The Ceramic Oil Lamp as an Indicator of Cultural Change Within Nabataean Society in Petra and Its Environs Circa CE 106 1593336284, 9781593336288

Citation preview

The Ceramic Oil Lamp as an Indicator of Cultural Change within Nabataean Society in Petra and its Environs circa CE 106

Gorgias Dissertations 32 Near Eastern Studies 8

The Ceramic Oil Lamp as an Indicator of Cultural Change within Nabataean Society in Petra and its Environs circa CE 106 Deirdre Grace Barrett

Gorgias Press 2008

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2008 Copyright © 2008 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN 978-1-59333-628-8

Gorgias Press

46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Barrett, Deirdre Grace. The ceramic oil lamp as an indicator of cultural change within Nabataean society in Petra and its environs circa ce 106 / Deirdre Grace Barrett. p. cm. ISBN-13: 978-1-59333-628-8 1. Nabataeans. 2. Petra (Extinct city) 3. Ceramic lamps--Jordan--Petra (Extinct city) I. Title. DS154.22.B37 2008 939’.48--dc22 2007044251 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents................................................................................... v List of Illustrations ................................................................................xi Preface .................................................................................................. xv Abbreviations ...................................................................................... xxi 1 Introduction and Theoretical Concerns ......................................... 1 The theory of Romanization.......................................................... 2 Cultural identity ............................................................................. 4 A question of authenticity .............................................................. 6 Religious practice............................................................................ 6 Roman religious practice ................................................................ 7 The rise of Augustus ....................................................................... 7 Religious revival.............................................................................. 8 Nabataean religious practice ......................................................... 10 Recovering identity....................................................................... 12 2 The Geography and History of Nabataea .................................... 15 The city and environs of Petra ..................................................... 15 The physical geography ................................................................ 15 The human geography.................................................................. 16 Historical sources.......................................................................... 18 Language ....................................................................................... 20 The history of the Nabataean monarchy ..................................... 21 The establishment of local élites................................................... 21 A brief history of the Nabataean royal house .............................. 22 3 Sacred and Ceremonial Sites ......................................................... 29 The city of Petra ........................................................................... 29 Temples and ceremonial sites ....................................................... 30 The Great Temple—a ceremonial site .......................................... 30 The Great Temple site (Fig. 3.3)................................................... 32 v

vi

4

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP The building of the Great Temple (Fig. 3.5) ................................ 33 Chronology for the site ................................................................ 41 Lamp fragments (NISP—number of identified specimens) .......... 41 The sanctuary of Khirbet et-Tannur ............................................ 41 The temple complex ..................................................................... 42 Lamp fragments ............................................................................ 44 Cult paraphernalia ........................................................................ 44 High Places ................................................................................... 44 Funerary practice.......................................................................... 45 The North Ridge Shaft Tombs—a funerary site .......................... 46 The Ridge Church—constructed at the end of the fourth century CE (Bikai 2002:1)..................................................... 47 The Blue Chapel Complex—constructed before the mid-sixth century CE (Figs. 3.15, 3.16)................................................. 48 The Tombs—in use during the first century CE (Fig. 3.17)......... 48 The construction of Tomb 1 (information taken from Bikai and Perry 2001:59–60)........................................................... 49 The construction of Tomb 2 (information taken from Bikai and Perry 2001:60–62)........................................................... 49 Report on the skeletal material (information taken from Bikai and Perry 2001:62–65)........................................................... 50 Lamp fragments—number of identified specimens (NISP) .......... 51 Comparative evidence from the three sites .................................. 52 The Ceramic Oil Lamp, Function, Form and Type .................... 53 Manufacture.................................................................................. 54 Sourcing of ceramics..................................................................... 56 Using INAA ................................................................................. 56 Function ....................................................................................... 57 Lamps used in religious practice................................................... 58 Lamps used as funerary offerings ................................................. 59 Antiquarian Collections and Catalogues of Lamps...................... 60 Methodology ................................................................................ 60 Lamp fragments as data ................................................................ 60 Determining lamp presence from the number of identified specimens (NISP) .................................................................. 61 Weight versus number of fragments............................................. 62 Great Temple site and North Ridge funerary site ....................... 62

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

Khirbet et-Tannur site .................................................................. 63 Typology for lamps found within sites ........................................ 64 Chronological Periods .................................................................. 64 Chronology (Rast 1992)................................................................ 65 Use of Munsell Color Charts ....................................................... 65 Notes and Conventions ................................................................ 66 Typology .............................................................................................. 68 Hellenistic imported lamps and local copies (Dated from midsecond century BCE–first century CE) ................................ 68 1. Delphinform (Fig. 4.5) .......................................................... 68 2. Lamp fragments related to delphinform ............................... 68 3. Wheelmade round lamp (Fig. 4.6)......................................... 69 4. Syrian lamp type (Fig. 4.7) .................................................... 70 5. Lampfiller for oil lamps (Fig. 4.8) ......................................... 71 6. Apprentice lamp (Fig. 4.9) .................................................... 72 7. Ptolemaic Egyptian lamp with palmette (Fig. 4.10).............. 73 8. Herodian lamp (Fig. 4.11) ..................................................... 73 9. Polycandela (Fig. 4.12) .......................................................... 74 Roman and imported lamps, local copies and Nabataean lamps (Dated from first century BCE–first century CE) ................ 75 10. Roman rosette lamp (Fig. 4.13)............................................. 75 11. Locally made rosette lamp (Fig. 4.14) ................................... 76 12. Locally made lamp with scallop shell motif (Fig. 4.15) ........ 78 13. Roman banded decorated discus lamp (Fig. 4.16) ................. 79 14. Locally made banded decorated discus lamp (Fig. 4.17) ....... 80 15. Roman decorated discus lamp (Fig. 4.18).............................. 80 16. Locally made decorated discus lamp (Fig. 4.19) .................... 81 17. Locally made discus lamp with Eros motif (Fig. 4.20).......... 82 18. Roman symplegma lamp (Fig. 4.21)...................................... 83 19. Unidentified locally made base with potter’s mark—no example shown...................................................................... 84 Nabataean indigenous lamps dated to first century CE ............... 84 20–24. Nabataean volute type A and B lamps (Figs. 4.22, 4.23) ... 84 20. Nabataean volute type A lamp (Fig. 4.22) ............................ 85 21. Nabataean volute type B (Fig. 4.23) ...................................... 85 22. Nabataean volute type B inscribed (Fig. 4.24) ...................... 86 23. Nabataean volute types A and B fragments .......................... 87

viii

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

24. Fragments of Nabataean lamps from bases, nozzles and handles (examples not shown) .............................................. 88 Imported lamps and Nabataean local copies (Dated from first century–fourth century CE) ................................................. 88 25. Double axes shoulder decoration (Fig. 4.25)......................... 88 26. Wheelmade socket and saucer lamp and stand (Fig. 4.26) .... 89 27. Roman round lamp (Fig. 4.27).............................................. 92 28. Roman round lamp with ovolos (Fig. 4.28).......................... 93 29. Locally made round lamp (Fig. 4.29) .................................... 94 30. Locally made round lamp with ovolos (Fig. 4.30)................ 94 31. Fragments of Roman lamps from bases, nozzles and handles (not shown) .............................................................. 95 32. Gerasan type lamp (Fig. 4.31) ............................................... 95 33. Samaritan type lamp (Fig. 4.32) ............................................ 96 Early Byzantine–Late Byzantine period lamps (Dated from fourth–seventh century CE) ................................................. 97 34. Zoological motif (Figs. 4.33a and b) ..................................... 97 35. Pear-shaped lamp with tongue on nozzle (Fig. 4.34) ............ 99 36. Slipper lamp with knob or tongue handle (Fig. 4.35)......... 100 37. Slipper lamp with crosses and/or spoked wheels (Fig. 4.36)..................................................................................... 101 38. Slipper lamp with raised dots (Fig. 4.37) ............................ 102 39. Slipper lamps with potters’ marks (Fig. 4.38)..................... 103 Late Byzantine–Islamic Umayyad Dynasty lamps (Dated from the late fifth–eighth century CE)........................................ 104 40. Miniature slipper lamp (Fig. 4.39) ...................................... 104 41. Wheelmade boot-shaped lamp (Fig. 4.40) ........................... 105 42. Slipper lamp with high handle (Fig. 4.41)........................... 105 43. Umayyad ovoid shaped lamp with horror vacui decoration (Fig. 4.42) ............................................................................ 106 44. Umayyad lamp with spoked-wheel on base (Fig. 4.43)107_Toc185231031 45. Unidentified fragments (not shown)................................... 108 5 Distribution of Lamps within the Sites...................................... 109 Percentage charts ........................................................................ 110 Locus charts ................................................................................ 110 A Question of Space and Function .................................................... 112 Distribution patterns for lamps.................................................. 112

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6

ix

The Great Temple—a ceremonial site ........................................ 112 The Lapidary West ..................................................................... 112 The Propylaeum ......................................................................... 114 The Lower Temenos................................................................... 114 The Upper Temenos................................................................... 118 The temple .................................................................................. 120 The North Ridge—a funerary site .............................................. 122 Ridge Church.............................................................................. 123 The tombs ................................................................................... 125 Tomb 1—functioning as a tomb ca. 20 BCE–CE 20 (dating taken from painted wares found in the fill—Schmid 1996:173–4).......................................................................... 125 Tomb 2—functioning as a tomb ca. CE 20–100 (dating taken from painted wares found in the fill—Schmid 1996:173–4) 127 Blue Chapel, Building 2 .............................................................. 129 Khirbet et-Tannur—a sacred site................................................. 130 Lamp presence (Fig. 5.1) ............................................................. 130 Summary for Khirbet et-Tannur ................................................ 130 Dating by lamps for site.............................................................. 131 Cultural change and Religious Identity: A Worldview Reconsidered............................................................................... 133 The North Ridge funerary site ................................................... 136 Lamp selections made with regard to funerary ritual in Tomb 1 and Tomb 2 ......................................................................... 136 Cultural change in the first century CE ..................................... 137 The Great Temple site ................................................................ 138 Cultural change during the first century CE.............................. 138 A religious identity in the Great Temple ................................... 139 A religious use in the Lower Temenos? ..................................... 144 Khirbet et-Tannur—a sanctuary ................................................. 147 The deities worshipped at Khirbet et-Tannur ............................ 147 Lamps specifically made for the sanctuary ................................. 149 The myth of the Kore (source: The Homeric Hymn to Demeter).............................................................................. 152 Mystery cult of Kore at Khirbet et-Tannur ................................ 154 Religious choices at Khirbet et-Tannur ...................................... 156 Recovering identity..................................................................... 158

x

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Bibliography....................................................................................... 161 Sources Cited .............................................................................. 161 Greek and Latin Literary Sources .............................................. 175

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS *Please open the accompanying DVD to view all graphics and charts referenced in this book. Those listed in this table refer only to those included in the book. Figure 2.4 Nabataean King List ………………………………………………………….22 Figure 4.1 Saucer lamp .................................................................................... 54 Figure 4.2 Boot-shaped lamp ........................................................................... 54 Figure 4.3 Descriptive elements of the ceramic oil lamp ................................ 66 Figure 4.4 Shoulder forms............................................................................... 67 Figure 4.5 Delphinform lamp (96-L-36) .......................................................... 69 Figure 4.6 Wheelmade round lamp (Kh et-T-L-30) ......................................... 70 Figure 4.7 Syrian lamp (02-L-5) ....................................................................... 71 Figure 4.8 Lampfiller fragments (98–LB-122) .................................................. 72 Figure 4.9 Apprentice lamp (94-P-25). Found in Upper Temenos, Great Temple ............................................................................................................ 73 Figure 4.10 Palmette lamp (02-L-6).................................................................. 73 Figure 4.11 Herodian lamp nozzle, rear view on left, front view on right (04L-6) .................................................................................................................. 74 Figure 4.12 Polycandelon fragment (Kh. et-T-L-34)........................................ 75 Figure 4.13 Roman rosette lamp (98-LB-113) .................................................. 76 Figure 4.14 Locally made rosette lamp (98-LB-10) .......................................... 77 Figure 4.15 Locally made scallop shell motif lamp fragments (98-LB-121) .... 79 Figure 4.16 Roman banded decorated discus lamp (98-LB-129) ...................... 80 Figure 4.17 Locally made banded decorated discus lamp (98-LB-16) .............. 80 Figure 4.18 Roman decorated discus lamp fragment (98-LB-9) ...................... 81 Figure 4.19 Locally made decorated discus lamp (Kh. et-T-L-14).................... 82 Figure 4.20 Locally made discus lamp fragment, showing torso and right arm of Eros (95-L-179) ............................................................................................ 83

xi

xii

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.21 Roman symplegma lamp (94-P-37) ............................................... 84 Figure 4.22 Nabataean volute type A lamp (98-LB-20) ................................... 85 Figure 4.23a Volute type B (98-LB-29) ............................................................ 86 Figure 4.23b Nabataean volute type B (02-L-1) ………………………………………86 Figure 4.24a Nabataean type volute B lamp base inscribed “RAYT” (“I have seen”) (98-LB-28).............................................................................................. 87 Figure 4.24b Volute B lamp 98-LB-28.………………………………………………….88 Figure 4.24c Volute A lamp 98-LB-18.………………………………………………….88 Figure 4.25 Lamp with double axes on either side of the shoulder (98-L-8).... 89 Figure 4.26 Wheelmade socket and saucer lamp fragment (Kh. et-T-L-06) .... 92 Figure 4.27 Roman round lamps..................................................................... 93 Figure 4.28 Roman round lamp with ovolos .................................................. 93 Figure 4.29 Local copy round lamp with ovolos (98-L-2) ............................... 94 Figure 4.30 Local copy round lamp with ovolos (97-L-66) ............................. 95 Figure 4.31 Gerasan type lamp (Kh. et-T-L-12)............................................... 96 Figure 4.32 Samaritan type lamp (Kh.et-T-L-13)............................................. 97 Figure 4.33a Zoological lamp. Bird with grapes in beak (02-L-4).................... 98 Figure 4.33b Zoological lamp Lion (?) (02-L-03)……………………………………..99 Figure 4.34a Profile of pear-shaped lamp (98-LB-333) ..................................... 99 Figure 4.34b Pear-shaped lamp with tongue on nozzle (98-LB-333)…………..100 Figure 4.35 Nozzle fragment from slipper lamp with knob or tongue handle ....................................................................................................................... 101 Figure 4.36 Slipper lamp with cross and spoked wheels (98-L-3) .................. 102 Figure 4.37 Slipper lamp with raised dots (Kh. et-T-L-16) ............................ 103 Figure 4.38 Slipper lamp base with “three fingers” potter’s mark on left (04-L80). Slipper lamp base on right with cross in center of base ring (04-L-63)... 104 Figure 4.39 Miniature slipper lamp base (98-LB-1)........................................ 104 Figure 4.40 Wheelmade boot-shaped lamp (99-LB-31) .................................. 105 Figure 4.41 Slipper lamp with high handle (Kh. et-T-L-29) .......................... 106 Figure 4.42 Umayyad ovoid shaped lamp (00-L-3)........................................ 107 Figure 4.43 Umayyad lamp base with 8 spoked-wheel (96-LB-25)................ 108 Figure 6.1 Table showing first century BCE/CE lamp presence for Tomb 1 and Tomb 2 using TBW percentages from the total ..................................... 137 Figure 6.2 Table showing first century BCE–eighth century CE lamp presence in the Great Temple, using TBW percentages .............................................. 138 Figure 6.3 Locally made rosette lamp, Type no. 11 (01–L-10). Molded inscription ‘slmt’ on outer wall of lamp........................................................ 140

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

xiii

Figure 6.4 Worn limestone head of Tyche, wearing her turreted crown...... 141 Figure 6.5 Limestone block in high relief, featuring bust of Tyche (?) ......... 142 Figure 6.6 Limestone block in high relief, featuring bust of male in chiton. 143 Figure 6.7 Limestone pilaster in high relief of Athena, wearing damaged gorgoneion .................................................................................................... 145 Figure 6.8 Khirbet et-Tannur. Cult statue of Zeus-Hadad ............................ 148 Figure 6.9 Khirbet et-Tannur. Cult statue of Atargatis................................. 148 Figure 6.10 Khirbet et-Tannur. Façade of the Inner Temenos Enclosure where the cult statues of Zeus-Hadad and Atargatis would have sat within the Altar Platform niche............................................................................................... 148 Figure 6.11 Khirbet et-Tannur. The façade of the Inner Temenos Enclosure. Reconstruction .............................................................................................. 150 Figure 6.12 Khirbet et-Tannur. Zodiac Tyche .............................................. 151 Figure 6.13 Samaria-Sebaste. Marble statue of the Kore, wearing a veil, draped in a long chiton and himation ....................................................................... 153 Figure 6.14 Khirbet et-Tannur. The Vegetation Goddess (Atargatis panel) on the tympanum above the doorway of the Inner Temenos Enclosure (Period II) ................................................................................................................... 155 Figure 6.15 Khirbet et-Tannur. The Grain Goddess re-identified as Virgo .. 156

PREFACE How did the Nabataeans view their world at the time of the Roman annexation in CE 106? Indeed, did their material culture reveal an altered perception after their monarchy was dissolved? If it is possible to detect a change in their artifact record, can we be sure it is authentic and not a veneer, masking the identity of a disaffected people? One approach might be to examine religious practice as a diagnostic for identity within Nabataean society, because religion is interwoven with a community’s worldview, shaping and reflecting its system of values and consequently playing an important role in defining identity. Herein three ancient Nabataean sites are investigated: the Great Temple and North Ridge Tombs in Petra, and the sanctuary of Khirbet et-Tannur. Their diversity in sacred use is examined via the ceramic oil lamp—a vessel that can portray socio-political and religious symbolism. This study presents two major discoveries within the three sites. The first is the evidence for hybridization: an adaptation to the Roman presence at the time of the annexation. The second is the specific manufacture and use of lamps strictly for religious purposes. Hybridization is determined at the end of the first century CE by two factors: the phasing out of Roman imported lamps and their replacement by local copies, and the disappearance of the most prevalent Nabataean indigenous lamp—the volute type. The presence of unusual wheelmade socketed lamps, and round lamps in the sanctuary of Khirbet etTannur provides evidence for specific lamp choices in religious use, lamps not found in the corpus at the Petra North Ridge Tombs nor at the Great Temple. Yet there is also a striking absence at Khirbet etTannur, that of the volute lamp, common during the first century CE at the Great Temple, the North Ridge Tombs, and at most Nabataean sites. xv

xvi

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Lamps are artifacts that acquire layers of meaning through their use and subsequent deposition and are, therefore, reminders of a narrative of place. In seeking this narrative within the three sites, I have attempted to locate a Nabataean re-negotiated identity, forged during the dissolution of their kingdom. My research on the ancient ceramic lamps in Petra has only been possible thanks to the encouragement of my adviser, Martha Sharp Joukowsky. In 1995 Professor Joukowsky invited me to join her Brown University excavation team, and this opportunity enabled me to study the oil lamps found at the Great Temple site over a ten-year period, the length of time it has taken to excavate the Great Temple. It is through her kindness and generosity of spirit that I was given many important introductions within the world of Nabataean archaeology. One of these was the principal excavator of the North Ridge Tombs, Patricia Maynor Bikai, who was working just across the wadi from the Great Temple. Dr. Bikai had unearthed an enormous number of lamps at her site and asked me to catalogue them for her. Indeed, she and her husband Dr. Pierre Bikai, co-directors of the American Center for Oriental Research in Amman, Jordan, awarded me their first Bikai fellowship at the Center, and I recorded the North Ridge lamps there for a couple of summer seasons. I was most fortunate to receive this fellowship because the library facilities and intellectual stimulation provided me with a perfect setting for my research. I was content with my research proposal, which involved cultural contact at the two sites, the Great Temple and the North Ridge Tombs, until Joseph Greene, the Assistant Director of the Semitic Museum, Harvard University, mentioned another lamp project to me. I had been cataloguing the lamps at the Semitic Museum during 2000– 2002, under the beneficent direction of Curator, James Armstrong, when Judith McKenzie, from the Institute of Archaeology at Oxford, visited the Museum. She was re-evaluating the Khirbet et-Tannur excavation plans and material held at the Museum, and needed a ‘lamp person’ to read the lamp fragments that Nelson Glueck had collected during two seasons in 1937. I was delighted when Dr. McKenzie asked me to catalogue these fragments, as it is a most important site—a religious sanctuary, quite remote, some 70 km north of Petra. I then realized that I had the possibility of comparing three Nabataean sites, whose

PREFACE

xvii

functions were quite different and in some cases uncertain: a wonderful opportunity to explore new possibilities, thanks to Martha Sharp Joukowsky, Patricia Bikai, and Judith McKenzie. In addition to the Bikai fellowship at ACOR, I received support from the University of Missouri Archaeometry Lab (NSF grant no. SBR-9802366), for the instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) of one hundred ceramic samples from the Great Temple and North Ridge sites, and I wish to thank Jeff Speakman and Kyra Lienhop for carrying out the lab work on the project, under the supervision of Dr. Hector Neff. Dr. Joseph Yellen of Hebrew University, Jerusalem, has assisted me with the INAA results, and I am most grateful for his kindness and help. I was extremely fortunate to be the recipient of a dissertation scholarship endowed by Chancellor Stephen Robert of Brown University, a most generous gift and much appreciated. Other welcome financial support was provided by the Petra Excavation Fund at Brown University, and several Brown University Graduate School Summer Fellowships throughout the years. Sincere thanks are due to members of the Ausgrabungen der Universität Basel team, in particular to MarieClaire Crelier, Matthias Grawehr, and Daniel Keller, who have provided me with lamp documentation from ez Zantur that has been invaluable to my own research. Also Ulrich Bellwald of Intermonument restauro Bellwald has contributed vastly to my knowledge of the Petra region and its decorative detail. Thanks to Professor Patricia V. Symonds and Professor Richard A. Gould, who have been extremely valiant in their support and guidance during my graduate research, providing both necessary vigilance and humor. Other faculty members of the Department of Anthropology at Brown University I wish to thank in particular are Professor Douglas Anderson and Professor Patricia Rubertone, scholars who endeavored to share with me the meaning of archaeological theory. The Brown University Great Temple crew has changed throughout the ten years I have spent in Petra, but I remember most fondly Leigh-Ann Bedal, Sara Karz Reid, Emily Egan, Chris Cloke, Emma Libonati, Monica and Joe Basile, Brian Brown, Eileen Vote, Laurent Tholbecq, Zain Habboo, Paul Zimmerman, Loa Traxler, Ann Harris, Lee Payne, Erika Schluntz, Shari Saunders, Chris Tuttle, Elly Power,

xviii

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Tarek Khanachet, Marshall Agnew, Michael Zimmerman, Kathy Mallak and countless others who lived and laughed with me in Dakhilallah Qublan’s bedouin house, Nazzal’s Camp and more sumptuous quarters. One person who has remained a constant at the dig, always at his wife’s side and a friend to all, is Artemis Joukowsky—his friendship is most treasured. He and I have photographed hundreds of artifacts together, and have shared many adventures, the most memorable perhaps being an emergency helicopter landing in the desert. In Jordan I have many people to thank for their help and hospitality during the past ten years that I have spent in their company. My work would not have been possible without the generous assistance of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities and its Director General, Dr. Fawwaz al-Kraysheh, and his predecessor Dr. Ghazi Bisheh; the Department of Antiquities Representative and Director of the Petra National Park, Suleiman Farajat, has always been most gracious and helpful to me during my sojourns in Petra, also the regional Department Inspectors, Mouhamed A. Shobaky and Sami Nawafleh, who have assisted me at the Museum in Petra, and have shown me great kindness and consideration. I wish to thank Dr. Christian Augé, Director of the Qasr al Bint Far’un Project, IFAPO, who has interpreted the many coins with me; the Executive Director of the Petra National Trust, Aysar Akrawi, for her generous hospitality; the author and photographer of great merit, Jane Taylor; and the most knowledgeable man concerning Petra and its environs, Dr. Fawzi Zayadine. I would also like to include Dr. David Graf, historian and epigrapher of the Nabataean world, who I met when he was surveying with Dr. Zayadine, on my first visit to Petra. I am most grateful to these friends and scholars, who have enriched my time in Jordan. I am most indebted to the Petra Fund for financial assistance in the preparation of the book. The transformation of my research into print has been a most pleasant experience, thanks to my editor, Katie Stott of Gorgias Press, who has guided me through the publishing process and produced a book of which we can both be proud. The book has been much enhanced by the archaeological illustrator, Catherine Alexander, who provided me with the most exquisite drawings of

PREFACE

xix

the Khirbet et-Tannur lamp fragments, and these can be admired in the Typology section of the study. Finally, great thanks are due to my family, who has been my mainstay during the years I have spent in pursuing my research: my daughters, Samantha, Susannah, Rachael, and Abigail, their daughters Sara, Victoria, Lucinda, and Jessica, and their sons Teddy, Harry, and Sebastian, and last but not least to my husband David, who has always been my companion and ally through thick and thin. Deirdre Grace Barrett

ABBREVIATIONS AASOR ACOR ADAJ AJA BA BAR BASOR IEJ JRA JRS PEF Annual PEQ QDAP RA RB SHAJ TRAC

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research American Center for Oriental Research Publications Annual of the Department of Antiquities, Jordan American Journal of Archaeology Biblical Archaeologist British Archaeological Reports Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Israel Exploration Journal Journal of Roman Archaeology Journal of Roman Studies Palestine Exploration Fund Annual Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Revue archéologique Revue biblique Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan Theoretical Roman Archaeological Conference Series

xxi

1 INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL CONCERNS Detecting cultural change in Nabataea (Fig. 1.1) at the time of its annexation by Rome in CE 106 is problematic in that the process of acculturation to a foreign power may well take centuries, a Braudelian moyenne durée conjoncture that cannot be isolated by period or conquest. Therefore, a span of several centuries has been considered here, from the first century BCE through the fifth century CE. This change over time in the kingdom of Nabataea affected the material culture of its people, creating a transition by structuring different experiences and performances from architectural changes and differences in archaeological assemblages. This study will be primarily concerned with an item found in archaeological assemblages at every site in Jordan dating to this period, and that is the ceramic oil lamp. It is this ubiquitous artifact which I have catalogued at three sites under investigation here, and with the data I have gathered I hope to present to the reader proof that the Nabataeans did succumb to a cultural change, a change that developed during the first century BCE when the Romans first dealt with Nabataea as a client kingship, through the second century CE when the kingdom was annexed by Rome. Until recently the transformation from kingdom to province would have fallen under the rubric of ‘Romanization,’ a term originally created to describe the acculturation of non-Romans by Rome. A one-sided process, it belied any cultural interchange, with Roman élites apparently conferring their political and cultural values on grateful provincial élites, eventually producing a trickle-down effect to the lower social levels.

1

2

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Today many scholars consider this supposed simple dichotomy, between colonial power and subject, value-laden and simplistic, an outmoded model of provincial culture change whose validity as a meaningful paradigm has expired (Webster, 2001:209; van Dommelen 2001:80; Woolf 2001:172–3; James 2001:206; Mattingly 2002:537). If this is indeed the case, should we declare the death of a paradigm that has slipped off its perch (ibid. 537), or can it still provide a way of understanding the relationship between local provincial cultures and Rome? Before shifting to another model it would be prudent to evaluate the original concept, its evolution, and progress up to the present day.

THE THEORY OF ROMANIZATION A relatively modern social construct, ‘Romanization’ was named for the process by which the Roman provinces were ‘given a civilization,’ a concept rooted in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century ideas of empire and colonization. Theodor Mommsen (1817–1903), a German historian, first introduced the term in his five volume Römische Geschichte (1854–1885), for which he won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1902. Interestingly, he never wrote the fourth volume on the nature of Roman imperialism under the emperors, and it has been suggested that he omitted the history of the Principate because he believed it represented one long story of political bankruptcy and decline (Demandt 1990:290–91). He is credited with the explanation now known as ‘Defensive Imperialism,’ which is a generalized model explaining a sequence of events (that is, Rome’s reluctance or even failure to annex certain territories when the opportunities were there) rather than an exposition of an ancient political philosophy. By default, Roman imperialism was presented as working in the same ways as its modern counterpart, no doubt influenced by the period in which Mommsen wrote, which spanned the years of the unification of Germany and the growth of German imperialism. In 1888 Mommsen met Francis Haverfield (1860–1919), an Oxford graduate, who was so impressed with the fifth volume of the Geschichte, entitled The Roman Provinces, that he wrote a complementary text, The Romanization of Roman Britain, published in 1906 with subsequent editions in 1913, 1915, 1923. Haverfield “suggested that

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL CONCERNS

3

Rome maintained its empire in two ways: by organizing frontier defenses and by fostering the growth of ‘internal civilization’ within the provinces.” He termed this civilizing process ‘Romanization,’ the means by which non-Romans were ‘given’ a new language, material culture, art, urban lifestyle and religion. “Romanization had in general extinguished the distinction between Roman and provincial alike in material culture, politics and language.” (Haverfield 1923:11–18 in Webster 2001:211). This perceived cultural homogenization has long affected provincial studies in that the process was seen as inevitable, ignoring the possibility of the emergence of cultural difference (Woolf 1998:15). Haverfield was in part reacting against a ‘nativist’ view, popular at that time and later expounded by Vinogradoff in The Growth of the Manor (1911), “claiming that Romanization was a superficial veneer applied to an underlying and continuing ‘Celtic’ social system” (Forcey 1998:16). This controversy between Haverfield, the ‘Romanist’ and Vinogradoff, the ‘Nativist’ has been perpetuated by scholars until the present day, with a recent revival of support for Vinogradoff’s views in the work of Reece (1980, 1988); Cunliffe (1995); and Burnham (1995:121–144). These scholars have introduced the notion of resistance by the ‘natives’ to the overtures of Roman culture: an ideology suggested, no doubt, by the disaffection manifested by local populations after the European colonization in Africa (Webster 2001:212). The polarization of Roman and native identities failed to explain the emergence of a hybridized material culture, a fact that R. G. Collingwood, a British archaeologist and philosopher addressed when he suggested that “the civilization of Roman Britain is neither Roman nor British, but Romano-British, a fusion of the two things into a single thing different from either” (1932:92). This theory, however, was later faulted for ignoring the dynamic of power and identity present during the fusion process (Webster 2001:211). The archaeologist, Martin Millett, (1990) supported a noninterventionist approach, by arguing that Rome did not consciously pursue a policy of Romanization because the concerns of Roman government were limited to the maintenance of internal frontier security and the collection of taxes. The existing élites were allowed to retain their social position with the opportunity of advancement, providing

4

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

they agreed to promote Roman constitutional principles. Thus, by adopting Roman cultural attributes, they reinforced their social status, with a trickle-down emulation for the lower echelons. In Millett’s version of Romanization, the élites were social actors who chose Romanitas without coercion or passivity, whereas the non-élites were denied any active role in their negotiation for cultural identity. From the above synthesis of scholarship concerning Romanization, it can be seen that there is an overwhelming predilection for élite acculturation and emulation (inscriptions, shiny red pottery, etc.), with a latent version received with apparent gratitude by the lesser mortals in their society (Mattingly 2002:539). Current attempts to redefine the concept have produced various stratagems tailor-made for the project in hand, e.g., identity (Berry and Laurence 1998); creolization (Webster 2001:209–225); power discourse (Foucault 1979; Forcey 1997), and cultural bricolage (Terrenato 1998). These recent analytical models attempt to avoid the biases of the past, while accepting that the huge regional variation within the Roman Empire cannot come under one umbrella or rubric, indeed what we find in the Roman Empire is a situation where individual agents have far greater choice over how they construct or present their identity within the context of Roman colonialism.

CULTURAL IDENTITY As mentioned above, the theory of Romanization has relied particularly on homogeneity, looking for similarities as diagnostics of analysis, but it may be more advantageous to consider diversity. Mattingly (2002:540) has suggested, “in order to understand cultural variation in the Roman empire, we need to consider how individual identity was built up.” Indeed what was it like to be Roman or Nabataean? How did the Nabataeans view their world in contrast to their Roman neighbors, and how did their material culture reflect these differences? Unlike the Gauls and Britons, the people living in the Mediterranean diaspora were not strangers to the ‘civilizing’ process by a dominant world power. They had long benefited from the attentions of Alexander the Great and his descendants, who had colonized the East from Asia to Egypt in the fourth century BCE. Indeed, by the second century BCE, the great centers of Greek culture were located on or

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL CONCERNS

5

close to the Mediterranean—Pergamum, Alexandria, Athens and Antioch (Walbank 1993:67). Thanks to this Hellenization, the inhabitants of the former Hellenistic kingdoms in the ancient Near East were more prepared for the Roman presence than their counterparts in the north-western corner of the Empire. It has been assumed that the Romans practiced a laisser-faire approach to pre-existing governmental institutions in provinces that were functioning well, enabling continuity in official procedures and thus avoiding excessive change. However, since Lewis’s (1970:3–14) analysis of the changes made by the Romans in the former Ptolemaic kingdom of Egypt, historians are more aware of the balance of continuity and change in the ancient Mediterranean (Bowman 2000:173). For over three centuries before the Roman annexation, Petra had been the capital of the Nabataean kingdom, where people gathered to exchange goods, attend theaters, worship particular deities, consult courts of law and eventually bury their dead; social human actions producing a material culture which defined the identities of its protagonists. Living in a predominantly Hellenistic world, they were a sophisticated people, who controlled vast long-distance trade routes, employed complex irrigation systems to control their fluctuating water supply, and created eggshell-thin, exquisitely painted pottery. These were no barbarians to be reviled for their lack of humanitas; indeed by the first century BCE the Roman élites were importing luxury items via Nabataean merchants, e.g., silks, perfumes and spices: evidence contrary to the beliefs of the first advocates of Romanization, with acculturation being a two-way process—both parties affected by each other’s presence. After the annexation of their kingdom in CE 106, the Nabataeans were confronted with Roman-inspired temples, villas and roads. Examples of Roman temples in the area are the Temple of Zeus built ca. CE 25 and the Temple of Artemis built in the second century CE, both at Gerasa (Wharton 1995:67). Evidence for inspiration from Roman villas has been found in the frescoes in room 1 in a Nabataean mansion, at ez-Zantur in Petra (Kolb 2003:236). These are closely related to architectural paintings found in room 5 in the house of Augustus on the Palatine. As to the proximity of Roman roads, after the Roman annexation of the Nabataean kingdom in 106 CE, the construction of a

6

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

major highway, the Via Nova Trajana, was initiated under the emperor Trajan between the Arabian capital at Bostra in the Hauran and Aila on the Gulf of Aqaba (Graf 1997:1 Ch. VI). This innovative architecture and infrastructure, in and around their cities, altered the physical landscape and presented the Nabataeans with new possibilities for the negotiation of identity. Indeed, the dissolution of the Nabataean monarchy meant the introduction of a new coinage, its obverses portraying imperial busts, and symbols of conquest on the reverses, ‘re-minding’ the native population with new identities of power and culture. A more detailed history of the Nabataeans appears in Chapter 2, tracing the nascence of their kingdom and its annexation; the formation of the city of Petra; and a description of the three sites chosen for this study, two within the city and one further afield, appear in Chapter 3.

A QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY If it is possible to detect the affect of change on the local population, can we believe in its authenticity? For example, did the local élites, who were bent on improving their standing with Rome, adopt the clothing and culture of their new masters by simply dressing up as Romans or what they perceived to be Romans? An acculturation which was merely a veneer masking the identities of a disaffected people. How do we know that the identity presenting itself in the material culture is authentic?

RELIGIOUS PRACTICE One possible solution is to use religious practice as a diagnostic for identity within the Nabataean community. Religion has always been an important marker for identity, and Geertz (1973:89–90) gives us a powerful paradigm in defining religion as: A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence. Sacred symbols function to synthesize a people’s ethos—the tone, character, and quality of their life, its moral and aesthetic style and mood—and their world view—the picture they have of the way things in sheer actual-

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL CONCERNS

7

ity are, their most comprehensive ideas of order. In religious belief and practice a group’s ethos is rendered intellectually reasonable by being shown to represent a way of life ideally adapted to the actual state of affairs the world view describes, while the world view is rendered emotionally convincing by being presented as an image of an actual state of affairs peculiarly well-arranged to accommodate such a way of life.

In other words, religion is interwoven with a person’s worldview and their place in that world, both shaping and reflecting the system of values according to which a person lives their life. For this reason it also plays an important role in defining a person’s identity. This is particularly true in a multicultural society: when there is a wide range of religious options, where the religious identity that someone grows up with or adopts becomes an important distinguishing mark (Rives 2000:245). The Roman Empire was certainly such a society, encompassing a multitude of religions, yet most important, at least to Caesar Augustus, was the imperial cult, which allowed the worship of the name and spirit of the Emperor if not his actual person (Hope 2000:81). Roman religious practice “To understand the success of the Romans,” wrote Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the Greek historian who came to Rome in 30 BCE, “you must understand their piety” (2.21–30). They viewed religion and politics as separate activities, yet considered them both part of the social order with the former shaping the latter; indeed mystification was the essence of imperial urban culture during the time of Augustus (Whittaker 1997:148–156). The rise of Augustus After winning the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, and thus thwarting the ambitions of Antony and his wife, the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra, Octavian (later called Augustus) constituted the land of Egypt as a province of the Roman Empire. His strategy had been to maintain Rome as the center of the Roman world, with himself at the center of republican Rome, whereas the unfortunate Antony was seen as favoring eastern deities and enjoying a life of luxury and decadence. The Battle of

8

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Actium was portrayed as the ultimate conflict between Roman refined and civilized qualities and the barbaric traditions of Egypt and the East. The battle was not between two Romans but between Rome and Octavian on the one hand, and Egypt and Cleopatra on the other. For millennia, Egypt had been the personal estate of its kings, and it was now to Augustus’ advantage simply to take the place of the ancient pharaohs and Hellenistic Ptolemies in order to keep Egypt’s vast wealth and vital grain out of the hands of potential challengers. Indeed, Alexandria became the collection point for the grain that was shipped to Rome in great fleets, providing the annona: the free grain supplied to citizens living in the city of Rome. Religious revival The advent of Augustus (27 BCE–CE 14) as princeps (the first and leading citizen) after the civil war, was met with both mistrust and adulation, fueled primarily by the fear of a moral collapse. Realizing his priority must be the rebuilding of the state and Roman society, he focused on the renewal of religion, custom, virtus, and the honor of the Roman people (Zanker 1988:101). He began with a program of religious revival, restoring cults with their attendant rituals, and commanded that all religious texts should be followed assiduously. Temples that had fallen into disuse were renovated and new places of worship were installed, a project that was carried out over the following forty years. Such an expensive program encouraged the best architects and artists from the East to descend upon Rome, drawn by the prospect of large and lucrative commissions, “the idea was to imitate the finest and most impressive elements of Greek temples, even to surpass them, but also to combine them with certain traditional elements of the Italic/Roman temple: the high podium, deep pronaos, and the steeply sloping, exuberantly decorated pediment” (Zanker 1988:105). The Greek East also employed Hellenistic imagery at home in its obeisance to the new ruler in Rome. No greater tribute to Augustus was paid in the East than that by Herod the Great (74–4 BCE), when he created the city and harbor complex on the Mediterranean coast of Judaea, naming it Sebastos, Greek for Augustus. It was built in a remarkably short time, from 22–10/9 BCE, and crowned by a temple dedicated to Caesar, as Josephus recounts in the Jewish War (3.409–15):

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL CONCERNS

9

Directly opposite the harbor entrance, upon a high platform, rose the temple of Caesar, remarkable both for its beauty and for its great size. In it stood a colossal statue of Caesar, not inferior to the Zeus at Olympia, which was its model—Herod dedicated the city to the province, the harbor to those who sailed along its coast, and the honor of the new foundation to Caesar. For he named the city Caesarea.

