision in the laying and working to shape of the individual blocks of stone. Blocks ran smoothly in horizontal circles, or close to horizontal in the case of the southern chamber. Each block was shaped to fit the adjacent one. This reflects the importance of the interior

space and how well-trained the craftsmen were (Fig.6.19a). On the other hand, it is necessary to make a distinction between the techniques used in the two domes. In the northern one, the dome was built over a circular wall (Fig.6.18a, b). This technique is very common and similar to the construction used in the central baths in

168

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Pompeii (AD 62-79).53 In the Pantheon in Rome the circular wall forms a strong base for the dome (Fig.6.24a, c, d). In the southern chamber of the Baths at Petra, the dome is placed over a square (Fig.6.22a, c). Four massive piers were built at the corners. The space between them was filled with stone courses, which are surmounted by arches radiating from the corners. This has created curved triangular shapes or pendentives (Fig.6.22d). The pendentives and the tops of the arches combine to form a strong base for the dome. This is the most remarkable structural feature of the building.

reduction in thickness in the masonry half domes covering the exedras of the Roman temple of Jupiter Temenos at Baalbek, 2nd cent. AD (Fig.6.21a). Similarly, this structural reduction can be seen also in the semidomed central apse of the early Byzantine north church at Shivta,56 Negev (Fig.6.21b). This can be seen in the section of the Pantheon dome, although built of concrete (43.3 m diameter), where the depth used is c. 7.13 m at the base, but only c. 62 cm at the rim of the oculus. Pantheon dome also has other features; it is of lighter material near the top (Fig.6.24b).57 Therefore, in the domes at Petra, we can assume that a reduction in thickness towards the top would have been similarly adopted. Otherwise, the blocks may have been linked together in a similar way to that used in the Roman tomb at Gabbari, Alexandria (Fig.6.21c),58 where the joints between blocks were stepped. But this would not help to resist tension; it only stops the voussoirs dropping down. The use of the corbelling technique is unlikely at Petra in the Baths, since both domes have semi-circular sections. Structurally speaking, the corbelling technique is better employed either in conical or parabolic domes.

The structural forces in both domes are the same. A satisfactory balance is sought between loads and supports, and between the various elements, which constitute the chambers in plan, and elevation. Theoretically “the hypothetical parallel separating the portion of the dome in tension from that in compression lies at approximately 54 degrees from the base of the dome”,54 see Fig.6.128b. Generally, stone masonry domes are expected to be heavy. This causes the sides to be pushed outward, and cracks are liable to appear throughout the bottom portion of the structure. The reason for using a wide base for the first courses of the domes is to create a strong ring, which resists the tensile forces, and prevents buckling. At the top of each dome, the curving courses push inward toward the centre. High compressive strength exists in the lower section of the dome, and the friction generated by the compression between the blocks can withstand tension. By this means, no tension is transmitted across the joints. This shape of structure gives the stability to the dome and prevents sliding. Moreover, if under ground in antiquity weight of earth would have worked against outward forces.

McKenzie59 placed the Baths complex in her Group A and dated them to the first century BC, because of the similarity between the florals on the Baths capitals from the north chamber and those on the Qasr el-Bint.60 She concluded “the Baths possibly are slightly later than the Qasr el-Bint, but not as late as the Temple of the Winged Lions”. This would make those in the Petra baths by a long way the earliest pendentives known. Ćurčić61 considered that the Romans failed to invent true pendentives, and that the Byzantine builders of Hagia Sophia at Constantinople AD 532-537 first employed them. Sear62 states “the first true pendentives occur very late in Roman work, although there is a rough approximation to a pendentive in one of the octagonal rooms on the perimeter of the Baths of Caracalla” (AD 211-216).63 Similarly, Adam64 states that “the true pendentive dome, involving the placing of a circularshaped volume on a square shape, was rarely built by the Romans, but was to become a fairly standard element in Byzantine architecture, in response to the demand of the cruciform shape centred by a dome on a drum.” Nevertheless, there are four earlier examples, all dated to the second or early third century AD, in Egypt and Roman Syria of domes carried on true spherical triangle pendentives.65 Those are in the domed tomb at Ezbet Bashandi, Egypt,66 the domed tomb of Sebastya in

It is unfortunate that we know practically nothing of the depth of the blocks that form the thickness of the domes, except that one block in the first course of the northern chamber is c. 80 cm deep. Both chambers are underground, and only the oculi appear as two holes in the ground. The depths of the blocks shown in Bachmann’s section are hypothetical.55 Figs.6.18b; 20a show the height of oculus blocks as c. 60 cm. This might be thickness of the dome at the top. The thickness of the base is unknown, and it cannot be speculated from both the thickness of the wall between the rooms (1.20 m) and the depth of the block mentioned above c. 80 cm. However, the depth of the blocks plays a major role in achieving stability for the structure of the dome. In the lower portion of the dome, where there is more tension exist, greater thickness creates more friction to withstand tension. In the upper portion only compression exists. Therefore, reducing the weight by choosing blocks of smaller depth and creating the oculus gives the dome the stability required. In some domes there is more than one ring of blocks in each course. I observed a similar

56

Segal 1983: 154, Figs. 6, 8, 11, 12; Evenari 1970: 172. Sear 1982: 167-9. 58 Thiersch 1900: 10, Fig.2, section A-B. 59 McKenzie 1990: 51, 138. 60 McKenzie 1990: Pls. 45b-c, 41a; (in preparation): 13. 61 Ćurčić 1992: 28. 62 Sear 1982: 79. See also Plommer 1956: 228, 296, Pl.19. 63 DeLaine 1997: 15. 64 Adam 1994: 193. 65 McKenzie 1990: 51; Hamilton 1939: 66. 66 McKenzie (in preperation). 57

53

Adam 1994: Fig.442. Ćurčić 1992: 32-3; Taylor 2003: 34-55. 55 Bachmann et al. 1921: 46, Fig. 39. 54

169

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a

b

c

Fig.6.20 Technical details of the oculus in underground structures. a. General view of the oculus of the northern dome. b. Detailed plan. c. Detailed view of an oculus of the underground cistern in the agora at Temessos.

a. Detailed view showing the section of the masonry dome which is covering one of the exedras of the temenos of the Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek nd (2 cent. AD).

c. Detailed section of the Roman Tomb at Gabbari, Alexandria, showing the interlocking of blocks similar to the tongue and groove technique (Thiersch 1900: Fig.3).

b. View of the north church apse at Shivta, Negev, showing the thickness of the roof (Evenari 1970: Fig.14).

Fig.6.21 Structural section of masonry domes.

170

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General plan, showing the basic concept of the southern dome structure of a circle above a square. c. Volumetric reconstruction, showing the structural composition.

b. Section north- south, showing the centres of the pendentive arches and the segmental dome, and the angles of the forces distribution.

d. Detail of the true spherical triangle pendentives.

Fig.6.22 Structural details of the southern dome. The Baths of Petra.

171

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Plan and section of the domed tomb of Sebastya, second or early third century AD (Hamilton 1939: Fig. 3).

c

b b. Interior view of Sebastya dome (Hamilton 1939: Pl.XXXVIII4). c. Interior view of Gerasa dome, West Baths, third quarter of the second century AD (Ward-Perkins 1981: Fig.218). Fig.6.23 Pendentive domes. Sebastya and Gerasa.

172

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

b. Structural section, showing the thickness of the dome and the filling materials (Sear 1982: Fig.96).

a. Plan (Sear 1982: Fig.96).

c. Restored view of the façade, showing the architectural composition (Ward-Perkins 1981: Fig.52).

d. Interior view, showing the oculus and the coffering (Ward-Perkins 1981: Fig.55).

Fig.6.24 The Pantheon, c. 118-c.128 AD. Rome.

173

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Palestine1 (Fig.6.23a, b), a tomb at Qusayr en-Nūwayjis near Amman, and the west Baths at Gerasa2 (Fig.6.23c). Thus, although pendentives were practically unknown in the Western Mediterranean before the end of the second century AD, they were used in several buildings by this date in Palestine, Jordan, and Egypt. If the date argued by McKenzie is correct for them, the pendentives used in the southern chamber of the Baths of Petra are c. 150 years earlier than any others. Only slightly later in Petra is a rock-cut pendentive in the rock-cut house (c. 1st cent. AD)3 opposite the Main Theatre.4 The dome covers room F of the house, which is rectangular, c. 2.7 x 3.8 m. The carver of the house might have been inspired by shape of the dome in the Baths, although the technique and structure used differ, and because of being rock-cut it spans a rectangular, rather than a square plan (which would be impossible in freestanding version).

too large for the local roofing slabs.9 We can deduce from this evidence that spans up to 1.8 m were normal and unproblematic. However, his statement that 2.20 m is impossible in stone seems to be an assumption not based on experiment or on surviving evidence. In the Hawran in south Syria, basalt is the most commonly used building material. Basalt is extremely hard compared to limestone, and has great tensile strength. Consequently, in an arch-roofed room at Umm el-Jimal the length of the stone ceiling beams placed on the corbels covers a span of c. 3 m.10 At Petra sandstone slabs between a series of arches were popular in a variety of contexts, as it detailed in the table in Fig.6.37. First they appear in subterranean rooms. A partially intact example is visible in the cryptoporticos with a 4.25 m span below the triple colonnades of the lower temenos of the “Great Temple” (Fig.6.25a, c). Some of the arches supporting sandstone slabs have been restored (Fig.6.26). Other arches are intact only to the level of their lowest voussoirs (Fig.6.25b). The arches spring directly from the fourth course of the lateral walls without any supporting pilasters. The distance between these arches ranges from 68 to 78 cm, and the thickness of each arch is c. 54 cm. In the painters’ workshop below the corridor on the west side and in front of the pronaos podium of the Temple of the Winged Lions, five arches, two of which survive intact (Fig.6.27a), supported the corridor floor above. The width of the room is 2 m. The distance between the arches is mostly 92 cm, with thickness of each arch 54 cm (Fig.6.27b, c). In the metal workshop, the arches are spaced 1.1 m apart. Since a number of sandstone slabs have been recovered in the excavations, it is likely that the interval of 1.1 m between the arches was spanned by slabs.

VI.c. Arch Structures Carrying a Flat Roof Basically, this method of roofing involves cutting the continuous roof into a number of shorter spans by arches constructed parallel to one another at fixed distances. Each arch was built of two skins of stone with a filling of rubble in between. The space between each pair of arches is spanned by using either horizontal stone slabs or wooden beams. The arches are resistant to compression, whereas the stone slabs or wooden beams are resistant to tension. The aim of this section is to discuss the conditions which determined the choice of roofing materials. VI.c.1 Series of Arches Supporting Stone Slabs The mechanical properties of the available stone are the main determinant in choosing between wood and stone. As shown in section II.a.2, the Smooth, Honeycomb, and Tear sandstones are the most widely available material in Petra, but all are friable. In the Negev, the limestone commonly available was much stronger, so slabs of stone above arches were frequently used there. In Oboda, Sobata, and Mampsis5 most of the rooms and cisterns of various buildings were roofed using slabs. Negev6 states that the lack of timber was felt acutely and the property of stone slabs determined the spacing of the arches. He commented that at Mampsis clear intervals of 1.30-1.80 m are ideal for the type of flat roofing stone employed there.7 He also states that an interval of 2 m indicates roofing other than the usual stone slabs,8 with the intervals of 2.10 and 2.20 m in room 410, building XII

Another subterranean space with an arch-roofed can be seen in room 17 at az-Zantur IV (Fig.6.28a), where sets of triple arches are bonded securely together (Fig.6.29a, b). Above the centre of each set of three arches stands a column (Fig.6.28c; 30b).11 The concentrated load of each column was distributed over the three bonded arches and not just on the central one. This configuration indicates the advanced knowledge accumulated by the Nabataean builders. Beneath the proscenium of the Main Theatre (Fig.6.31) a series of arches supported the floor above.12 The arches are 40 cm apart and 50 cm thick. The intact arch spans c. 1.5 m, and consists of eight voussoirs. A special technical feature is the rock-cut imposts, on which the arches rested (Fig.6.31a), like those used in rock-cut cisterns and in the eastern vault in the Main Theatre (Fig.6.13c).

1 Hamilton 1939: 66 placed the tomb at Sebastya in or soon after the reign of Septimius Severus, AD 193-211. 2 Hamilton 1939: 65-6; Ward-Perkins 1981: 338; McKenzie 1990: 51. 3 McKenzie 2003: personal communication. 4 McKenzie 1990: 107-8; Pl. 172a, c. 5 Negev 1986: 50; Kolb et al. 2000: 289-95, Figs. 120-138. 6 Negev 1986: 50. 7 Negev 1988a: 82, 115, 121. 8 Negev 1988a: 109-10.

9

Negev 1988a: 126. De Vries 1982: 9; Schmid and Kolb 2000: Fig. 115, Negev 1973: 380. B. Kolb, personal communication, 2003. 12 Hammond 1965: Folding Plate E. 10 11

174

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.25 Subterranean rooms. The “Great Temple”.

175

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General view, showing the restored arches and the slabs above. (the arches originally would have been semi-circular not slightly pointed).

b. Detailed view, showing the underside of the arches and the slabs. Fig.6.26 Subterranean rooms. The “Great Temple”.

176

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.27 The painters’ workshop. The Winged Lions Temple.

177

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.6.28 Az-Zantur houses, Area IV.

178

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Interior view of the subterranean room 17, showing the triple arch structure, looking west.

b. Detailed view of the springer blocks of the triple arches, looking north. Fig.6.29 Subterranean room in az-Zantur, Area IV.

series of blocks reaching from arch to arch but roughly following the lines of the arches (Fig.6.32b). This feature is interesting as it is unique to Petra. It does not form true corbelling, but it can be reasonably argued that the Nabataean builders knew about corbelling, probably from Egypt,13 but preferred not to use it. I suggest the reason for this is that corbelling cannot span a large distance using sandstone. It needs larger blocks of stone and high spaces, and so would be expensive and unsatisfactory.

Another application of arches supporting stone slabs, particularly common in Petra, although found elsewhere, is the roofing of cisterns. The well preserved cistern in front of the Tomb 677 measures 3.3 x 3.9 m, and is spanned by three arches supporting stone slabs, which are all intact. The intervals between these arches are (from east to west) 80, 45, and 55 cm, and the arches are 60, 80, and 70 cm thick respectively (Fig.6.32b). The arches spring directly from impost cuttings in the northern and southern walls without any supporting pilasters. The height of these imposts from the floor is 1 m. The southern part of the eastern interval was roofed by a

13 Arnold 1991: 184-91, notes corbelled roofs were popular in Egypt since the Medium Pyramid.

179

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Reconstructed section, showing the structural layers of the slab roofs, based on the view below.

b. Detailed view of the layers of the roof and the columns above a series of arches in the subterranean of room 17 at az-Zantur IV. Fig.6.30 Structural details of slab roofs. Az-Zantur IV.

180

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Detailed view of the series of arches, which supported the floor of the proscenium of the Main Theatre, showing the two parts of the structure: the free standing voussoirs and the rock-cut imposts, looking west.

b. Detailed view of the arches in one of the rooms of the freestanding part of the Urn Tomb, looking east. Fig.6.31 Series of arches. The Main theatre and the Urn Tomb.

181

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. The eastern cistern in the “Great Temple”, showing the series of arches.

b. Plan and section of the cistern located front of Tomb 667. Fig.6.32 Cisterns. Petra.

Maybe this unique use of corbelling in Petra was simply a repair.

Outside Petra, Nabataean examples of cisterns roofed with arches and stone slabs were found in a variety of buildings at Mampsis such as the cylindrical cistern, locus 341, of Building XI,14 and the cisterns, loci 373 and 374, of building I.15 Moreover, the series of arches used to support stone slabs can be seen intact in the cisterns of Kanawat (Fig.6.33a). All these examples are subterranean, like the first group, and resemble the

There are two arch-roofed cisterns at the “Great Temple” (Fig.6.60a), both measure c. 4 x 10 m. Two arches are still intact in the eastern one (Fig.6.32a). The distance between them is c. 60 cm, and the thickness of each arch is c. 50 cm. The cistern beneath room 27 at az-Zantur IV gives another example for this use (Fig.6.28b, c).

14 15

182

Negev 1988a: 94. Negev 1988a: 73, Plan 18.

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT cisterns of Delos (Fig.6.33b), where a series of arches supporting stone slabs can be seen in the largest cistern behind the theatre.16

Above this floor slabs were laid on a 5 cm thick layer of mortar, as seen in Fig.6.30a, b. VI.c.2 Series of Arches Supporting Wooden Beams

Arches supporting slabs were frequently used to cover rooms above ground. In the Urn Tomb, two storeys of freestanding walls, which each supports a row of arches (Fig.6.31b), are incorporated into the partly freestanding and partly rock-cut chambers behind them. Some of these arches have been restored following accurately the lines of the original construction.17 The width of each room is c. 2.5 m, and the space between the arches is c. 55 cm. The thickness of each arch is c. 50 cm. All the arches spring directly from the walls.

The table in Fig.6.37 shows rooms with greater spans and arch intervals than those discussed above, but where no evidence for the use of stone slabs has been found. In azZantur, in Area I pilasters are attached to the walls of rooms 2, 8, 9, 27 (Fig.6.35a, b). The width of each of these pilasters is c. 50 cm. The distance between each pair of arches is c. 65 cm in room 9, 1.50 m in room 2, 1.20 m in room 27, and 1.70 m in room 8. Based on the evidence mentioned above for the maximum interval, room 9 was the only one for which sandstone slabs could have been used. In the other rooms the intervals are too long to have made the use of the stone slabs impracticable using local sandstone roofing slabs. This indicates roofing by a technique other than the slabs.

