The Petra Pool-Complex: A Hellenistic Paradeisos in the Nabataean Capital: Results from the Petra "Lower Market" Survey and Excavation, 1998 9781463235697

Citation preview

The Petra Pool-Complex: A Hellenistic Paradeisos in the Nabataean Capital

Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity

10

Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity contains monographs and edited volumes on the Greco-Roman world and its transition into Late Antiquity, encompassing political and social structures, knowledge and educational ideals, art, architecture and literature.

The Petra Pool-Complex: A Hellenistic Paradeisos in the Nabataean Capital

Results from the Petra “Lower Market” Survey and Excavation, 1998

Leigh-Ann Bedal

9

34 2013

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2013 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. 2013

‫ܙ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-59333-120-7 Second Printing

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research upon which this dissertation is based could not have been accomplished without the help and support of many people. Foremost among these is Dr. Martha Sharp Joukowsky whose generous assistance made everything possible. After including me as a member of the Brown University team excavating in the Great Temple at Petra for four excavation seasons (1994-1997), Dr. Joukowsky accepted my proposal to conduct a survey and limited excavation in the area of the “Lower Market” for my dissertation fieldwork, and did everything in her power to help make that happen for me. I am eternally grateful to Dr. Joukowsky and her husband, Artemis Joukowsky, for all of their help and generosity. Another person who played a key role in the completion of this dissertation is Dr. Bruce E. Routledge, my graduate advisor in the Anthropology Department at the University of Pennsylvania. From the time that I first proposed my topic to him, Dr. Routledge responded positively and remained enthusiastic and supportive throughout the long, and often painful, writing process. His guidance, sound advice, kindness and patience are greatly appreciated. The 1998 season of the Petra “Lower Market” survey and excavation was carried out with the cooperation of the Department of Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, with the approval of the Director-General, Ghazi Bisheh, and under the direct supervision of Muhammed Abdul-Azziz al-Marahleh. The project was funded by a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Award, a Near and Middle East Research and Training Act Pre-doctoral Fellowship from the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR), in addition to the generous collaborative efforts of Martha Sharp Joukowsky. I would like to thank the entire staff of ACOR, especially Drs. Pierre and Patricia Bikai and Fatma Marii, for assisting me in my research during my post-season residency in Amman. V

VI

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

In the field, I relied upon an incredible group of colleagues and friends, all of whom dedicated a tremendous amount of time and energy in order to see this project through. An accurate map of the site was created by Paul C. Zimmerman, a fellow graduate student in anthropology at University of Pennsylvania, using the SiteMap surveying system provided by the Museum’s Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA) at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Paul was assisted by James Roger, an undergraduate from Brown University. My right-hand assistant throughout the season was Elizabeth A. Najjar, also an undergraduate from Brown University. In addition to her hard work in the field, I was always appreciative of Liz’s positive spirit and love of Petra. We would not have been able to accomplish a fraction of what we did in 1998 if it weren’t for an amazing crew of Bedouin workers. I wish to thank Dhyfala Sulieman, Salman Salim, Ahmed Ali, Mohammed Haroun, and Abdullah Mohammed for their hard work. In addition, I wish to express my special gratitude to Suleiman Mohammed, Mohammed Aude, and Ishma’el Mohammed, who worked closely with me for four seasons in the Great Temple, and who made an extra effort in 1998 in order to help me become a “Doctora”. The crew was ably supervised by the foreman for the Great Temple project, Dakhilallah Qoblan, who, as a life-long resident of Petra, possesses a tremendous wealth of knowledge about the history and archaeology of the site. Dakhilallah Qoblan and his family have become dear and valued friends over the years. Throughout the 1998 field season, I was assisted in numerous ways by members of the Brown University team working in the Great Temple. I wish to thank Ahmed al-Bedoul, Joseph J. Basile, Dierdre G. Barrett, Monica L. Sylvester, Emma S. Libonati, Yelena Rakic, Brian Brown, Laurel D. Bestock, and Katrina Haile for their help and moral support. I am especially grateful to Simon Sullivan who drew several of the special small finds, Sara G. Karz who studied some of the glass finds, and Joshua Schwartz who made a preliminary study of the marble fragments. Further assistance with materials analysis was provided by Peter Warnock, a graduate student at the University of Missouri at Columbia, who identified the carbonized wood samples, and Jill Weber, a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania who made a preliminary study of the animal bones.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

VII

Following the 1998 field season, I received valuable advice and consultation from colleagues studying Petra and/or Nabataean history and material culture. I am grateful to Yvonne Gerber of Basel University, and Andrea Vanni Desideri of the University of Florence, for their help in the identification and dating of some of the ceramic material, and to Christian Augé for identifying the coins, and John Peter Oleson for his input regarding Nabataean hydraulics and the materials uses for lining cisterns and reservoirs. I am particularly grateful to Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, an historical architect who has worked on many projects in Petra. Chrys was immediately enthusiastic about the discovery of a Pool-Complex in Petra and openly shared his knowledge of Classical and Nabataean architecture. Chrys very generously produced an axonometric reconstruction of the island-pavilion (Fig. 3.27) as well as a number of interpretive 3-dimensional reconstructions of the Pool-Complex which I have used to illustrate several publications and lectures. Another important source was the architectural interpretation of the Great Temple undertaken by Erika L. Schluntz (1999) upon which I built much of my interpretation of the findings in Petra’s “Lower Market”. When reviewing the history of gardens in the ancient Near East, I relied heavily on the research and advice of my former professor, David Stronach, of the University of California at Berkeley. Professor Stronach excavated the royal gardens of Pasargadae and introduced me to the subject of ancient gardens long before I knew the subject would be of primary interest to me. I cannot conclude without giving recognition to the contributions of several people within the Anthropology Department and in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology: Dr. Richard Zettler, Dr. Bernard Wailes, Dr. Wendy Ashmore, Dr. Vincent Piggot, Dr. Stuart J. Fleming, Dr. Patrick McGovern, Dr. Naomi F. Miller, Dr. Holly Pittman, Dr. Brian Spooner, and Maude De Schauensee all advised and assisted me at various stages in my graduate research. Matthew D. Adams made a particularly important contribution by encouraging me to pursue the “Lower Market” project and spending innumerable hours reading proposals and helping me to organize and express my thoughts and arguments. As always, Linda Lee provided guidance and a sense of sanity during the final stages of dissertation preparation and submittal.

VIII

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends who formed a tremendous support system throughout the many years of my graduate studies: my brother and sister-in-law, Brent and Kerri Lewis, my sister, Sheryl Jo Bedal, and her three wonderful children, Jayce, Tiara and Jarick, Howard and Marjie Thew, Lawrence and Caroline Savage, Leeann and Joseph Rosenthal, Laura and Matthew DiMinno, Stephanie Gierhan, and Bonnie Lee Crosfield, To my mother, Susan E. Bedal, who encouraged me to travel and learn about the world, and to my late grandmother, Henrietta Neilsen Jergensen, who was always there—thank you. I am truly blessed to have such wonderful people in my life.

ABSTRACT During a two-month field season in the summer of 1998, a survey and excavation was conducted in the “Lower Market”, a large unbuilt area adjoining the Great Temple at the heart of the ancient city of Petra (Jordan). The primary goal of the Petra Lower Market Survey, was to investigate the area of the site traditionally designated as the “Lower Market” in order to determine its function, historical development, and its relationship to the other monuments in the city’s civic center. Its central location, monumental scale and labor-intensive construction suggest that this area was part of the ceremonial, economic and political center of the city, and therefore must have been of some importance to the structure and organization of the city during the Classical Nabataean (1st c. BCE -1st c. CE) and Roman periods (2nd – 4th c. CE). Excavations focused mainly on the southern half of the “Lower Market” where substantial architectural features were visible on the surface. The excavations revealed the remains of a monumental pool-complex with island-pavilion and an elaborate hydraulic system irrigating a large earthen terrace. The identification of a pool-complex at Petra prompts a re-examination of the long-held interpretation of the city. It is argued here that in its first phase (end of the 1st c. BCE), the Pool-Complex functioned as a royal paradeisos, part of a large palace complex that included the Great Temple. Around the time of Roman annexation in 106 CE, Petra was transformed from a ceremonial center into a civic center. The Great Temple was converted into a theatron (bouleuterion) and the Pool-Complex now functioned as a fashionable public park. The Petra Pool-Complex played an important role in the sociopolitical life of Petra during the Nabataean and Roman periods. The mere presence of a paradeidos in Petra symbolized the Nabataean king’s power and helped to legitimize his place among contemporary rulers who utilized architectural programs, gardens, and water display as political metaphor. The paradeisos is an example IX

X

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

of a gratuitous display of conspicuous consumption, a symbol of the flourishing status of Petra during its Classical era.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................ V  Abstract .................................................................................................. IX  Table of Contents ................................................................................. XI  List of Abbreviations ..........................................................................XV  List of Figures ................................................................................. XVIΙ  List of Plates ....................................................................................... XΙΧ  Preface ................................................................................................. XXΙ  Archaeology of Open Spaces ................................................. XXΙ Archaeology of Gardens ....................................................... XXIIΙ The History of Nabataea ........................................................................ 1  Geography ........................................................................................ 1  People ................................................................................................ 4  Trade and Commerce ..................................................................... 9  The Classical Era: the Nabataean Kingdom.............................. 11  Arabia Petraea ................................................................................ 14  The End of the Classical Era ....................................................... 17  The Archaeology of Petra: the Nabataean and Roman Periods ..... 19  “City of the Dead” vs “City of the Living” ............................... 19  Chronology ..................................................................................... 22  Ceramics .................................................................................... 23  Architectural Style .................................................................... 25  The Urban Development of Petra .............................................. 28  Early Settlement ....................................................................... 29  Urbanization: Phase I (Late 1st Century BCE – Early 1st Century CЕ) .................................................... 30  Urbanization: Phase II (Late 1st – Early 2nd Century CE) .................................................. 35  The Petra “Lower Market”: Survey and Excavation ........................ 39  The ‘Marketplaces’ of Petra ......................................................... 39  Goals and Methodology ............................................................... 40  Site Description and Topography ............................................... 41  Surface Survey ................................................................................ 43  XI

XII

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX The Results of the 1998 Excavations ......................................... 45  The Earthen Terrace ............................................................... 45  The Southern Plateau .............................................................. 46  East-West Wall ............................................................... 48  Pool .................................................................................. 50  Island-Pavilion ................................................................ 55  Hydraulic System ........................................................... 61  South Portal ..................................................................... 66  Chronological Phases ................................................................... 67  Phase I (Nabataean Period): Original Construction of the Pool-Complex.............. 67  Phase II (Early Roman Period): Renovations in the Pool-Complex ............................... 72  Phase III (Late Roman-Early Byzantine Periods): Period of Disuse or Neglect.......................................... 76  Phase IV (363 CE): Destruction ........................................... 78  Phase V (Early Byzantine Period): Continued Disuse ....... 79  Phase VI (Late Byzantine Period): Reuse of Hydraulic System and Lime Production ................ 80  Phase VII (551 CE?): Further Destruction/Collapse and Abandonment .......................................................... 82  Phase VIII (Post-Classical/Medieval Period– 12th Century): Agricultural Activity ............................. 84  Phase IX ( > 20th Century): Continued Agricultural Activity.................................... 85  Summary ......................................................................................... 85 

Hydraulic Engineering and Water Display at Petra .......................... 87  Water Management in the Ancient Near East .......................... 87  ‘Masters of the Desert’ .................................................................. 90  Field Irrigation................................................................................ 91  Water Storage ................................................................................. 92  Petra’s Water Supply ..................................................................... 94  Water Display at Petra .................................................................. 97  The Siq............................................................................................. 98  Sacred Pools and Fountains ......................................................... 99  Waterfalls ......................................................................................101  Ornamental Pool and Garden ...................................................104  The Role of Water Display.........................................................104  Psychological Value .....................................................................106 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XIII

Symbolic Value.............................................................................107  Summary .......................................................................................120  Gardens of the Ancient East .............................................................121  Terminology .................................................................................121  The Role of the Garden in Early Civilizations........................122  Garden as “Paradise” ..................................................................123  Garden as a Symbol of Fertility .................................................124  Garden as Political Metaphor ....................................................125  The Historical Development of the Paradeisos......................127  Temple Gardens in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt ..........128  Royal Gardens and Private Estates ...........................................131  Egyptian ..................................................................................131  Mesopotamian ........................................................................133  Persian .....................................................................................141  Hellenistic................................................................................147  Ptolemaic ........................................................................148  Seleucid ...........................................................................152  Judean .............................................................................153  Italic/Roman (1st Century BCE) ........................................155  Sources ............................................................................156  Private Villas and Palaces ....................................157  Urban / Public......................................................159  Herodian/Roman Palestine .......................................................162  The Petra Pool-Complex in Context.................................................171  Herodian and Late Hellenistic Palace Architecture ...............171  Monumental Display ...................................................................178  From Private Garden to Public Park ........................................183  The End of Prosperity ................................................................184  Bibliography ..........................................................................................187 Index .......................................................................................................225

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AASOR ADAJ AJA BA BaM BAnglo-IsrASoc BASOR BTS CRAI IEJ IranAnt JARCE JDAI JGH JNES JPOS JRA JRGZM JRS MDAIK PEQ QDAP RLA RA RB SHAJ

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Annual of the Department of Antiquities, Jordan American Journal of Archaeology Biblical Archaeologist Baghdader Mitteilungen Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bible et Terre Saint Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres (Paris) Israel Exploration Journal Iranica Antiqua Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäeologischen Instituts Journal of Garden History Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Journal of Roman Archaeology Jahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz Journal of Roman Studies Mitteilungen der Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Reallexikon der Assyriologie Revue archéologique Revue biblique Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan

XV

LIST OF FIGURES∗ Figure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Page Map of Nabataean sites. Map of trade routes. Nabataean King-List. Map of Petra. Phased map of Petra’s City Center. “Lower Market” site plan, 1998. The “Lower Market” topomap and survey grid. “Lower Market” site plan with trenches. Top plan of pavilion (Trench 1 Cut-away reconstruction of the island-pavilion. Stucco moulding with dentils (ST1005a Marble flower (98-S-01). Top plan of island-pavilion (Trench 1) and hydraulic installations (Trench 3). Plan of castellum and water channels (Trench 3). Castellum elevations. Chronological sequence of the Petra Pool-Complex. Stratigraphic sequence in Parr’s Trench III. Type 4 Nabataean painted fine ware bowl (P1037-2) 4th century jar with handle (98-P-06). 12th century cooking pot (98-P-06). Map of springs in the Petra-Wadi Musa region. Hasmonean palaces at Jericho. Hasmonean pavilion and swimming-pool at Jericho. Pool-Complex and garden terrace at Herodium.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ∗

2 3 12 20 23 42 44 47 52 53 56 59 61 64 65 68 69 75 77 83 96 114 115 116

All plans and drawings are the work of the author unless otherwise indicated. XVII

XVIII

25 26 27 28 29 30

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX Plan of Herod’s palace at Caesarea Maritima. The royal gardens of Pasargadae. Herod’s Third Winter Palace. Plan of Herodium. Pool-complexes at Petra and Herodium. Swimming-pools of Judean palaces and at Petra.

118 143 164 167 172 174-5

LIST OF PLATES ∗ I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV ∗

Aerial view of Petra’s City Center. Aerial views of the Pool-Complex (“Lower Market”) and the Great Temple. Portico Wall. Trench 2: Central wall of the earthen terrace. Field boundary. East-West and Byzantine Walls. East-West, Byzantine and post-Classical Walls. Byzantine Wall. Ceramic pipeline in the East-West Wall. Trench 1: Deep sounding to pool floor; pool’s hydraulic concrete. Trench 4: Pool’s northeastern corner. Trench 1: Island-Pavilion. Trench 1: Island-pavilion and south bridge. Trench 1: Northwestern quarter of the island-pavilion. Trench 1: Island-pavilion interior and western exterior . Stucco moulding with dentils (ST1005a-c). Trench 1: Column pedestal in island-pavilion. Marble volutes (98-S-04 and 98-S-05) and marble flower (98-S-01). Bridge piers. Postholes and vaulted bridge. East Water Tank overlooking the Pool-Complex. East-West Wall channel.s and castellum Trench 3: Castellum and associated hydraulic installations Trench 3: Buttress wall and late hydraulic Installations All photographs are by the author unless otherwise indicated. XIX

XX

XXV XXVI XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII XXXIV XXXV XXXVI XXXVII

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX South Portal; aerial view of the “Lower Market”. 4th century jar with handle (98-P-06); 12th century cooking pot (98-P-06); Byzantine slipperlamp nozzle (98-L-08) 4th-5th century coins (98-C-15 and 98-C-19). Lion Fountain; Palace Tomb waterfall. Aerial views of the Pool-Complex waterfall. Island palace at ‘Iraq el-Amir (ancient Tyre). Pool-complex at Herodium. Pompeii’s Great Palaestra swimming-pool; the Canopus at Hadrian’s Villa Schematic plan of the Petra pool, pavilion, and hydraulic system. Trenches 1 and 3: Phased stratigraphic section of the Pool-Complex. Trench 1: Stratigraphic section of the island-pavilion interior. Trench 1: Stratigraphic section of the pool’s deep sounding. Map showing locations of gardens in the ancient East.

PREFACE

ARCHAEOLOGY OF OPEN SPACES Historically, the archaeological investigation of settlements—both urban and rural—has concentrated on the built spaces. At urban sites, it is the monumental public structures, religious sanctuaries, and major thoroughfares that receive the focus of attention by excavators, whereas in smaller scale settlements, domestic architecture and the overall site plan are of primary interest. In addition, the location and excavation of burial places draw great interest due to the valuable information they reveal about the population, social organization, and belief systems. Nonetheless, the large, exterior spaces located between the constructed elements are generally neglected, and the larger and more “unbuilt” the space appears to be (i.e., no evidence for a pavement or smaller, decorative features such as platforms, shrines, porticoes fountains, statuary, etc.), the more likely it is to remain an unexplored blank space on the site plan (e.g., Taylor 1983:5). By avoiding open spaces, valuable information about a site is lacking. In both the private and public spheres, open spaces—i.e., courtyards, plazas, crossroads, gardens, parks—are not merely objects of consumption and materialism but also places of human interaction and social agency (e.g., Moore 1996). Many of the routines of daily life as well as civic, religious and ceremonial activities take place out of doors, adjacent to or far away from the interior spaces. In addition, the open spaces play an important role in the organization of a settlement and the communication between its various parts. In his study of the Roman cities of North Africa, for example, MacDonald describes the universal need for an architecture of connection and passage and illustrates the role of thoroughfares and plazas as a means of orchestrating movement and assembly (MacDonald 1986) XXI

XXII

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

By avoiding open spaces, archaeologists also risk misinterpreting the functions of the open areas and their relationship with the built spaces surrounding them. There are many cases of open areas within a site that were incorrectly identified prior to excavation or other forms of scientific investigation. For example, a large open area of Roman Pompeii was long known as the Forum Boarium (“Cattle Market”). Ultimately, excavations revealed that the “empty space” was once filled with plants laid out in a manner that was indicative of a vineyard, plus a variety of fruit trees and a couple of seating areas. As a result, the site has been reinterpreted as an open-air wine-bar and restaurant (e.g., S. Johnson 1989:141f). Even when the open spaces are properly excavated, an emphasis on the study of the economic and other practical uses of the land, both within settlements and outside of them, has led to the misidentification of garden features (paths, basins, pavilions, terraces, etc.) as purely functional elements that may be found in villas, farms, and agricultural fields (e.g., Taylor 1983:6ff). The subject of this dissertation is the excavation and interpretation of a large open area located in the heart of ancient Petra, the capital of the Nabataean kingdom and one of the most famous archaeological sites in the world. Despite decades of archaeological investigation in and around the ancient city, this open area—the so-called “Lower Market”—remained untouched by the trowel or pick. The only description of the “Lower Market” as it appears in modern times was published in 1921 by a German Expedition led by Bachmann, Wiegand and Watzinger that described in detail the various elements of the urban center and produced a map of the visible wall lines (Bachmann et al. 1921:abb. 1). The Germans identified the area as a marketplace, along with the neighboring “Middle Market” and “Upper Market”—two other large, open areas that have yet to be explored archaeologically— based on Petra’s role as a commercial center located at the hub of the ancient caravan routes. Since then, the “Lower Market” is mentioned in excavation reports and publications about Petra with little if any discussion or speculation about its position in the chronological development of the City Center or its role in the ceremonial, economic and political activities of Petra. That areas of Petra remain unexplored by archeologists is not surprising or unusual. Only a small percentage of the city proper

PREFACE

XXIII

has been uncovered to date and, as is typical for urban sites of the ancient Near East and Classical worlds, the majority of archaeological exploration has focused on Petra’s monumental structures and portions of the residential quarters located within the city walls. Because of this bias toward architecture and the built spaces, the “Lower Market” continued to appear as a large, blank space on the Petra map. The “Lower Market” at Petra is a prime example of problems that may result from the misidentification of unexplored open spaces. For several decades, the interpretation of the city’s urban plan and individual components was influenced by the presumption that this central area functioned as a marketplace. The city’s role as an entrepôt was viewed as a major determining factor in the layout of the city with its shop-lined colonnaded street and large marketplaces occupying a large percentage of the City Center. In 1998, however, an archaeological investigation of the “Lower Market” was undertaken that dramatically altered the longheld interpretation of the area as well as the traditional perception of Petra. The results of the Petra “Lower Market” survey and excavation revealed overwhelming evidence that the “Lower Market” was the site of a paradeisos, a monumental garden with a swimming-pool and island-pavilion, and an elaborate hydraulic system that irrigated the earthen terrace (Ch. III). This unexpected revelation forces a re-examination of several of the areas adjacent to the “Lower Market” (namely the “Middle Market”, “Upper Market”, Great Temple, and the Colonnaded Street) to understand their spatial and functional relationships to the garden. In addition, it forces a re-examination of the organization of Petra and the role of water display (Ch. IV) and in its overall design and presentation (Ch. V). In many ways, the identification of a paradeisos in the heart of Petra has shed new light on the use of monumental display by the Nabataean rulers and inhabitants of Petra in establishing their legitimacy, status, power and prestige within the greater hellenized world (Ch. VI).

ARCHAEOLOGY OF GARDENS The study of ancient gardens, whether food-producing or decorative, is a relatively recent development in the field of archaeology. Much of the effort in the archaeology of gardens has been pursued through the subdisciplines of Landscape

XXIV

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Architecture, Historical Archaeology, and Landscape Archaeology. An important result of these efforts is the development and application of methods of excavation and the recovery of data that would be lost with traditional excavation methods (e.g., Miller and Gleason 1994). The use of aerial photography, survey, GIS, and remote sensing is necessary for obtaining information about larger areas and determining an effective excavation strategy (e.g., Allen et al. 1990; Bevan 1994; Bowden 1999:43ff; Gillings et al. 1999), whereas the study of soils, fertilizer, plant and animal remains provide valuable information about a garden’s composition and planting techniques (e.g., Miller and Gleason 1994; Leveau et al. 1999). In addition to these practical approaches, the development of theoretical approaches as an aid in reconstruction and the interpretation of meaning has been a prime focus in Landscape Archeology. A number of archaeologists have focused on the social and symbolic dimensions of landscapes—encompassing expansive borderless landscapes, agricultural field-systems, and gardens—as they were perceived, experienced, and contextualized by their human inhabitants (e.g., Kelso and Most 1990; Yamin and Metheny 1996; Everson and Williamson 1998; Ashmore and Knapp 1999). As a result, landscape has moved beyond its traditional role as a passive backdrop and is now seen as an active player in human culture. The majority of the efforts in garden archaeology have centered on formal gardens associated with private houses and estates of American and European historical periods (e.g., Taylor 1983, 1991; Leone 1984; Kryder-Reid 1991 and 1994; Markell 1995; Yamin and Metheny 1996; Pattison 1998). A number of Roman villa gardens have been excavated in various regions of the Empire (e.g., Farrar 1996:200ff), but most relevant for the study of gardens in the Classical Mediterranean world is the enormous body of work undertaken by Wilhelmina Jashemski whose meticulous excavations of the Roman gardens at Pompeii and neighboring sites has revealed detailed information about the private, commercial, and public gardens of the 1st century CE (Jashemski 1979, 1981, 1987, 1992a 1992b, 1993, 1996a, 1996b). The Pompeian gardens provide a major source of comparative material due to the recovery of minute details about cultivation, gardening techniques, plantings, and garden features that were preserved under a thick layer of volcanic ash.

PREFACE

XXV

Despite the attention given to gardens and parks in the ancient Near East in the historical record and artistic representations (Ch. V), limited empirical data is available due to limited efforts in the field of garden archaeology in the region. The notable exceptions to this are a number of temple and estate gardens of Pharaonic Egypt (e.g., A. Wilkinson 1998), David Stronach’s excavation of the royal gardens of Cyrus at Pasargadae (Stronach 1978:107-112, figs. 48-49; 1989; 1994), and Kathryn Gleason’s excavations of the palace gardens and pool-complexes of Herod the Great of Judea (Netzer 1975, 1977, 1981a, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1996; Gleason 1987-1988, 1993, 1998). The Herodian examples are contemporary with the pool-complex and garden at Petra and offer important comparative information for interpreting its meaning and use (Ch. V). To date, however, Petra is the only urban center throughout the Hellenistic and Roman East in which a garden has been identified and explored archaeologically. Perhaps by pursuing the investigation of the open spaces that appear on the current maps of these cities (e.g., Barghouti 1982; Peters 1983; Segal 1988 and 1997), additional gardens and parks will be uncovered, leading to new and unexpected revelations about the representation of nature within the urban environment and the powerful role of gardens in the ancient East.

CHAPTER I

THE HISTORY OF NABATAEA

GEOGRAPHY The ancient city of Petra is located approximately 80 kilometers southeast of the Dead Sea in modern Jordan (30o19’N, 35o25’E). It is situated on the northwestern edge of the Arabian Desert, in the mountain ridge that forms the eastern border of the Wadi ‘Arabah, a section of the Great Rift Valley that marks the boundary between Palestine and Transjordan (Fig. 1). In his description of the Petra environment, the ancient Greek geographer, Strabo, pointed out two factors significant to the establishment of Petra as an urban settlement despite its arid desert environment. He said: The capital of the Nabataeans is called Petra (“the Rock”). It is situated on a spot which is surrounded and fortified by a smooth and level rock, which externally is abrupt and precipitous, but within there are abundant springs of water both for domestic purposes and for watering gardens. Beyond the enclosure the country is for the most part a desert, particularly towards Judea (Geog. XVI.4.21).

Petra is situated in a wide basin surrounded by deeply eroded mountainous ridges of sandstone, with outcrops of limestone and porphyry, that form a natural fortification. To the east are the limestone highlands of Jebel Sharā (the biblical Mount Seir). The presence of several natural springs meant abundant water for the demands of a large population and agricultural fields in an 1

2

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

THE HISTORY OF NABATAEA

3

environment where the annual rainfall is approximately ten centimeters (four inches). However, the development of Petra as an important political, economic, and cultural center in the Middle East during the Classical period was ultimately the result of its strategic position on the crossroads of the major trade and communication routes that cut through the region. At Petra, the major north-south route (the King’s Highway) that created a link between the Gulf of Aqaba and Syria, intersected with the transArabian routes (to southern Yemen and the Arabian Gulf) and the trans-Negev route (to Gaza and the Mediterranean Sea) (Fig. 2). The Wadi Mousa, the narrow valley along which Petra developed, provided one of the few convenient and negotiable routes through the mountainous barrier allowing caravans to pass between the high desert plateau to the east and Wadi ‘Arabah to the west (Browning 1973:15). This strategic position on the crossroads of the Middle East made it possible for the inhabitants of Petra to

4

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

establish control over the caravans that traveled between Arabia and the Mediterranean.1

PEOPLE From the late 2nd millennium BCE until the 6th centuries BCE, the region around Petra was inhabited by the Edomites, a Semitic band of itinerant pastoralists known to us from the Hebrew Bible as the descendents of Esau.2 The Edomites occupied the red mountainous territory east of the Wadi ‘Arabah between the southern tip of the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. The plateau region north of Petra had fertile land and abundant springs that supported a pastoral/agricultural economy. The Edomites smelted copper mined from Wadi ‘Arabah and profited from their strategic location along the trade routes linking Mesopotamia, southern Arabia and the eastern Mediterranean.3 Among their settlements was the site of Tawilan, a large, unfortified agricultural community situated outside of Petra and dated to the 7th-6th centuries BCE (Bennett 1964, 1966a, 1966b). In addition, they occupied a naturally fortified encampment on top of a flat-topped rock outcrop that towers over the Petra basin. This ancient fortress is known today as Umm al-Biyara (“Mother of Cisterns”) in reference to dozens of rock-cut cisterns associated with Edomite houses dated to the 7th century BCE (ibid.). In the 6th century BCE, Edom was conquered by the Babylonians, and, in the following centuries, new nomadic tribes began to penetrate the region. Among the newcomers were the Nabataeans (nabaṭu), a nomadic people whose origins have been traced through linguistical analysis (Milik 1982; Graf 1993) and some ceramic evidence (Potts 1984:104; Graf 1993) to Northeast

1 For further reading on the geography of Petra, see Kennedy 1925, Smith 1931:573-575, Horsfield and Horsfield 1938:1-4; Hammond 1973a:41ff; Browning 1973:13-15, Bowersock 1983:1-11. 2 Popular etymologies relate the name Esau to se’ar, “hairy” (Seir is another name for the land of Edom) and to admoni (ruddy) and adom (red) (e.g., Wigoder et al. 1986:327). 3 By the 8th century BCE, connections were already well established between North Arabia and the thriving incense trade out of South Arabia (e.g., Graf 1990a:131).

THE HISTORY OF NABATAEA

5

Arabia.4 Their appearance in Edom by the beginning of the Hellenistic period has been connected with a migration along the North Arabian land routes connecting the Persian Gulf with ports on the Mediterranean coast (Graf 1990a:145; 1990b:67). This was, by all appearances, a peaceful migration spanning the 6th-4th centuries BCE. The archaeological record shows evidence for continuity of occupation at many sites previously inhabited by the Edomites (Glueck 1935:61, 72; J. R. Bartlett 1979).5 At Petra, the Nabataeans settled in the valley at the foot of Umm al-Biyara (Hammond 1992), “the Rock” (Petra, πετρα), which they used as a stronghold (Diodorus, Hist. II.48-49). The Nabataeans’ name for Petra was Reqem, which is apparently derived from the semitic root rqm (“variegated”), likely referring to the multi-colored local landscape (Starcky 1965).6 The Nabataeans spoke Aramaic and their “cursive” preThamudic script was a precursor to the modern Arabic script (Gruendler 1993). Unfortunately, they left little in the way of textual documentation. The historical record for the Nabataeans is mostly limited to funerary, religious and dedicatory inscriptions— 4 Hammond (1973:11) places their origin in the Hejaz region of northwestern Arabia; Starcky (1966:900-903) assumed an origin in South Arabia but neither their pantheon nor material culture contain any vestiges of South Arabia (Graf 1993:834). For a discussion of the relationship between the Nabayat/Nebaioth of the 7th century BCE NeoAssyrian annals and the biblical texts with the Nabataeans of the Hellenistic-Roman era, see Graf 1990b, 1993; for linguistic difference, nby vs nbṭ, see Winnett and Reed 1970. 5 A popular theory is that the Edomite population was pushed westward into the Negev desert, south of Judea, where they were to become known to the Hellenistic world as the Idumaeans. Others have argued that the Edomites actively occupied the Negev in the 7th-6th centuries BCE and thus were already settled there when the Nabataeans migrated in from the east in the 6th-4th centuries BCE. For a review of the issue and a discussion of the general problem of equating Edomites and Idumaeans, see J. R. Bartlett 1999. Also, for an argument against the displacement of the Edomites by the Nabataeans, see Knauf 1988:75-77. 6 The identification of Petra with Reqem is based on Josephus’ account of the battle between Moses and the five Midian kings. Josephus identifies one of the kings as Reqemos, who became the builder and king of Areqem, “called by the Greeks Petra” (Josephus, Ant. IV.7.1).

6

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

numbering in the thousands—that consist mainly of personal names and short invocations (e.g. Negev 1961, 1963, 1977a, 1991; Milik and Starcky 1975; Graf 1997). Without primary sources such as economic, historical, or diplomatic records to provide insight into internal socio-cultural organization during the period of Nabataean independence, we must rely on scant references from secondary sources. These ancient sources are well-published and have been extensively researched for their insight into the emergence of the Nabataean kingdom (cf. Starcky 1966; Browning 1973, Hammond 1973; Bowersock 1983; Wenning 1987, 1993). Most of what we know of Nabataean society is gleaned from accounts by the Greeks, Diodorus Siculus (Library of History) and Strabo (Geography), who never visited Petra nor any other part of the Nabataean kingdom, although they claim to use sources that are first-hand accounts.7 These sources offer a valuable insight into the social organization of a society for which we have minimal primary historical and archaeological data for the first few centuries of their presence. However, the specifics of their description of Nabataean society must be viewed critically due to their status as secondary sources as well as the habit of the Classical authors— whether historians, geographers, military officials or administrators—to portray nomadic peoples in a prejudiced and very ideological manner (cf. Shaw 1982). The dominant ancient Graeco-Roman ideology portrayed an extreme polarization between the “savage” and “barbarian” pastoral nomads and the “civilized” sedentary agriculturalists that reflects the perceived dichotomy between “nature” and “culture”. For example, in his ethnographies on the Scythians and the North African tribes, Herodotus defines pastoralists as the exact opposite of the farmer who devotes himself to hard physical labor harvesting crops and consuming the product of his labor—grain and wine. In opposition, the nomad is defined as one who resists work, and Writing in the 1st century BCE, Diodorus of Sicily describes the Nabataeans based on the 4th century BCE eye-witness account of Hieronymous of Cardia (Hist. II.48, XIX.94-100). Strabo’s description of the Nabataeans (Geog. XVI.4.21-26) is based on the account of an acquaintance, the philosopher Athenodorus, who lived in Petra for a brief period of time in the late 1st century BCE, during the reign of King Obodas III (30-9 BCE). 7

THE HISTORY OF NABATAEA

7

depends upon his herds of animals for sustenance—he is an “eater of meat” and “drinker of milk” (Shaw 1982:8-17). On this same line, Aristotle defines different modes of subsistence and identifies a linear model with five autonomous and productive forms of labor: pastoralism, banditry, fishing, hunting and gathering, and farming. Aristotle sees this as a continuum with pastoral nomadism as the least respectable because “their means of subsistence is derived from domesticated animals and is gained without any labor and at their leisure” (Pol. 1256a.29). According to Shaw, the domination of the pastoralist ideology remained a constant theme in classical literary texts on nomads and apparently overrode any empirical observations of nomadic peoples. Therefore, Classical descriptions of pastoralists as stateless, lacking a formal ruler, and with no system of justice or code of laws must be viewed with the understanding that they reflect a very ideological view of nomadic peoples (Shaw 1982:24). Keeping the biases of the Classical sources in mind, the general picture drawn from the Greek sources is that between the late 4th and 1st century BCE, the Nabataeans evolved from a quasipastoralist tribe of nomads to a sedentary, cosmopolitan society with a monarchical government. According to the Zenon Papyri, the Nabateans were occupying the Hawran and northern Transjordan by the mid-3rd century BCE. Regarding the nomadic origins of the Nabataeans in the late 4th century BCE, Diodorus wrote that “it is their custom neither to plant grain, set out any fruit-bearing tree, use wine, nor construct any house” (Hist. XIX.94.3). He also describes them as knowledgeable of their environment and in devising ways to exploit their limited resources: [The Nabataeans] take refuge in the desert, using this as a fortress; for it lacks water and cannot be crossed by others, but to them alone, since they have prepared subterranean cisterns lined with stucco, it furnishes safety. As the earth in some places is clay and in others is of soft stone, they make great excavations into it, the mouths of which they make very small, but by constantly increasing the width as they dig deeper, they finally make them of such size that each side has a length of one plethrum [=27 meters]. After filling these reservoirs with rain water, they close the openings, making them even with the rest of the ground, and they

8

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX leave signs that are known to themselves but are unrecognizable to others.” (ibid. 19.94.7)

Their ability to master the water resources was developed further as they became sedentary and began to establish large settlements in an inhospitable arid environment. By the 1st century BCE, the Nabataeans had established a desert kingdom with its political, cultural, and religious center at Petra (Strabo, Geog. XVI.4.21). Their accomplishments in hydraulic engineering are exemplified at Petra where they applied all their skills to ensure that the population had enough water to satisfy their domestic and agricultural needs as well as the public works that enhanced their urban lifestyle (see Ch. IV). According to Strabo, the Nabataeans of the 1st century BCE were a materialistic people, successful in architecture, agriculture, husbandry, and trade: The Nabataeans are prudent, and fond of accumulating property. The community fines a person who has diminished his substance, and confer honors on him who has increased it. …The houses are sumptuous, and of stone. The cities are without walls, on account of the peace which prevails among them. A great part of the country is fertile, and produces everything except oil of olives…The sheep have white fleeces, their oxen are large; but the country produces no horses. Camels are the substitute for horses, and perform the labor….Some merchandise is altogether imported into the country, others are not altogether imports, especially as some articles are native products, as gold and silver, and many of the aromatics; but copper and iron, purple raiment, styrax, saffron, and costus (or white cinnamon), embossed work, paintings, and moulded images, are not to be procured in the country….They worship the sun, and construct the altar on the top of a house, pouring out libations and burning frankincense upon it every day. (Geog. XVI.4.26).

Additional information about the Nabataeans is found in the works of Flavius Josephus whose histories, Jewish Antiquities and Jewish Wars, document the last centuries of Jewish independence before the revolt in 76 CE. Most of the information provided by Josephus is in reference to the interactions between the Nabataeans and their Judean neighbors, whose relationship alternated between

THE HISTORY OF NABATAEA

9

enemy and ally depending on the political, militaristic, and economic considerations of a given moment.8 The “Babatha Letters” are a collection of private documents written in Greek, Nabataean, and Aramaic, that are dated between 94 and 132 CE, thus covering a crucial period of Petra’s history— the transformation of Arab Nabataea into Roman Arabia (Arabia Petraea). Many of the documents involve judicial litigations which took place at Petra under the jurisdiction of the governor of Arabia, and provide a glimpse into private life and landholding under Roman jurisdiction (Bowersock 1981; Yadin 1963; Lewis 1989). The “Babatha Letters” also provide important information regarding the role of the Great Temple at Petra during the late Nabataean and Early Roman periods at Petra (see Ch. II). Finally, a recently discovered archive of papyrus scrolls in the Petra Church (cf. Koenen 1996; Gagos and Frösen 1998; Frösen 2000), is providing new insight regarding the continuity of the Nabataean population during the Byzantine period and the economic developments of the region during the 6th and 7th centuries (see below).

TRADE AND COMMERCE It is clear that the Nabataeans were already successfully engaged in commerce with valuable commodities by 312 BCE when an invading army attacked Petra and stole 500 talents of silver and “large quantities of frankincense and myrrh” (Diodorus, Hist. XIX.95.3). Historical records of the Classical world, describe Petra as an entrepôt facilitating trade between the powers of developing world empires and regions beyond the periphery of those empires. Trade is frequently an adaptive social response to risk and uncertainty (Adams 1974a:249). The Nabataeans, who migrated from Arabia, apparently recognized the benefits of gaining control over the caravan routes that intersected there— namely the eastwest route, the “Incense Route”, between the Hadramaut (Yemen) and Gaza, and the north-south route between Egypt and Syria 8 Also see I Maccabees 5:24-28 and 9:35. For further discussions about the ancient sources and the early history of the Nabataeans, e.g., Hammond 1973:9ff; Browning 1973:32-51; Bowersock 1983:12-27; Joukowsky 1998:15-22; Taylor 2001.