Regarding the authenticity of this report, Flavius Josephus wrote his accounts some 80 years after Herod’s death. Scholars assume that he took his information from earlier accounts, which would have included the History of Herod’s court historian, Nicolaus of Damascus. (Holum et al. 1988:59–73). Despite his initial pleasure in Hellenistic architecture and statuary, the princeps was not completely enamored of all things from the East, in particular he had no use for the Eastern and Egyptian gods who were at this time extremely popular in Rome, especially Isis. Zanker (1988:109) tells us that she was excluded from the official calendar of the state religion, and her cult was often banned. Ecstatic Eastern cults presented a problem for Augustus, because they promised salvation to people as private individuals, not as Roman citizens, and were thus incompatible with the principles of the Roman state religion. They were regarded suspiciously by the new regime as centers of alienation, a threat to society, and responsible for the creation of secret sects. An exception was made only for those foreign cults that had long been established in Rome, and had been accepted into the state religion, e.g., Mithraism, a branch of Zoroastrianism, which had originated in Persia. The religious practice that Augustus promoted most vigorously was his own imperial cult, a practice previously employed by Greek cities in honoring Alexander and the Hellenistic kings. However, his cult far outstripped these occasional celebratory rites, becoming a universal institution throughout the Empire, not only in ‘free’ cities, but also in the administrative centers of the provinces, and even in settlements without civic status. This conflation of state and religious practice in the Roman Empire was in contrast to the varied indigenous cults practiced by its client kingdoms.

10

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Nabataean religious practice Nabataean religious practice varied from aniconism—cults which used stone steles as representatives of the god, or even left an empty space where the god was regarded as sitting (Healey 2001:186): henotheism— the worship of a single god without denying the reality of other gods (Healey 2001:190): death-cult and the divinization of kings. There were also many outside influences permeating their belief systems, e.g., the cult of the Egyptian goddess Isis, and the Syrian goddess Atargatis. Their kingdom was a thoroughfare for travelers and immigrants who brought their own beliefs with them, be they Jews, Egyptians, Parthians and of course the Romans, presenting a kaleidoscope of world views and cultural identities: a cracked mirror reflecting the Roman world and its diversity. After the Nabataean kingdom officially ended with its annexation by Rome in CE 106, the populace did not abruptly shrug off its religious identity. Indeed, there is evidence that the worship of local deities continued and often flourished. The Christian writer Tertullian (Apology 24.7–8) claimed that “each province and city has its own god: Astarte in Syria, Dushara in Arabia, Belenus in Noricum, Caelestis in Africa… these provinces are Roman, but their gods are not.” These local cults reinforced ethnic or local identity. Indeed, an important part of being a Nabataean was worshipping the dynastic god, Dushara and the other traditional gods of Arabia, and this importance of Dushara must have been affected by the ending of the Nabataean kingdom. Nabataean kingship had played a central role in religion, with Dushara being the dynastic god, “the god of our lord the king,” but once the royal house ceased to exist, Dushara’s role would have been diminished, and later “refashioned and relocated in a new religious world, in which he was assigned various roles more normally associated with particular Greco-Roman deities” (Healey 2001:13–14). Healey suggests that, after CE 106, remote areas “may have quickly ceased all effective contact with the metropolis of Petra, and that within a short time, though not overnight, the concept of Nabataeaness must have changed, even if it took a long time to disappear” (Healey 2001:12). It is this change in ‘Nabataeaness’ that I am pursuing in my study.

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL CONCERNS

11

The sites under investigation include a remote sanctuary, 70 km north of Petra, and two sites both within the ancient city of Petra, one a funerary site and the other a temple/ceremonial site. Their diversity in sacred use will be examined via their material culture, which has been dated from the late first century BCE through the sixth century CE. Thomas (1996:237) proposes that human identities, material objects, and places all develop from a background of relationality. He believes it is for this reason that we can usefully consider artifacts as being social actors: they are embedded in and articulate relations of care and power. It follows that any object, any thing, can represent a means of entry into the complex interconnectedness of the world. As mentioned at the beginning of the study, the object I have selected for this “entry” into the Nabataean world is the ceramic oil lamp: the most abundant artifact found on all the sites. At present no metal lamps have been discovered, and only a few glass fragments from Byzantine lamps have surfaced. The oil lamp was a vessel that often acted as a vector of political and religious symbolism, selected by the consumer on the merits of its style and function. For example, the Roman discus lamp was a tabula rasa for the potter’s art, and the images portrayed on its surface were designed to appeal to the consumer’s tastes and beliefs, “When the average man in the street bought himself a clay lamp with an image of the corona civica, Victoria on the globe, the clypeus virtutis, or Aeneas fleeing from Troy, instead of one with a chariot race or an erotic scene, he was making a deliberate choice” (Zanker 1988:266). And his choice was not necessarily conditioned by the function of the lamp, indeed archaeological excavation has yielded lamps with such images that were not limited to hippodromes or brothels, but were found in tombs, temples and public places (Barrett 1996: 20). In Chapter 4, these preferences and the salience of the ceramic oil lamp as an indicator of change, will be examined in the corpus of lamps found within the three sites. Aspects of Roman and Nabataean iconography portrayed on the lamps will be considered in the light of religious practice and the negotiation of post-annexation cultural identity by the Nabataeans during the first through the fourth century CE. A typology for the lamps will be provided in this chapter, including a

12

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

description of their manufacture and individual elements of design and function.

RECOVERING IDENTITY Michel Foucault (1977, 1981) argues that all social practices, be they domestic routines or religious ceremonies, are integral to the constitution of identity, with material culture naturally playing a role in enabling the social practices to take place. Indeed all social practices have a range of equipment associated with them, without which they could not proceed (Grahame 1998:4). Pierre Bourdieu (1977:91) suggests that material culture is active in the creation of the human subject whose mind is “born of the world of objects… The mind is a metaphor of the world of objects which is itself but an endless circle of mutually reflecting metaphors.” In other words, the worldview of individuals is conditioned by their exposure to different social and physical environments, which in turn affect their cultural bricolage. This is the crux of the matter because one’s worldview conditions social differences, e.g., gender, class, ethnicity, resulting in the constitution of identity. In examining the archaeological record of a past society, we are contemplating the material evidence left behind by that society, and any change we note in that evidence is an indication also of social change, and the possibility of re-negotiating identity by that society (Grahame 1998:4). Such social transformation can be elicited by reconstructing these experiences, for example, observing use and disuse of space and the deposition of particular types of artifacts, and will be addressed in Chapter 5. Schiffer (1987:47) cites the processes of loss, abandonment, disposal of the dead and caching behavior as contributory factors of cultural deposition because they transform artifacts from systemic context to archaeological context. He also cites disturbance processes (ibid:121), which alter the location and sometimes the form of the artifact after its initial deposit. These can be caused by changes in the environmental formation processes, (e.g., earthquake, erosion, flooding), and site disturbance, or what Schiffer (1987:111) names a ‘reclamation process,’ (which includes scavenging or robbing).

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL CONCERNS

13

Thomas (1996:56–60) condemns Schiffer’s division between the systemic context and the archaeological context as illusory, and instead argues that “there is no hard division to be made between those objects and materials which are engaged in social relations and those which have been laid to rest…the erasure of a division between the ‘living’ social system or behavioral context and the ‘dead’ archaeological record in turn does away with the gulf between the present and an utterly distant past.” Instead, he suggests that changes in the landscape reflect the integration of culture rather than its imposition, therefore, privileging the interconnectedness of the archaeological record over the isolation and alienation of artifacts to which things can be done (ibid:58). Thomas proposes that a more complex set of relationships exists between persons and things, and that social relationships “interpenetrate with the material world in ways which negate any notion of nature as an entirely separate realm from which things are translated and to which they return.” Meaning, for Thomas, is produced in the working of relationality. He agrees (ibid:238) with Shanks and Tilley (1987:21) that “evidence is unavoidably recontextualized in the present, and that our interpretation is, therefore, of and for the present,” but refuses to accept their premise that “since past minds are unavailable to us, archaeological evidence is meaningless.” On the contrary, he suggests that artifacts acquire layers of meaning through their use and subsequent deposition, and should not be considered static remains but reminders of a narrative of place, e.g., pottery found in burial chambers and triclinia, where people participated in sadness and celebration. In Chapter 6, a narrative of place and the presence/absence of cultural change are considered at the three sites under investigation. Religious identity is also sought in the material culture found at the sites, including the identity of one of the deities worshipped at Khirbet etTannur. Is it possible to detect the presence of a mystery cult practiced at this sanctuary? The oil lamps found at the site may provide evidence for such religious practice. To summarize the intent of the study, I am seeking a new identity for the Nabataeans, re-negotiated at the time of the Roman annexation, simultaneously iconographical and ideological in their religion, defining identity, mythology and locality. A means of self-definition, dem-

14

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

onstrated by the affirmation of difference from the visual norms and cult practices of Rome. To the reader, this intent may seem grandiloquent but it is hoped proof will be found for this re-negotiation, within and upon the oil lamp, evidence which has been gathered from measurements, material and stylistic detail, all represented in the data found in the Appendix.

2 THE GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY OF NABATAEA The Nabataeans were a most adaptable people, whose engineering skills enabled them to turn a hostile, arid, rock-bound environment into a world where water was in constant supply. They also created a secure refuge from the rocky terrain that covered their kingdom, thus providing them with both shelter and protection from the dangers of tempest and conquest that constantly threatened their domicile. This chapter will examine both the geography and history of the Nabataeans: a people whose ingenuity in water management and rock carving is still evident today, in their former capital city of Petra.

THE CITY AND ENVIRONS OF PETRA The physical geography The physical geography of Petra was formed some five million years ago, when a crack or crustal split broke Arabia away from the eastern side of the continent of Africa, creating the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea (Fig. 2.1). The Jordan valley is a continuation of this rift whose faults, lying under Petra, slip past one another from time to time, resulting in earthquakes that rock the foundations of the city. Indeed the Al-Mataha and the Abu Ulayqa faults have been dated by Thomas Paradise to the Oligocene Epoch ca. 40 million years ago (Paradise in Joukowsky1998:154). Earthquake debris litters the Petra region, covering ancient monuments, abandoned material culture and even human remains, witness to unexpected natural disasters. Steep cliffs of sandstone, limestone and granite, at heights topping over 1,500 meters, form the narrow chasm known as the Siq, the entrance to the city (Fig. 2.2), and this defile is responsible for flash flooding in the winter, a sudden danger that has brought death by drowning to the unwary 15

16

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

trapped within its walls. The seasonal deluges of rain were a precious resource harnessed by one of its first sedentary people, the Nabataeans, in the first century BCE, using channels cut in the cliffs to catch the torrents of water hurtling down the cliff faces. These channels diverted the water into cisterns and dams, providing fresh water for the city and controlling the flooding that threatened access to the paved street in the Siq (Bellwald 2000:32). Because Petra lies in a steppe area, beneath the 200 mm isohyet, only sparse grazing for goat and camel herds is possible. However, if the rainfall is harvested and used for irrigation, limited agriculture can be practiced (Kennedy and Riley 1990:26). With their expertise in water management and the presence of springs within the city limits, the Nabataeans revitalized the stony landscape, thus providing a crucial requirement for the location of a population. “Whatever contribution was made by long-distance trade to the extraordinary urban development of Petra in the first centuries BCE and CE, it owed its role as a royal city to the combination of inaccessibility and defensibility on the one hand, and on the other to its location at the limits of a zone where agriculture and settlement were possible” (Millar 1993:389). The human geography Vidal de la Blache, in Principles of Human Geography (1926:473–4), has commented that: A study of the growth of cities in the past shows that what made the seed spring to life and guaranteed its growth, was usually an obstacle. At borders of mountain-barriers, at river-crossings, on the edge of deserts, on the seacoast, in short, wherever it is necessary to halt and to find new methods of transportation, there is opportunity for city growth…There is a series of towns along the edge of deserts. Both shores of the Sahara, like those of central Asia, have their ports. After the ordeal of a difficult crossing, caravans there find havens of rest and safety, caravansaries where men and camels can be recruited, a center for transactions…Petra has played this role.

Petra was certainly such a port, centered at the crossroads of the great trade routes that carried rare and costly wares from as far afield as China, India, the Arabian peninsula and into the open maw of the

THE GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY OF NABATAEA

17

Roman Empire, with its urgent and insatiable appetite for luxurious goods (Fig. 2.3). Alternate routes were few and often perilous, with robbery and violence commonplace dangers for the camel-borne merchants, transporting valuable merchandise across vast empty deserts. Ever opportunistic, the Nabataeans provided guides, camels and protection from the hazards of the wild landscape and wily rogues. The Nabataeans had been wanderers before they settled in Petra, and prior to their arrival this region had been part of Iron Age Edom, whose neighboring tribal kingdoms were Ammon in the northeast and Moab to the north. These tribal territories had evolved into supratribal polities by the Assyrian period (Iron IIB), which meant that each territory was controlled by a chief/leader who oversaw the tribes in his region, establishing networks that united the people within his jurisdiction (LaBianca and Younker 1995:4). Why did the tribal kingdoms come into existence in the first place? Certainly the collapse of the Late Bronze Age city-state system at the end of the thirteenth century BCE caused changes in the highland regions of Palestine which, in turn, affected the economic networks of the Transjordanian tribes (Coote and Whitelam 1987; Dever 1992). The importation of goods, e.g., cylinder seals from North Syria, Mycenaean pottery, and faïence from Egypt, was interrupted, stimulating local production and later the intensification of plow agriculture during the Iron Age. Another catalyst was the migration of the Israelites into Transjordan, who were later invaded by the Philistines ca. 1200 BCE. The Israelites defended themselves by installing a king and standing army and invaded Ammon and Moab, who in turn retaliated by becoming supra-tribal polities. Tribalism and supra-tribal polities in Transjordan have coexisted over the centuries, rooted in the age-old loyalties of family and kin, persisting through the centuries and millennia, representing a powerful example of what Braudel (1972) has called the longue durée—a deep historical undercurrent which has enabled and facilitated a population response to ecological, political and economic uncertainties and change throughout time (LaBianca and Younker 1995:411).

Indeed, the permeation of the Nabataeans, probably from Saudi Arabia or from the Tigris/Euphrates valley, into southern Jordan from

18

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

the sixth century BCE was a relatively peaceful one, with the sedentary Edomite population and its culture slowly being assimilated by the nomads. From the results of a detailed survey of the region immediately south of the Wadi al-Hasa in Northern Edom (Burton 1992:73– 76), it was thought that the Edomites themselves were not living in Petra after 580 BCE, leaving the area free for the Nabataeans, who eventually chose the rocky enclave as their base. However, Judith McKenzie, in a personal communication, has referred me to Bienkowski’s (2002:90) recent study of the excavations at the Edomite site of Busayra which indicates the presence of imported Attic sherds dated to the fourth century BCE, and Hellenistic pottery of the third/second centuries BCE, in the same phase as pottery types which had not previously been thought to extend chronologically to ca 300/200 BCE. While this evidence is not conclusive, it suggests continuity of Edomite culture (and presumably ‘Edomites’) until the period of the Nabataeans. This has serious implications for theories about the origins of the Nabataeans because it raises the possibility that the Nabataeans were partially Edomites. At the same time, the Nabataean monarchy is at least half a century earlier than previously thought due to the reference (by the mid-third century BCE) in the newly discovered papyrus poetry ‘book’ of Posidippus, which mentions “a Nabataean…king of the Arabs who fights on horseback” (Posidippus VIII 309). Historical sources Evidence of a Nabataean presence in the region has been noted by two ancient writers, Diodorus Siculus writing from 60–30 BCE, and Strabo, writing in the early first century CE. This gap in time may explain the differing information on the sedentarization of the Nabataeans and their emergence as a regional power. Diodorus Siculus (Library of History 2.48–49 and 19.94–100), from Agyrium in Sicily, viewed the Nabataeans as enterprising nomads, whereas Strabo (Geography 16.4.21– 26, C 779–84) saw them as a settled people (Bowersock 1983:12). Diodorus, deriving his information from Hieronymus of Cardia (XIX.44.3), first mentions the Nabataeans in his report on Antigonus the One-Eyed, an ambitious Macedonian king who, in 312 BCE, sent five thousand men commanded by his aide-de-camp, Athenaeus, to steal

THE GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY OF NABATAEA

19

the cattle and treasure stored by the Nabataeans at their rocky retreat, Petra. Succeeding in their plan, the raiders took flight but unfortunately did not distance themselves far enough that night from the enraged Nabataeans, who slaughtered their sleeping enemy. Antigonus protested to the Nabataeans that he was ignorant of Athenaeus’ planned assault, and believed he had placated them, hoping to avenge the massacre of his troops at a later date. The Nabataeans were not taken in by the king’s protestations of innocence and set a watch to guard their territory. Their suspicions were confirmed when the deceitful Antigonus sent his son Demetrius with a military force to Petra. The invaders were confronted by armed Nabataeans, and found no spoils to plunder: a grim and empty reward for days spent in the desert without sustenance. A postscript to this tale of thwarted ambition features another folly orchestrated by Antigonus’ ill-fated son, Demetrius. Perhaps desperate to redeem himself after his retreat from Petra and wishing to make some kind of profit, Demetrius attempted to harvest asphalt, the bituminous tar that surfaces periodically in the Dead Sea, and whose monopoly belonged to the Nabataeans. According to Diodorus, his retrieval boats and men were soon scuppered by the arrows of 6,000 Arabs. Checkmated yet again, the Macedonians abandoned their ambitious schemes to conquer this resourceful people: a people who apparently preferred the mobility of nomadism to the vulnerability and stasis of mudbrick and stone. Strabo (16.4.26, C 783), writing at least fifty years later than Diodorus, drew on the firsthand experience of a friend, the philosopher Athenodorus, who stoutly affirmed that the Nabataeans were a sedentary people who were invested in conspicuous consumption and indeed rewarded those who prospered. They were also: subjects of a king who lives in magnificent style; and their houses, built of stone, are extraordinarily luxurious. Their principal city is the rock-bound city of Petra, which has a system of government that was much admired by Strabo’s friend and informant. The city is an international place where Romans and other foreigners can be frequently seen. In fact, the law courts of Petra are said to be largely filled with foreigners, since the Nabataeans are such a peaceable people that they rarely engage in litigation (Strabo 16.4.236, C 783).

20

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Water, it appeared, had been successfully exploited by irrigation, for Strabo declared that most of the Nabataeans’ territory was well supplied with fruits and that even inside Petra there were gardens. The Nabataeans were still evidently engaged in trade, since Strabo commented on the abundance of imports from other places (16.4.26.C784). Graf (1990:53) views these secondhand reports with some skepticism, preferring primary documentary sources, for example, the third century BCE archives of Zenon, to the literary description of Hieronymus of Cardia, or the hyperbole of Strabo and his informant. Herakleides, was a driver for Zenon, a Greek from Anatolia, who settled in Egypt in the mid-third century BCE and worked under the Ptolemaic finance minister, Apollonius. The driver had submitted a report in 259 BCE, specifying an encounter with Nabataeans in the Hauran that was untoward but not unexpected. A century later, the Maccabean brothers, Judas and Jonathan, met with Nabataeans in the same area in Transjordan (I Macc.5:25). Thus, it can be determined that the Nabataeans were an acknowledged presence in Transjordan from the third century BCE, with additional evidence cited above (Posidippus VIII 309). Although the histories of Diodorus and Strabo might at first appear to lack some credibility, recent excavations have proved that their secondhand sources were not completely inaccurate. Strabo’s account of gardens and water management in Petra has been verified by the recent discovery of a garden and pool complex (Bedal 2000), and a first century BCE irrigation system has been uncovered at the Great Temple site (Payne in Joukowsky 1998:171). The Nabataean desire for luxury can be seen in their finewares that surface within the city and without; a pottery so distinctive that fragments have been recognized as far afield as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Oman and Italy. Their overseas presence is demonstrated by many Nabataean inscriptions and graffiti found in the Mediterranean region, e.g., Tenos, Rhodes, Cos, Delos and Miletus in the Aegean, and Puteoli and Rome in Italy (Graf 1997:84). Language Linguistically it is possible to detect the mosaic of peoples in the ancient Near East, because the area is rich in textual evidence. During the

THE GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY OF NABATAEA

21

first century BCE through the second century CE, the population of the region was predominantly Semitic; this included the Arabs in the Hauran, Ermesa, Ituraea and Arabia Petraea, and the Jews in Judaea. There was a semi-Greek population originating in the Decapolis cities and centers in the north, and also Parthians who were mainly refugees. Latin was spoken only in the army camps and administrative centers, whereas Greek was used in the cities by immigrants and natives, in addition to a smattering of dialects in Aramaic and proto-Arabic. These ancient tongues survive today on inscriptions, graffiti and documents (Kennedy and Riley 1990:26–7). Based on orthographic evidence, Graf (1990:67) believes the Nabataean language crystallized during the Achaemenid imperial period, ca. sixth century BCE, noting: “Linguistic affinities between Nabataean Aramaic-Arabic and that of the Arab communities of Mesopotamia during the Neo-Assyrian period suggest that this was the matrix from which the Nabataean language emerged. During the Persian period, they evidently migrated across North Arabia to the Levant, installing themselves in Petra and Transjordan before the Macedonian conquest of Alexander the Great.”

THE HISTORY OF THE NABATAEAN MONARCHY The establishment of local élites The emergence of a royal dynasty in Nabataea can be traced, in coinage and inscriptions, through three centuries until its demise when the kingdom was annexed by Rome in CE 106. Millar (1993:393) cites the significance of Nabataean inscriptions which “tended to name their kings not merely for dating purposes but in loyalist, even nationalist terms.” For example, the coinage, issued by the kings, commenced in the late Hellenistic period and bore Greek eponyms, e.g., philhellene, demonstrating an attachment to Greek culture, notably during the reign of Aretas III, and thereafter the coins bore only Nabataean script, e.g., mlk nbtw—King of the Nabataeans: a change that took place in the sixties BCE when Nabataea became a client of Rome, and this practice continued until the annexation. The use of Nabataean as a written language in graffiti and inscriptions also continued into the provincial period, a time when Petra (as reflected in the ‘archive of Babatha’), and

22

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

its counterpart Bostra in the Hauran, are referred to as ‘Greek cities’ (Millar 1993:408).

King Aretas I Rabb’el I Aretas II Obodas I Aretas III Philhellene Malichus I Obodas II Aretas IV Lover of his people Malichus II Rabb’el II

BCE

ca. 170 ca. 120 ca. 120–93 93–85 85–62 62–30 30–9 9–

CE

40 40–70 70–106

Figure 2.4 Nabataean King List (Graf 1997:82)

A brief history of the Nabataean royal house In the early second century BCE an inscription from Priene (Inschriften v. Priene, no 108, 1.168) in Asia Minor mentions the visit of an ambassador, Moschion, to embassies in Alexandria and Petra, demonstrating the importance of the Nabataean kingdom as well as that of the Ptolemies (Bowersock 1983:22). In fact, from the reign of the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE), the kingdom flourished, despite the threat from the neighboring Hasmonean dynasts, ever ready to exploit the vulnerability of the Nabataeans. Aretas I appears in the Books of Maccabees, 2.5.8, as a tyrant in 168 BCE, and his namesake, Aretas II, was the first Nabataean king to strike his own coins. Obodas I continued Aretas II’s war against Alexander Jannaeus and the Hasmoneans, gaining territory in Moab and the Golan. This expansion proved a threat to Antiochus XII in Syria, who led an unsuccessful attack against Obodas, dying shortly thereafter. Aretas III, Obodas’ successor, added Damascus to the Nabataean kingdom, and issued coins there with the epithet philhellene (lover of Greek traditions). Perhaps encouraged by his Seleucid aspirations, Aretas ventured into Palestine, but despite some gains he was ousted and

THE GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY OF NABATAEA

23

lost territory to Alexander Jannaeus. Not long after this defeat, Alexander died, leaving a widow and two sons, whose internecine relationship resulted in Hyrcanus II, the eldest son, abdicating his throne to his younger brother Aristobulus and seeking shelter at the Nabataean court. Hyrcanus’ sponsor, the Idumaean Antipater, persuaded Aretas to invade Jerusalem on behalf of Hyrcanus, promising the return of earlier confiscated lands if he were successful. However, this plan was thwarted by Pompey’s legate, M. Aemilius Scaurus, who sided with Aristobulus, warning Aretas that he would be an enemy of the Roman people unless he returned home. Aretas did not care to incur the wrath of Rome and retreated, only to be attacked on the way home by Aristobulus, who killed at least 6,000 of Aretas’ troops. Shortly after in 64 BCE, Pompey himself arrived on the scene, on his way to annex Syria. Hyrcanus and Aristobulus appealed to Pompey, each hoping for his blessing and the sole possession of the Judaean kingdom. Pompey, however, was intrigued by the Nabataeans and their involvement with the Hasmoneans, and planned an inspection of this upstart nation, thus delaying judgment over Judaea. Stupidly Aristobulus demanded a decision from the Roman general, and paid for his rashness when Pompey took possession of Jerusalem and sided with Hyrcanus. Judaea, Nabataea and Egypt were now considered by Pompey to be acquiescent to the power of Rome, a necessary situation for the security of Syria. Scaurus was put in charge of Syria in 62 BCE and, perhaps motivated by greed, attempted to invade Nabataea, but was bought off with 300 talents of silver (Josephus 14.81). He would later issue coins in 58 BCE commemorating this event, picturing Aretas on his knees beside a camel, offering a branch in submission to the Roman commander on the reverse. Scaurus’ avarice eventually caught up with him in 54 BCE, when he was prosecuted for extortion, during his praetorian governorship of Sardinia (Bowersock 1983:34). The next Nabataean king, Malichus I, honed his diplomatic skills in juggling his alliances with Pompey, Julius Caesar, Antony, Octavian, and the two aspirants to the Hasmonean kingdom. In 44 BCE, Julius Caesar was assassinated, resulting in the Parthians being brought in to quell the chaos. When they arrived in Jerusalem, Antipater’s son, Herod who was a minister at Hyrcanus’ court, fled to Malichus, asking

24

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

for help and demanding the restitution of lands given to Aretas III by Antipater. Malichus refused to comply and Herod, also well versed in diplomacy, went directly to Rome, professing his loyalty to the newly installed Triumvirate. He was rewarded with the kingship of Judaea, which put Malichus in a quandary: he had now lost Judaean support, and the Romans viewed his friendship with the Parthians as disloyalty, a misdemeanor that cost him dearly. A threat to both Herod and Malichus was the Queen of Egypt, Cleopatra. Having charmed Antony, she was able to garner part of Arabia, Ituraea, which was possibly a Nabataean settlement in the Hejaz, close to the Gulf of Aqaba through which inter-regional trade passed on its way to Petra (Bowersock 1983:40–41), and the balsam groves of Jericho for herself and her children (Josephus AJ 15.96). Her ultimate aim was to take over the two kingdoms of Judaea and Arabia, but in this she was doomed to fail, when Octavian put an end to her ambition at the battle of Actium in 31 BCE. Herod and Malichus had both been allies of Antony, but by skilful manipulation of events they were able to maintain their positions of power; Herod changed his allegiance to Octavian, and Malichus burnt Cleopatra’s fleet at Suez. Egypt was annexed by Rome in 30 BCE, and the kingdoms of Nabataea and Judaea found themselves sandwiched between the provinces of Syria and Egypt, tempting morsels for a rapacious colonial appetite. In 31 BCE, Octavian, or Caesar Augustus as he was later known, took charge of Rome, creating the mighty Empire that bordered the Mediterranean and its backwaters. He was not oblivious to the trading opportunities that took place in the Nabataean kingdom and beyond, and in particular the spice route that led to Arabia Felix (the kingdom of the Sabaeans), the source of myrrh and frankincense. He dispatched an expeditionary force to investigate the distant kingdom; an army that included over a thousand Nabataean soldiers and 500 Jews, led by Aelius Gallus, and a Nabataean guide, Syllaeus, minister to Obodas II (Strabo 16.4.24, C 782). The expedition was a disaster, and the project was abandoned primarily due to a lack of supplies, particularly water. Syllaeus, however, was a courtier whose ambition aspired to ruling the Nabataeans, and perhaps even the Judaeans. He asked Herod for his sister’s hand in marriage, the redoubtable Salome, and when this was refused, the ensuing enmity with Herod poisoned Syllaeus’s relation-

THE GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY OF NABATAEA

25

ship with Rome and the kingdom of Nabataea, ending with his decapitation at the command of the Roman emperor. Herod the Great died shortly after in 4 BCE, leaving the Judaean kingdom to the vagaries of various relatives (Bowersock 1983:53). Meanwhile a new king, Aretas IV, ‘the lover of his people,’ sat on the Nabataean throne, without the emperor’s approval, a slight which had angered Augustus. Bowersock (1983:54–55) has proposed that Nabataea may have been annexed for a brief period, ca. 3/2 BCE, which might reflect Augustus’ displeasure with Aretas IV and a concern for the instability of Judaea, now that Herod was dead. Strabo (16.4.21, C 779) reported, “that in his day the Nabataeans, like the Syrians, were subjects of the Romans.” Other evidence for this brief annexation is the apparent lack of coins issued during 3, 2 and 1 BCE. Aretas IV was a most prolific minter of coins, and Bowersock suggests that this missing coinage might well signify a temporary annexation of Nabataea by Rome. Coins dated from CE 1, until his death in CE 40, feature Aretas IV as king. Another clue to the instability of the kingdom at the beginning of the first century CE is the carving out of many rock cut tombs in Madãin Sãlih, in the Hejãz, so reminiscent of those in Petra, and possibly a position of retreat if Rome had persisted in its annexation of Nabataea. Indeed, recent excavation of some Nabataean tombs in front of the Khasneh in Petra has provided some evidence for this period of instability (Farajat and al-Nawafleh 2003). It has been hypothesized that the same carvers who worked on the tombs in Petra were employed in Madãin Sãlih during this unstable period, and that their workmanship in tomb carving was only evident again in Petra after the first decade of the first century CE (personal communication by S. al-Nawafleh to the author, July 16, 2004). The annexation of Nabataea, if it took place at this time, was only temporary. Judaea, however, was annexed, with tetrarchies for the Herodian family: Herod Antipas controlled the Galilee, and Philip the Tetrarch ruled in the north, both with ties to the Nabataean kingdom. Herod Antipas was married to a daughter of Aretas IV, a seemingly wise liaison, until he fell in love with his niece, Herodias, who was married to Philip the Tetrarch. Discarding the Nabataean princess and sending her back to her father, did not endear Herod to Aretas IV, who later defeated Herod after the death of Philip. The Emperor Claudius would

26

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

later restore the Jewish kingdom to Herod Agrippa, who held it until his death in CE 44, when it was annexed again. Malichus II, the eldest son of Aretas IV, continued on friendly terms with Rome, sending 6,000 men to aid Titus in his war with the Jews in CE 67 (Josephus BJ 3.68). Bowersock (1983:72) is intrigued by the lack of coins issued in the last six years of Malichus’ reign, and suggests that bullion may have been requisitioned by the Romans, for the payment of the troops marshaled against the Jews. The last king of the Nabataeans, Rabb’el II, was assigned the epithet ‘who brought life and deliverance to his people.’ The fact that he was responsible for the introduction of terraced agriculture in the Negev may provide an explanation for his epithet, at least to the people in that desert region. He is also known as the king who may have moved the royal capital from Petra to Bostra, continuing the building program of Aretas IV in that city. If this removal took place, it is likely that the local élites accompanied their king to Bostra, abandoning their fine homes for new abodes, yet the cities of Petra and Medãin Sãleh still prospered despite the exodus of royalty and the dwindling of international trade. Indeed, that Petra was still preeminent in the Hadrianic period, is confirmed by the burial there of the governor of Arabia, T. Aninius Sextius Florentinus, his governorship confirmed to CE 127 (Yadin 1963:238). Whether the kingdom passed quietly into annexation or there was rebellion against the yoke of Rome has not yet been ascertained. Bowersock (1983:80) does mention one graffito that appears to confirm some bellicose reaction on the part of the Nabataeans: “the year the Nabataeans revolted against the people of Rome” (Winnett and Harding 1978:406–7). It is also known from the Babatha Archive (Polotsky 1967:46–50) that Rabb’el had a son, Obodas, establishing that the line of kings had not died out in CE 106. Whatever protest may have been made, the kingdom of Nabataea was annexed in CE 106 without any apparent major conflict; an addition to the provinces of Egypt, Syria, and Judaea, giving Rome and its emperor, Trajan, complete control in the Mediterranean. The first coins were struck in CE 111, marking the end of the Nabataean kingdom and its new role as a Roman province. This backcloth of history and geography yields narratives of personal and collective identity, in which people and things become

THE GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY OF NABATAEA

27

closely bound together. As mentioned above, the harvesting of rainwater by channels and cisterns enabled the Nabataeans to survive the long dry summers. Their tomb carving is an identifiable trait that transcends the past and provides evidence of unrest and stability in a kingdom that vanished almost two thousand years ago. The fragments of finewares still littering Nabataean sites today are reminders of a people whose skill in pottery production has yet to be replicated, and the stylistic changes in the design and decoration provide an accurate chronology for archaeologists and historians (Schmid 1996:151–218). Included within the Nabataean pottery corpus were molded oil lamps, whose presence is also prolific at sites within Petra and beyond. This study will address the stylistic changes appearing on these lamps and their presence and absence at both sacred and secular sites, in an attempt to detect cultural change at the time of the Roman annexation in CE 106.

3 SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES This chapter describes the three Nabataean sites examined in this study. Two are found in the city of Petra, i.e., the Great Temple, and the North Ridge funerary site, and the third is some 70 km north of Petra, the sanctuary site of Khirbet et-Tannur. Phasing (new building programs) will be given for the sites. The Great Temple and Khirbet et-Tannur were in use from the first century BCE until at least the fifth century CE, whereas the North Ridge funerary site was only in use from the end of the first century BCE until the beginning of the second century CE, indeed the installation of Tomb 2 was never completed (Bikai and Perry 2001:60).

THE CITY OF PETRA The early nomadism of the Nabataeans is still practiced today by some of the Bedouin societies that dwell within the Petra region. Nomadism was practiced in the Petra region until the 1980s, when the Jordanian government moved the Bdul tribe out of the Petra valley, and built them houses. However, there are still a few Bedouin who live in the caves, or tents made from black goat hair that punctuate the stony steppe of Petra. One early traveler, Léon de Laborde, noted in 1836, that “the Bedouin would descend from their mountain resorts at the season of sowing, and pitching their tents for awhile in the plain, to prepare the soil in the rudest manner, and depart, leaving the seed scarcely beneath the surface…They return at the season of the harvest to gather in the ripened grain” (‘The Oxford Scholar,’ G. H. 1852:9–10). It was posited that the Nabataeans were tent dwellers, foregoing the comfort of stone walls for the mobility of nomadism (Negev 1986a:101), however, the Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavation team, from the Universität Basel, has since discovered domestic architecture built over an earlier tent site, 29

30

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

within the city precinct, “Der älteste fassbare Steinbau aus der Zeitenwende (Haus 1) bedeckt die Zeltplätze der nomadisierender Nabatäer des 2. und 1. Jhs v. Chr. und wird seinerseits von Haus 2 vollständig überbaut” (Stucky 1996:13–14). Perhaps the lure of commerce and the econiche that the Nabataeans secured for themselves within the confines of Petra-Sela, or the ‘Rock,’ persuaded them to forsake their former migrations and build permanent dwellings, in addition to the magnificent temples, tombs and civic buildings that frame the landscape. Although only a fraction of Petra (ca. 5%) has been excavated, several religious buildings have been uncovered, spanning Nabataean, Roman and Byzantine periods, including temples, ‘high places,’ and churches. Temples and ceremonial sites There are three temples, the Qasr al-Bint, the Temple of Winged Lions and the Great Temple, flanking the Colonnaded Street, which bisects the city center of Petra (Fig. 3.1), following the Wadi Musa—a dry riverbed that becomes swollen with rain during the winter months. The paving of the street is probably Roman, although Phoenician coins dating back to the third century BCE have been uncovered in the gravel underneath, which may indicate a much earlier road before the Roman occupation (Parr 1960:131–32; McKenzie 1990:35–6; Fiema 1998:398, 417).