Another example can be seen in the shops of the Colonnaded Street. Some of these arches were restored, but some old ones are still intact. The arches spring directly from the walls and the height of the imposts from the floor is 2.2 m (Fig.6.63b, d). The thickness of each arch is c. 50 cm, and the distance between each pair of arches is 65 cm. This span certainly allows for using slabs, a few of which were found in shop 27 (Fig.6.63c).18

Six carbonised wooden beams which were found in room 6 in area IV at az-Zantur (Fig.6.28d), provide evidence of timber roofing. These beams range in length from 1.20 to 1.40 m, with an average diameter of 12 cm.21 No pilasters have been found in this room, and the span of 7.20 m makes the use of timber beams alone, from wall to wall, unlikely. Another possibility that should be considered is that the arches could have sprung directly from the walls as often was the case when the arch and slab technique was used. Constructing arches in this way gives the room more interior space. It is likely that the arches were spanned by the timber beams found. The length of each of these wooden beams is greater than the greatest known span for which stone slabs were used (1.1 m). Kolb does not identify the type of timber. It is likely that this size of timber was available in the areas surrounding Petra for example the juniper and olive. The use of wooden beams was reported at Mampsis, where a large quantity of cypress and pine beams was found in the debris of room 405, building XII. Moreover, a horizontal slot, 15 cm wide, was found in building I. This slot served to receive the wooden beam, some remains of which were found.22 This was the most common technique in Jordan and Palestine until the beginning of the 1950s when concrete roofs were introduced. Before that, roofs were built of wooden beams carried on a series of arches which sprang either directly from the walls or resting on pilasters.23

A third example can be seen in area of az-Zantur. The excavations revealed different complexes of houses dated to the Nabataean Roman period in areas I-IV.19 The builders grouped rooms round a court as seen in Area I (Fig.6.35a), similar to the layout of houses in the cities of the Negev. The presence of an upper storey above the rooms is shown by the staircase towers and the fallen mosaic found in Room 6 in area IV.20 Pilasters for arches are visible in several rooms. The spans of these arches are shown in the table in Fig.6.37. Some of these arches are less than 1.1 m apart; others have wider intervals. However, in other rooms no pilasters have been found to indicate the use of a series of arches to support the roof. From the examples detailed in the table (Fig.6.37), it appears that where stone slabs were used, the normal range of the size of the intervals between the arches is 4080 cm, with a maximum of 1.1 m. Therefore, it can be suggested that the limit of the distance covered by sandstone is 1.1 m. These slabs would overlap with the arches on either side of them by c. 10 cm (Figs.6.1a; 30a); thus giving the slabs a total length up to 1.3 m. Thicker slabs should permit a longer span, but they would be heavier. In Petra the normal thickness of the slabs is 10 to 15 cm, and Nabataean builders did not use thicker slabs to increase the span between the arches. The normal slabs used were of similar size to those shown in Fig.6.63c. Evidence from az-Zantur IV shows that a layer of small rubble, 10-15 cm thick, was laid above the slabs.

Above the arches and timber beams, bundles of reeds or branches and then a layer of mortar, marl or clay was laid. Several examples of this type of construction can be found in the Ottoman houses of Gadara (Fig.6.36), at Dana east to Petra,24 and at Nabi Hood village south-east of Gerasa. Moreover, similar construction could be seen until recently in Galilee and Judea.25 I believe that these

16

Orlandos 1968: 247-8, Fig. 343; Boyd 1978: 82. McKenzie 1990: 146 notes the exception, the arches (two quarter circles) supporting the stairs do not reflect the Nabataean design. 18 Kanellopoulos 2001: 12. 19 Kolb et al. 1993: Figs. 1-4; Stucky 1995: Fig.9. 20 Kolb et al. 1998: Fig.5. 17

21

Kolb et al. 1998: 262. Negev 1988a: 116, photo 98; 1973: 372. 23 For more technical details about this use see McQuity 2001: 573-4. 24 Schmid and Kolb 2000: Fig.19. 25 Netzer 1992: 26. 22

183

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General view showing the series of arches in one of the cisterns at Kanawat.

b. Delos, series of stone arches viewed from the north (Boyd 1978: Fig.1.3). Fig.6.33 Series of arches spanned by stone slabs, covering cisterns.

184

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.34 Az-Zantur Houses.

185

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Ground plan of house 1 and 2 (Kolb et al. 1993: Fig.5).

b. Axonometric reconstructions (Kolb et al. 1993: Fig.6). Fig.6.35 Az-Zantur houses, Area I.

186

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.36 Ottoman arched roof house. Gadara. a. General view, showing the arch supporting bundles of reeds.

b. Detailed view, showing the filling materials of the roof.

The intervals between the north wall and the four rows of arches must have been roofed by bearer beams running north-south. The distances between the rows of arches, from 1.7 to 3 m (Fig.5.34a), are too great for sandstone slabs, so wooden beams would have been used, and were probably secured to the north and south walls by means of sockets, much like those found in building I at Mampsis26 and those proposed for the flat roof of the island pavilion of the pool at Petra (Fig.6.64b).

layers of roof covering were probably used in Petra (Fig.6.28e; 36b). It is quite possible that rooms 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 26, 27, and 29 in Area I of az-Zantur were roofed using this technique too, and that in rooms 1, 3, 7, 26, and 29 the arches sprang directly from the walls. Similarly, a series of arches supporting wooden beams can be proposed for roofing the “Liwan”, site III, V.9 and V.6, of the Temple of the Winged Lions (Fig.6.37; 54a; 5.34a). The “Liwan” was at least 14.25 m long (northsouth), but only its north and east walls have been excavated. At least four rows of arches ran east-west across this room, carried on piers 90 x 90 cm built of alternating courses of sandstone headers and stretchers (Fig.5.34a). The first arch in each row springs directly from the east wall. Two of these are intact (Fig.5.34b; 35), while the imposts of the others still exist (Fig.5.36a, b). The distances between the rows of arches are (from north to south): 1.1, 1.7, 2.75, 3, and 2.35 m. The distance spanned by the arches from the north are (from east to west): in the first row 1.5, 1.5 m; in the second row 1.9, 1.8, 2.8, 1.8 m; in the third row 1.9, 1.8, 2.8, 1.8; and in the fourth row 1.95, 2.8, 2.85 m. In the first row two arches are intact. The second row consists of four piers of which some springer blocks are still preserved (Fig.5.36a, b). Assuming the arches are semi-circular and that they all spring at the same level, the crowns of these arches would be at different levels. Presumably the smaller arches would have carried a continuous wall up to ceiling height.

In the preceding discussion we have concentrated largely on the structural methods used by Nabataean builders to cover smaller scale buildings, such as houses, cisterns, and subterranean rooms. How the Nabataean builders managed to solve the technical roof problems raised by exceptionally large temples and halls needs our attention next. VI.d. Roofs and Ceilings Based on the Tension Principle VI.d.1 Flat and Pitched As mentioned earlier, in antiquity the best material available to withstand tension was wood. Unfortunately, the remains of roof timbers in archaeological sites are rare. The literary and iconographic sources are equally few in number. However, many sockets and projecting mouldings used to hold wooden beams in place survive. Moreover, the existence of roof tiles is usually considered 26

187

Negev 1973: 372.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.6.37 Table showing the dimensions of the arched-roof spaces in Petra.

evidence for a pitched roof. In addition the portion of drainage pipes may serve as clues for either flat or pitched roofs. These are the only clear pieces of evidence for determining the roofing techniques used. In Petra, valuable evidence for roofing techniques is present in wall sockets, stone projecting mouldings, roof tiles, and pieces of drainage pipes surviving in the Qasr el-Bint, the Temple of the Winged Lions, and the “Great Temple”.

m. The intercolumniations at the front of them were spanned by arches (Fig.6.51b).28 This can be seen from many voussoirs recovered in the debris.29 The springers of the arches, as discussed in section V.c.3, were probably connected by a wooden tie-beam as evidenced by the two rectangular cavities at the level of the cornice in the east and the west walls.30 At the rear corners of the building a staircase built in the hollow wall provided access to the upper stories of the adyton’s side compartments and to the temple’s roof.

VI.d.1.1. Qasr el-Bint27

During the excavations of the Qasr el-Bint in 1979-81, many fragments of roof tiles, up to c. 14 cm long were discovered in the pronaos.31 Additional fragments were discovered in the eastern compartment in 1983/4 excavations.32 Fallen grooved blocks, with slots cut parallel, or at an angle, to their beds were found in the naos and pronaos. Some of these blocks have single slot (10 cm wide and 10 cm deep), and others have double slots 10 cm apart. Fragments of tiles are still embedded in some of the single grooved blocks (Fig.6.53e).33 In addition, four single and double grooved blocks are in situ in the inner faces of the parapet courses of the eastern

The Qasr el-Bint is square, (31.5 x 31.5 m) with a pronaos, a broad naos and an tripartite adyton, facing north (Figs.6.38; 39; 40). The thicknesses of the outside and inside walls of this temple range from 1.3 m to 2.7 m. The pronaos, 28.6 x 9.3 m, has four columns (2 m in diameter) across the front between the antae. The cross wall, which separates the pronaos from the naos, has a doorway (c. 6 m wide)in it and a row of small arches along the top of the wall (Figs.6.44a; 46a). This doorway was the main entrance into the rectangular naos, 28.6 x 8.8 m. Behind this the adyton is divided into three compartments. The central one measures c. 8.3 x 5.6 m. Across its back wall it has two engaged half-columns with coupled quarter columns at either end and an engaged half column on each side wall. The full height of the side walls of the central compartment indicates that its roof was as high as that of the naos. The side compartments are distyle in antis, and measure 8.3 x 5.6

28 Wright 1961a: 15 states that the upper two columns of each compartment were supported on either arches or architraves. 29 Zayadine 1985a: 239. 30 Zayadine 1982: 377, Pl. CXXIX,2. 31 It seems that 14 cm is very small for an ancient roof tile. 50-70 cm would be more normal. Zayadine 1982: 374, he presumably means broken fragments. 32 Zayadine 1985: 243; Zayadine et al. 2003: 35. 33 Zayadine et al. 2003: Fig.36.

27 Best architectural descriptions can be found in McKenzie 1990: 1358; Netzer 2003: 68-72; Zayadine et al. 2003: 107-13 see also the illustrations.

188

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Fig.6.38 General plan of western part of the Qasr el-Bint Temenos (Zayadine et al. 2003: 8).

189

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a

b

c

d Fig.6.39 Qasr el-Bint. a. Ground floor plan. (Wright 1961a: Fig.2). b. Plan at mezzanine level. (Wright 1961a: Fig.2). c. Plan of central adyton. d. General view looking southwest.

façade (Fig.6.44b).34 One other double grooved block can be observed in the south-east corner of the pronaos above the arches of the cross wall (Fig.6.44a).35 The slots in it slope towards the base of the block.

spaced and pierce the inner face of the wall to a depth of c. 50 cm (Fig.6.45a, b). The sockets have a quadrilateral shape, measuring 40 cm in height, 60 cm wide at the top and 40 cm wide at the bottom, and centred 80 cm apart. The horizontal distance between the adjacent sockets is 40 cm. Inside the openings, the mortar still shows impressions of the wooden beams which were embedded in them.38 The sockets are broader at the top to allow for ease of putting wooden beams in them. These beams spanned 5.6 m from the rear wall to the façade of the adyton (Fig.6.40a). At the front they were supported by the arches above the two columns (in antis) of the compartment.

In the walls of the side compartments and the cross wall of the adyton some sockets and projecting mouldings are still intact. These were first mentioned by Kohl,36 and then documented and interpreted by Wright.37 In the rear wall of the east compartment the sockets of the mezzanine level, 11 m above the floor, are regularly 34

Zayadine et al. 2003: Figs.20, 22. Zayadine et al. 2003: Figs.2, 8. Kohl 1910: 11-15, Figs. 11, 12. 37 Wright 1961a: 14-17. 35 36

38

190

Zayadine et al. 2003: 112.

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Detailed plan (Larché and Zayadine 2003: Fig.221).

Fig.6.40 Qasr el-Bint.

191

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.6.41 Qasr el-Bint.

192

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General view of south elevation. Showing the wooden course below the springing of the relieve arch.

Fig.6.42 Qasr el-Bint.

193

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.6.43 Qasr el-Bint.

194

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Detailed drawing of the north façade of the crosswall (Larché in Zayadine et al. 2003: Fig.8).

b. Detailed drawing of the interior façade of the east wall (Larché in Zayadine et al. 2003: Fig.16). Fig.6.44 Qasr el-Bint. Grooved blocks in situ.

195

SHAHER M. RABABEH

wider beams are easier to cover than narrow ones,6 because the distance between them is less. This was achieved in the main roof, where the wall sockets are closer together, c. 70 cm centre to centre, although the width of the beam is only c. 25 cm (Fig.6.47b). So in the side compartments each beam could carry a floor area of 0.8 x 5.6 m; in the main rooms each carried a ceiling area of 0.70 x 8.6 m. One could equate the bending moment in a 50 cm wide by 50 cm high beam spanning 5.6 m to that in a 25 cm wide x 50 cm high beam spanning 8.6 m.

However, in addition to the sockets, the beams were seated on a projecting moulding,1 which can be seen clearly on the back wall (Fig.6.45). In the sidewalls of the compartment, similar projecting mouldings were arranged without sockets above them to support secondary beams, on which to rest ceiling slabs (Fig.6.45a). There are similar projecting mouldings at Gerasa in the shops south of the main entrance to the Artemis Temple (Fig.6.48a, b). The architect there used only projecting mouldings to support the bearer beams without the sockets found in the Qasr el-Bint. Further examples of the use of projecting mouldings and sockets can be seen in the House of the Lararium in Ostia,2 and in region VI, 14, and 31 in Pompeii.3

In 1961 Wright argued that the main roof of the Qasr elBint was a one level flat terrace roof (Fig.6.50a).7 He based this view on the stairways in the hollow rear walls of the adyton, which served as access to the roof levels (Fig.6.43c). In arguing this, Wright took into consideration Amy’s study8 of the eastern temples in Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, which suggested that terraces covered temples, and several stairs gave access to these roof terraces. However, Wright9 more recently reconsidered his previous proposal, and suggested that the pronaos had a flat terrace, at a higher level than the rear parts of the buildings (Fig.6.50b). He based this new proposal on a comparison with the Solomonic Temple in Jerusalem, Herod’s Temple, and the Egyptian temple,10 where the pronaos or the pylon was roofed at a higher level than the rear parts of the building. He also reported parallels in Mediaeval India. In a recent study, Netzer11 followed Wright’s revised interpretation of the construction of the Qasr el-Bint roof. However, both Netzer and Wright ignore the roof tiles found and the sloping grooves containing them. They did not even consider the possibility of a pitched roof because they thought it so contrary to the tradition to which the temple belonged,12 despite the fact that Wright mentioned the roof tiles in his preminarily report.13

A similar arrangement was used for the main roof of the Qasr el-Bint. Sockets and projecting mouldings can be observed clearly in the north wall of the naos (Fig.6.47a, b). The others are not preserved to the required height. Each socket is rectangular, 50 cm high, 25 cm wide and centred 70 cm apart. There is also substantial evidence in the cross wall on the side of the pronaos of sockets surmounted by small arches. Each arch contains two sockets 25 cm wide and 50 cm high (Fig.6.46), also centred 70 cm apart. Some of these arch cavities have been recently cleared and yielded carbonised wood.4 This discovery proves the use of the cavities for wooden beams.5 The presence of two sockets per arch suggests that these arches were not simply to provide cavities, but take the weight of the masonry gable off them. The preserved part of the cross wall is not high enough to see the sockets used to hold the ridge beam and the purlins of the pitched roof. An important feature is the difference in dimensions between the sockets of the side compartment ceiling, c. 50 x 40 cm (Fig.6.45), and those of the main roof, c. 25 x 50 cm (Fig.6.47). The former are wider and have a lower height. Structurally, the greater its height the better a beam can resist the various stresses and the wider the span it can cover. The clear span of the naos is c. 8.6 m, and of the pronaos is c. 9 m, while that of the side compartments is only c. 5.6 m (Fig.6.39a, b). The quality of wood also affects the height of beam required in any given situation. If the quality of the wood used in both ceilings is the same, the size of the sockets should depend on the span and the load. The greater width of each bearer beam of the side compartments is probably due the dual purpose of the compartment ceiling, which acts also as the floor of the mezzanine above it. In addition to this,

The proposal that a pitched roof covered the Qasr el-Bint was first argued by Zayadine in 1985 and later by Zayadine and Larché (Fig.6.51a). Their argument is based: firstly on the presence of a large number of roof tiles from the pronaos and the naos; secondly on the grooved stone blocks, some of which still preserve the remains of roof tiles14 (Fig.6.53e); and thirdly on two 6 Coulton 1977: 155 notes that it is quite common to find the width of the socket greater than its height, perhaps because the Greeks laid the beams one above the other, like bricks, without elaborate jointing. However, this is not always true, I found that the sockets of the stoa walls at Aspendos are rectangular; each is 20 cm wide and 30 cm high. As a structural rule, and due to the moment of inertia, laying a beam on its narrow edge gives it greater strength. It is possible that the Nabataean builders knew this form by experience. 7 Wright 1961a: 31 also rejected the suggestion that the pronaos might have been hypaethral. 8 Wright 1961a: 31; Amy 1950: 82. 9 Wright 1985: 85 321-5. 10 Wright 1985: Fig.5. 11 Netzer 2003: 71, Fig.95. 12 Zayadine 1985a: 243. 13 Wright 1961a: 29. 14 Zayadine 1985a: 242-3, Pl.LX1; Wright 1961a: 29.

1

A corbel is usually a separate block. This course may be mainly decorative, transition to ceiling. 2 Adam 1994: Fig. 464. 3 Adam 1994: Figs. 465, 466. 4 Zayadine 1985: 242. 5 Wright described these arches as architectural elements adorning the pronaos; without a structural function. He considered that these arched niches were an ornament in the front elevation of the cross wall.

196

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT groove,20 which is in situ in the north face of the cross wall above the arches (Fig.6.44a). This sloping groove seems to be crucial. It shows that there was a pitched roof over the pronaos. The south face of the wall survives at this point, but has no groove. This clearly shows there was not a pitched roof over the naos. I suggest that a terrace roof surrounded by the parapet covered the naos and the adyton, and that the blocked doors were intended for access to the attic of a pitched roof covering the pronaos.

blocked doorways which can be seen in the upper part of the southern face of the pronaos wall (Fig.6.51a).15 They argue that these doors would have permitted access to the inner attic over the pronaos and the naos from the stairways in the hollow rear walls of the adyton. Thus, they state, “A pitched roof, covering the entire sanctuary is the only reasonable solution to these structural elements”.16 Larché and Zayadine rightly considered the presence of roof tiles and the two blocked doors as proof of a pitched roof, but they did not see that the parapet is proof of a terrace roof. It is unusual to have a parapet surrounding a pitched roof as shown in their reconstructed drawing (Fig.6.51a), for it would certainly cause a drainage problem for the rainwater. One of the main purposes of a pitched roof was to get rid of rainwater and snow, while the normal function of a parapet is, or should be, to protect people from falling off a terrace while walking there.

The double or single grooved blocks found in situ and the others fallen were possibly used as blocks to hold the edge of the roof tiles above the pronaos. I suggest that the grooved blocks, which appear in the parapet, were perhaps intended to be used above the pronaos, but the masons produced more blocks than required or made mistakes in their carving. These blocks, therefore, were used in the east parapet. The double grooved blocks still need to be explained. If we accept that the roof was pitched, one might suggest that it was composed of two layers of tiles, possibly for insulation. But as mentioned earlier, double grooved blocks were not placed at the same level. Nor could the upper groove have been used to hold gutter tiles with ordinary tiles in the lower groove because the drainage would have been above the lower edge of the roof. The Qasr el-Bint was repaired after an earthquake, when the Temenos Gate was built. Therefore, it is likely that the double grooved blocks result from two phases of construction, with each slot representing one phase.