10

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

(Glueck 1935:139) (Map 2). Despite their nomadic heritage, they settled in the region around Petra and established their rôle as a center for trade from which they could monitor the trading activity throughout the region. The wealth described by Strabo came mostly from their role as middlemen, exacting tariffs from merchants passing through the region (Bowersock 1994:68).9 The importance of incense—specifically frankincense and myrrh—in the international commerce is well established. During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, incense was in great demand for use in religious rituals, cosmetics, and perfumes, as well as for medicinal purposes (Van Beek 1960:72; Groom 1977, 1981). However, frankincense and myrrh were only produced in South Arabia and North Somalia. The business of transporting these and other luxury items (i.e., spices and other goods originating from Arabia, Africa, India, Ceylon, and even China) out of the Arabian desert and into the Sinai, Egypt, Syria, and the Mediterranean was very active and lucrative (Starcky 1955:45; Glueck 1959:195-196; Van Beek 1960:80; Curtin 1984:5-102). In addition to dealing with imported goods, the Nabataeans exploited local resources and, by the 1st century BCE, controlled the export of bitumen mined from the Dead Sea as well as the local balsam industry, both of which were important commodities in the trade with Egypt and with Rome (Hammond 1973:67f).10 Their strategic location on the crossroads of the major trade routes along with their amazing ability to make use of available natural resources and turn them into profit-making enterprises allowed them to acquire a significant

Both Diodorus and Strabo describe the Nabataeans as participating in piracy (Diodorus, Hist. III.43.5; Strabo, Geog. XVI.4.18). This activity probably developed when the Egyptians, through the use of the monsoon winds, established commercial ports on the west coast of the Red Sea allowing sea traffic from the East to bypass the Nabataean-controlled land routes on the Arabian peninsula (e.g., Bowersock 1983:21). 10 Balsam and bitumen were of great importance in Egypt and Rome— balsam for its aromatic qualities and medicinal uses, and bitumen for its use in embalming (Hammond 1959; Bilkadi 1994). Competition for the control over these resources was probably the source of the contested interests in the Jericho Valley of Cleopatra VII and Herod (e.g., Bowersock 1983:40f). 9

THE HISTORY OF NABATAEA

11

amount of wealth and power and provided them the opportunity for contact with many cultures (Lawlor 1974:69ff). A potential model for Petra is found in Revere’s study of the neutral rôle played by coastal cities of the Eastern Mediterranean (Revere 1957:38-63). These port cities fit into an economic context necessary for foreign trade, providing a continuous supply of goods to their neighboring empires, thus maintaining a balance of power. While not a “port city” geographically, Petra acted as a port for overland trade, a nexus between the western and non-western worlds. Flanked by the competing Seleucid and Ptolemaic empires of the Hellenistic period, and later the Roman Empire and the East, the Nabataean kingdom filled a niche as a neutral meeting place providing necessary facilities for trade and ensuring a safe passage to caravans passing through the region. After the Nabataean kingdom was incorporated into the Roman Empire, it became part of a larger economic unit. The Romans ultimately rerouted the caravan trade away from Petra for the purpose of benefiting the Empire, contributing to the decline of Petra as a viable economic unit.11

THE CLASSICAL ERA: THE NABATAEAN KINGDOM In the early 2nd century BCE, the power of the Seleucid Empire began to wan under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE). This was largely in response to the rise of the Maccabees of Judea and their revolt against the anti-Jewish decrees of the Seleucid king that ended with their seizure of much of Palestine and a greater part of Jordan. It is in the context of this conflict, that the first Nabataean king appears in the historical record. Reportedly, a deposed Maccabean High Priest, Jason, was “kept under restraint by “Aretas, the Arab despot” (II Maccabees 5:8). 12 Although there is little historical information about the early monarchy, brief For further discussion of Nabataean trade and commerce, e.g., Rostovtzeff 1941:457f, 867, 985; Hammond 1973:65-68. 12 In actuality, the state ruled by the Nabataean monarchs was called “Arabia” (although Josephus refers to it as “Nabatene”). However, in order to avoid confusion with other, more common applications of the term “Arabia”—the larger geographical region as well as the Roman Province of Arabia Petraea—this paper will continue the popular tradition of calling it “Nabataea” and the “Nabataean kingdom”. 11

12

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

mentions here and there (inscriptions, coins, historical references) help to fill in the names and dates of the Nabataean king-list (Fig. 3). The capital of the Nabataean kingdom was established at Petra, although there was no monumental architecture in this early period of the kingdom (see Ch. II). Nabataean King Harithath I Rabb’el I Harithath II ‘Obaydath I Harithath III ‘Obaydath II Maliku I ‘Obaydath III Harithath IV Maliku I I Rabb’el II

Greek name Years reigned Aretas I ca. 168 – ? BCE Rabb’el I ? – ca. 120 BCE Aretas II ca. 120 – 96 BCE Obodas I ca. 96 – 85 BCE Aretas III, Philhellene 85 – 62 BCE Obodas II 62/61 – 59 BCE Malichus I 59/58 – 30 BCE Obodas III 30 – 9/8 BCE Aretas IV 9/8 BCE – 40 CE Malichus II 40 – 70 CE Rabb’el II 70 – 106 CE

Fig. 3: Nabataean King-List (based on Fiema and Jones 1990:245) Based on Strabo’s description of Nabataean society (probably during the reign of Obodas III), it is clear that its tribal structure persisted beyond the establishment of the monarchy, with the king holding the position of a big sheikh supported by the tribal elders. Unlike their Hellenistic counterparts, the Nabataeans were relatively egalitarian and democratic. Strabo describes popular assemblies during which the king would have to justify his position and undergo an evaluation of his way of life: (Petra) is always governed by a king of the royal race. The king has a minister who is one of the Companions, and is called Brother. It has excellent laws for the administration of public affairs. …The natives had never any dispute amongst themselves, and lived together in perfect harmony. (Geog. XVI.4.21) They have few slaves, and are served for the most part by their relations, or by one another, or each person is his own servant; and this custom extends even to their kings. They eat their meals in companies consisting of thirteen persons. Each party is attended by two musicians. But the king gives many entertainments in great buildings. No one drinks more than eleven

THE HISTORY OF NABATAEA

13

cupfuls, from separate cups, each of gold. The king courts popular favor so much, that he is not only his own servant, but sometimes he himself ministers to others. He frequently renders an account before the people, and sometimes an inquiry is made into his mode of life…. They look upon the bodies of the dead as no better than dung, …wherefore they bury even their kings beside dung-heaps (ibid. XVI.4.26).13

The extent of the Nabataean kingdom changed over time, its boundaries fluctuating according to the political situation of its neighbors, particularly that of the Jewish state of Judea. Hammond very eloquently observes that “to trace the borders of the (Nabataean) kingdom is to trace the strength of her neighbors, the impact of foreign culture, and that delicate balance of power between states which has always determined the final complexion of any given political area in the Near East, ancient or modern (Hammond 1973:29). In the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE, Nabataea included the region around Petra and extended westward into the Negev—Nessana (Nitzana/Auja alHafir), Sobota (Sbeita/Isbeita /Shivta), Elusa (Khalasa/Halutza), Oboda (Abda/‘Avdat), Rehovot (Ruheibeh), and Mampsis (Mamshit/Kurnub)—and northward into the Hawran around Bostra. During the reign of Aretas III (8562 BCE), Nabataea reached its fullest extent encompassing all of Transjordan, much of the Sinai, the Negev, southern Syria (Damascus), and northwest Arabia (the Hejaz) (Map 1).14 To the south, the Nabataeans had the important marketplace-emporium, Meda’in Saleh, and the two ports, Leuce Come and Aila (modern Aqaba), which provided a link to the maritime trade with India. The arrival of Roman legions under General Pompey in 64 BCE, and the creation of the Roman Province of Syria, halted the 13 This description of the king serving his guests and acting as their equal corresponds with the “image of royal felicty” that was popular at contemporary, Hellenistic royal feasts or symposia (e.g., Murray 1996:20, 25). See the discussion of marzeah in Ch. V. 14 For a discussion of the ceramic evidence for Nabataean presence in the Negev, Sinai, Hauran, Damascus PLACE NAMES:Sites:, and northwest Arabia, see ‘Amr 1987:2-7. A survey of the region yielded substantial evidence for a dense population by the 1st century BCE (Graf 1992:260).

14

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

expansion of the Nabataean kingdom. At the same time, the Pax Romana stabilized the eastern Mediterranean and permitted regional and international trade to flow freely. The Nabatean kingdom continued to prosper and to be a strong presence in the region well into the 1st century CE. During the reigns of Obodas III and then Aretas IV “Lover of His People” (9/8 BCE-40 CE), the architectural embellishment of Petra was initiated and rapidly intensified, reflecting a period of prosperity and stability for Nabataea (see Ch. II). An indication of the continued stability of the kingdom after the death of Aretas IV is the long and relatively uneventful reigns of the two successive kings who maintained Nabataean sovereignty as neighboring Egypt, Syria and Judea were engulfed by the expanding Roman Empire. In 93 CE, during the reign of Rabb’el II (71-106 CE), the capital of the Nabataean kingdom was moved north to Bostra in southern Syria (Bowersock 1971:73). At the end of his 46-year reign—a period of apparent peace and prosperity—Nabataea was quietly incorporated into the Roman Empire.15

ARABIA PETRAEA Upon the death of Rabb’el II in 106 CE, the Nabataean kingdom was annexed into the Roman Empire and designated Arabia Petraea. The historical record is amazingly silent regarding this major transition and lacks any substantive information regarding the conditions of annexation. We are told that A. Cornelius Palma, the Roman legate of Syria, “subdued the part of Arabia around Petra and made it subject to the Romans...” (Cassius DioXiphilinus LXVIII.14) on behalf of the Emperor Trajan (reign 98117 CE). It is unclear whether the annexation was a result of a military campaign or a peaceful transition.16 The virtually silent record on the part of the Romans along with the discovery of coins minted For further reading on the history of the Nabateans during the monarchy, e.g., Bowersock 1971 and Millar 1993:400-408. 16 The archaeological evidence shows no evidence of destruction in the City Center at this time (e.g., Murray and Ellis 1940:8; Bowersock 1971:228). However, Schmid argues that a destruction level in the residential section on ez-Zantur dating to the early 2nd century CE was the result of annexation (Schmid 1997). 15

THE HISTORY OF NABATAEA

15

five years after the annexation that are stamped Arabia adquista (“Arabia acquired”)—as opposed to Arabia capta (“Arabia captured”)—indicate that it was a relatively uneventful transition (cf. Millar 1993:414). Josephus informs us of a dispute over dynastic succession upon the death of King Obodas III in 9/8 BCE. It took the recognition and legitimization of the Roman senate to ultimately bring about the accession of Aretas IV (Ant. XVI.355). Through the 1st century CE, until its final annexation, the Nabataean kingdom remained independent but strongly influenced by the Roman Empire. Rabb’el II’s death in 106 CE may have even prompted Trajan to annex Nabataea earlier than originally planned (Schmid 1997:410).17 Due to the silence of the historical record it is unclear what the exact stimulus was for the annexation. It has been suggested that Trajan wished to protect his rear flank as he prepared for his campaign against the Parthians. However, the lack of a strong military presence in Arabia following the annexation argues against the need for military domination (Ball 2000:63). Alternatively, it has been argued that the Romans were intent to maintain a buffer zone between the Roman provinces and marauding nomads along the periphery (Kennedy and Riley 1990:36f), a popular explanation for the organization of the Decapolis cities under Pompey more than a century earlier (cf. Smith 1895:399; Jones 1971; Ball 2000:181f).18 Nabataea was left alone for awhile, but eventually it became necessary to annex the kingdom and push the boundaries further to the east (cf. Kennedy and Riley 1990:36f).19 Other related theories suggest that Rome simply became intolerant of the presence of independent powers in the region (Starcky 1955:103) and that Rome’s previous expansionist policy was resumed by Trajan (Raschke 1978:647-648). 18 Graf (1986) points out that there was a Semitic presence in some of the Decapolis cities and argues that a more plausible explanation for the origin of this alliance lies in the rivalry between the Seleucids and Ptolemies in the 3rd-2nd centuries BCE. 19 Some scholars believe that there was a temporary annexation of Nabataea by the Romans from 3-1 BCE, based on Strabo’s statement that “at present both they and the Syrians are subject to the Romans”(Geog. 16.4.21) and the lack of Aretas IV coins from the 7th to 9th years of his reign (e.g., Bowersock 1983:54-57). It is argued that the coinciding rise of 17

16

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

It was long believed that Roman interest in Nabataea for economic purposes was negligible. This is based on evidence that, during the 1st century CE, the Romans learned to successfully bypass the Nabataean-controlled land routes by mastering the seasonal monsoon winds that carried ships directly to Roman ports on the west coast of the Red Sea (Starcky 1955:94; Rascke 1978:660-664). At the same time, there was a shift of the caravan trade northward to Palmyra, again bypassing the Nabataean routes. This shift in the trade system caused Rabb’el II to move Nabataea’s political and economic center from Petra to Bostra (Bowersock 1983:73), which was more conveniently located to the current economic activity. Upon annexation, Rome made this change official and named Bostra the capital of the new province.20 In his analysis of the political, military and economic reasons for the 106 CE annexation, Fiema (1987) argues that Trajan’s main goal was to establish a hold on commercial activities, both land and sea trade, in the East. In order to do this, he invested substantial improvements in the region, most notably the construction of the Via Nova Traianus, a paved road linking Bostra with Aila (cf. Graf 1995). Trajan strengthened and reorganized the existing order “by using superior technical and administrative skills, so characteristic of the Romans, and adding the flavor of full imperial control and security” (Fiema 1987:35). Later, with the failure of the Parthian War, which also resulted from economic ambitions, Trajan’s overall scheme had to change (ibid.).21 The overall current consensus is that “Arabia Petraea can no longer be regarded as a basic wasteland, devoid of significance in the Roman era” (Graf 1992:260). The archaeological record, in Meda’in Saleh is evidence that the southern site became the Nabataean capital for Aretas IV while in exile (Ball 2000:62-63). 20 Ball argues that the Nabataean trade economy remained lucrative into the 2nd century CE and that Rome annexed Nabataea as a direct response to the move of the capital to Bostra which Trajan may have perceived as a threat. He sees a desire to preempt the lucrative southern routes and claim the profits for Rome was ample cause for annexation (Ball 2000:63). 21 For further reading about the Roman annexation of Nabataea, e.g., Bowersock 1971; 1983:76f; Fiema 1987; Hamblin 1987; Millar 1993:92-97).

THE HISTORY OF NABATAEA

17

combination with the results of a regional survey looking at settlement pattern, transportation network, and military activities, contradicts the long-held belief that Petra and its environs became a backwater under Roman authority. Although the settlements of the Roman period are less extensive and are generally confined to the narrow stretch along the Via Nova Traiana, they are characterized by a “vitality” that indicates prosperity (ibid.).

THE END OF THE CLASSICAL ERA Regardless of its continued prosperity after annexation, by the mid3rd century CE, the commercial interests of the Nabataeans slowly dried up and the economy of the entire region began to decline. In the 4th century CE, the Roman Empire was reorganized by Diocletian and Petra fell into the boundaries of Palaestina Tertia, a division of the Province of Palestine. In 363 CE, a major earthquake rocked the region causing serious damage to settlements throughout the region. At Petra, many of the structures suffered serious damage or collapsed (Russell 1980:48f; Kolb 1996:51, 89; 1997:234; 1998:262; Fiema 1998:419f; Joukowsky 1998:139). The earthquake had a devastating effect on the social and economic institutions in the region (Hammond 1980; Russell 1980; 1985:42; Amiran et al. 1994:265). Petra remained an important center in the early Byzantine period (4th-6th centuries CE), when it was inhabited by a substantial Christian community and was the seat of a bishopric (Hammond 1973:56; Schick 1995:17, 427). The archaeological record shows that many of the monuments in Petra were re-used by the Byzantine inhabitants or dismantled to construct new buildings (cf. Joukowsky 1998:28; Fiema 1998:420f; Kanellopoulos 1999). Several of the rock-cut monuments were refashioned into churches or monasteries (i.e., the Urn Tomb and ed-Deir), and three churches dated to the 5th-6th centuries CE were erected on the northern slope of the City Center.22 Information gleaned from For the Petra Church, see Schick et al. 1993 and Fiema 1994; for the North Ridge Church, see Bikai 1999. A third church known by its excavators as the “Blue Chapel” because of the blue sandstone and granite used for the architectural details was discovered in Spring 2000 during excavations at the neighboring North Ridge Church (Patricia Bikai, personal communication). 22

18

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

papyrus scrolls discovered in the Petra Church, provides insight into life in Petra in the 6th century CE (cf. Koenen 1996; Gagos and Frösen 1998).23 Despite a general belief that the late Byzantine period was a time of denigration throughout Jordan (cf. Harding 1958:13), the scrolls inform us that Petra and its hinterland remained economically vibrant into the 7th century, and that the Byzantine community persisted at Petra for at least a century after a devastating earthquake that destroyed much of the city in 551 CE (Russell 1985:44-46; Amiran et al. 1994:266). The appearance of traditional Nabataean names within the scrolls, shows that the local population and its culture did not disappear under Roman and Byzantine rule (Frösen 2000). In the 7th century CE, the territory fell under Umayyad rule although no remains from the Early Islamic period have been found at Petra nor is it mentioned in the sources, including the Arab geographers of that period. The region remained relatively insignificant until the 12th century CE when the Crusaders built a string of fortresses along the western border of Transjordan to protect their claim on Jerusalem and the ‘Holy Land’. It was during that time that the region around Petra became associated with the story of the Exodus and Moses’ brother, Aaron (Hammond 1991:34). When the last Crusader fortress was finally overtaken by Salah-ad-Din, the king of the Saracens, the region slipped back into obscurity until 1822, when the Swiss explorer, Johann Ludwig Burckhardt, became the first westerner to visit Petra in over six centuries (Burckhardt 1822; Browning 1973:61-67). Knowledge of Burckhardt’s “discovery” of Petra spread fast and soon it became a popular destination on the itineraries of adventurous travelers to the East.24

23 A series of papers on a variety of subjects covered in the Petra Church papyri (eg., economics, land disputes, legal matters, and gardens) will appear in Vol. I of Atti del XXII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia (Firenze, 23-29 agosto 1998). Istituto Papirologico G.Vitelli. Florence (in press). 24 e.g., LaBorde 1830; Roberts 1842/9; W.H. Bartlett 1849; Crichton 1852; Robinson 1860; Irby and Mangles 1868; Doughty 1921. A general overview of the early explorations of Petra is provided in Browning 1973:67-78.

CHAPTER II

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA: THE NABATAEAN AND ROMAN PERIODS

“CITY OF THE DEAD” VS “CITY OF THE LIVING” Noted for its magnificent rock-cut façades on tombs and other chambers associated with the cult of the dead, Petra is often mistakenly perceived as primarily a Necropolis or “city of the dead” (e.g., Negev 1977:590, 1986:36-40), or at most a purely ceremonial center with tombs and temples and places of sacrifice but lacking permanent inhabitants. Evidence is abundant, however, for a functioning urban center as described by Strabo (Geog. 16.4.21-26) and inferred by the honorific title metropolis that was at one time conferred upon it by Trajan (e.g., Bowersock 1983:84-85). On a visit to Petra in 1838, Robinson noted its urban character, describing the ruins of dwellings and other structures visible throughout the Petra basin (Fig. 4). These ruins were so obvious to Robinson that he expressed surprise that they had gone unnoticed by previous visitors to the site. Indeed the whole area...was once obviously occupied by a large city of houses.… the whole body of the area, on both sides of the torrent, and especially on the North, is covered with foundations and stones of an extensive town. The stones are hewn and the houses erected with them, must have been solid and well-built. On looking at the extent of these ruins, it struck me as surprising, that they should hitherto have been passed

19

20

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

over so lightly; although this may readily be accounted for, by the surprising interest of the surrounding sepulchres. These foundations and ruins cover an area of not much less than two miles in circumference; affording room enough, in an oriental city, for the accommodation of thirty or forty thousand inhabitants (Robinson 1941:524f)

Although interest in the urban character of Petra was long eclipsed by a concentration of research on the principal tombs and temples and the study of Nabataean burial customs and religious beliefs, investigations into other elements erected along the northern and southern slopes of Wadi Musa—the Colonnaded Street with shops (Kirkbride 1960; Parr 1960, 1970; Fiema 1998; Kanelloupolos 1999), the residential quarters (Parr 1960; Zayadine 1974; Khairy 1990; Zeitler 1990; Stucky, Kolb et al. 1995; Stucky, Bignasca et al. 1996), and the city walls (Parr 1960; Parr et al. 1965:40-45)—have led to a more balanced representation of a living city with a thriving population (e.g., Basile 2000). The archaeological record is gradually revealing information about the

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA

21

urban nature of this ancient city, its chronological development and urbanization (e.g., Parr 1965, 1970; McKenzie 1990:105-118; Dentzer and Zayadine 1992; Stucky 1997). Petra was a typical Near Eastern urban settlement, inhabited by a large mixed population (mostly Nabateans but with many foreign residents and passersthrough)25 with a necropolis located outside of the city’s boundaries. A factor that has strongly influenced the general perception of the urban character of Petra is the survey work that was undertaken by a German expedition led by Bachmann, Wiegand and Watzinger following the First World War. They described in detail the various elements of the urban center and produced a map of the visible wall lines (Bachmann et al. 1921:abb. 1). Their work proved extremely valuable to future explorations of Petra by illustrating the extensive preservation of the site and providing a road map for those planning archaeological excavations in this section of the city. However, it also perpetuated a legacy of misidentification and misnomers that has plagued Petra since the 12th century.26 Although they did not conduct any excavations in Petra, the Germans interpreted the ruins and assigned names to the various monuments. To the north of Wadi Musa, they identified the “Gymnasium” and “Palace” and a “Byzantine Tower”; and to the south they identified the “Baths”, “Small Temple”, “Great Temple”, “Lower Market”, “Middle Market”, “Upper Market”, “North Nymphaeum” and “South Nymphaeum”. These labels have been reproduced on maps and in travel books and archaeological reports published since 1921 and had been solidly engrained in the terminology of Petra before excavations were Strabo, Geog. XVI.4.21. As early as the Byzantine period, a connection was made between Petra and the biblical story of the Exodus, and a monastery to St. Aaron (“The Mount of Aaron”). When the Crusaders occupied the region in the 12th century, they continued this tradition and identified several local sites with the biblical story of the Exodus—Wadi Musa after Moses, and the Khaznat al-Faroun (“Pharaoh’s Treasury”) and Qasr el-Bint Faroun (“The Palace of Pharaoh’s Daughter”) after the Pharaoh (Hammond 1991:32). Canaan provides a valuable study of the local Bedouin myths and legends behind the Arabic names for monuments and localities at Petra (Canaan (1929 and 1930). 25 26

22

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

undertaken to test their accuracy. In the last three decades, excavations conducted within the urban center have shown that many of the identifications by the German expedition were inaccurate, both in plan and in function: the “Gymnasium” proved to be a temple (Hammond 1996b); the “Baths” have no water installations and may actually be rooms in an elite or palatial residence (Zayadine 1987:139); the so-called Great Temple appears to have been an audience hall—an oecus or a triclinium (Schluntz 1999) 27—that was later converted into a bouleutereion/odeion (Joukowsky 1998:125; Schluntz 1998a:220-222, 1999:131-134) and, as the excavations in the “Lower Market” have revealed, it is unlikely that any of the so-called “marketplaces” were ever used for commercial activities (Fig. 5). Despite these developments, the old labels persist. Only the Temple of the Winged Lions managed to successfully shake its old label of “Gymnasium” when excavations showed that it was a temple. Its new name is derived from the beautifully carved winged lions on some of its capitals (Hammond 1977-78; 1996b:45f; McKenzie 1990:117).

CHRONOLOGY A major focus of research in Petra throughout the 20th century, has been the attempt to date the various monuments and to assess the chronological development of the site. Despite decades of excavation in and around Petra, archaeologists continue to grapple with the issues of chronological development, a challenging task due to the existence of only a few inscriptions that will provide absolute dates, and the general lack of long stratigraphic sequences. Much of the chronological analysis of the site, therefore, has been founded on ceramic typology and architectural style.

For the first three seasons (1993-1995) of excavation in the Great Temple, its excavator, Martha Joukowsky, attempted to avoid the use of the label “Great” applied by Bachmann et al. (1921) and identified the project as the Petra Southern Temple based on its location on the south side of the City Center. In 1996, the structure was officially renamed the Great Temple due to its status as the largest free-standing structure in Petra (Joukowsky 1998:50). 27

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA

23

CERAMICS The distinctive Nabataean fine ware was originally studied and identified as Nabataean during the first systematic excavations in Petra which were conducted in 1929 (Horsfield and Conway 1930:375). The association of this unique style of painted and unpainted versions of “eggshell” ware with the Nabataeans, made it possible to identify many of their sites that were previously unidentifiable due to the lack of inscriptions or references in the classical literature (e.g., Glueck 1959:200). The geographic distribution of Nabataean ware is generally restricted to the southern part of the Nabataean kingdom—in southern Transjordan, the Negev and into the Sinai (Glueck 1938; SchmitteKorte 1968, 1971, 1980). In the north, Nabataean ware is found only at isolated sites— Philadelphia (Amman) (Harding 1946), Gerasa (Jerash) (Kraeling 1938:37), and Bostra (Bosra) (Glueck 1938). Further afield, rare examples are found in the area of Meda’in Saleh (Winnett and Reed 1970: 172-185, fig.81) and in South Arabia (al-Ansary 1981:63, figs.2-4; Stucky 1983:7, 12, figs.10 and 11). Nabataean ware appeared in the 2nd century BCE and was

24

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

inspired by the contemporary decorated Hellenistic wares in Palestine, Syria and Egypt (Parr 1978:205). The earliest examples of Nabataean ware vessels were especially fine and their shapes and painted designs are distinctly Nabataean (Patrich 1990:126). The painted ware—primarily round plates and bowls—had an interior decoration based on simple radiating palmette and feather motifs in a light red paint. Over time, the ware became coarser, the designs more stylized, and the brush technique heavier until it went out of production by the end of the Roman period.28 Compositional studies utilizing a combination of neutron activation analysis (NAA) and multivariate statistical methods has proven beyond a doubt that all Nabataean fine ware was manufactured in and around Petra (‘Amr 1987:198; Gunneweg et al. 1987; Bedal 1998). For a long time, the ability to develop a precise classification of the pottery related to chronological development was hindered due to several factors: i) most studies of Nabataean pottery focused on the stylistic development of the painted ware; ii) the lack of continuous and well-dated stratigraphy from Nabataean sites made it difficult to associate shapes and/or styles of decoration with narrow windows of time; and iii) the excavated material did not provide enough of a representative sample to permit differentiation (Schmid 1995:637). In recent years, however, the large quantities of ceramics found in distinct stratified units associated with residences on ez-Zantur (a peak south of Petra’s City Center) have been subjected to rigid typological and statistical analysis (Stucky et al. 1996).29 This work has led to a precise classification of Nabataean fine wares into four major phases, each with several sub-phases, between the mid-1st century BCE and 2nd century CE (Schmid 1995, 1996, and 1997). In addition, the study of the ez-Zantur material has allowed a rough classification of Nabataean coarse ware produced within that

According to Parr, the degenerate style of Nabataean painted ware may have influenced the Early Islamic painted ware (Parr 1978:207-208). For the bibliography on Nabataean ceramics, see Patrich 1990:124-130; Nehmé 1994. 29 For annual reports on the Swiss-Liechtenstein excavations on ezZantur since 1993, see the Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (ADAJ). 28

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA

25

same general time frame (Gerber 1997) and Roman period pottery of the 4th century CE (Gerber and Brogli 1995; Brogli 1996).

ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The monuments at Petra reflect an international character, an eclectic combination of Assyrian, Persian, Egyptian, Hellenistic and Roman elements intermixed with native Nabataean (Arab) tradition (McKenzie 1990). Much of the dating of Petra’s monuments has been based on comparisons with the architectural details of other monuments throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. In particular, second-style Pompeian wall-painting (dated to the 1st century BCE) and the remains of architectural fragments and rockcut tombs of Alexandria, Egypt, have been acknowledged as major sources of inspiration in Petra (Hittorff 1862; Lyttleton 1974, 1990; Lyttleton and Blagg 1990; McKenzie 1990:199-126). McKenzie’s The Architecture of Petra (1990) is a comprehensive analysis of the architectural details of the rock-cut and free-standing monuments in Petra. Based on stylistic comparisons with architectural elements recorded at the early Nabataean site, Meda’in Saleh and Alexandria, McKenzie organizes the Petra monuments into six categories (Groups A-F) and then develops a chronological sequence taking into account evidence from the archaeological record and the occasional inscription (McKenzie 1990:40-53, 120-122, Tables1114). This fundamental study provides a basic framework for the relative chronology of these monuments and the process of urbanization within Petra. Archaeological excavations conducted over the last decade since McKenzie’s publication—most notably the Great Temple excavations (Joukowsky 1998, 1999), the Roman Street Project (Fiema 1998; Kanellopoulos 1999), and the excavations in the residential quarter of ez-Zantur (Stucky et al. 1995, 1996; Kolb 1997, 1998)—provide additional information to fill in the gaps and further refine our understanding of the chronology.30 Although it is expected that an important international city such as Alexandria influenced the early architectural program of Another School of Thought attributes the majority of the urban development in Petra to the Roman period (e.g., Browning 1973:146; Ward-Perkins 1981:329ff). 30

26

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Petra, it must be acknowledged that Alexandria was part of the broader phenomenon of ‘”hellenization” that spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean world in the centuries following the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE. During the Hellenistic Age, Greek culture spread into southwestern Asia and North Africa, and the resulting blend of eastern and western cultures transformed every aspect of life: language, government, religion, literature, art, and architecture. The Nabataeans, like other Near Eastern kingdoms of this period, sought to acquire all of the accoutrements of a civilized city of the Hellenized East. The nature of the Hellenistic period in general and its manifestation at Petra led Hammond to observe: “The complete Hellenization of the Near East, the eclecticism characterizing the Nabataean culture as a whole, and the virtual absence of dated monuments at Petra all preclude neat systemization of Nabataean architecture” (Hammond 1973:45). Another important influence on Petra that has been generally overlooked until recently, is the ambitious architectural program of Herod the Great (37-4 BCE). As the vassal king of the Roman province of Judea, Herod was a prolific and original builder of public works as well as several palatial residences. An analysis of Herodian architecture provides a unique opportunity to observe the independent contributions of Hasmonean (pre-Herodian Palestine), Hellenistic and Roman architectural design in the region (e.g., Tsafrir 1976; Nielsen 1994:181; Roller 1998:90).31 Noting that Petra experienced a period of rapid urban embellishment at the end of the 1st century BCE, coinciding with the end of Herod’s reign, Hammond suggested that rivalry with the neighboring kingdom of Judea was a catalyst for this activity (Hammond 1996a:556). Much of what we know about Herod’s interactions with the Nabataeans 31 Tsafrir (1976) identifies the constituent elements that shaped the character of Herod's buildings: i) Hasmonean-Palestine heritage— techniques of stone-dressing, principals of planning and settlement, exploitation of water sources, and orientation of light and shade; ii) Hellenistic heritage (Hellenistic East)—building style and decoration, external façade and decoration; esp. esthetic facades (even on utilitarian structures); iii) Roman heritage—widespread use of cement and concrete as primary building techniques, as well as arches, vaults, and domes (limited use in East prior to Roman contact).

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA

27

comes from Josephus (Wars I.13-14, 18-19, 24, 27-29) His histories describe strained relations between Herod and the Nabataeans due to conflicts over territory (Richardson 1993:4). Josephus also informs us that Herod’s Idumean father, Antipater II, “married a wife of an eminent family among the Arabians, whose name was Cypros, … so did he contract the greatest friendship with the king of Arabia, by marrying his relation” (Wars I.8.9). Although Josephus never mentions the Nabataeans explicitly, the Nabataean king is the only Arab king known to us. According to Josephus, Cypros sent her children for safekeeping to Malichus I (59/58-30 BCE), when Herod was about 15 years old, implying that she had strong connections with the royal family (Josephus Wars I.8.9; also e.g., Richardson 1993:62-63). This tradition of dynastic marriages between members of the Herodian and Nabataean royal families continued with the marriage of Herod’s son, Antipas, to the daughter of Aretas IV (9/8 BCE-40 CE) (Wars I.8.9). Roller notes the pattern of monumental building programs in foreign lands, such as Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Nabataea, where Herodian in-laws or descendents resided, and suggests that this demonstrates the strategy of dynastic marriages as a way that the Herodian family spread its ideas about architectural patronage (Roller 1998:257). According to Roller: The effects of Herod’s program appeared as soon as the Nabataean kings began to adopt Roman architecture, especially during the reign of Aretas IV— perhaps Herod’s cousin—who came to the throne around 9 BC, just as Herod’s work was ending, and who may have wished to initiate his own building program as a replacement for or continuation of the virtually defunct Herodian one. …At Petra, the Temple of the Winged Lions and the large theater are both structures of Herodian inspiration; the former is remindful of the Herodian temples to Augustus (Roller 1998:254).

Indeed, the Main Theater at Petra—one of the few examples of an Augustan period (mid-late 1st century BCE) Roman-plan theater in the East—is recognized as having its impetus in Herod’s public works, particularly his theater at Caesarea Maritima, rather than being the result of direct Roman influence (Hammond 1973:51)

28

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Of course, the Nabataeans contributed their own styles and traditions to the architectural flavor of Petra. The contribution of local, eastern traditions to the architecture of Nabataea and the Roman provinces was recently outlined by Ball (2000:376-382). The Nabataeans were masters of stone masonry. The soft sandstone of Petra and Meda’in Saleh made it possible for them to sculpt tombs, triclinia, monumental façades, a theater, as well as houses, out of the living-rock. This emphasis on stone architecture led to the development of different styles and methods of building from those of the West where brick and mortar—and later poured concrete—were the main building material, and further east in Mesopotamia where mudbrick was the dominant medium. In Nabataean free-standing architecture, the predominant building technique was the trabeate (the use of bold slabs supported on lintels or arches). In addition, there is a recurring theme of abstract, cuboid forms—the “god blocks” at the entrance to the Siq, clusters of rectilinear and square façades framed with bold horizontal and vertical lines, and square crow-foot gables—that may have been influenced by the ancient South Arabian tradition of representing of deities in abstract forms of blocks and cubes (Browning 1973:44-45; Mettinger 1994:68; Patrich 1990:50-113; Ball 2000:377382). For example, hundreds of squares or blocks carved in relief at Petra are interpreted as abstract representations of Dushara, the patron deity of the Nabataeans (Hammond 1973:49-50, 95-96; McKenzie 1990:159). At Petra and Meda’in Saleh, this motif was translated into the architecture and remains an underlying theme even with the addition of Classical baroque embellishments with the borrowing of Hellenistic traditions. According to Ball, the emphasis in eastern Roman architecture on trabeate forms was a survival of the native traditions marking “a resurgence of older, native architectural values over the Classical” (Ball 2000:382).

THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF PETRA Petra’s urban center is located on the sloping banks of Wadi Musa, covering an area of approximately 650 x 500 meters between the confluence of Wadi al-Mataha to the east and the rocky knoll of elHabis to the west (Fig. 4). Little is known about the early Nabataean settlement along the banks of the wadi prior to the 1st century BCE. This is due primarily to the monumental architectural programs of the late 1st century BCE through the early 2nd century

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA

29

CE—Petra’s “Classical” Period—that dramatically altered the landscape and obliterated from view all signs of earlier occupation. Only a few excavation trenches have been sunk below the foundations of the monumental structures to provide a narrow glimpse of the early settlement.

EARLY SETTLEMENT According to Diodorus, the Nabataeans were inhabiting Petra by 312 BCE (Hist. XIX.94-100). However, there is no archaeological evidence for this early occupation. Hammond (1992b) theorizes that the original Nabataean population settled at the base of Umm al-Biyara (the site of the Edomite settlement, see Ch. I), in the vicinity of the rock-cut monument known as the “Snake Monument”, a few kilometers to the south of Wadi Musa. As nomadic pastoralists, the early Nabataeans would have lived in tents and possibly caves leaving little evidence for their presence in the archaeological record. According to Hammond’s theory, as the population increased, there was a gradual movement northward toward Wadi Musa. He suggests that strategic considerations such as water supply, climatic conditions and site-access contributed to this migration northward across the Petra basin (Hammond 1992b:262). The earliest known evidence for settlement along Wadi Musa was uncovered during the 1958-1965 excavations carried out by Parr (1960, 1965, 1970). In Trench III, which forms a cross-section of the Colonnaded Street and the retaining walls of the “Lower Market”, 90 meters east of the Temenos Gate (Fig. 17; Pl. IIb), Parr uncovered the remnants of small buildings, apparently houses, of “unpretentious design and construction” (Parr 1970:369) immediately above virgin soil (an undisturbed gravel deposit). Parr argues that the initial settlement in this area, represented by limestone block walls coated in clay (Walls H and N), may be dated to as early as the 3rd century BCE based on the discovery of a coin of that period (Parr 1970:352-358, 369) along with pottery that is similar to that of Period IX (5th-3rd centuries BCE) at Samaria (Parr 1965:528). The use of limestone construction (Walls A, Q, and R) continued into the 1st century BCE when there is a transition to sandstone ashlar masonry (represented in the section only by Wall C) and an associated pavement in buildings of a similarly domestic nature (Parr 1970:358-362, 370).

30

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

The first excavation of an entire house in Petra was not conducted until the early 1980s (Khairy 1990). McKenzie provides a summary of domestic architecture—free-standing and rock-cut dwellings—in her study on The Architecture of Petra (McKenzie 1990:105-108). However, the most valuable work on the residential quarters within the city walls is the Swiss-Leichtenstein Excavations on ez-Zantur. On a natural terrace on ez-Zantur, which overlooks Wadi Musa from the south, there are multiple thin occupation strata with no associated architectural features, that have been interpreted as evidence for tent habitations (Stucky 1996a:14-17). Dated to the late 2nd through 1st centuries BCE, these tent dwellings were contemporary with the sandstone structures in Parr’s Trench III. By the late 1st century BCE, coinciding with the onset of monumental construction below (see Urbanization: Phase I), a small residence (House 1) was built on the ez-Zantur terrace alongside tent dwellings. The co-existence of these two styles of domestic construction represents a gradual transition between a nomadic and a settled lifestyle for the Nabataeans. According to Stucky, it is likely that during such a transition period, tents were erected alongside permanent houses so that “depending on the climatic conditions the inhabitants chose the one or the other way of housing—as is usual in Jordan up to this day” (Stucky et al. 1995:198).

URBANIZATION: PHASE I (LATE 1ST CENTURY BCE – EARLY 1ST CENTURY CE) As stated above, the raison d’etre of Petra was its role as a caravan city located on the axis of a network of ancient trade routes, particularly those devoted to the trade in frankincense and myrrh, linking Arabia with the Mediterranean and much of the ancient world (e.g., Miller 1969; Van Beek 1969; Groom 1977, 1981). Due to its position at the hub of an active trade network, one would expect that ancient Petra had a very exciting, dynamic and cosmopolitan atmosphere. In addition to the exchange of material goods, the Nabataeans were active agents in the exchange of ideas, art, religion, and culture. Its increasing wealth and contact with the Hellenistic world promoted the development of Petra into an important metropolis by the late 1st century BCE, with a population estimated at approximately 30,000 inhabitants (Browning 1973:33) in addition to the many foreign visitors that

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA

31

are described by Strabo (Geog. 16.4.21). By this time, the city’s center was established along the banks of Wadi Musa (Hammond 1992b:262). The sandstone houses of Trench III may still have been inhabited when the earliest monumental buildings—the Qasr el-Bint, the Temenos Area, and an elite residence (the so-called “Baths” )—were erected further to the west before the end of the 1st century BCE (McKenzie 1990:34-35, 37, 40-41, 51, 108, 134143, Tables 11 and 14) (Fig. 5). The Qasr el-Bint, which was excavated by Parr (1967-68) with Wright (1967-68) and then Zayadine (1982, 1985, 1986), is the best preserved free-standing monument in Petra and is conventionally believed to have been the city’s main temple dedicated to Dushares, the patron deity of the Nabataeans (Wright 1973) The assignment of a terminus ante quem of the end of the 1st century BCE for the construction of the Qasr el-Bint is based on inscriptions of Aretas IV found on the temenos bench which postdates both the temenos wall and the Qasr el-Bint (Parr 1967-68:6, 12-17). Therefore the Qasr el-Bint can satisfactorily be dated to the last half of the 1st century BCE (McKenzie 1990:34-35, 40, 51, 108, 135-138). At the eastern end of the Temenos Area, south of the temenos wall, is a complex that includes two adjacent rooms and an adjoining staircase.32 The southern room is square and covered by a vault on pendentives, while the northern one is circular with a domed roof; both rooms are preserved to their full height. Unfortunately, further exposure of this area was prevented for reasons of safety. This complex was identified by Wiegand (Bachmann et al. 1921:45-48) as a cauldarium, or bath, although no trace of hypocausts or water pipes—the tell-tale signs of a bath— were found in the excavations. In addition, the rooms are much smaller in scale than a typical bath complex (Ball 2000:303). Regardless, Wiegand’s misidentification, like so many other misnomers at Petra, became part of the common terminology and the structure continues to be referred to as the “Baths” in maps, guides and scholarly discussions of Petra. Zayadine, however, recognized the palatial character of these rooms and suggested that The results of these excavations, directed by Muhammed Murshed of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, are published in ADAJ 12-13 (1967-68). 32

32

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

this complex “richly decorated with colonnettes and painted architectural stucco, was part of a palatial residence” (Zayadine 1987:139).33 The importance of the identification of this structure as a palace residence in relation to the “Lower Market” excavations will be elaborated upon below (see Ch. VI). Like the Qasr el-Bint, this complex of rooms is earlier than the temenos wall and, therefore, dates to the end of the 1st century BCE (McKenzie 1990:41, 51, 108, 138).34 Zayadine notes the comparisons between the construction and decoration of these rooms and those on the lower terrace of the North Palace at Masada and the Third Winter Palace at Jericho (Zayadine 1987:139), both of which were the private residences of the Judean king, Herod the Great. Thus, by the beginning of the reign of Aretas IV, the inhabitants of Petra had established the cultural center of their developing city, the focus of their religious and political authority. The next large-scale building project at Petra was Phase I of the Great Temple, the largest free-standing monument in Petra, which has been under excavation since 1994 (Joukowsky 1998, 1999). The first phase of the Great Temple, an enclosed freestanding peristyle fronted on the north by a porch with a tetrastylein-antis façade (Schluntz 1998a:210; 1999:22f), is dated to the end of the 1st century BCE based on the stylistic parallels and associated ceramics (Basile 1998:203; Schluntz 1999:67-68, 71-73). The creation of the Great Temple complex was a major project involving the construction of large terraces against, and cut into, the south slope of Wadi Musa (“Valley of Moses”), immediately east of the Temenos Area. Access to the main building was via a propyleaon staircase which opens up onto a large elevated plaza flanked by triple colonnades.35 From this plaza, monumental staircases36 led to an even higher terrace platform (approximately 33 I am grateful to Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos for bringing this information to my attention. 34 Zayadine dates this complex even earlier, to the first half of the first century BCE (1987:139). This may reflect a desire to see the Petra palace residence as a precursor to, and therefore a model for, the Herodian examples rather than the other way around. 35 The so-called “lower temenos”, but there is no enclosure wall. 36 In early publications, the excavators believed that there was a single, central staircase in Phase I that was blocked up and replaced by

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA

33

12 meters above the level of the Temenos Area) upon which the main building was erected (Fig. 5 and Plate I). Immediately to the east of the Great Temple is the so-called “Lower Market”. As the findings in the “Lower Market” will be fully described in Chapter III, it is sufficient to state here that it rests on an artificial platform—the south half of which was created by quarrying into natural rock slope—adjacent to and level with the lower plaza of the Great Temple complex (Plate I). Based on the findings of the stratigraphic sequence in Parr’s Trench III, the double retaining wall (the Portico Wall and Wall K in Fig. 17), which forms the northern face of the massive platforms of the Great Temple complex and the “Lower Market”, can be assigned a terminus post quem of 9 BCE based on coins minted during the reign of Aretas IV that were found in a corresponding floor and foundation trench (Loci 33 and 34 in Fig. 17) (Parr 1970:362-364, Phase IX). Because the retaining walls are an integral part of the Great Temple and “Lower Market”, the date of the walls’ construction is important for dating the whole complex. Thus, the current archaeological evidence points to the end of the 1st century BCE (and possibly even the early 1st century CE) for the initial phase of both the Great Temple and “Lower Market”. Also dated to this general period is the Temple of the Winged Lions located directly across the wadi from the Great Temple. This monument is identified as the temple of a supreme goddess, Atargatis/Al-‘Uzza, the consort of the patron deity, Dushares (Hammond 1992a, 1996b:101ff), and can be dated with a terminus ante quem of 27/8 CE based on the discovery of an inscription in a marble-workers’ workshop associated with the temple.37 two lateral staircases (Joukowsky 1998:133; Basile 1998:201). However, the current theory is that there were originally three staircases. The central staircase was later blocked up, possibly due to complications with the water canalization system that ran underneath it. Personal communication with J. Basile. 37 The inscription is dated to the “thirty-seventh year of Aretas, king of the Nabataeans”. Hammond argues that the inscribed marble slab was affixed to the wall of the Temple close to or at the time of its completion, and that it was removed during later renovations (Hammond et al. 1986:77; 1996b:5). McKenzie, on the other hand, uses architectural and decorative parallels to date the Temple of the Winged Lions to the late 1st

34

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

At this early period, the area north of the Great Temple“Lower Market” was occupied by an 18 meter wide road paved with a hard-packed gravel surface (Parr 1960:130, 1965:528; Kirkbride 1960:121). This main thoroughfare through Petra has been interpreted as a processional way, a via sacra, which began at the city’s eastern entrance, passing through the Siq—a narrow gorge that extends 1.216 kilometers, and varies in width from 2 to 17 meters, with walls towering 60-100 meters in height. The sacred nature of the Siq as a processional way is attested to by the numerous niches, god-blocks, and Greek and Nabataean inscriptions carved into the sandstone walls, all associated with Nabataean worship (Brünnow and Domaszewski 1904-09:I, 222; Dalman 1912:143-156; Patrich 1996:59). Once through the Siq, the processional way continued past the several monumental rock-cut façades and the theater38 before passing through the City Center and, finally, terminating at the Qasr el-Bint, the temple to the god Dushares, located at the Western end of the City Center (Segal 1997:44; Ball 2000:256).39 Thresholds at regular intervals along the Portico Wall that flanked the southern edge of the gravel road have been interpreted as entrances to small shops occupying the space between the double retaining walls for the “Lower Market” platform (Parr 1970:362; Kanellopoulos 2001). These shops, which are a prelude for the commercial development that was to follow, were contemporary with the early phase of shops located further c. BCE, contemporary with monuments in her Group A, which includes Qasr el-Bint, al-Khazneh, and the “Baths” (McKenzie 1990:38, 56, 134, and Table 14). 38 The Main Theater, which it is dated by epigraphical analysis of masons’ marks to the 1st c. CE, was excavated by P.C. Hammond and the Jordanian Department of Antiquities in 1962-63. It is a mostly rock-cut monument with free-standing construction of the stage and side entrances. Its seating capacity has been estimated to hold between 7,000 and 10,000 people. For excavation results see Hammond 1965; for chronological discussions, see McKenzie 1991:35, 43, 143-144. 39 The importance of the via sacra in eastern architecture derives from the prominence given to religious procession in eastern ritual. Four additional processional ways are carved into the mountains leading up to ceremonial high-places that overlook the Petra Basin: Umm al-Biyara, alKhubtha, Madhbah, and ed-Deir (Browning 2000:256f).