THE GREAT TEMPLE—A CEREMONIAL SITE The Great Temple will be the primary example of a ceremonial site in this study. The excavation of the Great Temple (Fig. 3.2) is under the direction of Professor Martha Sharp Joukowsky, who has led the Brown University team since 1993. A large complex has been uncovered, making the Great Temple the largest freestanding building in Petra, set as it is high above the Colonnaded Street, facing the Temple of the Winged Lions across the wadi. The temple itself is a monumental building, tetrastyle in antis (with four front columns). At an approximate height of 20 meters it must have been a most imposing edifice, with its architrave, frieze and cornice in place, before earthquakes destroyed its grandeur. Measuring

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

31

35.5 meters in width and 42.5 meters in length, it rests on a forecourt of small hexagonal pavers. A stairway approaches the entry (pronaos), which in turn leads into side corridors that access a theater (theatron) of 562 to 620 seats (Joukowsky 2003:216). Despite its nomenclature, its function is not certain. In some instances, monuments may not meet the criteria nor fulfill the promise they held initially for the excavator, and the function of the Great Temple has stimulated scholarly debate (Joukowsky 2001:52). Indeed, Martha Sharp Joukowsky (2003a:219) asks, “If it is a religious structure, why could it not have served as an instrument of religiouspolitical propaganda? Surely the kings of Nabataea utilized religion to further their political ambitions.” Initially the enormous building was assumed to be a temple, but since the discovery of the small theater-like structure within its cella, there is a question regarding the function of its earlier phase. There are theaters in the Nabataean temples at Sur, Sia and Sahir in the Syrian Hauran (Butler 1919:379–80, 429, 441–43), but these theaters are not found within the cella, as in the Great Temple. One explanation might be that the theater was in fact a sacred or ritual theater (Segal 1995), but further excavation under the theater seating is necessary before conclusions can be drawn. Recent excavation, however, has uncovered evidence that supports the function of the Great Temple as a sacred site during the first century BCE–second century CE, with the recovery of cultic paraphernalia discovered in the Propylaeum. A pair of limestone aniconic betyls was found in situ in a niche in Trench 80, in the West Propylaeum, both measuring 0.21 m in width by 0.5 m in height by 0.09 m thick. Two horned altars were also discovered in the Propylaeum, one to the east, in Trench 95, Locus 4, a small altar with feet, measuring 0.11 m in width by 0.11 m in length by 0.09 m in height; and another in the west, whose center is a shallow, circular, carved-out bowl-shaped cavity, found in Trench 70, Locus 1, measuring 0.63 m in width by 0.52 m in length by 0.33 m in height. The Upper Temenos, which surrounds the temple, has also yielded what may be a cult object. Behind the Temple, in the south passageway, a sword deity has been found carved into the back wall, perhaps apotropaic in function, protecting an underground cistern or

32

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

the canalization of the Great Temple site which begins here, and continues its path down to the Plaza and the Propylaeum (Joukowsky 2003a:216). Finally, an interesting observation has been made regarding an open altar platform silhouette on the paved forecourt of the building (Egan and Joukowsky personal communication 2002). As the excavation continues, more evidence may be brought to light regarding the function(s) the building may have served. Sacred or secular, the building was used for ceremonial purposes and its central position within the city cannot be denied, with the two Nabataean temples in its vicinity, located on either side of the Colonnaded Street. The Qasr al Bint is dated to the beginning of the first century BCE (Larché and Zayadine 2003:201), and the Temple of the Winged Lions is dated to the late first century BCE (Hammond 2003:229). The Great Temple site (Fig. 3.3) The Propylaeum, or monumental entranceway, leads up to the Great Temple precinct from the Colonnaded Street via a flight of stairs measuring 17.66 m in length. The stairs have undergone several periods of reconstruction, one of which took place ca. CE 76, when the Colonnaded Street was constructed and also after the building of the Great Temple. An earlier arched walkway (Cryptoporticus) was overbuilt by the later stair treads. The Lower Temenos connects the Propylaeum and a vast courtyard of hexagonal pavers. It is bordered on the east and west by Triple Colonnades, formed from more than 120 columns. The colonnades terminated into East and West Exedrae, replete with podia, which presumably supported statuary in antiquity, and in addition the East Exedra had wall benches. Two East and West Monumental Stairways bonded with the Exedrae, connecting the Lower Temenos to the Upper Temenos. The columns in the Colonnades were crowned with Ionic capitals, which supported intricately carved stone elephant heads (Fig. 3.4), unlike the feline capitals that once decorated the capitals of the Temple of the Winged Lions. This hybrid iconography was extremely unusual with its obvious Eastern influence combined with a classical form.

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

33

Although no decorative parallel has been found in the region, Indian elephants were not strangers to the Nabataeans, indeed Juvenal has reported they were transporting these animals across the valleys of Nabataea in the second century CE (Satires XI.126: Graf 1997:265). They may well have been employed in lifting heavy masonry (e.g., in Petra—column drums and large architectural elements): a function that they still perform in their homeland today. One interpretation offered by Pliny the Elder (Natural History, Book VIII) and Aelian (On the Characteristics of Animals, II.xi), regarding elephants used in architectural imagery, states that elephants were symbols of piety, since they had been observed gazing up at the new moon, gently waving freshly plucked branches, as though praying to the moon goddess for her favor and blessing. If this connection with the moon were substantiated, two moon goddesses could be candidates for worship at the Great Temple: the Nabataean goddess of fertility, Atargatis, who is associated with the Akkadian goddess Ishtar and whose symbol is the crescent moon; and Selene or Mene, the sister of Helios, whose golden crown illuminated the night, and who is associated with Tyche (Glueck 1965:397). Certainly the construction of the Great Temple would have benefited from these draft animals, so massive are its components. Occupying a site of 7,560 sq m (three-quarters of a hectare), it has undergone several building phases, in addition to episodes of destruction caused by man and nature over the past two thousand years (Joukowsky and Basile 2001). Indeed, the elephant heads fell victim to a series of earthquakes, causing them to tumble on to the pavers below, where they lay covered with debris for fifteen hundred years. The building of the Great Temple (Fig. 3.5) The building of the Great Temple has been divided into fourteen phases, which are summarized below (Joukowsky personal communication April 13, 2004). For trench locations, please refer to the trench plans found in the Appendix.

34

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Site Phase I—site preparation in the first century BCE Original use of the area by Nabataeans Propylaeum—Traces of early walls were found in the Propylaeum East in Trench 95 and the Propylaeum West in Trench 86. Lower Temenos—A subterranean canalization system is installed, and the bedrock leveled. Upper Temenos—The bedrock is quarried and leveled out in the area of the East Plaza and South Passageway in preparation for building. Some canalization is installed and the East Cistern is cut into the bedrock. In the south bedrock escarpment, the Sword Deity is carved: and in the area of the temple Forecourt (and other areas requiring fill due to the drop off of bedrock) are leveled and the canalization system is built into the Forecourt’s fill. Temple—Preparation begins with installation of subterranean canalization. The foundation build-up is installed either on top of the bedrock or on imported fill brought in to level the area.

Site Phase II—construction of distyle in antis temple façade Propylaeum—The Portico Wall is constructed as well as the lowest eight steps of the Propylaeum leading from the sand and gravel path to a landing. This may have been the site of an early altar. Lower Temenos—The Central Staircase from the Lower Temenos to the Upper Temenos is built and the early construction of the Lower Temenos east perimeter wall is begun. Upper Temenos—Continued construction of the canalization system under the temple Forecourt and the Central Staircase leading down from the temple to the area of the yet to be built Lower Temenos. East ‘Cistern’ constructed. Temple—Distyle in antis temple built with east and west interior antae and two freestanding columns in front, eight columns on the sides and six in the rear. The plastering of the columns and laying of the temple flooring beneath the columns’ raised Attic bases takes place.

Site Phase III—minor damage Propylaeum—Minor damage occurs, perhaps due to an earthquake to the Propylaeum East (Trench 95).

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

35

Lower Temenos—Damage not well defined, perhaps the reconstruction of the Central Staircase from the Lower to Upper Temenoi takes place. Upper Temenos—Damage is not well defined. Temple—Probably small repairs made to the early temple, and the presumed collapse of some elements that are reconstructed in Site Phase IV.

Site Phase IV—Nabataean ‘Grand Design’ tetrastyle in antis façade constructed first century BCE Building of the full Propylaeum occurs, and modifications made to the Portico Wall and the construction of Wall K and the Propylaeum Retaining Wall. The Propylaeum West Staircase is built, with a shared entrance to the Temenos Baths and the Propylaeum West. The South Gallery Cryptoporticus is constructed between Wall K and the Propylaeum Retaining Wall in both the Propylaeum East and West. Lower Temenos—The East and West Cryptoportici and subterranean canalization system are rebuilt. The Hexagonal Pavement is laid and the drains installed. The Stylobates are installed and the elephantheaded columns of the East and West Triple Colonnades are erected. The west perimeter and the Lower Temenos Retaining Walls are constructed as well as the East and West Exedrae. The Central Staircase is blocked off by the Lower Temenos Retaining Wall and the lateral East and West Staircases are built as an alternative access to the Upper Temenos from the Lower Temenos. Upper Temenos—The construction of the subterranean canalization system, including the East Plaza Great Cistern, which also underwent repair during this phase. Also constructed is the southeast canalization system, coeval with the East and South Perimeter walls of the temple precinct; in the east and south the plazas are leveled and paved. Room A (with its arches) with hearth and Room B are constructed in the East Perimeter Wall, as is a staircase between Room A and the Tabun Cave Room. The adjacent East Reservoir is also built. Construction of the Anteroom, Shrine and Baroque Rooms and the Residential Quarter rooms are built in the Upper Temenos southwest. In the Residential Quarter there is the cutting of the original caves and construction of the early architectural arrangement, as well as the rein-

36

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

forcement of the caves and their expansion in front of Cave 2 with remodeling of the major construction elements. The Temple Forecourt is constructed, and the Forecourt is repaved with a small hexagonal pavement. Temple—The expansion into a tetrastyle in antis form with a Porch extension, and the East and West Porch Antae are built. The Stylobate and leveling fill are installed. The Pronaos floor is laid; the East, West and South Corridor walls, as well as the East and West Walkway Walls, are built. A limestone pavement is laid on all floors, possibly an extension of the original flooring laid in Site Phase II.

Site Phase V—first century CE, Nabataean redesign and repair Propylaeum—The Betyls are installed in the niche in the Propylaeum West. Lower Temenos—Secondary cuttings are made in the Hexagonal Pavement. Upper Temenos—The East ‘Cistern’ is used for storage and perhaps it is also used as a marble workshop. The ceramics found at the lowest level date before CE 100. Reuse of Room A, including the replacement of the hearth, which has gone out of use. Residential Quarter expansion in the southeast and southwest: including new walls and a plaster and sandstone floor in Room 4. Temple Forecourt clean up. Temple—The Theater, Intercolumnar walls, Central Arch with its upper platform, the East and West Vaulted Chambers and the East and West Interior and Rear Staircases with landings and small steps for entrance into the Theater rear are added. A second story is constructed at the rear of the temple. Limestone pavement is laid on all new floor areas.

Site Phase VI—ca. CE 106 Propylaeum—There is a collapse in the Propylaeum, and a collapse of the South Gallery Cryptoporticus in the Propylaeum West, and presumably in the Propylaeum East. Pre-Roman repairs made. Lower Temenos—Repair of the Hexagonal Pavement takes place, as well as the repair of the East Exedra walls. Repair is made to the subterranean canalization system due to soil accumulation. The

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

37

northwest subterranean channel is clogged with first century CE ceramics. Upper Temenos—There is probably a collapse of the Baroque Room and damage occurs in both the Anteroom and Shrine Room. There is again reuse with the storage of Nabataean first century CE ceramics. Thereafter, there is the abandonment of the Shrine Room and modification of the Anteroom’s east wall. Temple—East, West and South Corridor doorways are blocked or are narrowed, limiting access to the temple and ‘arrow slits’ are added in the South Corridor, perhaps in response to an attack by the Roman General, Cornelius Palma. Collapse is indicated by damage to the east and west walls of the East Interior Staircase.

Site Phase VII—mid-second century CE Propylaeum—A period of repair and reconfiguration. The upper treads of the Propylaeum are built. The Central Staircase and Wall K are rebuilt in the west: Wall K is razed in the Propylaeum East. The Propylaeum West Room 1 is built and benches are installed in the Propylaeum West. The Roman Street is paved at this time, and there is a reconfiguration of the east Portico Wall with the insertion of the three doorway thresholds fitted with iron bars. The north south walls of the Propylaeum East Rooms, Nos. 1–3, are constructed. Lower Temenos—Building of the east west crosswalls between the stylobate walls of the East Triple Colonnade takes place, and the repair of the East Exedra continues. Construction of the West Baths, adjacent to the West Exedra. Lead pipe is laid across the base of the Lower Temenos Retaining Wall, extending from the East Exedra to the West Exedra. Benches are built in the West Cryptoporticus. Upper Temenos—Above ground canalization is cut into the bedrock in the south and east. Room A buildup is installed, with purple sandstone bedding, and a low blocking wall is built across the doorway to support the new bedding. There are modifications in Room A in the East Perimeter Wall, including tethering holes cut beside the trough— thus Room A is probably reused as an animal shelter. The entrance to the Garden area is blocked. Repair is made to the drain in the temple Forecourt, now appointed with ceramic pipes for above ground canali-

38

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

zation. A bench is built along the south face of the South Corridor Wall. Temple—Repairs made. The Pronaos floor pavements are robbed. The Theater stage is added. The installation of the east and west low blocking walls at the south ends of the East and West Walkways takes place. Rebuilding of the east, west and north walls of the East Interior Staircase occurs. Benches are built in the West Walkway.

Site Phase VIII—brief period of abandonment, predating the midfourth century CE Propylaeum—There is a minor collapse of the North Colonnade. The floor pavements in the east and west and some architectural elements are robbed out. Lower Temenos—There is abandonment and robbing of some stylobate elements of the East and West Triple Colonnades, and a layer of fill accumulates above the Hexagonal Pavement. Upper Temenos—The arches are removed, spanning the East ‘Cistern.’ Possible placement of an infant jar burial in Room B. Temple—Robbing of the floor pavements takes place, including those in the corridors, Residential Quarter, East and West Vaulted Chambers and at the base of the East and West Interior Staircases. There is evidence of localized conflagrations.

Site Phase IX—major CE 363 collapse Propylaeum—There is a major destruction level, followed by the accumulation of fill. A partial collapse of the Propylaeum Retaining Wall arches onto the floor in the south gallery Cryptoporticus. Lower Temenos—A major collapse of the West Triple Colonnade, falling directly on top of the Hexagonal Pavement, which is clearly indicated by sharp indentations in the pavement surface. This area is covered over by the accumulation of architectural fragments mixed with fill, and sedimentation covers the west perimeter wall. Some collapse is also seen in the south area of the East Triple Colonnade. Upper Temenos—There is a major collapse of large features and major fluvial wash down deposits accumulate. There is also the abandonment and accumulation of debris in the Shrine Room, followed by a major collapse. The West Walkway Wall is destroyed, as is the Resi-

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

39

dential Quarter, after which more sediment accumulates. Upper courses of the South and East Perimeter Walls collapse. Temple—There is an accumulation of architectural debris, including the collapse of the West Porch columns. A primary fluvial layer is deposited. Collapse and accumulation of architectural debris occurs around and under the east columns. The west intercolumnar wall buckles.

Site Phase X—site abandonment, Byzantine period fourth to fifth centuries CE Propylaeum—No activity in the Propylaeum. Lower Temenos—Secondary destruction levels, with the building of the intercolumnar walls. Industrial activities occur, including lime manufacture. The pilaster relief and wreath block are used as intercolumnar materials in the East Triple Colonnade south. The Byzantine platform is constructed in front of the West Exedra, and there are continued industrial reuses of several areas leaving burned ash residue. Upper Temenos—Reuse and reconfigurations throughout the complex are marked by the construction of haphazard masonry walls. Byzantine drainpipes and scattered shabby walls are constructed. Multiple drainage systems are put into place. In the west, the most western precinct wall is built in conjunction with its canalization system. Temple—Upper level robbing takes place, including the robbing out of the upper treads of the East and West Interior and Rear Staircases and East and West Landings. Subsequent silting occurs. There is a rebuilding of the East and West Walkways and a period of industrial reuse. A bench is built against the south face of the South Corridor Wall.

Site Phase XI—further collapse occurs after the fifth century CE, possibly the result of the earthquake of CE 512. Propylaeum—Major collapses occur in the Propylaeum. Lower Temenos—More accumulation of fill takes place, and thereafter the East Colonnade collapses, as does the entablature of the East Exedra. Thereafter there is the accumulation of fill. Upper Temenos—Further collapse and fluvial activity. Accumulation of fill takes place, after the disuse of the canalization system.

40

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

There is localized burning in some areas. In the fluvial deposits, the remains of two bodies are found. Temple—The East Porch columns collapse, and fluvial deposits continue to accumulate.

Site Phase XII—robbing and abandonment continue Propylaeum—Continued accumulation of fill and debris. Lower Temenos—Accumulation of rubble and fill covering the East and West Exedrae. Upper Temenos—Upper levels of fluvial wash occur and there is evidence of collapse and disturbance, along with abandonment in Rooms A and B, followed by the accumulation of more fluvial deposits. Temple—Continued accumulation of fill and debris.

Site Phase XIII—ongoing major collapses throughout the Islamic period. Propylaeum—Continued accumulation of debris. Lower Temenos—Continued accumulation of debris. Upper Temenos—Abandonment and collection of sediment. Temple—Continued accumulation of debris.

Site Phase XIV—modern period with Bedouin farming Propylaeum—No activity noted. Lower Temenos—Farming of the Lower Temenos by Bedouin, who roll out column drums to divide the area into two fields. There are signs of both early and later uses of these fields. Bedouin construct various walls in the Lower Temenos, and finally topsoil accumulates. Upper Temenos—Fill, including pieces of plastic tent stakes and an Israeli bullet casing. Nazzal’s dump is dug between the collapsed porch columns in the temple Forecourt. There is the German survey of the temple stylobate and Forecourt, resulting in the disturbance of these deposits. Temple—By this time the temple precinct is deeply buried under successive collapses. The only visible components are the collapse of the East Porch columns and the outline of temple walls, which can be seen in aerial photographs.

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

41

Chronology for the site Although the dating of the Great Temple is not yet firm, the discovery of two joining inscriptions in the Petra Church, across the wadi, may shed some light on its inception. The translation (Jones 2001:346) of the text reads (This is the)…which Halpa’la (son of..) made, and these are the theatron to Dushara (and the..), in the month Tebet in the year eleven of Haretat (Aretas), king of the Nabataeans, who loved his people.

The king mentioned here is Aretas IV (9 BCE–CE 40), and the eleventh year of his reign would, therefore, be CE 2/3. The reference to Dushara could implicate the Qasr al-Bint, but as a theatron is mentioned, the Great Temple seems a more likely candidate for the inscription (Joukowsky and Basile 2001:54). Lamp fragments (NISP—number of identified specimens) The lamp fragments found at the Great Temple site totaled 523, and of these 451 can be identified as the following types: 14 Hellenistic, 154 Nabataean, 55 Roman, 219 Byzantine, 3 Islamic. Lamp distribution will be discussed in Chapter 5.

THE SANCTUARY OF KHIRBET ET-TANNUR The religious sites within the city of Petra have received many visitors since their inception, and have subsequently served many purposes during the past two millennia; for example, the Qasr al-Bint, a prominent Nabataean temple in the city center, functioned as a stable for the Crusaders during the twelfth century CE (Browning 1994:60). It is, indeed, rare to find a site whose original function has not been masked by reuse over the centuries, yet one small Nabataean temple, 70 km north of Petra, has escaped secularization and Christianization. This temple is perched on top of Jebel et-Tannur, a mountain at the confluence of the Wadi al-Hasa to its north and the Wadi La’ban to the south (Fig. 3.6) (McKenzie 2002 et al:46, Fig. 2). The site is at the very northern limit of the ancient territory of the Edomites, the people who occupied the land before the coming of the Nabataeans.

42

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

The Nabataeans built this temple complex (Figs. 3.7, 3.8) out of limestone upon sturdy rubble foundations that took up the total flattened surface of the mountain peak. It measures approximately 70 x 45 meters, and is oriented east north east x west north west with a commanding view over the Wadi al-Hasa. The temple complex dominates the small site, and it consists of a paved court or temenos in front of a walled enclosure, which conceals a monumental altar platform. On either side of the courtyard were triclinia (dining rooms with benches on three sides), and if these rooms were used principally for ritual meals, no domestic buildings exist at the site. Water was supplied from a cistern built on one side of the mountain, and a steep path was the only access up to the sanctuary. Nelson Glueck (1965:85), the eminent American archaeologist, who excavated it in 1937, believed that the use of the site as a sanctuary extended back to the time of the Edomites. His reasoning was that the Nabataeans must have been drawn to the mountain because of its previous connection with local tradition. The earliest coin found at the site is dated to Antiochus III (c. 223–213 BCE), and a stele inscription in Nabataean referring to the Edomite god Qaws (Glueck 1965:514–5; Healey 2001:61) was evidence perhaps for an Edomite influence and presence. The temple complex The focus of the site was the main altar platform (Fig. 3.9), consisting of three stratigraphic layers (phases 1–3), built one upon each other like a Russian doll (McKenzie et al. 2002:46). The first phase was a simple altar, 1.45 x 1.38 m, h 1.75 m (Glueck 1965:90), whose function could be verified by the remains of burnt offerings, i.e., grain and small animal bones, with ashes and burnt grains of wheat found under the paving around it (McKenzie et al. 2002:46–8; Glueck 1965:98, 128, plan E). Glueck believed that the original design of the sanctuary was dated to this first phase and that an inscription found at the site, dedicated by ‘Netir’el son of Zayd’el, master of the spring of La’ban in honor of Aretas IV and his wife Huldu in year two (8/9 BCE) of his reign was a terminus post quem for the first phase. Dr. Stephan Schmid of the Université de Montpelier III (France), who studied the pottery found at Khirbet et-Tannur, has dated a small amount of the pottery,

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

43

possibly associated with the first phase of the altar platform and enclosure, to the first century CE (Schmid 2003b:7). The altar was enlarged during the second phase with the addition of walls on either side and at the rear, 2.1 x 2.0 m, h 2.61 m, with a flight of steps built across the back (Glueck 1965:102). McKenzie et al. (2002:50) have argued that if the steps ended before the top of the edifice then the whole structure may have been the altar, however, if the steps continued up to the top, a small altar may have been placed up there. Based on observations regarding the architectural decoration and sculpture of this phase, McKenzie et al. (ibid.72) suggest that they represent a dissolution of the conventions of Classical architecture and that, therefore, a late date—the end of the first through the beginning of the second century CE—fits Period II. Schmid found that the pottery from above the temple courtyard paving is homogeneous and dated to ca. CE 100 or a little later (Schmid 2003b:7). This suggests that the main period of use for the surviving temple complex fell within the first half of the second century CE (McKenzie 2003b:7). The third phase (Fig. 3.10) involved another enlargement of the altar around the sides and back, forming an altar platform 3.65 x 3.40 m. The height of it was now approximately 3–4 m, and a staircase was built on the left (south) side to access the altar on top. The architectural style of this phase bears a resemblance to the late antique sculpture in Egypt, and McKenzie et al. (2002:73) suggest a third century CE date for this last alteration. The altar platform was in use and repaired through the Byzantine period, evidence for this use being a Byzantine lamp (Glueck 1965:183, Pl. 82b, found with other lamps, Pl. 82c). The concentration of Byzantine slipper lamps around the altar platform and in two of the dining rooms (Rooms 8 and 9) off the temple court suggests that Khirbet et-Tannur was still used for cultic purposes as late as the fifth century CE (Barrett 2003:6). Observations about the lamp distribution by Judith McKenzie are possible thanks to the detailed records Glueck kept in his dig journal and registration book (McKenzie 2003b:6). Very little pottery dated after ca CE 150 was found, which is surprising, as major improvements were made to the altar platform, possibly in the late second or third century CE.

44

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Lamp fragments The lamp fragments found at the Khirbet et-Tannur site totaled 48, and of these it was possible to identify the following types: 8 Hellenistic, 1 Gerasan type, 1 Samaritan type, 19 Nabataean, 0 Roman, 15 Byzantine, 0 Islamic. There were 4 unidentified fragments. Only 29 of these fragments have been considered in the data, because the remainder lacked a locus. Lamp distribution is discussed in Chapter 5. Cult paraphernalia Cult is defined here as the worship of a god or goddess with correct rites and ceremonies. A cult image was a representation (usually a statue or stone block) that formed the focus of a religious site, such as a temple. In temples, the cult image occupied the cella (Adkins et al. 1996:55). Animal bones and grains of wheat were found under paving stones inside the Inner Temenos Enclosure (Glueck 1937:12; 1965:98– 9, Pl. 107–8). Faunal evidence from Khirbet et-Tannur has shown that young bulls, chickens and goats were sacrificed on the altar within the Inner Temenos Enclosure (Whitcher Kansa 2003:8). Cult furniture, in the form of small altars and offering-boxes, has been located throughout the site, some functioning as incense altars, the use of frankincense being confirmed by chemical testing (Glueck 1965:495). Offering boxes, containing charred “animal bones and grains of wheat, were found under paving stones inside the Inner Temenos Enclosure” (Glueck 1937:12; 1965:98–9, Pl. 107–8). The principal gods to whom these offerings were made may have represented the main deities of the Nabataean pantheon, namely Dushara and his consort Atargatis, and the identities of these sculpted supreme beings and others found at the site will be discussed at length in Chapter 6.

HIGH PLACES Warwick Ball (2000:350) contends that Khirbet et-Tannur most embodies the Nabataean concept of a sacred high place, isolated on a high vantage point with only a winding staircase for access: suggesting that the building may have been a Nabataean national shrine of great significance.

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

45

Rock-cut high places are plentiful in Petra and its environs; the foci supposedly of processional cults with facilities for sacrifice, e.g., an altar table, channels and a tank (Ball 2003:348). Whether the victims sacrificed were human or animal we cannot be certain, but some form of sky worship probably took place. Indeed, Strabo’s informant described the religious practices of the Nabataeans: “They worship the sun, building an altar on top of the house, and pouring libations on it daily” (Strabo 16.4.26). The sanctuaries are usually approached by a winding staircase cut into the rock face, and the best known are found on Umm al-Biyara, al-Khubtha and Jebel Madhbah.

FUNERARY PRACTICE Ball (2000:68) suggests that one of the functions of high places at Petra may have been the exposure of the body after death, the first stage in secondary burial. After cleansing in the basins installed at the site, the corpse was defleshed by the elements and scavenging birds and other animals: later the remaining bones were collected and stored in an ossuary. Ball cites Strabo’s commentaries regarding the Nabataeans and their apparent disregard for the dead as perhaps evidence for secondary burial: They look upon the bodies of the dead as no better than dung, wherefore they bury even their kings beside dung-heaps (Strabo XVI.4.26)

This information confers upon the Nabataeans an egalitarianism in death that Philip Hammond (1973:54) does not espouse. He has suggested that various methods of burial may have been employed in Petra, according to class. The lower classes would have been buried in slab-lined graves, the middle classes would have been laid to rest in shaft tombs, while the élite would have been placed in the tombs with elaborate façades. The inscriptions on eighty monumental Nabataean tombs at Hegra (Mãdain Sãlih) belie this premise as they describe burials comprised of a wider selection of ‘classes,’ ranging from the ‘prefects’ or governors of Hegra to family members who shared a tomb with their descendants (Healey 1993:passim).

46

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

This predictable ideology concerning the replication of society in death as in life has been challenged by post-processualist archaeological perspectives, which view funerary practices as not simply reflections of the social order, but the perceived reality of social relations, open to conflict, negotiation and misrepresentation (Barrett 1996:409, Bloch 1977:278–92, Miller and Tilley 1984). However, the post-processualists were not the first to question the relationship between power and status in funerary rites, and the longterm trends associated with them. V. Gordon Childe (1945:13), whose views on elaboration in the disposal of the dead are entirely Marxist in origin, made important observations about timing. He noted that in prehistoric Europe, tomb permanence and rich grave goods were replaced by more elaborate dwellings for the living, and that royal tombs were built in times of legitimatory crisis and affirmation during the transformation from kin-based societies to territorial states. Royal tombs were defined as magnificent and large, containing an extravagant wealth of grave furniture and the presence of human sacrificial victims. The appearance of royal tombs was due to either internal economic forces, notably long-distance trade, or to contact with ‘higher civilizations,’ with big funerals often taking place during politically unstable and formative situations, and élite funerary ostentation contributing to political legitimization (Childe 1945:13–19). In the 1980s, Childe’s study of long-term trends was used to identify cycles of ostentation, characterized by wealth deposition and/or labor investment, associated with phases of simplicity in funerary rites. Rich funerals were found to herald the emergence of an élite, and these were followed by anti-ostentatious élite burial rites in succeeding centuries (Parker Pearson 1999:86–87). These observations might well fit the Nabataean funerary model in Petra, with its elaborate tomb façades built in the first centuries BCE/CE, during the client kingdom period. This was also a time when long-distance trade was thriving and contact with China, Egypt and the Roman Empire was influencing the kingdom of Nabataea.

THE NORTH RIDGE SHAFT TOMBS—A FUNERARY SITE In determining the class status of the group of individuals, laid to rest in two chamber/shaft tombs lying beneath the North Ridge, it is likely

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

47

that they were not of royal descent. For although the construction of the tombs is of high quality, and the site is placed in a central location within Petra (Bikai and Perry 2001:60), the tombs do not possess elaborately decorated façades, nor inscriptions denoting rank or privilege. However, the fact that the shaft tombs were dug, and elaborate funerary meals were held by the mourners, suggests that the occupants were relatively well-off. Megan Perry (in a personal communication to the author, October 26, 2004) stressed that, during their lives, the interred had been quite healthy, with low levels of biological stress and disease. While excavating a church, on the North Ridge (Figs. 3.11, 3.12, 3.13), Patricia M. Bikai and Megan Perry discovered two shaft tombs in 1998 (under the auspices of the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman). The shaft tombs are carved into the North Ridge at the western end of the high ground between the Wadi Mataha and the Wadi Abu ‘Ullayqa. The ridge is crowned with bare bedrock, a spartan setting that may have housed a military installation during the Nabataean and Roman periods. Notwithstanding its strategic placement, overlooking the city center and rear entrance, evidence for this supposition has been elicited from military inscriptions and figurines found throughout the site (Bikai 2002:1). The Ridge Church—constructed at the end of the fourth century CE (Bikai 2002:1) The Church is located at the northwestern edge of the Byzantine-era city (Figs. 3.12, 3.13, 3.14), just inside the city walls which run along the ridge overlooking Wadi Abu ‘Ullayqa. The building, measuring 18.1 m in length and 13.5 m in width, is of standard Byzantine construction, that is, a mono-apsidal basilica with two rectangular pastophoria. It has a nave and two side aisles, with a raised platform or chancel at its eastern end accessed by steps. Evidence has been found suggesting that the Ridge Church was originally a military installation on the hillside of the North Ridge, built in the Nabataean period and continuing into the Byzantine era. This installation was converted into a church soon after the earthquake that devastated Petra in CE 363,

48

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

which makes the Ridge Church one of the oldest churches in Jordan (Bikai 2002:1). The Blue Chapel Complex—constructed before the mid-sixth century CE (Figs. 3.15, 3.16) A radiocarbon date, BP 1490+30 or CE 511+30 was taken from a wooden bench in the Blue Chapel, and provided the information on the construction (Bikai 2002:1). In 2000, a building was discovered to the south of the Ridge Church, and it has been named the Blue Chapel Complex because it was built using Turkish blue granite columns, taken from a Nabataean monument. The Byzantine builders had numbered the bases, column drums and capitals (a, b, c, d, etc.), before they moved them (Bikai 2002:2). The complex consists of two parts, Building 1 and 2. Building 2 contains a small chapel, a large, porticoed room (West Room), and another smaller room (South Room) that probably served as the sacristy for the chapel. The two buildings are joined by a staircase that drops 2.64 m from the floor level of Building 1 down to the floor level of Building 2, leading into an entry hallway. The Tombs—in use during the first century CE (Fig. 3.17) The slopes of the ridge were used as a cemetery during the first–second centuries CE, and the hillside is riddled with many shaft tombs, often desecrated by thieves in antiquity, leaving a detritus of smashed pottery and scattered bones in their wake. When Tomb 1 and Tomb 2 (Fig. 3.17) were uncovered, they were found to contain 38 burials, with eight of them relatively intact in Tomb 2. In the late fourth century CE, the builders of the Ridge Church must have discovered the existence of Tomb 1, because they braced the foundations of the church across its entrance shaft with a pillar. Within the material of the pillar was a complete pear-shaped lamp with tongue, Type No. 35 (Cat. No. 98–LB-333), which I have dated to the late fourth century CE (Barrett in Bikai and Perry 2001:59). Fragments from two other Byzantine lamps were found in the fill of Tomb 1, a slipper lamp fragment, Type No. 36 (Cat. No. 98–LB-14), and a base from a miniature Byzantine lamp, Type No. 40 (Cat. No. 98–LB-1)

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

49

both dated to the fourth century CE. It should be noted that the remaining identified lamp fragments (445) in the fill of Tomb 1 were all of Nabataean origin, dated to the first century CE. The presence of the complete Byzantine lamp, found within the pillar material, may well be evidence that it was used by the builders, or their contemporaries, in their investigation of Tomb 1. Another hypothesis is that the lamp could have been set within the pillar for apotropaic purposes, a custom that was common at that time “…evidence for this practice in the Roman period has been found at Gerash/Jerash, where six clay lamps dating to the 2nd to 3rd century AD have been recovered from a foundation deposit” (Negev and Gibson 1996:294). The construction of Tomb 1 (information taken from Bikai and Perry 2001:59–60) This was cut into the sandstone under the north part of the Ridge Church. Its shaft is 3.1 m deep with a chamber, about 1.4 m down, opening to the south. The chamber measures approximately 3.5 m east-west by 2.3 to 2.5 m north-south. The loculi, laid out northsouth, are cut about 1 m in depth below the level of the bottom of the shaft. The shaft was originally capped with stones, one of which was found displaced just adjacent to it. The tomb was robbed in antiquity, but once the builders of the Ridge Church had placed fill in the shaft and then constructed the pillar across it, the tomb was sealed from further looting. The tomb did flood periodically, however, as indicated by water lines on the walls and the amount of fine silt. Stratigraphically, there were only two deposits: the material in the shaft including the pillar, and the material in the tomb itself, which proved to be so mixed that it was, during the processing of the materials recovered, consolidated into a single group.

The construction of Tomb 2 (information taken from Bikai and Perry 2001:60–62) This tomb was also cut into the natural sandstone bedrock, with a shaft of approximately 3.76 m in depth, measuring 2.12 m long and 0.60 m wide. The tomb opened some 1.70 m down the shaft, into a chamber measuring 5.50 m east west and 5 m north-south, with a height on average of 1.60 m. The chamber was a plain, square room with no features for the interment of deceased individuals, such as loculi, arcosolia, or even benches along the walls. A small room

50

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP measuring 2.25 m north-south and 2.60 m east-west and 1.20 m high opened off to the north, through a doorway approximately 0.80 m in width and 1.20 m in height. As with the main chamber, the room was a plain, essentially square space with no features cut into it. The small room was accessed by a step, about 0.40 m deep. In the north west corner of the room extending along the western wall remained a 0.40 m x 1.50 m uncarved chunk of sandstone, some 0.40 m in height. Overlying the floor of the main chamber and the small room was a thin layer of loose, silty sand which was most likely deposited during the final phase of construction in the tomb and before the tomb was actually used. In the northwest corner of the main chamber and extending into the small room to the north was a layer of sandstone rubble about half a meter thick. That deposit and the unfinished state of the smaller room make it clear that the laborers never completed the construction of the tomb; this may also explain the lack of loculi or other constructed tomb features.

Report on the skeletal material (information taken from Bikai and Perry 2001:62–65)

Tomb 1 Tomb 1 contained four loculi and a minimum number of individuals (MNI) calculated as four. Two of these were adults, most likely a male and a female as determined by cranial morphology (Buikstra et al. 1994:20). No age determination of the adult individuals could be made. In addition at least two subadults were interred in the tomb, one was an infant aged six months to one year, according to the stage of epiphyseal union of the elements (Buikstra et al. 1994:43). The second was approximately three to four years old, based on epiphyseal union (Buikstra et al. 1994:43) and dental development (Ubelaker 1989:fig. 71). No unusual or pathological conditions were found on the skeletal elements recovered.

Tomb 2 At least 36 individuals (8 females, 5 males, 17 adults of indeterminate sex, and 6 subadults) were interred within Tomb 2. There were 8 articulated burials consisting of four females, one was 20–24 years old, another was 35–39 years old, another was 50–59 years old and

SACRED AND CEREMONIAL SITES

51

one young adult. There was one identifiable male aged 25–29 years. There were two infants, one of whom was a newborn and the other six months old: the sex could not be determined. There was one other individual aged 45–49 years, whose sex could not be determined. In addition to these articulated burials there were 28 commingled burials, four of which could be determined as female aged between 25–60 years old and four were male, aged between 25 and 49 years old. There were 6 subadults whose sex could not be determined and whose ages ranged from 0.5 years–11 years old. The most prevalent pathologies seen were degenerative joint disease, kyphosis (vertebral wedging), and vertebral osteophytosis, all degenerative conditions (Aufderheide and Rodriguez-Martin 1998:315). The prevalence of these pathologies suggests a vigorous lifestyle, either occupation-related or due to living in a rugged terrain. Besides degenerative and activity related conditions, the individuals were under little physical or biological stress, e.g., malnutrition, disease, or psychological stress. Pathologically, no signs of a shared traumatic event were seen in the skeletal remains. This does not negate a tragic occurrence but simply indicates that the possible condition was not one that left its mark on the skeletal material. In fact, no obvious signs of cause of death were seen in any of the individuals. Unfortunately, due to water seepage and looting, the skeletal remains were scattered, with some missing elements and the accompanying artifacts, mostly ceramics, fragmented and dispersed. Tomb 1 has been dated to the first half of the first century CE, because the Nabataean painted wares present in the tomb could be dated to Schmid’s Phase 2c (CE 0–20), and the beginning of Phase 3a (CE 70/80–100), although some of the painted pottery in Tomb 1 could be as early as the end of Phase 2b (30/20–0 BCE). These phases can be found in Schmid’s proposal regarding Nabataean finewares (1996:173–74). Tomb 2 has been dated to the second half of the first century CE, because the Nabataean painted wares present in the tomb could be dated to Schmid’s Phase 3a (CE 20–70/80), and Phase 3b (CE 70/80–100), information found in his proposal regarding Nabataean finewares.