To improve the roof drainage, Larché17 more recently proposed a change in the roof structure, suggesting that the roof was entirely pitched, but with its lower edge at the third course at the parapet instead at the first course (Fig.6.52).18 He based his proposal on the grooved blocks, some of which were found fallen, while others are in situ in the interior of the parapet of the east wall and in the cross wall. However, this proposal seems to me to present two problems. Firstly the blocks have different types of grooves: some are single, while the others are double (Fig.6.44b). In addition, only two grooved blocks out of the four have grooves in the middle of the upper course on the same level, while the third is in the middle of the second course, and the fourth is close to the top of the third course. Since these blocks do not carry the same number of slots and are not built into the same level how could they hold the straight edge of a pitched roof? Moreover, some upper course blocks adjacent to the grooved blocks are still in situ but do not have grooves. Secondly, the function of the double-grooved blocks is not explained. Thus, the drainage problem remains unsolved.19 So far, an acceptable solution has not been presented for roofing the temple. To bring us closer to the true reconstruction, it is necessary to reconsider all the pieces of evidence, which weaken each of the arguments for the reconstruction of the roof.

To summarize, the most plausible reconstruction of the temple roofing and ceiling consists of four parts, as in Fig.6.53a. The first is the flat ceiling of the balcony over the side compartments of the adyton; this is certain and without debate. The second is the terrace roof, which covered the naos and the adyton. The parapet existed on the eastern and western sides of this. The third part is the staircases in the southern side, which were covered by stone slabs at a height which permitted people to step out onto the terrace roof. This explains the unusual height of the parapet, as shown in the previous reconstruction drawings (Fig.6.50; 51a). The pitched roof is another possibility for roofing the third part. This explains the existence of the roof tiles found inside the eastern compartment in 1983/4 excavations. The fourth part is the pitched roof which covered the pronaos.

There is, in fact, evidence to indicate that the building was roofed partly by a flat terrace and partly with a pitched roof. The key factors here are the presence of the parapet, which still exists on the east side as shown in Fig.6.49, the two blocked doors in the cross wall above the arches (Fig.6.51a), and the block with a sloping

The use of pitched roofs in Petra can be considered in two ways. Stylistically, their use was rather unusual in the freestanding buildings of the eastern tradition, where flat roofs were normal, but it gave the building a classical style pediment in keeping with its Greek-style columns. The form may already have been visible in the pediments of the rock-cut monuments in Petra such as el-Khazneh and ed-Deir, and those in Medain Saleh. There are a few other instances which show the use of pitched roofs in the

15 Zayadine 1985a: 243, Fig.5, Pl. LX2. Recently Larché shows the probability of a third door in the middle. 16 Zayadine 1985a: 243. 17 Zayadine et al. 2003: 113-14. 18 Zayadine et al. 2003: Figs. 9, 11, 13,15,21,54. 19 Zayadine et al. 2003: 36.

20

197

Zayadine 1982: 380, Pl. CXXX; 1985: 243.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General view of the interior of the eastern compartment, showing the roof beam sockets and the corbels of the mezzanine level, looking southwest.

b. Detailed view. Fig.6.45 Sockets and corbels. Qasr el-Bint.

198

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General view of the east part of the cross wall, showing the cavity arches, looking south.

c

b Fig.6.46 Cavity arches. Qasr el-Bint.

b. General view of the west part of the cross wall, showing the cavity arches, looking south. c. Detailed view of one of the cavity arch, showing the beam lodgements (Zayadine 1985a: Pl. LIX2).

199

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.6.47 Sockets and corbels. Qasr el-Bint.

a.Interior face of the main cross wall, showing the corbel course, looking north.

b. Detailed view of eastern part, showing the corbel course and the beam sockets in the eastern part.

a. General view, showing the corbelling technique used in the shops southern the main entrance of Artemis Temple, looking west. b. Detailed view of the corbel course supporting one wooden beam. Fig.6.48 Corbels, Gerasa.

200

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General view of the east façade, showing the entablature and the parapet courses above.

Fig.6.49 Qasr el-Bint parapet.

201

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Long section north south, showing Wright’s first suggestion (Wright 1961a: Fig.3).

b. Long section north south, showing Wright’s second suggestion (Wright 1985: Fig.3b). Fig.6.50 Reconstructed roof of Qasr el-Bint as suggested by Wright.

Nabataean area. The closest parallel to this can be seen in the Temples of Slem,21 and Dmeir in southern Syria.22 The combination of roof types used in the Qasr el-Bint is partly paralleled in the Temple of Venus of Baalbeck and the Pantheon at Rome.23 In the Qasr el-Bint, the contrast is between the terraced mass behind the pitched porch, (Fig.6.53a). In the Temple of Venus of Baalbek and in the Pantheon at Rome there is a domed cylinder behind the porch (Fig.6.24c). Structurally, in the Qasr el-Bint the spans of pronaos and naos are very similar (9.30 and 8.80 m respectively). The extra 50 cm does not make so much difference, so the pitched roof over the pronaos may have been chosen for visual and functional reasons at the same time (Fig.6.39a).

However, this span is very wide compared to the contemporary eastern temples (Fig.1.18). A pitched roof is better over a wide span. The tiles are lighter than the terrace construction, and allow a more efficient structure as well. Therefore, the Nabataean builders had a clear understanding of pitched roofs. There is no evidence of the details of how both flat and pitched roofs were constructed, for, being of wood, they have both completely disappeared. It is just likely that in flat roof wooden beams were laid parallel to each other supported by the walls at fixed intervals, as indicated by the cuttings for the mezzanine floor and for the roof beams of the naos (Fig.6.45; 47). As mentioned earlier, the dimension of the wooden beams depends on the dimensions of the area to be covered. For roofing the naos and the adyton, c. 40 wooden beams of 25 cm wide

21

Amy 1950: Fig.7. Amy 1950: Fig.2. 23 Ward-Perkins 1981: 111-4, Figs. 52, 53. 22

202

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT x 50 cm high and 9 m long were needed.24 Above the beams, and at right angles to them, branches, palm fronds25 or straw mats might be laid (Fig.6.28e; 36). As mentioned in section II.b, plastered ceilings were normally supported by bundles of reeds wrapped with string in Petra.26 It was usual elsewhere to conceal the bearer beams by using thin pieces of wood nailed to the underside of the beams.27 The upper layer of the roof was often made of mortar, marl or clay and 15-30 cm thick.28 In the upper roof, this layer had to prevent rainwater from penetrating into the building. For this reason, it was slightly sloped to allow the water to flow to the spout. However, it had to be finished smoothly.29

extended between the raking cornice of the pediment and the cross wall and rested in sockets, without props, and carried rafters. The rafters (perhaps 20 x 20 cm, and c. 4.7 m long from purlin to purlin) would have supported the secondary elements at fixed intervals (centred 60 cm apart) (Fig. 6.53c). This arrangement can be best described, as one with purlins and a ridge beam supporting rafters which support the secondary covering. Another possibility is that no rafters were used, but the tiles were laid on numerous small purlins (Fig.6.53d). This system, which Hodge32 calls the Gaggera roof, is a serious possibility on the Qasr el-Bint where the shortest span was parallel to the ridge. There would no advantage in props from the ceiling. The complete roof would then consist only of purlins like the ceiling beams, 25 x 50 cm and centred 60 or 70 cm apart to carry tiles, or at unknown intervals carrying sheathing, mortar and tiles.

Pitched roofs were built in two ways on Greek temples. The first, the most commonly used involves a prop-andlintel system.30 This was formed by laying a beam across the shorter span of the space and erecting a vertical prop to the ridge from its mid-point, as shown in Fig.6.53b. This type permits the use of the space, the Attic, under the triangle, because the horizontal beams can be fixed at any level below the top of the rafter feet. The second way of building a pitched roof is using a truss, which requires only two strong rafters fixed together at their tops and securely joined by a tie-beam between their feet, so as to form a triangle (Fig.6.62d). This requires the tie-beam to be at the same level as the rafter feet.

Above the rafters or purlins, Hodge proposed four different systems to finish the secondary covering. The first consists of laying battens, sheathing, a bed of clay, and then tiles. The second is similar to the first but does not contain the clay layer. The third is to lay the tiles on battens directly. The fourth is to lay the tiles on the rafters or purlins directly. I found remains of mortar attached to the under surface of the tiles at Petra, so I would suggest that in Petra the first method of secondary roofing was used to cover the purlins (Fig.6.53d).

In the Qasr el-Bint pronaos the sockets of the horizontal beams lie c.1 m below the rafter feet (Fig.6.39d; 46b) so a roofing system similar to the prop-and-lintel one was probably used. Although the intermediate cross wall is not preserved high enough to give evidence of the system of roofing used, one may assume that the primary timbers over the naos and the pronaos corresponded to the spacing of the sockets in the pediments (Fig.6.46; 47). However, the system involved the use of wooden beams laid across the shorter axis. The laying of these beams is necessary to form the basic structure of the ceiling (Fig.6. 53a). In this way, the beams served a dual purpose; as an integral part of the roof structure and also of the ceiling.31 The ridge beam spans c. 9 m. There is little to be gained by supporting it with a prop from ceiling beams that also span 9 m, and are only 25 x 35 cm in size. The rafters of the Qasr el-Bint are rather too long, c.16.5 m. More likely, the ridge beam, and perhaps 2 purlins on each side of it, were massive beams (perhaps 50 x 70 cm). They

As we have seen, the roofing of the Qasr el Bint provides several pieces of valuable evidence for its construction. However, in the Temple of the Winged Lions and the “Great Temple” there is very little evidence for the structure of their roofs. The complexity of these two buildings requires a detailed discussion in order to arrive at suggested roof structures. VI.d.1.2. The Temple of the Winged Lions33 The Temple of the Winged Lions is rectangular, 26.20 m long and 17.50 m wide, and faces south. Its walls are preserved to 10 courses high (c. 3 m) (Fig.6.54b). The temple consisted of pronaos and a naos (Fig.6.54a; 55a). The pronaos, 14 x 7 m, was a portico distyle in antis. The diameter of each column in this porch is 1.34 m. The naos is almost square, measuring 16.1 x 15 m. The rear and side walls were 75 cm thick, and the cross wall, which included the main entrance, was 1.5 m thick. The side walls and cross wall all had engaged columns on their inner sides, five on each side wall, six on the rear one, and two on each side of the main entrance. The distance between their axes is c. 2.5 m. In addition, there are pairs of engaged quarter columns in the corners of the naos (Fig.5.8a; 9a). In it two rows of freestanding columns are aligned with the first and the sixth engaged column on the

24

This can be calculated from this structural equation Ft=P/A, where Ft is the allowable stress of wood; usually can be calculated in lab. P is the exposed force. A is the area of the wooden beam section. Personal communication with M. Khasawneh, civil engineer. 25 Didorus Siculus 2.48.9; 19.98 states that the land of the Jordan Valley is good for the growing of palms. 2.49.2-4; 19.99. 1-3 he mentions bundles of reeds being cast into the sea to carry asphalt to Egypt. Strabo 16.4.18 also mentions the palm trees. 26 Hammond 1996: 36-7; 1977/8: 97. 27 Adam 1994: 199-200. 28 Vitruvius 7.1.2-7 gives a full description of the covering technique. 29 Strabo 16.4.26 reports that the Nabataeans used to place an altar on the top of the house for pouring libations and burning frankincense. 30 Hodge 1960: 35. 31 Hodge 1960: 43 shows the difference between the two terms.

32

Hodge 1960: 62-4, Fig.15. Best architectural descriptions can be found in McKenzie 1990: 13843; Hammond 1996: 15-58; Netzer 2003: 81-5. 33

203

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Inner south façade of the cross wall (after Zayadine 1985a: Fig.5).

b. North façade of the cross wall, showing the cavity arches which received the bearer wooden beams, the relieving arch and the arches of the compartments (after Zayadine 1985a: Fig.3). Fig.6.51 Reconstructed roof of Qasr el-Bint, first suggestion of Larché and Zayadine.

204

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Axonometric drawing (Larché and Zayadine 2003: Fig.220)

b. East-West section (Larche in Zayadine et al. 2003: Fig.15). Fig.6.52 Reconstructed roof of Qasr el-Bint as Larché and Zayadine suggested in final report.

205

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.6.53 Reconstructed roof. Qasr el-Bint.

206

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT rear wall. Each consists of five columns, 70 cm in diameter. Each is aligned with a half column on the side walls. These two rows formed two side aisles, 1.8 m wide, and a central nave, 10.8 m wide, in which the altar platform was built (Fig.6.55a). This platform, 7.1 x 6 m, rose to a height of 1 m from the floor on each side with four columns, 70 cm in diameter, around it. These columns are not built on the grid of the engaged and the freestanding columns. No columns were preserved standing to their full height. The highest surviving column, belonging to the altar platform, rises to 4.4 m.

the roofing. Here, in order to assess the possible direction of the roof beams, one has to imagine the whole plan having removed the altar, as shown in Fig.6.55. Without the altar, the existence of the systematic grid shows that the architect had thought about the problem of the roof. A further approach, which can support the first, is to study parallels in Nabataean architecture. The closest parallel is the temple at Khirbet et-Tannur (late 1stcent.AD) (Fig.6.58). There are numerous differences in design and proportion between them, most noticeably in size. The Temple of the Winged Lions is smaller than the Temple at Khirbet et-Tannur. There is no pronaos at et-Tannur, unlike in the Temple of the Winged Lions, and apparently the layout of their altar platforms differs. It is clear from the plan that the central nave of the Temple of the Winged Lions is smaller, 10.8 m wide, and two rows of columns ran round the centre. The lateral columns of the altar platform do not coincide with the freestanding and engaged columns (Fig.6.55a). This is not the case in etTannur, where the altar platform was built inside a hall which was probably terraced, and porticoes were built outside surrounding an open court (Fig.6.58a, b).

No voussoirs or chunks of mortared rubble were recovered from the naos, suggesting arches were not used for roofing, nor was barrel vaulting. On the other hand, pan tiles, 3.1 and 3.2 cm. thick, with the usual upturned edge for overlapping one with the next were found.34 As mentioned in section II.b, no wooden beams were found in the temple tumble, and Hammond suggested they had been used for firewood, because of the ash deposit found.35 Hammond suggested that at least part of the temple was unroofed, but this is unlikely. Only a few ceramic drainpipe fragments have been discovered,36 and they are all, as he suggested, from roof drains and not from floor drains. The area lacks either a sloping floor, or gutters drains,37 such as existed in the unroofed forecourt of the temple at Khirbet et-Tannur (Fig.6.58).38 In addition, the extensive painted plaster naos of the Temple of the Winged Lions would have needed a roof to protect it from the rain.

However, from studying the plans shown in Figs.6.55, 58 it will be noted that the altar platform of the Temple of the Winged Lions had to be roofed at a lower height, in a similar manner to that which appears at et-Tannur. The arrangement of the columns seen in Fig.6.55b allowed the architect to construct a higher flat roof. The direction of the spans is east west, covering the eastern aisle, c.1.8 m wide, the central nave, c. 10.8 m wide, and the western aisle, c. 1.8 m wide. A span of 10.80 m would have been possible in timber, especially cedar. Even in Greek times the central space of the Parthenon, for example, was 11.05 m wide,41 although this was not normal in Greece and Asia Minor.

Netzer39 suggested a flat terrace roof covered the whole building, but with the pronaos terrace at a higher in level than that of the naos (Fig.6.56c), following Wright’s40 suggestion for the pronaos of the Qasr el-Bint. Netzer’s reconstruction shows the roofs of the side spaces lower than the main roof of the naos, and surrounded by parapets c. 6 m high (Fig.6.56b). Although this solution is possible, it in turn raises two problems. Firstly, the difference in height will certainly cause problems with the drainage of rainwater from the roofs of the side spaces. However, this can be ignored if we suppose the use of holes in the parapet. Secondly, access would be difficult to the roofs of the aisles when necessary, for example to repair the roof. These problems would not have existed if these roofs had been constructed as a continuous terrace or pitched roof.

As mentioned earlier, the diameter of the interior columns of the Temple of the Winged Lions is 70 cm, and of those in the porch is 1.34 m. All were crowned by floral Corinthian capitals. In discussing the proportions of the columns and their heights, Hammond,42 suggested that the height of the inner colonnade was 8-9 times the column diameter, i.e. 5.6-6.3 m.43 The addition of the entablature above the capital would have raised the interior height by c. 1.00 m. This would give 6.6-7.3 m as the total height. He means the height of both the naos and the porch. But the porch columns have a diameter of 1.34 m, so with the same proportion this gives at least 10.7212.06 m for their height excluding entablature. Moreover, the height he proposes (7.3 m) could not accommodate the height of the altar platform, assuming that the altar was of similar proportions to that at et-Tannur, c. 5.5 m

The layout of the columns in the pronaos, the naos, and around the altar platform should help in understanding 34

Hammond 1975: 26; 1977-8: 98; 1996: 35. Hammond 1996: 36. 36 Hammond 1975: 26 suggests that the pipes are similar to those found elsewhere at Petra, as in the Siq and the Main Theatre. See also Hammond 1977-8: 99; 1996: 36. 37 Hammond 1996: 35. 38 Glueck 1965: 126-7; McKenzie 2003: 172. 39 Netzer 2003: 83, Fig. 110.2. 40 Wright 1985: 322, Fig. 4b. 35

41 Hodge 1960: 38, Table I shows the spans of the cellas of the most important buildings in Greece, Magna Graecia and Sicily. 42 Hammond 1996: 23. 43 Probably this ratio was taken from Roman architecture, more generally 8-10 diameters. See Vitruvius 3.5.1-5; 4.1.1.2.11; Also Wilson-Jones 2000: 147-56 for actual height in Italy. Taylor 2003: 42-3.

207

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. General plan (Hammond 1996: 19).

b. General view, looking south west (Joukowsky 1998b: Fig.126). Fig.6.54 Temple of the Winged Lions.