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA

35

east and dated to the early 1st century CE (Fiema 1998:418; Kanellopoulos 1999). On the basis of the current archaeological record, it appears that much of the monumental development within the center of Petra, was accomplished just before and during the reign of Aretas IV, from the late first century BCE to 40 CE (Bowersock 1983:6162; Hammond 1992b:262).

URBANIZATION: PHASE II (LATE 1ST – EARLY 2ND CENTURY CE) The second phase of urban development in Petra is characterized by renovations and additions that transformed Petra’s center into a typical Roman commercial and administrative center. One significant change was the reconfiguration of the interior of the Great Temple into a small theater-like structure with the seating capacity of approximately 600 (Joukowsky 1998:138; Schluntz 1998a:215-220). The discovery of theater masks in the interior is evidence in favor of the building’s function as an odeion (Schluntz 1998b:232-33; 1999:122-125). However, historical evidence points to a possible judicial function for the building. In the group of personal documents known as the “Babatha Letters”, dated between 94 and 132 CE (Yadin 1963; Lewis 1989), it is stated that the designation of the guardians for Babatha’s son was made by the boule (administrative council) of Petra (Bowersock 1983:79; Joukowsky 1998:145-146, fn. 42). The letters also refer to the governor’s regular visits to Petra to hold court (Bowersock 1991:358ff). However, there is no mention of where in Petra these activities took place. With the discovery of the theatron in the Great Temple, it has been suggested that perhaps this was the location of the bouleuterion and/or court (Joukowsky 1998:128, 138139).40 In fact, it is possible that the Great Temple, Phase II, held a dual function as both an odeion and a bouleutereion (Schluntz 1998a:220-222, 1999:131-134). Another development in Phase II, was the transformation of the early gravel road into a paved, shop-lined Colonnaded Street Other possible functions for the Great Temple, Phase II, include: theater-temple, comitium or curia (roman meeting place), law court, council chamber, meeting hall (Joukowsky 1998:125). 40

36

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

running east-west through the City Center.41 Although the new pavement of limestone flagstones is only preserved for 240 m (between the Nymphaeum and the Temenos Gate), it is probable that the entire length between the entrance to the Siq and the sacred Temenos Area was paved (Segal 1997:44), a distance of more than three kilometers. The addition of covered sidewalks on both sides of the street in the City Center narrowed the original street from 18 meters down to a functional 6 meters in width (Fig. 5).42 The facilities provided at the eastern end of the Colonnaded Street, north of the “Upper Market”, appear to be aimed at the needs of travelers entering the city from the east (Kanellopoulos 1999). An ornamental fountain, or nymphaeum—a basic feature in all Graeco-Roman cities of the period—43was the first thing encountered as one entered the City Center. It was installed on the north side of the street marking the junction of the Wadi al-Mataha with the Wadi Musa just east of the “Upper Market” (Browning 1973:135-136, Fig. 81; McKenzie 1990:132). Further on, at the base of the “Upper Market” staircase, a resting place or inn, and a possible money-changing business or “treasury” were the first of several small businesses that lined the south side of the street (Fiema 1998:419; Kanellopoulos 1999). The grand staircase to the “Upper Market” is dated to the same construction phase as the paved street, based on the discovery of irregular blocks of the paving limestone in its foundations (Fiema 1998:402, 420). This implies that the so-called 41 Although McKenzie (1991:35-36) reinterprets the stratigraphy in Parr’s Trench III, and determines that the Colonnaded Street could date as early as 9 BCE, recent archaeological excavations along the Colonnade Street support Parr’s original date of post-76 CE (Parr 1970:366, 370). 42 Ball notes that the walls flanking the street were “too narrow and too flimsy to have reach either the height or the strength to support a roof at entablature height.” He argues that it was the street itself, and not the sidewalk, that was covered, giving the appearance of the covered markets (suqs) of eastern tradition (Ball 2000:271). 43 The Greek nymphaeum was originally a basin constructed along a stream with shade trees and a nearby altar for offerings to the water nymphs; ornamental version with elaborate architecture and statuary were installed in urban settings (e.g., Segal 1997:151-167; Hyams 1971:42; Ball 2000:291).

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PETRA

37

“Upper Market”, a large open area quarried out of the sandstone slopes, was not in existence until the second phase of urbanization, and it is likely that the stone quarried from this site was used for the new building projects,44 possibly including the conversion of the Great Temple into an odeion. At the base of the stairs, are the remains of a monumental arch with an inscription honoring the Emperor Trajan (Kirkbride 1960:20; Tracy 1999). This inscription, which has been dated to 114 CE, provides a terminus ante quem for the street, sidewalk, staircase and arch (constructed in that order). Also belonging to this building phase is the Temenos Gate at the western end of the Colonnaded Street (Fig. 5), marking the entrance into the sacred Temenos Area (Browning 1973:141-147; McKenzie 1990:36, 50, 132-134).45 The gate clearly post-dates the street due to the fact that its foundations cut into the limestone pavement (Parr 1960:131-132). The free-standing columns on the eastern façade provide additional information that helps to date this monument to the post-annexation Roman period (Browning 1973:144f). The transformation of Petra around the beginning of the 2nd century is characteristic of the phenomenon of urban development in the Roman eastern provinces. Contemporary cities such as Philadelphia, Gerasa, Bostra, and Philippopolis, all have colonnaded shop-lined streets, or cardos, similar to the Colonnaded Street at Petra. The tendency of Roman planning was to establish links between buildings by means of colonnades, flights of steps, and an axially organized approach (MacDonald 1986; Lyttleton 1987:47). Thus, the Colonnaded Street along the south bank of Wadi Musa (which was traversed by several bridges by this period), defined the east-west axis of the city linking all of the major monuments in the City Center. The dating for Phase II of the urban development of Petra is still inconclusive, and it may, in fact, have consisted of a series of sub-phases over a period of several decades in the late 1st through The altering of natural contours, filling valleys and cutting back hills were common practices in Roman building methods especially from Flavian times onward (Hadidi 1992). 45 The Temenos Gate was constructed on the ruins of an earlier structure, an apparent predecessor oriented on the same lines (Parr 1960; Browning 1973:143). 44

38

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

early 2nd century CE. However, some would argue that the Phase II building program was initiated upon, and the direct result of, the annexation of the Nabataean kingdom into the Roman Empire. Whether it began before the annexation (i.e., during the reign of the last Nabataean king, Rabb’el II), or after, the major renovations and construction within Petra that occurred at this time may be seen as a manifestation of the transition of Petra from its role as the political and cultural center of the Nabataean kingdom into a commercial and administrative center of the Eastern Roman Empire. According to the historical record, Petra continued to flourish under Roman rule. Its role as the historic capital of Nabataea ensured its inclusion in the lavish embellishment that took place in the great cities of the Roman East during the 2nd century CE. In 114 CE, five years after annexation into the Roman Empire, Petra received the honorific title of metropolis, which was later elevated to the status of colonia (Bowersock 1983:84-85, 121). As stated above, the “Babatha Letters” describe the regular visits of the governor, Julius Julianus, for administrative duties during the reign of Hadrian. Roman notables of the time resided in Petra. The noted philosophers and rhetoricians Callinicus and Genethlius ensured the “continued intellectual and cultural vitality” in the city (Graf 1992:254), and the governor, L. Aninius Sextius Florentinus, successor to Julius Julianus, apparently died while he was in office and was buried there.46 It seems clear from the nature of the building programs in this period, in conjunction with the historical record, that Petra retained its stature during the Roman period. In fact, evidence shows that Petra’s prosperity continued well into the Late Roman Period (e.g., Parr 1957:15; 1960:135; Hammond 1978:100; Graf 1992), despite and earthquake in 363 CE that caused major destruction (Hammond 1980; Russell 1980; 1985:42; Amiran et al. 1994:265).

46 The Tomb of Sextius Florentinus, which is dated to ca. 129 CE, is located east of the City Center, on the western face of Jebel al-Khubtha. It has a Latin inscription on the lower entablature dedicating the tomb to Sextius Florentinus by his son (Browning 1973:223-224; McKenzie 1990:33, 47, 165).

CHAPTER III

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”: SURVEY AND EXCAVATION

THE ‘MARKETPLACES’ OF PETRA Despite decades of excavation in and around Petra, our understanding of this ancient city is incomplete largely because significant pieces of the puzzle have not been investigated. One of these is a large open area, the so-called “Lower Market”, located in the center of the city, south of and overlooking the Colonnaded Street, amidst the temples and other civic structures that make up the city’s core. Its central location, monumental scale and laborintensive construction suggest that this area was part of the ceremonial, economic and political center of the city, and therefore must have been of some importance. In the early part of this century, the area in question was labeled the Unterer Markt, or “Lower Market”, the westernmost section of a large complex (approximately 210 x 85 meters) overlooking the Colonnaded Street and divided into three distinct and relatively equal parts—“Upper Market”, “Middle Market”, and “Lower Market” (Bachmann et al. 1921:37-41). Since no excavations were conducted at the time, however, this identification was based primarily on the most prominent shared characteristic of these sites—that they were large, open, unbuilt areas—and the expectation that a major entrepôt such as Petra would have had a large, centralized marketplace (ibid.:37). Despite its importance as a hub of the caravan trade during the Hellenistic 39

40

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

and Roman periods, little is known about the organization of Petra’s economy—its trade and commerce (Hammond 1973:66f; D.J. Johnson 1987). Arguably, the identification and systematic study of a marketplace in Petra would provide valuable information about economic activities within the city. The identification of the site as a marketplace was generally accepted due to Petra’s identity as an important entrepôt. However, due to the lack of incentive for archaeologists to excavate in large open areas, as well as the lack of an alternative explanation for the function of these areas without even limited investigations, the “marketplaces” of Petra became a form of an archaeological “no man’s land” in the middle of the site. In most archaeological reports, any mention of the “Upper Market”, “Middle Market”, or “Lower Market” is made merely to define the relationship between various features within Petra. Only Browning openly questioned the identification of the area as a marketplace: It has been assumed that these notable and obviously important sites were markets, but future excavations may reveal that one was a Forum and another possibly a Palaestra or other fine adjunct to a classical city. The list of buildings possible to find in such a place is lengthy, for cities of the importance of Petra were as conscious of civic amenities as we are today. (Browning 1973:138).47

He continues, however, by stating that “for the time being, … it is convenient to regard these spaces as markets in view of the importance of trade to the Nabataean way of life” (ibid.:138).

GOALS AND METHODOLOGY During a two-month field season in the summer of 1998,48 a survey and excavation was conducted in the “Lower Market”. The primary goal of the Petra Lower Market Survey, was to investigate the area of the site traditionally designated as the “Lower Market” in order to determine its function, historical development, and its 47 This passage was inexplicably omitted from later editions of Browning’s book without an alternative interpretation. 48 Reports for the 1998 season of the Petra Lower Market Survey are published in Bedal 1998b, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, and 2001.

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

41

relationship to the other monuments in the City Center. Due to its central location within the City Center, such a study would contribute directly to several of the on-going archaeological projects at the site, two of which are immediately adjacent to the “Lower Market”—namely the precinct of the Great Temple to the west (Joukowsky 1998), and the domestic structures on ez-Zantur, the hill overlooking the “Lower Market” (Stucky 1996a, 1997). The major questions being asked by the Petra Lower Market Survey were directed toward a better understanding of the structure and organization of Petra during its Classical Nabataean (1st century BCE -1st century CE) and Roman periods (2nd – 4th centuries CE) in order to gain a better understanding of the ancient city and its inhabitants.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND TOPOGRAPHY Work in the “Lower Market” began by creating an accurate map of the topography of the site, using the same SiteMap surveying system as is used by the Great Temple project in order to maintain consistency in the recording of the two adjoining areas (Zimmerman 2000). Relevant surface features and architectural components revealed through subsequent excavations were surveyed in and added to the overall site plan (Fig. 6). The “Lower Market” is a large open area, measuring roughly 5,525 meters square (65 meters east-west x 85 meters north-south), at the heart of Petra’s City Center (Plate I and IIa). The creation of the “Lower Market” must have required enormous effort. First, a large shelf (65 x 32 meters) was carved into the rocky slope east of the Great Temple, leaving vertical escarpments 16 meters high on the south and east (up to 33,280 cubic meters of stone were removed). The slope to the north of the shelf was leveled by creating a large earthen terrace (65 x 53 meters) supported on its north face by a double retaining wall (i.e., the Portico Wall and Retaining Wall) (Pl. III). The earthen terrace rises more than 6 meters above the Colonnaded Street, and is level with the “Lower Temenos” of the Great Temple complex which is constructed of a series of supporting walls and arches (Joukowsky 1998:87; Basile 1998:196). The earthen terrace is devoid of visible architectural features, with the exception of a short stretch of a low wall at its center. A monumental wall runs east-west along the juncture between the quarried rock shelf and the earthen terrace to the

42

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

north, bisecting the site. To the south of the East-West Wall a deep layer of earth had accumulated above the bedrock shelf forming a plateau 2.5 meters above the level of the earthen terrace. At the

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

43

center of the southern plateau, the ruins of a rectangular structure are clearly visible at the surface (Pls. Iia and XII).

SURFACE SURVEY The project’s original research design proposed a surface collection to determine the differential distribution of artifacts that may be related to the functional and spatial organization of the “Lower Market”. The surface collection would then be followed by several random, stratified sub-surface probes (measuring 2 x 2 meters), in order to determine the reliability of the surface collection, the relationship between the surface and sub-surface deposit, the depth of the deposit, and the general stratigraphy of the area. With any remaining time and resources, a couple of trenches would then be opened in order to expose architectural elements visible on the surface. The surface collection was completed within the first few days of the season. To maximize the breadth and speed of coverage, a series of 42 grid points were laid out at 12 meter intervals over the entire area of the “Lower Market”, and each grid point formed the center of a circular collection unit of 1002 meters, measured by means of the “dog-leash” method (radius 5.64 meters) (Fig. 7). Units 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 were not included in the surface collection due to the fact that this section of the “Lower Market” was occupied by the Great Temple project’s tool yard and tea tent for four seasons, causing a disturbance of the surface that would have given unreliable results. Units 36 and 42 were omitted due to their difficult terrain along the eastern escarpment. Therefore, a total of 36 circular units of 1002 meters each were included in the surface collection providing an overall sampling of total area coverage of 65 percent. All material finds (i.e., pottery, non-local and worked stone, bronze coins, shell and glass fragments) visible on the surface within the bounds of each unit were collected, processed and labeled according to their collection unit. As previously stated, the original purpose of a surface collection was to determine the differential distribution of artifacts which may be related to the functional and spatial organization of the site. However, it quickly became clear that the conditions of this site would not allow for reliable results regarding the spatial distribution of surface artifacts. Located at the base of a vertical escarpment, the entire area was covered with the run-off of earth

44

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

and debris from the slopes above. In addition, agricultural activities during the intervening centuries meant that the topsoil was greatly disturbed. There was also evidence for the extensive re-use of architectural elements to create field boundaries and water barriers.

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

45

Due to these conditions, a random, stratified sub-surface probe strategy was determined to be an ineffective and inefficient use of time and limited resources. The goals of the project would best be served by opening a few strategically placed trenches in order to explore the known architectural elements on the site—namely the East-West Wall which bisects the area and the free-standing structure on the southern plateau.

THE RESULTS OF THE 1998 EXCAVATIONS THE EARTHEN TERRACE As stated above, the northern half of the “Lower Market” is an earthen terrace (65 x 53 meters) elevated 6 meters above the level of the Colonnaded Street. It is a large, flat, open expanse deplete of any evidence for substantial architectural features on the surface. The most prominent feature on the earthen terrace is a raised field that occupies its southeast quadrant (Pl. IIa), an artifact of postClassical agricultural activity that continued well into this century.49 A variety of architectural elements – capitals, column drums, fragments of decorative moulding – originating from nearby monuments, were reused to form the northern and western borders of the raised field (Pl. V). The only architectural feature visible on the surface of the earthen terrace was a row of nicely hewn ashlar blocks running north-south near the center of the terrace (Pl. IVa). The feature was partially obscured by the northeastern corner of the raised field and aligned with the field’s western border of reused architectural elements (Pl. V). Because of this association, and their alignment just east of the central axis of the “Lower Market”, it was hypothesized that this might be the remains of an early colonnade, the ruins of which were later used to define the edge of the raised field.50 In order to test this hypothesis, a small probe (Trench 2)

49 Several local Bedouin described the use of this area for growing crops up until the mid-20th century. 50 In describing this feature, Bachmann proposed a relationship between the stone feature, believed to be a floor or pavement, and the nearby scatter of column debris (Bachmann et al. 1921:40).

46

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

was opened to determine the nature of the stone feature and its relationship to the field boundary. Limited exposure in Trench 2, revealed a single course of a wall (3.79 x 1.18 meters) standing 0.36 meters above a cobbled surface that runs up along its western face (Pl. IVb). The east half of the wall is composed of ashlars of uniform height aligned to form an even eastern face; the west half is composed of stones of varying heights and unevenly aligned. The southern edge of the cobbled surface is aligned with the southern face of the low wall. The wall’s well-executed masonry is consistent with that of Nabataean workmanship (e.g., Hammond 1973:75ff) although it is impossible to assign an absolute date at this time. The earth fill above the cobbled surface was relatively clean, containing only a few undiagnostic sherds of pottery and glass. Further exposure of this area is anticipated in future seasons.51 In order to determine the relationship between the architectural features in Trench 2 and the western boundary of the raised field, the entire length of the border (15.3 meters), was cleared of loose earth and rubble and the in situ stones were traced and articulated. The border consists of a single course of roughly hewn sandstone blocks and several reused column drums (0.460.60 meter diameter) and other architectural fragments resting directly on soil. The southern end of the border was uncovered in Trench 3 where a line of column drums and ashlar fragments was found running north-south from the East-West Wall, over the top of a buttress wall, and down to the level of the earthen terrace (Pls. XIXa and B). It appears that the wall in Trench 2 was used as a cornerstone for the construction of the raised field’s borders. There was no evidence for a colonnade or other monumental structure built along the north-south axis of the earthen terrace.

THE SOUTHERN PLATEAU Excavations focused mainly on the southern half of the “Lower Market” where substantial architectural features were visible on the surface. The East-West Wall bisects the site and acts as a retaining The extent of Trench 2 was restricted to a small area (1.60 x 3.80 m) due to its close proximity to the excavation project’s tent and tool yard that occupied much of the western half of the earthen terrace. 51

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

47

wall for the southern plateau which is bounded to the south and east by a vertical rock escarpment 16 meters high, and on the west by the Great Temple (Plate I, Fig. 6, Figs. 3.5, 3.6). At the center of the southern plateau, the ruins of a rectangular stone structure (11.5 x 14 meters) are clearly visible on the surface (Pl. XII). The outline of this structure is included on the earliest plans of the City Center and virtually every reproduction thereafter (e.g., Bachmann et al. 1921:abb.1; Browning 1973:Map 4; Parr et al. 1975:fig.1;

48

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

McKenzie 1990:Maps 6-8). In Browning’s reconstruction of the “Lower Market”, this building is depicted as a solitary rectangular structure with a gabled roof in the style of a Graeco-Roman temple or shrine (Browning 1983: fig. 83). During the 1998 season, three trenches were opened on the southern plateau in order to investigate the known architectural features (Fig. 8). Trench 1 (measuring 7 x 11.25 meters) exposed the northwest quadrant of the central structure and the area immediately to its north, up to the East-West Wall. Trench 3 (measuring 5.8 x 5.7 meters) exposed the middle section of the East-West Wall where it was anticipated that the remains of a central staircase or access ramp would be found. Trench 4 (measuring 3.75 x 3 meters) was opened late in the season in order to attempt to locate the eastern end of the East-West Wall and to help clarify the interpretation of this monumental feature. East-West Wall The East-West Wall was omitted from all maps of Petra’s City Center (e.g., Bachmann et al. 1921:abb.1; Browning 1973:Map 4; Parr et al. 1975:fig.1; McKenzie 1990:Maps 6-8) as well as Browning’s reconstruction of the “Lower Market” (1983: fig. 83), despite the fact that it is clearly visible on the ground and from the air prior to excavations. The omission may be explained by the fact that the Bedoul (the local Bedouin tribe and long-time inhabitants of Petra) identified the wall as “Bedouin” and described its use in the irrigation of their fields. It is likely that the early mapmakers were satisfied that the prominent East-West Wall post-dated Petra’s Classical periods and thus omitted it from their site plans. During the 1998 season, a major clearing effort was conducted along the west half of the East-West Wall which was obscured by rubble and earth (Pl. VIa). By following the architecture from east to west and carefully articulating the stones, it became possible to distinguish several walls of different construction and time periods—Nabataean-Roman, Byzantine, and post-Classical (Medieval and/or modern) (Pl. VIIb). The postClassical wall was a haphazard construction of stones piled along the western and northern borders of the southern plateau, partially overlapping the earlier walls. It appears to have been built as a barrier to direct the water runoff from the southern slope (ezZantur) down to the field in the southeast quadrant of the earthen

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

49

terrace. A 12th century cooking pot (Fig. 24; Pl. XXVIb) found nestled in a hole in the wall, indicates that the wall may have been constructed as early as Petra’s Medieval period (cf Vannini and Desideri 1995: 530, fig.16; Vannini and Tonghini 1997: 379f, fig. 16). The “Lower Market” was apparently cultivated by the Crusader and/or Bedouin inhabitants of the 12th century, an activity that persisted into the modern era with the continued use of the wall and field by the local Bedouin. After articulating and recording the post-Classical Wall, it was partially removed to expose the monumental structure behind and underneath it. The East-West Wall, which has been traced up to 46 meters across the width of the “Lower Market”, is 3.50 meters wide and preserved to a height of 2.20 meters or six courses. The north face—much of which has been robbed out—is constructed of hewn ashlars (average 0.60 x 0.35 x 0.30 meters) (Pl. VIb), typical of Nabataean masonry (e.g., Hammond 1973:75ff). Behind this is a solid construction composed of alternating rows of sandstone blocks and rubble bonded with an impervious white mortar (Pl. VIIa). Several channels built into the top of the wall are part of an elaborate hydraulic system that is described in detail below. The north face of the East-West Wall terminates 3.20 meters east of the Great Temple complex, leaving a wide doorway framed on its east side by a recessed doorjamb (the terminus for the EastWest Wall), and on the west by an engaged column (the terminus for the East Perimeter Precinct Wall of the Great Temple complex, just east of the Great Temple’s East Exedra) (Pls. VIb and VIII). Unfortunately, the effort to expose the threshold of this doorway and to define the relationship between the construction of the East-West Wall and the Great Temple complex was impeded by the discovery of two additional walls that post-date the major architectural phases of the site. Both of these walls are built at an oblique angle in relation to the major architectural features in this area. One wall runs northwest-southeast across the eastern colonnade of the Great Temple’s “Lower Temenos”, incorporating two of the columns into its construction (Fig. 8). It is founded on the floor level of the eastern colonnade and its southern end is built up against the north face of the East-West Wall, just east of the doorway (Pl. VIIIa), indicating its construction sometime after the construction of the

50

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

East-West Wall. Two pilaster blocks with relief carvings of male and female busts—probably originating from the Great Temple’s façade—were found within the wall’s structure suggesting its construction in the Byzantine period.52 A thick stratum of lime above the floor of the East Exedra runs up to the south face of this wall (Pl. VIIIb). The lime stratum contains pottery ranging from the Nabataean through the Byzantine period, and has been interpreted as evidence for the operation of a lime kiln in the vicinity during the Byzantine period.53 A second, later wall runs southwest-northeast from the north face of the East Perimeter Precinct Wall of the Great Temple complex. It is constructed of a single row of roughly hewn sandstone blocks preserved three courses high. Based on its position approximately 1.5 meters above the level of the “Lower Temenos”, the construction of this wall clearly post-dates the Nabataean and Byzantine features, although its chronological relationship to the post-Classical wall is as yet undetermined. Running the length of the East-West Wall, 0.50 meters above its base and topped by a stringcourse of limestone moulding, is a ceramic pipeline made up of interlocking segments (0.30 meters long and 0.07 meters in diameter). Although most of the pipe is badly broken or missing, much of it is held in place with mortar and stone chinking (Pl. IX, also see Pl. VIb). It appears that the ceramic pipe in the East-West Wall connects with a lead pipe and gutter that run along the base of the East-West Retaining Wall of the Great Temple complex (Basile 1998:203, fig. 5.23), part of the drainage system for the “Lower Temenos” (Joukowsky 1997; Payne 1998). Pool The greatest revelation as to the function of the East-West Wall and the interpretation of the site as a whole came when the northern half of Trench 1 was excavated to establish the Personal communication with M. S. Joukowsky and J. J. Basile. Basile favors an even earlier date, Late Roman, date for the wall based on the presence of 3rd century pottery in the associated stratigraphy. 53 Personal communication with M. S. Joukowsky and J. J. Basile. It is possible that the hypothetical lime kiln will be found in the space behind the doorway found in the East-West Wall. 52

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

51

relationship between the building at the center of the southern plateau and the East-West Wall. Between the two features it was discovered that the two structures were separated by a body of water 2.5 meters deep, its walls and floor lined with a continuous coat of thick (10 centimeters) pinkish-white concrete mixed with small pebbles and grit (Fig. 13; Pls. Xa, Xxa, XXXIV and XXXVI). It became clear that the construction of the East-West Wall across the site transformed the quarried-out space to the south into a large reservoir or pool. Interestingly, the identification of a collective pool or reservoir in this area was made earlier this century by the German expedition: In nachantiker Zeit hat man nördlich von der Front dieses Bauwerks eine dicke Quermauer über den ganzen Platz gezogen und den dadurch im Süden abgesperrten Raum in einen Sammelteich (arab. Birket) verwandelt. Diese Mauer ist mit dem besonders harten, undurlässigen hydraulischen Kalkmörtel von schneeweißer Farbe hergstellt, mit dem auch die späte Zisterne auf der Felshöhe südöstlich der Anlage erbaut ist (Bachmann et al. 1921:41).

However, as described previously, the general belief that the East-West Wall post-dated the Nabataean and Roman occupation of Petra caused the Germans to omit this feature from their plans of the site and, thus, the significance of a pool or reservoir in the “Lower Market” continued to be unrecognized. The monumental scale of this pool was realized when its northwest corner was found 22 meters to the west of the central north-south axis, underneath the bend in the post-Classical Wall. A narrow wall (1.50 meters wide), which is of the same solid construction as the East-West Wall, runs north-south—parallel to and approximately 6.5 meters east of the East Perimeter Precinct Wall of the Great Temple complex—and bonds with the EastWest Wall, forming a 90o angle (Fig. 8). A small probe revealed that the interior corner of these two walls is lined with the same thick coat of pinkish-white concrete as is found in Trench 1 (Pl. Xb). Presuming a symmetrical arrangement, Trench 4 was opened 21 meters to the east of the central north-south axis (43 meters from the northwest corner) in the hopes of locating the corresponding northeast corner. Less than one-half meter below the surface, we came down on the sought-for corner which, like

52

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

the northwest corner, was lined with hydraulic concrete (Pl. XI). In addition, a stone staircase is built into the northeast corner to allow entrance into the water. Four rectangular pavers (ca. 86 x 35 cms)

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

53

along the eastern edge of the pool (Trench 4) are the only evidence for a nicely paved surface around the pool’s perimeter. Porticoed promenades are commonly associated with ornamental pools (see Ch. IV). None of the pavers that presumably capped the East-West Wall, however, were found in situ; they were most likely removed in late antiquity when the water channels underneath them were cleaned out and reused for agricultural purposes. Considering the known length of the pool—43 meters eastwest between the northwestern and northeastern corners—the limited space available within the confines of the quarried-out area, the dimensions of the central island-pavilion (described below), and the presumption of a symmetrical plan, it is possible to estimate the width of the pool to be approximately 23 meters (north-south) (Pl.

54

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

XXXIII). With a uniform depth of 2.5 meters, it is estimated that the pool had a carrying capacity of over 2056 cubic meters of water. Island-Pavilion The identification of the body of water as a pool implies an ornamental or recreational function as opposed to the purely practical function of a reservoir. This identification is based, in part, on the presence of the pavilion that is built as an island at the center of the pool. The overall dimensions of the island-pavilion (11.5 x 14.5 meters) can be determined due to the fact that the top preserved courses of its walls are clearly visible on the surface (Pls. Iib and XII). Excavations in Trench 1, which exposed the northwest quarter of the pavilion (Fig. 9), revealed important information about its structure as well as its decorative elements which are reflected in a cut-away reconstruction by Kanellopoulos (Fig. 10). The island-pavilion is perched on a pedestal—a solid foundation of tightly packed sandstone bonded with a white impervious mortar—2.5 meters high. A great effort was made to prevent water from seeping into the structure through its submerged foundation. The exterior surface of the foundation is lined with a thick coat of concrete, the same concrete that lines the interior floor of the pavilion is a thin layer (3-4 centimeters) of white lime plaster covered with a layer (5 centimeters) of waterresistant gray mortar made from a mixture of lime and ash. At some point, the interior floor was covered with rectangular pavers (measuring approximately 16 x 28 centimeters) which were robbed out in antiquity, leaving their impressions in the underlying limeash mortar (Pl. XIV and XVa). An interior water channel or drain cuts diagonally across the interior (Fig. 9; Pl. XIV and XVa) and may be associated with an as yet undiscovered installation (fountain? libation basin?) located at the rear of the building. Another possible explanation for the drain is that the interior space was open to the air and, therefore, required drainage for rainwater that entered the building from above. The drain extends across the northern threshold to connect with a channel that encircles the exterior perimeter of the pavilion (Pl. XIII, XIV, and XVb), just above the pool’s maximum water level. It is likely that this exterior channel was originally capped and functioned as an overflow

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

55

channel between the pavilion and the pool as represented in the reconstruction in Figure 10. The pavilion is rectangular in plan and open on at least three sides. The front (northern) doorway measures 4.6 meters across occupying almost half of the façade’s width; the two lateral doorways are each approximately three meters wide. All three doorways have recessed frames with double fasciae (Pl. XIIIa), a feature found on many of the Assyrian-type tomb façades in Petra and Meda’in Saleh (McKenzie 1990:pls. 6d, and 7a-d). Although the reconstruction shows straight lintels based on the doorways on the Assyrian-type tombs, the possibility that the doorways were arched cannot be ruled out.54 It is possible that there was a fourth doorway located in the rear (southern) wall since only stones from either end of that wall (at the southeastern and southwestern corners of the pavilion) can be distinguished on the surface. There is no evidence for the installation of doors—i.e., pivot holes or cuttings—in any of the doorways. The walls of the pavilion are preserved three courses (1.09 meters) above floor level in the north (Pl. XIII, and XVb) and up to five courses in the south (ca. 2.20 m; only the top coarse is visible at the surface, see Pl. XIIIb). They are constructed of two rows of sandstone blocks bonded with the same impervious mortar as was used in the construction of the foundation and the EastWest Wall. Although it is likely that both the exterior and interior surfaces of the walls were plastered, only a small patch of white lime plaster was preserved in situ on the interior of the northwest corner (Pl. XVa). Several fragments of painted stucco – dark red, orange, and bright blue – and fragments of stucco moulding with dentils (Fig. 11 and Pl. XVI), were found in the fill and give some indication of the décor and color scheme inside the pavilion. Dentillation is a common decorative element for cornices and mouldings on Nabataean monuments (McKenzie 1990:17-18, 3950, 93-94, 120-122, Pl. 23a-c, 73, 74a-c).

54 Bachmann et. al. describe the front doorway as arched, überwölbte (1921:41) although no evidence was found to substantiate this claim during the 1998 excavation season. According to Kanellopoulos, however, the 4.6 meter wide doorway is an ideal width for the construction of an arch.

56

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Although the pavilion walls are thick enough to support a roof, there was no evidence for roofing material found in Trench 1.55 The lack of vertical elements of a classical order on the façade (corner pilasters, for example) indicates the absence of classical horizontal elements as well (eg., entablature, pediment), ruling out the possibility of a gabled roof as reconstructed by Browning (1973:fig. 83).56 A single sandstone pedestal (preserved 1.14 meters 55 Bachmann et. al. that this building originally carried a vaulted ceiling (1921:41), but no vault stones—building blocks with a single curved face—were discovered in or around the building during the 1998 excavation season. 56 Personal communication with C. Kanellopoulos.

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

57

in height) stands in the interior of the pavilion, 1 meters from the western lateral doorway (Pl. XIV and XVa). The lower half of the pedestal was found in situ and the upper half was found in the nearby fill. This pedestal is most likely one of four column pedestals arranged symmetrically around the pavilion’s interior, dividing the interior length into three parts. The reconstruction provided in Figure 10 includes a flat earthen roof supported by wooden beams held up by four columns. A flat earthen roof design would be the most environmentally and ecologically appropriate choice for Petra. The flat earthen roof—with its use of thinner logs and branches and reeds—requires only limited destruction of vegetation in this arid environment where the scarcity of trees discouraged elaborate woodwork and roof tiles which are baked in wood-burning kilns.57 In support of an earthen roof reconstruction for the island-pavilion was the discovery of a fragment of white plaster, found in the pavilion’s interior fill, that still preserves an impression of thin sticks or reeds preserved along its length. The four-columned plan allows for a possible opening at the center of the roof. Only one other structure is known in Petra with a similar four-columned plan. It is located south of the Temenos Gate, next to the so-called “Baths” . Unfortunately, little is known of this structure, except that it appears to be stratigraphically earlier than the Temenos Gate, i.e., pre-annexation (McKenzie 1990:37, pl.75). The base of the pedestal measures one meter square and is faced with panels of light gray marble. Above the base, the pedestal measures ca. 50 centimeters square, and has several large, deep holes (3-4 centimeters dia.; 7-8 centimeters deep) drilled into its vertical surfaces, some with fragments of iron imbedded into them (Pl. XVII). It appears that these were attachment holes for iron 57 For examples of flat earthen roofs built over a span of more than 2.70 meters see the portico against the three sides of the Qasr el-Bint (McKenzie 1990:pl.71), and the upper story of the atrium colonnade in the Byzantine church (The Petra Church Project, monograph in preparation by the American Center for oriental Research). The flat earthen roof is widely used in traditional and modern houses throughout much of the Middle East and the Mediterranean region where deforestation has played an influential role in determining architectural design (e.g., Fall 1990). My gratitude to C. Kanellopoulos for his advice and efforts in reconstructing the pavilion.

58

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

nails or pegs used to anchor plaster to the vertical walls of the pedestal, preventing the plaster from slumping. This was a innovative technique developed by the Nabataeans (Hammond 1965), and utilized in other Petra monuments such as the Qasr elBint (Zayadine 1982:374) and the Great Temple (Schluntz 1998a:213). Remnants of plaster are preserved around the pedestal’s base and on its northern face (Pl. XVIIa). It is possible that the plastered surface was originally painted or, alternatively, that marble panels were adhered to the face of the pedestal, as depicted in the reconstruction in Figure 10. Such pedestals were typically topped by a circular column of wood or stone. Large fragments of colored marble, some with a rounded exterior surface, were found scattered on the surface around the pavilion. In addition, two badly weathered column drums (ca. 45 centimeters diameter) were found in the fill just west of the pavilion. Two limestone (marble) volutes (Pl. XVIIIa) found in the fill around the column pedestal may be from a Corinthian capital that topped the column. Also found near the pedestal was a five-petaled limestone (marble) flower in high relief (Fig. 12 and Pl. XVIIIb). The manner in which the piece is broken on two contiguous sides indicates that the flower may have formed the corner of a larger sculpted work. A cement encrustation covering the back of the flower suggests that it was attached to something else at some point. Numerous fragments of worked limestone and marble (capitals, tiles, inlay, moulding), and fragments of other colored stone of non-local origin were found in the vicinity, testifying to the elaborate adornment of the building. Two piers were constructed inside the pool, one built up against the north face of the island (Pl. XIIIa, XIXa), and the other directly opposite it against the south face of the East-West Wall (Pl. XIXb). They each stand 2.5 meters high, six meters long, and approximately 1 meter wide. Remnants of vault springers along their opposing faces, two meters above the floor of the pool, indicate that they once supported a vaulted bridge that spanned the 4.3 meters between the East-West Wall and the island-pavilion allowing easy access to the island-pavilion through its front (northern) entrance (Pl. XXb). A set of three small postholes are chiseled into the top of the East-West Wall, near the east end of the northern bridge pier (Pl. XXa), and may have supported a wooden feature (eg., railing, gate, post) associated with the bridge.

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

59

Another posthole is located near the western end of the pier. It is also possible that these postholes are associated with the hydraulic system (see below). The bridge appears to be a later addition to the original pool design because the piers are not bonded to either the island or the East-West Wall but built up against them with the pool’s concrete lining between them (Pls. Xa, XIIIa, XIX). In addition, a crumbly gray lime-ash mortar is used in the construction of the bridge piers. This is the same gray mortar found underlying the floor pavers inside the pavilion which is different from the hard white mortar that is used in the walls of the pool and pavilion and the pinkish-white concrete lining of the pool, suggesting a different construction phase (see below). The schematic plan in Plate XXXIII includes a hypothetical second bridge south of the pavilion. Hydraulic System A recurrent theme throughout the 1998 season of excavations in the “Lower Market” was water. Water was transported around the

60

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

northeastern and northwestern corners of the pool in channels and pipelines, part of an elaborate water distribution system incorporated into the construction of the East-West Wall, which functioned as an aqueduct in addition to its role as a retaining wall for the pool. The aqueduct was apparently fed from the east by a V-shaped water tank perched on top of the eastern escarpment (Pl. XXI). The interior walls and floor of the tank are lined with the same pinkish-white pebbled concrete as that which lines the pool’s interior. Although the source of water that entered the pool from the west is as yet unidentified, it is known that runoff from the ezZantur ridge was diverted into a canalization system underneath the Great Temple (Joukowsky 1997; Payne 1998). One of the underground channels, Channel F, runs southeast-northwest under the eastern edge of the temple’s forecourt (Payne 1998:174; Tullis and Worthington 1998:fig.4.11).58 The angle and location of Channel F indicates that it was probably fed by the same water source as the western channel in the East-West Wall. This source would be located somewhere on ez-Zantur overlooking the border between the Great Temple and the pool. Several channels and conduits transported water across the top of the East-West Wall (Pls. XXII and XXXIII). Positioned along the channels are shallow basins (10-15 centimeters deep and 50 centimeters in diameter)—one at each corner and one 4 meters east of the holding tank (Pl. XXXIII)—that acted as filters for sand and silt as the water passed through. These basins would have required regular maintenance in order to keep the hydraulic system functioning properly. In addition to the narrow channels described above, the east half of the East-West Wall had a large conduit in which two parallel ceramic pipelines were installed. Although no pipes were found in situ, their rounded impressions were preserved in the concrete lining inside the conduit (Pl. XI and XXIIb). Presumably they were ceramic pipes like the ones installed along the north. 58 In plan of the Great Temple’s canalization system (Payne 1998:fig.4.2), Channel F is incorrectly drawn running northeast-southwest instead of southeast-northwest. For an accurate depiction, see fig.4.11 in the same volume in the article by Tullis and Worthington.