Lamp fragments—number of identified specimens (NISP) The lamp fragments found at the North Ridge site totaled 794 and of these 685 could be identified. There were 560 fragments found at the

52

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

surface or within Tomb 1, and from these it was possible to identify the following types: 2 Hellenistic, 445 Nabataean, 111 Roman, 2 Byzantine, 0 Islamic. Tomb 2 contained 74 fragments, and of these there were 0 Hellenistic, 63 Nabataean, 6 Roman, 5 Byzantine, 0 Islamic. The Ridge Church contained 44 fragments, and of these there were 0 Hellenistic, 28 Nabataean, 7 Roman, 8 Byzantine, 1 Islamic. Building No. 2, from the Blue Chapel Complex, contained 7 lamp fragments and of these, there were 0 Hellenistic, 5 Nabataean, 0 Roman, 2 Byzantine and 0 Islamic. The distribution of the lamp fragments is given in detail in Chapter 5.

COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE THREE SITES Phasing (new building programs) has been given for all three sites, with occupation ranging from the first century BCE–fifth century CE or later for the Great Temple and Khirbet et-Tannur; and the end of the first century BCE–beginning of the second century CE for the practice of interment in the North Ridge tombs. Lamps identified with findspots totaled 451 at the Great Temple; 685 at the North Ridge Tombs; and 29 at the sanctuary of Khirbet et-Tannur. Although these are the total number of identified specimens (NISP), an approximate number for the lamps found in the Great Temple and the North Ridge sites will be elicited using a mean weight procedure (TBW) and a minimum number of lamps (MNL) will be obtained from the actual number of lamp fragments found in Khirbet et-Tannur. These numbers were used to calculate percentages of lamp fragments found at the sites, and the mean weight procedure was assessed from the total weight of each lamp and fragment type. The methodology employed, and the typology of the lamps will be discussed in Chapter 4.

4 THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP, FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE An artifact that is omnipresent in the Levant (which includes modern Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan), the ceramic oil lamp has been found on many ancient sites since the end of the third millennium BCE. Usually discovered in fragments, its form and style are peculiar to the potter who created it, and the origin of its clay can provide sourcing, thus demonstrating the possibility of trade or perhaps the role of the lamp as a prestige or sacred item. The most common fuel used for lamps in the lands bordering the Mediterranean was olive oil, but where olive trees were scarce, sesame oil or animal fats were substituted. Perfumed oil was a luxury reserved for élites and sacred purposes, attested by Martial (Epigrams XI.38.7): in a similar function the lamp warmed unguentaria containing precious ointments and perfumes (Johnson 1987:70). Plaited or twisted plant material, e.g., flax, hemp, oakum or cotton, provided a wick to draw oil from the reservoir, allowing the lamp to burn steadily until its resources were depleted. Lamps were made of clay that is porous, and one might question how the oil remained inside the lamp, without seeping through its walls? The use of a slip (clay diluted with water) as an impervious coating both inside and out could prevent such leakage. Flinders Petrie (1904:13) discovered that in Ancient Egypt “for magic purposes a new lamp must be used, a white lamp in which no minium or gum-water has been put. The minium, or red lead, would form a hard compound with the oil, and make the pottery oil-tight. Probably then gum-water was used in general, for this would not leave perceptible traces.”

53

54

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

MANUFACTURE Three methods were used to produce lamps: modeling by hand; throwing the body on a potter’s wheel; and pressing into a two-piece mold. Hand modeling was a simple procedure, involving few tools. Very few examples of this method have been found in the sites investigated here, with some apprentice lamps demonstrating a lack of skill in the rather clumsy attempts to emulate a popular form. Wheelmade lamps varied from a simple saucer shape with a pinched corner, serving as a wick-rest (fig. 4.1) to a conical boot-shape with an elongated nozzle (fig. 4.2). Apart from the wheel-marks that appeared on the body of the lamp, the base also bore marks of the string or wire used to cut the vessel from the wheel, unless the lamp was trimmed and hand-fettled before firing. If the thrown lamp was not a saucer but a closed vessel, its nozzle and handle were applied by hand.

Figure 4.1 Saucer lamp

Figure 4.2 Boot-shaped lamp

Molds facilitated the mass-production of lamps, because the potter could create a matrix from a solid lump of clay, carve it into the shape of the desired lamp and add any embellishment he desired, either by carving, incision, stamping or molded appliqué (Bailey 1975). After firing, the matrix would then serve as an archetype for the mold, which was often made of plaster (Stucky 1996:340), and sometimes clay or stone (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:165). It comprised two pieces, top and bottom with registration marks added for matching purposes. Wet clay would be pressed into the molds and the two sections would be pressed firmly together. After drying, the forms would be removed from the molds and the filling-hole and wick-hole would be cut into the body, plus any extraneous detail, e.g., a handle. After the lamp had dried to a leather-hard finish, it could be slipped or glazed before firing,

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

55

thus preventing oil from being absorbed into the clay body, as mentioned above. Firing took place in a kiln, which included a sunken fuel-chamber with a stoke-hole and a firing-chamber above, separated from the former by radiating fire-bars or a pierced firing floor. The firing-chamber had a roof or dome with a vent-hole, which was covered during reduction firing. The fuel was usually wood, although the kiln at Zurrabeh in Petra used olive waste (Zayadine 1982:372). After undergoing a single-stage oxydizing firing at a temperature of 800ºC, the most common procedure for lamps, the clay color varied between buff and orange and any glaze was red. If a black glaze was desired then a second stage (reduction) was employed, the temperature rising to approximately 945ºC: the clay body turned gray and the glaze turned black. After a third stage (reoxydation), the vent-hole of the kiln was opened and the temperature cooled a little, allowing the clay body to revert to a bufforange while the glaze remained black (Bailey 1975:7–9). The friability of the lamp, and resulting fragments from frequent breakage, made it an ideal vector of change. New lamps were constantly being manufactured to replace their discarded, broken fellows, which increased the possibilities of change in the technology, artistry and the ideologies that influenced the potter at his wheel. There are exceptions—a form can transcend historical periods, its body reflecting timelessness dictated by function, e.g., the saucer lamp and dating is, therefore, uncertain unless the lamp can be allied with a neighboring assemblage. The origin of a lamp is sometimes difficult to ascertain because when a lamp was popular, e.g., the Roman round lamp, it was often replicated by using the imported lamp as a matrix for a mold. These copies were sold locally, often with slight alterations to the original design, and it is these subtle changes and local clays that provide clues for such impersonation and popularity. Wheelmade lamps were popular during the Hellenistic period but were superseded by mold-made lamps in the first century CE, and it was not until the fourth/sixth century CE that they re-appeared in any numbers. However, dating lamps by types of manufacture can be hazardous, as in the case of one wheelmade form, the boot-shaped lamp (fig. 4.2). It was initially assigned to the Hellenistic period (Galling

56

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

1923:1), until its presence and context in excavations revealed a much later date, that of the fourth through the sixth century CE (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978, Zanoni 1996:329). Sourcing of ceramics Archaeometry can provide evidence for sourcing artifacts found within the Great Temple site, which is a most useful method of tracing origins of imported goods. Lamps were imported into the Petra region, and many of these were subsequently copied by local potters, making it difficult in some cases to identify local and non-local lamps. Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) captures a fingerprint of the clays used in the manufacture of the lamps, and this procedure was performed on one hundred samples from ceramic fragments taken from excavated strata throughout the Great Temple precinct and the North Ridge Tombs, and these were sent for INAA at the University of Missouri Reactor Center (MURR). The analysis was performed under the direction of Dr. Hector Neff at MURR, and the resulting data will be shown in the Appendix. Using INAA INAA is a spectroscopic procedure by which material, e.g., ceramics, can be characterized chemically, to determine the concentration of its various constituent elements. The assignment of origin or provenance is based on the assumption that ceramics produced in a particular place have a composition distinct from that of ceramics produced elsewhere. This may be due to the unique chemical compositions of different clay formations or to differences in composition introduced by practices of ceramic manufacture. Differences in composition are expected as a consequence of differences in the composition of the rocks from which clays form through weathering. Empirical evidence on ceramic and clay compositions supports this assumption. The interpretation of analytical data in terms of origin is a statistical problem involving comparisons of compositions to establish similarities or dissimilarities. The origin of a ceramic vessel is determined when its composition is shown to match that of a reference group of pottery, which is characteristic of a particular place. Often, due to lack of reference groups, the origin cannot be determined, but one is able to

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

57

say where a particular vessel did not come from, and this in itself can be of paramount importance. INAA studies in the Petra area were first conducted by Khairieh ‘Amr of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, and her doctoral thesis was based on that original survey (‘Amr 1987). A pottery consisting of several kilns had been found accidentally, when a road was being cut through the area near Zurrabeh, an area adjacent to Petra, and ‘Amr analyzed twenty-two ceramic fragments from this site (Zayadine 1981, 1982). Clay deposits have been located in the limestone plateau which extends almost the length of Jordan to the south of Petra, and ‘Amr test-fired sample pellets taken from these beds, producing the ‘typical Petra red’ exhibited in her locally fired ceramic fragment samples (‘Amr 1987:40). ‘Amr’s analysis provided an ideal control for this study of lamp fragments, including the INAA analysis of Great Temple ceramics undertaken by Leigh-Ann Bedal in 1995 (Bedal in Joukowsky 1998:347– 367). I was fortunate to receive funding from an NSF grant no. SBR9802366 for the archaeometry lab work at the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR). Dr. Hector Neff and Dr. Michael D. Glascock, assisted by Jeff Speakman and Kyra Lienhop, performed neutron activation analysis on 100 lamp fragments (70 fragments from the Great Temple and 30 from the North Ridge tombs) to determine sourcing, and the results appear in the Appendix. Lamp fragments from the Khirbet et-Tannur sanctuary will be sent for analysis when funding permits.

FUNCTION This multifunctional vessel was a device that served many purposes besides lighting households: both sacred and secular in its uses, it was employed everywhere that extra light was required, e.g., shops, mines, theaters. Lamps were also presented as offerings in temples and sanctuaries, and carried in funeral processions. Frequently they were deposited as grave goods, an advantage for the archaeologist is that lamps left in tombs with the dead, unlike those used in everyday life, often survived intact.

58

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Lamps used in religious practice These small clay vessels are as important as material documents for the history and significance of the sites they represent, because it is possible to observe the history of ideas on the surface of many of the lamps. Religious symbols (e.g., menorahs, crosses, chi-rho monograms, deities), and inscriptions in various languages and different scripts pay homage to the prevailing faith, appearing and disappearing throughout the centuries. Lamps can also provide evidence of past behavior, particularly in religious practice. They were used as votive offerings at many temples and shrines, and were a common feature in the worship of the gods. When space became restricted in the sanctuary, the earlier offerings were often cleared out to make room for subsequent votives. As the offerings removed were still sacred they could not be thrown away, which necessitated, in some cases, the digging of pits within the temple grounds for their burial. Sir Charles Newton found several such caches of lamps in the Temenos of Demeter at Cnidus during the British Museum excavations at that site in 1859 (Bailey 1972:12). Broneer (1977:1) found a large percentage of the lamps from Isthmia that he believed were integrated with the cult apparatus of the gods. “This aspect is reflected in the relative frequency of certain types and in the creation of new types.” Despite the unreliable stratification at the Sanctuary of Poseidon, and resultant mixed deposits, he argued that the proportion of sherds for the several lamp types “has a bearing on the nature of the monuments concerned. Although fragments of lamps may wander far and wide, they rarely migrate in groups of one type; the overwhelming majority tend to remain close to the place where the lamps had originally been used.” Lamps with many nozzles (polycandela) were often used as sanctuary lamps, for example, dozens of these were found in a temple of Demeter at Akragas in Sicily (Bailey 1972:12). These lamps with their multiple nozzles would have been most useful in the lighting of a room, where a perpetual flame may have been an important feature. Eric Lapp (1997:5) proposes that the use of the oil lamp in sacred spaces—e.g., burials, catacombs, temples, shrines and mithraea—was quite widespread and particularly important because different attitudes toward the use of light might have been related to certain contexts by

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

59

the deposition patterns, the classes of lamps used and their iconographic decoration. He adds (1997:190–191) “Often, many objects of ritual are everyday common items (e.g., figurines, lamps, coins, etc.), but become cultic when deposited beside sacred structures, such as altars, or in known (commonly architecturally defined) ritual spaces.” He cites (1997:193) the mithraeum at Caesarea where numerous lamps were deposited exclusively in association with the altar of the sanctuary. Thirty-four lamps were found within the mithraeum, with thirtyone of these on the floor surrounding the altar, no additional lamps were recovered on the mithraeum floor away from the altar (Blakely 1987:19). Lapp (1997:193) suggests that the isolated use of the lamps at and around the mithraic altar spans the occupation of the mithraeum phase and indicates the lamps served a cultic function, probably as votive offerings. The sanctuary of Khirbet et-Tannur also shows evidence of lamps placed around the altar platform in the Inner Temple Enclosure (see Chapter 3), where a concentration of Byzantine slipper lamps was found around the altar platform suggesting that Khirbet et-Tannur was still used for cultic purposes as late as ca. CE 400 (Barrett 2003:6). Lamps used as funerary offerings An important use for lamps in the ancient world was their function as tomb furnishings. This practice dates back to the third millennium in the Levant, and was widespread during Classical times in the Mediterranean area. It is impossible to tell if the lamps placed in the tombs were, like the pottery, glass, jewelry and other objects buried with them, merely the property of the dead person, or whether they may have had some symbolic or religious purpose. Many appear unused, with no sign of blackening around the wick-hole, perhaps purchased specially for funerary use, although stylistically most of the lamps mirror those found in domestic quarters. Occasionally a lamp found in a tomb was not placed for funerary rites, but was left behind by a tomb robber, and can be considerably later in date than other objects left in the tomb (Barrett in Bikai and Perry 2001:59).

60

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

ANTIQUARIAN COLLECTIONS AND CATALOGUES OF LAMPS There is a plethora of lamp catalogues today, the first compiled by collectors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries CE who had the funds to buy antiquities, including ancient oil lamps, from dealers throughout the former Classical world, assigning curators to catalogue their finds (Baron D’Hancarville aka Pierre François Hugues 1778; Moses 1814; Newton 1867). The collections are often donated to museums, e.g., the British Museum, and the Semitic Museum, Harvard University, and these institutions have stocked their shelves and cabinets with ancient lamps from the estates of former collectors. The museums themselves also bought lamps from dealers abroad until legislation, in the form of the UNESCO Convention (the United Nations Environmental, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property) was passed forbidding such practice. Most of these lamps are in immaculate condition, taken from tombs rather than found in fragments at archaeological sites, and their proveniences have been long forgotten. However, the lack of provenience does not affect information on the complete artifact, a rare advantage to study its exact size and decoration. Thanks to over a century of study and cataloguing (e.g., Petrie 1904; Loeschcke 1919; Broneer 1930, 1977; Crowfoot 1957; Perlzweig 1961; Bailey 1975, 1980, 1988, 1994; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978; Hayes 1980; Negev 1986b; Slane 1990; Crelier 1995; Lapp 1997; Hadad 2002) many lamp types have been identified, principally by place and period, and the lamps catalogued accordingly.

METHODOLOGY Lamp fragments as data In my attempt to interpret culture change via religious practice at these three sites, the ancient oil lamp will be the focus of my research data. The sites surveyed have yielded a total of over 1,500 lamp fragments. The fragments from the Great Temple, Petra, Jordan, were analyzed on site, and I am grateful to Dr. Martha Sharp Joukowsky, the

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

61

Director of the Great Temple excavations, for the resources, funding and workspace provided for the analysis. I analyzed the fragments from the North Ridge funerary site at the American Center for Oriental Research (ACOR), Amman, Jordan. Dr. Patricia Bikai and Dr. Pierre Bikai kindly provided workspace and research materials, and in addition I received a most generous fellowship (the Bikai Fellowship) which provided accommodation and a stipend for six weeks’ research at the Center. The lamp fragments from Khirbet et-Tannur were analyzed at the Semitic Museum, Harvard University. The Director of the Khirbet etTannur site, Dr. Judith McKenzie of St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University, has been most helpful in providing the materials and information necessary for the research on the lamp fragments, originally collected by the archaeologist, Nelson Glueck, in 1937. The lamp fragments have been stored at the Semitic Museum, and Dr. Joseph Greene, the Assistant Director of the Museum, generously provided me with workspace and access to the Museum’s extensive lamp reference collection, which I have catalogued. The collection comprises over 700 examples of complete lamps from a wide range of lamp types, dated from the second century BCE through the tenth century CE. Every lamp fragment received an identification number, which was used as a catalogue reference and each fragment was documented in Filemaker Pro 7 and on Excel spreadsheets. These records include dimensions, weight, Munsell color reference, decorative elements (absence versus presence), date, comparanda, deposition and distribution patterns where feasible. The information on these attributes appears in the lamp tables (Fig. Nos. 7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.20, 7.21) found in the Appendix. Determining lamp presence from the number of identified specimens (NISP) Data presented here are based on NISP (Number of Identified Specimens). Due to the highly fragmentary state of the assemblages, common elements were often missing, e.g., handles and spouts, although, where possible, lamp fragments belonging to the same lamp, were reassembled. NISP statistics do not reflect the actual number of lamps

62

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

represented by these assemblages, instead NISP counts are best suited for determining the relative percentages of various lamp types. After sorting through the lamp fragments for all three sites, those with no findspot (area/trench/locus), and/or no demonstrable type were eliminated from the data. If any of these ‘orphan’ fragments appears in the data, it is noted. The Great Temple site yielded 523 lamp fragments, and of these 451 have a findspot and have been identified. The North Ridge tombs yielded 794 fragments and of these 685 have a findspot and have been identified. Khirbet et-Tannur yielded 48 fragments and of these 29 have a findspot and have been identified. Weight versus number of fragments It is essential for the researcher to devise a methodology that can be replicated by others, to obtain approximate lamp numbers from the NISP count. Two of the sites in the study (the Great Temple and the North Ridge funerary sites) had large quantities of lamp fragments, but it was decided not to use a minimum number of lamps (MNL) check on the Great Temple and North Ridge data to determine absolute lamp numbers, because diagnostics, like handles and spouts, were missing and also many types of lamp share similar lamp handles and spouts, thus defeating reliable categorization. However, the Khirbet et-Tannur yield of 29 lamp fragments was an ideal candidate for this method. The quantity of fragments found was small and manageable and any cojoining fragments were labeled as one lamp fragment, which meant that the NISP at the Khirbet et-Tannur site equaled the minimum lamp number (MNL). Great Temple site and North Ridge funerary site In order to ascertain lamp presence from the many tiny, yet identifiable lamp fragments found at these two sites, it was decided to assign a mean weight in grams for a complete lamp type (Appendix Fig. 7.22). These mean weights were taken from a selection of complete lamp types found at the sites, or, if complete lamps did not exist, weights of complete examples of the same lamp type were obtained from the lamp reference collection at the Semitic Museum.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

63

The complete examples of lamps not found at the sites were the Hellenistic Delphinform lamp; imported Roman discus lamp; and the Islamic linear, tongue handle lamp, and the weights for these types were taken from the Semitic Museum collection. The number of lamps used to determine mean weights for complete lamps varied according to availability, for example, fifteen Delphinform lamps from the Semitic Museum provided a mean weight for that lamp type, there being no complete examples found on the sites. Nine complete examples of the Nabataean volute lamp, taken from the North Ridge site, Great Temple site and the Semitic Museum provided a mean weight for that lamp type. Nine complete examples of the locally made copies of imported lamps included various shoulder decorations (e.g., ovolo, rosette), and were represented at both the Great Temple site and the North Ridge site. The mean weight of sixteen complete examples of Roman decorated discus lamps was taken from examples at the Semitic Museum, there being no complete Roman imported lamps found on the sites. The mean weight of fifteen complete Byzantine lamps was taken from lamps found at both sites, including four boot-shaped lamps from the Semitic Museum. The mean weight from thirteen Islamic linear and tongue handle lamps was taken from the Semitic Museum collection, because no complete examples were found on the sites. Each lamp fragment was weighed, and the total weight of fragments for each type in each area of the sites recorded (Appendix, Fig. Nos. 7.20, 7.21). These totals have been divided by the mean weight for that type, thus yielding an approximate number for the type, area and site. This procedure has enabled very small fragments to be counted without compromising the validity of the data. Khirbet et-Tannur site As mentioned above, 48 lamp fragments were documented and of these 29 were identifiable types. All fragments that were part of the same lamp were re-assembled, i.e., two fragments, and unidentified lamp fragments and those without a findspot were not included. The mean weight method was not appropriate for the Khirbet etTannur site because the 29 lamps/fragments were too few for this ap-

64

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

plication, but the fragments provided minimum lamp numbers (MNL) for each type without confusing the data.

TYPOLOGY FOR LAMPS FOUND WITHIN SITES Lamp types are classified by their identifiable attributes (e.g., shape, size, nozzle design, discus decoration, clay type), which can indicate stylistic development or change, following the tradition of lamp typologies (e.g., Loeschcke 1919, Broneer 1930). The nomenclature used within the typology is a universal one for lamps, and not my own creation, unless specified. All types described within the corpus functioned as lamps except for No. 5, which was a lampfiller with a pouring spout for oil.

CHRONOLOGICAL PERIODS The relative dating has been elicited from excavations with uninterrupted sequences of lamps, e.g., the Athenian Agora (Perlzweig 1961), and Isthmia (Broneer 1977), and local sites in the Petra region where excavation levels were uncontaminated, e.g., el-Katute (Khairy 1990), ez-Zantur (Zanoni 1996). All the lamp types mentioned here come under the Classical periods, which are subdivided: Hellenistic (Greek), Nabataean, Roman, and then the religious periods: Byzantine (Christian), and Islamic. The Islamic period is also separated by religiopolitical subdivisions, based on the location of the capital or rival capitals (Caliphates) of the ruling dynasty (Hendrix et al. 1996:58). The emergence of the Nabataeans in Petra, during the third century BCE, coincided with the Late Hellenistic period (198–63 BCE), and their early ceramic repertoire showed development of forms and wares derived from the Hellenistic corpus (Hendrix et al. 1996:67). This Hellenistic influence was also seen in the Early Roman ceramics in the Roman Provinces of the East (63 BCE–CE 135), 63 BCE being the year that Pompey conquered the region for Rome. Nabataea became part of the Provincia Arabia in CE 106. The Nabataean ceramic tradition, however, did not disappear in CE 106, and their painted wares were still being produced in the third century CE and perhaps later (Schmid 2000 phase 4, Fig. 98). The periods referred to in the Typology are defined below:

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

65

CHRONOLOGY (RAST 1992) Early Hellenistic BCE 332–198 Late Hellenistic 198–63 Nabataean ceramic tradition begins Early Roman 63–CE 135 Nabataea annexed by Rome in CE 106 Middle Roman 135–250 Late Roman 250–360 Early Byzantine 360–491 Late Byzantine 491–640 Islamic Umayyad Dynasty 661–750 Abbasid Dynasty 750–1258 The lamps are classified into forty-five types, but the numerical order of the types is not a strict indication of chronological progression; that is, because there is a considerable overlap in types within an historical period, and five types (Nos. 2, 19, 24, 31 and 45) represent miscellanea or unidentified groups. Today the researcher can employ scientific analysis to determine the origin of the clays used by the potter when creating an oil lamp and, as previously mentioned, one hundred samples were taken from lamps and ceramics found at the Great Temple and North Tombs sites for instrumental neutron activation studies. These results can provide definitive evidence for an imported lamp, and are also invaluable for determining whether a style has been copied by a local potter from an import. In the Typology, lamps entitled ‘locally made’ have their stylistic origins from lamps outside the Nabataean realm, but local potters have made them from local clay sources.

USE OF MUNSELL COLOR CHARTS Each lamp and/or fragment has been assigned a Munsell reading, which is especially useful for international color correlation, since no translation of color names is needed. Clay and slip colors are matched to the color chart and appear in the Site Charts in the Appendix (Munsell Soil Color Charts 2000).

66

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.3 Descriptive elements of the ceramic oil lamp

NOTES AND CONVENTIONS Unless otherwise credited the photographs of the lamps are my own, and the drawings of specific lamps were executed by Catherine S. Alexander. Photographs and drawings in the Typology are reproduced at half-scale, unless otherwise indicated. Profiles are also at half-scale. All measurements are in centimeters and these can be found in the Site Tables in the Appendix. If a lamp is incomplete, diameter measurements have been taken from a diameter chart. The lamp is usually displayed on the page with the nozzle pointing downward. A diagram of a lamp and profile is shown above to illustrate the nomenclature mentioned in the text. The Loeschcke shoulder form reference follows.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

Figure 4.4 Shoulder forms (Loeschcke 1919:25 fig. 2)

67

68

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

TYPOLOGY HELLENISTIC IMPORTED LAMPS AND LOCAL COPIES (DATED FROM MID-SECOND CENTURY BCE–FIRST CENTURY CE) 1. Delphinform (Fig. 4.5) The name ‘delphinform’ refers to the shape of the lamp, which was attributed to the dolphin by Walters (1914:42–44). Petrie (1904:8) referred to ‘Dolphin lamps’ as thumb lamps, from the thumb-piece at the side for holding them, but he noted that early examples “show that this projection was at first a dolphin.” He added, “That about one in twelve have left-handed projections does not imply that they were held in the left hand, but only that the spout was held more towards the person.” A molded lamp, it has a rounded double-convex body, a plain rim around the filling-hole, and a flat, low disc-base, with a lug-handle on one side. There is a long nozzle with a rounded end. The shoulders are decorated with radiating ridges, and sometimes there are volutes or an S-coil on the handle. Dated from the mid-second to mid-first century BCE and possibly extending to the end of the first century BCE. Comparanda: Broneer Type XVIII; Lapp 1961 type 83; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:13 Nos. 22–23; ‘Amr 1984:31, type 4; Fitch and Goldman 1994:47–51 Nos. 183–204; Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:13 No. 2. Table 7.12 Ref. No. 1GT.

2. Lamp fragments related to delphinform These lamp fragments are elongated nozzles related to the above type. Table 7.12 Ref. No. 2GT.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

69

Figure 4.5 Delphinform lamp (96-L-36) Nozzle found in Lower Temenos, Great Temple (Complete lamps—Hadad 2002:14, Fig. 2)

3. Wheelmade round lamp (Fig. 4.6) This is a closed round lamp with its spout incorporated into the body of the lamp. The base is footed. There is a large central filling-hole, and sometimes a vestigial handle at the rear of the shoulder. Probably locally made for use in the sanctuary at Khirbet et-Tannur. The clay is not well-levigated. Comparanda: Similar lamps in Broneer 1930:59–61 Type XVII, Pl. VI: Bailey 1975:179–182, Pl. 80, Q405–426, dated to ca. 70 BCE: ‘Amr 1987:34, Pl.18 Nos. PL42 and PL43: Fitch et al. 1994:37, ‘Watch type lamps,’ date 150–70 BCE. Table 7.14 Ref. No. 1KT.

70

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.6 Wheelmade round lamp (Kh et-T-L-30) Lamp found in south west corner of Room 9, Khirbet et-Tannur Possibly unique sanctuary lamp made locally (Drawing by Catherine S. Alexander)

4. Syrian lamp type (Fig. 4.7) This molded lamp has been assigned to Syria because of its shape and ware by Rosenthal and Sivan (for reference see comparanda below). It has a pocket watch body with vestigial knob handle at the rear of a small, depressed discus. The shoulder decoration is an olive wreath emanating from the handle, with half-volutes on the nozzle. Comparanda: Howland 1958:197–198, dated to late first century BCE–to the early first century CE; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:55 No. 223, dated not earlier than the middle of the first century CE; Hayes 1980:15–16 No. 57 Pl. 7, dated ca. 50 BCE–CE 25. Table 7.12 Ref. No. 3GT.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

71

Figure 4.7 Syrian lamp (02-L-5) Nozzle missing Lamp found in Residential Quarter, Great Temple

5. Lampfiller for oil lamps (Fig. 4.8) Clock shape with large central filling hole surrounded by raised border of radials, framed by a border of anthropomorphic heads in relief, separated by panels of radials. The narrow nozzle is in the form of a goat’s head in low relief with an ivy leaf decoration above, with a strap handle on the side. Nabataean, probably under Ptolemaic influence. Loeschcke believed it was dated to the first century BCE, personal communication to Horsfield et al. 1941:123 No. 50; Crelier 1995:128 Nr. 68, dated from the first century BCE–to the first century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 19GT; 14NR.

72

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.8 Lampfiller fragments (98–LB-122) Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site (Photograph of complete lampfiller—Horsfield et al. 1941:No. 50 Pl. XI)

6. Apprentice lamp (Fig. 4.9) These are crudely made lamps, hand-made or taken from a worn mold. They are often boat-shaped with a shallow discus and a small filling hole. The handle is pinched and the decoration consists of lines and grooves, e.g., a herringbone pattern, etched into the clay. Local, dated from the second half of the first century BCE to first half of the first century CE. Comparanda: Horsfield et al. 1941:Pl. XXI, No. 163; Hammond 1973:34, Nos. 102–103, Negev 1974:29, Pl. 17.92; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:98, Nos. 395–398; Khairy 1990:15 Group VI. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 8GT; 1NR.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

73

Figure 4.9 Apprentice lamp (94-P-25). Found in Upper Temenos, Great Temple

7. Ptolemaic Egyptian lamp with palmette (Fig. 4.10) Violin-shaped body. On the concave rim a geometric decoration of concentric circles and nodules between pairs of dotted lines. On the nozzle is a palmette, and above it a rope decoration. The central fillinghole has a small sunken discus. Flat base ring. Comparanda: Petrie 1904:Pl. LVIII, K30; Howland 1958:165 Type 48E; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:14 No. 28; Hayes 1980:25 No. 100, Pl. 11, dated to the second half of the first century BCE–first century CE. Table 7.12. Ref. No. 4GT.

Figure 4.10 Palmette lamp (02-L-6) Found in Residential Quarter, Great Temple

8. Herodian lamp (Fig. 4.11) These lamps can be wheelmade or molded, and have a knife-pared, spatulate concave nozzle. Often plain, without decoration or handles,

74

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

and first attributed to the Herodian period by E. L. Sukenik (1934:71). Kahane suggests a comparison with Broneer type XVII (1961:135). Comparanda: Sukenik 1934:71; Harding 1946:60, Pl. XX:2; Saller and Bagatti 1949:29–30, Pl. 5:29; Sellers and Baramki 1953:31; Kahane 1961:133–138; Smith 1961; Mazar et al. 1967:141, Pl. XXXIV:10; and were dated at Samaria-Sebaste in a context of the late first century BCE–first century CE and later (Crowfoot et al. 1957:289–290, 295–300, Figs. 68–69). They were most common during the first century CE, particularly in areas inhabited by Jews (Barag et al. 1994:46). Table 7.12. Ref. No 5GT.

Figure 4.11 Herodian lamp nozzle, rear view on left, front view on right (04-L-6) Found in Propylaeum, Great Temple (Complete lamp drawing—Haddad 2002:17, Fig. 12)

9. Polycandela (Fig. 4.12) Wheelmade lamps consisting of a long tubular neck forming a circular loop, usually supported by a metal stand or hung on a metal hook.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

75

Most likely used for lighting large rooms, continuing traditions from the Hellenistic period. The fabric was light or dark gray ware, although occasionally brown ware versions have been found (Barag and Hershkovitz 1994:56). Dated from the Herodian period (37 BCE–CE 6) through the time of the Second Roman Garrison in Masada (CE 74– 115) (Bailey 1994:99). Comparanda: Howland 1958:122, No. 509; Kennedy 1963:114, Pl XXX: 841; Smith 1966:15, Fig. 4; Israeli and Avida 1988:64. Tables 7.13, 7.14. Ref. Nos. 17NR; 2KT.

Figure 4.12 Polycandelon fragment (Kh. et-T-L-34) Found in Room 13, Khirbet et-Tannur Photograph of a complete polycandelon (Bailey 1988:Pl. 121, No. Q3294)

ROMAN AND IMPORTED LAMPS, LOCAL COPIES AND NABATAEAN LAMPS (DATED FROM FIRST CENTURY BCE–FIRST CENTURY CE)

10. Roman rosette lamp (Fig. 4.13) A rosette/petal decoration was a most popular design on the molded discus lamp, so-called because the discus or upper, slightly depressed surface served as a display for molded reliefs. The petals of the rosette were often in pairs, forming an elongated heart-shape and they encircled a small central filling-hole, edged with a molded ridge. The shoul-

76

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

der rim was also edged with one or more ridges. The nozzle was defined by volutes and the lamp was often coated in a red or dark brown slip. Broneer type XXI. Comparanda: Negev 1974:75, Pl. 16; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:25, 31 Nos. 69, 73–75,107; Bailey 1994:79–81 Nos. 138, 139, 148, 150 dated to the late first century BCE–first half of the first century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 20GT; 16NR.

Figure 4.13 Roman rosette lamp (98-LB-113) Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site

11. Locally made rosette lamp (Fig. 4.14) The rosette can also be read as an omega. Patrich suggests that the omega epitomizes the local “avoidance of imitation of the surrounding Hellenistic-Roman culture” (Patrich 1990:130). The discus features linked omegas, which resemble the heart-shape petal in the Roman rosette design, type 10. The Nabataean omega/rosette lamp sometimes has two ear lugs, one either side of the shoulder rim. In rare cases a molded inscription has been found on the outer side of a rosette lamp, see description below. An unusual Nabataean lamp (Fig. 6.3) Type no. 11, with an inscription consisting of four Nabataean characters molded on its side, was found not far from the betyls in trench 86, Locus 17 at the Great Temple site. Khairy (1984:118) has published some inscriptions found on lamps, and in his Fig. 3d, slm is translated as ‘Greetings.’ Another

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

77

interpretation might be connected to the presence of a statue of a deity. The inscription on our lamp reads slmt, and in his commentary on inscriptions accompanying betyls, Healey (2001:156) states, “Where statues existed, the term slm would have been used. Thus it was used of the statue of the divine Obodat in CIS II, 354, and the feminine form slmt is used for the Tyche of Si in the bilingual mentioning her (RES 1092).” Comparanda (Fig. 4.14): Horsfield et al. 1941:195, Pl. XXI, No. 162; Hammond 1973:90; Negev 1986b:132; Khairy 1990:12 Nos. 17, 18 dated to the second decade of the first century CE until the end of the reign of Rabb’el II, CE 106; Bailey 1988:278, Pl. 57, No. Q2289, dated to second half first century CE; Crelier 1995:126 No. UT 60, Tf. IV, dated to the second quarter of the first century–end of first century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 Ref. Nos. 9GT; 2NR, 3NR; 4KT.

Figure 4.14 Locally made rosette lamp (98-LB-10) Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site

78

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Detail from Figure. 6.3 Locally made rosette lamp (01-L-10) Molded inscription ‘slmt’ on outer wall of lamp Found in Propylaeum, Great Temple, in vicinity of betyls (Photograph by Artemis W. Joukowsky)

12. Locally made lamp with scallop shell motif (Fig. 4.15) This symbol has been designated a cult motif, sacred to the worship of Aphrodite (Bailey 1988:85; Crelier 1995:86). A most popular Roman decoration, the shell completely fills the discus of the lamp and this symbol was appropriated by the Nabataeans for their goddesses Allat and Al-‘Uzza, who shared similar water attributes to Aphrodite. Lucian of Samosate in De Dea Syria (transl. Strong 1913:71–73) states that Aphrodite and the Syrian goddess, Atargatis, were synonymous, and both were connected with the sea. Aphrodite had originally sprung from sea foam and Atargatis was often represented in mermaid form. The Nabataeans admired the Syrian goddess Atargatis, and either substituted or merged their native Allat with her (Glueck 1965:359– 60). Allat assumed the attributes of Atargatis as the goddess of springs (Zayadine 2003:62). Al-Uzza was identified with the Greco-Roman Aphrodite according to a dedication found on the island of Kos in the Aegean Sea and probably left by Syllaeus on his way to Rome in 9 BCE. Her cult was alive (in Petra) until the third century CE at Qasr al-Bint, according to a Greek fragmentary inscription. (ibid.:62–63).

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

79

Comparanda: Horsfield et al. 1941: Pl. XI, No. 45; Zayadine 1982:Pl.CXXII, No. 2; Hammond 1973:139; ‘Amr 1987: Pl. 16, Nos. 30, 32; Bailey 1988:85–87, Nos. Q2285, Q2286. Dated to CE 30–70. Table 7.13 Ref. No. 4NR.

Figure 4.15 Locally made scallop shell motif lamp fragments (98-LB-121) Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site Photograph of complete scallop shell motif lamp (Bailey 1988: Pl. 57 No. Q2285)

13. Roman banded decorated discus lamp (Fig. 4.16) These lamps are quite elaborately decorated with bands of different relief molding, e.g., small radials separated by bands of ridges, all surrounding a small central filling hole. Handles rarely present. The lamps were coated with a dark red or dark brown slip. This example has a planta pedis (a stamped potter’s mark featuring the sole of a human foot, on its base) and there is a stamped triangular motif around the shoulder rim. Loeschcke type VIIIa: Loeschcke dates this type to the second third of the first century CE. Broneer type XXV. Comparanda: Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:39 No. 149; Crelier 1995:133, Nr. 87, Tf. X. Dated to the first century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 21GT; 18NR.

80

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.16 Roman banded decorated discus lamp (98-LB-129) Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site

14. Locally made banded decorated discus lamp (Fig. 4.17) Imitations of No. 13, the lamps are banded with varying molded reliefs, including raised dots. They are also coated with dark red or brown slips. Comparanda: Broneer XXII. Crelier 1995:139, Nr. 113 dated to the third quarter of the first century CE. Table 7.13. Ref. No. 13NR

Figure 4.17 Locally made banded decorated discus lamp (98-LB-16) Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site

15. Roman decorated discus lamp (Fig. 4.18) This type abounds in the first century CE and was widely distributed and copied across the Empire. The whole upper surface of the lamp was used for molded reliefs of religious, mythological scenes, and themes of daily life, including erotica (Bailey 1972:22). A small filling hole was placed within the design but not necessarily in the center. The nozzle reflected the period in which the lamp was produced, some

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

81

having a triangular shape, others rounded with heart-shapes, and edged often by volutes, etc. Handles were sometimes added and indeed large discus lamps had elaborate heat shields protecting the handle. The base of the lamp might be inscribed with the potter’s name, and it was quite usual that the lamp was coated with dark red or brown slip. Comparanda: Broneer types XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV. Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:19–41; Hayes 1980: Pls. 21–26; Bailey 1994:84–85, dated to the end of the first century BCE through the first century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 24GT; 19NR.