208

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a

b Fig.6.55 Bearer beams. Temple of the Winged Lions. a. Plan with altar platform (Netzer 2003: Fig.110.1). b. Plan without the altar platform, showing the direction of the bearer wooden beams.

high44 (Fig.6.58c). Clearly, we cannot rely on Hammond’s proposal, because he used only the measurements of the interior columns of the temple, 70 cm in diameter, and did not apply the same proportions to the pronaos columns, which have larger diameters, each 1.34 m.45

Winged Lions it will be 70 and 55 cm respectively. The total height would be (0.7 x 9) + (0.55 x 8) = 10.7 m. The heights of the entablatures of the two-storey aisle columns (together 1.6 m, c. half of el-Khazneh) should be added to get 12.3 m as a clear height for the interior, which is roughly the same as the exterior height of the porch calculated above. Therefore, from my calculations, by applying the 8.5-diameter ratio for the exteriors and restoring a 2-storeyed naos, both areas would have been roofed at the same level (Fig.6.57c). The altar platform height was probably (9 x 0.7) + 1 = 7.45 m (including the entablature), so would fit under a ceiling at 12.3 m. I would suggest that the aisles were roofed at the same level as the naos, and the aisles had a two-storey façade onto the central nave similar to the façade of the two compartments in the Qasr el-Bint and numerous other Greek and Roman temples. In this case the spaces between the engaged columns of the aisles were perhaps used as niches in the lower level and as clerestory windows in the upper (Fig.6.57). The clerestory windows would have solved the problem with a fire altar high up beneath a wooden ceiling. It is likely that the interior height of the aisles was divided into two levels, with a wooden staircase giving access to the upper one. We have no evidence of stairs to reach a terrace roof or the intermediate naos gallery. Comparing this height, c. 12.3 m, to that in the Qasr el-Bint, c. 17.8 m, one finds that the proposed height of the Temple of the Winged Lions suits the proportions of the plan.

However, the possible height needed to accommodate the altar platform can be calculated by comparing the proportions with those of the rock-cut monuments. The lower exterior columns of el-Khazneh are 9-diameters and the upper ones 8-diameters.46 This ratio can be applied to the porch and naos columns of the Temple of the Winged Lions. Even more important, structurally speaking is the roof of the pronaos. It is noteworthy that its two large columns indicates it was probably roofed (Fig.6.54; 55). Applying the average ratio used in el-Khazneh (8.5 diameters) to the larger columns would give a height 8.5 x 1.34 = 11.39 m. The entablature height (c.1 m) should be added, giving a total interior height c. 12.39 m. This ceiling height could be reached by supposing that the interior had two storeys not just one. The lower column diameter in el-Khazneh is c. 1.45 m and the upper is c. 1.1 m, so in the aisle columns of the Temple of the 44

The limestone façade of the altar niche is reconstructed in Cincinnati Art Museum, for this see McKenzie 2003: Figs. 178-9. 45 Netzer 2003: Figs.110.2 shows in the sections that the interior height of the cella is c. 10 m, and the height of the altar is c. 5.60 m. 46 Dalman 1911: 102.

The roof tiles found in the excavations indicates that part, but not necessarily the whole building, was covered by a

209

SHAHER M. RABABEH

pitched roof. I would suggest that the Temple of the Winged Lions was roofed in the same way as the Qasr elBint: the pronaos was covered by a pitched roof and the naos and the aisles by a terrace roof (Fig.6.57c). This would presumably need five large bearer beams (c. 10.5 m), a ridge beam, and purlins (7.5 m long) for the pronaos plus beams of the same length. These are much less than for the Qasr el-Bint. (Fig.6.53). To span the naos 30 wooden beams, running east-west, and at least 30 cm wide and 60 cm high (centred 50 cm apart) would have had to be used. The spans of the aisles are shorter and would not need beams of that height (rather c. 20 cm).

as shown in Fig.6.60a,d. Walls, 1.9 m thick, were built between the inner columns of the naos. This made the clear span between the two side walls 15.4 m. In addition, vaulted rooms, several interior stairways and platforms, a theatre cavea, orchestra, and stage were built. The excavations so far have not recovered any altar traces. The largest amount of pieces of roof tiles was found immediately on the outside of the colonnades, with fewer fragments found in the central area.52 The tiles (Fig.6.53f) have the same features as those found in the Temple of the Winged Lions and the “Great Temple” (Fig.6.53f). The changes made to the building’s plan suggesting a change in function have caused some of the confusion in understanding the function of each phase as well as difficulties in determining the roof system of each phase.

VI.d.1.3. The “Great Temple”47 The “Great Temple” has two main phases48 (Fig.5.17b, c). Although the functions of both phases of the “Great Temple” are not yet known decisively, the name will be retained here along with temple terminology for its parts for convenience (temenos, naos, pronaos). In the first phase (I), dated to the last quarter of the first century BC, nothing of the upper temenos (Figure.6.59a) is certain except the columns. In the lower temenos, this phase also includes the subterranean cryptoporticoes, two-aisled porticoes, exedrae, the hexagonal pavement, and staircases. The main building at the centre of the upper temenos is rectangular, measuring c. 43.5 x 28 m. The original structure is c. 39.1 x 28 m, and faces north (Fig.6.59a). It consists of two parts: a pronaos c. 8.50 x 19.2 m, and a naos, c. 30.60 x 19.2 m. The pronaos façade consisted of four prostyle columns. These columns are 1.5 m in diameter, and c. 3 m apart. Behind these there are two columns in antis, each 1.2 m diameter with the anta walls situated 4.5 m to either side. The naos has seven columns on each side and four columns across its rear. There were heart shaped columns on each of the two southern corners. All these columns are 1.2 m in diameter, and 2.5 apart. The clear span between the two side colonnades is c. 16.8 m. This colonnade is surrounded on the sides and the rear by a corridor, 3 m wide and a wall 1.4 m thick.49 A walkway, 3.6 m wide and 65 cm thick, also surrounded the corridors.50

The function of the “Great Temple” may have implications for its roof. Joukowsky53 identified it as a temple. She drew attention to several similar complexes in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds, such as the sanctuaries of Hercules Victor at Tivoli and of Fortuna Primigenia at Palestrina,54 which incorporated a theatre into their designs. She concluded that the theatre in phase II had a sacred function and called the building a theatretemple complex. Joukowsky used the identification of the other theatres in Petra as ritual theatres proposed by Segal55 as central to her argument. But Segal gives no reason why either theatre at Petra should be regarded as ritual. By contrast, Schluntz56 (writing before the whole plan was uncovered) has argued that the “Great Temple,” when compared to the contemporary religious and secular architecture both of Petra and the wider context of the eastern Mediterranean, could not support the interpretation of this site as a temple complex. She argued that the architecture of the building, including the use of architectural sculpture, indicated that the building was originally the audience hall for the Nabataean kings in Phase I. She gave the grand hall of the western end of Herod’s Third Winter Palace at Jericho as a parallel example of an audience hall.57 For the Phase II, Schluntz suggested that after the Roman annexation in AD 106, the structure was converted to a bouleuterion for the new Roman metropolis of Petra because the building looks more like a council chamber or an odeion than a temple,58 citing the Odeion at Epidauros as an example.59 However, all the parallels she gives do not have a pronaos in the main building or a temenos in front, unlike the “Great Temple” at Petra.

In the second phase (II) of construction, dated to the first century AD,51 the main building of the entire temple complex was remodelled, reflecting change in function, 47 Best architectural descriptions in Joukowsky and Basile 2001: 43-58; Joukowsky 2003: 214-22; Netzer 2003: 72-81. 48 Joukowsky 1998a: 136-41; Joukowsky and Basile 2001 49-51 divide the architectural activity in the building into 12 phases. These include the architectural changes brought about by natural causes. In this thesis, the two main phases will be used, as described by Schluntz 1998a: 209. 49 This wall is not visible in Netzer’s plan Netzer 2003: Fig.95. However, Phase I had the wall around the naos as well. J. McKenzie, personal communication, 2004. 50 Netzer 2003: 77 reports that this walkway is poorly constructed and has been added to the temple in the Byzantine period. 51 Joukowsky and Basile 2001: 50 dated this phase to “a pre-Roman annexation or to the Nabataean period”; Schluntz 1998a: 209.

52 M. Joukowsky, personal communication, 2003. She mentioned more than 6000 pieces of roof tiles were collected during the excavations. 53 Joukowsky and Basile 2001: 52. 54 Sear 1982: Fig. 12. 55 Segal 1995: 16, 93. 56 Schluntz 1999: 135. 57 Schluntz 1999: 106-111, Fig. 5.9,10. 58 Schluntz 1998a: 221; 1999: 135. 59 Schluntz 1999: 125, Fig. 5.15.

210

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Main façade.

b. Reconstructed east-west section.

c. Reconstructed north-south section. Fig.6.56 Reconstructed roof. Temple of the Winged Lions, as suggested by Netzer (2003: Fig.110)

211

SHAHER M. RABABEH

a. Main façade.

b. East west section.

c. North-south section. Fig.6.57 Reconstructed roof suggested here. Temple of the Winged Lions.

212

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a

c

b

Fig.6.58 Khirbet et-Tannur Temple. a. Plan, showing the altar platform enclosure and the external colonnaded bays (McKenzie et al. 2002: Fig.4). b. Reconstructed cut-away axonometric (McKenzie et al. 2002: Fig.21). c. Reconstructed façade of the altar platform (McKenzie et al. 2002: Fig.11).

213

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Two points can be made concerning the relationship between the functions of both phases. If the building was a bouleuterion in Phase II, then it seems more likely that it was a royal audience hall not a temple in Phase I. To take over a sacred building and convert it to a council chamber seems impossible. However, there are no good parallels for audience halls of this kind, with a pronaos.60 Alternatively, if it were a temple or shrine in Phase I it was probably a sacred building in Phase II not a council chamber. No traces of an altar platform, which we would expect in a Nabataean temple, have been found so far because it has not been possible to excavate under the seats where the altar platform would have stood, if there was one.61 We will not know the function unless the seats are excavated. Therefore, the evidence available so far is not decisive to decide what the building was, so I have to take both proposals into account in discussing the roof structure.

thus the pronaos and colonnaded porticoes of the naos may have been covered either by flat terraces or pitched roofs. However, the parallels with the Qasr el-Bint and the Temple of the Winged Lions, which are contemporary or slightly later,64 suggest the use of a pitched roof over the pronaos and a flat roof over the naos porticoes of the “Great Temple”. It is plausible that the same roofing technique was used in all three buildings. For the second phase, Netzer65 reconstructed the theatre covered entirely by a flat roof with the pronaos roof at a higher level, similar to what he proposed for the Qasr elBint, the Temple of the Winged Lions, and the first phase of the “Great Temple”. But here he considered the rear corridor to be covered by a roof of single pitch stretching from the rear wall of the theatre to the rear wall of the corridor (Fig.6.61b). Again he does not discuss the large span of the building though it was reduced to 15.4 m in the second phase. Netzer’s reconstruction this based on number and position of the tile fragments found.

Firstly, let us suppose that the building was a temple converted into a ritual theatre. In the first phase, Netzer62 reconstructed the cella covered entirely by flat roof with the pronaos covered by another at a higher level (Fig.6.59b). He does not discuss the question of the large span of the building, c. 16.8 m east-west, which would have required wooden beams 80 cm or more thick. Beams of this thickness c. 18 m long are difficult to obtain and to transport and their cost is high. Clearly this is a difficulty but not an impossibility.

Joukowsky suggests the roof was tiled over the corridors, like Netzer, but unlike him suggests it was not roofed over the theatre: “the evidence suggests that the centre of the theatre was hypaethral, but that roofing extended around the building between the corridors and the walkways.”66 The theatres in sanctuaries in Italy are unroofed, so she has no need to suppose a roof. She also adopted this view (Fig.6.61a) because, as mentioned, she found a larger amount of pieces of roof tiles on the outside than in the central area. I believe that there was no need to change roof of the central structure unless its function changed and the new function demanded it. I have argued that it was unroofed in Phase I, and that if it was a temple or shrine in Phase I it was probably a sacred building in Phase II. If so, in both cases the centre was unroofed in Phase II parallel of Khirbet et-Tannur.

Owing to the lack of evidence in Phase I, one cannot argue with absolute certainty whether the “temple” was left hypaethral or covered with either a flat terrace roof or a pitched roof. The layout of the central colonnade (Fig.6.59) is similar to that of Khirbet et-Tannur (Fig.6.58), in which there was an open colonnaded forecourt with the two rows of columns c.16.7 m apart, which is virtually the same as the span between the side columns of the “Great Temple”. An example of a hypaethral “naos” can be seen in the Temple of Apollo at Didyma, in which a naiskos stood in an open courtyard with a pronaos in front.63 Although occasionally matched in the Hellenistic period (such as in the Bouleuterion at Miletos) and exceeded in Roman basilicas, 16.8 m is an unusually wide span for a roof. Therefore it is more likely that the “temple” in Phase (I) had a covered pronaos and surrounding portico (this requires the wall missing in Netzer’s plan), but with the central space of the naos left unroofed (Fig.6.59a). The altar would have been located at the rear of the open central area. The tile fragments found cannot be certainly attributed to this phase, and

On the other hand, if it was a meeting hall in Phase II, it was probably roofed, like the council chambers of Miletos c. 170 BC, and of Priene c. 200 BC.67 If so, in Phase I it would have been a secular building of some sort, and perhaps also roofed. My observations on Phase II are particularly based on the Council Hall of Miletos (Fig.6.62a,b), because this is the building not only with the most advanced structural system (with 15.9 m span), but it also offers so many points of resemblance in general layout and the interior design to the “Great Temple” (Phase II) in Petra. The Council Chamber of Miletos was built as a donation from king of Syria 64 McKenzie 1990: 51 suggests that the Qasr el-Bint and the Temple of the Winged Lions are contemporaries and lay in Group A. But on the basis of the capitals, she considered that the latter was built later than the former. Hammond 1996 found a complete dedicatory inscription which dated the Temple of the Winged Lions to 26-27 AD., but not in situ. 65 Netzer 2003: 75-6, Fig. 100. 66 Joukowsky and Basile 2001: 49. 67 Dinsmoor 1975: 296-7, Fig. 108; Gates 2003: Fig. 167 shows the trusses in the reconstruction interior.

60

Netzer 2003: 81 suggested that the reception halls in palaces had a different layout and that they included guard rooms before one reached the king. 61 McKenzie 2003. 62 Netzer 2003: 77, Fig.103 suggests that the entire core-structure was covered from the outset by a flat ceiling that rested on long wooden beams c. 17 m long, probably from date palms. 63 Akurgal 1969: 227.

214

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

b. Reconstructed north-south section and elevation of the main façade showing the roof suggested by Netzer (2003: Fig.103).

a. General plan of first phase. The Lower Temenos reconstruction is after Netzer 2003.

c. Computer-generated reconstruction of second phase (Joukowsky and Basile 2001: Fig.6). Fig.6.59 “Great Temple”.

215

SHAHER M. RABABEH

d. General view, looking north-west. Fig.6.60 The second phase of the “Great Temple”.

216

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. Computer-generated reconstruction, showing the central area as hypaethral (Joukowsky, personal communication, 2003).

b. Reconstructed north south section, showing the flat roof, and the pronaos roof at a higher level (Netzer 2003: Fig.100). Fig.6.61 Reconstructed roof of The “Great Temple”, the second phase.

Antiochus IV, 175-164 BC. As the controller of the cedar forests of Lebanon,68 it is probable that Antiochos IV provided the wooden beams. In addition, it is likely that the principle of the truss was known in Lebanon as it was an area rich in timber.69 What are we to deduce from this? First, it seems probable that the Nabataean builders not only imported the wooden beams from Lebanon but also they borrowed the truss at the same time. We know cedar was imported for use on the string courses of the Qasr el-Bint. Therefore, the technical problem posed by

the long span could have been solved by adopting the truss as the structural basis, as in other similar contemporary buildings, particularly the Miletos Council Chamber. This would allow the building to be used the whole year round, whereas, a hypaethral building’s use would be restricted by sun in summer and rain in winter.70 In the second phase of the “Great Temple”, the clear span of the central area is 15.4 m (Fig.6.60a), which is approximately equal to the clear span of the Council Chamber at Miletos, 15.90 m (Fig.6.62a,b), and greater

68 Coulton 1976: 63 mentions that the east building on the south market was probably built with funds supplied by Antiochos I before he became king; 1977: 158, Lawrence 1996: 202. 69 The skill of the Phoenician craftsmen in shipbuilding and their incorporation in the great building projects of Solomon and his successors is well known. Gates 2003: 178.

70 Netzer 2003: 81 suggested that both the hypaethral reception hall and the odeion could not have functioned under the sun or when it rained, and a tent in such cases would have been preferable.

217

SHAHER M. RABABEH

than the span in the Ekklesiasterion of Priene 14.60 m.71 This, as Coulton states, “falls far short of Roman roof spans a century later, which could be over 25 m.”72 An example is in the Basilica of Fano, the roof of which is described by Vitruvius in the Augustan period.73 The central aisle of it spanned 17.8 m. Moreover, in the Odeion of Agrippa at Athens, c. 15 BC, the central hall with a span of 25 m was covered by a truss, while lower roofs of single pitch covered the walkways (Fig.6.62c).74 The Small Theatre (with a span of 26 m) at Pompeii was definitely roofed. These parallels show that a truss roof could have been used to cover the hall of the “Great Temple”.

Samothrace, c. 285 BC, with a span of c.16.80 m, he suggested a wigwam-like cone of rafters to roof circular buildings. 78 The exedras of the “Great Temple” temenos would have been much easier to roof, since they have a smaller diameter. Perhaps a three-quarter cone of rafters met the central north-south ridge beams of the porticoes. There are two other buildings in Petra whose roofs should be mentioned. The first is the portico in front of the shops in the Colonnaded Street, c. 4.3 m wide (Fig.6.63a). Fiema79 reported the finding of roof tiles in rooms 27, 29, 30 (Fig.6.63a). Kanellopoulos80 has suggested that it was covered by a shed roof (Fig.6.63b,d). He proposed a shed roof which consisted of horizontal cross-beams with rafters of smaller cross section, sheathing or bundles of reeds, clay and tiles. However, with a span of only 4.3 m, rafters alone would probably have been sufficient, without cross beams.81 The second building is the island pavilion in the pool, 9.5 x 12 m (Fig.6.64a). The presence of foundations for columns is used to suggest that it was roofed. Bedal82 has proposed, based on the absence of roofing tiles in the excavations, that the island pavilion was covered by a flat roof (Fig.6.64b).

Thus, we now have the essential elements, from which to reconstruct two possible models for the roofing of the second phase of the “Great Temple”. Firstly, if it functioned as a “Theatre-Temple” complex, the theatre area could have been hypaethral, with the walkway and pronaos covered by a pitched roof, as Joukowsky suggested. Thus, there would have been no change in roofing from that of Phase I, and the roof tiles found in the excavation can be attributed to either or both phases. Alternatively, if the building functioned as a political hall there would be two likely forms for the roof, both of which involve a truss roof. The first is similar to that in Miletos in covering the central hall and the walkways with a truss on a single level (Fig.6.62a), while the second is similar to the truss roof of the Odeion of Agrippa. In this second variant, clerestory windows could have allowed light into the central area. There is no evidence to support one model rather than the other.