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

61

Excavations in Trench 3 exposed the middle section of the East-West Wall (Figs. 13-14). All of the water conduits in the EastWest Wall—the east and west channels and the double pipeline— converged at this point and emptied into a central holding tank, a castellum divisorium, where water was collected and then redistributed (Pl. XXXIII). It is possible that three holes chiseled into the top of the East-West Wall (Pl. XXa), near the southeast corner of the castellum, may have secured a lever or sluice gate used to control the flow of water into the tank (it is more likely, though, that the holes are associated with the bridge construction, as described above). Originally, an overflow passage (60 centimeters high x 80

62

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

centimeters wide) provided a direct link between the castellum and the pool (Fig. 15b; Pl. XXIIIa). At some point, however, this passage was sealed up with small stones and mortar. Since the northern pier of the bridge would have blocked the southern opening of the overflow passage (see Pl. XVa), it is likely that the passage was sealed up when the bridge was constructed. Underneath the overflow passage, immediately above floor level, is a small lead pipe (4 centimeters diameter) that presumably was used to drain water from the pool into the castellum (Fig. 15b; Pl. XXIIIa). There is evidence for at least two construction phases within the castellum. Originally, the castellum was rectangular in plan (1.3 x 1.7 meters), with a holding capacity of approximately 3.32 cubic meters of water (below the level of the overflow channel). An arch springer preserved in the southern face, just east of the overflow passage, is the only evidence that the castellum was once covered (Fig. 15a and Pl. XXIIa). At some point in time, a low wall (0.90 meter high) was built up against the eastern face, and a small stepped feature was built up against the western face (Fig. 15; Pls. XXII and XXIIIa). It is likely that these alterations, which reduced the holding capacity to approximately 2.5 cubic meters, were made at the same time that the overflow passage was sealed, although their exact purpose is currently a mystery. Water exited the castellum through a hole in the bottom course of the north face of the East-West Wall (Pl. XXIIIa). From here, the water was distributed into various directions across the earthen terrace. Two stone channels, A and B, carried the water northward under a pavement that runs along the base of the East-West Wall (Pl. XXIII); channel B is aligned with the site’s north-south axis, while channel A is angled slightly toward the northwest. Unfortunately, the connection between the castellum and the ceramic pipeline installed along the north face of the East-West Wall was lost when many of the ashlars that made up the wall’s north face were removed. Many stones from the face of the EastWest Wall, as well as those that capped the channels (creating a finished walkway around the pool perimeter) were robbed out in antiquity, probably during the post-Classical period when many of the hydraulic features were reused for agricultural purposes (see below). However, it is reasonable to expect that there was a connection, and that the pipeline which passed across the exterior

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

63

wall of the castellum, received its water from this source and then transported it eastward in the direction of the “Middle Market”, and westward to the Great Temple. Sometime after the original construction of the East-West Wall, a buttress wall was built up against its north face, east of the castellum (Pl. XXIVa). The buttress wall, which is founded on top of the stone pavement, is constructed as a shell with tightly-packed rubble fill behind it—the same technique that is used for the intercolumnar walls of Great Temple, Phase II (Schluntz 1998:216). The northern and western faces of the buttress wall are preserved five courses high (1.54 m). The function of this wall remains a mystery at this point in time. There is no evidence of damage to the East-West Wall along this section requiring repairs or shoring up. Built into the north and west face of the buttress wall, between the second and third courses, is a ceramic pipeline made up of interlocking segments and held in place with mortar and stone chinking. The pipeline continues along the length of the north face of the East-West Wall where it was installed in an inset below a course of limestone moulding (Pls. IX and XXIIIa). The pipe may have tapped into a water source at the castellum, or it may have been installed in order to bypass the castellum. Unfortunately, the nature of the link between the ceramic pipeline and the castellum is unknown due to poor preservation of the north wall of the castellum where a connection would have occured (Pl. XXIIIa). Finally, a stone basin and a section of ceramic pipe appear to be later additions to the original hydraulic system (Pl XXIV). The basin is a reused column drum with one surface hollowed out. It was found resting against the base of the East-West Wall, blocking the exit hole of the castellum. Because of its position above the southern end of the stone channels (A and B) in an area where the original pavers are missing, it can be concluded that the placement of the basin in this location post-dates the robbing out of the pavement and belongs to the post-Classical period of reuse of the hydraulic features. Running southwest-northeast from the basin, across the top of the pavement, is a ceramic pipe preserved in two sections.

64

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

65

66

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

South Portal One last major feature was uncovered during the 1998 season. Near the western end of the southern escarpment, there is a visible break in the line of a retaining wall that crowns the rim of the eastern and southern escarpments (16 meters above the pool) and continues around the southern perimeter of the Great Temple complex. Over the centuries, this opening became the main route through which debris washed down from ez-Zantur to fill the pool and, ultimately, form a large earthen mound in the southwestern corner of the pool (Pl. XXVb). An upright column visible at the surface and an inset in this area of the wall, indicated that the opening was a doorway rather than a collapsed section of the wall, warranting further investigation.59 An investigation of this area of the site was complicated due to the steep incline and the problem of loose earth and debris falling from above. Work was limited to clearing earth from around the features exposed on the surface and a section of the bedrock upon which they were founded. The original column is one of two column bases (each composed of two half cylinders with a stone core) that rest on a stone threshold in a recessed doorway, the South Portal (Pl. XXV). Immediately below the doorway, the bedrock is quarried to form a slope that is distinct from the vertical elevations on either side along the southern escarpment. It is therefore likely that the pavers preserved within the recessed area north of the doorway, are remnants of a broad staircase leading down to the pool from the residential quarters on ez-Zantur (Stucky et al. 1996; Kolb 1997, 1998). Another possibility is that the pavers in front of the South Portal belong to a deep balcony overlooking the pool that provided a panoramic view from ez-Zantur of the pool, gardens, and much of Petra’s City Center.

WX

My thanks to Dakhilallah Qoblan, the foreman for the Great Temple (Brown University) excavations and the “Lower Market” Survey, who brought this feature to my attention. 59

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

67

Based on the findings of the 1998 season, there is no evidence that the area known commonly as the “Lower Market” ever functioned as a marketplace. All of the evidence points to the function of the area as a garden or paradeisos (see Ch. V) with the monumental pool and island pavilion a central focus. In order to avoid further confusion about function, the site will henceforth be referred to as the Pool-Complex.

CHRONOLOGICAL PHASES The stratigraphic sequence uncovered during the 1998 season reveals a minimum of nine chronological phases in the southern half of the Pool-Complex, from the 1st century BCE into the modern era (Fig. 16 and Plate XXXIV). Due to the preliminary nature of the excavation and the problem of debris runoff from the slopes above, absolute dates for the construction, renovation, and use of the Pool-Complex cannot be firmly assigned at this time. However, valuable information from the architecture and material culture associated with each phase, combined with the archaeological record from adjacent excavations, provides sufficient information to identify each phase in relation to a major period in Petra’s history.

PHASE I (NABATAEAN PERIOD): ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE POOL-COMPLEX With the exception of a few walls, a bridge, and some renovations in the island-pavilion and the hydraulic installations, all of the architectural features uncovered during the 1998 excavation season—of the pool, the island-pavilion, the hydraulic installations in the East-West Wall (eastern and western channels, large conduit, and castellum), the pavement north of the East-West Wall, and the stone channels underneath that pavement—appear to belong to a single phase of construction, the first phase of our stratigraphic sequence.60 The low wall and cobbled floor at the center of the

60 Although evidence from the stratigraphic sequence in Parr’s Trench III informs us of early Nabataean occupation of this area of the southern slope of Wadi Musa prior to the construction of the PoolComplex (Phases I-VIII in Parr 1970), no evidence for this early

68

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

earthen terrace (Trench 2, Pl. IV) are currently included with the Phase I building program based on the fact that they are built at the same elevation as the pavement to the south (Trench 3, Pl. XXIIIa and Pl. XXIV), and its masonry is consistent with the rest of the Phase I masonry. Phase

Period

Date

Activity

IX VIII

> Modern era Post-Classical (Medieval) Late Byzantine

> 20th c. CE 12th c. CE

Agricultural Agricultural

551? CE

Further destruction/ collapse and abandonment Reuse of hydraulic System; lime production Continued disuse Destruction Period of disuse/neglect

VII

> 6th c. CE

VI V IV III II I

Late Byzantine Early Byzantine Late RomanEarly Byzantine Early Roman Nabataean

4th-5th c. CE 363 CE 3rd-4th c. CE

early 2nd c. CE Renovations late 1st c. BCE- Original construction early 1st c. CE of the Pool-Complex

Fig. 16: Chronological sequence of the Petra Pool-Complex, 1998 excavation season. Significant to the dating of the Pool-Complex is the stratigraphic sequence from Peter Parr’s excavations along the Colonnaded Street (Parr 1960 and 1970). Parr’s Trench III, a crosssection of the street and the features built up along the northern edge of the earthen terrace (Fig. 17; Pl. IIb), provides a rare example of stratified building phases within the City Center. As described above, the lower strata of Parr’s Trench III contain the remnants of small houses dated to the 3rd through 1st centuries BCE—the oldest domestic structures excavated in Petra (Parr 1970:352ff). 61 Around the end of the 1 st century BCE, the occupation was uncovered during the 1998 season and they are, therefore, not represented in the phasing sequence presented in this report. 61 Although evidence from the stratigraphic sequence in Parr’s Trench III informs us of early Nabataean occupation of this area of the southern slope of Wadi Musa prior to the construction of the Pool-

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

69

residential character of this area of Petra was dramatically altered with the construction of the monumental Portico Wall and Retaining Wall (Parr’s Wall K) which front the Great Temple and Pool-Complex (“Lower Market”). Coins found in a floor and a foundation trench associated with these walls (Loci 33 and 34 in Fig. 17) date to the reign of Aretas IV and thus provide a terminus post quem of 9 BCE for their construction (ibid.:362-364). Because the Portico Wall and the Retaining Wall are integral parts of the Great Temple and Pool-Complex, the date of their construction is significant for dating the original construction of the entire complex. The excavators of the Great Temple date its original construction (Phase I) to the end of the 1st century BCE based on a deposit of pottery found inside the “Upper Temenos” platform (Basile 1998:203),62 and on the stylistic similarities of the Great Temple’s architectural sculpture with those of al-Khazneh Complex (Phases I-VIII in Parr 1970), no evidence for this early occupation was uncovered during the 1998 season and they are, therefore, not represented in the phasing sequence presented in this report. 62 Pottery deposited around the underground canalization of the “upper temenos” was dated by Stephen G. Schmidt to the last quarter of the 1st century BCE (report submitted to M.S. Joukowsky).

70

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

and the “1967 Group of Sculptures” (Schluntz 1999:67-68, 7173).63 The evidence from Parr’s Trench III and the Great Temple excavations indicate that around the end of the 1st century BCE (early in the reign of Aretas IV) the residential quarters on the south slope of Wadi Musa, east of the Qasr el-Bint and Temenos Area, were replaced by a monumental complex comprised of the Great Temple proper (designed as an enclosed peristyle with a tetrastyle-in-antis façade) overlooking a large open plaza (the “Lower Temenos”) and the adjoining Pool-Complex, the site of an ornamental or paradeisos (see Ch. VI). Several factors indicate that the pool was constructed at the same time as the Great Temple and its adjacent earthen/garden terrace, and was neither a pre-existing feature nor a later addition. First of all, one must consider the possibility that the pool predated the monumental building program, serving as a reservoir for the residential quarter on the south slope. It is unlikely, however, that the Nabataeans would have devoted so much effort to the construction of a massive, solidly built, open-air installation—one that far exceeds the requirements of a purely functional urban reservoir—when the rock-cut, enclosed cisterns scattered throughout Petra functioned far more effectively for storing crucial drinking water by preventing contamination and evaporation (e.g., Crouch 1975:172; Eadie and Oleson 1986:61; Oleson 1995:709). The fact that excavations in and around the pool did not recover any material remains predating the late 1st century BCE further supports the argument that the pool does not pre-date the Great Temple, Phase I. Secondly, one must consider the logistical requirements of such a monumental engineering project. The construction of the Great Temple complex was a major undertaking involving the Based on the details of architectural decoration, Phase I of the Great Temple may best be grouped with McKenzie’s Group A, which includes the Qasr el-Bint, al-Khazneh, the “Baths”, the Temple of the Winged Lions, and the “1967 group of sculptures”. McKenzie determines that the terminus ante quem for the construction of the Group A monuments to be the beginning of the 1st century CE (McKenzie 1990:40-41, 51, Table 14). For alternative dates proposed for al-Khazneh, see McKenzie 1990:Table 2. 63

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

71

alteration of the natural topography, the transportation of large quantities of stone and earth, and, finally, the erection of massive platforms and structures. Logistically, it makes most sense that the quarrying activity that produced the rock shelves upon which the Great Temple and the pool were erected, was undertaken as a single operation prior to the commencement of any construction. The quarried stone would have provided an important source of building material for the construction of both the Great Temple and Pool-Complex. Alternatively, a later addition of a pool adjacent to the Great Temple would have necessitated the disposal of most of the 33,280 cubic meters of quarried material by maneuvering it around the pre-existing structures and across a difficult terrain. In addition to the practical and logistical reasons presented above, a study of the masonry and construction style further supports the argument that the pool’s construction coincided with the Great Temple, Phase I. The East-West Wall of the pool is aligned with the retaining wall upon which the Great Temple’s forecourt was constructed (e.g., Joukowsky 1998:figs. 4.1, 5.1 and 5.20). Both of these walls have a core of carefully laid blocks of roughly hewn sandstone faced with nicely hewn ashlars, although the ashlars facing the Great Temple’s retaining wall are significantly larger (ibid.:fig. 2.68). The island-pavilion is built in a similar fashion—a rough core behind an ashlar face. A notable difference between the pool’s construction and that of the Great Temple is the use of impermeable mortar in the Pool-Complex for the purpose of holding water. The pinkish-white concrete that lines the interior of the pool (Pls. X, XI, XXa) and the East Water Tank, is an additional indicator of an early (Nabataean period) date for the PoolComplex. Nabataean hydraulic installations were typically lined with plaster and concrete (e.g., Hammond 1967:39; Crouch 1975:172).64 The archaeological record indicates that white plaster and pinkish-white concrete were typical of Nabataean installations, whereas gray lime-ash mortar and plaster are more characteristic of later, Roman period, installations (see below). 64 The Nabataean concrete is different from the specialized hydraulic concrete known as pulvis puteolanus that was introduced by the Romans and used by Herod in the harbor at Caesarea Maritima (Oleson and Branton 1992).

72

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

An additional indicator for an earlier (Nabataean) date for the construction of the pool is the fact that the interior corner masonry is laid at 90o angles. The problem of cleaning the corners was made easier by rounding out the corners when applying the cement or plaster linings (Pl. Xb). In later periods, this issue was resolved by using curved stones to create rounded corners in the construction of cisterns and reservoirs (Glueck 1933-34:42; Field 1960:fig.18A; Eadie and Oleson 1986:57). In summary, the major components of the Pool-Complex that are visible today can be attributed to the Nabataeans. The archaeological record of the Pool-Complex and adjacent areas, as well as logistical considerations, all point to a major building program along the southern slope of Wadi Musa that included the construction of the Great Temple complex and the adjacent PoolComplex with its earthen terrace, pool, island-pavilion, and associated hydraulics—sometime during the late 1st century BCE, early in the reign of Aretas IV.

PHASE II (EARLY ROMAN PERIOD): RENOVATIONS IN THE POOL-COMPLEX The second phase in the Pool-Complex is comprised of additions and renovations in the island-pavilion and the hydraulic system. One addition was the construction of a vaulted bridge to provide easier access to the island-pavilion. Apparently, during Phase I, the island-pavilion could only be reached by swimming or boating, as was the case with the islands at ‘Iraq el-Amir (Will 1989; Netzer 1999:52) and Herodium (Netzer 1981a:11-15, 1987:32). The fact that the bridge was constructed on top of and abutting the concrete lining of the pool’s interior (Pls. Xa, XIX, and XXa) is evidence that the bridge is a later addition. The bridge’s masonry is not as carefully executed, and it is bonded with a crumbly gray-colored lime-ash mortar that is distinctly different from the hard impervious white mortar used in the East-West Wall and the island-pavilion. Excavations in Trench 1 revealed the same gray lime-ash mortar functioning as the floor bedding for the pavilion’s interior, the northern threshold, and the bridge itself.

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

73

Oleson describes a similar crumbly gray mortar used in Roman period hydraulic installations throughout the region.65 It is possible that the transition from white or pinkish-white to gray mortar is a marker for the transition between Nabataean and Roman building programs. Bachmann observed, for example, that the “South Nymphaeum” at Petra was originally built using a “pinkish-white water-proof mortar”, and repaired at a later date with gray lime-ash mortar (Bachmann et al. 1921:34f).66 At nearby Humeima (Auara), the Nabataean period reservoir (Cistern 2) is lined with a “white sandy stucco”, whereas the Roman period reservoir (Cistern 1) has its seams “packed with gray sandy mortar” (Eadie and Oleson 1986:58-60, figs.12-15). On the other hand, the monumental pool at Herod’s Third Winter Palace at Jericho (ca. 15 BCE) is reportedly lined with a gray lime-ash plaster (Netzer 1975:99). Currently, the use of mortar to date construction phases remains an indistinct science and should not be considered conclusive. In the Great Temple, several different types of mortar are associated with the underground canalization system and determined to be coeval in construction. In addition, a different kind of gray mortar lines a small reservoir bonded to the east face of the Great Temple’s East Perimeter Wall, that is dated to Phase I.67 In the case of the Pool-Complex, however, the presence of pottery sherds mixed into the gray floor bedding provides valuable information toward determining a date for the lime-ash mortar and associated architectural features. Among the collection are a several personal communications. It seems that the small reservoir was repaired and incorporated into a new installation including the distyle in antis cella and niches situated at street level. The exact placement of the “South Nymphaeum” within the chronological development of Petra awaits future archaeological excavations. 67 M. S. Joukowsky, personal communication. This small reservoir is located in the southwest corner of the Pool-Complex at the elevation of the Great Temple’s “upper temenos”. It’s exact function is currently undetermined, but ceramic pipes imbedded in the floor may be interpreted as indicators of its use as a fishpond, the pipes serving as a place for fish to lay eggs or as a shady retreat. In the Roman world, fishponds were considered desirable features of any garden (Jashemski 1979:108-110, figs. 178-180). 65 66

74

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

examples of Nabataean painted fine ware. Although most of the sherds are badly worn and discolored from the mortar, several sherds have the boldly executed decoration that belongs to type 3c, a distinctive form of shallow bowl with stunted infolded rim and boldly painted palmettes (Schmid 1996:166, abb. 702-703). According to the refined pottery sequence from ez-Zantur, the type 3c Nabataean painted ware was produced in a brief span of time, between ca.100 and 106/114 CE. Based on this pottery evidence, it is possible to assign the floor bedding—and by direct association the bridge—with a terminus post quem of the early 2nd century CE. This corresponds roughly with Phase II of the Great Temple and its conversion into an odeion/bouleutereion that has been dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century CE (Joukowsky 1998:136139). However, a single rim sherd also found embedded in the floor mortar (Fig. 18) may be more closely identified with a type 4 painted bowl from ez-Zantur, dated post-106/114 CE (Schmid 1996:166, 208, abb. 704), in which case the Phase II renovations in the Pool-Complex must be dated to a period following the annexation of Petra into the Roman Empire.68 Excavations in Trench 3 revealed alterations in the hydraulic system that can be related to the Phase II renovations in the PoolComplex. Arguably, the construction of the bridge against the midsection of the East-West Wall would have blocked the overflow passage connecting the pool and the castellum (see Pl. XXXIII). Therefore, the subsequent sealing up of the overflow passage with small stones and cement (Fig. 15b) dates to the same phase as the bridge.69 In addition, the construction of low walls or steps against the interior walls of the castellum (Fig. 15; Pls. XXII and XXIIIb), which resulted in a reduction of the castellum’s holding capacity, likely coincide with the sealing of the overflow channel, and may reflect the transition to a more restrictive Roman concept of water control. Oleson attributes changes to the Nabataean hydraulic My gratitude to Yvonne Gerber for confirming the identification and date of the type 3c and type 4 sherds. 69 The east half of the bridge remains unexcavated at this date so that it is not known for sure if the overflow passage was blocked our if an opening was built into the bridge construction to allow overflow. In this case, the sealing of the overflow passage would have occurred at a later date, along with the other alterations in the hydraulic system. 68

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

75

installations at Humeima—the replacement of an unrestricted overflow conduit with a locked, valved pipeline—to new applications of water and restrictions on its consumption by the Romans. He interprets this as a “technological metaphor for the way in which Roman law, which had evolved to serve the needs of a developed, cosmopolitan empire, replaced the rigid but unwritten, informal laws of the desert tribes” (Oleson 1995:719). It is likely that the small lead pipe in the wall between the pool and the castellum, just above floor level (Pls. XXIIIa and A), was installed during Phase II as a more effective means of controlling the flow of water from the pool into the castellum. The alterations to the hydraulic system during Phase II include the installation of a ceramic pipeline along the exterior face of the East-West Wall. Three factors contribute to the placement of the pipeline into Phase II of the Pool-Complex: i) The eastern half of the pipeline (i.e., east of the castellum) is diverted around, and built into, an enigmatic buttress wall that is built up along the face of the East-West Wall (Pl. XIXa) and, thus, clearly post-dates the original construction of the pool in Phase I; ii) The pipeline is installed in an inset below a decorative moulding built into the face of the East-West Wall and held in place with the application of gray lime-ash mortar—the same lime ash mortar found used in the construction of the bridge and the floor bedding—and stone chinking (Pl. IX); iii) The western end of this pipeline is concealed behind the construction of a later wall that is attributed to the Byzantine period (Phase VI) (Pls. VIb, VIIa, and VIII), and thus it predates that phase.

76

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Unfortunately, the exterior wall of the castellum was robbed out (Pl. XXIIIa) in later periods when the ancient hydraulics were reused for agricultural purposes (see below), making it impossible to determine the relationship between the castellum and the Phase II pipeline. If there was a connection, then the water in the pipeline flowed in opposite directions: eastward along the Roman Wall in the direction of the “Middle Market”; and westward along the East-West Wall and into a system of lead pipes, gutters, and drains on the “Lower Temenos” of the Great Temple Complex. A more likely explanation, however, is that there was no connection between the castellum and the Phase II pipeline. In this case, the pipeline was installed as a means of bypassing the hydraulic installations of the Pool-Complex which were devoted to recreational activities and the irrigation of the garden, and transporting water originating from the east directly into the Great Temple’s drainage system. Hopefully, future investigations to the east of the Pool-Complex will lead to an identification of this eastern source and a better understanding of this complex system.

PHASE III (LATE ROMAN-EARLY BYZANTINE PERIODS): PERIOD OF DISUSE OR NEGLECT The pool evidently went out of use, or at the least was not wellmaintained, for a fairly extensive period of time at the end of the Roman period and continuing into the first decades of the Early Byzantine period. This is based on a deposit of grayish-brown sediment (ca. 0.50 meter deep) above the floor of the pool. This deposit, which was exposed in the deep sounding (2 x 2 meters) in Trench 1 (Pl. XXXVI) contains a high concentration of material debris, including fragments of painted wall stucco (white and dark red), pottery, glass vessels, lamps, and carbonized wood (junipera phoenicia),70 as well as numerous animal bones. Diagnostics indicate that it is a mixed deposit, with dates ranging between the 1st through the 4 th centuries CE. In the fill were several small fragments of a glass vessel with prominent bumps that indicate that the vessel was moulded into the form of a grape cluster or a cherub heads. Comparable examples of moulded glass vessels were Identification by Peter Warnock, PhD candidate at the University of Missouri, Columbia. 70

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

77

produced throughout the Roman Empire in the 1st through 3rd centuries CE (e.g., Corning 1957:134-135, #258-259; Auth 1976:74,

78

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

#74-75; Matheson 1980:73, #191).71 One complete ceramic vessel was found in the fill Phase III deposit—a bottle with handle of a type common in the 4th century CE (Fig. 19; Pl. XXVIa).72 The bones found in this deposit belonged to a variety of animals including bird, sheep/goat, pig and an unidentified large mammal (possibly camel?). The majority of the bones were determined to represent sub-adults.73 It is likely that when the pool functioned as the focal point of a large ornamental garden, it underwent frequent maintenance, including regular cleaning of the pool and the various water channels to rid them of debris and clogging silt deposits. However, a 0.5 meter accumulation of silt and debris in a pool of monumental proportions (43 x 23 meters), suggests a long period of neglect and probably indicates the disuse of the pool as a recreational facility. As Petra’s economy began to decline during the Late Roman period (mid-3rd through early-4th centuries CE), it is reasonable to assume that the resources required to maintain recreational facilities, especially one with a monumental pool and ornamental garden, were lacking and, as a result, the function of the Pool-Complex shifted. The pool could have been easily converted into a reservoir within the city limits, or it may have been drained and used as a convenient rubbish dump.

PHASE IV (363 CE): DESTRUCTION Immediately overlying the Phase III sediment in the deep sounding, is a deposit (ca. 1.3 meters deep) consisting of a reddishbrown sandy fill matrix with numerous ashlars, ashlar fragments (several with plaster preserved on one face), and part of a door jamb (Pl. XXXVI). The presence of dense architectural debris in the pool, ca. 0.5 meter above the floor, may be interpreted as evidence for a major destruction of the island-pavilion. Based on the evidence of the Phase IV stratum, it is reasonable to deduce A preliminary analysis of the glass samples was conducted by Sara Karz, PhD candidate in the Anthropology Department of Brown University. 72 For similar vessels e.g., Brogli 1996:231, 266, abb. 824. 73 A preliminary analysis of the bone samples was conducted by Jill Weber, PhD candidate in the Anthropology Department of the University of Pennsylvania. 71

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

79

that the superstructure of the island-pavilion collapsed into the pool following the long period of disuse in Phase III, sometime in the 4th century CE. Although no vault stones from the bridge were uncovered in the deep sounding (located immediately to the west of the bridge), the stratigraphy of the eastern balk (Pl. XXXIV) shows that the span of the bridge must have collapsed prior to Phase V. The impact of the pavilion’s north face falling onto the bridge would certainly have caused serious damage. While it is possible that this destruction resulted from neglect and structural decay over a long period of time, it more likely that the islandpavilion fell victim to the major earthquake of 363 CE that caused irreparable damage to many of the major monuments at Petra and destruction throughout the region (Russell 1980; 1985:42; Amiran et al. 1994:265).74

PHASE V (EARLY BYZANTINE PERIOD): CONTINUED DISUSE Following the destruction of the island-pavilion in 363 CE, it appears that the site of the Pool-Complex remained unoccupied. There is no evidence for reconstruction of the architectural elements. The pool, which was already more than halfway filled with sediment and collapse debris following the earthquake, continued to fill up. A deposit of grayish-brown soil (c. 0.30-0.40 meter in depth) accumulated inside the pool and above the floor in the pavilion (Pl. XXXVI). Apparently, the floor pavers were robbed out during the preceding period of disuse (Phase IV) or soon after the earthquake. A similar deposit of grayish-brown soil (0.50-0.60 meter deep) accumulated above the pavement north of the East-West Wall (in Trench 3), indicating that the earthen terrace and hydraulics were also left untended. The Phase V deposit contains a mixture of material remains dated to the 1st-5th centuries CE. Of particular note in Trench 1 are numerous fragments of plaster moulding with a row of dentils (Fig. 11 and Pl. XVI) that likely fell from the higher elevations of the pavilion’s interior walls. Cornices with dentils, of carved stone or moulded stucco, are a common decorative element on Nabataean The much-debated earthquake at the beginning of the 2nd century CE (Schmidt 1997) can be ruled out here because of the late (4th century CE) pottery underlying the destruction debris. 74

80

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

monuments (i.e., Qasr el-Bint, al-Khazneh, “Baths” , Temple of the Winged Lions, Urn Tomb, ed-Deir, Main Theater) beginning in the 1st century BCE (McKenzie 1990:17-18, 39-50, 93-94, 120-122, Pl. 23a-c73, 74a-c). Several fragments of painted wall plaster—mostly red but with one example of bright orange—give some indication of the interior’s original color scheme. A badly corroded bronze coin was found in the fill north of the East-West Wall (Pl. XXVIIa). The cross motif on its reverse indicates that the coin was minted after the official conversion of the Roman Empire to the Christian faith, and not earlier than the 5th century CE,75 the terminus post quem for the Phase V deposit. In Trench 3, the bottom of the castellum and the earth fill above the pavement was chock full of archaeological material including pottery, bones, fragments of stone tiles of colored marble, and hundreds of bits and fragments of metal (copperbronze). 36 of the metal pieces were shaped like flat disks and are identified as coins although they were too badly corroded to be read, even with cleaning. Only one bronze coin could be cleaned up enough to be roughly dated to the late 4th century CE (Pl. XXVIIb).76 The large quantity of archaeological debris had apparently washed down through the exposed water system and then deposited onto the ground around the base of the castellum, a condition that would have quickly led to the clogging up of the castellum if left unmaintained.

PHASE VI (LATE BYZANTINE PERIOD): REUSE OF HYDRAULIC SYSTEM AND LIME PRODUCTION

After the period of disuse in Phase V, sometime after the late 5th century CE, some of the water channels in the Pool-Complex were excavated and apparently reused. The clearest evidence for this was found in the island-pavilion where an east-west section through the pavilion’s interior (Pl. XXXV) reveals a pit cutting through the Phase V deposit down to the original floor drain (Phase I). Excavations revealed that the pit follows the length of the earlier drain. The purpose for the reuse of the drain is unknown but perhaps answers will be provided when the remainder of the 75 76

Personal communications with Christian Auge. See fn 76.

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

81

pavilion’s interior is excavated. The only other evidence for occupation or use of the pavilion during this period (when the structure was already in ruins) is an installation located in the west lateral doorway and partly set into the Phase V deposit. It consists of two sandstone blocks (22 x .22 x .08 meters and .29 x .28 x .10 meters), laid on edge and perpendicular to each other forming an “L”. One leg of the “L” abuts the northern door jamb of the west lateral doorway (Pl. XVb), and the area inside the “L” was filled with a hard, black soil that was traced southward across the threshold and into the southern balk of Trench 1. The function of this enigmatic installation remains undetermined at this time. The stratigraphy in Trench 3 is less clear for this phase, due mostly to the periodic reuse of the hydraulic installations into the modern era. It was probably during Phase VI that the pavers that capped the East-West Wall were removed to expose the internal channels for cleaning and reuse (Pl. XXII), and the north wall of the castellum was robbed out (Pl. XXIIIa), possibly in an effort to re-expose and reuse the system. In addition, a section of the pavement was removed, exposing the stone conduits (Channels A and B) underneath (Pl. XXIII), and a ceramic pipeline, measuring 11 centimeters in diameter (interior), was laid across the top of the pavement to transport water from the castellum towards the northeast (Pls. XXIV). This pipeline is shored up with stones along both sides. A large basin, created out of a reused column drum with one side hollowed out, was found resting flat on its base between the castellum and the southern end of the pipeline (Pl. X). The basin may have been used to catch and divert water as it flowed from the damaged castellum. The reactivation of the old hydraulic system during Phase VI, is an indication that water was again required to irrigate a field or garden laid out across the earthen terrace during the Late Byzantine period. Sometime during the Byzantine period, most likely during Phase VI, a wall was built in the southwestern corner of the earthen terrace. It is oriented at an oblique angle in relationship to the major features in the Pool-Complex and Great Temple, running northwest-southeast across the front of the East Exedra (incorporating two columns of the Great Temple’s eastern triple colonnade), with one end abutting the north face of the East-West Wall (Pls. VIIb, and VIII). Only the western half of this wall, which falls in the jurisdiction of the Great Temple excavations, was

82

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

excavated down to its base. Although the excavator cannot rule out an earlier (Late Roman) date for the construction of the wall based on pottery found in the associated fill,77 the masonry—composed of a combination of hewn and unhewn sandstone blocks, fieldstones, and reused architectural elements—is consistent with some Byzantine period construction at Petra in which elements of Nabataean-Roman period monuments are commonly reused. Two human busts found in secondary use within the construction of this wall, probably originated from the antae of the Great Temple which suffered a major destruction in the 363 CE earthquake (Joukowsky 1998:139). A large platform built in front of the West Exedra, 45 meters to the west, is further evidence of occupation within the Great Temple complex during the Byzantine period (Joukowsky 1998:140; Basile 1998:195, figs. 5.10, 5.11, and 5.19). A thick (up to 0.50 m) deposit of lime powder filled the interior of the East Exedra, approximately 0.15 meter above floor level, and running up to the southern face of the oblique Byzantine Wall. This lime deposit is visible in the balk that marks the boundary between the Great Temple Complex and the PoolComplex where it continues eastward along the southern face of the Byzantine Wall (Pl. VIIIb). Lime deposits such as this are often associated with kilns in which limestone and marble were rendered down to make lime plaster and mortar for building purposes. Although current excavations did not uncover remains of the lime kiln, it is possible that future excavations will reveal such a kiln in the passage between the pool and the East Perimeter Precinct Wall. This would explain the construction of the oblique Wall as a windblock in front of the entrance to that passage.

PHASE VII (551 CE?): FURTHER DESTRUCTION/COLLAPSE AND ABANDONMENT Following the Byzantine occupation of the site, the Pool-Complex appears to have been abandoned and the pool continued to fill with earth and debris (Pl. XXXVI), probably as a result of runoff from the slopes above. The sherdage in this deposit represents a Pottery in the lowest stratum of fill along the face of the wall, provides a terminus post quem of the 2nd century CE. Personal communication with J J. Basile. 77

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

83

mixture of Nabataean, Roman and Byzantine period pottery (1st-5th centuries CE), including the nozzle of a Byzantine slipper-lamp in Trench 3 (Khairy 1990:figs. 18.42, 19.45, pls. 10.42, and 10.45) (Pl. XXVIc). It is clear from the presence of architectural debris in this stratum—large architectural elements (ashlars, doorjambs, etc.), small capital fragments, volutes, (Pl. XVIIIa), and a unique flower (carved from limestone or a low-grade marble) (Fig. 12 and Pl. XVIIIb), iron nails, a plaster nail anchor, and some charred wood (juniperus phoenicia)78—that the structure continued to disintegrate following its major destruction as a result of the 363 earthquake. At this time, there is no evidence to specifically link this secondary collapse with the 551 earthquake, although that cannot be ruled out. All of the architectural elements found in this late destruction 78

Identified by Peter Warnock, University of Missouri, Columbia.

84

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

debris provide clues about the original appearance of the pavilion (Fig. 10).

PHASE VIII (POST-CLASSICAL/MEDIEVAL PERIOD–12TH CENTURY): AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY Later in the Post-Classical period, the site of the Pool-Complex was again used for cultivation—this time purely agricultural. A large wall was built around the northwestern corner of the pool. Beginning in the southwestern corner of the site, this wall runs southward to the East-West Wall, across the top of the northwestern corner of the pool, and down over the southern end of the Byzantine wall, and then turns eastward along the northern face East-West Wall (Pl. VIIb). This wall is constructed of large hewn stones and ashlars—most of which appear to be in secondary use—which are partially laid and partially piled to create what appear to be a barrier, directing water runoff from ez-Zantur down to the field in the southeast quadrant of the earthen terrace. The northern and western boundaries of the field are defined by a low wall—of similar haphazard construction as the barrier wall— consisting of large stones and architectural elements (column drums, capital fragments, mouldings, etc.) in secondary context. The southern end of the western boundary is laid across the top of the Roman period wall in Trench 3 (Pls. XXIVa and XXXIV). A complete cooking pot (Fig 20; Pl. XXVIb) with upturned lug handles was found nestled inside a hollow near the bend in the barrier wall, and provides a terminus ante quem of the 12th century for the construction of that wall. Cooking pots of similar form and fabric were uncovered during excavations in the nearby Crusader fortress at Wu’ayra (Vannini and Desideri 1995: 530, fig.16; Vannini and Tonghini 1997: 379f, fig. 16), one of the three Crusader fortresses located in the vicinity of Petra.79 Apparently, the Crusader and/or Bedouin inhabitants of Petra during that period chose the convenient flat terraces of the former PoolComplex (by this time, the pool was filled in and appeared as a flat terrace or plateau) to carry out their agricultural activities. In addition to the Crusader fortress at Wu’ayra, on the eastern edge of the Petra basin, are the fortresses on el-Habis to the west and on Jebel Atuff to the south. 79

THE PETRA “LOWER MARKET”

85

PHASE IX ( > 20TH CENTURY): CONTINUED AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY

The use of the former site of the Nabataean/Roman PoolComplex for agricultural activity persisted into the modern era with the continued use of the barrier wall and field terrace until recent years by the Bedouin who continued to inhabit Petra. Several of the older men of the local Bedoul tribe recall the use of the field for growing wheat and corn well into the 20th century. In addition, they recall the reuse of the western channel of the East-West as an aqueduct for irrigating their fields. They pointed to stone debris on the surface overlying the western channel and described their use of these stones as capstones to prevent earth and debris from clogging the channel.

SUMMARY An analysis of the stratigraphic sequence uncovered during the 1998 season reveals a minimum of nine chronological phases in the southern half of the Pool-Complex, dating from the 1st century BCE into the modern era. In the first phase, the pool and island were constructed, apparently in conjunction with the creation of the earthen terrace and the construction of the neighboring Great Temple, Phase I, around the end of the 1st century BCE, early in the reign of Aretas IV. Renovations of the interior of the islandpavilion and the addition of a bridge followed in the early 2nd century CE, following the Roman annexation of Petra and coinciding with the transformation of the Great Temple, Phase II, into a theatron. After some time, an accumulation of earth and debris was allowed to build up inside the pool so that by the time of the earthquake in 363 CE, the pool was already out of use as a recreational facility. During the Byzantine period, there is evidence that a lime kiln was in operation somewhere on the site (probably in the space between the pool and the Great Temple East Temenos Wall). From the Byzantine period onward, the site of the PoolComplex alternated between disuse/abandonment and agricultural activity as evidenced by the reuse of many of the hydraulic installations from the earlier phases, the construction of diversion walls, and the creation of a raised field that occupied the southeastern quarter of the earthen terrace. The identification of this large, central area of Petra as a site of cultivation—first as a formal garden and later as an agricultural

86

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

field—radically alters the traditional view of Petra’s City Center, its organization and function, through its many transformations. The unique and unexpected discovery of a monumental Pool-Complex associated with a garden terrace has opened the door to an entirely new perspective on the use of water display and other symbols of power and prestige by the Nabataean monarchy in its efforts to establish its position within the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. The following two chapters present the history and role of water display and gardens in the ancient East as a way of providing the context for the creation of the Pool-Complex at Petra in the late 1st century BCE and its changing role through the urban and social transformations that occurred there following Roman annexation.

CHAPTER IV

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING AND WATER DISPLAY AT PETRA The discovery of the Pool-Complex with its elaborate hydraulic system brings to the forefront the question of water supply in Petra. In this arid desert environment, where precipitation is less than 10 centimeters per year— and often limited to between 2.5 and 7.5 centimeters per year80— is it possible that sufficient water was available to satisfy the fundamental needs of a large urban population to irrigate their terraced fields and house gardens, as well as to supply a variety of ornamental and recreational facilities—sacred pools and fountains, waterfalls, nymphaea, baths, as well as a monumental pool and formal garden? The archaeological record indicates that this was indeed possible.

WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST A prerequisite for any settlement is the ability to secure a reliable water supply for the site and its hinterland. Access to a reliable source of water for irrigation was always a primary consideration and cities could not develop without an adequate agricultural base. In the Near East, water was at once a bare necessity and the greatest of luxuries. Due to the limited availability of water e.g., Glueck 1959:92 and Oleson 1995:707. The rainfall statistics for Jordan can be found in the National Water Master Plan of Jordan. Amman: Natural Resources Authority (1977). 80

87

88

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

throughout much of the region, research shows that the evolution of civilization and irrigation technology are closely intertwined. As a labor-intensive requirement for agricultural productivity, complex irrigation systems were often dependent upon the organization and control by a central authority (e.g., Steward 1955; Wittfogel 1955; Downing and Gibson 1974; Spooner 1974; Adams 1981). Irrigation technology varied from region to region depending on the nature of the major water source: river, perennial spring, or runoff. The ancient societies that evolved along the great rivers of Mesopotamia and Egypt planned their crops around the annual floods and built canals and dikes to control the distribution of water to their fields (Butzer 1976; Adams 1981; Endesfelder 1982). The excavation, use, and maintenance of the canals dictated a strong, centralized authority that played an important role in the unification of Egypt (Hodges 1970:91; Bonneau 1986) and in the evolution of city-states and territorial empires in Mesopotamia (Adams 1955, 1974b, 1981). In the arid regions outside of the Nile and Tigris-Euphrates river valleys, irrigation technology depended mostly upon the exploitation of natural springs and groundwater, and the collection of water runoff. The Neolithic settlement at Jericho, the earliest known urban site, relied on a perennial spring that produced enough water for irrigation and consumption by humans and animals. The approach to the spring was guarded by a defense wall and tower, an indication of the spring’s value to the inhabitants of Jericho (Kenyon 1979:25). At other early settlements in SyroPalestine, dating from the early Bronze Age through the Iron Age II, wells and tunnels were dug to access underground water sources. Such water tunnels became an important feature of fortified cities such as Megiddo, Hazor, and Jerusalem, by securing a constant supply of water within the walls of the cities (Tsuk 1997:130f). Since the 6th century BCE, settlements on the Iranian plateau used qanats (a combination of vertical shafts linked by underground tunnels) to transport groundwater from higher elevations to agricultural fields on the plains (English 1968; Spooner 1974:694-698; Landels 1978:38-40). The ancient Persians introduced this subterranean irrigation system into Oman where it is known as aflaj (J.C. Wilkinson 1977; Neely and Wright 1994). Some of the earliest preserved irrigation installations built to exploit runoff water are associated with the late 4th millennium

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

89

occupation at Tell Jawa in northeastern Jordan. At Jawa, water was collected in catchment basins and then diverted into a complex system consisting of canals, dams, and reservoirs (Helms 1981:135198). The use of plastered cisterns for the collection and storage of water was introduced in the Middle Bronze Age but did not become common until Iron Age II (Tsuk 1997:130f) at which time aqueducts and dams on a monumental scale began to appear. In the 8th century BCE, the ancient kingdom of Saba, in modern Yemen, accomplished great agricultural wealth by constructing a dam, 16 meters high, at Ma’rib (Phillips 1955:221ff). For more than a millennium, the lake that formed behind the Ma’rib dam provided enough water to irrigate fields that sustained a population of around 50,000 people. In the 7th century BCE, the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, built an aqueduct to transport water from the eastern mountains to his capital at Nineveh, a distance of 55 kilometers (Jacobsen and Lloyd 1935). By the Hellenistic period, aqueducts were utilized in the desert regions of Syro-Palestine to manage flash flooding and to transport water for irrigation and storage purposes (Tsuk 1997:131). The urbanization of ancient Jerusalem in the first millennium BCE was enabled by a complex hydraulic system comprised of a natural spring (Gihon), tunnels, aqueducts, channels, pipes, catchment pools, reservoirs, and cisterns. It is estimated that by the Roman period (1st century CE), the city had enough water to sustain more than 75,000 inhabitants, including the demands of public works such as baths, pools, and fountains (J.C. Wilkinson 1974). Also in Judea are the numerous desert fortresses of the Hasmonean and Herodian monarchies at Alexandrion, Dok, Cypros, Hyrcania, Herodium, Masada, and Machaerus, all of which required innovative engineering feats in order to ensure an adequate water supply. Depending on the hydrological and topographical situation of each fortress, the following procedures were used independently or in combination in order to collect and store water: i) water catchment at springs, wadis, or collecting channels; ii) conveyance of water by a channel to the foot of the hill or, when a bridge or pressure conduit was installed, to a point somewhere on its slope; iii) intermediate storage on the slope of the fortress hill to store a supply sufficient to allow for different availability over time; iv) transportation by pack animals into

90

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

cisterns in the fort for storage and consumption (Garbrecht and Peleg 1994:164). Herod the Great of Judea (37-4 BCE) is noted for his extensive building programs, including waterworks such as aqueducts, reservoirs, fountains, baths, and palatial gardens fitted with fountains and monumental swimming-pools (e.g., Netzer 1975, 1981a, 1981b, 1985, 1987:32, 1991:482f, 1996; Gleason 1997:8-9, 1998; Roller 1998). Roller attributes Herod’s efforts in urban renewal in Judea and cities throughout the Near East to his visit to Rome in 40 BCE (Roller 1998:42, 90f). Numerous extravagant monuments and public works were rebuilt, completed, started, or conceived, in the years immediately preceding Herod’s initial visit to Rome, during a period of intensive urban development that marks Rome’s transition into an imperial capital (Roller 1998:33-42; Favro 1996:54-78, figs. 36, 41).81 While Roman influence on Herodian architecture and engineering is undeniable, much of the hydraulic technology utilized to serve the needs of Herod’s desert fortresses and the extravagant waterworks at his desert palaces at Jericho, Herodium, and Masada were already well developed locally. There is no better example of this than the hydraulic installations of the Nabataeans who were accomplished in the technology of water management since the 4th century BCE (Hammond 1973:72f; Ball 2000:461, fn.141).