Figure 4.18 Roman decorated discus lamp fragment (98-LB-9) Dancing feet of Maenad on discus Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site

Photograph of Roman decorated discus lamp with dancing Maenad (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:23, No. 57)

16. Locally made decorated discus lamp (Fig. 4.19) Lamps that were copies from original Roman imports are often slightly smaller than the original and the image can look quite worn. In making a mold, using the import as a patrix, the clay shrinks as it is drying; also the replication on the discus can be blurred. Our example of a blurred image is that of an eagle with outspread wings, holding up its left foot in an enigmatic manner (Bailey 1988:79), a popular Roman Imperial motif that has appeared on the discuses of local lamps as far afield as Cyprus, Salamis and Gaul, and also at Khirbet et-Tannur. This familiar symbol of divinity has been carved into a limestone acroterion above the Atargatis panel at Khirbet et-Tannur (McKenzie 2003a:175

82

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

fig. 180), and is featured in bold relief, dominating the Eagle Shrine in Petra (Glueck 1965:474). Comparanda: Similar lamps in Bailey 1965:33 Nos. 44–46: 1988:79 Nos. Q2414, Q2415, Q2416, Q2417, Q2443 and Q2518; RosenthalHeginbottom 1981:225 No. F-12 dated ca. CE 150–250. Date for this lamp is unknown. Tables 7.12, 7.14. Ref. Nos. 15GT; 5KT.

Figure 4.19 Locally made decorated discus lamp (Kh. et-T-L-14) Found in south west corner of Room 9, Khirbet et-Tannur (Photograph by Nelson Glueck, held at Semitic Museum, Harvard University)

17. Locally made discus lamp with Eros motif (Fig. 4.20) The motifs on the Roman discus lamps were often copied with some adaptation. A theme commonly represented on the lamp discus in the Petra region is that of Eros, engaged in an activity that is not represented outside the area. He appears as a young boy replete with wings, wearing shackles and carrying a pickaxe and basket. The basket has been interpreted by the Horsfields (1941:123) as an ingot and they ask the question “May he (Eros) be serving his sentence in a Nabataean copper-mine such as Fenan in the ‘Arabah, where convicts were sent in the Byzantine period?” They suggest that the subject may be “a new variant of the theme of the punished child Eros,” citing Ludwig Curtius’s article ‘Poenitentia,’ (1930:56, Fig. III). Curtius illustrated his article with a photograph of a marble statue of Eros from the Palazzo Pitti, Florence. The youth is wearing leg irons and shackles, and wiping a tear from his right eye

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

83

Comparanda: Khairy 1990:14 No. 22 dated to CE 18–40; Barrett 1998:277 Fig. 6.40 dated to the first century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref.Nos. 14GT; 9NR.

Figure 4.20 Locally made discus lamp fragment, showing torso and right arm of Eros (95-L-179) Found in the temple, Great Temple (Photograph of lamp with Eros, as a miner, Horsfield 1941:Pl. XI, No. 49)

18. Roman symplegma lamp (Fig. 4.21) Erotic representations on Roman discus lamps were common in the first century CE, a favorite theme in Imperial Rome. Not confined to relief-decorated ceramics, eroticism also appeared on domestic wall painting and shop signs, with its popularity waning by the Late Roman period. This particular scene has been found on lamps throughout the Petra region and the Roman Empire. Comparanda: Horsfield et al. 1941:196 Pl. XIV, 424a and b; Hammond 1973:37, Nos. 149–152; Zayadine 1982:392 No. 169 fig. 15; Khairy 1990:13–14 No. 20 fig. 9; Zanoni 1996:fig. 109; Barrett 1998:277, Fig. 6.39. Table 7.14 Ref. No. 25GT.

84

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.21 Roman symplegma lamp (94-P-37) Found in Upper Temenos, Great Temple (Photograph of complete lamp in British Museum, Reg. No. 1971:4–26.3, Boardman et al. 1988:202)

19. Unidentified locally made base with potter’s mark—no example shown Little can be noted with regard to this mark other than it appears on the base of a Nabataean lamp, and comprises etched straight lines. Table 7.12. Ref. No. 13GT.

NABATAEAN INDIGENOUS LAMPS DATED TO FIRST CENTURY CE 20–24. Nabataean volute type A and B lamps (Figs. 4.22, 4.23) This lamp is quintessentially Nabataean and is found throughout the Nabataean realm and beyond, e.g., Masada (Bailey in Marag 1994:87 No. 177). I have divided this lamp type into two categories, Volute type A and B. Both lamp forms have volutes on their nozzles and a sunray ridged design on their shoulders, however, there are subtle differences and these are described within each type. Negev (1986b:134– 137) has referenced this lamp as Subtype 1a (our ref. No. 21) and Subtype 1b (our ref. No. 20); Khairy (1990:9–10) has named the type Group I (our ref. No. 20), and Group II (our ref. No. 21). Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 10GT; 5NR (type A) and 11GT; 6NR (type B).

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

85

20. Nabataean volute type A lamp (Fig. 4.22) This is a round, molded lamp with a rounded nozzle and the shoulder rim is decorated with ridged radials surmounted by four seven-petalled rosettes. There is a volute on either side of the nozzle with tiny concentric circles above each volute. A groove connects the depressed, plain discus and wick-hole. The base is flat with a double base-ring. It has been dated by Khairy from CE 18–70, the dating taken from coins found in context with the lamp. Comparanda: Hammond 1973:33, Nos. 94, 96 dated before the middle of the first century CE; Negev 1974:28, Pl. 17.87; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:97, No. 394, dated to the first century CE; Khairy (1990:9–10). Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 10GT; 5NR.

Figure 4.22 Nabataean volute type A lamp (98-LB-20) Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site

21. Nabataean volute type B (Fig. 4.23) A lamp related to No. 20—a round, molded lamp with a rounded nozzle decorated with volutes on either side. The upper section of the discus is decorated with a ladder-like pattern. The two volutes are connected at the back of the nozzle. On the nozzle is a symbol, which might represent a chalice, torch or candlestick, consisting of a hemispherical body and a trumpet base (Khairy 1984:10; 1990:11). Negev (1974:29) identifies this symbol as “a double cornucopia, like the one found on the coins of Aretas IV.” Such a symbol is restricted to the

86

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Nabataean lamps and so far has never been recorded elsewhere (Khairy 1984:11). There are two rosettes composed of four circles, one on either side of the shoulder rim, and a rosette of nine petals at the rear of the rim. There are eight of these circles: four on either side of the shoulder rim, although Negev (1974:28) counts these circles as seven and states that they “may have had a religious significance, as it is the case with the Jews and other people.” The lamp type has been dated by Khairy (1990:11) from the beginning of the first century CE through the end of the reign of Malichus II (CE 40–70). Comparanda: Dalman 1912:26–27, Fig. 15b (No. 871a); Murray and Ellis 1940:26, Pl. XXXVI.15; Horsfield et al. 1941:122, 195, Pl. XI.42–43 and XLIV.415–418; Cleveland 1960:71–72, Pl. 18A; Schmitt-Korte 1968:514, Abb. 11.42; Negev 1970:48–51, Abb.32.2; Hammond 1973:33–34, 36, Nos. 129–132; Negev 1974:28–29, Pl. 17.87–89; Zayadine 1982:371, No. 10; Khairy 1990:10–11, Figs. 5–7. Tables 7.12, 7.13 Ref. Nos. 11GT; 6NR.

Figure 4.23a Volute type B (98-LB-29) Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site

Figure 4.23b Nabataean volute type B (02-L-1) Found in Upper Temenos, Great Temple

22. Nabataean volute type B inscribed (Fig. 4.24) This lamp type is identical to No. 21, except it has a variety of Nabataean characters etched on its base. The Nabataean short formulae which appear most often are: “RAYT” translated as “I have seen”;

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

87

“SLM” translated as “Greetings”; and “HNY,” translated as “use it with pleasure,” (Khairy 1984:118). Khairy suggests, with regard to “RAYT,” that: “there is a direct and logical relation between the functional purpose of the lamp itself—as a means for helping to see in the darkness of the wilderness, tombs, dwellings, and caves—and the meaning of this word.” Comparanda: As for No. 21. Also Khairy 1984:115–119, Figs. 1–3. Dated to the first century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 12GT; 7NR

Figure 4.24a Nabataean type volute B lamp base inscribed “RAYT” (“I have seen”) (98-LB-28) Found in Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site

23. Nabataean volute types A and B fragments These fragments are extremely small yet can be identified as Nabataean Volute lamps, although it is impossible to determine whether the original lamp was either a Volute type A or B. Comparanda: As for Nos. 21 and 22. Table 7.13 Ref. No. 8NR.

Two more examples are given below of the Nabataean Volute lamps. Both are from the fill in Tomb 1, the North Ridge site. The Volute type B (Fig. 4.24b) is an inscribed lamp (98–LB-28). Its base is shown in Fig. 4.24a above. Fig. 4.24c is a Volute type A lamp (98–LB18).

88

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.24b Volute B lamp (98-LB-28)

Figure 4.24c Volute A lamp (98-LB-18)

24. Fragments of Nabataean lamps from bases, nozzles and handles (examples not shown) It is possible to determine that these fragments are from Nabataean lamps because their bases, nozzles and handles are comparable to those from other identified Nabataean lamps. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 18GT; 15NR.

IMPORTED LAMPS AND NABATAEAN LOCAL COPIES (DATED FROM FIRST CENTURY–FOURTH CENTURY CE) 25. Double axes shoulder decoration (Fig. 4.25) The common denominator for these lamps is the double axes symbol, which appears on either side of the shoulder rim. This type has a distribution all over Syria-Palestine (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:85), and a lamp from the Great Temple has been sourced by neutron activation analysis to Parthia (95–L-81). The lamp shape is round with a ridge surrounding the slightly depressed discus. The nozzle is wide and flaring, and the discus is often decorated with a relief design, and there may be a potter’s mark on the base. Comparanda: Broneer type XXV and Loeschcke VIII; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:85–89; ‘Amr 1987:326 No. Pl. 27, 28; Bailey

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

89

1988:281 No. Q2307–9 dated from the last quarter of the first to the beginning of the third century CE. Table 7.12 Ref. No. 6GT.

Figure 4.25 Lamp with double axes on either side of the shoulder (98-L-8) Upper Temenos, Great Temple

Lamp photograph with profile (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:86, No. 347)

26. Wheelmade socket and saucer lamp and stand (Fig. 4.26) This lamp and stand are in the form of a steeply walled bowl with a handle placed beneath the flaring rim. The lower exterior body of the vessel is decorated with an incised zigzagging line above two incised straight bands. The lamp saucer is nestled inside the stand/bowl rim. If the socket and saucer lamps were fired with stands, the saucer rims may have been vulnerable to breakage and the separated stands discarded. Alternatively some of the socket and saucer lamps may have been made without the stands, and their saucers finished with stringcut bases. Comparanda: Similar lamps have been found in great quantities in sanctuaries. Crowfoot (1957:373 No. 11) describes a large cache (ninety-six) of socket and saucer lamps, without stands, found in two places connected with the worship of the Kore at Samaria, and it was surmised that they had played some part in the ritual. Many of the lamps were discovered with Roman pottery dating from the first to the third century CE, “as long as the worship of the Kore continued” (Crowfoot 1957:374).

A large cache of socket and saucer lamps was discovered in the Sanctuary of Palaimon at Isthmia and catalogued by Broneer (1977:35,

90

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

44 Type A-5b). Although the panhellenic sanctuary was primarily sacred to Poseidon, it also included the hero cult of Palaimon, a Theban youth who drowned along with his mother. His corpse was brought to shore at Isthmia where the legendary king Sisyphus inaugurated games in his honor. Broneer (1977:35–37) describes the lamp type as follows: It is in a true sense of the word a cult vessel, designed exclusively for the Sanctuary of Palaimon. The lamps are wheelmade, consisting of a large bowl that contained the oil and in the center a tubular wick-holder with one or more openings to permit the oil to reach the wick. Nearly all the lamps show blackening at the top of their sockets. The wick would have been large and was probably rolled into a tube, as on large modern kerosene lamps. A solid wick large enough to fill the socket would have used up oil too fast and would probably have produced an undue amount of smoke. The base is slightly raised and in most cases it is rough underneath, showing the marks of the string used for removing the lamp from the wheel. On several of the lamps, however, the base has been trimmed after removal from the wheel. The Palaimonion lamps have no handle; consequently they were intended to be set on the ground or on some lamp stand. The clay color of the lamps varied from a brick red to a pale yellow with a rather mealy surface without a glaze or wash yet with traces of a white chalky surfacing applied both on the inside and the outside, and even on the base and inside the socket. This crumbly substance, which seems to be pure lime, can hardly have been made for decoration. I would venture a guess that it is mere white wash applied at times for purification of the whole area. This would seem to follow from the fact that in some cases, it has been splashed over fragmentary and probably discarded lamps.

Loeschcke (1919:498 Typus XIV, Pl. xx), describes this lamp type as a ‘Zentraltüllenlampe,’ and dates it to the second half of the first century CE, and Slane (1990:26, No. 10) suggests a third century CE date for the Palamonion lamp fragment found in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth. Donald Bailey, in a personal communication to me (August 3, 2003), wrote “Many Demeter sanctuaries throughout the Eastern Roman Empire seem to have failed by the third century AD, and lamps

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

91

from sanctuaries often had individual appearances local to the place, being made for use at, and devoting to, that particular shrine, not always copying the domestic lamps used in the area and not copying lamps in use at other similar places of worship near and far. But your open, socketed lamp, as you have noticed, does have very close resemblances to some of Broneer’s Palaimonion lamps from Isthmia, which seem to date from Augustan times onwards, although the earliest lamps are less like yours.” Table 7.14. Ref. No. 3KT.

Wheelmade socket and saucer lamp fragment profile (Kh. et-T-05), provenience unknown (Drawing of lamp profile by Catherine S. Alexander)

92

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.26 Wheelmade socket and saucer lamp fragment (Kh. et-T-L06). Found in Room 14, Khirbet etTannur.

Lampstand found by Nelson Glueck at Khirbet et-Tannur (Kh. et-T-11), provenience unknown (Drawing held at Semitic Museum, Harvard University)

27. Roman round lamp (Fig. 4.27) Negev (1986b:132) included the double axe type (No. 25) in this group. The Roman Round lamp has been found in abundance in the Petra area, both imported and copied locally. The lamp is rounded with a broad shoulder rim, a slightly depressed discus and a central fillinghole. The nozzle is rounded and there is a raised handle at the rear, sometimes perforated. The rim can be plain or impressed with vegetal or geometric shapes. Comparanda: Broneer type XXV. Loeschcke VII dated from the mid to the third quarter of the first century CE. Hayes 1980:51, No. 231; Crelier 1995:144 Nr. 135, Tf XIX. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. No. 22GT; 20NR; 22NR.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

93

(98-LB-126) (98-LB-127) Figure 4.27 Roman round lamps Both these lamps were found in the Tomb 1 fill, North Ridge site

28. Roman round lamp with ovolos (Fig. 4.28) A lamp related to No. 27. The rim is decorated with impressed ovolos, and the slightly depressed discus is surrounded by ridges. Comparanda: Broneer type XXV. Horsfield et al. 1941, Pl. XXI, No. 161 dated to the last quarter of the first century CE; Negev 1986b:132 dated from the beginning of the second century CE; ‘Amr 1987:33 No. PL 34; Crelier 1995:108 Nr. 72 dated to last third of the first century CE. Examples found in Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 23GT; 21NR.

Figure 4.28 Roman round lamp with ovolos (Photograph: Hayes 1980:180, No. 229)

94

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

29. Locally made round lamp (Fig. 4.29) This lamp is a copy of Nos. 27 and 28. A most popular lamp with similar attributes as the original, although manufactured from local clay. Handles and nozzles are not so ornate. Also the filling-hole size varies, being smaller during the first century CE, and becoming much larger by the third century CE. Comparanda: Broneer type XXV. Hammond 1973:36, 48 No. 138; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:98 No. 399 dated to the first century CE; Khairy 1990:12 dated from last quarter of the first century BCE to the second half of the first century CE; Zanoni 1996:317 Nr. 11. Dated to mid-second century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 Ref. Nos. 16GT; 11NR; 6KT

Figure 4.29 Local copy round lamp with ovolos (98-L-2) Found in the temple, Great Temple

30. Locally made round lamp with ovolos (Fig. 4.30) A local version of Nos. 27 and 28, this lamp has the same attributes as the original, except for its manufacture from local clay, and is dated from the first to the third century CE. Comparanda: Broneer type XXV. Negev 1986b:133, No. 1156 dated from the beginning of the second to the third century CE; Crelier 1995:145 No. 138 dated from the second to the third century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 17GT; 12NR.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

95

Figure 4.30 Local copy round lamp with ovolos (97-L-66) Found in the temple, Great Temple

31. Fragments of Roman lamps from bases, nozzles and handles (not shown) Fragments from Roman imported lamps. These lamps were almost always slipped with a fine colored slip and their clays were welllevigated. The impressed or molded decoration on the discus was sharp and not blurred as in many local copies. The bases were often impressed with a potter’s mark. Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 26GT; 23NR.

32. Gerasan type lamp (Fig. 4.31) The lamp is rounded with the nozzle almost within its body. The shoulder rim is decorated with an impressed vegetal or geometric relief and has a large central filling hole. Comparanda: Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:90; Zayadine 1986:15–16 Nos. 13–19; Lapp 1997:45, 323 Fig. 29. Dated from the second through the fourth century CE. Table 7.14. Ref. No. 7KT.

96

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.31 Gerasan type lamp (Kh. et-T-L-12) Provenience unknown, Khirbet et-Tannur (Drawing by Catherine S. Alexander)

33. Samaritan type lamp (Fig. 4.32) Rounded lamp with geometric pattern around the rim. Large central filling-hole surrounded by three ridges. Knob handle. Base ring has a raised center dot. These lamps were unslipped and the filling hole is irregularly shaped as if broken by hand. Late Roman date. Comparandum: Similar to Crowfoot et al. 1957: 374, Fig. 88 No. 10, Fig. 89 No. 1. Dated from the third through the fourth century CE. Table 7.14. Ref. No. 8KT.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

97

Figure 4.32 Samaritan type lamp (Kh.et-T-L-13) Found in the north west corner of the Inner Temenos Enclosure, Khirbet et-Tannur (Photograph taken by Nelson Glueck, held at Semitic Museum, Harvard University).

EARLY BYZANTINE–LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD LAMPS (DATED FROM FOURTH–SEVENTH CENTURY CE) 34. Zoological motif (Figs. 4.33a and b) These lamps were found in trench 89, locus 41 and it is possible they are both imported lamps from Egypt and dated to the fifth through the sixth century CE. Bird—with only a partial discus it is not possible to date this lamp exactly. The discus shows a stylized bird facing left with a bunch of grapes in its beak. Around the shoulder rim are bunches of grapes and over the nozzle are three small concentric circles. There is one small filling-hole. Reddish-brown slip on either side of the discus. Comparanda: Broneer type XXV. Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:41 No. 163, 42 No. 167 are similar, both featuring birds on the discus with a decorated rim, dated to the second third of the first through the second century CE. This date may be too early for our example, due to its proximity to the lamp described below, which also features grapes on its shoulder rim and is more firmly dated to the early Byzantine period. Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1981:114) describes three lamps decorated with birds and bunches of grapes found at Beit Nattif in Israel, a motif that survived into the Byzantine period. Table 7.12. Ref. No. 7GT.

98

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.33a Zoological lamp Bird with grapes in beak (02-L-4) Found in Residential Quarter, Upper Temenos, the Great Temple

Animal—this lamp has a highly decorated shoulder rim with bunches of grapes and a zig-zagging border around the slightly depressed discus. The discus has a raised relief figure, which looks leonine with a small head, and in the field below are five rosettes or stars. There are three small filling holes punched around the animal. The figure is seated upside-down, contravening lamp conventions. Egyptian origin. Comparanda: Similar lamps in Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:6 No. 267, dated as early Byzantine; Bailey 1988:266 No. Q2201 MLA, Pl. 51, Fig. 71, dated from the fifth through the sixth century CE. Table 7.12 Ref. 7GT.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

99

Figure 4.33b Zoological lamp Lion (?) (02-L-03). Found in Residential Quarter, Upper Temenos, the Great Temple

35. Pear-shaped lamp with tongue on nozzle (Fig. 4.34) A pear-shaped lamp: it often has a decorated shoulder rim, e.g., a herringbone pattern appears on the example Kh-et-T-L-15 from Khirbet et-Tannur. The ovoid, depressed discus is bordered by an incised ridge extending as a tongue to the nozzle. A small filling hole within discus; the handle is raised and ribbed. Flattened base. Comparanda: Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:98 No. 400, classified as Nabataean; Zayadine 1982 Nos. 3 and 8 dated from the third through the fourth century CE; Bailey 1988:415 No. Q3305 Pl. 122 similar lamp dated from the fourth through the fifth century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14. Ref. Nos. 27GT; 24NR; 9KT.

Figure 4.34a Profile of pear-shaped lamp (98-LB-333) Found in collapse of pillar bracing Ridge Church foundation, North Ridge site.

100

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.34b Pear-shaped lamp (as above) with tongue on nozzle (98-LB-333) Nozzle fragment (Kh. et-T-15). Provenience unknown, Khirbet et-Tannur (Drawing of nozzle fragment by Catherine S. Alexander)

36. Slipper lamp with knob or tongue handle (Fig. 4.35) These lamps derive their name from their elongated pear-shape. Also known as candlestick lamps because the nozzle is often decorated with a symbol that resembles a branched candlestick or palm fronds: half volutes are also common. The rest of the body is decorated with ridges emanating from the large filling hole, which is marked by an incised ridge. The base is marked by a raised ring. There is usually a vestigial knob handle at the rear of the lamps found on Nabataean sites. The Nabataean version is smaller and has slightly concave sides between the nozzle and the filling-hole. Comparanda: In Jerusalem—Aharoni 1956:108 Fig. 4.2 dated from the fifth through sixth century CE; Magness 1993:250 Form 2, dated from the second half of the fourth through the sixth century CE. In Samaria—Crowfoot 1957:376 Fig. 89.5 dated from the second half of the fourth century CE. In Pella—Smith 1973:219, Pl. 66 No. 369 dated to the sixth century CE. In Petra—Horsfield et al. 1941:137 Pl. VI.5 dated to the fourth century CE; Khairy 1990:20 Nos. 41–48; Zanoni 1996:320–322 Nr. 14–

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

101

29 dated from the fourth through the fifth century CE. In Bet Shean, Hadad (2002:66–67) refers to the candlestick lamp, which is similar to the lamp found on Nabataean sites, dated from the fifth through the eighth century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 Ref. Nos. 28GT; 25NR; 10KT; 12KT.

Figure 4.35 Bottom right, nozzle fragment from slipper lamp with knob or tongue handle (Kh. et-T-L-20). No provenience. Khirbet et-Tannur (Glueck 1965:176, Pl. 82a). Photograph of complete slipper lamp taken by Nelson Glueck, held at the Semitic Museum, Harvard University. (Drawing of nozzle fragment and profile from lamp Kh. et-T-L-22a, Catherine S. Alexander)

37. Slipper lamp with crosses and/or spoked wheels (Fig. 4.36) A lamp related to No. 36, featuring the cross symbol, or the cross within a wheel, on the body or nozzle of the slipper lamp. It has been posited that the practice of depicting the cross in any form whatsoever began in the middle of the fourth century CE (Tzaferis 1971:23). Comparanda: In Petra—Horsfield et al. 1941:159 Pl. XXIX.239 dated from the third through the fourth century CE; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:112 dated from the fourth through the fifth century CE; Khairy 1990:20 No. 42; Zanoni 1996:323 Nr. 30, 31 found in con-

102

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP junction with a coin hoard dated to the fourth century CE. The base on this lamp featured the “three fingers” potter’s mark, see No. 39, Fig. 4.38. Tables 7.12, 7.14 Ref. Nos. 29GT, 13KT; 14KT.

Figure 4.36 Slipper lamp with cross and spoked wheels (98-L-3) Found in Lower Temenos, Great Temple

38. Slipper lamp with raised dots (Fig. 4.37) A lamp related to Nos. 36 and 37. This type is decorated with both radial ridges and raised dots, in some cases spoked wheels are included. Comparanda: In Petra—Khairy 1990:19 No. 44, Fig. 19; Zanoni 1996:332, Nr. 30, 31. Dated from the fourth through the fifth century CE. Tables 7.12, 7.14 Ref. Nos. 30GT; 11KT.

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

103

Figure 4.37 Slipper lamp with raised dots (Kh. et-T-L-16) Found in Room 14, Khirbet et-Tannur (Glueck 1965:176 Pl. 82 a) (Drawing by Catherine S. Alexander)

39. Slipper lamps with potters’ marks (Fig. 4.38) A lamp related to Nos. 36, 37 and 38. This mark is sometimes found above the ridged base ring of the lamp. It is in the form of three “fingers” or short ridges that extend upwards on the lower rear section of the lamp. Khairy (1990:20) has suggested that these “fingers” might represent the Trinity in Christianity, or merely be a potter’s mark. This mark is peculiar to Petra. Another unusual potter’s mark, found within the ridged base ring of a slipper lamp, is a four-armed cross. Comparanda for “three fingers” lamp: Horsfield et al. 1941:137 dated to the fourth century CE; Saller 1957:52–53 dated from the

104

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP fourth through the sixth century CE; Khairy 1990:20 Nos. 41–43 dated to the Byzantine period. Table 7.12 Ref. No. 31GT.

Figure 4.38 Slipper lamp base with “three fingers” potter’s mark on left (04-L-80). Slipper lamp base on right with cross in center of base ring (04-L-63) Both found in Lower Temenos, Great Temple

LATE BYZANTINE–ISLAMIC UMAYYAD DYNASTY LAMPS (DATED FROM THE LATE FIFTH–EIGHTH CENTURY CE) 40. Miniature slipper lamp (Fig. 4.39) There is a long nozzle, the handle has broken off, the bottom of the base is flat and the complete form is that of a miniature slipper lamp. The evidence for dating this lamp is slight because only the base has been found Comparanda: Similar lamp in Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:136, dated from the seventh through the eighth century CE. Table 7.13 Ref. No. 27NR.

Figure 4.39 Miniature slipper lamp base (98-LB-1). Profile on right. Found in fill, Tomb 1, North Ridge site

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

105

41. Wheelmade boot-shaped lamp (Fig. 4.40) This lamp type is also known as a cone-shaped lamp. Its dating has undergone a drastic revision since it was catalogued by Galling (1923:1), who assigned it to the Hellenistic period, some five centuries too early. Macalister (1912) gave it the soubriquet ‘boot-shape,’ which is a good description for the lamp when seen in profile. The lamp has either a ribbed body, tapering towards the top, or a plain body with a bulbous base, which then narrows as it projects upwards and ends in a flat flaring rim. The lamp that predominates within the Petra region is the ribbed version. The nozzle and handle are hand-made and attached after the body has been removed from the wheel. Comparanda: Aharoni 1956:108, Fig. 4.3, dates it from the fifth through the sixth century CE; Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:122 (Variant A), and Khairy 1990:21 suggest the end of the Byzantine period and early Islamic for this lamp (sixth through the eighth century CE); Zanoni 1996:329 gives it a terminus post quem of CE 419, the year that the last earthquake devastated ez-Zantur; Hadad 2002:72, Nos. 317, 318 dates it to the late Byzantine through the early Ummayad period (fifth through the eighth century CE). Tables 7.12, 7.13. Ref. Nos. 32GT; 26NR.

Figure 4.40 Wheelmade boot-shaped lamp (99-LB-31) Found in a drainpipe, North Ridge site

42. Slipper lamp with high handle (Fig. 4.41) Large, ovoid lamp with a large central filling hole, surrounded by a double ridge, and radial ridging on the shoulder rim. A drooping cross

106

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

is in relief above the nozzle. This is a late version of a Byzantine slipper lamp, with a high projecting handle at the back. Comparanda: Crowfoot 1957:376 Nos. 6, 9; Glueck 1965:176 Pl. 82a, Reg. No. 27B; Magness 1993:251 No. 5; 252 Form 3D dated from the second half of the sixth through the eighth century CE. Table 7.14 Ref. No. 14KT.

Figure 4.41 Slipper lamp with high handle (Kh. et-T-L-29) Found in Room 9, Khirbet et-Tannur (Drawing by Catherine S. Alexander)

43. Umayyad ovoid shaped lamp with horror vacui decoration (Fig. 4.42) This is an Islamic lamp type. The body is a pointed oval shape and double-conical in profile. There is a large central filling-hole surrounded by a high ridge, with a second ridge that extends on to the nozzle and around the wick-hole, forming a straight shallow channel or trough. The handle can be a cone, a small knob handle or a high, vertical handle, sometimes perforated. The base can have a base-ring

FUNCTION, FORM AND TYPE

107

decorated with a potter’s mark or other symbols, or it can be completely flat and undelineated. The decoration covers the entire rim, e.g., diagonal bands with raised dots; vegetal relief; animal motifs, including mythical chimerae, all related to the ornamental style current under the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:129–135). Comparanda: Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929:Pl. 17.6 36–38; Kennedy 1963:Pl. XXIX types 23, 24; Magness 1993:258 Form 5, dated from the eighth–tenth century CE. Table 7.12 Ref. No. 33GT.

Figure 4.42 Umayyad ovoid shaped lamp (00-L-3) Found in Upper Temenos, Great Temple

44. Umayyad lamp with spoked-wheel on base (Fig. 4.43) Rosenthal and Sivan (1978:140) describe lamps with spoked-wheel bases as Byzantine and Islamic lamps coming from the East. Our lamp base (96–LB-25) has eight spokes within a base-ring. It was found in the Chancel fill in the North Ridge site. Comparanda: Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:141 No. 579 dated from the seventh through the eighth century CE; Hadad 2002:129 No. 503, a base with an eight-spoked wheel, associated with an Umayyad coin dated to the eighth century CE. Table 7.13 Ref. No. 28NR.

108

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 4.43 Umayyad lamp base with 8 spoked-wheel (96-LB-25) Found in the Chancel fill, North Ridge site

UNIDENTIFIED LAMP FRAGMENTS 45. Unidentified fragments (not shown) These fragments are cited only when an overall total of fragments (NISP) appears in the study. Tables 7.12, 7.13, 7.14 Ref. Nos. 34GT; 29NR; 15KT.

5 DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES This chapter will provide information on the type, number and distribution of the lamp fragments found at the three sites in both text, table and chart form. The relevant tables and charts will be found at the end of this chapter, and are listed here and explained for reference purposes. The number of identified specimens (NISP), types by weight (TBW) and, with reference to the Khirbet et-Tannur site, the minimum number of lamps (MNL) are represented in the data, and their presence will be indicated in the table and chart titles. It is a useful exercise to compare the NISP and TBW percentages, because the correct percentage should lie somewhere between the two (see Appendix, Fig. Nos. 7.24–27). In some cases the NISP and TBW percentages are the same, or are extremely close. Figure 5.1 Lamp type distribution A table showing the total fragments, including the unidentified fragments found throughout the three sites, their dating range and lamp type, with a type number matching that given in the Typology in Chapter 4. Figure 5.2 Lamp presence at all three sites, including time line—NISP A table showing the lamp type by name, number, and a small sketch for identification. The presence of the lamp type is shown by stars, which include the number of lamps or fragments found within each site. A time line provides a dating range for each type.

109

110

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 5.3 Number of lamps or fragments found in specific areas within the three sites—NISP Distribution is shown within the sites and the lamps are identified by category, i.e., Hellenistic (which includes Ptolemaic and Herodian), Nabataean indigenous and Nabataean copies of imports, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic Percentage charts These charts consist of both bar and pie charts. The bar charts show the percentage of approximate numbers of lamp fragments found within areas of the Great Temple and North Ridge sites, and the minimum number of lamps found within areas at Khirbet et-Tannur. The pie charts represent the percentages for each complete site. The colors reflect those shown in the Locus Charts for lamp type Figure 5.4 Bar chart—NISP of lamp fragments represented as percentages for all three sites Figure 5.5 Bar chart—Approximate lamp numbers for the Great Temple and North Ridge sites: minimum number of lamps for Khirbet etTannur, represented as percentages (TBW) Figure 5.6 Bar and pie chart—Great Temple site—approximate lamp numbers as percentage for each area and the whole site (TBW) Figure 5.7 Bar and pie chart—North Ridge site—approximate lamp numbers as percentage for each area and the whole site (TBW) Figure 5.8 Bar and pie chart—Khirbet et-Tannur site—NISP/minimum lamp numbers (MNL) as percentage for each area and the whole site (TBW) Locus charts These are charts showing the presence and number of each lamp or fragment within each area and locus of the site. A locus represents the smallest integral unit or deposit of interest, such as a wall, an ash layer, a burial, etc., within an excavated trench. Each locus is given a reference number that is recorded by the excava-

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

111

tor. The first locus recorded would be numbered 1, the second 2, etc. One might expect, therefore, to find that the deepest loci have the highest numbers, but this does not always follow, for example, when the locus recorded is an intrusion, e.g., a burial or a wall which cuts down through other loci, or when trenches are re-excavated. The locus number appears in the locus charts after the relevant trench number: e.g., in the Great Temple, Area UT (Upper Temenos), Trench 89, Locus 10. Each lamp fragment has been given a type number, e.g., slipper lamp with high handle = Type no. 42. This number matches the type number given in the Typology in Chapter 4. These type numbers have been enhanced with a color, which represents the origin or period for that lamp. The colors are as follows: Hellenistic, which includes Ptolemaic and Herodian = green Parthian = pale green Syro-Palestinian = brown Nabataean indigenous* = yellow Nabataean local copy of Roman lamp* = aqua Roman import = purple Egyptian = pale yellow Samaritan = orange Byzantine = red Islamic = dark blue * There are two color categories for the Nabataean period, yellow is for indigenous Nabataean design, e.g., the volute lamp; and aqua is for Nabataean local copies of Roman imported lamps, e.g., a copy of the Roman round lamp. Figure 5.9 Great Temple site—Locus Chart—NISP Five areas are included in this chart: the Lapidary West (the pottery found there has been well documented by Stephan Schmid (see below), and it provides comparative dating for the lamps), the Propylaeum, the Lower Temenos, the Upper Temenos and the Temple. Figure 5.10 North Ridge site—Locus Chart—NISP Four areas are included in this chart: the Ridge Church, Tomb 1, Tomb 2, and Building 2, which is part of the adjacent Blue Chapel

112

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

complex. The Ridge Church and Building 2 are included for an above ground reference. Figure 5.11 Khirbet et-Tannur—Locus Chart—NISP Seven areas are included in this chart: the Inner Temenos Enclosure, the Altar Platform, the north wall of the Forecourt, Rooms 8, 9, 13, 14. The fragments found in the debris are also included.

A QUESTION OF SPACE AND FUNCTION DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS FOR LAMPS THE GREAT TEMPLE—A CEREMONIAL SITE For recording purposes, the site has been sectioned into five areas (Fig. 3.3): the Lapidary West (LW); the Propylaeum (P); the Lower Temenos (LT); the Upper Temenos (UT); and the Temple (T). The number of lamps and fragments found in each locus is shown in parentheses after the locus number, e.g., Trench 53, Locus 2 (1). The type number, which matches the type number in the Typology, appears after the number of lamps and fragments, also in parentheses, e.g., Trench 53, Locus 2 (1) (Type no. 36). The number of trenches is now approaching one hundred and, therefore, the trench plans (Figs. 7.1–7.11) for each year (1993–2002) of excavation have been placed in the Appendix. The Lapidary West This is marked on the 1994 Great Temple Trench Plan (Fig.7.2)–it is a sounding, measuring 2 x 3 m, and is 44 m west of the Temple, in the area used as a lapidary by the archaeological expedition. The following information is taken from reports submitted by Leigh-Ann Bedal and Stephan Schmid (Bedal in Joukowsky 1998:347–48). Two meters below the surface is the top of a wall constructed of well-dressed ashlar blocks with a well-stratified pottery deposit extend-

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

113

ing up against the south face of the wall and overlying the top. This deposit yielded over 150 pottery fragments, including those of 12 identifiable lamps. Pottery fragments, totaling 120, were sent to the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) for neutron activation testing. A typological and chronological analysis was conducted by Stephan Schmid, who determined four phases for this wall, ranging from the late first century BCE through the third century CE. Phase I—Locus 11—the construction of the wall with a terminus post quem of the late first century BCE. Phase II—Locus 14—cannot be securely dated. Phase IIIa—fill abutting the lower half of the southern face of the wall (Loci 13, 15 and 16) assigned to the early first century CE, with pottery dated between 50 BCE–20 CE. Phase IIIb—fill abutting the upper half of the southern face of the wall (Loci 8, 9 and 12) assigned to the late first century CE. Phase IIIc—fill abutting the upper course of the north face of the wall (Locus 10) assigned generally to the first century CE. Phase IIId—fill overlying the top of the wall (Loci 4–7) dated to the early second century CE with pottery dated between CE 75–early second century CE. Phase IV—surface strata (Loci 1–3) dated to the second and third century CE.

Lamp Presence within the Lapidary West Three Nabataean lamp fragments (Type no. 23), dating from the first quarter of the first century–end first century CE, have been found in Loci 1, 7 and 9, and one local copy of a banded decorated discus lamp (Type no. 14), dated to the third quarter of the first century CE, has been found in Locus 2. Four imported Roman lamp fragments (Type no. 31) dated from the first century–third century CE, have been found in Loci 8 and 9 with one imported Roman decorated discus lamp (Type no. 15) dated to the first century CE, found in Locus 16. Three Byzantine lamp fragments from slipper lamps (Type nos. 36), dated from the fourth–sixth century CE, were found in Loci 1, 8 and 9.

114

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Summary for the Lapidary West The dating of the Nabataean lamp fragments in Loci 1, 7 and 9 concurs with the dating of the pottery assemblage found in those loci, and it is possible that the imported Roman lamp fragments in Loci 8, 9 and 16 can be dated to the earlier period of the lamp production, i.e., to the late first century CE. The three Byzantine fragments are dated later than the accompanying assemblage of pottery, i.e., the pottery is dated to the second and third century CE in Locus 1 and to the late first century CE for Loci 8 and 9. However, it is noted that Locus 1 is a surface locus and Loci 8 and 9 constitute part of the upper stratum of fill found against the southern face of the wall. The Propylaeum Ten identifiable lamps or fragments were found within the Propylaeum site. They comprised: two Hellenistic in Trench 95, Loci 10 (1) (Type no. 1); 20 (1) (Type no. 8): three indigenous Nabataean lamps in Trench 51, Loci 4 (Type no. 23); 5 (2) (Type no. 6): one Nabataean locally made copy of Roman imported lamp fragment in Trench 86, Locus 17 (1) (Type no. 11): one imported Roman fragment in Trench 95, Locus 10 (1) (Type no. 27): two Byzantine fragments in Trench 51, Locus 3 (1) (Type no. 37/38); and Trench 95, Locus 11 (Type no. 36). Two of the Nabataean lamps were analyzed by neutron activation and were found to be locally made. These were crudely made lamps that are commonly described as Apprentice lamps (Type no. 6), due to their rough and ready appearance. The Lower Temenos The identified lamps and fragments found in the Lower Temenos totaled 237. They comprised: Hellenistic 7; Nabataean indigenous 16; Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamps 54; Roman imports 26; Byzantine 131; Islamic 2.