On the basis of the technical features described in this chapter, it has become clear that the lack of wood and the poor mechanical properties of sandstone were the main factors affecting the roofing techniques. These presented a serious challenge to the Nabataean architects, which was solved in two main ways. The first was economical and concentrated on the use of the available sandstone. This was done using techniques paralleled in the GrecoRoman world. Series of arches supporting slabs, relieving arches, vaults and domes were used in roofing cisterns, rooms, lintels and basements. However, the Nabataean architects tried to avoid using sandstone for large spaces, since it is friable and cannot withstand high tensile forces. When the builders could not use slabs to cover long spans between the series of arches, they probably used local timber, such as juniper and olive timber or cypress and pine similar to what has been recovered at Mampsis. To solve the problem of spanning large spaces the solution was to import timber. The trading activities and the wealth of the Nabataeans made it possible for them to import wooden beams, such as cedar with long spans (more than 5 m), to roof major public buildings. It is likely that the central authority, which gave the order to the Nabataean merchants to import wood, supported these structures financially. Along with the source of timber probably came the techniques for the construction of pitched roofs. Although not a local roofing technique, tiled roofs would have been more “classical” and prestigious.

The lower temenos in front of the “Great Temple” was surrounded by porticoes on three sides. The overall width of each aisle is c. 4.4 m. The columns themselves have a diameter of 85 cm and are 2.5 m apart. Each portico terminates in an exedra slightly greater than a half circle in plan (Fig.6.60a). These measure 7.5 m wide across the centre but only 6.8 m wide at the mouth. Each exedra is separated from the porticoes by a pair of sandstone columns 60 cm in diameter. Roof tiles were found in both exedras, but no voussoirs (or concrete) are reported. Joukowsky75 reconstructed the roof of the porticoes as covered by pitched roofs and the exedras with semidomes. Basile76 suggested that the exedras were partially roofed with tiles above the semi-domes and roofed with tiles where they met the porticoes. In this respect, Coulton states “circular buildings could not be roofed in the normal Greek way, for since a beam along any diameter of a circle must pass through its centre, there could be only one bearer beam to serve the whole roof.”77 From a reconsideration of the roof of the Arsinoeion at 71

Coulton 1976: 162. Coulton 1977: 157. Vitruvius 5.1.6-9. 74 Ward-Perkins 1981: 265-8. 75 Joukowsky and Basile 2001: Fig.6. 76 Basile 1998: 200. 77 Coulton 1977: 158. 72

78 Coulton 1976: 162, 295-6.For new reconstructions of the Arsenoeion roof see McCredie et al. 1992: 27, Fig. 18, Pls. LXX1, LXIII-LXXV. 79 Fiema 1998: 408-9, 414-5. 80 Kanellopoulos 2001: 17. 81 Coulton 1976: 151-3. 82 Bedal 2001: 28.

73

218

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

Miletos. Plan (Coulton 1977: Fig.69e).

Cut-away isometric reconstruction of the council chamber at Miletos, c.170 BC (Coulton 1977: Fig.51).

Diagram illustrating the structural concept of a ceiling and roof with a truss (Hodge 1960: Fig.10a).

Axonometric reconstruction of the Odeon of Agrippa, c. 15BC (Sear 1982: Fig.152).

Fig.6.62 Meeting halls

219

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Fig.6.63 The Colonnaded Street, Petra, shops 23-32.

220

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT

a. General plan of the pool, showing the pavilion and the four columns (Bedal 2001: Fig.13).

b. Cut-away isometric reconstruction, showing the four columns supporting the bearer beams, the details of the flat roof, and the vaulted bridge (Bedal 2001: Fig.9). Fig.6.64 The Pool, island-pavilion, Petra.

221

SHAHER M. RABABEH

The challenge of materials available, in turn, brought about the use of spherical triangle pendentives in constructing the Baths at Petra. Amazingly, this use in the first century BC is the earliest known, and one might want to speculate from where the technique came. Since there are no earlier Nabataean domes, the possibility of influence from elsewhere arises. The location of the examples of pendentives in the second and third centuries, as well as the Petra ones, suggests either Egypt or Mesopotamia as the source of influence. In the Aegean true domes of masonry are rare and in Italy the method of construction is quite different, and no early pendentives have been found although there are many domes.

222

Conclusions Babylonian rock relief of Sela’5 (in III.b.2). Although the Edomite evidence does not include complex public buildings, some Edomite influence can be detected in Nabataean architecture. So continuity like that already detected in religion6 and ceramics7 can now be suggested.

The previous chapters have dealt with the surviving evidence concerning Nabataean construction techniques. Data collected were used to provide the bases for a systematic study of the building materials and to determine the specifications of the various types of Nabataean construction techniques applied in both the freestanding buildings and the rock-cut monuments. The Nabataeans had their own distinctive architectural style which reflected both Hellenistic and Oriental influences, the origins of which it is possible to suggest. However, determining the origins of the techniques used to build them is not easy. I found that some of these construction techniques were used in the same way as throughout the Greco-Roman world, and were probably borrowed. However, there are some technical features used by the Nabataeans which indicate that they further developed and adapted these techniques rather than merely borrowing them. At the same time, there are features not found elsewhere. Others are the earliest known examples. Therefore, there is in fact a whole range of possibilities, and the question is how it developed and varied, and where within this range Nabataean construction practice lay. It is not at present possible to establish chronological stages for the different technical aspects because the monuments are packed into a short period (from the last quarter of the 1st cent. BC to the early 2nd cent. AD), and their exact dates of construction within this period are still not absolutely certain.1

There are also other technical features that the Nabataeans inherited from the Iron Age practised elsewhere in the region. It is shown here that, contrary to Hammond’s suggestion,8 the use of wooden beams as stabilizing aids embedded between the courses of ashlar masonry walls in Petra can be attributed to regional tradition. This technique has been in use in the Levant since the Iron Age,9 but its use was restricted to small buildings and sometimes in more primitive constructions using field stones. The Nabataean builders were able to develop its application into a number of sophisticated versions used with monumental ashlar masonry (in V.c.2). The main point is that the construction techniques used and developed by Nabataean builders were affected by two important factors: their outside contacts, and the availability of the building materials. The first factor is the influence of contemporary Hellenistic and Oriental architecture in the surrounding areas. Petra was a trading emporium and had strong ties with the West and East as is clearly shown by its architecture and other remains (in I.a.2.3). It was previously assumed that there was relationship between the Nabataeans and the Seleucids.10 Consequently, it was thought that some of the Hellenistic influence in Nabataean architecture might have come from the Seleucids, not just Alexandria. But as there was no surviving Hellenistic architecture in Antioch it was not possible to confirm or refute this possibility. However, my detailed analysis of Nabataean contacts (in I.a.2.2) shows that the strongest relationship and direct exchanges were with Ptolemaic Alexandria, and not with Seleucid Antioch. The relationship with the Seleucids was one of confrontation from as early as 312 BC11 and continuing until the end of their empire. By contrast, contact with Alexandria was significantly increased by the trading activities in which the Nabataeans were involved. These observations not only accord with the architectural styles of Petra, which show that Alexandria was the main Hellenistic centre of architectural types from which the

Nabataean construction techniques before those used at Petra have not previously been defined (in I.a.2.1), and before the present study their possible relationship to those used by their predecessors, the Edomites, have not been considered. The experience of the Nabataeans digging wells to store water underground is the only architectural skill reported in Diodorus’ account of 312 BC.2 What I found is that very few construction features can be attributed to the Edomites, the earlier inhabitants of Petra, in which some local technical features were developed. Three sources of evidence show influence from Edomite architecture which can be recognised in Nabataean architecture. The Nabataeans’ knowledge of carving cisterns reported in Diodorus’ account could have been inherited from the Edomites. The walls of the earliest Nabataean freestanding houses were built of wadi stones and clay, not ashlar masonry.3 This type of construction is somewhat similar to the walls recovered at Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan, and Buseireh.4 Moreover, it is probable that the method of climbing up rock faces with the aid of ropes and holes was inherited from earlier knowledge in the area, as it is found in the Neo-

5

Dalley and Goguel 1997: 171. Parr 2003: 33; Bartlett 1990: 34. Bienkowski 1990: 103. 8 Hammond 1995:215-21. 9 Thomson 1960: 60-2; Reich 1992: 8; Shiloh 1979: 61. 10 Robertson 1943: 221. 11 Diodorus Siculus 19.94-100. 6 7

1

McKenzie 1990:121-2 and more recently 2004: 559-568. Diodorus Siculus 19.94-100. Parr 1990: 16-17. 4 Bienkowski 1995: 136. 2 3

223

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Nabataeans borrowed their style,12 but also provides some evidence, for the first time, that perhaps there was not much influence on it from the Seleucids.

sandstones. Marble slabs were used as veneer for walls and in paving the cellas of the temples. It was also used for statues and ring bases, but rarely for column capitals.16 To modern eyes the colour of sandstone is an attraction, but it was usually stuccoed. In addition to its decorative use to add classical details,17 stucco was also used extensively as a finish on the sandstone walls and column-drums, regardless of the type of sandstone.

I found that there was also contact between the Nabataeans and the Parthians, and with the occupants of Arabia. The historical evidence and the involvement of the Nabataeans in the silk route and incense trade (in I.a.1.2) suggest a strong relationship existed between them. This contact is reflected by the continuing use of crowsteps,13 and some of the characteristics of the Nabataean temples (in I.a.2.3).14 But there are no technical studies of Parthian architecture published and nor is the architecture in Arabia well published, so it is not possible to confirm or refute the possibility of technical exchange. However, all these contacts provide the possibility of exchange of building techniques. The presence of foreigners among the people of Petra, as reported by Athenodorus in Strabo’s account,15 makes this even more likely.

The examinations of the quarrying of sandstone for the freestanding buildings and the calculation of the amount of it have thrown light on the adequacy of supply (in III.a). Contrary to what might have been assumed,18 it was discovered here that the primary quarries (those whose sole function was as quarries) would have yielded approximately half of the stone blocks for the freestanding buildings in the city. The other half was obtained from quarrying for the rock-cut monuments, and from levelling building sites. This pattern of use on this scale was not normal elsewhere. Other sites rarely had so many rock-cut monuments, although rock cutting was sometimes necessary at them, such as to level a site or to form a theatre. This stone was probably used in buildings.19 Therefore, the most distinguishing feature of quarrying in Petra, as detailed in chapter 3, is the contribution of the stone blocks for buildings that the rock-cut monuments made. It is unique to Petra and it arose because of the topography of the site.

The second factor which affected the Nabataean construction techniques was the availability of the building materials. The survey of the materials made in chapter 2 contributes to our understanding of the basic building materials used by the Nabataeans. It appears that the supply of the major building materials in bulk followed a logical economic model. Generally, the Nabataean preference was for local resources, as they chose the most readily available and cheapest supplies based on their location. The exceptions occurred when buildings required special materials not found in the region, such as wood and marble. The most readily available building material was sandstone. The rock-cut monuments were carved in the Smooth, Honeycomb, Tear, and Disi sandstone layers, and these layers were also quarried to provide blocks for freestanding buildings. This use differed from the type of stones normally available and used in classical monumental architecture elsewhere, where limestone was the most common stone. However, the sandstone of Petra is not a high quality construction material compared to limestone or granite. Undoubtedly, this had a notable effect on the construction techniques used. Advantages of it were its availability and its relative ease of cutting which would have been factors in its use. But its softness also made it quick to erode, and it was weaker than limestone. Despite its friable nature and lack of resistance to weathering, the Nabataeans still used it because it was the only stone available. However, because they were aware of its weaknesses, they used better stone when essential, hard limestone for the slabs paving the Colonnaded Street. Softer fine limestone was used for bases and capitals of columns as it could be more finely carved than the

The very high faces of the primary and tomb quarries of Petra required specific techniques to cut and transport the product (in III.a). The only other case known of quarries with very high faces is at Syracuse.20 But the marble quarries for the Parthenon would have raised some of the same problems.21 The Nabataean quarrymen, as often was the case elsewhere, used the trench and wedge technique to extract the blocks, and gave the quarries a stepped shape (in III.b). Contrary to what has been suggested,22 carved terraces were used at Petra to create a horizontal working platform, in place of scaffolding. The use of this technique came from the lack of wood for scaffolding. This technique was also used to carve both the exterior and interior of the rock-cut monuments. In small monuments the cliff was cut to a vertical face and the decoration carved at the same time, whereas larger monuments would have required the work to be done in two stages. The reasons for this were practical ones, such as the work space available on the ledge or the requirement of stone blocks for use in freestanding buildings under construction. In some cases, where the extraction took place in the centre of cliffs, the 16 There is only one capital of marble found at Petra McKenzie 1990: Pl. 39c. 17 Zayadine 1987:131-43. 18 Pflüger 1995: 289; Browning 1980: 168. 19 Martin 1965: 146-55; Orlandos 1968: 15-20. 20 Peschlow-Bindokat 1990: Plates 26-27; Ginouvés and Martin 1985: Pl. 10; Martin 1965: 147-9; Orlandos 1968: 20. 21 Martin 1965: 147, Plate XII2; Korres 1995a, b. 22 Browning 1973: 50; Pflüger 1995: 292.

12

McKenzie 1990. Anderson 2003:7. 14 Schmid 2001: 379; Colledge 1986: 9-12; Netzer 2003: 112-3; Clarke 1999: 205-25; 2000: 123-7; 2003: 171-5. 15 Strabo 16.4.2. 13

224

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT quarrymen used ladders, ropes and slots to reach the working level. The sandstone quarries at Petra could not yield single colossal blocks like other harder stones elsewhere. The normal maximum size measures 1.5 x 2 x 0.6 m, and weighs approximately 4 tons (the largest 7 tons, in III.c.1). Notably, although the quarries were located as close as possible to the intended building sites, the stonecutters roughly shaped the stone blocks to reduce their weight in the quarry, as was common at other Greco-Roman sites.23 The weight of the blocks quarried suggests that the Nabataeans used one or more transportation devices to move the extracted stones to the final destination, such as sledges, sledges on rollers, or wagons with wheels.

clamps. This was probably because clamps and dowels may exert a concentrated force on a small part of a block, which would be too much for sandstone, causing it to flake or chip. Their unique use was in limestone walls of Khirbet et-Tannur, but not in sandstone walls of Petra. This shows that their selective use of techniques is related to the properties of the stone and their knowledge of them. The proportions the Nabataeans used for their column drums were dependent on the properties of sandstone. This caused the use of drums with a small height (in V.b.1). Consequently, for large columns the large diameter and a small height of the drums make them like discs (c. 0.7 m high, c. 1.5 m diam.). However, although their height is small, the wooden pin technique was used for centering these Discs. It is also for the Normal column drums of smaller diameter. Alphabetic and numeric symbols were also cut in the bottoms and sides of the columns, as in Greek architecture. The weights of the column drums (Normal drums 350-450 kg, Disk drums 2 tons, and those of the Qasr el-Bint 7 tons), and the weight of the wall blocks indicate that systems of simple and compound pulleys must have been used in lifting them, as elsewhere in Greco-Roman world29 (in IV.d). The use of lifting equipment is also evidenced by the presence of handling bosses, slots on the side of the column drums, and the horizontal grooves in the bottom of some column drums. Notably, the use of slots and horizontal grooves are unusual and could be related to the friability of the sandstone.

The Nabataean stonemasons used two different techniques to prepare the stone surfaces: block preparation for freestanding buildings and finishing the surfaces of the rock-cut monuments (in IV.a, b). In both techniques the processes of dressing were carried out in a sequence, and in each stage different tools were used. The Nabataean tools were similar to Greek and Roman ones,24 such as picks, hammers, mallets, bush hammers, and pointed flat and claw chisels. The most notable tool used was the claw chisel which left the diagonal coarse lines as technical feature which is undoubtedly one of the most characteristic features of Nabataean stone masonry. As it is unusual for claw chisel marks to be as visible as they are at Petra, this could be explained by their use as preparation for stucco. A rasping metal tool like a hairbrush or comb, similar to the so-called chemin-defer,25 might have been used to carve the fine lines. Rasps or grinding stones were used to smooth the final surfaces. In addition, a drill was used in the preparation of decorative elements.

The types of material available and their properties were also the essential factors affecting the roofing techniques discussed in chapter 6. The lack of wood and the availability of sandstone presented a serious challenge to the Nabataean architects in roofing their buildings. They concentrated on the use of the sandstone by using technical features, paralleled elsewhere in the GrecoRoman world. Vaults, domes, series of arches supporting slabs, and relieving arches were used in roofing cisterns, rooms, doorways and basements (in VI.b, c). However, the Nabataeans avoided using sandstone for long horizontal beams (lintels and architraves), since it is friable and cannot withstand high tensile forces. This is the best explanation for the absence of the architrave blocks from the pronaoi of the buildings excavated so far. In certain circumstances, as the builders could not use slabs to cover longer intervals than 1.1 m (table in Fig. 6.37), they used wood, probably local juniper and olive timber (in VI.c.2). But the solution to the problem of spanning larger distances involved importing timber, such as cedar, to which they had access to through their trading activities and wealth (in VI.d).

The properties of the sandstone influenced the size of blocks used for building by the Nabataeans, both in walls and columns. In terms of size, wall blocks (average) measure c. 70 x 30 x 30 cm and weigh about c. 150 kg. The walls of the buildings were built using two methods normal elsewhere: header and stretcher or two-skinned construction26 (in V.a.2). No opus reticulatum has been found in Petra, unlike in the Herodian buildings (end of 1st cent. BC) at Jericho.27 This indicates that the Nabataeans did not use the Roman system of wall construction, nor were there Roman builders involved in Nabataean building projects at Petra. The Nabataeans certainly knew the technique of the use of dowels and clamps (in V.a.3), and the size of the cuttings for clamps recovered at Khirbet et-Tannur suggests Egyptian influence.28 However, the Nabataean builders at Petra concentrated on the use of mortars and avoided the use of 23

Abu Dayyah 2001: 524, 9. Adam 1994: 45-6; Korres 1995a: 76-7, Fig.10. Rockwell 1993: 62, Ginouvés and Martin 1985: 74. 26 Tomlinson 1961: 133. 27 Netzer 1977: Fig. 12; Fischer 1998: 37. Ward-Perkins 1981: 310 states that opus reticulatum was rare in the East, but was used at Jericho. 28 Arnold 1991: 125-7.

Although Nabataean stonemasons did not deal with colossal single blocks in constructing their buildings, the rock-cut monuments they carved were monolithic units.

24 25

29

225

Coulton 1974: 1-19.

SHAHER M. RABABEH

The larger rock-cut monuments in Petra have substantial dimensions which are unique in antiquity. Of all the construction techniques which appeared and were developed in the Greco-Roman world, Nabataean rockcut monuments are still extraordinarily distinguished in terms of stone masonry. This is also a product of the availability of sandstone and the local landscape.

also show that the rock-cut monuments there were the work of Nabataean craftsman. This is also suggested by the masons’ marks in Nabataean letters at Petra. Although the tools discussed in chapter 3 and 4 are similar to Greek and Roman tools, the other technical features such as using horizontal platforms for working and the way of carving would have been developed the Nabataeans’ own experience in carving simple rock-cut monuments.