‘MASTERS OF THE DESERT’ The remarkable engineering skills of the Nabataeans have long been noted and admired. Their mastery over water was so effective that land developers in modern Israel have imitated the ancient Nabataean methods of farming and hydraulic engineering in order to inhabit and cultivate desert regions that were otherwise considered barren (Evenari and Koller 1956; Evenari 1971; Hammond 1973:72). As semi-nomadic inhabitants of the desert, the early Nabataean settlers of Transjordan would have brought 81 Propertius’ description of the shaded gardens and luxuriant fountains of Pompey’s portico garden were written soon after Herod’s visit to Rome (Propertius, Eleg. II.32.11-16). Favro (1996) provides a comprehensive description and analysis of the urban development of Rome during the Late Republic and Augustan periods.

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

91

with them valuable knowledge regarding water conservation in an arid environment.82 As they migrated westward, they would have benefited from their Edomite predecessors who had a developed technology based on their knowledge of the region’s rugged terrain (Hammond 1973:72; Oleson 1995:708-710). In addition, new techniques from the Hellenistic World were introduced and adapted (Oleson 1995:708). The Nabataeans ingeniously combined all of their acquired skills in applied hydrology and hydraulic engineering to ensure the survival and growth of their settlements and urban centers.

FIELD IRRIGATION The hinterlands surrounding Petra and other Nabataean settlements throughout the desert region show signs that the Nabataeans practiced agriculture on a large scale to feed their growing population. They devised elaborate and intricate systems for water catchment and irrigation as a means of extending the boundaries of agriculture farther and farther into the desert (e.g., Evenari and Koller 1956; Glueck 1959:201ff). The effects of this massive terracing system on the landscape was so great that, centuries later, Nelson Glueck identified many settlements along Wadi ‘Arabah and in the Negev desert as “garden cities”, whose extensive field and hydraulic systems demonstrate the Nabataean efforts towards “the fructification of deserts” (Glueck 1959:202). Because the regions limited rainfall comes only in the winter, the emphasis of the Nabataean system is rain catchment and storage for use through the long arid summer months. When the rainfall does come, it is usually in the form of sudden outbursts and the hard soil and impermeable rock are unable to absorb the water fast enough. Instead it flows rapidly across the surface and into the dry wadis where flashfloods often develop, carrying topsoil along with rocks and debris which are deposited in the wadis and catchment basins. In an effort to conserve precious resources, the Nabataeans built walls and terraces along entire wadi systems in order to trap silt and water on the slopes and spread it out for wider use (Evenari and Koller 1956:42). The main wadis were Glueck attributes the Nabataeans’ hydraulic skills to their knowledge of South Arabian agricultural techniques (Glueck 1965:5). 82

92

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

converted into U-shaped terraces to divert the water and silt into the side plots. Upstream conduits and collector walls led the water to downstream plots that might otherwise have been missed when the floodwaters rushed by (ibid.:42-44). Dams were constructed across wadis to slow the force of the water and to store it for subsequent use (Hammond 1967:39). This system allowed for the irrigation and cultivation of large field crops (mainly grain) as well as orchards and vegetable gardens, enough to fulfill the demands of a growing population (e.g., Evenari and Koller 1956:42-44; Glueck 1959:201ff). According to papyri found at Nessana in the Negev, the Nabataean water system permitted the successful cultivation of barley, wheat, legumes, grapes, figs, and dates (Evenari and Koller 1956:45). Many of the ancient channels and terraces are still extant and some continue in use by the local populations.

WATER STORAGE Once the demands of field irrigation were met, surplus water was diverted into cisterns and reservoirs for storage and domestic use. Water collected in the winter had to be stored for use through the dry season—at least 12 and up to 24 months—for irrigation and for drinking water.83 Fall-off points and natural catchment basins were enlarged. Channels were cut into the side of every hill and rocky outcrop to collect water and lead it to established storage sites. Small reservoirs were established along the wadis and shielded from the sun by rocky outcrops and shade trees to slow evaporation (Evenari and Koller 1956:43), but in order to fulfill the demands of large populations in a desert environment large underground cisterns were a necessity. Some cisterns were enlarged caverns with pillars to support the roof; others were entirely manmade, dug into the limestone strata that are naturally water-bearing and lined with plaster for additional waterproofing. Nabataean cisterns were typically roofed over with long stone slabs supported by transverse arches to prevent evaporation and pollution (Glueck

It is estimated that a minimum of 10-20 liters per day per inhabitant is required for drinking and washing (Garbrecht and Peleg 1994:163). 83

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

93

1959:223; Oleson 1990:149-150, fig.3; 1995:717, figs. 5 and 6).84 This roofing design was borrowed from Hellenistic architecture and continued in use throughout the Byzantine and early Islamic periods (Oleson 1995:718, fig. 13).85 Sedimentation basins placed at the narrow entrances to the cisterns helped to purify the water of silt and other pollutants. A small opening in the roof allowed water to be drawn by means of buckets (Evenari and Koller 1956:4449).86 Larger open-air reservoirs were less practical because they were more subject to loss by evaporation—between 3 and 4 meters per year 87—than a closed cistern or covered reservoir. In addition, open reservoirs require constant upkeep due to the introduction of pollutants such as insects, animal waste, plant debris and the growth of algae under the hot sun. As a result, the occurrence of larger reservoirs is generally restricted to the outskirts of settlements where they were probably used as watering holes for livestock and passing caravans, or as a resource for filling nearby domestic cisterns when necessary (Eadie and Oleson 1986:61; Oleson 1995:715). Glueck describes a large rectangular reservoir (birkeh) at et-Telah (Toloha) in Wadi ‘Arabah (Glueck 1959:201) and at Umm el-Jimal (Glueck 1965:pl.211a) that date to the Nabataean period. At Humeima, a reservoir (Cistern 2) measuring The overall dimensions of the cisterns were limited by the arch span. A study of Nabataean roofed cisterns in Jordan and southern Palestine shows that their width was limited to 6 to 7 meters maximum, and their depth was 5 to 6 meters maximum. This led to an elongated, rectangular design for public cisterns in order to obtain the desire capacity (Oleson 1995:717, fn 43). 85 Examples of Nabataean roofed cisterns are found at virtually every known Nabatean site: Petra (Kennedy 1925:71-72, McKenzie 1990:110), Humeima (Eadie and Oleson 1986:57; Oleson 1990:149-152, fig. 3, pl. 1), Ramm (Savignac and Horsfield 1935: 245-78, pl.8), ’Ain elKhālde (Kirkbride and Harding 1947:24), Jebel Ratama (ibid. 1947:19-20), Mahmal (Meshel and Tsafrir 1975:10-21, fig. 4), and Qasr Wadi es-Siq (Glueck 1953:13). 86 Writing about the Nabataeans in the late 4th century BCE, Diodorus (Hist. XIX.94.6-8) described subterranean reservoirs with small opening and concrete lining. 87 The statistics for evaporation rates in Jordan can be found in the National Water Master Plan of Jordan. Amman: Natural Resources Authority, 1977. 84

94

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

27.6x17x1.75 is located at the northern edge of the city (Eadie and Oleson 1986:58-60, figs.12-15; Oleson 1995: fig.12). The use of seven alternating courses of headers and stretchers in the wall construction and diagonal dressing on the ashlars help to identify it as a Nabataean construction.88 The walls are topped with stone paving to form a walkway around its perimeter. The interior of the reservoir is lined with a hard, white sandy stucco. Water was fed by an aqueduct that entered the reservoir through an opening at the center of the northern wall (Eadie and Oleson 1986:58-59). Nearby, a large stone was found with a basin and several diverting channels carved into it (ibid.:64, fig.18). A similar basin found in situ at Sobota functioned as a castellum or junction box in the municipal water system (ibid.:fig.19). It is possible that the Humeima castellum diverted water to other, smaller cisterns once the main reservoir had reached its capacity (ibid.:63).

PETRA’S WATER SUPPLY At Petra, the Nabateans’ conquest of the desert went well beyond the practical needs for crop irrigation and drinking water. As with all of their settlements, the Nabataeans constructed extensive water collection and supply systems for their capital city. As Hammond observed: In a land of high cliffs and deep fissures, as well as desert wastes, the stonecutter became the engineer’s ally, and the abilities formerly devoted to tomb facades and sculpture were diverted to the production of runnels, diversion channels, cisterns, and water control systems (Hammond 1967:38).

In his description of Petra, Strabo stated: “there are abundant springs of water both for domestic purposes and for watering gardens” (Geog. XVI.4.21). An extensive system of channels and aqueducts carried water from springs and catchment areas to numerous cisterns and public works throughout the city (Hammond 1967:37). At many points along the way, arches were constructed to carry the aqueducts across deep crevices and uneven terrain. The use of arches and the installation of the pressure pipe A second reservoir at Humeima, Cistern 1, dates to the Roman period (Eadie and Oleson 1986:58-59, figs. 9-10). 88

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

95

allowed the Nabataeans much freedom in their design of hydraulic installations and ultimately enabled them to virtually disregard the topography (Hammond 1973:73). The main water source for Petra is ’Ain Musa (Spring of Moses), which tradition honors as the spring that burst forth from the rock when Moses struck it with a staff (Exodus 17:1-7). ’Ain Musa is located in the eastern hills approximately 6 kilometers from the City Center (Fig. 21). Downstream from ’Ain Musa, above the entrance to the Siq, a large free-standing reservoir collected the spring water for controlled distribution into the city and its environs. One route was via a channel cut into the southern wall of the Siq and covered with stone slabs. Later, a deep groove was carved along the Siq’s northern wall and installed with interlocking high-pressure ceramic water pipes (Hammond 1967:41).89 The narrow Siq, however, proved to be a dangerous place during the rainy season. Water flowed into it through nineteen faults and inlets resulting in dangerous flash floods carrying earth and debris and anything else in its path along with it.90 The Nabataeans designed an intricate hydraulic system in order to control the life-threatening floodwaters. The paved road through the Siq was laid at a gradual decline to lessen the water velocity. Dams were erected across smaller side wadis along the Siq to contain the water and create small reservoirs for use in the dry season. The construction of a diversion dam and a tunnel, 40 meters long, at the entrance to the Siq diverted the bulk of the water around the base of Jebel al-Khubtha where it emptied into Wadi al-Mataha (Gunsam 1980). From there, the water headed downstream to converge with Wadi Musa where additional diversion channels and erosion control walls kept the flow in check as it passed through the center of the city (Hammond 1967:42). Two other springs in addition to ’Ain Musa are known to have served Petra in antiquity ’Ain Braq, located in the eastern hills The ceramic pipes are later than the Siq paving (McKenzie 1990:110); Hammond (1967:41) dates them to the reign of Aretas IV. 90 A group of more than thirty French tourists were killed during a visit to Petra in the 1960s when a wall of water crashed through the Siq following a rainstorm. Since then, the restoration and reconstruction of the ancient Nabataean water control system has prevented similar tragic events (e.g., Hammond 1967:40-41; 1973:72). 89

96

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

a few kilometers south of Wadi Musa (Fig. 21), was of secondary importance mainly serving the agricultural lands and residences south of the City Center. The spring in Wadi es-Siyagh probably never played a major role in supplying the Petra’s civic needs due to its location west of the City Center at a significantly lower elevation. When the demands of the thriving city outgrew the

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

97

output of the three local springs, an aqueduct was constructed that carried water from Dibdibeh—several kilometers northeast of Petra—across a bridge spanning a deep ravine and into the northern section of Petra.

WATER DISPLAY AT PETRA The study of Nabataean hydraulics has long been focused on the collection and distribution of water across the landscape and within the city of Petra. Traditionally, the collection, distribution and uses of water have been viewed from a purely practical standpoint; it is thought of as a resource, to be regulated and conserved and devoted to functional purposes: Just as their resources were smaller, Nabataean applications of running water were fewer, and the physical arrangements for distribution correspondingly less elaborate than those for a Roman metropolis. Instead of being divided up into pressurized pipelines serving public fountains, public baths, and private homes—as Vitruvius recommends (8.6.1-2) -- the water splashed quietly into public reservoirs to which access was arranged by Nabataean tribal custom and probably sanctioned by religion, sometimes visibly, in the form of Dushara blocks representing a major Nabataean deity. The overflow from the primary storage tanks probably was conducted into private cisterns and small agricultural plots in accordance with similar arrangements (Oleson 1995:715).

Little attention has been devoted to the nonfunctional uses of water by the Nabataeans. In addition to serving Petra’s routine domestic and civic needs by filling public reservoirs, private cisterns and agricultural plots, the complex hydraulic system supplied water to several installations in key positions around the city whose main function may be defined as aesthetic or recreational or ornamental. The identification of the PoolComplex—a facility that exhibits an extravagant use of water purely for pleasure purposes—at the heart of the city forces a reassessment of the numerous examples of water display at Petra and their role in the religious, social and political life of the city.

98

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

THE SIQ As described above, the narrow Siq—the first leg of the via sacra leading into Petra—was installed with a water channel and ceramic pipeline along its south and north faces respectively. Their primary purpose was to help control floodwaters and to provide an easy means of transporting unpolluted water into the city. In addition, it is likely that the presence of these hydraulic features served a secondary, symbolic role. The sound of the water that flowed, unseen, inside the covered channel and pipeline, would surely have been audible to passers-by, as a continuous murmur reverberating off of the towering walls of the narrow Siq. Many religious symbols are found in the Siq, and thus there is a close association between them and the waters that flow through it. At the entrance are three square towers or “god blocks” carved from the sandstone, and more than 60 god idols, or stelae,91 are carved upon the walls at various points along the length of this long, winding passage (Brünnow and Domaszewski 1904-09:I, 222; Dalman 1912:143-156; Patrich 1996:59). Particularly notable is a relief sculpture discovered during the recent excavations in the Siq.92 Two pairs of camels (1 ½ times life-size), each led by a male guide, are carved into the rock on the southern wall of the Siq. Only the lower half of the guide is preserved showing his draped garments, sandals, and a staff. Of the camels, only the feet and lower portions of the legs are well-preserved. This relief was carved either before or at the same time as the water channel that passes behind the camels’ legs that are carved fully in the round. Although the depiction of a camel caravan in Petra may be interpreted as homage to the trading activity that is credited with the existence and success of the city, the specifics of its design suggests a less functional meaning. First of all, these camels do not appear to be carrying burdens and thus are not represented in their role as pack animals. Secondly, the arrangement of the scene, with each pair of Most of the representations of Nabataeans deities are aniconic and thus presented as simple carved blocks of stone or stelae. Anthropomorphic representations of Nabataean gods began to appear in the 1st century BCE as a result of Hellenistic influence but are few in number (Patrich 1990:50-113; Mettinger 1995: 57-68; Ball 2000:378-380). 92 The Siq excavations have been carried out since 1996 by a joint Swiss-Jordanian project. 91

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

99

camels and their guides facing each other, is more reminiscent of ritual scenes where a venerate subject—god, icon, king—or altar stands at the center of a symmetrical arrangement of worshippers or participants. It has been suggested that an altar once stood between the two sets of camels (Taylor 2001:84). A similar scene— also badly weathered—is depicted in a relief near the ed-Deir monument in which a carved niche is flanked by two guides, each leading a single camel. Nearby are channels and a small collecting pool carved into the bedrock. In these scenes, the camels appear to be part of a ritual procession, possibly leading to their own sacrifice (ibid.).

SACRED POOLS AND FOUNTAINS The veneration of water, especially springs and rivers, is one of the most ancient and universal forms of worship. It is a universal phenomenon that persists through time and space due to its role as a basic human need. Because of its crucial role as a life-giving resource for the desert nomads, it is not surprising that the Nabataeans perceived water as sacred and that many examples of ornamental water display at Petra held religious significance. Numerous religious icons, inscriptions and sanctuaries are found in association with springs, catchment pools, and channels throughout the city and its environs (Brünnow and Domaszewski 1904-09:I, 222; Dalman 1912:143-156; Patrich 1996:59f; Lindner and Gunsam 1995). One Nabataean deity in particular may be associated with springs and water. This is the goddess Al-’Uzza, consort to the patron deity Dushares. Al-’Uzza is most commonly represented as a rectangular stele on which two schematic eyes and a nose are carved (Patrich 1996:82-86).93 In inscriptions, Al-’Uzza is associated with the Greek fertility goddess, Aphrodite, as well as the Syrian fertility goddess, Atargatis (ibid.:83, 85). The decoration on a gold earring found in a Nabataean grave at Mampsis (Mamshit) in the Negev, combines the features of an “eye idol” with an image of a standing female nude that is more commonly associated with Aphrodite Anadyomene (“rising from the sea”) in Small, portable versions of the “eye idol” are also found in large numbers at Petra (e.g., Patrich 1996:83). 93

100

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Hellenistic-Roman iconography (Patrich 1984; 1996:138f). Atargatis is the goddess of fertility, and the live-giving forces of the earth and water. In the Nabataean temple at Khirbet et-Tannur, anthropomorphic representations of Atargatis show her against a backdrop of abundant flowers and fruits and wearing a headdress of dolphins or fish (Glueck 1965:315-319; pls. 1-3, 31-33).94 Atargatis is also represented at Khirbet et-Tannur in association with lions, a common attribute for the chief female deities of Near Eastern and Classical religions (ibid.:207, 270, 285, 508, pls. 44, 160161; Browning 1973:185). The use of carved lions in the architectural details of the Temple of the Winged Lions at Petra, and the discovery of an especially well-carved “eye idol” inside that temple, allows this structure to be identified with the veneration of Atargatis/ Al-’Uzza (Patrich 1990:82-86; Hammond 1996b:101ff). Although there is no known water source or water installation in the vicinity of this temple, its location high up on the city’s northern slope would have allowed a commanding view of the Pool-Complex located directly across the wadi. Direct associations between water and the veneration of Atargatis/Al-’Uzza are found elsewhere in Petra. A stele carved into the rock face above the spring in Wadi es-Siyagh is accompanied by a dedicatory inscription to Al-’Uzza (Milik and Starcky 1975:124-126, n.6). En route to the “High Place of Sacrifice”, 95 the site of ritual sacrifice on the rocky summit of Jebel Attuf, a votive fountain, in the form of a lion (4.5 meter high), with its body in profile and its head frontal, is carved in relief on the mountainside (Pl. XXVIIIa). Water was transported down from the summit via a deeply carved channel and poured out through an opening in the lion’s mouth into a basin below. Other representations of lions in association with water are found at Qasr Rabbah and Khirbet et-Tannur in the form of lion-headed waterspouts (Glueck 1965:286, Pls.163b-c, 164b, 165a-d). During the Roman period, the Nymphaeum—a monumental public fountain—was constructed near the confluence of Wadi Musa and Wadi al-Mataha, at the eastern end of the Colonnaded Street. Only the foundations of the Nymphaeum’s semi-circular For the role of Atargatis in the Hellenistic world, see Bilde 1990. For a comprehensive bibliography on the High Place, see MacKenzie 1990:172. 94 95

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

101

plan remain, so the details of it appearance are lost to us (Bachmann et al. 1921:34-35; MacKenzie 1990:132). Based on examples at other sites in the Roman East, the Petra Nymphaeum can be reconstructed in the shape of an exedra, its façade decorated with carvings of water nymphs to whom the monument was dedicated (Browning 1973:135-136, fig. 81; Segal 1997:151-167). Across the front of the Nymphaeum is a large basin that would have been filled by water flowing from at least one fountain built into the façade. The nymphaeum was a standard feature in all Graeco-Roman cities that was adopted into the hellenized Near East. The origins of the nymphaeum can be traced to religious sanctuaries located near natural springs or streams; offerings were made in honor of the water nymphs who were believed to inhabit these secluded watering holes. Although the sacred significance of the nymphaeum was somewhat lost in its Roman transformation into a public monument, its role as a symbol of the water upon which the inhabitants of the city, and the city itself depend, continued to be recognized. The Nymphaeum of Petra provided passers-by with a convenient resting spot and gathering place, where one could refresh oneself with a drink and cool spray from the fountains. As a place of congregation for citizens and non-residents alike, the Nymphaeum stood as a symbol of the volume of water entering Petra and thus held an important role as a status marker for the city.96

WATERFALLS It can be expected that many waterfalls—both natural and artificial—could be witnessed throughout the Petra region during the rainy season as running water navigated the rugged landscape. In many cases, the Nabataeans constructed arches across deep gorges to act as bridges for aqueducts and thus maintained the flow at a desirable grade. Elsewhere, water was channeled to the cliff’s edge where it dropped off into basins or catchment pools. Such 96 The so-called “South Nymphaeum” has not been excavated and may not be a nymphaeum at all. Its plan is that of a small temple or shrine (e.g., Browning 1973:136-37). A small reservoir directly behind and above the “South Nymphaeum” (reported in Bachmann et al. 1921:35) suggests the association of water with this monument.

102

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

waterfalls would have made a lovely sight but were unremarkable as natural feature in any mountainous landscape. One waterfall at Petra, however, falls into an entirely different category. Carved into the sandstone cliffs adjacent to the Palace Tomb is a monumental niche standing approximately 20 meters high. Water was channeled around the northern edge of Jebel al-Khubtha to the top of this niche and cascaded over the edge to form a magnificent waterfall. At the base of the waterfall is a series of terraced basins and a cistern (Pl. XXVIIIb).97 This man-made waterfall is remarkable not only for its size, but for its negative impact on the Nabataeans’ efforts towards water conservation. Although splendid to behold, the amount of evaporation off of a waterfall of such magnitude is unnecessarily wasteful of the city’s most precious resource. Therefore, the creation of the waterfall, a feature of purely ornamental value, must have held enough significance to its creator and/or the inhabitants of the city to justify its existence. Another artificial waterfall is documented in the theater at Wadi es-Sabra, a suburb located approximately 7 kilometers south of Petra. An investigation of Sabra’s catchwater regulation system by Manfred Lindner (1982a, 1982b), provided information about its hydraulic installations. According to Lindner, the theater functions as the terminus for the runoff from the mountains surrounding Wadi es-Sabra. A dam constructed on the slopes above the theater formed a reservoir with a holding capacity of 370 cubic meters of water. A small outlet at the base of the dam functioned as a drain emptying water into the theater in the same manner as a fountain spills into a basin (Lindner 1982b:237). This cascade of water out of the mountains and into the theater is an overt example of water display. The ultimate destination and use of the water after it entered the theater is not as yet known since excavations have not yet been undertaken within the theater proper.98 For artistic reconstructions of the Petra water system and the aqueduct and waterfall on Jebel al-Khubtha, see Laureano 1994. It has been suggested that the water from the cistern near the Palace Tomb may have been used to feed the Roman period Nymphaeum (McKenzie 1990:110). 98 Early explorers speculated that the orchestra of the Wadi es-Sabra theater functioned as a large water basin used to reenact maritime battles, 97

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

103

Evidence for a third ornamental waterfall is found within Petra’s City Center, within sight of the Palace Tomb waterfall and associated with the Pool-Complex. Overlooking the pool from atop the east escarpment are the remains of a small V-shaped hydraulic installation that is referred to here as the East Water Tank (Pl. XXI). The tank originally measured approximately 15 meters in length (4 meters across at is widest point) although only the southern 12 meters of the reservoir is preserved in elevation. All that remains of the tank’s northern half is the concrete flooring that ends abruptly at a vertical drop-off on the north end. The wall of the southern half is built of mortared sandstone ashlars and preserved to the height of five courses.99 Thick concrete, identical to that used in the pool’s interior, lines the interior walls and floor. The southern, curved end of the tank is built up against a low sandstone outcrop, the surface of which is level with the preserved top of the wall. Water originating from the slopes of ez-Zantur entered the tank through a narrow channel built into the top of the wall at this southern end—the traces of a shallow conduit leading to this entry point are still visible in the bedrock immediately to the south of the tank. Once inside the tank, the water continued to flow to the northern end of the installation where it spilled over the edge of the cliff, creating a waterfall approximately four meters high. The water was then apparently transported down to the pool level through a series of terraced basins or channels, the remains of which are visible along the base of the eastern escarpment (Pls. XV and XXIXa-b).100 Since other, more practical methods of transporting water down to the Pool-Complex were feasible (eg., covered channels, ceramic pipelines) in order to prevent the unnecessary loss of water through evaporation, the creation of a similar to the Roman naumachiae (Laborde 1830:195-197; Lagrange 1898:166, 179). 99 As recently as 1994, the walls of the East Water Tank were preserved somewhat higher and a small window was clearly defined on its western elevation. An earthquake in the winter of 1995 caused some of the stones in the upper courses to fall obscuring the evidence for the window. 100 The interpretation of this intriguing installation is based entirely on features that are visible on the surface. The archaeological investigation of the East Water Tank awaits future excavations seasons.

104

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

waterfall must have been desirable as a visual effect, an impressive and meaningful use of water display in the heart of Petra.

ORNAMENTAL POOL AND GARDEN The discovery of the Pool-Complex in the area once thought to be a marketplace, revealed a third form of water display at Petra during the Nabataean period: the swimming-pool. The mere presence of a large pool of water whose sole purpose was for pleasure surely would have impressed those who understood the implications of this show of abundance. In addition, the aesthetic effect of a large pool of water in the heart of Petra would have held equal importance. The presence of an expansive, tranquil pool of water would have had a calming effect, in contrast to the flowing channels, fountains and waterfalls on exhibit elsewhere in Petra. Fed by the pool’s overflow and water from the channels and pipes embedded in the walls and under the pavement, the garden is, in itself, an example of water display, an oasis in the city. An adequate source of water is one of the most important requirements for a garden’s prosperity, especially in areas with a hot climate where growing plants need a regular supply. If the Nabataeans were able to establish and maintain an ornamental garden—if that is what future excavations show to have occupied the earthen terrace— then they must have had a surplus of water, enough to devote a sufficient quantity to recreational uses. It should also be assumed that the garden was fitted with other overt examples of water display such as small pools, fountains, and open channels in addition to the monumental pool, all of which consumed large quantities of water through evaporation. In addition, the variety of plants cultivated in the garden would have had a direct effect on water consumption since some plant-types require more water than others. However, information such as this awaits future excavations and botanical analysis.

THE ROLE OF WATER DISPLAY The considerable role of water in the design and character of cities throughout the Classical World is summarized in the following quote from a recent study of water supply and water technology in the Roman world:

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

105

Water was everywhere in cities across the GraecoRoman world. A metaphor for life itself, it gave an underlying structure to the ancient city. It shaped urban topography and even local history. Water was hidden in deep wells and cisterns and gushed unseen through the conduits and armatures of aqueducts, to be distributed by the castellum aquae or to be used for irrigation outside the city. It bubbled openly in nymphaea, public fountains, baths and in the labyrinth sewer networks that served them. Invisibly and visibly it lent form (Koloski-Ostrow et al. 1997:181).

The function of water in these cities was something much greater than providing drink to the inhabitants and nourishment to plants. In the public realm, waterworks such as fountains and baths formed the backdrop for communal activities. In public squares, at the entrances to theaters, assembly halls, and religious sanctuaries, and at major intersections of the streets, the presence of water increased the amenity of the space (e.g., Crouch 1996:141). In addition, the attention lavished on such public installations would remind the citizens and foreign visitors alike of the quality and generosity of the local leaders. The same is true of the waterworks at Petra. All of the examples of water display at Petra listed above, with the exception of the Nymphaeum, date to the Nabataean period (pre-annexation) and, therefore, cannot be attributed merely to the Romans whose passion for spectacular waterworks is welldocumented (e.g., Ehrlich 1989, Crouch and Rinne 1996; Jones and Robinson 1998).101 Due to the generous supply from the Tiber and the surrounding watershed, the Romans became quite accustomed to self-indulgence in the luxuries of their waterworks. No villa was complete without its baths, fountains, pools, channels, and fishponds (e.g., Jashemski 1979; 1993; Eisenberg 1998:186; Farrar 1998:70-71). At Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli—arguably the most famous and extravagant of all Roman villas—the single most unifying element is water (e.g., Erhlich 1989; MacDonald and Pinto 101 Despite the great efforts in the area of water display by the Romans, Vitruvius writes surprisingly little regarding the incorporation of water into architecture for aesthetic purposes. His chapter on water is focused on the very practical methods of locating water sources, testing it for quality, transporting and storing it. (Vitruvius, Arch. VIII.1-6).

106

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

1995). The exhibition of water at Petra belongs to a much larger phenomenon of human psychology in which water’s aesthetic and symbolic values are used to provoke emotions and make statements regarding wealth, status and power.

PSYCHOLOGICAL VALUE In addition to its aesthetic appeal, water has a way of exciting human emotions. Water is simultaneously the most docile and the most powerful of the visible elements, and it is these two qualities that form the basis of the art of water display. “One stimulates the mind, the other the eye” (Jellicoe and Jellicoe 1971:31). Standing pools of water, of various sizes, are generally associated with feelings of tranquility and peace. Staring into the depths of the dark ocean or into the clear blue water of a garden pond tends to provoke contemplation and reflection, and the soft rippling sound of calm waters add to the soothing effect. It is not surprising, therefore, that pools are a standard feature in gardens and courtyards where one seeks to escape the stresses and demands of daily life. Due to its cleansing qualities, water is almost universally attributed with the value of purity. Throughout the Near Eastern and Classical worlds, religious sanctuaries were fitted with pools and basins of water that permit both priests and worshippers to attend to their religious duties in a state of purity. Most notably, perhaps, are the sacred lakes and pools of the ancient Egyptian temple complexes known through their depiction in wall paintings (Hyams 1971:13-40. pl.2, figs.9, 18-9; Gallery 1978: 44-45, ill.11, 13, 14, 28, 29; A. Wilkinson 1998:7, figs. 48, 51-55, 68, 71, 77, 84, pls.XIII-XIV, XVI-XVIII). In contrast to the serenity of pools and lakes is the sensation of water in motion. Whether it is in the form of flowing channels, bubbling fountains, or gushing waterfalls, active water is a stimulus to both the eyes and ears. It has a tendency to be simultaneously invigorating, uplifting, and relaxing. The primary motive for maintaining the flow of water is to prevent stagnation. The mist from fountains and waterfalls also serves a practical purpose by cleansing insects from the water’s surface and cooling the air. But there are other benefits as well. The sounds of fountains and waterfalls prove useful for masking undesirable noises. The introduction of the sounds of splashing, flowing or moving water

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

107

into an urban garden setting is a tool of deception to help drown out the commotion of the city and help the visitor to indulge in an experience of beauty, serenity and nature recreated. They are soothing noises that add to the atmosphere of contemplation and reflection. Since the garden is often used as a place for private conferences, often of a confidential manner, a waterfall could distract to the ear of an unwanted listener standing nearby.

SYMBOLIC VALUE Ultimately, water display is a luxury item, a symbol of wealth and status. Only the richest and most powerful cities could afford to devote resources to an art form that consumes large quantities of water out of the context of everyday usefulness. One of the most visible symbols of civic status in the Roman world was the aqueduct that carried water hundreds of kilometers across the landscape to feed the demands of a wealthy city. As Hodge points out, Roman aqueducts were not built to provide drinking water that was provided by private wells and cisterns. The aqueducts were constructed for the purpose of supplying water for the baths, public toilets, flour mills, gardens, fountains, pools, and aquatic shows (naumachiae). They were a luxury and a monument to prestige and prosperity (Hodge 1991:164, 166; 1992:5f; also see Wilson 1995). In addition to the civic monuments, private palaces and villas were fitted with hydraulic installations that contributed to the representation of the inhabitants’ exceptional wealth and power. Josephus provides some indication of the important role of water display in private palaces. In his description of the palace-fortress of Hyrcanus the Tobiad (modern ‘Iraq el-Amir), Josephus describes the “wide and deep moat” that encircled the palace proper, as well as the nearby banqueting grottoes into which was fed “an abundance of running water, which was both a delight and an ornament to his country-estate” (Ant. XII.4.11). Josephus also remarks that the pleasure grounds at Herodium (the summer palace-fortress of Herod the Great), were “worth seeing because of the way in which water, which is lacking in that place, is brought in from a distance at great expense” (ibid. XV.9.4). The significant role of water in the interpretations of social status and display in Roman domestic architecture has received a great deal of recognition (Wallace-Hadrill 1994; Laurence and Wallace-Hadrill 1997), and

108

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

much of the information about water display in the private realm has been gleaned from the well-preserved villas, gardens and hydraulic installations of Pompeii, where great attention was given to the lavish provision of water features as part of a program of display and luxury (Jashemski 1996b; Hodge 1996; Wiggers 1996; Jones and Robinson 1998). A detailed study of the water system in the House of the Vestals, for example, has revealed new information about of how Pompeiian families were concerned with the use of water for social display. A complex system of drains and water pipes—all of which were devoted entirely to display since domestic water continued to be provided from underground cisterns, and the house toilet was served by a cess pit—was part of a process of aggrandizement in the early 1st century CE that exploited the newly introduced urban water network (Jones and Robinson 1998). Later alterations indicate that the inhabitants “were prepared to make a major redesign of the house, in order to create their own supply of water for display” (ibid.). Water played an important role in the dining experience of the rich and powerful. In the Hellenistic palaces, audience/banquet halls were usually situated adjacent to or within view of the gardens that were installed with fountains and pools and other examples of water display.102 Netzer has suggested that the island palace at ‘Iraq el-Amir (early 2nd century BCE) is actually a large audience/banquet hall surrounded by an artificial lake that could only be accessed by boats (Netzer 1999:52). Two large audience/banquet halls in the governor’s palace (Palazzo delle Colonne) at Ptolemais (Cyrenaica), face onto a peristyle garden with a large central pool. The larger of the two halls (#19) is in the style of an Egyptian oecus with internal colonnade and heart-shaped corner columns (Pesce 1950:tav.V, IX, and XI; Nielsen 1994:146150, figs. 78-79). At Jericho, the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces (2nd-1st centuries BCE) have audience halls (oeci and triclinia), for assembly and banqueting, which are directly associated with The provision of an impressive view during the dining activities of the elite and royalty was a common characteristic that is manifested in the palace architecture of Mesopotamia, Persia, and the Hellenistic kingdoms. This tradition was transferred to the palaces and private villas of the Roman elite whose dining couches and rooms always incorporated a view of gardens, either real or pictorial (e.g., Nielsen 1998:118f). 102

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

109

gardens and pools (Netzer 1977:4, 1990:fig. 10; 1996:204-206; Nielsen 1994:156-160, 197-199, figs. 84-85, 107-109) (Figs. 22, 23, and 27). A triclinium faces onto the monumental pool in Herod’s promontory palace at Caesarea Maritima (Gleason et al. 1998:40) (Fig. 25), and there is a triclinium in the Herodian villa (Building B) at Kallirhoë (‘Ain ez-Zara), the site of the famous thermal baths on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea (Clamer 1989:223; 1997:fig.105).103 Visibility of water while dining was especially important in both the public and private lives of the Romans. For larger banquets, water installations such as fountains, pools and basins of various shapes and sizes were utilized to create small, intimate and aesthetically pleasing sections within a large space without dividing the whole group (Ricotti 1987:173-174). A standard feature in Roman villas was the summer triclinium, an outdoor dining area located in a shaded area of an enclosed private garden (Richardson, Jr. 1988; Farrar 1998:40-42). At Sperlonga (1st century BCE – 1st century CE), the triclinium was situated on an island in the middle of a fishpond at the mouth of a grotto. Servants carried food across a small footbridge and then floated it across a pool of water to the dining guests (Ricotti 1987:138, fig. 2). Pliny the Younger (late 1st century CE), described how he and his guests would recline on couches alongside a pool in his private garden while servants served food and drink across to them on flotillas in the shape of ships and birds (Pliny Ep. 5.6.23). An intricate system of channels, spouts and pipes fed the ornamental pools adding to the ambiance of their dining experience. A similar arrangement is described for Excavations at Kallirhoë (‘Ain ez-Zara) have identified extensive remains of the ancient baths complex from two main periods: the Early Roman (1st century BCE-CE) and the Early Byzantine (4th-5th centuries CE) (Strobel and Clamer 1986; Clamer 1989, 1997). Kallirhoë is described in several of the ancient sources (e.g., Josephus, Wars I.33.5; Antiquities XVII.16.5; Pliny, Nat. Hist. V.16) and was frequented by Herod shortly before his death. (Josephus, Wars I.33.5) The site is depicted and named on the Madaba mosaic map that dates to the 6th century CE. The mosaic shows palm trees (oasis) near three built features: a round pool, a square reservoir with an apse (a nymphaeum?), and a dammed pool, all of which have channels of water flowing from them and into the Dead Sea (Donner 1992:39-40; Weber 1997). 103

110

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

the House of Loreius Tibertinus in Pompeii (Boëthus and WardPerkins 1970:fig. 121; Ricotti 1987:170f, figs. 8-12). At Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli, there are several triclinia in different locations around the grounds—always in the presence of elaborate and decorative water features (Ricotti 1987:175, 180; MacDonald and Pinto 1995:102-116). In the case of some of the maritime villas that did not have access to fresh flowing water from a natural spring or aqueduct—they received their water from wells—the dining area would be situated so that it had a view of the sea. The tricilinium at Pliny’s villa at Laurentinum, for example, is built along the shore. This offers further support regarding the importance of water and water display in the dining activities of the Romans (Ricotti 1987:181-182). Many of the villas and palaces had their own private fishponds (e.g., Farrar 1998:64-65). The fish could be kept as pets as well as for food. In Egypt, the houses of the noble class often centered their gardens on a large pool stocked with ornamental fish, ducks and geese (A. Wilkinson 1998:11). Diodorus reported the excavation of a large pool by the Sicilian tyrant warlord, Gelon (early 5th cent BCE). The pool was stocked with fish and swans “so that the spectacle was most delightful to see” (Athenaeus, Deip. XII.541e). Pliny the Elder (23-79 CE) informs us that the Elder Licinius Murena invented the use of artificial piscinae or fishponds in the early 1st century BCE for the purpose of breeding fish (Pliny, Nat. Hist. IX.80, 170). In order to keep and breed fish in an artificial pond, it was necessary to provide places for the fish to lay their eggs and to retreat from the hot sun. Usually this was accomplished by building terracotta amphora—laid on their sides—into the walls of the pond (Jashemski 1979:108ff, figs.178180). Those dining on the island triclinium at Sperlonga would have been able to select a fish from the surrounding fishpond that would then be caught, prepared and served to them fresh. Several depictions of well-stocked fishpond in garden paintings at Pompeii indicate that a fishpond was considered a desirable part of the garden (ibid.:110, fig. 179). Whether used for fish or for swimming or simply for show, pools of water would have undoubtedly attracted the waterfowl and aquatic animals in the area adding to the overall effect of fertility and abundance. Perhaps the greatest example of the conspicuous consumption of water for the purpose of display and

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

111

aggrandizement is its use in recreational facilities, both public and private. The swimming-pool made its debut during the Hellenistic period, although its origins likely lie in Pharaonic Egypt where artificial lakes and pools were a central feature in temple complexes, private estates, and palaces (Gallery 1978:47; Gleason 1996:384; Wilkinson 1998:6-7). Most of our knowledge of these pools comes from New Kingdom period wall paintings that depict walled enclosures with pools as well as an assortment of flora and fauna (e.g., Hyams 1971:13-40. pl.2, figs.9, 18-9; Gallery 1978: 4445, ill.11, 13, 14, 28, 29; A. Wilkinson 1998:7, figs. 48, 51-55, 68, 71, 77, 84, pls.XIII-XIV, XVI-XVIII). Nowhere in the wall-paintings is there any indication that the Egyptian pools or lakes were used for swimming, although most of them were indeed large enough for swimming and several paintings depict their use for boating activities (A. Wilkinson 1998:10-11, fig. 56, pl. XIII, XVIII). A quay discovered at the western end of the monumental lake (120 x 60 x 1 meters) in the Maru-Aten (Precinct of the Southern Pool) of Akhenaten/Amenhotep IV (18th Dynasty, 1364-1347 BCE) at Tell el-Amarna provides direct evidence for its for boat processions and/or aquatic spectacles (ibid.:148-159, figs. 78-79). The Palace of Apries (26th Dynasty) at Memphis, with its magnificent park and lake, is known to have survived into the Ptolemaic era as a result of its use by the Persians, thus providing the possibility for continuity in garden design between the New Kingdom and Ptolemaic/Hellenistic periods (Nielsen 1994:27). Theoretically, the tradition of large pools and lakes as a standard feature of Egyptian ornamental gardens—both sacred and private—persisted into the Ptolemaic period. Indeed, Strabo describes lakes associated with the city and palace at Memphis, the first capital of the Ptolemaic empire (Geog. XVII.1.32). Although there is no specific mention in the ancient literature of pools or artificial lakes at Alexandria, their presence may be deduced by descriptions of the city and its palace precinct (baseleia) which include parks and monuments commonly associated with gardens and parks (see Ch. V). The presence of pools in an important cultural center such as Alexandria, a source of architectural style and innovations for the entire Hellenistic World (Lyttleton 1974), means that foreign leaders, dignitaries, architects and artisans, could have seen them and been inspired by them. For example, a Ptolemaic official, Hyrcanus the Tobiad would have

112

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

witnessed, first-hand, the monuments and private estates that graced Alexandria in the early 2nd century BCE. These sites undoubtedly played an influencial role in the design of his private estate at ‘Iraq el-Amir (ancient Tyre) in Transjordan, which included a large man-made lake surrounding the main building (Will 1991; Netzer 1999) (Pl. XXX). Unfortunately, little of Ptolemaic Alexandria has survived to inform us of the presence or absence of monumental pools104 and descriptions in the literary sources of that era do not include any mention of pools or artificial lakes.105 A monumental swimming-pool was the central focus of the gardens belonging to the Sicilian tyrant lord, Gelon (early 5th century BCE). According to Athenaeus: …the people of Agrigentum built a swimming-pool for Gelon at great cost; it had a perimeter of seven stadia and a depth of thirty feet, and into it water was drawn from rivers and springs to make a fish-preserve supplying many fish for the luxurious taste and enjoyment of Gelon; there lighted on it also a large quantity of swans, so that the spectacle was most delightful to see (Deip. XII.541e)

The earliest known example of a swimming-pool in a Hellenistic context is in the palace complex at Aï Khanoum, the ancient city founded in 328 BCE by Alexander the Great for his Bactrian wife, Roxanne. Located on the Pyandzh River in modern Afghanistan, this Seleucid colony exhibits a mixture of Oriental and Hellenic features (Bernard 1978, 1981; Nielsen 1994:124-128, figs. 66-68). An enormous swimming-pool was installed in the mid-2nd century BCE inside the royal park that occupied the open space between the main palace and the Amou Daria River (Bernard 1978, 1981:Taf. 44; Nielsen 1996:211). A large rectangular swimmingpool is the central feature of a garden-peristyle in the governor’s palace (Palazzo delle Colonne), at Ptolemais (Cyrenaica) that dates Current archaeological excavations are beginning to provide new information about Ptolemaic and Roman Alexandria (e.g., Goddio 1998) that may eventually shed new light on the tradition of gardens and poolcomplexes during those periods. 105 For a comprehensive list of the numerous references to Alexandria in the ancient sources, see Nielsen 1994:282. 104

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

113

to the beginning of the 1st century BCE (e.g., Pesce 1950; Nielsen 1994:146-152, figs.78-80). But it was under the Hasmonean kings of Judea that recreational swimming-pools became the fashion for royal complexes (Netzer 1996:205). In the late 2nd century BCE, Hyrcanus I (ca.120-110 BCE) built his Winter Palace along the northern rim of Wadi Qelt at Jericho. To the west of the palace were two small swimming-pools (9 x 8 x 3.5 meters) surrounded by a porticoed garden (Netzer 1985:345, figs.1-2; 1996:204-205; Nielsen 1994:155-156:fig.83/2). Each new building phase carried out at the Jericho palace complex under succeeding Hasmonean rulers—Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE), his widow, Queen Alexandra (76-67 BCE), and Hyrcanus II (63-40 BCE)—included monumental swimming-pools associated with magnificent gardens (Netzer 1975:92, 1977:3-4, 1985; 1990:fig.1, 1996:205-206; Nielsen 1994:156-159, figs. 83-85), and it was in one of these pools that the High Priest, Aristobolus III, was drowned at the request of his uncle, the young and ambitious future king, Herod: Herod decided to carry out his designs against the youth [Aristobolus]. When the festival was over and they were being entertained at Jericho as the guest of Alexandra, he showed great friendliness to the youth and led him on to drink [of poisoning] without fear, and he was ready to join is his play and to act like a young man in order to please him. But as the place was naturally very hot, they soon went out in a group for a stroll, and stood beside the swimming-pools, of which there were several large ones around the palace, and cooled themselves off from the excessive heat of noon. At first they watched some of the servants and friends (of Herod) as they swam, and then, at Herod’s urging, the youth was induced (to join them). But with darkness coming on as he swam, some of the friends, who had been given orders to do so, kept pressing him down and holding him under water as if in sport, and they did not let up until they had quite suffocated him. In this manner was Aristobolus done away with when he was at most eighteen years old and had held the high priesthood for a year. (Josephus, Ant. V.3.3)

In its final phase, a total of seven functioning swimming-pools graced the Hasmonean palace complex at Jericho (Figs. 22-23). No

114

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

other example of such an abundance of large pools in one building complex is known to have existed throughout the Hellenistic World (Netzer 1996:205). Carrying on the tradition established by the Hasmoneans, Herod the Great built three winter palaces at Jericho. The Third Winter Palace, the largest and grandest of his palaces at Jericho (built toward the end of his reign, around 15 BCE), included extensive recreational facilities with a large formal, sunken garden and a monumental swimming-pool, measuring 90 x 42 meters (Netzer 1975:99; 1977:10; 1985:350, fig.2; 1990:fig. 10; Nielsen 1994:199-200) (Figs. 27). Netzer suggests that the pool could have been used for water games with the spectators seated along the steep hill to the south of the pool (Netzer 1977:10).106 The incorporation of the Wadi Qelt—with its seasonal flow of water— into the palace complex, is an innovative and very dramatic example of water display exhibited by Herod (ibid.:10f). Little is known about this pool, due to the lack of excavations in its interior. Only its corners have been located (Nielsen 1994:200). 106

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

115

With the exception of Jerusalem, all of Herod’s other palaces are known to have featured monumental swimming-pools as well.107 At Masada, a swimming-pool (18.4 x 12.4 x 2.6 meters) near the southern tip of the plateau is believed to be contemporary with the Western Palace, built during Herod’s initial building phase (ca. 37-30 BCE) at this dramatic site situated along the western rim of the Dead Sea (Netzer 1991:482f, plan 45; 1996:208; Nielsen

107 Josephus’ description of the palace, which is rather detailed and enthusiastic, mentions only canals and ponds or basins in the peristyle gardens with no indication of a large body of water such as a swimmingpool (Ant. XV.9.3; Wars. V.4.4).