West Exedra One hundred and three identified fragments were found in the West Exedra. One Hellenistic lamp (Type no. 2) was found in Trench 21, Locus 1. Three Nabataean indigenous fragments (Type nos. 20, 21, 23) were found in Trench 5, Locus 39 and Trench 16, Loci 6 and 13.

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

115

Eleven Nabataean local copies of Roman imported lamps (Type nos. 14, 16, 29, 30) were found in Trench 2, Locus 1 (1); Trench 5 Loci 39 (1), 42 (1); Trench 16 Loci 9 (1), 13 (3), and 14 (3); Trench 31 Locus 6 (1). One Roman import lamp fragment (Type no. 13) was found in Trench 5, Locus 31, and three in Trench 16, Loci 13 (1) and 29 (2) (Type no. 15). Seventeen Byzantine fragments (Type nos. 31, 32, 36, 37 and 39) were found in Trench 5, Loci 31 (4), 32 (2), 36 (2), 37 (2), 39 (3), 40 (3), 52 (1); 55 Byzantine fragments were found in Trench 16; Loci 5 (1) (Type no. 36); 6 (21) (Type nos. 36 and 38); 8 (2) (Type no 36); 9 (2) (Type no. 36); 10 (1) (Type no. 36); 13 (21) (Type nos. 36, 37, 39); 14 (5) (Type no. 36); 20 (1) (Type no. 36); 23 (1) (Type no. 36): Trench 21 Loci 2 (1) (Type no. 36); 3 (1) (Type no. 36): Trench 31 Loci 4 (1) 8 (3); 9 (1); 10 (2); 11 (1) ( all Type no. 36): SP26 Locus 3 (1) (Type no. 36). One Islamic lamp fragment was found in Trench 16, Locus 13 (1) (Type no. 43).

East Exedra Twenty-one identified fragments were found in the East Exedra. Three Hellenistic fragments in Trench 37 Locus 4 (1) (Type no. 1): Trench 52, Locus 1 (2) (Type nos. 1 and 7): and one Nabataean indigenous fragment was found in Trench 52, Locus 2 (1) (Type no. 20). Fragments from eight Nabataean local copies of Roman import lamps were found in Trench 37, Loci 8 (1) (Type no. 11); 14 (1) (Type no. 16); and Trench 52, Loci 1 (1) (Type no. 11); 2 (5) (Type nos. 29 and 30): four Roman import lamp fragments, Trench 37 Loci 2 (1) (Type no. 31); 8 (1) (Type no. 15): Trench 52, Loci 1 (2) (Type no. 15) and 25 (1); five Byzantine fragments: Trench 37 Locus 11 (1) (Type no 36); Trench 52, Loci 1 (2) (Type nos. 37 and 39); 2 (1) (Type no. 36); 25 (1) (Type no. 36).

East and West Colonnades There were 78 identified lamps/fragments found in the East Colonnade. This colonnade has been more thoroughly excavated than its counterpart to the west. Five fragments have been recorded in the West Colonnade, at the time of writing: two locally made Nabataean copies of imports in Trench 79, Locus 3 (Type no. 30); and Locus 17

116

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

(Type no. 11); three Byzantine fragments in Trench 71, Locus 28 (2) (Type no. 36); and Trench 79, Locus 19 (1) (Type no. 38). Of the 78 fragments, one was Hellenistic in Trench 31, Locus 2 (Type no. 1): one was Herodian in Trench 20, Locus 5 (Type no. 8): nine were Nabataean indigenous in Trench 17, Locus 6 (1) (Type no. 20); Trench 20, Loci 4 (1) (Type no. 20); 21 (3) (Type no. 23); 22 (1) (Type no. 20); Trench 28, Locus 5 (1) (Type no. 20); Trench SP38, Locus 2 (2) (Type Nos. 20, 23): 28 were local copies of imported lamps in Trench 17, Loci 2 (1) (Type no. 29); 14 (3) (Type Nos. 29, 30); 20 (1) (Type no. 29); 26 (1) (Type no. 11); Trench 20, Loci 13 (2) (Type Nos. 11, 30); 19 (1) (Type no. 30); 20 (1) (Type no. 29); 21 (12) (Type Nos. 24, 29, 30); 26 (1) (Type no. 30); Trench SP24, Locus 12 (1) (Type no. 16); Trench SP25 Loci 2 (2) (Type no. 24); 6 (1) (Type no. 30); and Trench SP45 Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 29): ten were Roman imports (Trench 14, Locus 12 (1) (Type no. 15); Trench 17, Locus 19 (2) (Type no. 27); Trench 20, Loci 1 (2) (Type no. 15); 4 (2) (Type no. 15); 13 (1) (Type no. 27); 25 (2) (Type nos. 15, 28): 28 were Byzantine in Trench 14, Locus 6 (1) (Type no. 36); Trench 17, Loci 2 (1) (Type no. 36); 20 (2) (Type no. 36); 26 (1) (Type no. 36); Trench 20, Loci 1 (2) (Type no. 36), 6 (5) (Type no. 36); 13 (6) (Type Nos. 36, 37, 39); 16 (1) (Type no. 41) , 19 (2) (Type no. 36); Trench 28, Locus 2 (1) (Type no. 36); Trench 30, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 36); Trench 33, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 36); Trench 36, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 36); Trench 61, Loci 1 (1) (Type no. 40); 13 (2) (Type nos. 36, 39).

Summary for the East and West Colonnades The fragments found in the West Colonnade are too few (5) for any conclusions to be drawn. However, the presence of 78 fragments in the East Colonnade indicates a period of use from the first century BCE through to the late sixth century CE. These fragments include nine indigenous Nabataean molded lamps, and ten Roman imported lamps. The number of locally made copies of Roman imported lamps (28) matches the number of Byzantine lamps (28), which is surprising because one might expect the earlier fragments to have disappeared from the East Colonnade during its centuries of use and weathering. The presence of a large number of fragments from the earlier period suggests that the area was well traversed during the first and second cen-

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

117

tury CE, with a cultural exchange exhibited in the copying of imported lamps.

East and West Stairways A total of thirteen identifiable lamp fragments were found within these stairways. Eight fragments were found in the East Stairway—one Ptolemaic fragment in Trench 49, Locus 1 (Type no. 7); one Nabataean indigenous fragment in Trench 49, Locus 9 (Type no. 24); one locally made copy of an import in Trench 49, Locus 4 (Type no. 11); four imported Roman fragments found in Trench 49 Locus 4 (4) (Type nos. 13, 28, 31, 45); one Byzantine fragment in Trench 49, Locus 9 (Type no. 36). Five fragments were found in the West Stairway and along the East-West Retaining Wall. Two imported Roman fragments in Trench 18, Locus 3 (Type no. 27); and three Byzantine fragments in Trench 18, Loci 3 (1), 5 (1), 12 (1) (all Type no. 36).

Temenos Plaza and Hexagonal Pavement Twelve identifiable fragments were found in this area. One Hellenistic Delphinform fragment in Trench 60, Locus 1 (Type no. 1) found on the east hexagonal pavement; two Nabataean indigenous fragments in Trench 60, Locus 5 (1), and in the center of the plaza in Trench SP20, Locus 2 (1) (both Type no. 21); two locally made copies of Roman imports in Trench 60, Locus 2 (Type Nos. 11, 14); one imported Roman fragment in the center of the plaza in Trench 14, Locus 12 (Type no. 15); five Byzantine fragments were found in the center of the plaza, Trench 14, Locus 6 (1) (Type no. 36); Trench 42, Locus 16 (2) (Type no. 36); Trench 46, Locus 1 (2) (Type no. 36); and one Islamic fragment found in the center of the plaza in Trench 14, Locus 14 (Type no. 43).

Summary for the Temenos Plaza and Hexagonal Pavement Paradoxically, in comparison to other areas of the complex, the scarcity of fragments suggests that the plaza was used extensively in antiquity, because by design it was a space open to the elements, and traversed by people throughout antiquity. Any extraneous material left on the surface would have been swept away either by human or weatherrelated action. The variety of fragments over time may indicate the

118

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

period of use, viz. from the first century BCE through the late sixth century CE.

Summary for Lower Temenos using NISP and TBW percentages This area contained Hellenistic fragments representing NISP 3%:TBW 3%. Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamp fragments—NISP 23%:TBW 27%. Nabataean indigenous lamp fragments—NISP 7%:TBW 8%. Imported Roman lamp fragments NISP 11%:TBW 8%. Byzantine NISP 55%:TBW 50%. Islamic NISP 1%:TBW 4%. The Upper Temenos Ninety-eight identifiable lamps and fragments have been found within the Upper Temenos: five Hellenistic; three Syro-Palestinian; 20 Nabataean indigenous; 36 Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamps; 15 imported Roman; 2 Egyptian; 16 Byzantine and one Islamic. Five Hellenistic fragments were found in Trench 67, Loci 1 (1) (Type no. 1); 2 (1) (Type no. 1); Trench 89, Locus 41 (2) (Type nos. 2 and 7); and in Trench SP30, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 1): three SyroPalestinian fragments were found in the East Cistern, Trench 53, Locus 2 (1) (Type no. 25); in the Shrine/Baroque Rooms, Trench 89, Locus 41 (1) (Type no. 25); and in the North Temple East, Trench SP30, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 29). 20 Nabataean fragments were found in the East Archway in Trench 41, Locus 2 (1) (Type no. 23); Trench 41, Locus 5 (2) (Type no. 23): the Temenos East in Trench 44, Loci 6 (1) (Type no. 20), 10 (1) (Type no. 23): in the East Cistern in Trench 53, Loci 2 (1) (Type no. 20); 17 (2) (Type no. 20); 18 (1) (Type no. 21): by the East Perimeter Wall in Trench 67, Locus 4 (1) (Type no. 21): Trench 68, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 20); Trench 84, Locus 10 (1) (Type no. 22): in the Shrine/Baroque rooms, Trench 89, Locus 18 (1) (Type no. 21: North Temple East in Trench SP30, Locus 4 (2) (Type no. 23); 9 (1) (Type no. 20): the Canalization system in Trench SP4, Loci 5 (2) (Type Nos. 6 and 21); 30 (1) (Type no. 23); 61 (1) (Type no. 20). Thirty-five fragments from Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamps were found in the East Archway, Trench 41, Loci 5 (1) (Type no. 30); 17 (1) (Type no. 30); 18 (1) (Type no. 29); 20 (2) (Type no. 29): in the Temenos East in Trench 44, Loci 1 (2) (Type no. 14); 7 (4) (Type no. 24); 10 (2) (Type nos. 24 and 16); 18 (2) (Type nos. 11 and

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

119

16): in the East Cistern, Trench 53, Loci 2 (1) (Type no. 29); 12 (1) (Type no. 24); 16 (1) (Type no. 11); 18 (3) (Type no. 11 and 24); 20 (2) (Type nos. 19 and 30): the East Perimeter Wall in Trench 67, Loci 1 (1) (Type no. 29); 18 (3) (Type nos. 29 and 30): Trench 68, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 30): the East Perimeter Walkway in Trench 76, Loci 8 (1) (Type no. 11); 9 (2) (Type nos. 29 and 30): the East Perimeter Passageway in Trench 83, Locus 9 (2) (Type nos. 15 and 17): the Canalization system in Trench SP4, Loci 29 (1) (Type no. 29); 61 (1) (Type no. 16). Fifteen Roman lamp fragments were found in the East Archway, Trench 41, Loci 5 (1) (Type no. 15): Trench 44, Loci 7 (3) (Type nos. 15, 28 and 31); 18 (3) (Type no. 15): the East Cistern, Trench 53, Loci 2 (1) (Type no. 15); 12 (1) (Type no. 15): the East Perimeter Wall in Trench 67, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 15): in the North Temple East, Trench SP30, Loci 6 (1) (Type no. 15); 9 (2) (Type no. 15): and in the Canalization System, Trench SP4 Loci 5 (1) (Type no. 15); 61 (1) (Type no. 15). Two Egyptian lamp fragments were found in the Shrine/Baroque Room area, Trench 89, Locus 41 (Type no. 34). Both have zoological designs on their discuses. One has a bird with grapes in its beak and is dated to CE 100–225, the other also features bunches of grapes as a border decoration and its discus has a leonine figure in a field with five rosettes or stars, dated to the third–fifth century CE. Sixteen Byzantine lamp fragments were found in the Forecourt West, Trench 39, Locus 3 (1) (Type no. 36): the East Archway, Trench 41, Loci 2 (1) (Type no. 41); 5 (1) (Type no. 36): the East Perimeter Wall, Trench 68, Locus 1 (2) (Type nos. 36 and 37): East and South Perimeter Wall, Trench 77, Loci 9 (1) (Type no. 36); 11 (1) (Type no. 37): Passageway, Trench 83, Loci 5 (1) (Type no. 36); 18 (1) (Type no. 35): North Temple East, Trench SP30, Loci 1 (2) (Type no. 36); 4 (2) (Type no. 36); 17 (2) (Type no. 36): Canalization system, Trench SP4, Locus 38 (1) (Type no. 36). One Islamic fragment has been found in the Walkway, Trench 76, Locus 6 (Type nos. 42/43), dated from the sixth–eighth century CE.

Summary for Upper Temenos using NISP and TBW percentages The Hellenistic fragments represented NISP 10%:TBW 10% of the lamps for this area. The Nabataean locally made copies of imported

120

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

lamps represented NISP 37%:TBW 43%. The Nabataean indigenous fragments represented NISP 20%: TBW 16%, and the imported Roman fragments represented NISP 15%:TBW 7% of the total fragments found there. The Byzantine fragments represented NISP 17%:TBW 20%. (The number of Byzantine fragments found in the Lower Temenos represented NISP 55%:TBW 50% of its lamp count). The Islamic fragments represented NISP 1%:TBW 4%. One hypothesis, explaining the larger percentage of first century–second century CE fragments found in the Upper Temenos, might be that when the theater was built within the temple, much of the temple detritus from the Nabataean/Early Roman period was swept out to the sides (the Upper Temenos) (personal communication Judith McKenzie, February, 2004). The temple Ninety-four identified fragments were found within the temple area. No Hellenistic fragments have been found to date within the temple. There were four Nabataean indigenous fragments; 16 locally made copies of Roman imported lamps; eight Roman imported and 66 Byzantine fragments. The four Nabataean indigenous fragments were found in the Pronaos West, Trench SP23, Locus 8 (1) (Type no. 21); the Pronaos East, Trench 48, Locus 1 (2) (Type no. 20); the West Corridor, Trench 63, Locus 10 (1) (Type no. 23). The 16 Nabataean locally made copies of Roman imported lamps were found in the Central Arch, Trench 57, Locus 12 (1) (Type no. 30); Pronaos West, Trench SP23, Locus 8 (2) (Type no. 29); Pronaos East, Trench 24, Locus 9 (1) (Type no. 11), Trench 48, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 29); Temple East, Trench 19, Locus 8 (1) (Type no. 17); West Corridor, Trench 45, Locus 7 (1) (Type no. 30); East Walkway Trench 64, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 30); East Corridor, Trench 65, Loci 17 (1) (Type no. 16); 19 (1) (Type no. 16); 21 (3) (Type Nos. 29 and 30); South East Corridor, Trench 34, Locus 14 (2) (Type no. 29); East Bedrock Room SP84, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 29). The eight Roman imported lamp fragments were found in the Adyton South, Trench 26, Locus 11 (1) (Type no. 31); the Theater, Trench 62, Locus 67 (1) (Type no. 10); the Pronaos West, Trench 23, Locus 7 (1) (Type no. 31); Pronaos East, Trench 24, Locus 9 (2) (Type

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

121

Nos. 15 and 27); Center West, Trench 40, Locus 14 (1) (Type no. 27); East Walkway, Trench 64, Locus 3 (1) (Type no. 15); South East Corridor, Trench 34, Locus 14 (1) (Type no. 15). Sixty-six Byzantine fragments were found in the East Vaulted Room, Trench 55, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 37); Trench 55A, Locus 2 (2) (Type no. 36); Adyton South East, Trench 9, Locus 46 (1) (Type no. 36); Trench 15, Loci 19 (1) (Type no. 36), 20 (2) (Type no. 36); Adyton South West Staircase, Trench 22, Loci 5 (3) (Type no. 36); 9 (1) (Type no. 36); Adyton South, Trench 26, Loci 1(2) (Type no. 36); 8 (1) (Type no. 36); Theater, Trench 40, Loci 10 (1) (Type no. 36); 13 (1) (Type no. 36); Trench 47, Locus 13 (2) (Type no. 36); Trench 62, Loci 4 (2) (Type no. 36); 39 (1) (Type no. 36); 56 (1) (Type no. 36); 60 (1) (Type no. 36); 68 (1) (Type no. 36); Pronaos West, Trench 23, Locus 7 (1) (Type no. 36); Pronaos East, Trench 24, Loci 1 (1) (Type no. 39); 2 (1) (Type no. 36); 4 (3) (Type no. 39 and 41); 9 (3) (Type no. 36); Trench 48, Locus 1 (3) (Type no. 36); Interior Anta, Trench 12 , Locus 1 (2) (Type no. 36 and 39); Temple East, Trench 19, Locus 6 (2) (Type No 36); West Corridor, Trench 45, Locus 1 (2) (Type no. 36); Trench 63, Loci 1 (1) (Type no. 36); 10 (2) (Type no. 36); North West Corridor, Trench 29, Loci 7 (4) (Type no. 36); 10 (7) (Type no. 36); 14 (1) (Type no. 36); East Walkway, Trench 64, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 36); East Corridor, Trench 65, Loci 16 (1) (Type no. 36); 17 (1) (Type no. 36); South East Corridor, Trench 34, Loci 7 (1) (Type no. 41); 12 (1) (Type no. 36); Rear East-West Staircase (East), Trench 35, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 36); South East Column, Trench SP40, Loci 1 (1) (Type no. 36); 2 (1) (Type no. 36); Temple South East, Trench SP43, Locus 1 (1) (Type no. 41).

Summary for the temple using NISP and TBW percentages As mentioned above, no Hellenistic lamps or fragments were found within the temple proper. Nabataean indigenous lamp fragments— NISP 5%: TBW 5%. Nabataean locally made copies of Roman imported lamps and fragments—NISP 17% TBW 25%. Imported Roman lamps and fragments—NISP 8%: TBW 5%. Byzantine lamps and fragments—NISP 70%: TBW 65%. No Islamic lamps or fragments were found within the temple.

122

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Summary for the Great Temple precinct using NISP and TBW percentages Only a small quantity of Hellenistic lamps and fragments (NISP 4%:TBW 6%) were found, and these were mostly from the Propylaeum. The Nabataean fragments, constituted both Nabataean indigenous fragments (NISP 10%:TBW 12%), and Nabataean local copies of Roman imported fragments (NISP 24%:TBW 31%). The percentage of imported Roman fragments was small (NISP 12%: TBW 7%), whereas there was a much larger quantity of Byzantine lamp fragments (NISP 49%:TBW 41%). Islamic fragments represented NISP 1%:TBW 3%. The total fragments for the Nabataean period (NISP 34%:TBW 43%) and the Byzantine period (NISP 49%:TBW 41%) may indicate that the site was in use for a similar length of time by these cultural groups. However, one might expect to find more fragments from the last occupation period (Byzantine), particularly as the building was demolished by a series of earthquakes including a most severe earthquake in CE 363. Such catastrophes often cause a Pompeii-effect, denying the occupants the opportunity to remove their possessions (Schiffer 1987:92). The hypothesis mentioned above, regarding the clearing of the temple prior to the building of the theater, may explain the lack of early lamp fragments. For example, in Trenches 47 and 62 within the theater area, the eight lamp fragments (NISP) found were Byzantine (Type no. 36), dating to CE 350–550, with only one early lamp fragment from an imported Roman lamp (non-local INAA tested) (Type no. 10), dated to the last quarter of the first century BCE–CE 106.

THE NORTH RIDGE—A FUNERARY SITE Two chamber tombs were found underneath the Ridge Church, and the lamp fragments found on its site are included in this report, being relevant to the tomb deposit.

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

123

Ridge Church

Construction ca. late fourth century CE During the construction of the Church’s north wall, the builders stumbled upon the shaft of a Nabataean chamber tomb (Tomb 1), and they had to brace the wall with a pillar, as it crossed the tomb shaft (Bikai 2001:59). A Byzantine lamp dated to the fourth century CE has been found within the pillar material (see Chapter 3).

Lamp Presence There were 44 identified lamp fragments found at the North Ridge Church site, of these there were 21 Nabataean indigenous fragments; five fragments from Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamps; seven imported Roman lamp fragments; eight Byzantine lamp fragments and one Islamic lamp fragment. The 23 Nabataean indigenous fragments were found in the Chancel, Locus 4 (8) (Type nos. 21, 23 and 24); the Nave (1) (Type no. 23); the Trench parallel to the north wall in the surface debris, Locus 400 (1) (Type no. 21); South-east corner, Locus 404 (1) (Type no. 23); the Lower atrium north, stairs to lower level, Locus 409 (2) (Type Nos. 20 and 24); the Lower atrium north, Locus 410 (1) (Type no. 20); the small south-west room (Type no. 20), Locus 413 (1) (Type no. 20); the North atrium, Locus 414 (1) (Type no. 6); the Atrium fill (1) (Type no. 20); the Surface fill, south-east of the main door, Locus 605 (3) (Type no. 24); the South wall, east of the bench, Locus 702 (1) (Type no. 21); North of the north wall in room 3, Locus 703 (2) (Type nos. 20 and 21). The five fragments from Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamps were found in the Chancel, Locus 4 (1) (Type no. 30); the Nave (2) (Type no. 29); the Lower atrium north, stairs to lower level, Locus 409 (1) (Type no. 30); North of the north wall in room 3, Locus 703 (1) (Type no. 29). The seven imported Roman fragments were found in the Chancel, Locus 4 (3) (Type nos. 15 and 27); the Lower atrium north, stairs to lower level, Locus 409 (1) (Type no. 15); North atrium below inscription, Locus 414 (1) (Type no. 28); North of north wall in room 3, Locus 703 (2) Type no. 15).

124

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

The eight Byzantine fragments were found in the drain pipe in the wall, Locus 407 (1) (Type no. 41); the Lower atrium north, stairs to lower level, Locus 409 (1) (Type no. 41); the Lower atrium north, Locus 410 (1) (Type no. 41); the small south west room, Locus 413 (3) (Type no. 36); North of the wall of the kitchen, Locus 604 (1) (Type no. 41); South of south wall, west of stairs, Locus 701 (1) (Type no. 41). There was one Islamic fragment found in the Chancel, Locus 4 (Type no. 44).

Summary for the Ridge Church using NISP and TBW percentages A total NISP of 44 fragments: TBW 11 was found at the Ridge Church. There were no Hellenistic lamps or fragments. The 23 Nabataean indigenous lamp fragments represented NISP 52%:TBW 18% of the total and these appeared to be well distributed throughout the Ridge Church site, as were the 7 imported Roman fragments (NISP 16%:TBW 9%) and the 5 fragments from Nabataean local copies of imported lamps NISP 12%:TBW 18%. These lamp fragments were dated to the first century CE, although the dating for the local copies can range from the first–third century CE, it seems likely that these copies were contemporary with the Nabataean indigenous lamps, in which case there are no lamp fragments that date from the second through the mid-fourth century CE. The eight Byzantine fragments (NISP 18%:TBW 46%) were all from wheelmade boot-shaped lamps dated from the fifth through the eighth century CE, with one exception found in the small south-west room, Locus 413, a slipper fragment, dated to ca. CE 350–550. The predominance of the boot-shaped lamp may suggest a date of the late fourth–early fifth century CE for the slipper lamp, with a similar date for the boot-shaped lamp. This would fit the time period for the construction and initial use of the North Ridge Church. Fragments from Type 41, the wheelmade boot-shaped lamp, were found amid the devastation in Tomb 2, suggesting that intruders during the Byzantine period used the lamps to investigate the contents of the tomb. One Islamic lamp fragment was found in the Chancel, dating from the seventh–eighth century CE, representing NISP 2%:TBW 9% of the fragments in the Ridge Church.

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

125

The tombs During the excavation of the Ridge Church, two Nabataean tombs were uncovered, each one under the foundation on either side of the Church, (Fig. 3.17). They are chamber tombs, accessed by vertical shafts, and have yielded large quantities of ceramics, including lamps. Patricia Bikai (2001:65) has determined, by her ceramic analysis of the painted wares, that the tombs were in use from successive but overlapping periods, from the end of the first century BCE–the end of the first century CE. Bikai dates Tomb 1 to the late first century BCE and it was in use until at least CE 20. Tomb 2 belongs to a slightly later phase than Tomb 1, that is, from CE 20–100, which corresponds to the dating of the lamps found within the tombs, apart from the Byzantine lamps which date from the late fourth–eighth century CE. Tomb 1—functioning as a tomb ca. 20 BCE–CE 20 (dating taken from painted wares found in the fill—Schmid 1996:173–4) There were only two deposits, one being the fill in the shaft, which was given two loci numbers, 707 and 800. Locus 800 was a re-sifting of the fill. The other deposit was the material in the tomb itself, which was included in these loci because it was so mixed (for further information see Ch. 3).

Lamp presence There were 560 identified lamp fragments found in Tomb 1. Two Hellenistic fragments in the fill in Tomb 1 under room 3 of the North Ridge Church, Loci 707 and 800 (Type no. 9): 425 Nabataean indigenous fragments in the fill, Loci 707 and 800 (Type nos. 5, 20, 21, 22, 23); one Nabataean indigenous fragment was found with the covering stones blocking the entrance to Tomb 1, Locus 706 (Type no. 20): 19 fragments from Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamps in the fill, Loci 707 and 800 (Type nos. 11, 12, 16, 17 and 29): 111 imported Roman fragments in the fill, Loci 707/800 (Type nos. 10, 13, 15, 27, 28 and 31): two Byzantine fragments, one in the fill, Loci 707 and 800 (Type no. 40), and one important complete lamp (Type no. 35) dated to the late fourth century CE, which was found in the collapse from the tomb’s secondary support wall in Locus 803 (see Ch. 3, p. 64).

126

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Summary for Tomb 1 using NISP and TBW percentages Due to the poor condition of the skeletal material found in the tomb, only the remains of four individuals could be determined. These were two adults, most likely a male and a female, and two subadults, one was an infant aged 6 months to one year, and the second was approximately three to four years old (Bikai and Perry 2001:62). The total amount of lamp fragments found in the shaft fill (NISP 560:TBW 62) constituted predominantly 426 Nabataean indigenous lamp fragments. These represented NISP 76%:TBW 68%, dated to the first century CE. The 19 fragments from Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamps represented NISP 3%:TBW 6% of the fill. The Roman fragments, totaling 111, represented NISP 20%:TBW 18% of the lamp fragments in the fill, dating also to the first century CE. There was one Hellenistic fragment, which represented NISP 0.2%:TBW 5%. The Byzantine fragment and one complete lamp represented NISP 0.4%:TBW 3%. The imported Roman fragments may have originated from the military installation that existed before the Ridge Church was built, or they may have been used during the funerary meals for the burials in Tomb 1, as was the custom during the Nabataean period. Many lamps were used for lighting purposes during these meals, and also as votives for the dead, however, whether the imported Roman lamp fragments were part of the commemorative feasts it is impossible to determine. The contemporary Nabataean lamp fragments were very likely used in this manner and the Roman lamps may also have been included. Unfortunately the contents of this Tomb are so mixed, no reliable proveniences can be elicited. It is highly likely that the Ridge Church construction crew swept a large amount of debris into the tomb shaft, to provide support for the north wall pillar. This deposit occurred after the tomb had been ransacked, and the pillar and fill acted as both a support for the wall, and a seal for the tomb. An absence of lamp fragments, dating from the second to the late fourth century CE, suggests that Tomb 1 was used for burials only during the first century CE, and the ceramic analysis conducted by Patricia Bikai confirms this first century CE dating. The Byzantine lamps were, no doubt, used by intruders, who entered the tombs beneath the Ridge

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

127

Church during its construction in the late fourth/early fifth century CE. Indeed they are veritable ‘smoking lamps’ providing evidence for such intrusion. Tomb 2—functioning as a tomb ca. CE 20–100 (dating taken from painted wares found in the fill—Schmid 1996:173–4) There were 74 identified lamp fragments found in Tomb 2. No Hellenistic or Islamic fragments were found. There were 44 Nabataean indigenous lamp fragments; 19 locally made Nabataean copies of imported lamps; six Roman fragments, and five Byzantine fragments. The 44 Nabataean indigenous fragments were found in the disturbed fill in the shaft and the two chambers, Locus 908 (7) (Type nos. 20 and 21); the disturbed sandy layer at the bottom of the shaft, Locus 913 (6) (Type nos. 20, 21 and 24); Quad A in the fill spilling from the shaft into the tomb, Locus 908 (15) (Type nos. 5, 6, 21, 22 and 23); Quad B in the same fill spilling from the shaft into the tomb, Locus 908 (5) (Type nos. 20 and 21); Quad B in the first century disturbance Locus 912 (3) (Type nos. 20 and 21); Quad B in the disturbance layer above water-washed bones, Locus 951(1) (Type no. 20); Quad B in the silt surrounding the burials, Locus 952 (1) (Type no. 23); Quad B in the silt on the bedrock floor of the tomb while it was in use, Locus 956 (1) (Type no. 23); with the bones in Locus 916 (1) (Type no. 23); Quad C in the fine water- and wind-borne silt, Locus 950 (1) (Type no. 24); Quad D in the thick layer of rubble and ceramics, Locus 951(2) (Type nos. 6 and 23); Quad D in the pre-disturbance layer, Locus 952 (1) (Type no. 21). There were 19 Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamp fragments found in the fill in the tomb shaft—western end, Locus 905 (1) (Type no. 29); in the disturbed fill in the shaft and in the two chambers, Loci 908 (1) (Type no. 29); 913 (1) (Type no. 11); Quad A in the fill spilling from the shaft into the tomb, consisting of sand, rubble and slab of fallen ceiling, Locus 908 (4) (Type nos. 11 and 30); Quad B in the fill as in Quad A, Locus 908 (3) (Type nos. 29 and 30); Quad B in the disturbance layer above the water-washed bones, Locus 951 (1) (Type no. 30); Quad C in the fine water- and wind-borne silt, Locus 950 (1) (Type no. 29); Quad D in the fine water- and wind-borne silt, Locus 950 (1) (Type no. 29), Quad D in the thick layer of rubble and

128

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

ceramics, Locus 951 (2) (Type nos. 11 and 29); in the soil around the burials 4, 5, 6 and 7, Locus 955 (2) (Type no. 14); in the rubbish fill under Locus 962 (street area), Locus 963 (2) (Type no. 29). Six Roman lamp fragments were found in the disturbed sandy layer at the bottom of the shaft, Locus 913 (1) (Type no. 31); in Quad A in the fill spilling from the shaft into the tomb, Locus 908 (4) (Type no. 15); in Quad B in the silt on the bedrock floor of the tomb while it was in use, Locus 956 (1) (Type no. 15). Five Byzantine lamp fragments were found in the fill in the tomb shaft—western end, Locus 905 (2) (Type no. 41); in Quad A in the fill spilling from the shaft into the tomb, Locus 908 (1) (Type no. 35); in Quad B as in Quad A above, Locus 908 (1) (Type no. 41); in Quad D in the fine water- and wind-borne silt, Locus 950 (1) (Type no. 41). If the Byzantine wheelmade lamps (Type no. 41) are from the later date range (fifth–eighth century CE), then it may be that these lamps belonged to yet another group of thieves who entered Tomb 2 after the Ridge Church was abandoned.

Summary for Tomb 2 using NISP and TBW percentages In the total of NISP 74 fragments (MNL 21) in Tomb 2, no Hellenistic lamps or fragments were found. As in Tomb 1, it is noted that the Nabataean indigenous lamp fragments were the most prevalent type within Tomb 2—NISP 59%: TBW 52%, although their percentage was less than that of Tomb 1—NISP 76%: TBW 68%. The percentage of locally made copies of imported lamps—NISP 26%: TBW 19% was much larger than those in Tomb 1—NISP 3%: TBW 6%. The presence of imported Roman fragments—NISP 8%: TBW 5% was far less than in Tomb 1—NISP 20%: TBW 18%. It is interesting to note that one imported Roman discus fragment (Type no. 15), with a gladiatorial scene, was found in the silt on the bedrock floor of the tomb (Locus 956), and four imported Roman discus fragments (also Type no. 15) were found among the skeletal material in Quad A, Locus 908, suggesting that they may have been used in the funerary rituals. The percentage of Byzantine lamps and fragments—NISP 7%:TBW 24% was larger than those found in Tomb 1—NISP 0.4%:TBW 3%, and included a TBW of four wheelmade boot-shaped lamps (Type no. 41), a type not found in Tomb 1. The boot-shaped

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

129

Byzantine lamps have a long life-span. They have been found in Petra (Khairy: 1990:20–21 Nos. 45–47: Zanoni 1996:334 Nos. 39–41) in assemblages that are dated from the end of the fourth century to the fifth century CE, and have also been dated by others (Rosenthal and Sivan 1978:122 Nos. 5–6: Marag and Hershkovitz 1994:103 Nos. 207–208: Hadad 2002:73–74 Nos. 317–318, Lamp Type 31) from the fifth to seventh century CE, whereas the Byzantine pear-shaped lamp (Type no. 35), found in the pillar material above Tomb 1, has been dated to the fourth century CE. It is plausible, therefore, that the boot-shaped lamps were used by another group of tomb robbers at a later date. Blue Chapel, Building 2 This building (Fig. 3.16) is included in the tomb report because it was excavated within the North Ridge Project and provides information on lamps used for purposes other than funerary. Their most likely function would have been for lighting the interior rooms.

Lamp presence Seven identified fragments were found in the initial clearing phase of Building 2. The lamp types comprised one Nabataean indigenous fragment dated to the first century CE; four fragments from locally made copies of imported lamps also dated to that period; two Byzantine lamp fragments, one dated to the third–fourth century CE and the other dated to the fifth–eighth century CE. The one Nabataean indigenous fragment was found in the West room in layer 4, Locus 1165 (Type no. 20). The four fragments from the locally made copies were found in the Entry Hall, Layer 6, Locus 1134 (1) (Type no. 29); the West Room, Layer 1, topsoil, Locus 1125 (1) (Type no. 29); the West Room, Layer 3, Locus 1145 (1) (Type no. 29); the South Room, Layer 3, Locus 1170 (1) (Type no. 29). The two Byzantine fragments were both found in the West room, Locus 1140 (Type nos. 36 and 41).

Summary for Building 2 The few fragments found here can only serve as evidence for some activity during the periods the lamps were in use. The Nabataean locally made copies are most prevalent and may indicate the continuing cul-

130

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

tural change that the Nabataeans were undergoing during the first century CE. It is assumed, because of their provenience, that the fragments were not used in funerary ritual, but they do represent usage during the Nabataean period, and again there is an absence of material from the second through fourth century CE, until the Byzantine period.

KHIRBET ET-TANNUR—A SACRED SITE The dating for this sanctuary has been determined by three building periods, I (ca. 8–7 BCE), II (late first century or early second century CE), and III (third century CE). Lamp presence (Fig. 5.1) There are 29 identified, provenienced lamp fragments, these comprise six Hellenistic fragments; one Samaritan-type fragment; four Nabataean indigenous fragments; five locally made copies of imported lamps; and 13 Byzantine lamp fragments. The six Hellenistic fragments were found close to the Inner Temenos Enclosure, in the ditch to the north (1) (Type no. 3); south-west corner of Room 9 (1) (Type no. 3); Room 13 (1) (Type no. 9); in the debris (3) (Type nos. 3 and 9). The four Nabataean indigenous fragments were found in Room 14 (1) (Type no. 26), and in the debris (3) (Type no. 26). The five Nabataean locally made copies of imported lamps were found in the south west corner of Room 9 (1) (Type no 16), in Room 14 (1) (Type no. 29), and in the debris (3) (Type nos. 11 and 29). The Samaritan-type lamp was found in the north west corner of the Inner Temenos Enclosure (1) (Type no. 33). The thirteen Byzantine fragments were found in the east part of the Inner Temenos Enclosure (2) (Type no. 36); the back of the steps in the Inner Temenos Enclosure (1) (Type no. 36); the south west corner of the Altar Platform (1) (Type no. 38); in front of the Altar Platform (2) (Type no. 36); inside the north wall of the forecourt (2) (Type no. 36), Room 8 (1) (Type no. 36), Room 9 (1) (Type no. 42), Room 14 (3) (Type nos. 36 and 38). Summary for Khirbet et-Tannur MNL lamp percentages for the sanctuary are as follows:

DISTRIBUTION OF LAMPS WITHIN THE SITES

131

The Inner Temenos Enclosure contained Hellenistic: 40%; and Byzantine: 60%. The Altar Platform contained Byzantine: 100%. The Forecourt contained Byzantine: 100%. Room 8 contained Byzantine: 100%. Room 9 contained Hellenistic: 30%, Nabataean import copy: 30% and Byzantine: 30%, (unknown fragment: 10%). Room 14 contained Nabataean indigenous: 20%, Nabataean import copy: 20% and Byzantine: 60%. The debris yielded Hellenistic: 33%, Nabataean indigenous: 33%, and Nabataean import copies: 33%. Dating by lamps for site The six Hellenistic lamp fragments: in the ditch to the north of the Inner Temenos Enclosure (1), Room 9 (1), Room 13 (1), the debris (3) can be assigned to the Period I dating of the late first century BCE. The presence of four Nabataean indigenous fragments in room 14 (1) and in the debris (3), and five Nabataean copies of imported lamps in rooms 9 (1), 14 (1) and in the debris (3) support the Period II/III dating of the first–third century CE. There are no imported Roman lamps but one Samaritan-type lamp was found in the north-west corner of the Inner Temenos Enclosure, which has a second–fourth century CE date. Three complete Byzantine lamps were found within the Inner Temenos Enclosure, dated from CE 350–550. A complete Byzantine lamp with the same dating was found in the south west corner of the Altar Platform, and a fragmented Byzantine lamp and two small Byzantine lamp fragments were found in front of the Altar Platform. A similar complete lamp was found inside the north wall of the Forecourt, with another complete lamp found in Room 8, and an almost complete lamp with a high handle was found in Room 9. Three fragmented Byzantine lamps were found in room 14. It would seem, from the presence of these Byzantine lamps (the latest dating from the sixth–eighth century CE), that the sanctuary was still in use at least until the end of the Late Byzantine period, which raises questions concerning its religious use. Was Christianity ever practiced there? Was the building an occasional refuge for members of the former Nabataean noble families who fled Petra after the annexation of CE 106 (Villeneuve et al. 2003:100)? These questions will be considered in the following chapter.