No one in the ancient world, outside Petra, ever carved a two-story rock-cut monument on this scale.30 Although the architectural composition of el-Khazneh is found in wall-paintings, it is now generally accepted that the form of it and other buildings in Petra was influenced by the architecture of Alexandria. Fragments of this architecture survive in Alexandria and they are from freestanding buildings. This means the form of the Khazneh was influenced by freestanding buildings, but the technique of carving it from the rock was not necessarily borrowed at the same time. It is worth noting that the techniques used in constructing the freestanding buildings at Petra are completely different from those used in carving the rockcut monuments. This suggests that the architectural form of the rock-cut monuments, such as el-Khazneh, was borrowed but not the carving technique. To carve a rock-cut monument is a difficult task. The method of carving a huge façade as one unit full of architectural details is actually much more rigid than carving them separately and then building them, because the stonemasons dealt with elevated surfaces in the former and with blocks on the ground in the latter. As carving began from the top down (whereas buildings were normally designed from the bottom up) the whole design had to be worked out accurately in advance and there was no scope for changes during construction. The rock-cut technique would require a tradition which comes from gradual development. This would have certainly required craftsmen with knowledge of the local geomorphology. It seems more likely in principle to start this development from the simplest monuments and move in the direction of complexity. For this reason, contrary to what Schmid suggested,31 it is possible that carving some of the simpler (and usually smaller) rock-cut monuments in Petra namely the Pylon, the Step, Proto-Hegr, and Hegr type tombs began before the larger ones. This is now clear after the remarkable discovery of the tombs in front of el-Khazneh, which are classified stylistically as Proto-Hegr type. These were definitely carved before elKhazneh, probably before the last quarter of the first century BC. Moreover, the quantity of Nabataean rockcut monuments in Petra and Hegra suggest considerable local activity. The masons32 named at Hegra suggests the presence of family craft development in the society and

The creativity of the Nabataean masons was significant in overcoming the limits of the physical environment by using a combination of rock-cut and freestanding techniques, the “mixed technique”, (in III.c.2). The use of sandstone inset elements in the rock-cut monuments can be explained because either a fault appeared in the rock or a mistake was made by the masons, while limestone inset elements were used for finer details. In some other cases the architect found difficulty in positioning the whole of his design on the site chosen, for example the Palace Tomb was partly built and partly carved because the natural downward slope of the hill from south to north did not enable the architect to fit the dimensions of the facade on the cliff. The use of the “mixed technique” is also found elsewhere occasionally, as in the Tomb of Absalom in the Kirdon Valley in Jerusalem33 and in tomb 13 at Etenna in southern Anatolia,34 but it is not as frequent or not on the same scale as at Petra. In addition, a mixed technique was also used in roofing the temples, in which the architect combined the use of the local technique of the terrace roof with the classical pitched and tiled roof (in VI.d.1). This sort of technical combination reflects the innovative ability of the Nabataean architects. Similarly, their architectural style developed from a mixture of eastern, classical, and local features, as in ed-Deir.35 One of the most significant discoveries this analysis of Nabataean construction techniques has revealed is that the earliest examples for some construction techniques survived at Petra. The first is the use of wooden tie-beams across arches (in V.c.3), as later used in Muslim architecture from the Umayyad period36 up to the present. This suggests the possibility of a continuation of the Nabataean architectural tradition into Islamic architecture. Although there is no evidence recovered so far which proves this continuity from the Nabataean to the early Islamic Period, evidence for such continuity has been found from Nabataean to Umayyad sculptures, suggesting that such local continuity was possible.37 In addition, the use of ring bases around columns (in V.b.1), which are unique to Petra in antiquity is later found in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem,38 in which, notably, the

30 The Persian tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam only have a massive relief above a lower storey, see Boardman 2000: Pl. 2.27a, b; Fedak 1989. 31 Schmid 2001: 388. 32 Schmidt-Colinet 1987: 143-50; McKenzie 1990: 14-5. They used the family tree from mason’s names at Hegra as very important evidence for determining the organisation of the sculptors and their styles (schools).

33

Fedak 1990: 143, Figs 205-6. Çevik 2003: Figs. 13, 14, 15. 35 McKenzie 2001: 97; Lyttelton 1974: 79. 36 Creswell 1989: 29. 37 J. McKenzie, personal communication, 2004. 38 Creswell 1989: 29. 34

226

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT use of wooden tie-beams connecting the arches also occurs39 (in V.c.3).

the properties of the materials and their limitations. Therefore, a lot of their techniques relate basically to the materials, from which everything came out. Perhaps the most straightforward example of this phenomenon is the use of the orthostates in the Qasr el-Bint (late 1st cent. BC, the earliest freestanding monumental building in Petra). This use could be an initial borrowing from Greek practice (coming with the Greek forms) which was later rejected because the quarries could not provide larger blocks because the stone was not suitable. A further example is the use of timber. It is expensive and so Nabataean builders used stone slabs in roofing. Another example is stone dressing which was not new but how the Nabataeans did it (with diagonal tooling) is unique to Nabataean architecture. All this leads to sum up that the Nabataeans had their own construction techniques, just as they had their own architectural style. It is right that they got some of their techniques from local sources or the Greco-Roman world, but they took them and they developed them in ways specific to Petra.

The use of pendentives in constructing the domes of the Baths (in VI.b.4) at Petra is also the earliest known example (1st cent BC), and one might want to speculate from where the technique came. Since there are no earlier Nabataean domes, the possibility of influence from elsewhere arises.40 The location of the sites with, second and third centuries AD, pendentive domes, as well as the Petra one, suggests either Egypt or Mesopotamia as the possible source of influence; not the Aegean where true domes of masonry are rare or Roman Italy where the method of construction is different (concrete) and there are no pendentives in spite of the survival of many domes. The Nabataeans show more creativity in adapting and finding new technical solutions in the rock-cut monuments than in the freestanding buildings. Sandstone carving as a separate technique is the product of the Nabataeans, because sandstone was the only stone available in Petra. It seems that this high availability created the interaction between their technical learning and the landscape, and led the Nabataeans to be involved mainly in working sandstone. The use of this stone had the same dominant effect on the techniques they used and developed, as marble or limestone had in Sicily, Greece and Italy, or concrete in Italy. This unique aspect brought the masons to use several technical methods in carving.

This thesis has provided a number of contributions to understanding how the Nabataeans established their own construction techniques for both freestanding buildings and rock-cut monuments in Petra. It is hoped that this thesis will be relevant not only to academic work but also to restoration work at Petra and other classical sites as well. The hope from this study is also to be useful to modern architects and designers who are using the classical tradition in their designs, but desire to know more about the techniques used in carving or constructing them.

However, more technical features were adopted for use in the freestanding buildings than in the rock-cut monuments. The simple explanation for this is that the techniques used in the Nabataean freestanding buildings were borrowed from other freestanding ones, whereas in the larger rock-cut monuments they borrowed the form from other freestanding buildings and not from similar rock-cut ones. In the simple rock-cut facades they used Oriental architectural elements, and thus, the technique was developed locally, as is attested by the inscriptions at Hegra.

It is, however, more than that. There are a number of areas on which I would like to do further research to improve the contributions made, using this thesis as the starting point. In focusing on connecting the study of comparisons on the wider Mediterranean world, not all Nabataean buildings at other sites were analysed. One issue for further research is to enlarge this kind of study for more Nabataean, classical sites, and possibly those in Iran (Parthia). Perhaps the most prominent area for further research is one focusing on the calculation of the total quantities of man power required for carving the monuments. This will extend to examining the organisation of supplies and the logistics of the operation. Surveying all the rock-cut monuments to calculate the volume of stone extracted more accurately is vital. That is for the future, and if this study inspires others to attempt to combine quantitative analysis with their more qualitative studies of Nabataean construction techniques, it will have achieved one of its future aims.

My final and most important point is that the Nabataean construction techniques show amazing exploitation of the possibilities of the available materials. It seems that the factor of outside contact mainly determined the architectural style, while local materials determined the technique used. Although the Nabataeans borrowed some technical elements through their outside contacts, the building materials available controlled the way they used all of them. More simply, trade routes were good to import ideas, but the available materials changed these ideas. The builders were forced to develop the technical elements borrowed to make them suitable for their own use as the local materials required. Although the technique is borrowed, the result is Nabataean because of 39 40

Creswell 1989: 29. McKenzie (in preparation).

227

Bibliography Aharoni, Y, and Avi-Yonah, M. (1968). The Macmillan Bible Atlas. New York: Macmillan. Akurgal, E. (1969). Ancient Civilisation and Ruins of Turkey. Trans. J. Whybrow and M. Emre. Istanbul: Public Affiars Department. Alon, G. (1977). Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World. I. Abrahams (Trans.). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. ‘Amr, K. (1987). The Pottery From Petra: A Neutron Activation Analysis Study. BAR IS 324. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. ‘Amr, K. et al. (1997). “A Preliminary Note on the Wādi Mūsā Salvage Excavation 1996”. ADAJ 41:469-75. ‘Amr, K. et al. (1999). “The Discovery of Two Additional Pottery Kilns at az-Zurrāba/Wādi Mūsā”. ADAJ: 175-94. Amy, R. (1950). “Temples à escaliers”. RB 27: 82-137. Anderson, B. (2003). “Nabataean Crenelated Tombs and the Achaemenid Legacy”. ACORN, Vol. 15. 2: 7-8. Andronicos, M. (1984). Vergina. The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon S.A. Arnold, C. (1989). “Architectural Considerations”, in Naeim 1989: 142-71. Arnold, D. (1991). Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aston, B. et al. (2000). “Stone”, in Ancient Egyptian and Technology: 5-78. Ed. P. Nicholson and I. Shaw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Augé, C. et al. (2002). “ New Excavations in the Qasr AlBint Area at Petra”. ADAJ 46: 309-13. Augé, C. and Dentzer, J. (1993). Petra: Lost City of the Ancient World. Ed. P. Cardinal. New York: Discoveries, Abrams. Avi-Yonah, M. (1966). The Holy Land: From the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640). A Historical Geography. Michigan: Baker Book House. Avi-Yonah, M. (1984). The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule: A Political History of Palestine from the Bar Kokhba War to the Arab Conquest. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. Bachmann, W. et al. 1921. Petra, Wissenchaftliche Veröffentlichungen des deutsch-türkischen Denkmalschutz-Kommandos. Heft 3. Berlin and Leipzig: Vereinigung Wissenschaftlicher Verleger Walter de Gruyter & Co. Ball, W. (2000). Rome in the East. The Transformation of an Empire. London, New York: Routledge. Baranski, M. (1995). “Building Techniques in Palmyra”. SHAJ 5: 231-5. Barjous, M. (1995). Petra and Wadi Al-Lahyana Map. 1: 50,000. Amman: NRA. Bartlett, J. (1990). “From Edomites to Nabataeans: The Problem of Continuity”. ARAM 2: 25-34.

I. Ancient Sources Diodorus Siculus, trans. C. Oldfather at al. LCL. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 1958. Hero of Alexandria, Heronis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt omnia. Vols. I-V. Ed. W. Echmidt, H. Schoene, J. Heiberg. Stutgadiae: In aedibus B.G. Teubneri. Herons von Alexandrin, Mechanik und Katoptrik. Vol. II. Fasc. I. Ed. L. Nix und W. Schmidt. Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von B.G. Teubner.1900. Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities Books XII-XIV. Ed. and trans. R. Marcus. London: Heinemann LCL. 1943. Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities Books XV-XVII. Ed. and trans. R. Marcus and A. Wekgren. London: Heinemann LCL. 1963. Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities Books XVIII-XX. Ed. and trans. L. H. Feldman London: Heinemann LCL. 1965. Josephus, The Jewish War. Trans. G.A. Williamson Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1969. Pliny, Natural History. Ed. and trans. H. Rackham et al. LCL. London: W. Heinemann. 1949-62. Strabo, The Geography of Strabo. Ed.and trans. H. Jones. LCL. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. 1968. Unknown Author, The Periplus of Erythraean Sea. Trans. and Ed. G. W. B. Huntingford. London: the Hakluyt Society. 1980. Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture. Ed. and trans. D. Rowland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999. II. Modern Works Abed, A. (1982). Geology of Jordan. Amman: Al-Nahda Al-Islamiah Library. Abrahams, I. (1927). Campaigns in Palestine from Alexander the Great. The Schweich Lectures 1922. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Abu Dayyah, A. (2001). “Selected Roman Stone Quarries in Central Jordan: A Cultural Recource”. SHAJ 7: 521-31. Abu-Duruk, H. (1986). A Critical and Comparative Discussion of Certain Ancient Monuments, (Part of the City Wall, Qasr Ar-Radm, and Qasr al Hamrā), in the North Arabian City of Taymā in the Light of Evidence Furnished by Excavations. Riyadh: The Department of Antiquities and Museums. Abu Taleb, M. (1984). “Nabayati, Nebayot, Nabayat and Nabatu: The Linguistic Problem Revisited”. Dirasat 11 :3-11. Adam, J. (1994). Roman Building. Materials and Techniques. Trans. by A. Mathews. London: B.T Batsford (French ed. 1984).

229

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Bignasca, A. et al. (1996). Petra. Ez Zantur I. Die Ergebnisse der schweizerisch-liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen, 1988-1992. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Bikai, P. (2002). “North Ridge Project”. ACORN, Vol. 14. 1: 1-4. Blagg, T. (1990). “Column Capitals with Elephant-Head Volutes at Petra”. Levant 22: 131-7. Boardman, J. (2000). Persia and the West. An Archaeological Investigation of the Genesis of Achaemenid Art. London: Thames and Hudson. Bolt, B. (1989). “ The Nature of Earthquake Ground Motion”, in Naeim 1989: 1-31. Bowersock, G. (1983). Roman Arabia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bowersock, G. (2003). “The Nabataeans in Historical Context”, in Markoe 2003: 19-26. Boyd, T. (1976). The Arch and the Vault in Greek Architecture. Michigan: University Microfilms International. Boyd, T. (1978). “The Arch and the Vault in Greek Architecture”. AJA 82: 83-100. Browning, I. (1973). Petra. (1st ed.). London: Chatto and Windus. Browning, I. (1982). Jerash and the Decapolis. London: Chatto and Windus. Browning, I. (1989). Petra. (3rd ed.). London: Chatto and Windus. Bruneau, Ph. (1972). Les mosaiques. Exploration archéologique de Délos 29. Paris: E. De Boccard. Brünnow, R. and von Domaszewski, A. (1904). Die Provincia Arabia Vol. I. Strassburg: von Karl J. Trübner. Brünnow, R. and von Domaszewski, A. (1909). Die Provincia Arabia Vol. II. Strassburg: von Karl J. Trübner. Bundgaard, J. (1957). Mnesicles: A Greek Architect at Work. Scandinavian University Books. Oslo. Buranski, M. (1995). “Building Techniques in Palmyra”. SHAJ V: 231-5. Burckhardt, J. (1822). Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street. Burford, A. (1969). The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros. A Social and Economic Study of Building in the Asklepian Sanctuary during the Fourth and Early Third Centuries B.C. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Butler, H. (1915). Ancient Architecture in Syria. Div. II, Section A. Leiden: Brill. Çevik, N. (2003). “New Rock-Cut Tombs at Etenna and the Rock-Cut Tomb Tradtion in Southern Anatolia”, in Anatolian Studies 53: 97-116. Chassinat, E. (1911). Fouilles à Baouit. MIFAQ. Chiotis, E. and Papadimitriou, G. (1995). “Quarrying of Dimensional Stones in the Hellenistic Period at Kefalos Bay on the Island of Kos”, in The Study of Marble and Other Stones Used in Antiquity: 7-13. (eds.) Y. Maniatis, N. Herz, Y. Basiakos. London: Dorset Press.