116

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

117

1994:189; Gleason 1997b:8).108 At the base of Herod’s summer fortress at Herodium (built 20-23 BCE), near Bethlehem, is a complex of buildings and recreational facilities including a monumental swimming-pool measuring 72 x 46 x 3 meters (holding capacity = 10,000 cubic meters). One could swim or boat out to the circular island-pavilion at the center of the pool (Netzer 1981a:11-15; 1985:348, fig.2; 1987:32; Gleason 1997b:9) (Fig. 24, Pl. XXXIa-b). This is the only other known example of an islandpavilion that is contemporaneous with the one at Petra. The function of the large pool (35 x 18 meters) in the peristyle of the Promontory Palace at Ceasarea Maritima (built 19-10 BCE) remains problematic. Like the rest of the pools of Herod’s royal residences, it was probably initially used for swimming, and this is confirmed by the discovery of a fresh water conduit feeding the pool (Levine and Netzer 1986:176; Netzer 1981b:53; 1985:350, fig.2; Nielsen 1994:183). The presence of channels connecting the pool to the sea indicates that at some later period, the swimmingpool was converted into a fishpond (Levine and Netzer 1986:176; Gleason et al. 1998:39) (Fig. 25).109 This is a similar arrangement to the pool at the center of a peristyle in the governor’s palace (Palazzo delle Colonne) at Ptolemais (Pesce 1950:tav. V, VI, IX and XI; Nielsen 1994:146-152, figs. 78-80). It is possible that the Netzer suggests that the isolated location of Pool 711, at the very southern tip of the Masada plateau, may have been chosen on account of its suitability for the collection of runoff water, or, possibly, as a means of offering some privacy to bathers (Netzer 1991:647, fn. 52). Abutting the northeastern corner of Pool 711 is a much smaller Pool 712 (3.1 x 3.1 x 2.6 meters). The function of this smaller pool is unclear and no connection between the two pools was discerned. It is possible that there was a pipe or channel along the top of the common wall that has not survived (Netzer 1991:483). If this were the case, the smaller pool could have functioned as an overflow tank for the larger pool. Further north, near the center of the plateau, is Pool 721 (8.7 x 6.2 x meters) which is also dated to the Heriodian period. This pool, however, may have been used as a reservoir for irrigation rather than for recreational purposes (Netzer 1991:374, 647, fn. 52). 109 Flinder (1982) argues that the Caesarea pool was built as a fishpond by King Herod who was copying Roman maritime villas, many of which had large fishponds. He notes the many similarities between the Caesarea pool and a Roman period fishpond at Laithos at Cyprus. 108

118

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

two palaces received their inspiration from a common source, such as the palaces at Alexandria (Nielsen 1994:150, 184). The Romans also recognized the appeal of the swimmingpool and began to incorporate them into their gardens, both private and public, although not with the same frequency as smaller ornamental pools and basins. In the 1st century BCE, Augustus’ cultural arbiter, Maecenas, transformed the old fortifications on the Esquiline Hill in Rome into a public park, complete with an auditorium and a warm-water swimming-pool (e.g., Favro 1996:179). Examples of swimming-pools are found in the villas and towns of Campania. At Oplontis, the Villa of Poppaea has a large pool (17 x 60 meters) dating to the 1st century BCE that is surrounded by a sculpture garden (Jashemski 1993:298-299, plan 131, fig. 332). At Pompeii, there is a private swimming-pool (8.5 x 4.5 x 1.5 meters) in the garden of the House of Julius Felix (ibid.:86-88; plan 27, fig. 100). In the Great Palaestra at Pompeii, there is a central monumental pool (34.55 x 22.25 meters) surrounded on three sides by a portico and plane trees (ibid.:91-92,

HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING & WATER DISPLAY

119

plan 29, fig. 102a) (Pl. XXXIIIa). The arrangement of the palaestra adjacent to the amphitheater and set in a public park is somewhat comparable to the context of the Petra Pool-Complex, Phase II. At this phase the Great Temple was converted into a theatron (probably an odeion or bouleutereion?) and thus the pool and its garden were part of a public facility at the heart of the city (see Ch. VI). Perhaps the most famous Roman pools are those found at Hadrian’s pleasure villa at Tivoli (first half of the 2nd century CE). Hadrian’s Villa is noted for its water features—streams, canals, lakes, pools, fountains—that function as unifying elements between interior and exterior space (Jellicoe and Jellicoe 197:42) (Pl. XXXIIb). The monumental size and setting of many of the villa’s pools leave it unquestionable that some of them at least were used for swimming and other recreational water sports. The circular canal around the Island Enclosure (the so-called “Maritime Theater”) was relatively deep (maximum depth 1.5 meters) and could have been used for swimming in as well. The island, which could be accessed by bridges from several directions, was designed as a formal garden of parterres and fountains (MacDonald and Pinto 1995:85ff). The large number of water features at Hadrian’s Villa—i.e., twelve multiple fountains, thirty single fountains, six grottos and twelve pools and basins (ibid.:172)—is testimony to the Roman emperor’s conspicuous and extravagant use of water as a means of displaying his wealth and power. The Romans reenacted maritime battles in artificial pools and lakes called naumachiae for the purpose of entertainment and a display of the empire’s great military might (e.g., Favro 1996:73, 181, 243). A few naumachiae are reported in the eastern provinces, although none have been substantiated through archaeological investigation. It has been argued that the theater built by Herod at Caesarea Maritima was eventually converted into a naumachia (dell’Amore 1966:262). At Bostra, two large depressions were dubbed naumachiae without excavations to support the claim. One, at least, is probably a hippodrome (Peters 1983:274). Similarly, the identification of the theater at Wadi es-Sabra, near Petra, as a naumachia has yet to be proved although the associated waterfall indicates some use of water display on the site.

120

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

SUMMARY The discovery of the Pool-Complex, with its monumental pool and irrigated garden, is profound evidence that the Nabataeans were indeed “Masters of the Desert”. Their skills in hydraulic engineering went far beyond providing for the fundamental needs of a large urban population. By collecting and storing every possible drop of water, they were able to supply a variety of ornamental and recreational facilities—sacred pools and fountains, waterfalls, nymphaea, baths, as well as a monumental pool and formal garden—that played an important role in promoting Petra’s image as the political and cultural center of Nabataea, an independent and prosperous kingdom. The symbolic role of water display in Petra will be further developed with the discussion of the role of gardens (Ch. V)—the natural setting for many examples of water display—and analysis of the particular context in which the Petra Pool-Complex was created at the height of Nabataean prosperity and a period of intense hellenization of its ruling class (Ch. VI).

CHAPTER V

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

TERMINOLOGY As described in the previous chapter, the civilizations of the ancient Near East were rooted in the need for elaborate irrigation systems. As a result, their gardens are sometimes referred to as “gardens of irrigation”, having evolved out of an agricultural system of geometric plots which were watered by straight irrigation ditches. There are numerous references to gardens in the ancient texts, although it is often impossible to determine the type of garden that is being described. For example, kirû (Akkadian), gan (Hebrew), kepos (Greek), and hortus (Latin) are the generic terms for “garden”, but there is often no distinction made between kitchen gardens, orchards, and formal, pleasure gardens. As formal gardens became a standard feature of royal palace complexes in Mesopotamia, specific terminology was introduced into the vocabulary. The term kirî ekallim (“palace garden”) is found in texts dating to the reign of the Babylonian king, Adad-shuma-usur (1218-1189 BCE) (Grayson 1975:64, i 13, 17). Several centuries later, during the late 8th-7th centuries BCE, the term kirimāhu was used to distinguish the pleasure gardens of the Assyrian kings (Oppenheim 1965:331). The Achaemenid kings of ancient Persia emulated the Assyrian tradition of royal gardens and developed it into a true art form. They called their formal gardens and royal hunting preserves, pairadaeza, meaning “enclosure” (Old Persian), due to their habit of 121

122

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

encircling the space with a band of trees or a boundary wall.110 Following his travels to East at the end of the 5th century BCE, Xenophon enthusiastically described the elaborate garden enclosures that accompanied the various royal palaces scattered throughout the empire with their beautiful trees arranged in straight and regular rows, and with a pleasant aroma that filled the air. He also noted that the Achaemenid king boasted of measuring out and planting the trees himself (Oec. 4.13, 20-24). Xenophon introduced the Greek form of pairadaeza = παραδεισος (paradeisos > paradise),111 into the vocabulary of the budding Hellenistic World (e.g., Moynihan 1979:1; Gleason 1997a:383), and, upon his return, recreated the Persian paradeisos at his private estate at Scillus, on the Peloponnese. The combination of Xenophon’s writings and private garden would influence the design of subsequent Greek, Hellenistic and Roman gardens (Moynihan 1979:1-2).

THE ROLE OF THE GARDEN IN EARLY CIVILIZATIONS For some, the garden is a means of ordering the natural world and providing aesthetic and material satisfaction (e.g., C. Taylor 1983:5), but from its inception, the pleasure garden held a very important position in ancient society. Its role was not merely as decoration or as filler in the open spaces between buildings and monuments. The garden itself is a place of social agency, a place where specific activities—religious, official, social, and recreational—are carried out. For example, temple gardens were used for religious rituals (Wiseman 1984:41), whereas in private residences, the garden provided a convenient backdrop for official assemblies and banquets that involved large numbers of guests (e.g., Lewis 1983; Ricotti 1987; Deller 1987; Nielsen 1998:124f), as well as for smaller, more intimate gatherings for the exchange of conversation, music, 110 The word “garden” (“yard”, “gird”) is derived from words meaning “to enclose” in most Western languages. In Persian, pairi (around) + daeza (wall) = pairadaeza (walled enclosure > garden). The Hebrew word for garden, gan, is technically translated as “enclosure”. Therefore, the Garden of Eden = gan (enclosure) + ’eden (pleasure/delight). For a general discussion of references to the garden in ancient Near Eastern texts, see Ebeling 1957. 111 For a complete description of the uses of paradeisos, see Galling 1949: 1131-1134.

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

123

philosophical discourse, and poetry (Sackville-West 1953:287; Nielsen 1998:124f). Characteristically, special care was taken to provide an impressive view, filled with greenery, water and animal life, during the dining activities of the elite and royalty and their guests (Nielsen 1998:118f). In addition, special parklands were laid out for recreational activities such as hunting and falconry (e.g., Oppenheim 1965:333; Wilbur 1979:3; Wiseman 1984:37; Gleason 1997a:385), whereas swimming-pools became the fashion in the late Hellenistic period (e.g., Netzer 1975; 1981b:53f; also see Ch. IV). In addition, the underlying symbolic meaning of nature’s basic elements—the earth, trees, flowers, fruits, animals, and life-giving water—are easily utilized and manipulated by the garden’s creator as a propagandistic tool. The multiple layers of meaning inherent in the garden are utilized to convey messages about a society’s worldview and quest for utopia, as well as to reinforce an individual’s claims to legitimacy, status, wealth, and power. GARDEN AS “PARADISE”

It is virtually impossible to discuss the origin of gardens without first tackling the concept of the “Garden of Eden”, one of the most powerful and value-laden fables in Western tradition. The source of this concept, which is prevalent throughout Near Eastern mythology, is the belief that the wilderness (i.e., nature) is the heart of the world and the source of life. It is the home of the plants and animals upon which humans depend for sustenance, and the source of the four great rivers without which there could be no life (e.g., Moynihan 1979:2-5; Brookes 1987:17f; A. Wilkinson 1989:2; Eisenberg 1998:69-79). “The myth of Eden describes a perfect landscape, a place so benign and beautiful and good that the imperative to preserve or restore it could be questioned only by those who ally themselves with evil” (Cronon 1995:37). Persian gardens are divided into four quarters, possibly as a reflection of the division of the universe by the four rivers (Sackville-West 1953:262; Wilbur 1979:3; Stronach 1994). The eight-fold plan of Islamic gardens is likely an evolution of the earlier four-fold plan (Stronach 1990), and is intended as a recreation of paradise on earth as described in the Qu’ran (Brookes 1987:17). The garden, therefore, functions as a material metaphor of the utopian world-view that frames a society’s concept of itself

124

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

and its place within the world. It symbolizes the earthly paradise, an idealized representation of nature in its purest form, before humans entered the picture, building their cities, dissecting the land with their roads and irrigation systems, and clearing large tracts of land for cultivation. In a desert environment, the garden represented an enviable utopia that contrasted sharply with the stark reality of daily life (ibid.:18). Actual gardens must have been scarce, thus adding to their aesthetic value (ibid.:26). As the boundaries of the wilderness disappeared further into the distance, orchards and gardens were all that remained with any resemblance to the nature that once was. A reference to the use of the garden as a means of preserving a bit of that original wilderness is found in the Mesopotamian tale of the Hullupu-tree, representing the first living thing on earth, which the goddess Inanna nurtured in her private garden (Wolkstein and Kramer 1983:141-145). As an artificial recreation of nature, the garden can be viewed from two perspectives: i) as a preserve of nature in which the garden represents the “wild” in contrast to “civilized” society; or ii) as a representation of “culture” in contrast to the “wild” natural forces that lay beyond the limits of human civilization (Eisenberg 1998:171). The two forms of Persian pairadaeza—hunting park and formal garden—encompass both views. The large hunting parks were nature preserves containing wild animals and uncultivated land. The formal gardens, on the other hand, exemplified the acculturation of nature with neatly laid out planting beds and water channels. Any animals kept within the formal garden enclosure would surely have been domesticated. GARDEN AS A SYMBOL OF FERTILITY

In a land in which the desert was predominant and the natural forestlands were rapidly shrinking due to deforestation (e.g., Thirgood 1981; Spooner and Mann 1982; Wertime 1983), it is not surprising that the garden—a place of cultivation and fructification—came to epitomize fertility, reproduction, and abundance. Floral motifs—particularly those species that produce clusters of fruit and seeds (i.e., dates, pomegranates, grapes) are commonly used as attributes for deities associated with fertility and to symbolize the abundance of the land. Allusions to gardens are often found in literary texts in stories about love and love-making.

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

125

For example, there are many references to gardens and garden activities in the “The Courtship of Inanna and Dimuzi”: Dimuzi sings: Inanna, I would go with you to my garden. I would go with you to my orchard. I would go with you to my apple tree. There I would plant the sweet, honey-covered seed. Innana replies: My brother, Dimuzi, brought me into his garden. I strolled with him among the standing trees, I stood with him among the fallen trees, By an apple tree I knelt as is proper. Before my brother coming in song, Who rose to me out of the poplar leaves, Who came to me in the midday heat, Before my lord Dimuzi, I poured out plants from my womb. I placed plants before him, I poured out plants before him. I placed grain before him, I poured out grain before him. I poured out grain from my womb. (Wolkstein and Kramer 1983:40)

Similar allusions to gardens and their produce are found in the biblical love poem, Song of Songs. GARDEN AS POLITICAL METAPHOR

Because of the various facets of meaning bestowed upon it, the garden is an ideal medium used by individuals to legitimate their authority. By combining the symbols of nature (i.e., the garden) with monuments of political significance (i.e., palace, forum, etc.), it is possible to create an ideology that promotes and legitimizes one’s desired position in society. 112 The creation of a palace 112 The political symbolism of gardens was introduced by Leone (1984), in relationship to the ornamental gardens of Colonial America. Leone argues that gardens were utilized as a means to assert individual authority and legitimize private wealth in a period of social upheaval. For

126

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

garden, for example, fulfilled a far more important function than providing the king and his court with a shady retreat within the secure confines of the palace walls. At one level, the palace garden, or royal paradeisos, represented the ruler’s ability to insure the fertility of the land and thus provide for the basic needs of the people (A. Wilkinson 1998:3; Stronach 1990:171; Porter 1993). In addition, the inclusion of symbolically charged elements and arrangements within the royal garden strengthened the political metaphor. For example, the introduction of exotic plants and animals from conquered lands was commonly used to represent a ruler’s military successes and the extent of the empire under his rule (e.g., MacDonald and Pinto 1995:330; Stronach 1994:9; Foster 1998). The close association of the royal paradeisos with the throneroom or assembly hall emphasized the king’s position as ruler over his domain. This is best exemplified at Pasargadae where the Persian king’s throne is placed directly in line with the garden’s central axis—an intentional use of an axial “vista of power” to demonstrate the king’s unquestionable authority over the “four quarters” of his empire (Stronach 1994:8). Finally, the garden functions as an expression of status and leisure. Despite its fulfillment of various roles in society, the garden is, nonetheless, a frivolity that is unnecessary for purposes of daily life. Therefore, like all things that are aesthetically pleasing yet useless in a practical sense, the garden is perceived as a symbol of wealth, status and power (Clark 1986:3). The paradeisos was, unquestionably, a luxurious creation filled with earthly delights that only the wealthiest and most powerful individuals had the means to obtain and maintain. The water that irrigated the gardens and fed their fountains and pools was often transported over long distances in canals and aqueducts built especially for this purpose (Hodge 1992:5f). The significance of the consumption of water for display purposes is further magnified when it is found in a desert environment where resources are severely limited. In this sense, the paradeisos of the Near East represents the epitome of conspicuous consumption and thus functioned as an effective symbol of status and power (A. Wilkinson 1989:13). additional studies of the political role of historical gardens, e.g., KryderReid 1991, 1994; Markell 1995; Yentsch 1996.

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

127

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARADEISOS The art of gardening can be traced back to the 3rd millennium BCE in Mesopotamia. The earliest literary reference to gardening practices are found in a Sumerian poem that describes the horticultural technique of growing shade trees to protect the plants from the wind and sun (Kramer 1988:70-74). According to legend, Sargon I was raised by an irrigation officer and spent his early years as a gardener before becoming the cup-bearer for Ur-Zababa, the king of Kish (Roux 1964:128-130). But it was apparently Sargon’s service as a gardener that proved pleasing to Ishtar and he became King of Akkad (ca. 2371-2316 BCE): Akki, the drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me. Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener. While I was gardener, Ishtar granted me (her) love, And for four and […] years I exercised kingship. (from The Legend of Sargon, in Pritchard 1973:85-86)

The earliest mention of a landscaped park is found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which the Cedars of Lebanon—the home of the sacred Cedar Tree and “Dwelling of the Gods”—are described as a bounded forest with a formal entrance and straight roads and paths: They stood at the forest’s edge, Gazing at the top of the Cedar Tree, Gazing at the entrance to the forest. Where Humbaba would walk there was a trail, The roads led straight on, the path was excellent. (from The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet V, in Kovacs 1989:41)

This episode describes a fascination with foreign landscapes and plants in contrast with the imposition of orderly straight paths by humans (Gleason 1996:383). The severe consequences of cutting the giant cedars indicate the great value to which these ancient trees were held (Foster 1998:322f).

128

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

TEMPLE GARDENS IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA AND EGYPT In ancient Mesopotamia, gardens are known to be associated with the temples of Enki, Inanna, Enlil, Anu, Adad, and Nabu. The temple gardens may have been used for outdoor rituals or merely as paradaisical settings intended to please the gods (Wiseman 1983:137f; 1984:41; Stronach 1989:476, 488, fn.5; 1990:171; Foster 1998:322). In the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah condemns gardens because of their association with pagan rituals (Isaiah 1:29; 65:2-5; 66:17) and knowing King Ahab’s tolerance for such rituals, Elijah predicts the king’s doom after a garden is incorporated into the royal estate (I Kings 21:1-29).113 Generally, temple gardens consist of groves of trees such as juniper and cypress, or orchards, planted in rows inside one of the temple courtyards (Gleason 1997a:383). The bounty of a temple orchard would have been used as ritual offerings (Wiseman 1984:42). As a reflection of the fertility of the land, the quality of a temple’s sacred grove and the quantity of its produce would have been interpreted as a reflection of the status of the resident deity as well as the community at large (Stronach 1990:171). For the Egyptians, the garden was the place of creation and its pool represented the water of Nun from which life originally sprang (A. Wilkinson 1990:202). Monumental complexes such as temples and palaces “consisted of an interplay between architecture and landscape…an attitude which places architecture as a complementary part of the landscape” (Gallery 1978:43).114 It is not surprising, therefore, that archaeological excavations have revealed rows of planting pits within Egyptian temple complexes, evidence that sacred groves were associated with Egyptian religious practice (ibid.:48, ills.33, 37). Due to the Egyptian belief that the deceased king became Osiris, royal burials were designed to represent the tomb of Osiris, which is often illustrated as a mound of earth—the Ahab’s Queen, Jezebel, arranged the murder of a local landowner, Naboth, in order to obtain his vineyard as a palace garden for the king (I Kings 21:1-29). 114 For studies and discussions of Egyptian gardens of the Pharaonic period, see Thompson 1950:102-106; Hyams 1971:13ff; Gallery 1978; Hugonot 1989, 1992; A. Wilkinson 1990 and 1998; Gleason 1996:384. 113

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

129

Mound of Creation—with trees growing on the top (A. Wilkinson 1998:63ff). As a result, royal funerary complexes from the First Dynasty onward were terraced with rows of trees along the avenues and access ramps leading up to them and groves of trees with canals or pools of water in front of or surrounding the funerary temple (ibid.:66). The tomb of Menes, the first king of the First Dynasty, at Saqqara has planting pits in front of its façade (Emery 1949:2-3). A series of planting pits provides evidence for a grove of trees alongside the pyramid temple of Seneferu (4th Dynasty) at Dahshur (Stadelmann 1993:261, abb.1; A. Wilkinson 1998:67-68, fig. 30). In front of the funerary temple of Nebhepetra Menthuhetep II (11th Dynasty) at Deir el-Bahari are planting pits, ten meters deep, laid out in offset rows like a checkerboard (Thompson 1950:104-104, fig.6; A. Wilkinson 1998:68-73). The preserved roots of tamarisk shrubs and sycamore-fig trees were discovered inside these pits (Hugonot 1992:38; A. Wilkinson 1998:48f, 69). The sycamore-fig tree, sacred to the goddess Hathor, represents nourishment for the deceased. The tamarisk symbolizes the birth myth of the deceased king who was said to have been born to the sky goddess, Nut, amidst a field of tamarisk (A. Wilkinson 1998:72). At the neighboring funerary temple of Queen Hatshepsut (18th Dynasty) at Deir el-Bahari, a row of trees flanks the access ramp and tshaped water tanks for papyrus and circular plantings beds are laid out in the monument’s first courtyard (Thompson 1950:103; Arnold 1975:1014, abb.1; A. Wilkinson 1998:74-79, fig.37). The tshaped pools provided a setting for funerary and dedicatory rituals (A. Wilkinson 1998:78). Later funerary temples such as that of Ramses III (20th Dynasty) at Medinet Habu had groves of trees on the outside and elaborate gardens with a sacred lake, pools, and tshaped canals in the first courtyard (Hölscher 1910:pl. iii; 1951a:6778; 1951b:11-19; A. Wilkinson 1998:91-94).115 Egyptian cultic temples functioned as the center for the development of horticulture and gardening (Gallery 1978:48). Most of our knowledge about temple gardens is gleaned from literary and pictorial references with only limited information from For further examples of sacred groves and gardens associated with early royal burials and private tombs in Egypt, e.g., A. Wilkinson 1998:66-118. 115

130

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

archaeological excavations.116 The gardens of cultic temples differed from those of funerary temples in that they resembled plantations with avenues, vineyards, orchards, vegetable plots, and pools—landscaping similar to that of royal palaces and private estates (see below) (A. Wilkinson 1998:14, 120-121, pls. XIV). The plants cultivated in the temple gardens were utilized in rituals and ceremonies, as decoration, religious symbolism, and as special offerings (ibid.:121, 123ff). For example, resin-producing incense trees such as frankincense and myrrh provided incense that was burned during rituals. The artistic and literary evidence indicates the important role of the king in supporting the endowments of the temples and the temple gardens (ibid.:142-144). Wall paintings and accompanying texts displayed in Hatshepsut’s (18th Dynasty) funerary temple describe a voyage to Punt and the collection of myrrh saplings to plant in a temple garden dedicated to Amun at Thebes (Thompson 1950:103; Gallery 1978:48, ill. 35-36; A. Wilkinson 1998:47, 83-87, 123, fig.42-43). The paintings also show that a number of baboons were brought back for the royal menagerie.117 By orchestrating the import of such exotica, Hatshepsut made a powerful statement affirming her ability and right to rule Egypt, stating: “Never before was brought the like of this for any king who has been since the beginning” (Smith 1962). A similar statement was accomplished by Ramses III (20th Dynasty) when he imported trees from Punt, Palestine, and Syria when renovating the same temple gardens (ibid.). In the temple at Karnak, a series of wall reliefs depicts a garden composed of nearly 300 species of exotic plants, animals and birds. This representation of a “Botanical Garden” was installed in the temple by Tuthmoses III (18th Dynasty) in commemoration of a successful military 116 A good summary of the current evidence for gardens in Egyptian cultic temples is provided in A. Wilkinson 1998:Chap. V (“Gardens in Cult Temples”). 117 Another wall painting shows bears captured during an expedition to Syria for cedar wood orchestrated by Pharaoh Sahure (5th Dynasty). In the tomb of Rekhmire, a high official of the 18th Dynasty, a wall painting depicts a parade of exotica captured during military expeditions: giraffe and monkeys from Nubia are shown on the tomb’s southern wall; bears, horses, and elephants from Syria are shown on the tomb’s northern wall (Davies 1943; also e.g., Foster 1998:327; 1999:50, 52).

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

131

campaign into Syria (Beaux 1990). Whether the image is an artistic reflection of an actual garden within the temple complex or elsewhere is unknown, but its political message—the glorification of Egypt’s territorial expansion under Tuthmoses III—is unmistakable.118 The best known and perhaps grandest of Egyptian gardens are found at Tell el-Amarna, where Akhenaten/Amenhotep IV (18th Dynasty) built a whole city filled with parks and gardens and dedicated it to the worship of the sun god Aten. Most of the gardens were used for religious ceremony and ritual. The MaruAten was a sacred precinct with a large lake, temples, and offering pools. It was designed to represent the Field of Offerings— paradise—where Aten and the king found recreation (A. Wilkinson 1998:148-156, figs.77-80). Other smaller sacred precincts with similar features were located around the city (ibid.:156-160, figs. 8182).

ROYAL GARDENS AND PRIVATE ESTATES Even more information is available for gardens associated with royal palaces and private estates of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Hellenistic and Roman empires. Interestingly, the closest parallels to the Petra garden are not found in association with temples and other religious sanctuaries, but in the design and composition of private gardens.

EGYPTIAN In ancient Egypt, “the landscape was vital to the image of the total design. The formally planted landscape…was highly developed and fundamental to the total picture of the building, both at the scale of the residential dwelling, and the temple complex” (Gallery 1978:48). The Egyptians’ love of gardens is reflected in numerous descriptions in the official record and poetry as well as their representations in artwork. For the Egyptian, the private garden was “a retreat for relaxation and sentiment. The pattern was clear-

Further examples of Egyptian preoccupation with the exotic as represented in art and in literature are summarized in Foster 1998:325328. 118

132

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

cut, designed for decorous promenade or poetic contemplation of vistas” (Thompson 1950:106). The possession of private pleasure gardens in Pharaonic Egypt was restricted to the wealthy, mainly in palace complexes and the estates of high officials. Much of the evidence for such gardens is gained from wall paintings that depict elaborate scenes of daily life in ancient Egypt (Moens 1985). These paintings show large, walled estates composed of a house and extensive gardens with planting beds laid out in geometric patterns, pools of water, and shrines (e.g., Hyams 1971:13-40. pl.2, figs.9, 18-9; Gallery 1978: 44-45, ill.11, 13, 14, 28, 29; A. Wilkinson 1998:7, pls.XIII, XVIXVIII). There are several wall paintings depicting private gardens at Tell el-Amarna and Thebes (A. Wilkinson 1998:168-170, figs.8889). For example, a painting depicting the estate of Merire, a high priest during the reign of Akhenaten/Amenhotep IV, shows a complex of buildings adjacent to a large square garden enclosure with a large central pool surrounded by a variety of trees (e.g., Gallery 1978:47, ills. 28-29; A. Wilkinson 1998:158-159, figs.83-84). A funerary model of an Egyptian house found in the tomb of Meket-re at Thebes (ca. 2010 BCE) has an enclosed garden with similar features.119 The overseer of the granary of Amun at Thebes (ca. 1500 BCE) describes his garden as having a pool with surrounding trees and shrubs, and an orchard with 20 varieties of trees (Thompson 1950:104). The archaeological record also provides important information about private gardens of the Pharaonic period. An early example is the palace at Avaris (Tell ed-Dab’a) in the eastern Delta (18th-17th centuries BCE) that has a walled enclosure with vineyards, flowerbeds and tree pits (e.g., A. Wilkinson 1998:14, 24, fig.7). During the New Kingdom, private palaces and estates appeared all along the Nile boasting extensive botanical gardens and parks with lakes, fishponds, and pavilions. Tell el-Amarna, for example, has several private estates with evidence for gardens. The “palace” of Akhenaten/Amenhotep IV includes several sunken gardens and atriums, and a pillared area which may have been a vineyard (ibid.:161-166, figs.85-86). More gardens are known E.g., A. Wilkinson 1998:112-113, pl. XV. The model is currently in the collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 119

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

133

archaeologically in the so-called “King’s House” and on the grounds of estates along the ‘High Priests’ Street (ibid.:166-167, fig.87). Additional private gardens at Amarna, such as those of the High Priest, Merire, are known only through pictorial representations (above). Although evidence is scant for the later Pharaonic period, the tradition of Egyptian palace gardens continues through the New Kingdom. The Palace of Apries (26th Dynasty) at Memphis had a royal park laid out to the north of the palace grounds. This park would become an important link to the development of the Hellenistic royal gardens several centuries later (see below).

MESOPOTAMIAN Royal interest in gardens and horticulture is known as early as the late third millennium BCE, when Gudea of Lagash planted vineyards and constructed fishponds (Jacobsen 1987:435). In the early 2nd millennium BCE, we know of the existence of courtyard gardens within the palace proper at Mari (Tell Hariri) (al-Khalesi 1978) and Ugarit (Ras Shamra) (e.g., Yon 1997:259; Margueron 2000:206-207). Animals such as Elamite cats, bears and chamois were also part of the display of exotica in the royal Palm Court at Mari (Wiseman 1983; Foster 1998:322).120 Historical sources inform us that Babylonian and Assyrian kings of the late 2nd millennium BCE had palace gardens, but their character appears to have remained chiefly utilitarian (Oppenheim 1965: 331; Stronach 1989:476). It was the Neo-Assyrian kings who first established the royal garden as a symbolic recreation of the expanding Assyrian Empire. Exotic plants and animals were collected during military campaigns, or brought to the court as tribute along with other luxury goods and prestige items. Exotica was displayed in botanical and zoological gardens at each successive capital—Nimrud (Calah), Khorsabad (Dur-Šarru-kin), and Nineveh—transforming the 120 An even earlier reference to the display of exotic fauna is found in The Curse of Agade (ca. 2300 BCE): elephants, monkeys, Elamite dogs, long-haired sheep, “the beasts of distant lands, roam about all together in the midst of (the) boulevards,” of Agade, the capital of the Akkadian empire (Pritchard 1975:206).

134

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

garden into a “potent vehicle of royal propaganda” (Stronach 1990:171). Like the Egyptian pharaohs, the Assyrian kings viewed the “acquisition and display of exotic flora and fauna as effective ways to enhance prestige or to demonstrate imperial dominion over far-flung lands” (Foster 1998:320).121 Ashurnasirpal II (Aššur-nasir-apli II) (883-859 BCE) was the first monarch to recognize the garden’s potential “as a potent vehicle for royal propaganda” (Stronach 1990:171). On a stele erected within the palace grounds at Nimrud, Ashurnasirpal II describes how he gathered botanical specimens during his travels: “From lands I travelled and hills I traversed the trees and seeds I noticed and collected” (Wiseman 1952:24f; Postgate 1973:no.266). These specimens were planted in the palace garden where the king boasts of a vineyard and a wide variety of exotic trees, including cedar, cypress, ebony, date palm, plum, pear, mulberry, and pomegranate (ibid.). In order to provide sufficient water to his “garden of delight” (GIŠ.KIN.GEŠTIN), the king ordered the construction of an canal—partially via a rock-cut tunnel—that carried water from the Upper Zab river: I dug a canal from the Upper Zab River; I cut [for this purpose] straight through the mountains[s]; I called it Patti- hegalli [”Channel-of-Abundance”]; I provided the lowlands along the Tigris with irrigation; I planted orchards at [the city’s] outskirts, with all sorts of fruit trees (ibid.).

Ashurnasirpal continues by describing his garden as a wonderful retreat where he takes pleasure in the sights and sounds and scents: Canal-water came flowing down from above through the gardens;

Royal inscriptions and artistic representations on palace reliefs and the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III inform us of the exotic animals (monkeys, elephants, bears, deer, Bactrian camels, and “sea creatures” from the Mediterranean) that were offered as tribute to the Assyrian court and put on display in special enclosures on the palace grounds (Foster 1998:323; 1999:53-55). 121

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

135

the paths are full of scent; the waterfalls sparkle like the stars of heaven in the garden of pleasure; the pomegranate trees, which are clothed with clusters of fruit like vines, enrich the breezes in this garden of delight (ibid.).

Although the content of the text stresses the garden’s beauty and the sheer delight Ashurnasirpal experiences as he “gather(s) fruit continuously in the garden of joys like a squirrel” (Wiseman 1952:33), the association between the king and fecundity may function metaphorically as an illustration of the king’s success as the provider of fertility and fruitfulness to the Land of Ashur (Stronach 1990:171f). The period of Sargonid rulers (late 8th through the first half of the 7th centuries BCE) is generally viewed as the turning point in the evolution of the royal garden in the ancient Near East. At this point in time, the Assyrians “assume a conspicuous role as the undisputed masters of monumental garden construction in the Near East” (Stronach 1989:477). Under the Sargonids, the role of the royal garden clearly shifts from utilitarian to display purposes. (Oppenheim 1965:331; Stronach 1990:172). The introduction of the new, more specific, term kirimāhu (“garden connected with the palace”), reflects the new fashion for pleasure gardens in association with the royal palace (Oppenheim 1965:331). In addition to creating magnificent pleasure gardens, the Sargonid kings set out to recreate the landscapes of conquered territories within the royal garden sanctuary. Outside his newly constructed capital city, Khorsabad, Sargon II (Šarru-kin II) (721705 BCE) recreated the landscapes of Western territories (i.e., Syria) by creating “a park like unto Mount Amanus, in which were set out every tree of the Hittite-land, the plants (fruit-trees) of every mountain, I laid out by its side.” (Luckenbill 1927:42). A bas-relief that decorated a wall in the private wing of Sargon’s palace depicts an artificial hill122 covered with trees and topped with a crenellated altar; at the base of the hill is a pavilion and boating pond (Botta and Flandin 1849-1850:pl. 114). Stronach suggests that the garden may have been designed as an artificial island that could be reached Stronach points out that the landscape of modern Khorsabad is relatively flat and, therefore, any hillock situated in the royal park would have been raised artificially (Stronach 1990:172). 122

136

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

only by boat, offering a private retreat for the king and his retinue (Stronach 1989:477). Strong Syrian influences on palace and garden architecture are common during this period. One example is the introduction of the concept of the pavilion or garden kiosk. References to a bitānu (“little house”) in association with the royal gardens of Assyria are found in 7th century BCE royal inscriptions.123 The example in Sargon’s garden, with its porticoed front, is probably more specifically an example of a bit-hilāni, another Western design that became a common feature in Assyrian palace architecture (Oppenheim 1965:331).124 The strong Syrian character of the royal park was likely intended to “underscore—in striking visual terms— the now firm extension of Assyrian power to the west of the homeland” (Stronach 1989:478).125 Sargon’s son and successor, Sennacherib (Sin-ahheriba) (704681 BCE), built his “Palace Without Rival” in the newly appointed capital at Nineveh and claimed to have laid out “a great park like unto Mount Amanus, wherein were set out all kinds of herbs and fruit trees—trees such as grown on the mountains and in Chaldea, I planted by its (the palace’s) side” (Luckenbill 1927:162). That Sennacherib was inspired to duplicate his father’s creation despite his apparent need to relocate the capital, may be interpreted as evidence for the established role of the garden as a symbol of foreign conquest (Stronach 1990:172). By specifying the planting of trees from Chaldea (Babylonia) , Sennacherib alludes to the increasing political troubles in Babylonia that ultimately resulted in the sacking of Babylon in 689 BCE. By displaying southern species The Akkadian word bitānu (“interior, inner quarter”) is borrowed from the West Semitic bitānu (“small house”), a small structure that functions as a private refuge for the king (Oppenheim 1965:328-332). In the Book of Esther (1:5; 7:7-8), the bîtan was located within or adjacent to the palace gardens at Susa (Oppenheim 1965:328, 332; Wiseman 1983:137f). 124 For a discussion of the North Syrian bit-hilāni and its usage by the Neo-Assyrians, e.g., Frankfort 1970:282-285. Stronach suggests that Sargon’s garden pavilion in may represent of a type of pavilion found in Anatolia (Stronach 1990:172). 125 Deller argues that the Assyrians imported gardeners from the West where viticulture had a longer history (Deller 1987:238). 123

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

137

of trees in his palace garden, Sennacherib symbolically illustrates his power and control over that region. The recreation of a marshland at Nineveh, complete with herons, wild pigs and other swamp animals, similarly underscores Sennacherib’s accomplishment of absorbing the southern regions into the Assyrian Empire (Wiseman 1983). Relief sculptures give some indication of the appearance of the magnificent gardens at Nineveh. In one relief, the garden exhibits several features already familiar to us from the depiction of Sargon’s garden: wooded hill, porticoed pavilion, and crenellated altar (Barnett 1976:14, pl.XXIII). In addition, the scene illustrates some interesting details about the garden’s irrigation system. A stone aqueduct—whose pointed arches resemble those of Sennacherib’s aqueduct at Jerwan (Reade 1983:36-37)126— transports water into the garden, feeding several irrigation channels that cut across the hillside at oblique angles. It has been suggested that this garden relief, although displayed in Ashurbanipal’s North Palace, in truth depicts the gardens that were originally created by Sennecherib in their more mature state (e.g., Barnett 1976:14, pl.XXIII; Reade 1983:36). More recently, Dalley presented convincing evidence that the “Hanging Gardens” of Babylon described in the ancient sources were, in actuality, the royal gardens of Sennacherib at Nineveh (Dalley 1994).127 Indeed, the Nineveh garden relief, with its trees planted in rows along the slope on top of the aqueduct structure, reflects the various descriptions of the “Hanging Gardens” of Babylon found in the ancient sources 128 Jacobsen and Lloyd (1935). Following the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib, the city remained in ruins and without a king. At some point, Nineveh was referred to by some as “Old Babylon” with the implication that the rebuilt city of Babylon was “New Babylon”. Dalley explains how this duplication of terminology would have created some confusion between Nineveh/Babylon and Sennacherib/Nebuchadrezzer (Dalley 1994:46-50). 128 Diodorus, Hist. II.10.1-6; Strabo, Geog. XVI.1.5; Josephus, Contra Apionem I.128 A, and Ant. X.11.1; and Quintus Curtius Rufus History of Alexander V.1.35, all include a description of the “Hanging Gardens” at Babylon. Of equal importance is the omission of any reference to the gardens in several of the Classical sources: i.e., Herodotus, Xenophon, Pliny (e.g., Dalley 1994:45-46). 126 127

138

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

and reconstructed by modern artists, architects and archeologists (Fig. 5.9). Despite more than a century of excavation at Nineveh, with much attention focused on its acropolis, Kuyunjik, no physical evidence for the gardens has been uncovered to date. Sennacherib’s claim that the gardens were “planted by its (the palace’s) side.” (Luckenbill 1927:162) offers only a vague indication of its location. Dalley argues that Sennacherib’s palace gardens were located on the eastern side of Kuyunjik, north of Sennacherib’s palace (Dalley 1994:54, fig. 3). Stronach, on the other hand, argues that the acropolis was too crowded to have accommodated such an expansive park and, thus, he favors their location nearby but not upon the acropolis itself (Stronach 1989:479). In the mid-7th century BCE, Ashurbanipal (Aššur-ban-apli) (668-627 BCE) constructed a new palace at Nineveh and alongside it he created “a great park of all kinds of fruit trees” (Luckenbill 1927:322). The North Palace contained several bas-reliefs that reflect the role of gardens and parks as a symbol of abundance, prestige and royal power. One relief shows the king reclining and enjoying a cup of wine with his queen, Aššur-šarrat, seated beside him and several servants attending to them (Perrot and Chipiez 1884:figs. 27-28). The setting appears to be a shaded trellice within a garden or park, with its many trees and shrubs and a canopy-like grapevine tendrils sheltering the royal couple. The location of the garden in relation to the palace is unclear but the lack of architectural elements suggests that the location is a relatively isolated one.129 Upon an initial viewing of this scene, one is likely to determine its message as one of peace and tranquillity, the garden functioning simply as a place where royalty retires to escape the demands of an empire. However, upon further scrutiny, a more powerful meaning for the garden scene is revealed. Hanging from a nearby tree is the head of the Elamite king, Te-umman, a trophy from recent campaigns in the south. Ashurbanipal’s garden scene, therefore, depicts a victory celebration, and the underlying message is the emphasis of the Assyrian king’s power to smite his enemies and ensure peace and fertility in the Land of Ashur (e.g., Albenda Albenda notes the presence of only female attendants and interprets this as evidence that the setting is within the women’s quarters or the Queen’s private garden (Albenda 1976:67). 129

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

139

1977:44-45).130 Barnett argues that the scene depicts a combined victory celebration and marzeah, a ritual feast that was practiced in West Semitic societies, including the Nabataeans, from the 14th century BCE in Ugarit through Palmyra in the 3rd century CE (Barnett 1985).131 An idyllic scene showing a lion and lioness relaxing peacefully in a garden-like setting is evidence that Nineveh’s royal gardens housed exotic animals for the purposes of display and, undoubtedly, recreation.132 Activities such as falconry and royal hunts—including lions, wild asses, gazelles and deer—that are very graphically depicted in the reliefs, probably took place in the royal hunting preserves located outside of the palace complex and beyond the city walls. Like the garden scenes, as well as the scenes depicting military campaigns, the underlying message is that of the king as a powerful leader, a skilled conqueror and protector of Assyria. The tradition of royal gardens in the first half of the first millennium BCE was not limited to the Assyrians. The Bible includes several references to gardens and vineyards that belong to the king and the palace. King Solomon (ca. 968-928 BCE), David’s son and successor, created his own gardens in Jerusalem for his personal pleasure: I built myself houses and I planted vineyards. I laid out gardens and groves, in which I planted every kind of fruit tree. I constructed pools of water, enough to irrigate a forest shooting up with trees (Ecclesiastes 2:46).