6 CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY: A WORLDVIEW RECONSIDERED The questions asked in the Introduction were: what was it like to be Nabataean? How did the Nabataeans view their world in contrast to their Roman neighbors, and how did their material culture reflect these differences? It was suggested that religious practice might prove a worthy diagnostic, being a most authentic mirror of the Nabataean worldview during a time of change marked by the Roman annexation of Nabataea at the beginning of the second century CE. Three sites, considered relevant to Nabataean religious practice, have been presented within this study: a ceremonial site, the Great Temple in Petra; a sacred site, the sanctuary at Khirbet et-Tannur; and a funerary site, the two chamber tombs discovered burrowed into the hillside of the North Ridge, Petra. The sites selected were not domestic, but places where people could gather to celebrate the living and mourn the dead. The commanding presence of the Great Temple, with its vast colonnaded Lower Temenos, would have been a center for social and cultural interchange situated as it was in the city, adjacent to other monumental buildings and close to the main thoroughfare in Petra. If indeed the Great Temple was a center for worship, as some evidence appears to indicate (see Ch. 3), then it must have drawn many supplicants to its doors. Across the valley, on the hillside opposite the Great Temple, the Nabataeans buried their dead in chamber tombs, carved out of the earth and sandstone rocks. These tombs were not used for powerful rulers but for lesser mortals in Petra, who were brought to rest in loculi, or laid in wooden coffins on the sandstone bedrock floor.

133

134

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

The sanctuary at Khirbet et-Tannur was far removed from the cosmopolitan life of Petra, perched on top of a mountain some 70 km north of Petra, and its visitors must have been most dedicated pilgrims, faced as they were with the perilous ascent and no prospect of domestic quarters when they finally arrived at the summit. Here we have three sites, diverse in function, but unified in their focus on faith; three different mirrors of society, reflecting the Nabataean worldview prevalent during the last century BCE through the beginning of the second century CE. Religion would have played an important role in all three sites as demonstrated by the statuary and cultic paraphernalia in the Great Temple; in the ceramics used for the funerary feasts and accompanying votive material in the North Ridge Tombs, and the statuary and cultic paraphernalia found in the sanctuary of Khirbet et-Tannur. This once vibrant world now resides in the debris of Petra and Nabataean outposts like Khirbet et-Tannur, and it is hoped that the fragments of ceramic oil lamps found in that debris may provide us with evidence of cultural change occurring in Nabataea on the eve of its annexation in CE 106. Can pots, or more specifically lamps, equal people? Certainly cultural identity cannot be ascertained from ceramic assemblages alone. However, people made the pots and molded the lamps, a people who lived in a particular era and in a particular place, people who drew on different traditions manifested in the gods they worshipped, the architecture they built, and not least in their most exquisite pottery. Cultural change, therefore, is sought not only in their ceramic repertoire, but also in the ruins of the temples, tombs and landscapes they once frequented, material culture that influenced their choices and forged their identities. Thomas (1996:236) encourages us to understand cultural knowledge as being composed of skills which allow people to cope with the world, and he suggests that we think of culture as a technology which provides the production of meaning through the “concernful dealings which human beings have with their world.” In one of his case studies of the British Neolithic (1996:126), he invokes postcolonial discourse (Bhabha 1994:4, 219) and suggests that cultural hybridity is to be expected at the interstices of cultural formations. Bhabha believes that

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

135

the social articulation of difference through cultural media is neither essential nor given, but is performed and played out through the recontextualization and hybridization of existing traditions, which is when new community identities often begin to emerge. Hybridity is not the passive consequence of a kind of ‘cross-pollination’ of cultures, as culture-historic archaeology might have assumed. It is the outcome of a deliberate construction of the foreign out of the familiar, which ‘brings newness into the world.’ As we have noted from the lamps found at the Great Temple and North Ridge Tomb sites, the Nabataeans were not averse to using Roman lamps, whose decorative elements were quite different from their own volute lamps. Fragments from these imported lamps, decorated with motifs foreign to the Semitic worldview, have been found on the floors of their tombs, intermingled with the human remains of first century CE Nabataeans. They have been found in the deepest loci of the Great Temple, and scattered over its Lower Temenos by visitors during the first century CE. However, none have been found in the debris of Khirbet et-Tannur, although the Nabataeans left their own locally made copies of Roman lamps in that sanctuary. These locally made copies were definitely “a deliberate construction of the foreign out of the familiar.” The Nabataean potter may have used the imported lamps as archetypes for molds, but the motifs on the new discuses did not necessarily echo the mythological themes found on the originals. One example found at the Great Temple was the locally made copy of a Roman lamp with a motif of Eros in chains (Type no. 17, Fig. 4.20) on its discus, a type peculiar to Petra but not to the rest of the Roman Empire. It has been suggested (Horsfield et al. 1941:123) that the youth represented a miner serving his sentence in a Nabataean copper-mine such as Fenan in the ‘Arabah, where convicts were sent (see Ch. 4). If the Nabataeans could recontextualize Roman motifs to accommodate their world, how did they reconcile their traditional worldview with that of the Roman Empire? Did the Nabataeans believe in an afterlife? We know that their tombs were well built, and often furnished with triclinia (dining rooms with benches on three sides) for the funerary feasting that took place. Healey (2001:173) remarks that, “the concept of an “eternal home” was very significant to them.” And regarding eternity, he suggests that “the

136

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

question of the possible happiness of the ordinary dead was left unclear, dead kings already enjoyed immortality and a kind of apotheosis,” however, “the notion of eating and drinking with the dead in a fellowship kept the memory of the dead alive.” Indeed inscriptions show that funerary meals were of great significance (ibid.:167). According to Strabo (16. 4. 26) Nabataean ritual symposia consisted of thirteen people who drank from thirteen cups or bowls and used thirteen bowls for eating. After the meal, the bowls used during this cultic ceremony had to be offered to the god of the sanctuary: there was no reuse for these sanctified dishes. This exclusive ceramic use also applied to funerary meals, which were sometimes partaken inside the tomb, and when space was limited they were consumed in front of the tomb entrance. The pots and other ceramics were used only for the funerary meal and were then left behind with the interred, and it has been suggested that they may have been manufactured specifically for that occasion. In describing a ceramic assemblage found near the entrance of a Nabataean shaft tomb in the Petra Siq, Bellwald (2000:128) found that, “The clay of all the painted bowls contains many white lime inclusions and was not well levigated. This may show that these bowls were especially made for such a unique use.” It would, therefore, appear that the ceramics used during these meals were specially selected, and in some cases specially produced for the ceremonial rite.

THE NORTH RIDGE FUNERARY SITE Lamp selections made with regard to funerary ritual in Tomb 1 and Tomb 2 A table (Fig. 6.1) is presented below which demonstrates, by TBW percentages, the funerary lamp selections made by Nabataean mourners at the North Ridge tombs, from the end of the first century BCE until the beginning of the second century CE. The tombs were not used for interments after this period.

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY Tombs and Time Period

Nabataean indigenous Lamps

Imported Roman Lamps

Nabataean locally made copies of Roman Lamps

Tomb 1 TBW percentages 20 BCE–CE 70

68%

18%

6%

Tomb 2 TBW percentages CE 20–100

52%

5%

19%

137

Figure 6.1 Table showing first century BCE/CE lamp presence for Tomb 1 and Tomb 2 using TBW percentages from the total N.B. Hellenistic TBW percentage for Tomb 1 was 5% and for Tomb 2 was 0% Byzantine TBW percentage for Tomb 1 was 3% and for Tomb 2 was 24%

Cultural change in the first century CE From the presence and absence of lamp types at the tomb sites, it would appear that the mourners did not have access to many locally made copies of imported lamps until the mid first century CE and that prior to that time, more imported Roman lamps were in use, in addition to the indigenous lamps at their disposal. That the Nabataeans admired the imported lamps enough to use them in honoring their dead, would suggest that there was not a great antipathy towards Roman imports, although once local copies of these imports became available, the popularity of the more expensive and scarcer imports waned. The local copies also supplanted the indigenous volute lamp, which disappeared after the first century CE, whereas the local copies remained popular until the third century CE, a presence noted at other sites. The Nabataean volute lamp (Figs. 4.22–24), with its fine rays and rosettes, was not alone in its extinction at the end of the first century CE. The extremely delicate Nabataean finewares began to disappear at this time, to be superseded by a more robust version. Noting the lack of stylistic change observable in Nabataean finewares after the annexation in CE 106, Stephan Schmid (2003a:81) states that: No new elements are added to the (once innovative) Nabataean pottery tradition after the Roman take-over. The patterns of painting and the basic shapes of the plates and bowls remain the same as in the late first century AD, and are simply more degenerated….It

138

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP would seem that, with the loss of their political independence, the Nabataeans also lost their innovative spirit, at least in the field of pottery production.

Patricia Bikai (2001:67), on the other hand, comments: ..the indications are that these two tombs present two distinct Nabataean ceramic horizons of the first century AD. These groups include not just the relatively well-known painted wares, but also a broad range of other vessels; these will assist in moving toward a chronology of all the major forms of Nabataean pottery. They also allow, even at this stage, some observations on the differences between the two groups: the tendency over time is to more rouletting and red slip and to larger and heavier vessels. This has been viewed as a deterioration of the pottery of the “classic” Nabataean period, as represented by Tomb 1. Anyone who has actually handled some of the very thin pottery of the Tomb 1 era knows that it is beautiful and a technical marvel, but it is also extremely impractical. So while the types represented by Tomb 2 have sometimes been described as debased, a case can be made that they are actually—from a consumer’s point of view—a substantial improvement.

THE GREAT TEMPLE SITE Cultural change during the first century CE A table (Fig. 6.2), presented below, demonstrates by TBW percentages the lamp presence in the Great Temple precinct, from the end of the first century BCE until the eighth century CE. Occupation probably ceased by the end of the sixth century CE. Hellenistic Nabataean Imported Nabataean locally Lamps indigenous Roman made copies of Lamps Lamps Roman Lamps 6% 12% 7% 31%

Byzantine Islamic Lamps Lamps 41%

3%

Figure 6.2 Table showing first century BCE–eighth century CE lamp presence in the Great Temple, using TBW percentages

The Nabataean indigenous lamps, the Nabataean locally made copies of Roman lamps, and the imported Roman lamps were in use during the same time period, that is the first century CE. Although the use of the Nabataean indigenous lamps and imported lamps in the

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

139

Great Temple ceased by the end of the first century CE, the Nabataean locally made copies remained in use for at least another century. It would seem that the popularity of the Nabataean indigenous lamps and the Roman imported lamps waned, once the Nabataean locally made copies of the imported Roman lamps made their appearance: a cultural change replicated in the North Ridge Tombs during the same period. A religious identity in the Great Temple Some cultic paraphernalia has been found in the Great Temple precinct. A relief of a sword deity was found in situ, carved into the back wall of the south passageway, behind the temple in the Upper Temenos. Perhaps apotropaic in function, it may have protected an underground cistern or the canalization of the Great Temple site that began there, and continued its path down to the Plaza and the Propylaeum (Joukowsky 2003a:216). Two horned altars were discovered in the Propylaeum, one to the east and another in the west, and a pair of limestone aniconic betyls was found in situ in a niche in the West Propylaeum. Cult-niches were a common feature of Nabataean sites (Healey 2001:155), the niche representing a miniature temple or adyton of a temple (Zayadine 1989:113), and Wenning (2001:90) has noted that “niches belong either to places of assembly of worshippers or to funeral complexes.”

140

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 6.3 Locally made rosette lamp, Type no. 11 (01–L-10). Molded inscription ‘slmt’ on outer wall of lamp Found in the Propylaeum, Great Temple, in the vicinity of betyls (Photograph by Artemis W. Joukowsky)

A Nabataean lamp (Fig. 6.3) Type no. 11, dated to the first half of the first century CE, was found in the vicinity of the aniconic betyls. It bears the molded inscription slmt (Greetings) on the exterior of its body. As mentioned in Chapter 4, Healey (2001:156) observes, “Where statues existed, the term slm would have been used. Thus it was used for the statue of the divine Obodat in CIS II, 354, and the feminine form slmt is used for the Tyche of Si in the bilingual mentioning her (RES 1092).” It is not possible to know whether the lamp was used to honor the betyls or perhaps was a souvenir from Petra, but it is a very rare find and its proximity to the betyls is of interest.

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

141

Figure 6.4 Worn limestone head of Tyche, wearing her turreted crown Found in spolia at the Great Temple. (Photograph by David Brill)

With regard to statuary of deities found in the Great Temple, a life-size head of Tyche (Fortuna) (Fig. 6.4), wearing her turreted

142

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

crown, was found in the spolia. Two limestone pilasters were found in the Lower Temenos in Trench 52: one featuring a possible Tyche (Fig. 6.5) in high relief. The figure is faceless, but it is that of a young woman with ringlets cascading to her shoulders. She is wearing a chiton with her shoulders bared, and her left arm and hand embrace a cornucopia. The presence of a cornucopia suggests that the young woman is Tyche, because the horn of plenty is one of her attributes.

Figure 6.5 Limestone block in high relief, featuring bust of Tyche (?) Found in Trench 52, Lower Temenos, the Great Temple (Photograph by Artemis W. Joukowsky)

A companion block of a male figure (Fig. 6.6), also without a face and wearing a chiton with his right shoulder bared, was found in the same trench. Both these blocks measure approximately 85 cm. wide by 50 cm. high. A limestone pilaster (Fig. 6.7) found in the Propylaeum East, bears the high relief bust of Athena, again faceless, wearing the aegis decorated with its awe-inspiring gorgoneion (rather battered) on her breast, attributes of the goddess. She carries spears or arrows on her back, symbols of her role in times of war.

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

143

Figure 6.6 Limestone block in high relief, featuring bust of male in chiton Found in Trench 52, Lower Temenos, the Great Temple (Photograph by Artemis W. Joukowsky)

The relief blocks strongly resemble the 1967 group of sculptures first published by Parr et al. (1967–68:21–25) and later documented by McKenzie (1988:86–7,1990:134–135, Plates 60–66). They had been found within the artificial fill of the tower room of the Qasr al Bint Far’un in Petra, which is adjacent to the Great Temple, and Joukowsky (2003b:5) has suggested that some of these sculptures may have originally adorned the Great Temple at the end of the first century BCE. The relief blocks and sword deity provide more evidence for a religious use in the Great Temple, and the Tyche head must have belonged to a free-standing statue until an earthquake brought about her demise, and lost forever her status and position in Petra. There is also an intriguing silhouette on the paved forecourt in the Lower Temenos. Where there should be hexagonal pavers is the twodimensional shape (see aerial photograph, Great Temple, Fig. 3.2) of an open altar, reminiscent of the altar in front of the Qasr al Bint Far’un. As yet, no proof of an earlier structure in this area has surfaced. Because we are unable at present to determine the primary use for the Great Temple, that is whether it was a sacred or secular building or perhaps used for both functions, it is impossible to pronounce that the

144

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

lamps found there were used solely for religious purposes. However, a large quantity of Byzantine lamps and fragments found in the area of the West Exedra in the Lower Temenos may be evidence of religious practice during the fourth through the fifth century CE. A religious use in the Lower Temenos? At the beginning of the fourth century CE, when the Roman Emperor Constantine (CE 307–337) chose to worship the Christian god in CE 312, he continued to permit pagan practices and even took part in some of them himself, particularly the cult of the Sun god, (Ostrogorsky 1969:47). Indeed, only a few temples were closed and new temples were still being built during his reign: a religious syncretism that continued until the end of the fourth century CE (Cameron 1993a:57). This syncretism was also practiced in Petra, as noted by the church historian, Eusebius, who observed that despite the construction of churches there in the fourth century CE, the local inhabitants still believed in their pagan superstitions (Ziegler 1975:273). Because the Christianization of society was slow to take hold throughout the Empire, Constantine decided that church unity was an essential prerequisite for the Christian faith and, therefore, any disagreements regarding the doctrine of the church had to be resolved. In CE 365 the Council of Nicaea proclaimed a most important fundamental doctrine for Christianity, the Trinity of God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: a decree that may have persuaded a local Petraean potter to place a molded ‘thrice blessed’ mark (Fig. 4.38) on the base of the Byzantine lamp Type no. 39 (Khairy 1990:20). If this potter was indeed influenced by the Nicaean creed, these lamps could then be given a terminus post quem that dates them after the CE 363 earthquake in Petra.

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

Figure 6.7 Limestone pilaster in high relief of Athena, wearing damaged gorgoneion Found in the Propylaeum East, Great Temple (Photograph by Artemis W. Joukowsky)

145

146

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Byzantine churches have been uncovered in the Petra region, with three close to the North Ridge tomb site: the Petra Church being the largest and most spectacular with its beautifully decorated mosaic floors. At the time of writing, church building on the southern side of the Colonnaded Street is poorly documented. One excavator, Nabil Khairy, has described an apse of a church found in the Al-Katute excavations, a site on the southern side, that bears some similarities to the reconstruction in the Great Temple, i.e., a pavement of small hexagonals, and the re-use of Nabataean architecture in the construction of the church (Khairy 1990:5). It is possible that the West Exedra in the Great Temple served as a chapel during the Byzantine period, as it was common practice to re-use a former sacred site for the prevailing religion (Cameron 1993b:62). The use of exedrae in the Great Temple probably mirrored that of Roman exedrae in that they were multi-functional, providing shade for visitors, temporary offices for government officials, and perhaps also acting as shrines or nymphaea (Basile in Joukowsky 1998:200). The form of the Great Temple exedrae is apsidal, which would have appealed to the Byzantine Christian worshipper, the apse being a common Christian architectural feature, and the West Exedra in particular may have hosted religious ceremonies. Many elaborate decorative elements were found within its apse and these included an amethyst tessera: cut and polished slabs of marble and porphyry, and colored stone floor fragments, perhaps from an opus sectile floor (Basile 1998:200). The presence of such luxurious artifacts would seem to indicate that this area of the Great Temple received special attention. A concentration of glass lamp fragments (14), dated from the fourth–fifth century CE, was also found within the West Exedra, and some of these fragments came from hanging lamps, fixtures often used in churches (Whitehouse 1997:193, No. 339). It is of interest to note that Fiema (2003:247) found a large quantity of glass, including fragments from oil lamps, in the excavation of the Petra Church. In addition to the glass lamp fragments found in the West Exedra, a large quantity of Byzantine ceramic lamp fragments (74) was found, and three of these lamps (94–L-14, 95–L-126, 95–L-132) show decorative crosses inside wheels on their shoulders, resembling Christian

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

147

symbols (Fig. 4.36, Type no. 37). Another example of this lamp type was found in the East Exedra (98–L-3), bearing the three fingers potter’s mark on the base (Fig. 4.38, Type no. 39), in addition to one complete Byzantine lamp and three fragments. Whether the West Exedra was used as a small Byzantine chapel during the late fourth through the beginning of the sixth century CE is speculative and may never be confirmed, but it is a likely candidate for this religious practice.

KHIRBET ET-TANNUR—A SANCTUARY The deities worshipped at Khirbet et-Tannur The first and only deity mentioned in an inscription at Tannur is the Edomite god, Qaws, who was the equivalent of Zeus-Hadad, the god of heaven: Zeus being the Greek name for the Roman god, Jupiter, whereas Hadad is the Syrian name for the same supreme god of heaven (McKenzie 2003a:186). In the building phase Period II, dated to the late first/early second century CE, cult statues of Zeus-Hadad (Fig. 6.8), and Atargatis (Fig. 6.9) were installed in the Inner Temenos Enclosure, within the Altar Platform niche (Fig. 6.10). They were the alter egos for the main Nabataean god, Dushara and his consort, al‘Uzza/Allat. McKenzie (2003a:186) stresses the importance of the anthropomorphic figure of Dushara, because Nabataean deities were more often aniconic. Other anthropomorphic busts, including Zeus, Tyche, Helios and Kronos, appear on panels decorating the entablature of the Inner Temenos Enclosure (Fig. 6.11) during this period. A most noteworthy discovery was a bust of Tyche (Fig. 6.12), who is framed by the zodiac symbols, depicted in a combination of clockwise and counterclockwise directions. She is supported by a Winged Victory. The anthropomorphism of the cult sculpture was chosen deliberately by the Nabataeans during this period (McKenzie 2003a:186), not only at Tannur but also at Dharih; the temple at Wadi Ramm; the Qasr al-Bint Far’un and the Great Temple in Petra: a choice reflecting both their religious commitment and worldview.

148

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 6.8 Khirbet et-Tannur Cult statue of Zeus-Hadad Cincinnati Art Museum

Figure 6.9 Khirbet et-Tannur Cult statue of Atargatis Jordan Archaeological Museum

(McKenzie et al. 2002:27, Figs. 23a and 23c)

Figure 6.10 Khirbet et-Tannur Façade of the Inner Temenos Enclosure where the cult statues of Zeus-Hadad and Atargatis would have sat within the Altar Platform niche (McKenzie 2003a:174, Fig. 179)

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

149

Lamps specifically made for the sanctuary A lamp not common in Petra or elsewhere in Nabataea, is Type no. 3 (Fig. 4.6), an unusual wheelmade lamp whose spout is incorporated within the body. Similar lamp types have been dated from the second– first century BCE (‘Amr 1987:34, Pl. 18 Nos. PL42 and PL43; Fitch et al. 1994:37). The clay used for the lamp was not well-levigated, often a factor in locally made sanctuary ceramics (Bellwald 2000). Donald Bailey, a Curator in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities at the British Museum (personal communication to the author), has confirmed that unique lamps were often produced specifically for sanctuaries. Another lamp, Type no. 26 (Fig. 4.26), the wheelmade socket and saucer lamp, is of great interest, dated from the first through the third century CE. Originally these lamps were supported by ceramic stands. After the saucer was formed on the wheel, it was inserted into the top of a leather-hard ceramic lamp stand using a slip for adhesive, and then the complete lamp and stand were fired in the kiln. The saucer fragments found at Tannur have broken edges, and in some cases there are fragments from the lamp stand upper rim, still attached to the saucer. The combination of saucer, lamp and stand would have provided more stability for the lamp, when it was placed on an uneven surface: a unique feature of the Khirbet et-Tannur socket and saucer lamp type. I am unaware of the presence of this lamp type at other sites in Nabataea.

150

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 6.11 Khirbet et-Tannur The façade of the Inner Temenos Enclosure. Reconstruction (McKenzie et al. 2002:60, Fig. 13)

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

Figure 6.12 Khirbet et-Tannur Zodiac Tyche Jordan Archaeological Museum and Cincinnati Art Museum (McKenzie 2003: 190, Fig. 199)

151

152

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Although this lamp type has not been found in Petra or its environs, many socket and saucer lamps (without stands) were used in the worship of the Kore at Samaria (Crowfoot 1957:373). Could the socket and saucer lamp, found at Khirbet et-Tannur, have been used in the ritual search for the Kore (Fig. 6.13), a search traditionally undertaken with torches and celebrated in the Eleusinian Mysteries (Hornblower et al. 1996:1142)? Before examining the evidence for such a premise, the myth of the Kore is given below for the information of the reader. The myth of the Kore (source: The Homeric Hymn to Demeter) The Kore (Gk. girl or maiden) was Persephone, daughter of Demeter (the Earth-Mother and Guardian of the Corn). Persephone was abducted by Hades, the Lord of the Underworld, and her distraught mother sought her daughter with torches in her hands for nine days until she learned from Hekate or Helios who it was that had abducted her. When Zeus refused her prayer for the restoration of her daughter, Demeter hid herself in wrath at Eleusis and stopped all growth of corn. Not until Zeus agreed that Persephone should spend just one-third of the year in the nether world did Demeter return to Olympos and bestow again fruitfulness on the corn. The denial of complete restoration is explained by the story that Persephone had accepted from her husband, and eaten, the pip of a pomegranate, a symbol of fertilization. Every year, in Ancient Greece, during the months of September and October, the people of Athens marched along the sacred road to Eleusis, bearing corn-sheaves in thanks for the harvest. A round-race with torches was held at nightfall, symbolizing the renewal of light in the spring, but was commonly interpreted by the story of the goddess Demeter seeking her ravished daughter by torch-light. To the initiated (mystai) were shown the holy symbols of the goddess, and to remind them of her grace to mankind in bestowing corn, they were presented after a long fast with a drink or gruel made of water and meal, seasoned with calamint. The main object of the Mysteries was to assure the initiated of a happy life in the next world, modeled on the return of the Kore into the light from the dark underworld.

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

153

Figure 6.13 Samaria-Sebaste. Marble statue of the Kore, wearing a veil, draped in a long chiton and himation. In her right hand she grasps a torch as tall as herself. In her left hand she holds some ears of wheat and a pomegranate. Found near the Stadium (Crowfoot et al.:1957:73, Pl. VIII, Fig. 1)

154

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

The goddess Demeter was imported into the Roman pantheon from Greece, in the year 496 BCE, and her worship saw little change— even in Rome her priestesses had to be Greeks, although her name was changed to Ceres and her daughter was named for Proserpina, the wife of Pluto (Steuding 1901:22–6). As Helene Foley (1994:65) relates: “For a thousand years from our earliest written testimony, the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, the Mysteries brought happiness and solace to initiates from the Greek world and later to the whole Roman Empire.” Indeed, with regard to Kore worship in the Empire in the East, Franz Cumont (1911:132) noted, in a lecture on Syria, “the Kore was assimilated to the Great Syrian goddess or Baalat,” citing an inscription found in Britain which assimilated “the Syrian goddess to Peace, Virtue, Ceres, Cybele and even to the sign of the Virgin.” Mystery cult of Kore at Khirbet et-Tannur Was the Kore worshipped at Khirbet et-Tannur? The identity of the Vegetation Goddess on the tympanum above the doorway of the Inner Temenos Enclosure (Period II) (Fig. 6.14) has not yet been determined (McKenzie et al. 2002:63), although Nelson Glueck, the principal investigator of the site in 1937, believed she represented the Syrian goddess, Atargatis, in the role of “the mother of nature.” He saw the goddess as “the source of fertility,” surrounded as she was by symbols of fecundity, e.g., vines, figs and pomegranates, and compared her with Persephone/Kore, pressing a pomegranate between her breasts: another personification of fruitfulness (Glueck 1965:290). As typical attributes, Demeter holds ears of wheat and a poppy, a scepter or a torch (Hornblower et al. 1996:448). Her daughter is only distinguished from her by her youthful form. The Vegetation Goddess was not the only sculptural deity at Khirbet et-Tannur connected with a bounteous harvest, for a Grain Goddess (Fig. 6.15) is featured on one of the panels of the Period III altar platform. Glueck (1965:316) identified her as another manifestation of Atargatis, naming her alter egos Demeter, the mother of Persephone/Kore, Hera, Fortuna and Tyche. This iconography and context of the Grain Goddess, however, has since been re-evaluated, and it is now believed that she represents the zodiacal Virgo (McKenzie et al. 2002:77).

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

155

Figure 6.14 Khirbet et-Tannur The Vegetation Goddess (Atargatis panel) on the tympanum above the doorway of the Inner Temenos Enclosure (Period II) Jordan Archaeological Museum (Glueck 1965:65 Pl. 31)

Contemporary scholars are also re-evaluating the role of Atargatis as one of the main Nabataean deities, suggesting that she was of interest to only a small minority of Nabataeans (Zayadine 1979:194–197), with uncertain evidence for her presence at Tannur (Healey 2001:141). If Atargatis has fallen from grace, can the Kore be considered the heiress-apparent? Unfortunately, our evidence is slim, with only seven socket and saucer lamps, but their presence is intriguing and provokes us to question further the identity of the deity or deities worshipped within the Temple.

156

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Figure 6.15 Khirbet et-Tannur The Grain Goddess re-identified as Virgo Cincinnati Art Museum (Glueck 1965:49, Pl. 25)

Religious choices at Khirbet et-Tannur If the Kore was worshipped at Tannur, did the Nabataean population switch their allegiance from the goddess Atargatis, (who originated in Syria) to the Kore, whose worship extended throughout the Roman Empire? To be sure, she promised her acolytes resurrection after death and a blessed afterlife, a reward anticipated also by the disciples of Isis: both cult religions that were antecedents of the Christian faith and its promise of salvation. Isis was worshipped in Egypt as the goddess of fertility and protector of motherhood and birth. In the fifth century BCE she was assimilated by Herodotus (Histories II, 59) with Demeter, and ears of wheat were added to her basileion crown, which comprised a solar disk, paired with Hathor’s horns and two falcon feathers. She

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

157

was also identified with Aphrodite and Tyche (el-Khouri 2002:11; Zayadine 2003:63–4). We know that the cult of Isis was practiced in Nabataea. Philip Hammond (2003:227–9), the principal investigator of the Temple of Winged Lions, has suggested that Isis may have been worshipped there, and numerous figurines of Isis and her child Horus have been found throughout Petra (el-Khouri 2002:11; Zayadine 2003:63–4). Indeed, evidence for an actual Isis cult has been found on a rock-ledge, beneath a series of cult-niches in the Wadi es-Siyyagh. This evidence is in the form of an inscription in Nabataean, which states, “This goddess is Isis, which the sons of PN made…on the first of Iyyar in the fifth year…Obodas the king.” The king was Obodas III, and the date 25 BCE (Healey 2001:138). The devotees were obviously Nabataean, from the script and the dating of the text. Initially the sanctuary at Tannur was a small cultic place in the late first century BCE–early first century CE, coinciding with the sedentarization of the Nabataeans in the countryside (Villeneuve et al. 2003:100). However, its rebuilding program and the number of triclinia (at least four) are indications that many pilgrims flocked to the isolated site until at least the third century CE, a period when many cults failed, including that of the Kore. One may hazard a guess that as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, these cults were regarded as anachronistic, and perhaps the Byzantine lamps found in the sanctuary are evidence of a Christian presence. Villeneuve (2003:100) has suggested a scenario to explain the absence of inscriptions at the sanctuaries of Dharih and Tannur, whereby the leading priestly family in the region was “forced into silence,” and, therefore, did not proclaim by dedicatory or cultic inscription its faith. The reason for this silence, he suggests, is that the family may have gone into exile, after the annexation, to their country estates. “Still wealthy, they would have chosen, settling at the site shortly after 106 AD, to enlarge and embellish the traditional sanctuaries there with the intention of formally honoring their Roman host with certain images (some perhaps ironic) on the façade of Dharih (and possibly at Tannur). However, as exiles and subjects they chose not to leave a permanent record of themselves, through the use of stone inscriptions.”

158

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

This hypothesis could be extrapolated to explain the continued use of Tannur in the Byzantine period, with the descendants of the priestly Nabataean families continuing the practice of the old religions in the ancient sanctuaries, using the Byzantine ceramic lamps for their rituals.

RECOVERING IDENTITY What happened to the Nabataeans after the annexation in CE 106? Did their cultural identity as Nabataeans disappear, as they stood in the cultural supermarket waiting for the next set of materials to adopt: a set of blanks awaiting the next cultural imprint (Cooper 1996:91)? We should view the indigenous population of Nabataea as having its own needs and aspirations, a people who were ready to consume and adapt to a new (incoming) culture if so desired, and most importantly, if and when available, e.g., the Roman discus lamps that were part of the funerary equipment in the North Ridge tombs. Yet, a desire to accept all things Roman was obviously not the case, as we have seen in the existence of their own hybridized deities at Tannur, worshipped long after the annexation. Indeed, it is this cultural hybridity that may well explain the re-negotiated identity of the Nabataeans. Hybridity, as mentioned above, is the outcome of a deliberate construction of the foreign out of the familiar. We see this in the local copies of the Roman discus lamp. They are very similar in form to the original imported lamps, but there are subtle differences, as in the locally made discus lamp that depicted Eros as a convict, working in a Nabataean copper mine, Type no. 17 (Fig. 4.20). In Roman lamp iconography, Eros was usually pictured in mythological scenes, and always as a putto (cherub). Pictorial discus lamps, particularly featuring the human image, were not part of the Nabataean indigenous lamp repertoire (Patrich 1990a:192), but were favored imports (Type no. 18), thus, in response to popular demand, a hybridized lamp evolved, a new lamp, which was as foreign to the Nabataeans as it was to the Romans. The elegant Nabataean finewares of the first century CE became more solid and utilitarian, as seen in Tomb 2, whose assemblage of pottery was dated from CE 20–100 or later: why was that? Bikai has posited that although the heavier, larger vessels may appear degenerative compared to the finer ceramics dated from CE 0–50, found in Tomb 1,

CULTURAL CHANGE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

159

they were actually far more practical than the delicate earlier vessels, and she states, “a case can be made that they are actually—from a consumer’s point of view—a substantial improvement” (Bikai et al. 2001:67). Improved or degenerative, the ceramic repertoire responded to the potter and his customers, “bringing a newness into the world.” The Nabataean religion was polytheistic, with Dushara and his consort, al‘Uzza/Allat being the main gods. They were originally represented by aniconic blocks, in obeisance to the Semitic prohibition against copying the human image, a prohibition which was observed in some places as late as the fourth century CE (Patrich 1990b:186). However, from the first century CE, a Hellenistic influence was seen in Nabataean religious sculpture, and in addition to the aniconic blocks, their gods were sculpted in human form, as we have noted in the Period II anthropomorphism of the deities at Tannur, and elsewhere. The Nabataeans did not slavishly copy the Classical features found on Roman statuary, as noted by McKenzie (2003a:191): Representations of gods and goddesses include decorative busts and cult statues. They are depicted in classical figured form, and also represented as simple stone blocks, or “eye idols.” The iconography of these sculptures was chosen by the Nabataeans from a variety of sources reflecting local influences and needs, as well as trends in the wider cultural milieu to which they belonged. The sophistication and rich variety of sculpture results from the Nabataeans’ selective use of classical features while at the same time keeping their own distinctive culture and religion.

McKenzie (2001:109) emphasizes that Nabataean culture does not result from an indigenous misunderstanding of classical features, rather, its distinctive characteristics come from the deliberate choice and use of local features in combination with classical ones. Most intriguing is the identity of the Vegetation Goddess in the tympanum panel at Tannur. Was she in fact a hybridized Atargatis/Kore? Burnt grains of wheat have been found around the altar at Tannur, perhaps offerings to a deity of fertility. The Kore was worshipped at Samaria-Sebaste, 56 km north of Jerusalem, and her cult was prevalent throughout the Roman Empire until at least the third century CE. This deity promised a blessed afterlife to her followers, a blessing that we know was important to the Nabataeans, because an-

160

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

other foreign goddess, Isis from Egypt, was venerated throughout their kingdom, a goddess who also bequeathed resurrection to her acolytes. The wheelmade round lamps and socket and saucer lamps found at Tannur are not common forms, and it is known that lamps used in sanctuaries were often specifically made for that purpose by a local potter. Socket and saucer lamps were found at Samaria-Sebaste, and another lamp, Type no. 33 (Fig. 4.32), identified with Samaria and dated from the second–fourth century CE, was discovered at Tannur, suggesting that contact occurred between Tannur and Samaria. Lamps acquired symbolic layers of meaning through their manufacture and use, and in the case of the socket and saucer lamp, it may have connected the worshippers to the tradition of the Kore myth, providing light during the ritual search for the lost daughter of Demeter. The interconnectedness of creating the ceramics, the lamps, the statuary and the architecture in the landscape contributed over time to the reconstruction of a new social identity for the Nabataeans. While it can be argued that people always construct their own identities, they do so on the basis of a set of resources that is made available to them. At the time of the annexation, what was made available to the Nabataeans was a symbolically charged event whose character was established by the circulation of knowledge and artifacts. How the Nabataeans reacted to this event, the loss of their monarchy and the powerful new authority of the Roman Empire, was manifested in their artifacts and how they understood the world around them. Their response to their new master resulted in a hybridization of their cultural bricolage, new gods were venerated, their religious architecture was reinterpreted and their ceramic repertoire responded to the popularity of imports, by absorbing certain characteristics yet creating their own unique vessels and a distinct cultural identity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY SOURCES CITED Adkins, L., and R. A. Adkins. 1996. Dictionary of Roman Religion. New York: Facts on File. Aharoni, Y. 1956. Excavations at Ramath Rahel. IEJ 6:102–11, 137–57. ‘Amr, K. 1987. The Pottery from Petra: A Neutron Activation Analysis Study. BAR International Series Vol. 324. Oxford: BAR. Aufderheide, A. C., and C. Rodriguez-Martin. 1998. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bailey, D. M. 1965. Lamps in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Opuscula Atheniensia 6:1–83. —. 1971–2. Some Recent Lamp Acquisitions in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities. British Museum Quarterly 36:101–7. —. 1972. Greek and Roman Pottery Lamps. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. —. 1975. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum: Greek, Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery Lamps. Vol. 1. London: British Museum Publications Limited. —. 1980. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum: Roman lamps made in Italy. Vol. II. London: British Museum Publications Limited. —. 1988. A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum. Roman Provincial Lamps. Vol. III. London: British Museum Publications Limited. —. 1994. "Chapter 2: Catalogue and Discussion," in Masada IV. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965. Final Reports. Lamps from Masada, vol. IV. Edited by D. Barag and M. Hershkovitz, pp. 11– 106. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 161

162

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Ball, W. 2000. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. London and New York: Routledge. Barag, D., and M. Hershkovitz. Editors. 1994. Masada IV: Lamps from Masada. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Barrett, D. G. 1998. “The Lamps,” in Petra Great Temple: Brown University Excavations 1993–1997, vol. I. Edited by M. S. Joukowsky, pp. 275–286. Providence, R.I. —. 2003. Light in the Temple. Semitic Museum News 6:6. Barrett, J. 1996. “The Living, the Dead and the Ancestors: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Mortuary Practices,” in Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader. Edited by R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder. Oxford: Blackwell. Basile, J. J. 1998. “Architectural Sculpture and Reconstruction: The Lower Temenos,” in Petra Great Temple: Brown University Excavations 1993–1997, vol. I. Edited by M. S. Joukowsky, pp. 189– 208. Providence, R.I. Bedal, L.-A. 1998. “Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery,” in Petra Great Temple: Brown University Excavations 1993–1997. Edited by M. S. Joukowsky, pp. 345–367. Providence, R.I. —. 2004. The Petra Pool-Complex: A Hellenistic Paradeisos in the Nabataean Capital. New Jersey: Gorgias Press. Bellwald, U. 2000. The Siq Project, Petra, Jordan. Intermonument restauro Bellwald Berne. Middle East Engineering Management Amman. Bhabha, H. K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. Bienkowski, P. 2002. Busayra Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett 1971– 1980. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bikai, P. M. 2002. North Ridge Project. ACOR Newsletter 14.1:1–3. —. 2002. The Churches of Byzantine Petra. Near Eastern Archaeology 65:4:271–276. Bikai, P. M., and M. A. Perry. 2000. Petra: Blue Chapel Complex. ACOR Newsletter 12.1:1–2. —. 2001. Petra North Ridge Tombs 1 and 2: Preliminary Report. BASOR 324:59–78.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

163

Blakely, J. 1987. Caesarea Maritima IV. The Pottery and Dating of Vault 1: Horreum, Mithraeum, and Later Uses. Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima. Bloch, M. 1977. The Past and Present in the Present. Man 12:278–92. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowersock, G. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Bowman, A. K. 2000. Urbanization in Roman Egypt. Journal of Roman Archaeology 38:173–187. Braudel, F. 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Reign of Philip II. London: Collins. Broneer, O. 1930. Terracotta Lamps. Corinth IV. Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. IV. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Princeton. —. 1977. Isthmia. Excavations by the University of Chicago under the auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. III. Terracotta Lamps. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Browning, I. 1994. Petra. London: Chatto & Windus. Buikstra, J. E., and D. H. Ubelaker. Editors. 1994. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Vol. 44. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series. Burnham, B. 1995. “Celts and Romans; towards a Romano-Celtic society,” in The Celtic World. Edited by M. J. Green, pp. 121–144. London and New York: Routledge. Burton, M. 1992. “Settlement patterns along the southern flank of Wadi al-Hasa: evidence from the Wadi al-Hasa archaeological survey,” in Studies in the History and the Archaeology of Jordan, vol. IV. Edited by A. Hadidi, pp. 295–301. Amman. Butler, H. C. 1919. Syria: Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904–5 and 1909. Leiden: Brill. Cameron, A. 1993a. The Later Roman Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. —. 1993b. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge.