Basile, J. (1998). “The Lower Temenos”, in Joukowsky 1998a: 189-208. Bean, G. (1968). Turkey’s Southern Shore: An Archaeological Guide. London: Ernest Benn Lim. Bean, G.(1978). Lycian Turkey: An Archaeological Guide. London: Ernest Benn Lim. Bean, G. (1980). Turkey Beyond the Maeander. London: Ernest Benn Lim. Bedal, L. (2001). “A Pool Complex in Petra’s City Center”. BASOR 324: 23-41. Bedal, L. (2002). “The Petra Garden Feasibility Study, 2001”. ADAJ 46: 381-9. Bellwald, U, et al. (2003). The Petra Siq. Nabataean Hydrology Uncovered. Amman: Petra National Trust. Bender, F. (1974). Geology of Jordan. Berlin, Stuttgart: Gebrüder Borntraeger. Besancon, A. (2000). The Forbidden Image. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Besenval, R. (1984). Technologie de la voute dans l’orient ancien. Vol. 2. Paris. Bessac, J.-Cl. (1986).l’outillage traditional du tailleur de Pierre. De l’ Antiquité à nos jours. Paris: Centre Notianl de la Recherché Scientifique. Bessac, J.-Cl. (1988). “Problems of Identification and Interpretation of Tool Marks on Ancient Marbles and Decorative Stones”, in Herz and Waelkens 1988: 4155. Bessac, J.-Cl. (1996). La Pierre en Gaule Narbonnaise et les (carriers du bois des lens (Nîmes): Histoire, archéologie, ethnographie et techniques. Ann Arbor, Mi: JRA. Supplementary Series no. 16. Bessac, J.-Cl. and Nehmé, L. (2001). “Un pic de creusement du grés d’époque Nabatéenne à Pétra”, in Syria 78: 83-8. Beyen, H. (1938). Die Pompeijanische Wanddekoration vom Zweiten bis zum Vierten Stil. Vol. I. Haag: M. Nijhoff. Beyen, H. (1939).”Die antike Zentralperspecktive”. AA: 47-72. Beyen, H. (1960). Die Pompeijanische Wanddekoration vom Zweiten bis zum Vierten Stil. Vol. II. Haag: M. Nijhoff. Bienkowski, P. (1990). “Umm el-Biyara, Tawilan and Buseirah in Retrospect”. Levant 22: 91-109. Bienkowski, P. (1990a). “Edom and the Edomites: Review Article”. PEQ 22: 139-42. Bienkowski, P. (1995). “The Architecture of Edom”. SHAJ 5: 135-43. Bienkowski, P. (2001). “The Persian Period”, in Levantine Archaeology I. The Archaeology of Jordan: 347-66. Ed. B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Bienkowski, P. (2002). Busayra Excavations by CrystalM. Bennett 1971-1980. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology No. 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bier, L. (1983). “A Sculpted Building Block from Istakhr”, in Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 17: 307-16. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. 230

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT d’époque hellénistique et romaine en Transjordanie”. SHAJ 5: 161-73. Dentzer, J.-M. (2003). “The Nabataeans at Bosra and in Southern Syria”, in Markoe 2003: 109-11. De Roo, R. (1980). “Préface”, Pp.43-52 in Inoubliable Pétra. Le Royaume Nabatéen aux confins du désert, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. Brussels: Snoeck- Ducaju. De Vries, B. (1982). Umm el-Jimal. A Tour Guide. Amman: Department of Antiquities. Dinsmoor, W. (1975). The Architecture of Ancient Greece. New York: W.W. Norton. Drachmann, A. (1963). The Mechanical Technology of Greek and Roman Antiquity. A Study of the Literary Sources. Madison: Munksgaardi. Dunbabin, K. (1999). Mosaics from the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dworakowska, A. (1975). Quarries in Ancient Greece. Poland: Zakland Narodowy im. Ossolinskich. Dworakowska, A. (1983). Quarries in the Roman Provinces. Poland: Zakland Narodowy im. Ossolinskich. Eddinger, T. (2004). “A Nabataean/Roman Temple at Dhat Ras, Jordan”. Near Eastern Archaeology vol.67, no.1. 14-25. Al-Eisawi, D. (1985). “Vegetation in Jordan”. SHAJ 2: 45-57. Evenari, M. (1970). “Die Nabatäer im Negev”, in Petra und das Königreich der Nabatäer: 163-83. Ed. M. Linder. Munich: Delp. Fedak, J. (1990). Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age. A Study of Selected Tombs from the PreClassical to the Early Imperial Era. Toronto, London: University of Toronto Press. Fiema, Z. (1998). “The Roman Street of the Petra Project, 1997: A Preliminary Report”. ADAJ 42: 395-425. Fiema, Z. et al. (2001). The Petra Church. Amman: ACOR. Fischer, M. (1988). “Marble Imports and Local Stone in the Architectural Decoration of Roman Palestine: Marble Trade, Techniques and Artistical Taste”, in Herz and Waelkens 1988: 161-70. Fischer, M. (1998). Marble Studies. Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz GmbH. Foerster, G. (1995). Masada V. The Yageal Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Report: Art and Architecture. Ed. J. Aviram, G. Foerster and E. Netzer. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Frazer, A. (1990). Samothrace 10. The Propylon of Ptolemy II. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Frösén, J. and Fiema, Z. (eds.) (2002). Petra: A City Forgotten and Rediscovered. A Volume associated with the exhibition organized by the Amos Anderson Art Museum in Helsinki, Finland. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Galetti, G. et al. (1992). “A First Characterization of the most Important Granites Used in Antiquity”, in

Clarke, G. (1999). “Tell Jebel Khalid”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: 205-25. (eds.) G. Lete and M. Fenollós. The Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998. a: Editorial AUSA. Clarke, G. (2000). “Jebel Khalid on the Euphrates”, in Mediterranean Archaeology 13: 123-7. Clarke, G. (2003). “Jebel Khalid: The 2002 Season”, in Medeterranean Archaeology 16: 171-5. Clarke, S. and Engelbach, R (1930). Ancient Egyptian Masonry. The Building Craft. Oxford University Press. Colledge, M. (1977). Parthian Art. London: Elek. Colledge, M. (1986). The Parthian Period. Leiden: Brill. Cooper, F. et al. (1983). The Temple of Zeus at Nemea: Perspectives and Prospects. Athens: Benaki Museum. Coulton, J. (1974). “Lifting in Early Greek Architecture”. JHS 94: 1-19. Coulton, J. (1976). The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Coulton, J. (1977). Ancient Greek Architects at Work. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Coulton, J. (1984). “Incomplete Preliminary Planning in Greek Architecture”, in Le Dessin d’architecture dans les sociétés antiques: 103-21. Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasburg. Creswell, K. (1989). A Short Account of early Muslim Architecture. Revised by J. Allan. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Ćurčić, S. (1992). “Design and Structural Innovation in Byzantine Architecture Before Hagia Sophia”, in Hagia Sophia: From the Age of Justinian to the Present: 16-38. Ed. R. Mark and A. Çakmak. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalley, S. and Goguel, A. (1997). “The Sela’ Sculpture: a New-Babylonian Rock Relief in Southern Jordan”. ADAJ 41: 169-77. Dalman, G. (1908). Petra und seine Felsheiligtümer. Leipzig: Hinrichs. Dalman, G. (1911). “The Khazneh at Petra”. PEF 1911: 95-107. Dalman, G. (1912). Neue Petra-Forschungen. Leipzig. Daszewski, W. (1985). Corpus of Mosaics From Egypt I. Hellenistic and Early Roman Period. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern. Dean, N. (1988). “Geochemistry and Archaeological Geology of the Carrara Marble, Carrara, Italy”, in Herz and Waelkens 1988: 315-23. De Franciscis, A. (1978). The Buried Cities, Pompeii and Herculaneum. London: Orbis Books. DeLaine, J. (1997). The Baths of Caracalla. A Study in the Design, Construction, and Economics of Largescale Building Projects in Imperial Rome. Portsmouth, R.I: JRA. Supplementary Series no. 25. Dentzer-Feydy, J. (1990). “Kirbet adh-Dharih: Architectural Decoration of the Temple”. ARAM 2: 161-81. Dentzer-Feydy, J. (1995). “Remarques sur la métrologie et le projet architectural de quelques monuments 231

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Hammond, P. (1996). The Temple of the Winged Lions Petra, Jordan 1973-1990. Fountain Hills, Arizona: Petra Publishing. Hammond, P. (2000). “Nabatean Metallurgy: Foundary and Fraud”, The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer. Ed. L. Stager et al. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Hammond, P. and Jonson, D. (1994). “American Expedition to Petra: The 1990-1993 Season”. ADAJ 38: 333-45. Healey, J. (1989). “Were the Nabataeans Arabs?” ARAM 1: 38-44. Healey, J. (2001). The Religion of the Nabataeans: A Conspectus. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill. Heinen, H. (1984). “The Syrian, Egyptian Wars and the New Kingdoms of Asia Minor”, in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. VII, Part II, the Hellenistic World: 412-46. Ed. F. W. Walbank et al. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Hellmann, M.-CH. (2002). L’Architecture grecque I, les principes de la construction. Paris: Picard. Herz, N. and Waelkens, M. (eds.) (1988). Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hill, D. (1984). A History of Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times. London and New York: Routledge. Hodge, A. (1960). The Woodwork of Greek Roofs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hogarth, D. (1905). The Penetration of Arabia. London: Alston Rivers, Lim. Horsfield, G. and Conway, A. (1938). “Sela-Petra, the Rock of Edom and Nabatene”. QDAP 7: 1-42. Horsfield, G. and Conway, A. (1939). “Sela-Petra, the Rock of Edom and Nabatene”. QDAP 8: 87-116. Horsfield, G. And Conway, A. (1942). “Sela-Petra, the rock of Edom and Nabatene”. QADAP 9: 105-204. Jaser, D. and Bargous, M. (1992). Geotechnical Studies and Geological Mapping of Ancient Petra City. Amman: NRA. Jaser, D. and Barjous, M. (1991). Petra Map. 1: 5000. Amman: NRA. Jaussen, J. and Savignac, R. (1909). Mission archéologique en Arabie, Vol. I. Paris: Institut Francais d’archéologie Orientale. Jaussen, J. and Savignac, R. (1914). Mission archéologique en Arabie, Vol. II. Paris: Institut Francais d’archéologie Orientale. Joukowsky, M. (1994). “1993 Archaeological Excavations and Survey of the Southern Temple at Petra, Jordan”. ADAJ 38: 293-333. Joukowsky, M. (1996). “1995 Archaeological Excavation of the Southern Temple at Petra, Jordan”. ADAJ 40: 177-207. Joukowsky, M. (1997). “The 1996 Brown University Archaeological Excavations at The ‘Great’ Southern Temple at Petra”. ADAJ 41: 195-219.

Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Trade and Provenance: 167-179. Ed. M. Waelkens, N. Herz, and L. Moens. Leuven: Lueven University Press. Gates, C. (2003). Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece, and Rome. London and New York: Routledge. Gibson, S. et al. (1994). “The Triclinium of the Domus Flavia: A New Reconstruction”. PBSR 62: 67-97. Ginouvés, R. and Martin, R. (1985). Dictionnaire Méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine I. Matériaux, techniques de construction, techniques et formes du décor. Paris: pubié avec le concows du Centre national de la recherché ecientifique. Glueck, N. (1934/35). “Explorations in Eastern Palestine II.” AASOR 15. Glueck, N. (1965). Deities and Dolphins: The Story of the Nabataeans. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Glueck, N. (1966). Deities and Dolphins. London: Cassell & Company Ltd. Graf, D. (1990). “The Origin of the Nabataeans”. ARAM 2: 45-75. Graf, D. (1996). “The Roman East from the Chinese Perspective”, Pp. 199-216 in Palmyra and the Silk Road. AAAS 42. Graf, D. and Sidebotham, S. (2003). “Nabataean Trade”, in Markoe 2003: 65-75. Groom, N. (1981). Frankincense and Myrrh: A Study of the Arabian Incense Trade. Harlow: Longman Group Limited, and Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Grossmann, P. (1991). “Holzbewehrung in römischen und spätantiken Mauerwerk in Ägypten”. Bautechnik der Antike: 56-62. (eds.) A. Hoffmann et al. Mainz: von Zabern. Groy, M. (1980). “Travaux de l’I.G.N. dans la region de Pétra”, in Inoubliable Pétra: 43-52. Le Royaume Nabatéen aux confins du désert, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. Brussels: Snoeck- Ducaju. Guzzo, M. and Schneider, E. (2002). Petra. Trans. L. Cochrane. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hamilton, R. (1939). “The Domed Tomb at Sebastya”. QDAP 8: 64-71. Hammond, P. (1965). The Excavations of the Main Theater at Petra 1961-1962. London: Bernard Quaritch. Hammond, H. (1973). The Nabataeans: Their History, Culture and Archaeology. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 37. Gothenburg: Aströn. Hammond, P. (1975). “Survey and Excavation at Petra, 1973-1974”. ADAJ 20: 5-30. Hammond, P. (1977). “Capitals from the Temple of the Winged Lions, Petra”. BASOR 226: 47-51. Hammond, P. (1977-8). “Excavations at Petra 19751977”. ADAJ 22: 81-101. Hammond, P. (1987). “Three Workshops at Petra (Jordan)”. PEQ 1987: 129-41. Hammond, P. (1995). “Nabataean Architectural Technology”. SHAJ 5: 215-21.

232

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Kloner, A. (2003a). Survey of Jerusalem. The Northwestern Sector Introduction and Indices. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Kloner, A. (2003b). Maresha Excavations: Final Report I. Subterranean Complexes 21,44,70. IAA Reports, No.17. Jerusalem: The Israel Antiquities Authority. Knauf, E. (1986). “Die Herkunft der Nabatäer”, in Lindner (ed.) 1986: 74-86. Knauf, E. (1989). “Nabataean Origins”, in Arabian Studies in Honour of Mahmoud Ghul: 56-6. Ed. M. Ibrahim. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kohl, H. (1910). Kasr Firaun in Petra. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Kolaiti, E. and Mendoni, L. (1992). “The Relation between a Quarrying Site and a City-Centre. The Case of the Ancient City of Karthaia, Keos Island, Greece”. in Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Trade and Provenance: 29-37. (eds.) M. Waelkens, N. Herz, L. Moens. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Kolb, B. (2003). “Petra - From Tent to Mansion Living on the Terraces of Ez-Zantur”, in Markoe 2003: 2309. Kolb, B. et al. (1993). “Preliminary Report of the SwissLiechtenstein Excavations at ez-Zantur in Petra 1992: The Fourth Campaign”. ADAJ 37: 417-26 Kolb, B. et al. (1997). “Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at az-Zantur in Petra 1996: The Seventh Season”. ADAJ 41: 231-54. Kolb, B. et al. (1998). “Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at az-Zantur in Petra 1997”. ADAJ 42: 259-78. Kolb, B. et al. (1999). “Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations on az-Zantur in Petra, 1998”. ADAJ 43: 261-77. Kolb, B. et al. (2000). “Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at az-Zantur/Petra: The Tenth Campaign”. ADAJ 44: 355-72. Kolb, B. et al. (2002). “Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at az-Zantur/Petra: The Twelfth Season”. ADAJ 46: 279-94. Korres, M. (1995a). From Pentelicon to the Parthenon. Athens: Publishing House “Melissa”. Korres, M. (1995b). “The Ancient Quarries on Mount Pentelikon”, in The Study of Marble and Other Stones Used in Antiquity: 1-7 (eds.) Y. Maniatis, N. Herz and Y. Basiakos. London: Dorset Press. Korres, M. and Bouras, Ch. (1983). Meleti apokatastaseos tou Parthenona (A Study for the Restoration of the Parthenon). Athens: The Ministry of Culture and Sciences. The Committee for the Conservation of the Acropolis Monuments. Kraeling, C. (1938). Gerasa City of the Decapolis. New Haven, Conn.: The American of Oriental Research. Kühlenthal, M. and Fisher, H. (2000). Petra. The Restoration of the Rockcut Tomb Facade: GermanJordanian Project for the Establishment of a Conversation Center in Petra. Munich: Karl M. Lipp. Lancaster, L. (1999). “Building Trajan’s Column”. AJA 103: 419-39. Larché, F. and Zayadine, F. (2003). “The Qasr al-Bint of Petra”, in Markoe 2003: 199-213.

Joukowsky, M. (ed.) (1998a). Petra Great Temple. Vol. I. Providence, RI: Brown University, Petra Exploration Fund. Joukowsky, M. (1998b). “History of the Brown University Excavations”, in Joukowsky 1998a: 48148. Joukowsky, M. (1998c). “Brown University 1997 Excavations at the Petra Great Temple”. ADAJ 42: 293-318. Joukowsky, M. (1999). “Brown University 1998 Excavations at the Petra Great Temple”. ADAJ 43: 195-222. Joukowsky, M. (2002). “The Brown University 2001 Petra Great Temple Excavations Offer More Surprises”. ADAJ 46: 331-5. Joukowsky, M. (2003). “The Great Temple”, in Markoe 2003: 214-22. Joukowsky, M. and Basile, J. (2001). ”More Pieces in the Petra Great Temple Puzzle”. BASOR 324: 43-58. Joukowsky, M. and Schluntz, E. (1995). ”1994 Archaeological Excavations and Survey of the Southern Temple at Petra, Jordan”. ADAJ 39: 24167. Kanellopoulos, C. (2001). “The Architecture of the Shops and Colonnaded Street in Petra”. BASOR 324: 9-22. Kanellopoulos, C. (2002). “The Monumental Entrance to the Upper Market and the Trajanic Inscription at Petra, the Architectural Context”. ADAJ 46: 295-308. Kanellopoulos, C. and Akasheh, T. (2001). “The Petra Map”. BASOR 324: 5-7. Kennedy, A. (1925). Petra: Its History and Monuments. London: Country Life. Khairy, N. (1990). The 1981 Petra Excavations. Vol. I. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Khouri, L. (Forthcoming). “Nabataean Pilgrimage as Seen through their Archaeological Remains”. ARAM Twenty First International Conference: Pilgrimages of Shrines in the Syrian Orients. Khouri, R. (1986). Jerash: A Frontier City of the Roman East. London and New York: Longmans. Al-Khowaiter, A. (ed.) (1975). An Introduction to Saudi Arabian Antiquities. Riyadh: Department of Antiquities and Museums. Kirkbride, D. (1960). “A Short Account of the Excavations at Petra in 1955-6”. ADAJ 4-5: 117-22. Klemm, R. and Klemm, D. (1992). Steine und Steinbruche im alten Ägypten. New York: Springer. Kloner, A. (1980). The Necropolis at Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. DPhD thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Kloner, A. (2000). Survey of Jerusalem. The Southern Sector Introduction and Indices. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Kloner, A. (2001). Survey of Jerusalem. The Northeastern Sector Introduction and Indices. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Kloner, A. (2001-2). “Water Cisterns in Idumia, Judea and Nabatea in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods”. ARAM, 13-14: 461-85.

233

SHAHER M. RABABEH

McKenzie, J. (1987). “The Dating of the Principal Monuments at Petra: A New Approach”. SHAJ 3: 295-305. McKenzie, J. (1990). The Architecture of Petra. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKenzie, J. (1991). “The Beduin at Petra: The Historical Sources”. Levant 23: 139-46. McKenzie, J. (2001). “Keys from Egypt and the East: Observations on Nabataean Culture in the Light of Recent Discoveries”. BASOR 324: 97-111. McKenzie, J. (2003). “Carvings in the Desert: The Sculpture of Petra and Khirbet et-Tannur”, in Markoe 2003: 165-91. McKenzie, J. (2003a). “Glimpsing Alexandria from Archaeological Evidence”. JRA 16: 35-63. McKenzie, J. (2004). “Temples, Tombs, and other Recent Discoveries from the Rose Red City”. JRA 17: 55968. McKenzie, J. (in preparation). The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt 300 BC-AD 700. McKenzie, J. et al. (2002). “Reconstruction of the Nabataean Temple Complex at Khirbet et-Tannur”. PEQ 134: 44-83. McKenzie, J. and Phippen, A. (1987). “The Chronology of the Principal Monuments at Petra”. Levant 19: 145-65. McQuity, A. (2001). “The Ottoman Period”, in Levantine Archaeology I. The Archaeology of Jordan: 561-94. Ed. B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Meiggs, R. (1982). Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Meza, A. (1996). “The Egyptian Statuette in Petra and the Isis Cult Connection”. ADAJ 40: 167-77. Milik, J. (1982). “Origines des Nabatéens.” SHAJ 1: 2615. Miller, J. (1969). The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire. 29 B.C. to A.D. 641. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Al-Muheisen, Z. (1986). Techniques hydrauliques dans le sud de la Jordanie en particuliére l’époque nabatéene. Unpublished dissertation. University of Paris. Murray, M. and Ellis, J. (1940). A Street in Petra. British School of Archaeology in Egypt: B. Quaritch. Musti, D. (1984). “Syria and the East”, in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. VII, Part II, the Hellenistic World: 175-221. Ed. F. Walbank et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Naeim, F. (ed.) (1989). The Seismic Design Handbook. New York: van Nostrand Reinhold. Negev, A. (1966). Cities of the Desert. (trans.) M. Roston. Tel-Aviv: E. Lewin-Epstein. Negev, A. (1973). “The Staircase-tower in Nabataean Architecture”. RB 80: 374-83. Negev, A. (1976). “The Early Beginnings of the Nabataean Realm.” PEQ 108-109: 125-33. Negev, A. (1986). Nabatean Archaeology Today. New York and London: New York University Press.