Several passages in the Old Testament describe the location of Jerusalem’s royal gardens within the city walls near the southern tip 130 Albenda notes that the reliefs of Ashurbanipal’s palace reflect the peaceful atmosphere that followed his last campaigns and persisted through the last years of his reign about which the historical record is silent (Albenda 1976b:44). For detailed studies of Ashurbanipal’s “Banquet Scene”, see Albenda 1976a:61-67; Barnett 1976:56-58, pls. LXIII-LXV; and Deller 1987. 131 For a description of the social aspects of the marzeah ritual, e.g., Greenfield 1974. 132 Barnett 1976:39, pl.XV (BM 118914).

140

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

of the City of David.133 King Ahab acquired a local vineyard as part of his royal gardens at Samaria (I Kings 21:1-29). In the Persian period, there is mention of a royal forest (paradeisos) belonging to the king (Artaxerxes) from which timber was acquired “for the beams and for the gates of the fortress near the Temple, and for the city walls, and for a house for myself” (Nehemiah 2.8-9) during the rebuilding of Jerusalem following the Babylonian Exile.134 Ancient texts refer to palace gardens in Babylonia as early as the reign of Adad-šuma-usur (1215-1185 BCE) and again in the reign of Nabu-apla-iddina (ca. 860-820 BCE) (Wiseman 1983:137f). Of course, the most famous ancient gardens known to us are the celebrated “Hanging Gardens” of Babylon which were purportedly built by King Nebuchadrezzar (Nabu-kudurri-usur II) (604-562 BCE). The ancient sources describe the garden as stepped or terraced,135 which, according to Josephus, was intended to resemble the mountainous landscape of Media in order to appeal to the king’s Median wife. [Nebuchadrezzar] also erected elevated places for walking, of stone, and made it resemble mountains, and built it so that it might be planted with all sorts of trees. He also erected what was called a pensile paradise, because his wife was desirous to have things like her own country, she having been bred up in the palaces of Media. (Josephus, Ant. 10.11.1)

133 “Then [the wall of] the city was breached. All the soldiers [left the city] by night through the gate between the double walls, which is near the king's garden...” (II Kings 25:4; see also, Jeremiah 39:4 and 52:7). “Shallun… repaired the Fountain Gate ... and rebuilt the wall of the pool of Shelah next to the king’s garden and onward as far as the steps leading down from the City of David” (Nehemiah 3:15). The site of King Manasseh burial (“in the garden of his palace, in the garden of Uzza” II Kings 21:18) may refer to these same gardens or possibly another garden closer to or within the palace complex. 134 According to Flavius Josephus (Ant. VII.345), King David (ca. 990-968 BCE) had royal gardens in Jerusalem. However, the late date of Josephus’ testimony, more than a millennium after the reign of David, makes this an unreliable source without additional supporting evidence. 135 For a list of the ancient sources that describe the “Hanging Gardens” , see fn. 129.

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

141

Early attempts to locate the gardens placed them near the Ishtar gate (e.g., Koldeway 1914:fig.59). However, features uncovered along the western edge of the Southern Palace have led to the current theory that the palace gardens adjoined the palace overlooking the eastern banks of the Euphrates River (e.g., Damerji 1981; Wiseman 1984:38f, figs. VIIb, VIIIa-b). Whether or not this was the site of the “Hanging Gardens” of literary fame is still under debate due to Dalley’s theory that the “Hanging Gardens’’ were located at Nineveh (Dalley 1994). The lack of reference to palace gardens in texts dating to the 6th c. BCE—despite the abundant information provided by Nebuchadrezzar on his extensive building programs—may lead one to suspect that pleasure gardens were never a fixture in the Babylonian royal tradition. Ancient texts describe several gardens in the Babylonian region during the later, Achaemenid period, but there is no indication that they were attached to royal precincts (Dandamaev 1984; Dalley 1994:50).

PERSIAN The tradition of palace gardens was eagerly adopted by Achaemenid (Persian) royalty as their empire expanded westward across Mesopotamia and into Syro-Palestine and Anatolia beginning in the mid-6th century BCE.136 Two distinct forms of the Persian pairadaeza are described by Xenephon (Oec. 4.20) and Cicero (Cato Mai. XVII.59): a hunting reserve containing wild and exotic animals, and an enclosed (walled or tree-bound) garden with orchards and/or ornamental botanical specimens. Often the larger hunting preserve would have a smaller formal garden enclosure within it. The larger parkland being intended for activity and the smaller garden devoted to contemplation (Grimal 1969:71). The garden was an integral part of Achaemenid palace architecture. The major differences between Persian gardens and their Assyrian counterparts is topography and an emphasis on symmetry. Whereas Mesopotamian royal gardens stress a mountain motif, the Persian royal pairadaeza utilize a flat stretch of land that 136 Gleason proposes that early Persian gardens were influenced by western gardens encountered by Persian satraps at Sardis, Daskyleion, Kelainai, Sidon, Lachish, and the palace of Belyses in North Syria (Gleason 1996:384).

142

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

can be easily irrigated (Stronach 1994:4). The symmetrical plan of Persian gardens is attributed to the practical needs for irrigation in an arid environment. “Water is the first need, and irrigation ordains the pattern” (Sackville-West 1953:269). In other words, the layout of the irrigation channels determined the organization of plantings and pathways into a quadripartite plan. This four-fold division of the garden may have functioned as a symbolic representation of the Achaemenid Empire (Cyrus’ proclaimed himself “King of the Four Quarters”) (Stronach 1990:176; 1994:8-9).137 The earliest and best preserved Persian garden is located at Pasargadae, the first capital of the Achaemenid Empire established under Cyrus the Great (560/59-530 BCE). Excavations conducted by David Stronach revealed an enclosure (pairadaeza) composed of a series of palaces and pavilions arranged around a central garden delineated by open stone water channels that form a quadripartite plan (Stronach 1978:107-112, figs. 48-49; 1989:480-483) (Fig. 26). The palaces and pavilions have porticoes allowing for optimum viewing and enjoyment of the gardens. Pasargadae is unique among the other royal cities of its time in that the formal gardens and palaces, as well as the tomb of Cyrus and other principal monuments of the city, are situated within a larger park (Brookes 1987:36; Stronach 1994:4). This feature, which was observed by Alexander the Great during his visit to Pasargadae in the 4th century BCE (Strabo, Geog. XV.3.7) would ultimately be emulated by kings of the Hellenistic period. In an analysis of the layout of the royal compound at Pasargadae, Stronach (1994) argues that the political role of the gardens is reflected in the arrangement and orientation of its various elements. For example, a row of cyprus trees and Pavilion B would have prevented a view of the inner formal gardens from the public palace (Palace S). Therefore, only those with high rank and authority to enter the private quarters of the king (Palace P) The four-fold garden ultimately came to symbolize the entire universe divided into four quarters by four great rivers. The quadripartite plan was thus preserved as a fundamental characteristic of Persian gardens (chaghar bagh) for many centuries (e.g., Sackville-West 1953:262; Moynihan 1979; Wilbur 1979:3-19; Brookes 1987). See Stronach 1990 for a discussion of the relationship between the Achaemenid/Persian four-fold gardens and Islamic eight-fold gardens. 137

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

143

could enjoy the “delights of the inner garden” (ibid.:5). One notable feature is the placement of a permanent throne in the main portico of Palace P directly in line with the garden’s central axis. This strategic orientation of the Achaemenid king to his gardens is arguably an intentional use of an axial “vista of power” to demonstrate the king’s unquestionable power and authority over the “four quarters” of his empire (ibid.:8). Other symbols of the power and extent of the Achaemenid rule may be seen in the prominent display of limestone masonry and fine stone-working in the construction of the palaces as well as irrigation channels. Stronach suggests that this may reflect the recent conquest of Lydia, a source of master stoneworkers (ibid.:9). In addition to Pasargadae, the royal complexes at Persepolis and Susa also show the devotion of space to the garden in Achaemenid palace architecture. The construction of Persepolis as a ceremonial center was initiated by Darius I upon his succession to the throne ca. 520 BCE. At Persepolis, the official structures—

144

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

magnificent palaces and monumental columned halls—were erected on a massive artificial terrace. Due to the dense arrangement of these structures, landscaping would have had to have been limited to courtyard gardens with potted trees or small planting pits. However, to the south of the terrace are several smaller palace-like structures and pavilions that may belong to the king’s private quarters (Schmidt 1953:55; Kleiss 1980:abb.1; Nielsen 1994:40, figs.14). These buildings are surrounded by open land that may have been the site of a formal garden or park with an artificial lake (Nielsen 1994:49). At Dasht-i Gohar, the private residence of Cambyses II (530-522 BCE) located several kilometers northwest of Persepolis, is a palace similar in plan to the palaces at Pasargadae (Tilia 1974:200-202, fig.7). Its portico faces southeast, an arrangement that Stronach argues “would have permitted the construction of a further ‘inner garden’ with this preferred orientation” (Stronach 1989:484). Cambyses’ unfinished tomb, at nearby Takht-I Rustam, was also probably intended to be complemented by a garden in the same manner as the Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae (ibid.). The palace at Susa demonstrates the effective use of landscaping and gardens in association with the palace. Artaxerxes II (405/4-359/8 BCE) erected his palatial precinct which he described as a “pleasant retreat” (paradayadam) (Vallat 1979:146). In the Book of Esther we are informed that there were gardens associated with the palace at Susa (Esther 1:5; 7:7-8). Important events were held in the bîtan (bitānu) (“little house”), and a public feast was given in the court of the garden of the bîtan (Oppenheim 1965:328, 332). A reconstruction plan of the palace of Artaxerxes at Susa shows how a quadripartite garden design can be deduced by drawing intersecting “lines of sight” from the center of the two open porticoes set at right angles to each other on the exterior flanks of the hypostyle hall and the king’s private palace (Boucharlat and Labrousse 1979:fig.25). It is possible that the bîtan was one of these porticoes, or it may have been an independent structure within the garden that is not known archaeologically. It has also been suggested that large parklands would have been laid out on the plain surround the palace of Artaxerxes, as well as the palace of Darius I located on the opposite bank of the Chaour River (Nielsen 1994:49, figs.20-22).

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

145

During the Achaemenid Empire, palaces were constructed for the royal family and for the provincial governors (satraps). Persian architectural elements are found throughout (ibid.:51-72), and the recurrent description of gardens and parklands (paradeisoi) in the written sources indicates the strong association of this feature with palace architecture (ibid.:72). In 401 BCE, Xenophon describes Persian gardens—in the form of hunting preserves and formal gardens—associated with the royal compounds of the Achaemenid prince, Cyrus the Younger. At Sardis, Lydia, the garden of Cyrus the Younger was laid out in straight lines in a design that was “exact and arranged at right angles” (Oec. 4.20-24). Near his palace at Celaenae, Phrygia, was “a large park full of wild animals, which he used to hunt on horseback” (Anab. I.2.8). Xenephon observes that “in all the districts [Cyrus] resides in and visits he takes care that there are paradeisoi…full of all the good and beautiful things that the soil will produce, and in this he himself spends most of his time, except when the season precludes it.” (Oec. 4.13-14). Xenophon comments on the various parklands encountered by Cyrus’ army during its campaign through the western territories (Anab. I.4.10, II.4.14), In fact, the only feature he describes at the palace of Belyses, the satrap of Northern Syria, is its beautiful park. He says nothing of the palace buildings themselves. The same is true of Xenephon’s observations of the palaces of Kelainai and Daskyleion in Anatolia (Nielsen 1994:61). The value Persians placed on landscaped parks and, especially, trees is reflected in their strong resistance to the act of cutting down trees. In one story related to us in Plutarch’s Lives, Artaxerxes II gave his soldiers permission to cut down trees in one of his royal parks to provide fuel for themselves against the cold winter nights. The soldiers refused to do this until the king himself felled the grandest of all the trees in the park. The symbolic meaning behind the felling of trees was utilized in military strategy. When Cyrus’ arrived at the palace of Belyses he burned the palace and destroyed its “beautiful park containing all the products of the seasons” (Xenephon, Anab. I.4.10), a gesture intended to undermine these symbols of the enemy’s power and authority. Later, at the beginning of the war between Artaxerxes III (359/5-338/7 BCE) and the Phoenicians in

146

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

350 BCE, one of the first hostile acts by the Phoenicians was to destroy the royal park at Sidon, a recreational area enjoyed by the kings of Persia (Diodorus, Hist. 16.41).138 As stated above, Xenophon, through his writings and emulations of the Persian pairadaeza, popularized the concept of formal pleasure gardens, paradeisoi, in the blossoming Hellenistic World. Even before Xenephon, however, Persian-style gardens appeared in places throughout the eastern Mediterranean where diplomatic contact with the Persians was established. For example, the Sicilian tyrant warlords, the first Greeks to attempt to establish an empire based on Eastern models, included gardens and parks in their royal complexes. In the early 5th century BCE, Gelon had a pleasure garden containing a monumental swimming-pool with fish and swans, and created a place called the Horn of Amaltheia (“plenty”) in a grove outside the city of Hipponium that was “exceedingly beautiful and well supplied with flowing streams” (Athenaeus, Deip. 12.541e). Another Sicilian tyrant, Dionysius I (390-375 BCE), imported plane-trees “as a marvel to adorn his palace” (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 12.6-7). Hieron II (3rd century BCE) held his audiences in a magnificent garden outside of Syracuse which he called the “Word” (or “place of conversation”) (Athenaeus, Deip. 12.542a). Hieron was also a “zealous shipbuilder” (ibid. 12.206a) and designed for himself a grand ship, the Syracusia, luxuriously adorned with gardens: On the level of the uppermost gangway there were a gymnasium and promenades built on a scale proportionate to the size of the ship; in these were garden-beds of every sort, luxuriant with plants of marvellous growth, and watered by lead tiles hidden from sight; then there were bowers of white ivy and grape-vines, the roots of which got their nourishment in casks filled with earth, and receiving the same irrigation as the garden-beds. These bowers shaded the promenade (Athenaeus, Deip. 5.207d).

Palaces of the pre-Hellenistic period in Macedonia—Aigai, Pella, Demetrias, and Pergamum—have many features that are foreign to Greek architectural traditions and are comparable to 138

E.g., Clermont-Ganneau 1921.

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

147

features commonly found in the architectural program of Persian palaces such as pillared halls and garden-peristyles (e.g., Nielsen 1994:80-99). It is likely, therefore, that Persian-style gardens were present although the lack of any detailed study of this aspect of these palace complexes prevents further comment at this time. However, Polybius informs us that the Macedonian kings had beautiful game reserves that were probably inspired by the Persian hunting parks (e.g., Borza 1990:261ff).

HELLENISTIC In her study of Hellenistic palaces, Inge Nielsen (1994) systematically identifies the diverse functions of Hellenistic royal palace complexes, both public and private, and the architectural elements that resulted from these functions. In addition to their administrative, ceremonial, and residential functions, Hellenistic palaces also served social, religious, and defensive purposes that are reflected in a mixture of designs and building types (ibid.:18-26, fig.1). An additional function of the palace was recreational. Under this category, Nielsen includes formal gardens and parklands which characteristically included elements such as peristyles, promenades, pavilions, fountains, pools, and, in some cases, aviaries, zoos and theaters (Nielsen 1994:24, 133, 201; 1996:211). In a comprehensive analysis, Nielsen reviews the relevant predecessors in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, and Sicily, known to us through the archaeological and historical records, that might have played an important role as inspiration to the designers and builders of the great Hellenistic palaces. Following the death of Alexander in 323 BCE, and the division of his empire, the Hellenistic rulers adopted many of the trappings of the East. The palace complexes and private estates of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms, and those of other independent kingdoms, reflect strong Persian and Near Eastern influences blended with elements of Greek, Macedonian, and Egyptian architecture and design. Certain palace complexes, such as those in Alexandria and Antioch, were directly influenced by Persian precursors, and they, in turn, inspired the design of palace complexes throughout the Hellenistic world (e.g., Nielsen 1996).

148

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Ptolemaic Alexander’s successor in Egypt, Ptolemy I (305-282 BCE), established Memphis as his capital and undoubtedly set up residence in the Palace of Apries that had been maintained since the 6th c. BCE—perhaps the only one of the Pharaonic palaces to survive at that time due to its continued use by the Persians and the last pharaoh (Nielsen 1994:27).139 Later Ptolemies constructed a new palace in Memphis with a large park and a lake that is described by Strabo (Geog. XVII.1.32). Nielsen points out that “it is possible that at least the park and the lake, which were undoubtedly incorporated in the new palace, could have inspired them when building their new main palace in Alexandria” (Nielsen 1994:31). Alexander himself laid out the plans for Alexandria, which was to become the administrative capital of the Ptolemaic kingdom and a center of trade and cultural for the Hellenistic world. Unfortunately, only scattered architectural elements from ancient Alexandria have survived into the present due to a turbulent history, the presence of a modern metropolis that has obliterated virtually all evidence of earlier occupation, and the submersion of much of the harbor’s coastline and islands due to the rising water level.140 Fortunately, however, the city’s greatness inspired many descriptions in the ancient literature so that we have some idea of its design and appearance. The most extensive description of Alexandria at the end of the Ptolemaic period was provided by Strabo, based on personal observations made during a visit there ca. 24-20 BCE. According to Strabo, the city is in the shape of a giant chlamys (riding cloak) “pinched on one side by the sea and on the other side by the lake” (Geog. XVII.1.8). It occupies an area 5.5 x 1.5 kilometers with the palace district (basileia) occupying between 139 Alexander would have had the opportunity to personally witness the parklands attached to the Palace of Apries (26th Dynasty) when he visited Memphis in 332 BCE to appeal to Egyptian customs by offering a sacrifice to the Apis bull. 140 For a general overview of the scattered archaeological remains dating to the Hellenistic period in Alexandria, see Fraser 1972 and Grimm 1998. Since 1996, underwater archaeology has been carried out in the Alexandria harbor by a French archaeological team under the direction of Franck Goddio, revealing valuable information about Alexandria’s royal quarter and Cleopatra’s Palace (e.g., Goddio 1998, Sedge 1999).

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

149

one-fourth and one-third of the entire city (ibid. XVII.1.9). Pliny also describes the basileia as taking up a large portion of the city (Nat. Hist. V.11.62-63). The palace proper, or “inner palace”, was perched on a promontory, called Cape Lochias, that extends out into the Great Harbor; the rest of the royal precinct spreads south and west along the shore. In later years, the palace occupied by Cleopatra VII, Egypt’s last Pharaoh (51-30 BCE), was erected on an island in the Great Harbor called Antirhodos. In addition to the royal palaces, the baseleia also housed the famous library (museion), a gymnasium, the Court of Justice, temples, sanctuaries and tombs (e.g., Nielsen 1994:130-133, fig.69). Structures such as these were traditionally connected with gardens and groves, and thus it is to be expected that the open spaces between buildings were filled with greenery (Hoepfner 1990:abb.2; Carroll-Spillecke 1992:94). There are several references to gardens and parks within the basileia of Alexandria. Strabo says that the “inner royal palaces...have parks (alsoi) and many planted pavilions (diaitai)” (Geog. XVII.1.10). Theocritus informs us that the royal park was open to the public during the festival of Adonis (Idylls XV), which suggests that the Temple to Adonis was situated within a park-like setting on the royal grounds. Lake Mareotis and an artificial canal provided for the irrigation needs inside the city as well as the surrounding suburbs which may have been cultivated as parklands (Carrolle-Spillecke 1992:94). The long tradition of Egyptian palace gardens has already been described and so it is not surprising to learn of their presence at Alexandria, but it is important to note that the main builder of the basileia at Alexandria was Ptolemy I, who had traveled with Alexander to the East and was thus familiar with Persian palace architecture and gardens as well (Nielsen 1994:134f). It is likely that the royal gardens of Alexandria exhibited a harmonious blend of local and Eastern styles. Some indication of the spectacular array of flora cultivated in the gardens of Alexandria is provided by Athenaeus: For Egypt, both because of the temperate quality of its atmosphere, and also because its gardeners can grow plants which are either rare or found only at a regular season in other regions, produces flowers in abundance and throughout the whole year (Athenaeus, Deip. 5.196d).

150

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

As a result of these ideal circumstances Ptolemy II (284-246 BCE) was able to recreate a paradeisos inside his banqueting pavilion, during the middle of winter, by lavishing it with branches of myrtle and laurel and fresh flowers:141 For flowers which, in any other city, could have been found only with difficulty to make up a single wreath, were lavished without stint in a wealth of wreaths upon the multitude of reclining guests, and, moreover, lay scattered profusely on the floor of the pavilion, truly presenting the picture of an extraordinarily beautiful meadow (ibid. 5.196e).

The display of hanging animal pelts “extraordinary in variety and in size” (ibid. 5.196c) between the columns added to the overall paradaisical effect within the pavilion. The ancient sources inform us that, in addition to being a botanical garden, the royal park at Alexandria functioned as a zoological park and an aviary. A Ptolemaic official, Tobias of Transjordania, sent exotic animals for a zoo kept by Ptolemy II (284-246 BCE) (P. Cairo Zeno 59075). Ptolemy VIII (170-163 BCE) wrote of the animals that were kept at the royal palace and the pheasants that he bred there for a culinary delicacy (Athenaeus, Deip. 14.654c). Since no physical remains of the Alexandria palace are currently available for study, the ruins of two preserved governor’s residences—the palace of Hyrcanus in Transjordania, and the Palazzo delle Colonne at Ptolemais— provide crucial information about Ptolemaic palace architecture and their associated gardens. In the early 2nd century BCE, the Ptolemaic vassal king, Hyrcanus the Tobiad (168-169 BCE), built his palace at Tyrus (modern ‘Iraq el-Amir), in Transjordania. A rather detailed description of the palace estate is provided by Josephus: And he built himself a strong fortress, which he constructed of white stone up to the very roof, and had beasts of gigantic size carved on it, and he enclosed it with a wide and deep moat. He also cut through the projecting rock opposite the mountain, and made caves The pavilion is described as a large tent-like structure reminiscent of the open-sided pavilions of the East (e.g., Nielsen 1994:133-134, fig.70). 141

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

151

many stades in length; then he made chambers in it, some for banqueting and others for sleeping and living, and he let into it an abundance of running water, which was both a delight and an ornament to his countryestate. … In addition he also built enclosures remarkable for their size, and adorned them with vast parks. And when he completed the place in this manner, he named it Tyre. This place is between Arabia and Judea, across the Jordan, not far from Essebonitis (Tell Hesbon) (Josephus, Ant. XII.4.11)

Survey and archaeological excavations reveal that the estate occupied a huge terraced valley that was watered by a complex irrigation system (Pl. XXX). The construction of an earthen dam across the valley created an artificial lake, at the center of which was built a palace, known as the Qasr el-Abd, that was accessible only by boat (e.g., Will 1991:pl.3; Netzer 1999). The surrounding water would have functioned as a reflecting pool (Netzer 1999:52), an ingenious means of emphasizing the palace’s monumentality and ornate decoration of carved lions, panthers and eagles (e.g., Will 1991:pl.100). The architectural decoration and sculpture seem to derive from Alexandrian models, whereas the megalithic nature of its construction appears local Syrian/Phoenician (Will 1991:141ff; Nielsen 1994:146). The use of a large artificial lake, however, is very Egyptian. It is possible that Hyrcanus got the idea during one of his visits to Alexandria as a Ptolemaic official. It is evident from the physical characteristics of the building and its setting, as well as Josephus’ description with its mention of banqueting grottoes and large park-like enclosures, that the Qasr elAbd was a pleasure palace laid out in a large Persian-style paradeisos. Netzer suggests a reconstruction of the second floor of the palace as a banquet hall, triclinium, and points out that another monumental structure, overlooking the site to the northeast, may have been the palatial residence (Netzer 1999:52). The main function of the Qasr el-Abd was to hold lavish banquets and promote recreational activities such a boating, swimming, and simply strolling the grounds (e.g., Gentelle 1981; Nielsen 1994:139).142 Visitors to Hyrcanus’ palace were given a variety of Will prefers to interpret the palace of Hyrcanus as a fortress (1991:fn. 257) 142

152

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

means to take in the scenery. They could stroll the promenade encircling the lake or climb up on an observation deck on the lake’s east shore, or any of the surrounding slopes, to get a panoramic view of the reflecting pool and landscaped terraces. A very different landscaping is found at the Palazzo delle Colonne, at Ptolemais in Cyrenaica. The official and residential quarters of this governor’s palace, built at the beginning of the 1st century BCE, are arranged around two peristyles. At the center of the larger garden-peristyle is a rectangular pool with benches and balustrades surrounding it on all sides. A large audience/banquet hall, with interior columns on three sides and exedrae flanking its entrance, opens onto the peristyle affording a view of the gardens. Therefore, this Ptolemaic palace has features that reflect a blending of Macedonian (peristyle) and Egyptian (pool) garden traditions (Pesce 1950; Nielsen 1994:146-152, figs. 78-80). Seleucid As with the Ptolemaic examples, little is known about the royal palaces of their eastern counterparts, the Seleucids. Virtually nothing is known of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris except that it replaced Babylon as the site of the royal residence (Strabo, Geog. XVI.1.5). Little more is known about the palace of Antioch, the western capital, except that it was located near the hippodrome on an island in the Orontes River. That it occupied an expansive area and was laid out orthogonally suggests that there were associated Persianstyle gardens, but no specific mention of such is found in the ancient sources (Nielsen 1993:219; 1994:112-115, fig.58). A second palace, or royal sanctuary, is described at nearby Daphne, about eight kilometers south of the city. This site apparently served a primarily recreational function with villas, stadium, and theater, and abundant streams to water the fountains and the expansive parklands for which it was renowned (Strabo, Geog. XVI.2.4-6). In 167 BCE, Antiochus IV Epiphanes organized for the Apollo Games to be held at Daphne. It is likely that the banquets, which catered to between 6,000 and 9,000 participants, were held under tents arranged throughout the paradeisos (e.g., Nielsen 1994:115). Information about other palaces scattered throughout the Seleucid kingdom supports the idea that the Seleucid royalty and their officials were inspired by Persian paradeisoi when planning their estates. Plutarch describes the palace at Apamea in Syria with

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

153

a paradeisos (Demetrius 50.1-2). At Aï Khanoum (Bactria), a paradeisos with monumental swimming-pool and gymnasium (possibly with its own formal garden) was laid out along the banks of the Amou Daria River adjoining the Hellenistic governor’s palace, following its independence from Seleucid control in the mid-2nd century BCE (Bernard 1978, 1981: Taf. 44; Nielsen 1994:124-128, figs. 66-68). Judean The royal paradeisoi of the Hasmonean and Herodian palaces have already been described in regards to their many swimming-pools (Ch. IV, Figs. 22-25, Pl. XXXIa-b), but some elaboration on the gardens in general is neccessary here. Following the death of Alexander the Great, Judea, like the rest of Palestine, was governed by the Ptolemies until the beginning of the 2nd century BCE when the Seleucids took control of the region. The Maccabean revolt followed soon afterwards and, in 168 BCE—the same year that the neighboring Nabataean kingdom was established under Aretas I— Judea became an independent Hellenistic kingdom ruled by the priests and kings of the Hasmonean dynasty.143 Nothing is known of the appearance of the Hasmonean palace in the capital, Jerusalem, except that it was located west of the Temple Mount. Near the end of the 2nd century BCE, Hyrcanus I had a Winter Palace built in the desert environs of the Dead Sea. The palace precinct was situated on the north bank of the Wadi Qelt (Tulul Abu el-Alyik) near Jericho, which was noted for its fertile soil and plantations of date-palm trees and balsam.144 It was set in a large 143 Most of our information on this period of Judean history comes from the Book of the Maccabees and Josephus’ major works, Jewish Antiquities and Jewish Wars. 144 For a short period at the end of the Hasmonean rule, Marcus Antonius presented Cleopatra with the Jericho Valley with its valuable palm groves and balsam trees. Herod rented the land from Cleaopatra until he regained control after the Battle of Actium in 31 BC (Josephus, Wars I.18.5). Balsam, as well as bitumen from the Dead Sea, were of great importance in the commerce of the eastern Mediterranean. The monopoly over these two commodities was of ongoing interest to the monarchies of Judea and Egypt, as well as to the Nabataeans (e.g., Hammond 1973a:67; Netzer 1977:1; Richardson 1993:64). For further references to the famous palm groves and balsam of Jericho, see Josephus (Wars I.6.6), Pliny (Nat. Hist. 13.44-46) and Strabo (Geog. 16.2.41).

154

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

walled park watered by natural springs and aqueducts; to the west of Hyrcanus’ palace was a formal porticoed garden with two identical swimming-pools (Netzer 1975:92; 1977:3-4; 1990:fig.1; Nielsen 1994:155-156; fig. 83) (Fig. 22, #1 and 2). Later renovations by Alexander Jannaeus included the construction of a new palace-fortress on an artificial mound that covered the original building. To the east of the palace, he created a garden terrace with a peripteral pavilion overlooking two large swimming-pools and a monumental porticoed garden beyond (Netzer 1990:figs.1, 4-5; Nielsen 1994:156-158, figs.83-85) (Fig. 23). Jannaeus’ widow, Alexandra, then added the Twin Palaces as private residences for her two sons, each with its own enclosed garden with swimmingpool, pavilion and garden triclinium (dining couch) (Netzer 1990: fig. 4; Nielsen 1994:158-159, fig. 84). Alexandra also added a complex of rooms in the northwest corner of Jannaeus’ garden terrace with an audience/banquet hall that opened onto the swimming-pool area and claimed a splendid view of the porticoed garden to the north (Nielsen 1994:159f). Each new building phase carried out at the Jericho palace complex included the addition of new gardens with pavilions, audience/banquet halls, and swimming-pools (Netzer 1975:92, 1977:3-4, 1990:fig.1, 1996:205-206; Nielsen 1994:156-159, figs. 83-85). These magnificent garden complexes undoubtedly “became the social focal point of the entire palace” (Netzer 1996:205), the highlight of this royal recreational retreat in the Judean desert. As is typical of Hellenistic palaces, a blend of eastern and western architectural traditions is present at Jericho. Greek influence is limited to decorative architectural elements and interior décor. Nielsen argues that the Persian inspiration for the regular layout of the palace buildings in a large paradeisos and with formal gardens was indirectly introduced to the Hasmoneans through the major Hellenistic cultural centers at Alexandria and Antioch, and through the nearby abandoned palace of Hyrcanus the Tobiad at Tyrus (‘Iraq el-Amir) (Nielsen 1994:162). The inclusion of large pools of water inside the gardens likely originates from a Egyptian garden tradition in which large pools of water and sacred lakes were a central feature. However, the primary function of the Egyptian pools was for ceremonial symbolic purposes whereas the pools of the Hasmonean palace are clearly intended for recreational purposes (see Ch. IV). Therefore the concept of the swimming-

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

155

pool seems to be a local innovation.145 The courtyard swimmingpool at Ptolemais appeared soon after the first swimming-pools in the palace of Hyrcanus I at Jericho. The large pool at Aï Khanoum, almost 3000 kilometers to the east, predates the Jericho examples by only a few decades and is probably a separate local phenomenon.

ITALIC/ROMAN (1ST CENTURY BCE) Throughout the last few centuries of the first millennium BCE, the hellenization of Italy occurred as the region was gradually engulfed into the Hellenistic sphere of influence (e.g., Nielsen 1994:164f). Eastern customs spread through Italy via the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia and Sicily, and by direct contact through the port of Puteoli on the central western coastline. By the Late Republic (late 2nd-mid 1st centuries BCE), the Italic culture was strongly influenced by the customs and manners of the rulers of the Hellenistic East. One of the manifestations of the hellenization of Rome and Italy is the influence of Hellenistic royal architecture— religious, public, and private—with the addition of characteristic features such as porticoes and peristyles, which were often associated with gardens (ibid.).146 The appreciation for the paradeisos that spread throughout the Hellenistic world was quickly adopted by the Romans who are noted for their great love of nature and the earth (e.g., Grimal 1969; La Rocca 1986; Ward-Perkins 1994:201ff; Favro 1996:39, 59; Gleason 1997b:10; McKay 1998:46f). Perhaps due to their success with urban development that included the construction of Nielsen also includes the swimming-pool as a Persian inspiration, although she provides no examples of swimming-pools in a Persian context. 146 In contrast, Carroll-Spillecke argues for a local tradition developing out of the attachment of kitchen gardens to Old Italic Houses of the 3rd-4th centuries BCE (Carroll-Spillecke 1989:65; 1992:94). She notes a variation from contemporary Greece where domestic gardens were located outside the city walls. The Greeks apparently did not embellish their peristyle, preferring to keep them paved and unplanted. According to Carroll-Spillecke, “the urban Greeks came into contact with nature only if they left the walled city to visit sanctuaries and gymnasia and to tend their market gardens” (1992:196). 145

156

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

elaborate sewer systems and aqueducts, and the establishment of a network of roads that criss-crossed the landscape, the Romans felt confident in their ability to control nature itself. They expressed this through the creation of gardens, horti, and waterworks that became a standard feature of their private villas, palaces, and public works. Sources Our knowledge about Roman gardens comes primarily from the ancient literary sources. Those writing during the crucial period of the transition from the Late Republic to the Early Empire—i.e., Cato, Cicero, Ovid, Varro—are particularly important for their insight into the early evolution of the Roman garden design, the activities that took place within the garden, and the Roman attitude toward gardens. Later, in the 1st century CE, Pliny the Younger wrote detailed descriptions of his country estates and their gardens that shed light on the lives of the Roman elite. Also informative are the major works on natural history by authors such as Pliny the Elder and Dioscorides who describe the flora and fauna of the ancient Mediterranean, providing insight into the particular species of plants that were typically grown in Roman gardens.147 Artistic representations in frescoes and mosaics are useful to the study of Roman gardens. In addition to the illustration of plants and animals in the gardens, artistic representations include sculptures, fountains, garden furniture, and trellices, as well as terraces and other aspects of landscaping that help us to recreate and visualize the experience of the Roman garden (e.g., Jashemski 1979:55-88; 1993:313-404; Alley 1994; Farrar 1998:143-149). Finally, valuable information has been gained through the archaeological excavation of gardens associated with Roman villas. Most noteworthy is the enormous amount of work by Wilhelmina Jashemski on the excavation of Roman gardens destroyed by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE (at Pompeii, Herculaneum, and other Campanian towns), in

147 Grimal (1969) provides a lengthy survey of the literary sources and their contribution to our understanding of Roman gardens. For additional summaries and discussions of the literary evidence e.g., Littlewood 1987 and Farrar 1998:xiii-xv.

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

157

addition to Roman gardens in Tunisia (Jashemski 1979, 1981, 1987, 1992a 1992b, 1993, 1995, 1996a, 1996b)148 Private villas and palaces Many horti were associated with country and maritime estates that appeared in increasing numbers beginning in the 2nd century BCE in Campania, Latium, and in the vicinity of Rome (e.g., McKay 1998:100-135).149 These estates were the private residences of the Roman elite, in particular the military generals, who modeled their residences after Hellenistic palaces (LaRocca 1986; Nielsen 1993:224; 1994:164). One likely source of inspiration was the basileia of Alexandria with it peristyles, porticoes, banquet halls, and private libraries, set in large parks with pavilions and an abundance of water (Nielsen 1993:224). Indeed, the scale and lavishness of Roman gardens was a characteristic imported from the Hellenistic East (e.g., La Rocca 1986; Ward-Perkins 1994:201ff; Favro 1996:39, 59; Gleason 1997b:10; McKay 1998:46f). Around the middle of the 1st century BCE, Persian-style parks and hunting preserves came into vogue, inspired by the paradeisoi of Hellenistic rulers (Pliny the Elder, NH 8.78.211; Strabo Geog. 12.3.30; Varro Rust. 3.12-15).150 These game preserves, which housed a variety of local and exotic animals including stags, boars, leopards, bulls, became an essential feature for the private estates of the wealthy Roman landowners (Littlewood 1987:14-16). In addition, there was a craze for fishponds and aviaries,151 and the keeping of bees and domestic pets such as cats, dogs, rabbits, and 148 Roman gardens have also been excavated and/or studied at a number of sites throughout Italy, as well as in Britain, France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, and in North Africa (e.g., Farrar 1997:200-203). 149 Subsequently, the creation of great landscaped estates became popular along the Adriatic coast, and in northern Italy (e.g., Ward-Perkins 1994:201). 150 Depictions of game reserves found in Pompeiian wall paintings provide some indication of the reality as well as the fantastical concept of the paradeisos in the Roman world (Jashemski 1979:68-73). 151 According to Cicero, “the singing of the birds and the rushing of the streams relieve me from the all fear that I may be overheard by my fellow disciples” (Leg. 1.21). Birds were also desirable in gardens because of their perceived role as the winged messengers of the gods and the carriers of omens (Linderski 1989:115).

158

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

doormice (e.g., Jashemski 1979:102-112; 1993:405-407; Farrar 1997:70-71, 114, 155-159). Like the Hellenistic rulers, the Roman elite utilized the symbolism and meaning imbedded in the concept of garden to symbolize their wealth, status, and political power. Wealthy landowners competed in the creation of luxurious villas and landscaped parks on their private estates (Grimal 1969:128131; Favro 1996:39, 289 fn.37; Ward-Perkins 1994:201f). For example, General Lucullus, who was frustrated with his lack of political success against Pompey settled on creating verdant pleasure gardens that expressed his ability to indulge in luxuries and an ideal way of life (Plutarch Luc. 39). The many private estates and horti that appeared on the outskirts of Rome by the end of the Late Republic stood out as a “green-coded area of privilege” in contrast with the urban landscape (Favro 1996:39; Ward-Perkins 1994:202). The availability of large tracts of land made it possible to create spacious terraces, walkways, and groves, and the abundant water supply kept the gardens lush (Favro 1996:176). Indeed, the “whole zone is a paean to overindulgence, a visible manifestation of hedonistic Eastern ways and the decline of Republican morality” (ibid.:39). In the 30s BCE, the expansion of the aqueduct system by Augustus increased the volume of the water pouring into Rome. This expansion was not required for domestic consumption that continued to be provided for by wells and cisterns in private homes. The main function of the Roman aqueducts was to serve the public works and luxurious water installations that became a standard element of the Roman city.152 The presence of an aqueduct, therefore, became an important symbol of civic pride and prosperity (Hodge 1992:5f). With the expansion of the aqueduct system in Rome there followed the creation of even more private horti along each aqueduct line (e.g., Ward-Perkins 1994:202; Favro 1996:fig. 81). Because the Roman citizen was denied the right to create monuments of selfAn analysis of the distribution of water in Pompeii by Wilhelmina Jashemski revealed that the aqueduct water was directed toward private houses that exhibited a “lavish use of water” fountains, pools, water triclinia, and ornamental gardens. In contrast, the produce gardens, which were concentrated in the southeast quarter of the city, were not supplied by the aqueducts and relied upon water runoff from the streets and roofs that was collected and stored in cisterns (Jashemski 1996b). 152

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

159

aggrandizement that might be interpreted as competition to the emperor, such horti became an important means of enhancing personal status (Favro 1996:176). The first royal palace in Italy was built by Augustus on the Palatine Hill in Rome (ca. 36-28 BCE). Its design is generally comparable to the villas in Latium and Campania and town palaces in Pompeii combining residential, social, religious, and public elements—a characteristic typical of Hellenistic palace architecture (Nielsen 1993:210-215). Nielsen argues that Augustus’ inclusion of religious and public institutions within his palace is an indication that he “considered his position in society that of monarch in the hellenistic tradition rather than a primus inter pares” (ibid.:215).153 The ambitious elite as well as the first emperor of the Italian periphery thus borrowed the architectural language of the Hellenistic court to propagate their own rise to power. In the Hellenistic period, it was the kings who set the trend, and builders of both public, religious and private architecture looked to their magnificent palaces for inspiration. Being a mixture of Oriental and Greek elements, they constitued, in fact, a tangible result of Alexander’s policy (Nielsen 1993:225).