164

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Chevalier, J., and A. Gheerbrant. 1994. A Dictionary of Symbols. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Childe, V. G. 1945. Directional changes in funerary practices during 50,000 years. Man 4:13–19. Cleveland, R. L. 1960. The Excavation of the Conway High Place (Petra) and Soundings at Khirbet Ader. AASOR 34–35:55–97. Collingwood, R. G. 1932. Roman Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cooper, N. J. 1996. “Searching for the blank generation: consumer choice in Roman and post-Roman Britain,” in Roman Imperialism: Post-Colonial Perspectives, vol. 3, Leicester Archaeology Monographs. Edited by J. Webster and N. J. Cooper, pp. 85–98. Leicester: School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester. Coote, R., and K. Whitelam. 1987. The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective. Sheffield: Almond Press. Crelier, M.-C. 1995. Die Frühen Lampen von ez Zantur, Petra. Lizentiatsarbeit, Universität Basel. Crowfoot, J. W., G. M. Crowfoot, and K. M. Kenyon. Editors. 1957. Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931– 1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935. The Objects from Samaria. Vol. III. London: PEF. Crowfoot, J. W., and G. M. Fitzgerald. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley. PEF Annual V. Cumont, F. V. M. 1911. Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. Chicago. Cunliffe, B. 1995. Iron Age Britain. London: Batsford. Curtius, L. 1930. “Poenitentia,” in Festschrift für James Loeb, pp. 53–62. München: Bruckmann. D’Hancarville, P. F. 1778. First Collection of Sir William Hamilton, Ambassador at Naples. London: Greek and Roman Department, British Museum. Dalman, G. 1912. Neue Petra-Forschungen. Palätinische Forschungen zur Archäologie und Topographie II. Leipzig. Day, F. 1942. Early Islamic and Christian Lamps Berytus 7:64–79. de la Blache, V. 1926. Principles of Human Geography. New York: Holt and Company.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

Demandt, A. 1990. “Theodor Mommsen,” in Classical scholarship: A bibliographicalencyclopaedia. Edited by W. W. Briggs and W. M. Calder, pp. 285–307. New York. Dever, W. G. 1992. “The Late Bronze-Early Iron I Horizon in SyriaPalestine: Egyptians, Canaanites, ‘Sea Peoples,’ and ProtoIsraelites,” in The Crisis Years: The 12th Century BC (From Beyond the Danube to the Tigris). Edited by M. S. Joukowsky and W. A. Ward, pp. 99–110. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. Dommelen, P. V. 1998. “Punic Persistence: Colonialism and Cultural Identities,” in Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire. Edited by R. Laurence and J. Berry, pp. 25–48. London and New York: Routledge. Doughty, C. M. 1888. Travels in Arabia Deserta. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. el-Khouri, L. S. 2002. The Nabataean Terracotta Figurines. Vol. 1034. BAR International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress. Farajat, S., and S. Al-Nawafleh. 2003. “A New Discovery at the Treasury.” Paper read at the Second International Conference on Science and Technology in Archaeology and Conservation. December 7–11, 2003, Zarqa, Jordan. Fiema, Z. T. 1998. “The Roman Street of the Petra Project, 1997: A Preliminary Report.” ADAJ 42:395–424. —. 2003. “The Byzantine Church at Petra,” in Petra Rediscovered. Edited by G. Markoe, pp. 239–249. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Fitch, C. R., and N. W. Goldman. 1994. Cosa: The Lamps. Vol. XXXIX. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press. Foley, H. P. Editor. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Forcey, C. 1997. “Beyond ‘Romanization’: Technologies of power in Roman Britain,” in TRAC 96 Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference: Sheffield 1996. Edited by K. Meadows, C. Lemke, and J. Heron, pp. 15–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin. —. 1979. Governmentality. Ideology and Consciousness 6:5–21.

166

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

—. 1981. An Introduction. Vol. I. The History of Sexuality. Harmondsworth: Penguin. —. 1988. The Care of the Self. Vol. 3. The History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage Books, Random House. Galling, K. 1923. Die Beleuchtungsgeräte im israelitisch-jüdischen Kulturgebiet. Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 46:1–50 Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. Glueck, N. 1937. A Newly Discovered Nabataean Temple. AJA 41:361–76. —. 1938. The Early History of a Nabataean Temple. BASOR 69:7–18. —. 1965. Deities and Dolphins. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Graf, D. F. 1990. The Origin of the Nabataeans. ARAM 2:45–75. —. 1997. Rome and the Arabian Frontier from the Nabataeans to the Saracens. Variorum Collected Studies Series: CS594. Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate. Grahame, M. 1998. “Redefining Romanization: material culture and the question of social continuity in Roman Britain,” in TRAC 97 Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference. Edited by C. Forcey, J. Hawthorne, and R. Witcher, pp. 1–10. Nottingham: Oxbow. H-, G. O. F. 1852. An Excursion from Jerico to the Ruins of the Ancient Cities of Geraza and Amman. London: T. Hatchard. Hadad, S. 2002. The Oil Lamps from the Hebrew University Excavations at Bet Shean. Excavations at Bet Shean. QEDEM 4 Reports. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Hammond, P. C. 1973. Pottery from Petra. PEQ 105:27–49. —. 1996. The Temple of the Winged Lions, Petra, Jordan, 1974–1990. Arizona: Petra Publishing. —. 2003. “The Temple of the Winged Lions,” in Petra Rediscovered. Edited by G. Markoe, pp. 223–229. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Harding, G. L. 1946. A Nabataean Tomb at Amman. QDAP 12:58–62. Haverfield, F. J. 1906. The Romanization of Roman Britain. Oxford.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

Hayes, J. W. 1980. Ancient Lamps in the Royal Ontario Museum. Greek and Roman Clay Lamps. A Catalogue. Vol. I. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. Healey, J. F. 1993. The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada’in Salih. Vol. Supplement 1. Journal of Semitic Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2001. Religion of the Nabataeans. Leiden: Brill. Hendrix, R. E., P. R. Drey, and J. B. Storfjell. 1996. Ancient Pottery of Transjordan. Michigan: The Institute of Archaeology. Holum, K. G., R. L. Hohlfelder, R. J. Bull, and A. Raban. 1988. King Herod’s Dream: Caeasarea on the Sea. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Hope, V. 2000. “The city of Rome: capital and symbol,” in Experiencing Rome, Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire. Edited by J. Huskinson, pp. 63–93. London: Routledge. Hornblower, S., and A. Spawforth. 1996. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Third edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horsfield, G., and A. C. Horsfield. 1941. Sela-Petra, the Rock, of Edom and Nabatene. QDAP 7:1–60. Howland, R. H. 1958. The Athenian Agora IV: Greek Lamps and their Survivals. Princeton. Israeli, Y., and U. Avida. 1988. Oil-lamps from Eretz Israel, the Louis and Carmen Warschaw Collection at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Jerusalem. James. 2001. “Britain,” in Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization. Edited by S. Keay and N. Torrenato, pp. 187–209. Oxford: Oxbow. Johnson, D. 1987. Nabataean Trade: Intensification and Culture Change. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah. Jones, R. N. 2001. “Nabataean Inscriptions,” in The Petra Church, vol. 3. Edited by Z. T. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, T. Waliszewski, and R. Schick. Amman: ACOR. Joukowsky, M. S. Editor. 1998. Petra Great Temple Volume I: Brown University Excavations 1993–1997. Providence, R.I. —. 2003a. “The Great Temple,” in Petra Rediscovered. Edited by G. Markoe, pp. 214–222. New York.

168

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

—. 2003b. Excavations at the Petra Great Temple: The Eleventh Campaign. Brown University. Department of Antiquities Report. Joukowsky, M. S., and J. J. Basile. 2001. More Pieces in the Petra Great Temple Puzzle. BASOR 324:43–8. Kahane, P. P. 1961. Rock-Cut Tombs at Huqoq: Notes on the Finds. ’Atiqot 3:126–147. Kanellopoulos, C., and T. S. Akasheh. 2001. The Petra Map. BASOR 324:5–7. Kennedy, C. A. 1963. The Development of the Lamp in Palestine. Berytus 14:67–115. Kennedy, D., and D. Riley. 1990. Rome’s Desert Frontier from the Air. Austin: University of Texas Press. Khairy, N. 1984. Neither ‘TLT’ nor ‘ALT’ but ‘RAYT.’ PEQ:115–119. —. 1990. The 1981 Petra Excavations. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Kolb, B. 2003. “Petra—From Tent to Mansion: Living on the Terraces of Ez-Zantur,” in Petra Rediscovered. Edited by G. Markoe, pp. 230–237. New York. LaBianca, O. S., and R. W. Younker. 1995. “The Kingdoms of Ammon, Moab andEdom: The archaeology of society in late Bronze/Iron Age Transjordan (ca. 1400–500 BCE),” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. Edited by T. E. Levy, pp. 399–411. New York: Facts on File. Lapp, E. C. 1997. The Archaeology of Light: The Cultural Significance of the Oil Lamp from Roman Palestine. Doctoral Dissertation, Duke University. Larché, F., and F. Zayadine. 2003. “The Qasr al-Bint of Petra,” in Petra Rediscovered. Edited by G. Markoe, pp. 199–213. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Laurence, R., and J. Berry. 1998. Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge. Lewis, N. 1970. Graeco-Roman Egypt: fact or fiction? Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Papyrology 1968 7:3–14. Loeschcke, S. 1919. Lampen aus Vindonissa: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte von Vindonissa und des antiken Beleutungswesen. Zürich: Beer und Cie. Macalister, R. A. S. 1912. The Excavations of Gezer. London.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

Magness, J. 1993. Jerusalem Ceramic Chronology: Circa 200–800 CE. Vol. 9. JSOT/ASOR Monograph. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Mattingly, D. 2002. Vulgar and weak ‘Romanization,’ or time for a paradigm shift? JRA 15:536–540. Mazar, B., and I. Dunayevsky. 1967. En-Gedi, Fourth and Fifth Seasons of Excavations, Preliminary Report. IEJ 17:133–143. McEvedy, C. 1980. The Penguin Atlas of African History. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books. McKenzie, J. S. 1988. The development of Nabataean sculpture at Petra and Khirbet Tannur. PEQ 120:81–107. —. 1990. The Architecture of Petra. London: Oxford University Press. —. 2001. Keys from Egypt and the East: Observations on Nabataean Culture in the Light of Recent Discoveries. BASOR 324:97–112. —. 2003a. “Carvings in the Desert: The Sculpture of Petra and Khirbet et-Tannur,” in Petra Rediscovered. Edited by G. Markoe, pp. 165– 191. New York: Harry N. Abrams. —. 2003b. A Nabataean Temple in the Museum Basement: Khirbet etTannur Re-excavated. Semitic Museum News 6:1–9. McKenzie, J. S., S. Gibson, and A. T. Reyes. 2002. Reconstruction of the Nabataean Temple Complex at Khirbet et-Tannur. PEQ 134:44–83. Millar, F. 1993. The Roman Near East. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Miller, D., and C. Tilley. 1984. Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Millett, M. 1990. The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mommsen, T. 1854–1885. Römische Geschichte. Vol. I-V. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Moses, H. 1814. A Collection of Antique Vases, Altars, Paterae, Tripods, Candelabra, Sarcophagi, etc. London: H. G. Bohn. Murray, M. A., and J. C. Ellis. 1940. A Street in Petra. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt and B. Quaritch Limited. Negev, A. 1970. “Die Töpferwerkstatt in Oboda (Avadat),” in Die Nabatäer. Einvergessenes Volk am Toten Meer 312 v.-106 n. Chr., pp. 48–51. München: M. Lassleben.

170

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

—. 1972. Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. Israel: Jerusalem Publishing House. —. 1974. The Nabataean Potter’s Workshop at Oboda. Bonn: Rudolph Habelt. —. 1986a. Nabataean Archaeology Today. New York: New York University. —. 1986b. The Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery of Nabataean Oboda. Final Report. Vol. 22. QEDEM Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Negev, A. and S. Gibson. 2001. Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York: Continuum Publishing House. Newton, C. T. 1867. A Guide to the Blacas Collection of Antiquities. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Niehr, H. 1998. Religionen in Israels Umwelt. Würzburg: Echter. Ostrogorsky, G. 1969. History of the Byzantine State, Fourth revised edition. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Paradise, T. R. 1998. “Environmental Setting and Stone Weathering,” in Petra Great Temple Volume I: Brown University Excavations 1993–1997, vol. I. Edited by M. S. Joukowsky, pp. 151–168. Providence RI. Parr, P. J. 1960. Excavations at Petra, 1958–59. PEQ 92:124–135. —. 1990. Sixty years of excavation in Petra. A critical assessment. ARAM 2:7–23. Parr, P. J., and G. R. H. Wright. 1967/1968. Recent Discoveries in the Sanctuary of the Qasr Bint Far’un at Petra. ADAJ 12/13:5–19. Patrich, J. 1990a. The Formation of Nabataean Art. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University. —. 1990b. Prohibition of a Graven Image. ARAM 2:185–196. Payne, E. E. 1998. “Evidence for the Nabataean Subterranean Canalization System,” in Petra Great Temple, Volume I, Brown University Excavations, 1993–1997, vol. I. Edited by M. S. Joukowsky, pp. 171–178. Providence, RI. Pearson, M. Parker. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton. Perlzweig, J. 1961. The Athenian Agora. Results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. VII. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

Perry, M. A. 2002. Life and Death in Nabataea: The North Ridge Tombs and Nabataean Burial Practices. Near Eastern Archaeology 65:265–270. Petrie, W. M. F. 1904. Roman Ehnasya (Herakleopolis Magna): plates and text supplementary to Ehnasya. London: The Egypt Exploration Fund. Piggott, S. 1979. “‘Royal tombs’ reconsidered,” in Festschrift Jazdzewski, vol. 25. Edited by A. Chimielowska, pp. 293–301. Lodz: Muzeum Archeologicznego i Ethnograficznego Lodzi. Polotsky, H. J. 1967. The Archive of Babatha. Eretz Israel 8:46–50. Rast, W. E. 1992. Through the Ages in Palestinian Archaeology. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. Reece, R. 1980. Town and country: the end of Roman Britain. World Archaeology 12:77– 91. —. 1988. My Roman Britain. Cotswold Studies 3. Cirencester. Rives, J. 2000. “Religion in the Roman World,” in Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire. Edited by J. Huskinson, pp. 245–276. London. Rosenthal, R., and R. Sivan. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection. QEDEM 8 Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R. 1981. Römische Bildlampen aus östlichen Werkstätten. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Saller, S. J., and B. Bagatti. 1949. The Town of Nebo (Khirbet elMekhayyat). Jerusalem. Santillo Frizell, B. 1996. Report on a pilot project. Opuscula Romana 21:57–81. Sauer, J. A. 1986. Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages; A Critique of Glueck’s Synthesis. BASOR 263:1–26. Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Schmid, S. G. 1996. “Die Feinkeramik,” in Petra: ez Zantur I: Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liehtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992, vol. I. Edited by R. A. Stucky, pp. 151–218. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

172 —.

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

2000. Petra ez Zantur II Ergebnisse der SchweizerischLiechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen Teil I. Terra Archaeologica IV: Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinschen Stiftung für Archäologische Forschungen in Ausland (FSLA). —. 2003a. “Nabataean Pottery,” in Petra Rediscovered. Edited by G. Markoe, pp. 75–81. New York: Harry N. Abrams. —. 2003b. Eating and Drinking at Khirbet et-Tannur. Semitic Museum News 6:7. Schmitt-Korte, K. 1968. Beitrag zur nabatäischen Keramik. Archäologischer Anzeiger 83:469–519. Segal, A. 1995. Theatres in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia. Vol. Supplement 140. Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava. Leiden: Brill. Sellers, O. R., and D. C. Baramki. 1953. A Roman Byzantine Burial Cave in Northern Palestine. BASOR 15–16:7–55. Shanks, M., and C. Tilley. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge, England: Polity. Slane, K. W. 1990. Corinth: Results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. The Roman Pottery and Lamps. Vol. XVIII, Part II. Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Smith, R. H. 1961. The Herodian Lamp of Palestine: Types and Dates. Berytus 14:53–65. —. 1966. The Household Lamps of Palestine in New Testament Times. BA 29:2–27. —. 1973. Pella of the Decapolis, Vol. I. Wooster. Steuding, H. 1901. Greek and Roman Mythology and Heroic Legend. The Temple Primers. London: J. M. Dent. Strong, G. J., and J. A. Strong. 1913. The Syrian Goddess. London: Constable and Company Limited. Stucky, R. A. 1992. Swiss-Liechtenstein Excavations at ez-Zantur in Petra 1991: The Third Campaign. ADAJ 36:178. —. 1996. Petra. Ez Zantur I: Ergebnisse der SchweizerischLiechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992. Vol. I. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

Stucky, R. A., Y. Gerber, B. Kolb, and S. G. Schmid. 1994. SwissLiechtenstein Excavations at ez-Zantur in Petra 1993: The Fifth Campaign. ADAJ 38:271–290. Sukenik, E. L. 1934–5. A Jewish Tomb-Cave on the Slope of Mt. Scopus. Qovetz –Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 3:62–73. Terrenato, N. 1998. “The Romanization of Italy: global acculturation or cultural bricolage,” in TRAC 97 Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference: Nottingham 1997. Edited by C. Forcey, H. Hawthorne, and R. Witcher, pp. 20–27. Oxford: Oxbow. Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity: An Interpretive Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge. Tzaferis, V. 1969. Tombs in Western Galilee. Atiqot 5:72–79. —. 1971. Christian Symbols of the Fourth Century and the Church Fathers, Hebrew University. Ubelaker, D. H. 1989. Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, Analysis, Interpretation. Washington, DC: Taraxacum. Villeneuve, F., and Z. al-Muheisen. 2003. “Dharih and Tannur: Sanctuaries of Central Nabataea,” in Petra Rediscovered. Edited by G. Markoe, pp. 83–100. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Vinogradoff, P. 1911. The Growth of the Manor. London: George Allen and Unwin. Walbank, F. W. 1993. The Hellenistic World: Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Walters, H. B. 1914. Catalogue of the Greek and Roman Lamps in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Webster, J. 2001. Creolizing the Roman Provinces. American Journal of Archaeology 105:209–25. Wenning, R. 2001. The Betyls of Petra. BASOR 324:79–95. Wharton, A. J. 1995. Refiguring the Post Classical City: Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem and Ravenna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitcher Kansa, S. 2003. Food for the Gods. Semitic Museum News 6:8. Whitehouse, D. 1997. Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass. Vol. I. The Corning Museum of Glass Catalog Series, Corning, New York. New York.

174

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Whittaker, C. R. 1997. “Imperialism and Culture: The Roman Initiative,” in Dialogues in Roman Imperialism, JRA Suppl. vol. 23, International Roman Archaeology Conference Series. Edited by D. J. M. Mattingly, pp. 143–163. Portsmouth, R.I. Winnett, F. V., and G. L. Harding. 1978. Inscriptions from Fifty Safaitic Cairns. Toronto. Woolf, G. 1998. Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2001. “Gaul,” in Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization. Edited by S. Keay and N. Terrenato. Oxford: Oxbow. Yadin, Y. 1963. The Nabataean Kingdom, Provincia Arabia, Petra and En-Geddi in the Documents from Nahal Hever. Ex Oriente Lux 17:227–41. Yellin, J. Editor. 1994. Chapter 3. Origin of the Lamps from Masada. Vol. IV. Masada IV. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965 Final Reports. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan. Zanoni, I. Editor. 1996. Tonlampen. Vol. I. Petra ez Zantur 1: Ergebnisse der Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988–1992. Mainz: Phillipp von Zabern. Zayadine, F. 1974. Excavations at Petra. ADAJ 19:135–150. —. 1979. Excavations at Petra (1976–78). ADAJ 23:185–197. —. 1980. “Die Götter der Nabatäer,” in Petra und das Königsreich der Nabatäer. Third edition. Edited by M. Lindner, pp. 108–17. München. —. 1981. Recent Excavations and Restorations of the Department of Antiquities. AJA: 341–55. —. 1982. Recent Excavations at Petra (1979–1981). ADAJ 26:365–393. —. 1986. “Tempel, Graber, Topferofen,” in Petra, Neue Ausgrabungen und Entdeckungen. Edited by M. Lindner, pp. 214–69. München: Naturhistorische Gesellschaft Nürnberg. —. 2003. “The Nabataean Gods and their Sanctuaries,” in Petra Rediscovered. Edited by G. Markoe, pp. 57–64. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

Zeitler, J. 1990. A Private Building from the First Century BC in Petra. ARAM 2:385–420. Ziegler, J. 1975. Der Jesajakommentar. Vol. 9. Berlin: GCS.

GREEK AND LATIN LITERARY SOURCES Aelian. On the Characteristics of Animals. Translated by A. F. Scholfield. 1959–1971. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Diodorus Siculus. Diodorus of Sicily Books II (continued) 35–IV, 58. Edited and translated by C. H. Oldfather. 1935. London: Heinemann. —. Diodorus of Sicily Books XIX.66–110 and XX. Edited and translated by R. M. Greer. 1954. London: Heinemann. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The Roman Antiquities. Translated by E. Cary. 1937. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Eusebius. Der Jesjakommentar. Edited by J. Ziegler. 1975. GCS 9. Berlin. —. The library of Eusebius of Caesarea. A. Carriker. 2003. Boston: Brill. Herodotus. Herodotus.The Histories. Translated by A. de Sélincourt. 1996. London: Penguin. Hieronymus. Hieronymus of Cardia. 1981. J. Hornblower. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Josephus. The Jewish War. Translated by G. A. Williamson. 1981. New York: Penguin. —. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by R. Marcus. 1943. London: Heinemann. Juvenal. Satires. Edited by J. Ferguson 1999. London: Bristol Classical Press. Martial. Martial in English. J. P. Sullivan and A. J. Boyle. 1996. London: Penguin. Pliny. Natural History. Edited and translated by H. Rackham. 1942. London: Heinemann. Posidippos. Papyri dell’Università degli Studi di Milano. Vol. VIII. Posidippo di Pella Epigrammi. 2001. Milan. Strabo. The Geography of Strabo. Books XV-XVI. Edited and translated by H. L. Jones, 1930. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

176

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Tertullian. Tertulliani Apologeticus adversus Gentes pro Christianis. Edited by J. G. P. Borleffs. 1929. Oxford: Clarendon.

INDEX Abu Ulayqa, 15 Acculturation, 1, 4, 5, 6, 173 Achaemenid period, 21 ACOR (American Center of Oriental Research), xvii, xxi, 47, 61, 162, 167 Actium, Battle of, 7, 24 Aelian, 33, 175 Aila, 6 Alexander Jannaeus, 22, 23 Alexander the Great, 4, 21 Alexandria, 5, 8, 22 Ammon, 17, 168 Aniconism, 10 Aninius Sextius, 26 Annexation, xv, 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 21, 25, 26, 27, 131, 133, 134, 137, 157, 158, 160 Antigonus, 18, 19 Antioch, 5 Antiochus IV, 22 Antiochus XII, 22 Antipater, 23 Aramaic, 21 Aretas I, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 41, 42, 85 Aretas II, 21, 22, 24 Aretas III, 21, 22, 24 Aretas IV, 22, 25, 26, 41, 42, 85 Aristobulus, 23 Artemis, xviii, 78, 140, 142, 143, 145

Asphalt, 19 Assyrian period, 17, 21 Atargatis, 10, 33, 44, 78, 81, 147, 148, 154, 155, 156, 159 Athenaeus, 18 Athenodorus, 19 Athens, 5, 152, 163, 170, 172 Augustus, 5, 7, 8, 9, 24, 25, 174 See also Octavian Imperial cult, 7, 9 Authenticity, 6, 9 Babatha, 21, 26, 171 Archive, 26 Bahrain, 20 Bedouin, 29, 40 Belenus, 10 Betyls, 36, 173 Blue Chapel, 48, 52, 111, 129, 162 Building 1, 48 Building 2, 48, 111, 129 Small Chapel, 48 South Room, 48, 129 West Room, 48, 129 Bostra, 6, 22, 26 Braudel, F., 17, 163 British Neolithic, 134 Busayra, 18, 162 Byzantine period, 30, 39, 43, 82, 97, 104, 105, 122, 124, 130, 131, 146, 158 Caelestis, 10 Caesarea/Sebastos, 8

177

178

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Canalization system, 34, 35, 36, 39, 118, 119, 170 Ceramics, 36, 37, 51, 56, 57, 64, 65, 83, 125, 127, 128, 134, 136, 149, 158, 160 China, 16, 46 Christianity, 103, 131, 144, 157 Claudius, Emperor, 25 Cleopatra, 7, 24 Coinage, 6, 21, 25 Collingwood, R.C., 3, 164 Colonialism, 4, 165 Colonnaded Street, 30, 32, 146 Constantine, Emperor, 144 Council of Nicaea CE 365, 144 Creolization, 4 Crusaders, 41 Cultic paraphernalia, 31, 134, 139 Cults, 8, 9, 10, 45, 157 Cultural bricolage, 4, 12, 160, 173 Cultural change, 1, 13, 27, 130, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139 Cylinder seals, 17 de la Blache, Vidal, 16, 164 Decapolis, 21, 172 Defensive imperialism, 2 Deities, 5, 7, 10, 13, 44, 58, 141, 147, 155, 158, 159, 166 Allat/Baalat, 78, 147, 154, 159 Aphrodite, 78, 157 Astarte, 10 Atargatis, 10, 33, 44, 78, 81, 147, 148, 154, 155, 156, 159 Athena, 142, 145 Cybele, 154 Demeter/Ceres, 58, 90, 152, 154, 156, 160, 172 Dushara, 10, 41, 44, 147, 159 Eros, 82, 83, 135, 158 Grain Goddess, 154, 156 Hades, 152

Hathor, 156 Hekate, 152 Helios, 33, 147, 152 Hera, 154 Horus, 157 Ishtar, 33 Isis, 9, 10, 156, 157, 160 Kore/Persephone, 89, 90, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 172 Kronos, 147 Mene, 33 Poseidon, 58, 90 Qaws, 42, 147 Selene, 33 Tyche/Fortuna, 33, 77, 140, 141, 142, 143, 147, 151, 154, 157 Vegetation Goddess, 154, 155, 159 Virgo, 154, 156 Demetrius, 19 Diodorus Siculus, 18, 175 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 7, 175 Dushara, 10, 41, 44, 147, 159 Edom, 17, 18, 167 Egypt, 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 43, 46, 53, 97, 156, 160, 163, 168, 169, 171 Eleusinian mysteries, 152 Empire, 4, 5, 7, 9, 17, 24, 46, 80, 83, 90, 135, 144, 154, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 171 Ermesa, 21 Eusebius, 144, 175 Excavation, xvi, xvii, 11, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 64, 112, 125, 146, 164, 170, 173 Faïence, 17 Finewares, 20, 27, 51, 137, 158

INDEX Florentinus, T., 26 Funerary meals, 47, 126, 136 Fusion process, 3 Gardens, 20 Gerasa, 5 Germany, 2 Glueck, Nelson, xvi, 33, 42, 43, 44, 61, 78, 82, 92, 97, 103, 106, 154, 155, 156, 166, 171 Golan, 22 Great Temple, xv, xvi, xvii, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41, 52, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 65, 69, 71, 73, 74, 76, 78, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 94, 95, 98, 99, 102, 104, 107, 110, 111, 112, 122, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 162, 167, 168, 170 Central Arch, 36, 120 Cistern, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 118, 119, 139 Colonnade, East, 115, 116 Colonnade, West, 115, 116 Corridor, East, 36, 37, 120, 121 Corridor, West, 36, 37, 120, 121 Cryptoporticus, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38 East Exedra, 115 Exedra, East, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 147 Exedra, West, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 114, 144, 146, 147 Forecourt, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 40, 112, 119, 143 Hexagonal Pavement, 35, 36, 38, 117 Lapidary, 111, 112, 113, 114 Propylaeum, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 74, 78, 111,

179 112, 114, 122, 139, 140, 142, 145 Residential Quarter, 35, 36, 38, 39, 71, 73, 98, 99 Stairway, East, 32, 117 Stairway, West, 32, 117 Stylobate, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40 Temenos, Lower, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 69, 102, 104, 111, 112, 114, 118, 120, 133, 135, 142, 143, 144, 162 Temenos, Upper, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 73, 84, 86, 89, 98, 99, 107, 111, 112, 118, 119, 120, 139 Temple, 120 Theatron, 31, 41 Walkway, East, 36, 38, 39, 120, 121 Walkway, West, 36, 38, 39 Hasmoneans, 22, 23 Hauran, 6, 20, 21, 22, 31 Haverfield, Francis, 2, 3, 166 Hejaz, 24 Hellenization, 5 Henotheism, 10 Herod Agrippa, 26 Herod Antipas, 25 Herod the Great, 8, 25 Herodias, 25 Herodotus, 156, 175 Hieronymus of Cardia, 18, 20, 175 High Places, 30, 44, 45 Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 152, 154, 165 Horned Altar, 31, 139 Huldu, Queen, 42 Humanitas, 5 Hybridity, 134, 158 Hyrcanus II, 23 Iconography, 11, 32, 154, 158, 159

180

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Bird with grapes, xii, 98, 119 Candlestick, 85, 100, 101 Cornucopiae, 85, 142 Crescent Moon, 33 Cross, 30, 58, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 135, 146 Double Axes, 88, 89 Eagle, 81 Ears of Wheat, 153, 154, 156 Elephant, 32, 33, 35 Eros, 82, 83, 135, 158 Maenad, dancing, 81 Pomegranate, 152, 153, 154 Poppy, 154 Scepter, 154 Solar Disk, 156 Spoked Wheel, 101, 102 Three fingers, 102, 103, 104, 147 Torch, 85, 152, 153, 154 Identity, xv, xvi, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26, 133, 134, 139, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160, 165, 167, 168, 171, 173 Imperialism, 2, 164, 174 INAA, xvii, 56, 57, 122 India, 16 Inscriptions, 4, 20, 21, 41, 45, 47, 58, 76, 136, 157 Irrigation, 5, 16, 20 Isthmia, 58, 64, 89, 91, 163 Italy, 20, 161, 167, 173, 174 Ituraea, 21, 24 Jebel Madhbah, 45 Jericho, 24 Jews, 10, 21, 24, 26, 74, 86 Jordan, xvi, xviii, xxi, 1, 15, 17, 48, 53, 57, 60, 61, 148, 151, 155, 162, 163, 165, 166 Josephus, Flavius, 8, 9, 23, 24, 26, 175

Judaea, 8, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 Judas and Jonathan, 20 Khasneh, 25 Khirbet et Tannur Room 13, 75, 130, 131 Room 14, 92, 103, 130, 131 Room 9, 70, 82, 106, 130, 131 Khirbet et-Tannur, xv, xvi, xix, 13, 29, 41, 42, 43, 44, 52, 57, 59, 61, 62, 63, 69, 70, 75, 81, 82, 92, 96, 97, 99, 103, 106, 109, 110, 112, 130, 133, 134, 135, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 169, 172 Altar platform, 42, 43, 59, 112, 130, 131, 147, 148, 154 Inner Temenos Enclosure, 44, 97, 112, 130, 131, 147, 148, 150, 154, 155 Room 8, 130, 131 Temenos/Forecourt, 42, 131 triclinia, 42, 157 Kos, Island of, 78 Laborde, Leon de, 29 Lamps Distribution, 109–31 elements of, 66 Firing, 54, 55 fuel, 53, 55 function, 57–59 Glazing, 54, 55, 90 Hand modeling, 54 inscriptions on, 76, 78, 140 Molding, 79 planta pedis, 79 Symplegma, 83, 84 Typology, 64, 68–108 Wheelmade, xv, 54, 55, 69, 70, 73, 74, 89, 90, 91, 92, 105, 124, 128, 149, 160 Wicks, 53, 54, 59, 85, 90, 106

INDEX Maccabees, 22 Macedonians, 19 Madain Saleh (Hegra), 45 Malichus I, 22, 23, 26, 86 Malichus II, 22, 26, 86 Martial, 53, 175 Masada, 75, 84, 161, 162, 174 Millett, Martin, 3, 169 Mithraism, 9 Moab, 17, 22, 168 Mommsen, Theodor, 2, 165, 169 Monarchy, xv, 6, 18, 21, 160 Moyenne durée, 1 Munsell Color Charts, 65 MURR (Missouri University Research Reactor), 56, 57, 113 Nabataea, 1, 15, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 33, 46, 64, 65, 133, 134, 149, 157, 158, 171, 173 Nicolaus of Damascus, 9 Nomadism, 29 North Ridge Tombs, xv, xvi, xvii, 29, 46, 47, 51, 52, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 72, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 93, 99, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 122, 123, 124, 125, 129, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 146, 158, 162, 171 Tomb 1 Chamber with loculi, 49, 50 Shaft, 49, 123, 125, 126 Tomb 2 Main burial chamber, 49 Shaft, 125, 127, 128 Small room, 49, 50 Nymphaea, 146 Obodas I, 22, 24, 157 Obodas II, 22, 24, 157 Octavian, 7, 23, 24 See also Augustus Oman, 20

181 Palaimon, Sanctuary of, 89, 90 Palestine, xxi, 17, 22, 88, 165, 168, 172, 173 Parthia, 88 Pergamum, 5 Petra, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 41, 45, 46, 47, 55, 56, 57, 60, 64, 78, 82, 83, 92, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 129, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 140, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149, 152, 157, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175 Philip the Tetrarch, 25 Pliny, the Elder, 33, 175 Pompey, 23, 64 Posidippus, 18, 20 Post-colonial discourse, 134 Power discourse, 4 Priene, 22 Princeps, 8, 9 Principate, 2 Ptolemies, 8, 22 Puteoli, 20 Relationality, 11, 13 Religion, xv, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 31, 134, 146, 159, 161, 167, 171 Ridge Church, 47, 48, 49, 52, 99, 111, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128 Aisles, 47 Chancel, 47, 107, 108, 123, 124 Nave, 47, 123 Pastophoria, 47 Ritual symposia, 136 Romanitas, 4 Romanization, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 165, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174

182

THE CERAMIC OIL LAMP

Rome, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 64, 65, 78, 83, 154, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171 Rome (see Italy), 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 64, 65, 78, 83, 154, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171 Sahir, 31 Samaria-Sebaste, 74, 153, 159, 160, 164 Saudi Arabia, 17, 20 Scaurus, M. Aemilius, 23 Sebastos, 8 See also Caesarea Sela, 30, 167 Shoulder forms, 66 Sia, 31 Siq, 15, 136, 162 Sisyphus, King, 90 Strabo, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 45, 136, 175 Sur, 31 Swiss-Liechtenstein, 29, 172, 173 Sword deity, 31, 34, 139, 143 Syllaeus, 24, 78 Syria, 10, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 53, 70, 78, 88, 154, 156, 163, 165

Temple of Artemis, 5 Temple of Winged Lions, 30, 32, 157, 166 Temple of Zeus, 5 Theaters, Temples with, 31 Titus, Emperor, 26 Trade routes, 5, 16 Trajan, Emperor, 6, 26 Trenches, 31, 33, 34, 62, 76, 97, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 140, 141, 142, 143, 147, 151, 154, 157 Umm al-Biyara, 45 UNESCO Convention 1970, 60 Via Nova Trajana, 6 Vinogradoff, 3, 173 Wadi al-Hasa, 18, 41, 42, 163 Wadi Mataha, 47 Wadi Musa, 30 Wadi Ramm, Temple of, 147 Winged Victory, 147 Yemen, 20 Zurrabeh, 55, 57