Lauter, H. (1971). “Ptolemais in Libyen: Ein Beitrag zur Baukunst Alexandrias”, Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts 86: 149-78. Lawlor, J. (1974). The Nabataeans in Historical Perspective. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House. Lawrence, A. (1996). Greek Architecture. Rev. R A. Tomlinson. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Lindner, M. (ed.) (1986). Petra: Neue Ausgrabungen und Entdeckungen. Münich, Bad Windsheim: Delp. Lindner, M. and J.P. Zeitler (eds.) (1991). Petra: Königin der Weihrauchstrasse. Fürth: UKA. Lindner, M. and Gunsam, E. (2002). A Fortified Suburb of Ancient Petra: Shammāsa. ADAJ 46:225-42. Ling, R. (1984). “Hellenistic Civilization”, in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. VII, Part II, the Hellenistic World: 91-207. (eds.) F. W. Walbank et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ling, R. (1987). “Against the Reverse Technique”. CMGR 5: 77-88. Ling, R. (1998a). Ancient Mosaics. London: British Museum Press. Ling, R. (1998b). Roman Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Littmann, E. and D. Meredith (1953a). “Nabataean Inscriptions from Egypt I”. BSOAS 15: 1-28. Littmann, E. and D. Meredith (1953b). “Nabataean Inscriptions from Egypt II”. BSOAS 16: 211-46. Lloyd, A. (2000). “The Ptolemaic Period (332-30 BC)”, in Shaw 2000: 395-422. Lucas, A. (1962). Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. Revised by J. R. Harris. London: Edward Arnold. Lyttelton, M. (1974). Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson. Lyttelton, M. and Blagg, T. (1990). “Sculpture in Nabataean Petra, and the Question of Roman Influence”, in Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire: 91-107. Ed. M. Henig. Oxford: Oxford University, Committee for Archaeology. Monograph No. 29. MacDonald, B. (2000). East of Jordan. Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures. Boston, Mass.: ACOR. Manley, B. (1996). The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt. London: Penguin Books. Markoe, G. (ed.) (2003). Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans. New York: Abrams. Martín, R. (1965). Manuel d’architecture grecque 1: Matériaux et techniques. Paris: J. Picard. Mason, J. and ‘Amr, K. (1990). “A Study of Nabataean Pottery Manufacturing Techniques: An Experiment for Reconstructing the Production of Fine Bowls”. ARAM2: 287-307. McCredie, J. et al. (1992). Samothrace. The Rotunda of Arsinoe. Princeton: Princeton University Press. McKay, W. (1970). Building Construction. Vol.II. London and New York: Longman. 234

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Patrich, J. (1990). The Formation of Nabataean Art. Prohibition of a Graven Image among the Nabataeans. London: Brill. Peacock, D. (1988). “The Roman Quarries of Mons Claudianus, Egypt. An Interim Report”, in Herz and Waelkens 1988: 97-101. Peacock, D. (2000). “The Roman Period (30 BC-AD 311)”, in Shaw 2000: 422-46. Peschlow-Bindokat, A. (1990). Die Steinbrüche von Selinunt: die Cave di Cusa und die Cave di Barone. Mainz: Zabern. Pflüger, F. (1995). “Archaeo-Geology in Petra, Jordan”. ADAJ 39: 281-97. Pijoan, J. (1927). History of Art. Vol. I. Trans. R. Roys. Barcelona: Salvat. Pierre, G. (1996). L’ architecture romaine: du debut du IIIe siècle av. J.-C. à la fin du Haut-Empire. Part 1: les monuments publics. Paris: Picard. Pierre, G. (2001). L’ architecture romaine: du debut du IIIe siècle av. J.-C. à la fin du Haut-Empire. Part 2: Maisons, Palais, Villas et tombeaux. Paris: Picard. Plommer, H. (1956). Ancient and Classical Architecture. London: Longmans, Green. Politt, J. (1986). Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raschke, M. (1978). “New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East”, in Aufstieg und niedergang der römischen Welt (Geschichte und Kultur Roms in Spiegel der neueren Forschung), II. 9. 2: 604-1378. Ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Reich, R. (1992). “Building Materials and Architectural Elements in Ancient Israel”, in Reich and Kempinski 1992: 1-17. Reich, R. and Kempinski, A. (eds.) (1992). The Architecture of Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Reid, S. (2002). “Excavations at the Petra Small Temple 2000-2001”. ADAJ 46: 363-79. Richter, G. (1988). Kouroi. Achaic Greek Maidens. A Study of the Development of the Kore Type in Greek Sculpture. New York: Hacker Art Books. Robertson, C. (1965). “Greek Mosaics”. JHS 85: 72-101. Robertson, D. (1943). A Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roche, M. (1996). “Remarques sur les Nabatéens en Méditerranéa”. Semitica 45: 73-99. Rockwell, P. (1993). The Art of Stoneworking: A Reference Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rostovtzeff, M. (1941). The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Russell, K. (1980). “The Earthquake of May 19, A.D. 363”. BASOR 238: 47-64. Russell, K. (1985). “The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd through the Mid-8 Century A.D”. BASOR 260: 37-59.

Negev, A. (1988a). The Architecture of Mampsis. Final Report. Vol. I: The Middle and Late Nabataean Periods. Qedem 26. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Negev, A. (1988b). The Architecture of Mampsis. Final Report. Vol.II: The Late Roman and Byzantine Periods. Qedem 27. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Negev, A. (1990). “Mampsis. The End of a Nabataean Town”. ARAM 2: 337-65. Negev, A. (2003). ”The Negev and the Nabataeans”, in Markoe 2003: 101-105. Nehmé, L. (2000). “The World of the Nabataeans 312 BC-106 AD”, in The Levant: History and Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean: 140-85. Ed. O. Binst. France: Könemann. Nehmé, L. (2003). ”The Petra Survey Project”, in Markoe 2003: 144-63. Nehmé, L. and Villeneuve, F. (1999). Pétra. Métropole de l’Arabie antique. France: Seuil. Netzer, E. (1977). “The Winter Palaces of the Judean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period”. BASOR 228: 1-13. Netzer, E. (1992). “Massive Structures: Processes in Construction and Deterioration”, in The Architecture of Ancient Israel, from pre-Historic to the Persian Periods: 17-28. Ed. R. Reich and A. Keminski. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Netzer, E. (2001a). The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great. Jerusalem: Yadin Ben-Zvi Press and the Israel Exploration Society. Netzer, E. (2001b). Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces of Jericho. Vol. I. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Netzer, E. (2003). Nabatäische Architektur. Mainz: von Zabern. Onians, J. (1979). Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age: The Greek World View 350-50 BC. London: Thames and Hudson. Orlandos, A. (1966). Les Matériaux de construction et la technique architectural des anciens Grecs 1. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard. Orlandos, A. (1968). Les Matériaux de construction et la technique architectural des anciens Grecs 2. Paris: Éditions E. de Boccard. Owens, E. (1991). The City in the Greek and Roman World. London and New York: Routledge. Paradise, T. (1998). “Environmental Setting and Stone Weathering”, in Joukowsky 1998a: 149-66. Parr, P. (1960). “Excavations at Petra, 1958-59”. PEQ 92: 124-35. Parr, P. (1967/8). “Recent Discoveries in the Sanctuary of the Qasr Bint Far’un at Petra”. ADAJ 12-13: 5-19. Parr, P. (1968). “The Investigation of Some ‘inaccessible’ Rock-cut Chambers at Petra”. PEQ 100: 5-16. Parr, P. (1990). “Sixty Years of Excavation in Petra: An Assessment”. ARAM 2: 7-23. Parr, P. (2003). “The Origins and Emergence of the Nabataeans”, in Markoe 2003: 27-37. Parr, P. et al. (1975). “Photogrammetric Work at Petra, (1965-1968), an Interim Report”. ADAJ 20: 31-95.

235

SHAHER M. RABABEH

Schluntz, E. (1998a). “The Upper Temenos and the Great Temple”, in Joukowsky 1998a: 209-24. Schluntz, E. (1998b). “The Architectural Sculpture of the Great Temple”, in Joukowsky 1998a: 225-36. Schluntz, E. (1999). From Royal to Public Assembly Space: The Transformation of the “Great Temple” Complex at Petra, Jordan. Ph.D dissertation, Brown University. University Microfilms International. Schmid, S. (1999). “Un roi nabatéen à Délos?”. ADAJ 43: 279-98. Schmid, S. (2001). “The Nabataeans: Travellers between Life Styles”, in Levantine Archaeology I. The Archaeology of Jordan: 367-426. Ed. B. MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Schmid, S. (2002a). “From Aretas to the Annexation Petra and the Nabataeans”, in Frösén and Fiema 2002: 44-59. Schmid, S. (2002b). “The International Wadi Farasa Project (IWFP) Preliminary Report on the 2001 Season”. ADAJ 46: 257-77. Schmid, S. and Kolb, B. (2000). Petra. Ez Zantur II. Ergebnisse der schweizerisch-liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen. Mainz: von Zabern. Schmid, S. et al. (2000). Petra ez-Zantur II. Mainz: von Zabern. Schmidt-Colinet, A. (1987). “The Mason’s Workshop of Hegra, Its Relations to Petra, and the Tomb of Syllaios”. SHAJ 3: 143-51. Schmitt-Korte, K. (1991). “Die Nabatäer im Spiegel der Münzen”, in Lindner and Zeitler 1991: 135-84. Schoff, W. (trans. and commentary) (1914). Parthian Stations by Isidore of Charax. An Account of the Overland Trade Route between the Levant and India in the First Century B.C. Philadelphia: Commercial Museum. Sear, F. (1982). Roman Architecture. London: Batsford. Segal, A. (1975). The Planning of the Cities Along the Via Trajana Nova in the Roman Period. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Segal, A. (1985). The Byzantine City of Shivta (Esbeita), Negev Desert, Israel. BAR 15 179. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Segal, A. (1995). Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia. Leiden: Brill. Segal, A. (1997). From Function to Monument. Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine Syria and Provincia Arabia. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Segal, A. et al. (2003). Hippos-Sussita: Fourth Season of Excavations, June-July 2003. Haifa: University of Haifa. Shaer, M. and Aslan, Z. (1997). “Architectural Investigation on the Building Techniques of the Nabataeans with Reference to Tomb 825”. ADAJ 41: 219-31. Shaer, M. and Aslan, Z. (2000). “Nabataean Building Techniques with Special References to the Architecture of Tomb 825 (Tomb of Fourteen Graves)”, in Kühlenthal and Fisher 2000: 89-109.

Shaw, I. (ed.) (2000). The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shehadeh, N. (1985). “The Climate of Jordan in the Past and Present”. SHAJ 2: 25-37. Shiloh, Y. (1979). “The Proto-Aeolic Capital and Israelite Ashlar Masonry”. QEDEM II. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. Smith, C. (1956). Tombs, Temples and Ancient Art. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. Smith, R. R. R. (1988). Hellenistic Royal Portraits. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Šrámek, J. (1992). “Porosimetric Identification of Sandstones and Arkoses Used on Historical Buildings”, in Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Trade and Provenance: 223-31. Ed. M. Waelkens, N. Herz, and L. Moens. Leuven: Lueven University Press. Starcky, J. (1955). “The Nabataeans: A Historical Sketch”. BA 18, no. 4: 84-106. Stewart, A. (2003). “The Khazneh”, in Markoe 2003: 193-8. Statham, H. (1950). A History of Architecture. London: Batsford. Stucky, R. (1995). “The Nabataean House and the Urbanistic System of the Habitation Quarters in Petra”. SHAJ 5: 193-98. Stucky, R. et al. (1990). “Schweizer Ausgrabungen in ezZantur, Petra: Vorbericht der Kampagne 1988”. ADAJ 34: 249-84. Stucky, R. et al. (1991). “Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at ez-Zantur in Petra 1989: The Second Campaign”. ADAJ 35: 251-74. Stucky, R. et al. (1992). “Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at ez-Zantur in Petra 1991: The Third Campaign”. ADAJ 36: 175-92. Stucky, R. et al. (1994). “Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at ez-Zantur in Petra 1993: The Fifth Campaign”. ADAJ 38: 271-92. Stucky, R. et al. (1995). “Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at az-Zantur in Petra 1994: The Sixth Campaign”. ADAJ 39: 297-316. Tarn, W. (1966). Hellenistic Civilisation. Revised by the author and G. Griffith. London: Methuen. Taylor, G. (1967). The Roman Temples of Lebanon. Beirut: Dar el Machreq Publishers. Taylor, J. (2001). Petra and the Lost Kingdom of the Nabataeans. London: I. B.Tauris. Taylor, R. (2003). Roman Builders. A Study in Architecture Process. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. al-Tel, S. (1969). “The New Archaeological Studies in Jordan”. ADAJ 14: 29-37 (in Arabic). Thiersch, H. (1900). “Zwei Gräber der römischen Kaiserzeit in Gabbari (Alexandaria)”. BSAA 3: 7-40. Thomson, H. (1960). “A Row of Cedar Beams“, PEQ 92: 57-63. Thorn, J. (Forthcoming). The Necropolis of Cyrene. Two Hundreds years of Exploration. Vol. I-III. Rome: L’Erma di Breitshneider.

236

HOW PETRA WAS BUILT Wright, G. R. H. (1961a). “Structure of the Qasr Bint Farun. A Preliminary Review”. PEQ 93: 8-37. Wright, G.R.H. (1961b). “Petra. The Arched Gate, 195960”. PEQ 93: 124-35. Wright, G.R.H. (1962). “The Khazne at Petra”. ADAJ 67: 24-54. Wright, G.R.H. (1969). “Strabo on Funerary Customs at Petra”. PEQ 101: 113-16. Wright, G.R.H. (1969). “Petra-The Arched Gate, 195960: Some Additional Drawings”. PEQ 102: 111-15. Wright, G.R.H. (1985). “The Qasr Bint Fir’aun at Petra. A Detail Reconsidered”. DaM 2: 321-5. Wycherley, R. (1951). “Hellenistic Cities”. The Town Planning Review, 22.3: 177-206. Wycherley, R. (1962). How the Greeks Built Cities. London: Macmillan. Yon, J. 2000. “The Greco-Roman Era: BC 323 -337AD”, in The Levant: History and Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean: 80-139. Ed. O. Binst. France: Könemann. Zayadine, F. (1973). “Excavations at Petra 1973-74”, ADAJ 19: 138-40. Zayadine, F. (1974). “Excavations at Petra (1973-74)”. ADAJ 19: 135-50. Zayadine, F. (1979). “Excavations at Petra (1976-1978)”. ADAJ 23: 185-97. Zayadine, F. (1981). “Recent Excavations and Restoration at the Department of Antiquities (197980)”. ADAJ 25: 341-55. Zayadine, F. (1982). “Recent Excavations at Petra (197981)”. ADAJ 26: 356-95. Zayadine, F. (1985a). “Recent Excavation and Restoration at Qasr el-Bint of Petra”. ADAJ 29: 23949. Zayadine, F. (1985b). “Caravan Routes between Egypt and Nabataea and the Voyage of Sultan Baibars to Petra in 1276”. SHAJ 2: 159-74. Zayadine, F. (1986). “Temple, Gräber, Töpferofen”, in Neue Ausgrabungen und Entdeckungen: 214-72. Ed. M. Lindner. Munich: Del. Zayadine, F. (1987). “Decorative Stucco at Petra and the Hellenistic Sites”. SHAJ 3: 131-43. Zayadine, F. (1990). “The Pantheon of the Nabataean Inscriptions in Egypt and the Sinai”. ARAM 2: 15174. Zayadine, F. (1992). “L’espace urbain du grand Pétra, les routes et les stations caravanieres”. ADAJ 36: 217-41. Zayadine, F. (2000). “Notes on the Early History and the Kingdom of the Nabataeans”, in Kühlenthal and Fisher 2000: 52-67. Zayadine, F. et al. (2003). Le Qasr al-Bint de Pétra l’architecture, le décor, la chronolgie et les dieux. Paris: E’ditions Recherche sur les Civilisation. Zeitler, J. (1990). “A Private Building from the First Century B.C in Petra”. ARAM 2: 385-420. Zim, H. and Shaffar, P. (1957). Rocks and Minerals. A Guide to Familiar Minerals, Gems, Ores and Rocks. New York: Golden Press.

Tomlinson, R. (1961). “Emplekton Masonry and Greek Structura”. JHS 81: 133-40. Torrey, C. (1949). “The Exiled God of Sarepta”. Berytus 9: 45-49. Waelkens, M. et al. (1988). “Patterns of Excavation and Production in the White Marble Quarries of the Mediterranean: History, Present Problems and Prospects”, in Ancient Marble Quarrying and Trade: 81-117. (ed.) J. Clayton Fant. BAR IS 453. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Waelkens, M. et al. (1988b). “Quarries and the Marble Trade in Antiquity”, in Herz and Waelkens 1988: 2931. Waelkens, M. et al. (1990). “The Quarrying Techniques of the Greek World”, in Art Historical and Scientific Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture: 47-73. (eds.) M. True and J. Podany. California: Getty Museum. Waelkens, M. (1992). “Bronze Age Quarries and Quarrying Techniques in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East”, in Ancient Stones: Quarrying, Trade and Provenance: 5-21. Ed. M. Waelkens, N. Herz, and L. Moens. Leuven: Lueven University Press. Walker, S. (1988). “From West to East: Evidence for a Shift in the Balance of Trade in White Marbles”, in Herz and Waelkens 1988: 187-95. Ward-Perkins, J. (1974). Cities of Ancient Greece and Italy: Planning in Classical Antiquity. New York: George Brazillier. Ward-Perkins, J. (1981). Roman Imperial Architecture. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. Ward-Perkins, J. (1992). Marble in Antiquity. Collected Papers of J.B. Ward-Perkins. Archaeological Monographs of the British School of Rome No. 6. Ed. H. Dodge and B. Ward-Perkins. London: British School at Rome. Ward-Perkins, J. (1994). Studies in Roman and Early Christian Architecture. London: Pinder Press. Wenning, R. (1987). Die Nabatäer Denkmäler und Geshichte: Eine Bestandesaufnahme des archäologischen Befundes. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Wenning, R. (2003). “The Rock-Cut Architecture of Petra”, in Markoe 2003: 133-43. Wiegand, T. et al. (1921). Petra. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen des deutsch-türkischen Denkmalschutz- Kommandos, Heft 3. Berlin: Springer. White, K. (1984). Greek and Roman Technology. London: Thames and Hudson. Will, E. and Larché, F. (1991). Iraq Al-Amir. Le château du Tobiad Hyrcan. Paris: Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Wilson-Jones, M. (2000). Principles of Roman Architecture. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Woodford, S. (1982). The Art of Greece and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

237