Urban / Public The incorporation of gardens into the urban landscape began with the creation of private parklands within the city limits.154 By 129 BCE, Scipio Aemilianus, a noted philhellene, created a private pleasure park in the Campus Martius in Rome (Cicero, Rep. 1.14; Amic. 25). His visit to Alexandria prior to this period likely provided the inspiration for this paradaisical creation (La Rocca 1986:5). In 55 BCE, Pompey laid out an expansive porticoed garden in the Campus Martius (e.g., Gleason 1990, 1994). The combination of this garden, with his private residence, a theater, The evolution of the Palatine into a large basileia or regia was continued in the 1st century CE by the emperor’s Caligula, Nero and Domitian (Nielsen 1993:225). 154 Grimal identifies two phases of Roman urban gardens: first, the independent park of the Late Republic that was based on eastern examples; second, the civic garden associated with public baths in the Imperial period (Grimal 1969:195-196). 153

160

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

and the curia, is reminiscent of the Hellenistic palace complexes that typically combined residential, official and recreational facilities. The garden was strategically oriented with its central axis forming a processional way between the curia, the regia (topped with a statue of Pompey) and the Temple of Venus (Gleason 1990:10). Furthermore, the garden’s position near the voting place of the tribal assemblies, offered Pompey an excellent opportunity to negotiate bribes (Plutarch, Pomp. 44). The ancient sources describe Pompey’s Portico as a popular meeting place for politicians, elite, and the Roman citizenry, and over the years, powerful politicians and emperors made alterations and additions to the grounds as a means of eliciting popular support (Gleason 1990:12). Probably as a form of symbolic competition, Julius Caesar laid out his own private horti across the Tiber River. Upon his death in 44 BCE, the Horti Caesaris were opened to the Roman people as per Caesar’s will, resulting in a park accessible to all residents of Rome (Suetonius, Caes. 83). The concept of public parklands developed further under Augustus who sanctioned urban landscaping and took a personal interest in horticulture and landscape design (Favro 1996:176).155 He opened up his Mausoleum gardens to the public and created large parklands (Suetonius, Aug. 100). His major building projects—i.e., the Apollo complex on the Palatine Hill, the Mausoleum of Sugustus in the Campus Martius, and the Porticus Liviae on the Oppian Hill—were beautifully landscaped (Favro 1996:178f). Subsequently, Agrippa created a landscaped park in the Campus Martius that included an artificial lake (Stagnum Agrippae), and a canal (Euripus). Like Caesar, Agrippa willed the park to the public after his death. Ultimately, the Campus Martius, which was originally dedicated to the war god Mars, became a lush parkland used for public gatherings and official and religious ceremony comparable to the great Hellenistic basileia (Nielsen 1994:174).156

Believing in the curative properties of fresh air and plantings (Pliny Ep. V.6.187; Suetonius, Aug. 72), Augustus preferred to sleep outdoors in his gardens which he embellished with terraces and groves in lieu of statues and imagery (Favro 1996:176 , fn 84). 156 Another notable contribution to the public parks of Rome is the transformation of the old fortifications on the Esquiline Hill into a park 155

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

161

This use of gardens in the public sphere functioned as an extension of monumental building programs and public works for selfaggrandizement by individuals. The emperor’s mastery over nature within the urban environment reflected his abilities as the ruler of Rome and master of the Roman Empire. Gardens and parklands formed a link between individual structures throughout the city. The installations within the gardens—fountains, reflecting pools, fishponds, porticoes, arbors, etc.—created an aesthetic environment for residents to enjoy and acted as a complimentary backdrop for the monuments themselves. Although he says surprisingly little about gardens in the urban environment, Vitruvius does discuss the value of greenery and open spaces for cleaning out the air and improving the overall atmosphere of the city. The space in the middle, between the colonnades and open to the sky, ought to be embellished with green things; for walking in the open air is very healthy, particularly for the eyes, since the refined and rarefied air that comes from green things, findings its way in because of the physical exercise, gives a clean-cut image, and by clearing away the gross humours from the eyes, leaves the sight keen and the image distinct. Besides, as the body gets warm with exercise in walking, this air, by sucking out the humours from the frame, diminishes their superabundance, and disperses and thus reduces that superfluity which is more than the body can bear. That this is so may be seen from the fact that misty vapours never arise from springs of water which are under cover, nor even from watery marshes which are underground; but in uncovered places which are open to the sky, when the rising sun begins to act upon the world with its heat, it brings out the vapour from damp and watery spots, and rolls it in masses upwards. Therefore, if it appears that in places open to the sky the more noxious humours are sucked out of the body by the air, as they obviously are from the earth in the form of mists, I think there is no doubt that cities installed with a warm-water swimming pool and an interior garden auditorium (e.g., Favro 1996:179).

162

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX should be provided with the roomiest and most ornamented walks, laid out under the free and open sky (Vitruvius, Arch. V.9.5-6).

Vitruvius recognized the important role of public parks and gardens in the urban environment. Their presence is important for improving the general atmosphere and creating a positive quality of life by introducing beauty and a sense of space into the heavily populated and densely built city (Rapoport 1982:34). The garden of Rome became an integral element of civic monuments such as libraries, assembly halls, and basilicas which were often equipped with wide doorways that could be opened to allow the garden’s sights and fragrances to enter the building and encourage a cohabitation of interior space and nature (Mckay 1998:47). In Roman cities and towns, gardens were connected with taverns, inns, shops, schools, temples, and public squares. In places like Pompeii, commercial vineyards, orchards, vegetable and flower gardens grew within the city walls. Outside the city were tomb gardens, farms and many villas with gardens (e.g., Jashemski 1979, 1992; Farrar 1997:175-186). This unity of nature with the built environment became a model for Roman urban design. In a description of the landscaped villas scattered along the coastline of Naples, Strabo likened them to the appearance of a great Roman city (Geog. V.4.8). “The verdant Rome of Augustus was a sophisticated city of communal recreation and repose, rather than one of war and individual competition. Given this powerful model, Romans of the Augustan Age could hardly imagine any great city devoid of landscape” (Favro 1996:180).

HERODIAN/ROMAN PALESTINE The Judean kingdom was absorbed by the Roman Empire with the conquest of Pompey in 67 BCE. Following a civil war in 40 BCE, Herod the Great traveled to Rome and sought support from Marcus Antonius who appointed Herod King of Judea (37-4 BCE). Upon his return, Herod carried on the Hasmonean tradition by building three of his own winter palaces at Jericho. The Hasmonean complex, including its recreational pools and gardens, continued to be utilized at least until the earthquake of 31 BCE destroyed some of the older buildings (Amiran et al. 1994). His First and Second Winter Palace were similar in plan, with a large

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

163

audience/banquet hall opening onto a central peristyle (Pritchard 1958; Netzer 1990:figs. 9-10; Nielsen 1994:193-196, figs. 104-106). The Second Winter Palace incorporated some of the former gardens and pools of the Hasmonean complex into its design (Netzer 1990:fig. 10). Herod’s Third Winter Palace (built ca. 15 BCE), was the largest and grandest of his palaces at Jericho. The complex spanned both sides of the Wadi Qelt with a bridge connecting the official facilities on the north bank with the recreational facilities on the south bank. The recreational facilities included a large, formal “sunken garden” backed by a niched façade with a tiered hemicycle at its center for displaying potted plants. Two raised porticoes flanked the garden, and through the eastern portico was a monumental swimming-pool. Overlooking the garden was a pavilion perched on top of an artificial mound (Netzer 1975:99; 1977:10; 1990:figs. 11-12; Nielsen 1994:196-200, figs. 107-109) (Fig. 27). A garden-peristyle (Area B64) located in the official complex was excavated by Kathryn Gleason (1987-88). Planting pits and flowerpots were laid out in neat rows along the furrows of the planting bed, an indication that either herbaceous plants or small shrubs were grown here. The use of locally manufactured flowerpots indicates that the crop was grown locally and not imported. Based on this evidence, Gleason suggests that the garden-peristyle in Herod’s palace may have produced a “symbolic” crop of balsam—a rare and valued source of perfume—which, outside of its native Arabia, was known only to have been grown in the royal gardens at Jericho (ibid.:31).157 Herod built several other palaces throughout Judea—his main palaces at the capital, Jerusalem (built ca. 25 BCE), and at the port city, Caesarea Maritima (built 19-10 BCE); a summer palacefortress at Herodium (built ca. 23-15 BCE) serving administrative and recreational functions; and palaces in several of his desert fortresses, most notably at Masada (built 37-20 BCE). Little is known about Herod’s palace at Jerusalem due to its destruction and obliteration by later construction. 158 Josephus, however, See fn. 145. Excavations in the citadel courtyard confirmed that only the underlying platform and the lower courses of one tower (Phasael?) of 157 158

164

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Herod’s Palace at Jerusalem are preserved (Amiran and Eitan 1970 and 1972; Nielsen 1994:182).

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

165

compensated for the lack of archaeological data by describing the palace in great detail. Although the palace precinct occupied a relatively limited space within the confines of the ancient city, Herod still included the requisite gardens and groves in its design: All around [the palace] there were many circular cloisters, leading one into another, the columns in each being different, and their courts all of greensward; there were groves of various trees intersected by long walks, which were bordered by deep canals, and ponds everywhere studded with bronze figures, through which water was discharged, and around the streams were numerous cots for tame pigeons (Josephus, Wars V.4.4).159

One notable difference between the Jerusalem palace and all other Herodian palace is the lack of evidence for a swimming-pool. This may be due to the purely administrative function of the palace, or a lack of space, or both. Herod’s palace at Caesarea was situated on the coastline, with one wing of the palace dramatically perched on a natural promontory jutting out into the Mediterranean Sea, a feature that is notably reminiscent of the royal palace at Alexandria. The public wing (“Upper Promontory”) has a large paved peristyle; the private wing (“Lower Palace”) has a central peristyle with a large swimming-pool (see Ch. IV) surrounded by a potted flower bed. Both wings have large audience/banquet halls opening onto their respective peristyles (Levine and Netzer 1986:176-177; Nielsen 1994:183-184, figs.95; Gleason et al. 1998) (Fig. 25). During Herod’s reign, two palaces—the Western Palace (built 37-30 BCE), and the Northern Palace (built 30-20 BCE)—were built on the northern half of the Masada plateau. The impressive Northern Palace is situated on three terraces cut into the steep rocky slope (Netzer 1991:plans 60-62). Although Masada was planned from the outset as a fortress, it also functioned as a vacation site for the king’s family (ibid.:649). It has been argued that the largely unbuilt southern half of the plateau was landscaped, turning the entire summit into one enormous palace complex (e.g., 159

See also Josephus, Ant. XV.9.3.

166

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Nielsen 1994:184-193, figs.96-103; Gleason 1997b:8; Roller 1998:189). Josephus’ account that the top of the Masada plateau was “given up by the king for cultivation” for “those who had committed their lives to the protection of the fortress” (Wars VII.8.3) suggests the production of food crops and not pleasure gardens. However, the presence of a large swimming-pool near the plateau’s southern tip (Netzer 1991:481-483, 647, fn. 52) (see Ch. IV) along with three columbaria, supports the theory that the area was utilized for recreational purposes. Finally, Herod constructed his summer palace at Herodium, near Bethlehem (built ca. 20-23 BCE). The circular residential palace-fortress is situated at the summit of an artificial conical hill. Almost half of the area inside the fortress is occupied by a gardenperistyle with exedrae on three sides; opening onto the gardenperistyle is a large audience/banquet hall (e.g., Lauter 1986; Netzer 1990:figs.13-15; Nielsen 1994:201-203; figs. 111-113). Recreational facilities at the base of the fortress include a large earthen terrace (125 x 105 meters) with a garden and pool-complex that is bound on three sides by an elevated portico (also see Ch. IV) (Netzer 1981a:10ff; 1987:32-33) (Pl. XXXIa-b, Figs. 24 and 28). In order to provide sufficient water to the garden and pool facilities in this desert environment, Herod built an aqueduct that connected into an older hydraulic system built to carry water into Jerusalem (J.C. Wilkinson 1974:38-39). Much attention has been given to the influence of Roman technology and architectural design on Herodian architecture (e.g., Tsafrir 1976; Ward-Perkins 1994:309ff; Roller 1998). Assuredly, Herod witnessed a great deal of building activity during his travels to Rome in 40 BCE and again in 17 BCE, a period of extensive planning and construction as Rome was transformed from an agrarian city-state into an imperial capital. Appreciating the value of architectural patronage, Herod would have been particularly attentive to the major monuments and building activities wherever he traveled (i.e. Alexandria, Rome, Antioch) in order to be able to apply this knowledge toward his own building programs (Roller 1998:33-42, 86ff). Indeed, an analysis of urban renewal in Judea during Herod’s reign reveals a strong Roman influence. Herod preferred the Roman theater format over the Greek form, and all of his cities were equipped with the temples, porticoes and basilicas that were characteristic of Roman urban centers (ibid.:90-94). In the

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

167

case of Herod’s palaces, his innovative application of Roman building techniques (i.e., opus reticulatum, opus mixtum) and facilities such as Roman baths, reflects his desire to experiment with foreign elements, and suggests the contribution of Roman architects and craftsmen to the construction of his palaces (Kelso and Baramki 1955:10). Analyses of Herod’s most experimental palaces—namely

168

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

the Northern Palace at Masada, the palace-fortress at Herodium, and the Third Winter Palace at Jericho—tend to draw comparisons with contemporary Italic villas, the palace of Augustus on the Palatine, and the Campus Martius (Gleason 1998:52; Roller 1998:96ff). However, these magnificent Roman complexes that Herod witnessed and, apparently, imitated—with their assortment of buildings with diversified functions, porticoes, landscaped gardens and/or garden-peristyles, pavilions, and with great attention paid to water display—were themselves modeled on the royal palaces of Hellenistic kings! As there was no precedent for the royal palace during the period of the Roman Republic, the first emperor and the Roman elite “borrowed the architectural language of the Hellenistic court to propagate their own rise to power” (Nielsen 1993:225).160 Indeed, all of Herod’s palaces included standard elements of Hellenistic palace architecture: large audience/banquet halls, garden-peristyles, paradaisical landscaping, and an abundant display of water (Tsafrir 1976:71; Nielsen 1994:181-182). Therefore, Herod’s palaces may be viewed as a continuity of Hellenistic palace architectural traditions combined with local (Hasmonean) and new Roman elements. Herod’s personal style was expressed in the overall planning of the complexes (Netzer 1981b) and, in particular, his use of natural and artificial topography—the Wadi Qelt at Jericho, the promontory at Caesarea, the terraced north slope of Masada, the cone-shaped mountain at Herodium—to achieve a dramatic effect that must have impressed any and all who witnessed them.

WX This is the context in which the Pool-Complex at Petra was created: in the wake of King Herod’s ambitious building campaigns that included the creation of vast royal compounds installed with paradaisical gardens and monumental swimming-pools; at a time when the Hellenistic kingdoms that were Nabataea’s neighbors were rapidly succumbing to the political domination of an expanding hellenized Roman empire. In Ch. VI, the significance of this historical context will be discussed with particular attention to the interpretation of the role of the Pool-Complex and garden at 160

See also Gleason 1997b; Roller 1998:94-97

GARDENS OF THE ANCIENT EAST

169

Petra during its initial phase in which Nabataea maintained its status as an independent kingdom, and then with its transformation following Roman annexation.

CHAPTER VI

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX IN CONTEXT

HERODIAN AND LATE HELLENISTIC PALACE ARCHITECTURE

As the evidence presented in Chapter III shows, the Petra PoolComplex was built early in the reign of Aretas IV (9 BCE – 40 CE), in conjunction with the neighboring Great Temple complex. Its plan is virtually identical to the pool-complex at Herodium: a monumental pool with island-pavilion at one end of a large earthen terrace supported by a double retaining wall (Fig. 29). The scale of the Petra Pool-Complex, however, is significantly smaller than the Herodium example, the former covering an area less than half the size of the latter: pool earthen terrace overall complex total area of coverage

Petra 43 x 23 m 65 x 53 m 65 x 85 m 5525 m2

Herodium 72 x 46 m 105 x 60 m 105 x 125 m 13125 m2

The pool at Petra is comparable in size to the pool in Herod’s palace at Caesarea (35 x 18 meters) and the twin pools of Alexander Jannaeus at Jericho (36 x 20 meters), which continued to be maintained by Herod as part of his Second Winter Palace at that site (Netzer 1990:44-45, fig.10; Nielsen1994:196, fig.106) (Fig. 30). It is likely that the Petra pool was bounded on three sides by a colonnaded portico, much like the porticoes found in association 171

172

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX IN CONTEXT

173

with the pools at Herodium, Caesarea, and Jericho, as well as in the Palazzo delle Colonne at Ptolemais. Future archaeological explorations around the perimeter of the Petra pool should provide information about the presence or absence of a colonnaded peristyle. So what is an Herodian-style pool-complex doing at Petra? In truth, such a discovery is not so remarkable when one considers the political and familial relationship between the Nabataeans and the House of Herod. As described in Chapter II, a history of conflict and rivalry existed between the neighboring kingdoms (Josephus, Wars I.13-14, 18-19, 24, 27-29). Dynastic marriages between members of the Herodian and Nabataean royal families (ibid. I.8.9) helped to form diplomatic alliances and also resulted in the spread of Herod’s concept for public works and architectural patronage. Roller observes that those places “where in-laws or descendants of Herod lived, such as Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Nabataea, demonstrate that the marrying of Herodian descendents to local royalty was a major way in which this ever-architecturallyconscious family spread its ideas about the architectural duties of client kingship” (Roller 1998:257). During the early phase of Roman rule in the East, Herod was the dominant architectural and political influence throughout the region (e.g., Ward-Perkins 1994:309; Roller 1998:254ff). Since the rapid urban embellishment of Petra’s City Center coincided with the end of Herod’s reign, and both the Temple of the Winged Lions and the Main Theater at Petra are modeled on Herodian monuments (Hammond 1973:51; Roller 1998:254), it is reasonable to assume that other monuments in Petra were similarly inspired. A most perplexing issue at this point in time is the question of the role of the Pool-Complex within Petra. Although gardens, or paradeisoi, are known from a variety of contexts in the Ancient Near East and the Classical World—religious and secular, public and private—the swimming-pool is a phenomenon that appears suddenly in the late 2nd century BCE as part of the recreational apparatus of Hellenistic palace complexes. The recreational function of these swimming-pools can usually be determined based on a variety of features. For example their large dimensions and depth distinguished them from purely ornamental bodies of water such as basins, and reflecting pools. The presence of steps in at

174

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

least one corner of the pool indicates that they were intended to be physically entered and were not merely for show.161 In Josephus’ version of the drowning of Aristobolus at Jericho (see Ch. IV), he describes the characters swimming and cavorting in one of the palace pools (Josephus, Ant V.3.3). In contrast, there is no evidence for swimming-pools or ornamental pools of similar dimensions and characteristics in association with temples and religious complexes during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The only known examples of large pools associated with temples are found in Pharaonic Egypt (see Ch. IV). The New Kingdom examples predate the Petra pool by more than a millennium. In addition, in none of the Egyptian 161 Ritual baths, mikvaot, which are found in Hasmonean and Herodian palaces, also have steps but they are significantly smaller and are incorporated into the residential quarters (e.g., Nielsen 1994:156, 159f, 163, 193ff, 204f, 207, pl. 25).

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX IN CONTEXT

175

examples is there evidence for steps nor are there representations of people entering the water, whether for recreational or ritual purposes. As described in Chapter IV, the veneration of water and its association with deities is clearly evident at Petra. Did the Nabataeans borrow an element of Hellenistic/Herodian palace architecture—the monumental swimming-pool—and then translate it into their temple design, possibly related to the practice of water veneration in association with the worship of the goddess Atargatis/Al-‘Uzza? Such activity is manifested in other places at Petra by the presence of iconography and inscriptions arranged in clusters in the vicinity of water sources and along the wadis and

176

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

channels that transport the water into the city (Brünnow and Domaszewski 1904-09:I, 222; Dalman 1912:143-156; Patrich 1996:59-60). At the Nabataean settlement, Humeima, Dushara blocks are found by several cisterns and a pool formed by a dam (Oleson 1995:fn.38).162 If the primary function of the PoolComplex—the largest body of water within the city limits—was intended for religious activity and veneration of Al-’Uzza, one would expect to find similar iconography, religious symbolism and artifacts in the vicinity of the pool. However, nothing of this sort has been discovered through survey or excavation of the site. Of course, the archaeological investigation of the Pool-complex is still at a preliminary stage and thus the absence of evidence at this point in time cannot be interpreted as sound argument. It is necessary, therefore, to look to the excavations of the neighboring Great Temple to seek any indication of religious function for the overall complex. The identification of the Great Temple as a religious sanctuary was made early in the 20th century prior to archaeological investigation of any kind at the site, and thus was based purely on the evidence of surface features. The question regarding the Great Temple’s functon—religious or secular—was recently raised by Erika Schluntz who argues against the sacred function of the Great Temple based on the lack of religious accoutrements (altar, dedicatory inscriptions, any artifacts), and the fact that the initial plan of the Great Temple, as we know it, is unlike other known Nabataean temples (Schluntz 1998:221f; 1999:82-91).163 Schluntz points out the resemblance of the Great Temple, Phase I to the royal audience halls of late Hellenistic palaces which have interior colonnades on three sides with heart-shaped corner piers and a broad, open façade (an Egyptian-style oecus), and the audience halls (triclinia) in Herod’s palaces which are similarly designed but have a narrower entryway. Schluntz argues that the Great Temple belonged to a larger royal complex in Petra, and served a primarily Oleson interprets the presence of the icons as evidence that water distribution in Nabataean society was at least partially sanctioned by the gods (Oleson 1995:715). 163 Schluntz credits Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos for bringing to her attention the similarities between Herodian triclinia and the plan of the Great Temple, Phase I (Schluntz 1999:vi). 162

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX IN CONTEXT

177

political and social function as a place for royal receptions and banquets (Schluntz 1999:97-101, 104-122, fig. 5.10). The existence of a monumental audience/banquet hall in Petra coincides with contemporary literary evidence, namely Athenodorous’ eye-witness account (as related through Strabo) of how the Nabataean king was in the habit of hosting “many entertainments in great buildings” (Geog. XVI.4.26). Schluntz points out that “there is no reason to doubt that the kings of Nabataea, so practiced at adopting and transforming the architectural and artistic ideals of their more culturally sophisticated neighbors, would have failed to remain au courant when designing their own palace complex” (Schluntz 1999:100). When designing a palace, a crucial consideration was the citing of the key structures so that they held commanding positions up on terraces or platforms reached by monumental staircases or ramps (e.g., Nielsen 1994:209). As with virtually all of the Hellenistic and Herodian palaces described in Chapter V, such halls (whether oecoi or triclinia) tend to be oriented so as to command views of peristyles and gardens that are also part of the palace complex.164 In the case of Petra’s grand audience hall (eg. the Great Temple, Phase I), the view through its broad, open entryway would encompass the garden laid out on a lower terrace, just east of its large plaza (“Lower Temenos”). A short stroll to the northeast corner of the audience hall would bring the monumental pool with its island-pavilion into view. Further support for the theory of a palace complex located at the heart of Petra is the suggestion that the “Baths” , which adjoin the Great Temple on the west, belong to a larger complex with a residential function. Noting the lack of installations characteristic of bath complexes (i.e., water pipes, basins, hypocaust tiles), Fawzi Zayadine compares the architecture of the so-called “Baths” with the residential quarter on the lower terrace of Herod’s North Palace at Masada (dated 37-4 BCE). Zayadine suggests that this complex, which was “richly decorated with colonnettes and painted architectural stucco, was part of a palatial residence” (Zayadine 1987:139). It is possible that a large Hellenistic-style palace, Vitruvius mentions a specific form of dining triclinium that originated in Cyzican, Turkey, that commands a view of the gardens (Arch. VI.3.10). 164

178

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

composed of separate buildings and areas each serving different functions, covered much of Petra’s southern slope, an area that remains largely unexcavated. It is further possible that such a palace complex spanned Wadi Musa so that some of its buildings were located on the northern slope, directly across from and with a view of the Pool-Complex.165 Such an arrangement would be reminiscent of Herod’s Third Winter Palace at Jericho (Fig. 27). The hellenization of the Nabataeans occurred relatively late in comparison to the rest of Syro-Palestine. It was not until the early 1st century BCE that the material culture (i.e., coins and pottery) and architecture of the Nabataeans show “deliberate cultural borrowings” from their Hellenistic neighbors, despite the close commercial contact that had been established for at least two centuries prior. Only with direct political contact with the Seleucids as a result of the northern expansion of the Nabataean kingdom under Aretas III “Philhellene” were the Nabataeans truly hellenized (Parr 1965:531). Petra’s first major construction phase during the second half of the 1st century BCE—the Temenos Area followed by the Great Temple/Pool-Complex—was a direct response to the intense cultural and political interaction between Nabataea, Judea, and the rest of the hellenized world, including a fledgling Roman Empire. In order to legitimize his position within the hellenized world, the Nabataean king needed to establish his position as the ruler of an important, successful, and powerful kingdom, a viable contender. The most effective way to accomplish this task was through monumental display. Like Herod and other rulers of the Hellenistic and Eastern kingdoms, the Nabataean king “used architecture as a metaphor for proper exercise of political power and the establishment of a new world order” (Roller 1998:261).

MONUMENTAL DISPLAY According to Clifford Geertz, “at the political center of any complexly organized society…there is both a governing elite and a 165 Traces of a monumental structure can be seen on the surface of the northern slope, east of the Temple of the Winged Lions. These ruins were identified as a possible palace during the early survey work at Petra (eg. the “Palast” on the original plan by Bachmann et al. 1921:68-72, abb. 1, 60) but they have yet to be explored archaeologically.

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX IN CONTEXT

179

set of symbolic forms expressing the fact that it is in truth governing” (Geertz 1975:152). One type of symbolic form that is commonly utilized in this context is monumental display which is effective as a means of demonstrating conspicuous consumption— the wasteful expenditure of money and resources as a means of enhancing social prestige and power (Veblen 1965). One of the most common forms of monumental display is the erection of structures such as temples, processional ways, palaces, towers, tombs, civic buildings, city walls and gateways, that are designed to exceed the scale, resources, and architectural/artistic enhancement necessary for practical function. The use of monumental architecture as an expression of rank, status, and power, is a universal feature that has been practiced since the origins of classbased societies (e.g., Childe 1950; Trigger 1991:127). The construction of monumental structures reflects a high degree of engineering and artistic skills, as well as the ability to organize and maintain a large work force and to plan on a grand scale. Therefore any individual responsible for the construction of great monuments is perceived as being endowed with the necessary qualities of a leader, someone who is capable of organizing, protecting, and providing for the society as a whole. In other words, “monumental architecture makes power visible and hence becomes power rather than merely a symbol of it” (Trigger 1991:122). In his analysis of the universality of monumental architecture as an expression of power, Trigger concludes that it is the control of energy that constitutes the most fundamental and universally recognized measure of political power. According to Trigger: The most basic way in which power can be symbolically reinforced is through the conspicuous consumption of energy. Monumental architecture, as a highly visible and enduring form of such consumption, plays an important role in shaping the political and economic behavior of human beings. This explains why, as systems based on inequality evolved, monumental architecture loomed so large in the archaeological record. It further explains why, as political relations of domination changed, the type of buildings by means of which that power was expressed also altered (ibid.:128).

180

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

During the 1st century BCE, the means by which the Nabataean ruler could legitimize his authority and establish his kingdom’s position within the hellenized world was through the creation of a cultural center that reflected the success and affluence of the Nabataeans in fashion that was recognized and respected by other Hellenistic rulers. In Petra, monumental temples were built to glorify the local deities in addition to the open-air sanctuaries that followed local tradition (e.g., Mettinger 1995:66). Like other Hellenistic rulers, Aretas IV appears to have built himself a Hellenistic-style palace whose monumentality, lavish decoration, multi-functionality, and commanding position reflected the king’s wealth and status and his position as the ruler over all facets of Nabataean society. If the elaborate rock-cut chamber known as alKhazneh was the tomb of Aretas IV, as some argue it to be,166 then his expenditure of energy and resources to create such a lavish resting place for himself after his death is a characteristic example of monumental display through which the king emphasized his personal power and his claim as the legitimate ruler of an affluent and prestigious society. In addition, the position of al-Khazneh at the termination of the Siq, where it greets everyone who enters the city with its immense size and lavish sculptural decoration is another example of the effective use of monumental display. Another means by which the Hellenistic kings displayed their positions of power was by organizing elaborate ceremonies, banquets and other forms of pomp and circumstance. The great expenditure, elaboration and ceremony that was characteristic of such banquets (e.g., Murray 1996) was intended to reinforce the image of the nobility and upper classes who attended them, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of their peers (Trigger 1991:126). The universality of this mode of legitimization through ceremony and ritual is aptly described by Geertz: No matter how democratically the members of the elite are chosen (usually not very) or how deeply divided among themselves they may be (usually much more than outsiders imagine), they justify their existence and order their actions in terms of a collection of stories, ceremonies, insignia, formalities, and appurtenances Many dates have been suggested for al-Khazneh ranging between century BCE and the 2nd century CE. See MacKenzie 1990:Table 2.

166

the

1st

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX IN CONTEXT

181

that they have either inherited or, in more revolutionary situations, invented. It is these—crowns and coronations, limousines and conferences—that mark the center as center and give what goes on there its aura of being not merely important but in some odd fashion connected with the way the world is built. The gravity of high politics and the solemnity of high worship spring from liker impulses than might first appear (Geertz 1975:152f).

Such a cult of kingship was present at Petra. Strabo tells of such banquets in the company of the Nabataean king in which “they eat their meals in companies consisting of thirteen persons. Each party is attended by two musicians,” and “no one drinks more than eleven cupfuls, from separate cups, each of gold” (Strabo, Geog. XVI.4.26). However, unlike the typical Hellenistic ruler, the Nabataean king, purportedly used very few slaves and even served himself according to traditional Nabataean custom. And the king likely held his “many entertainments” in a great audience hall, the Great Temple, with its enormous columns topped by elaborately carved capitals filled with floral motifs— symbols of prosperity and fertility (Schluntz 1998:226-231, figs. 5.43-5.51). Fronting the Great Temple is a large plaza (the “Lower Temenos”) flanked by triple colonnades. Each of the columns (numbering more than 120) was decorated with elephant-headed capitals of beautifully carved white limestone (Basile 1998:198, figs. 5.13-5.17; Barrett 1998:287-288, pl.5.35, figs. 6.61-6.66). The elephant was an important instrument in the victorious military campaigns of the Ptolemies and Seleucids. Since it is unlikely that live elephants ever inhabited or even visited Petra, the use of their imagery in the Nabataean capital may be an example of symbolic acknowledgement and/or emulation of the Hellenistic monarchy (Blagg 1990).167 Finally, an additional medium utilized by Hellenistic kings for monumental display and symbolic expression was the royal garden or paradeisos. As outlined in Chapter V, the garden was a standard 167 Elephant-headed capitals have been found at Petra and Khirbet Brak. Their twin-domed heads and lack of a folded dorsal edge on the ears suggest that they are intended to represent the Indian variety of elephant as opposed to the African variety (Basile 1998:198).

182

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

feature of Hellenistic palace architecture, although it may be argued that it’s recreational function was secondary to its function as a metaphor for royal prestige and power. The success of the garden as metaphor is a result of a variety of forms of symbolic display— monumental architecture, specialized skills and labor, display of rare and exotic species, manipulation of nature, and the conspicuous consumption of precious resources. The garden was a luxury item that required a great investment for its creation and its long-term maintenance. Furthermore, the garden could be designed, through its organization and the selection of plants and animals to be kept within it, as a symbolic representation of a culture’s world-view and its relationship to the rest of the world. It is impossible to know at this early stage in the investigation of the Petra Pool-Complex what was the full message that the Nabataean king intended to convey with the creation of a paradeisos in his capital city, probably in association with his palace complex. Information about the garden’s plan and its contents, for example, must await future scientific excavations on the earthen terrace combined with materials analysis.168 One thing that can be commented on is the use of monumental water display, including an enormous pool with a cascading waterfall possibly forming a backdrop. As outlined in Chapter IV, water display is commonly used by royalty and the elite as a symbol of wealth, status and power. In Petra’s arid environment, the use of water for aesthetic and display purposes at any capacity is especially impressive due to its limited availability. For the Nabataean king to develop and maintain a hydraulic system that provided sufficient water to the inhabitants of this desert city was accomplishment enough to earn 168 If modern local flora is any indication of some of the botanical species that might have been cultivated in the ancient garden at Petra, the observations by Forder of the variety of flora growing among the ruins of Petra in the early part of the 20th century, may prove useful. Forder identified oleander, juniper (good for firewood), tamarisk, wild fig, oaks, willow, anemonies, squills, daisies, cyclamen, poppies, and mallows (Forder 1923:16). Exotic species that may be anticipated for their symbolic value are frankincense and myrhh upon which the economic wealth of Petra was founded (Van Beek 1959; Groom 1977, 1981), and perhaps date palms and even balsam which were valued crops at nearby Jericho (Josephus, Wars I.6.6 and Pliny, Nat. Hist., XII.115-123).

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX IN CONTEXT

183

the respect and acknowledgement of his contemporaries, but to exploit and command the natural resources in such a way as to be able to fill a recreational pool and to water a paradeisos was truly remarkable. The presence of a large formal garden—a virtual oasis—in Petra would have delivered a powerful statement to merchants and foreign delegates entering the city after a long journey through the harsh desert environment. Citizens and visitors alike would have been impressed by the gratuitous display of conspicuous consumption, a symbol of the flourishing status of Petra during its Classical era.

FROM PRIVATE GARDEN TO PUBLIC PARK By the early 2nd century CE, major changes were being made within the heart of Petra to transform it from a purely religious and ceremonial center into a civic center (Urbanization Phase II). As described in Chapter II, the western end of the sacra via was paved and converted into a marketplace with shops, an inn, and a possible treasury. The former royal audience/banquet hall (the Great Temple) was converted into a theatron that probably functioned as a council hall, bouleutereion, or odeion (or a combination of these) fronted by a large public plaza. The current archaeological record indicates that this transformation may have begun as early as the late 1st century CE, during the reign of Rabb’el II, although it was not completed until after Roman annexation in 106 CE. Because of its central location and close association with the Great Temple, the Pool-Complex must also have been converted into a public space at this point in time. That the space was maintained as a garden under Roman occupation is reasonable since the Romans already had a long tradition of incorporating gardens into the urban landscape (see Ch. V). Public gardens offered a pleasing and aesthetic environment for the public gatherings as well as private encounters and contemplation. The association of the Petra garden with the Great Temple theatron (Phase II), is reminiscent of Pompey’s Portico Garden in Rome (Gleason 1990, 1994) which occupied the space between Rome’s senate house (curia) and a large theater. If the Great Temple’s new theatron was built to house the boule (administrative council) described in the “Babatha Letters” (Bowersock 1991:358ff), then it is possible to imagine that council members and even Babatha herself strolled through the adjacent gardens contemplating the

184

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

important decisions to be made regarding the guardianship of Babatha’s son. The specific function of the Petra swimming-pool during this phase of public accessibility is unclear. It is possible that it was used only for ornamental purposes since there is no other example of a public swimming-pool known in either the Hellenistic or Roman East. However, the presence of a large swimming-pool (34.55 x 22.25 meters) in a public park (the Great Palaestra) in Pompeii in the late 1st century CE (Jashemski 1993:91-92, plan 29, fig. 102a), indicates that recreational swimming in public spaces was an accepted practice in the Roman period. The addition of a bridge in the Petra Pool-Complex (see Ch. III), meant that the islandpavilion was no longer such a private retreat but was easily accessible to all of the people who visited the park. The Roman emperor, Hadrian , made two visits to Judea in 113 or 115 CE and again in 117 CE before he began the construction of his private villa at Tivoli that was completed in 134 CE. According to MacDonald and Pinto, there are many indications that Hadrian had direct knowledge of Herodium and Herod’s strong artistic and political connections with Rome. Most noteworthy is the resemblance between the plans of Herodium circular fortress and the circular Island-Enclosure at Hadrian’s Villa (MacDonald and Pinto 1995:81-88, figs. 94-104). In 129-130 CE, Hadrian made another trip through Syria and Palestine. We know that he visited Gerasa on that trip when a monumental arch was built there in his honor (e.g., Bowersock 1983:110). The following year, Petra was bestowed the honorific name “Petra Hadriana” which is found stamped on coins (ibid.). Although there is no evidence that Hadrian ever visited Petra, it can be imagined that this name was conferred as a result of a personal visit, at which time he would surely have toured the city’s major monuments and took pleasure in its garden. Knowing his passion for gardens and waterworks as exhibited in his own villa (Pl. XXXIIb), Hadrian would undoubtedly have been impressed by this desert city and its people who managed to exploit a minimum supply of water to create an urban oasis.

THE END OF PROSPERITY Although the current archaeological record indicates that the PoolComplex, and by association its gardens, fell into disrepair by the

185 4th century CE during, and the site was transformed into an industrial area (lime kiln) during the Byzantine period and then again into agricultural field in the post-Classical period (see Ch. III), the vivid memory of its impressive gardens and water persisted. In the Qur’an, Petra’s extravagant gardens and water use are included in a description of ancient Nabataean civilization: Will ye be left secure, in (the enjoyment of) all that ye have here? Gardens and Springs, And corn-fields and date-palms with spathes near breaking (with the weight of fruit)? And ye carve houses out of (rocky) mountains with great skill. But fear Allah and obey me; And follow not the bidding of those who are extravagant, Who make mischief in the land, and mend not (their ways). (Surah 26:146-152).

This passage is one of many in the Qu’ran that attempts to explain why seemingly prosperous societies of antiquity perished. As in earlier periods, the display of gardens, waterworks, and grand architecture symbolized power, wealth, and extravagance. However, unlike the Hellenistic and Roman periods, such qualities are perceived in Islam as undesirable. Thus, according to the Qur’an, the Nabataeans perished as a result of their extravagance and arrogance which was most symbolically represented by their gardens and water display.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ‘Amr, K. 1987 The Pottery from Petra: A Neutron Activation Study. Oxford. Adams, R. McC. 1955 Developmental Stages in Mesopotamia. In Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative Study, ed. J. H. Steward. Washington, D.C. 1974a Anthropological Perspectives on Ancient Trade. Current Anthropology 15: 3. 1974b Historic Patterns of Mesopotamian Irrigation Agriculture. In Irrigation’s Impact on Society, ed. T. E. Downing and M. Gibson, pp.1-5. University of Arizona Press. 1981 Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. University of Chicago Press. al-Ansary, A. R. 1981 Qaryat al Fau: A Portrait of Pre-Islamic Civilization in Saudi Arabia. Toledo. al-Khalesi, Y. M. 1978 The Court of the Palms: A Functional Interpretation of the Mari Palace. Malibu: Undena. Albenda, P. 1976a Landscape Bas-Reliefs in the Bit-Hilani of Ashurbanipal. BASOR 224: 49-72. 1976b Landscape Bas-Reliefs in the Bit-Hilani of Ashurbanipal. BASOR 225: 29-48.

187

188

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Allen, K., S. Green, and E. Zubrow 1990 Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. London: Taylor and Francis. Amiran, R., and A. Eitan 1970 Excavations in the courtyard of the Citadel, Jerusalem, 1968-1969 (Preliminary Report). IEJ 20: 9-17. 1972 Herod’s Palace. IEJ 22: 50-51. Amiran, D. H. K., E. Arieh, and T. Turcotte 1994 Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations Since 100 BCE. IEJ 44: 260-305. Arnold, D. 1975 Deir el-Bahari. In Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. W. Helck and E. Otto. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ashmore, W., and A. B. Knapp (eds.) 1999 Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell. Auth, S. H. 1976 Ancient Glass at the Newark Museum. Newark Museum. Bachmann, W., C. Watsinger, and Th. Wiegand 1921 Petra. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen des Deutschtürkischen Denkmalschutz-Kommandos, Heft 3. Berlin and Leipzig. Ball, W. 2000 Rome in the East: Transformation of an Empire. London/New York: Routledge. Barghouti, A. N. 1982 Urbanization of Palestine and Jordan in Hellenistic and Roman Times. SHAJ I: 209-228. Barnett, R. D. 1976 Sculptures from the North Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668-627 B.C.). London. 1985 Assurbanipal’s Feast. Eretz-Israel 18:1-6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Barrett, D. 1998 Other Small Finds. In Petra Great Temple, Volume I: Brown University Excavations, 1993-1997, ed. M.S. Joukowsky, pp.287-315. Providence, RI. Bartlett, J. R. 1979 From Edomites to Nabataeans: A Study in Continuity. PEQ 111: 53-66. 1999 Edomites and Idumaeans. PEQ 131:102-114. Bartlett, W. H. 1849 Forty Days in the Desert. London. Basile, J. J. 1998 The Lower Temenos. In Petra Great Temple, Volume I: Brown University Excavations, 1993-1997, ed. M.S. Joukowsky, pp.189-208. Providence, RI. 2000 When People Lived at Petra. Archaeology Odyessey 3(4): 1531. Beaux, N. 1990 Le Cabinet de curiosités de Thutmosis III: Plantes et animaux du jardin botanique de Karnak. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 36. Leuven. Bedal, L.-A. 1998a Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery. In Petra Great Temple, Volume I: Brown University Excavations, 1993-1997, ed. M. Joukowsky, pp.346-367. Providence, RI. 1998b The Petra Lower Market Survey. ACOR Newsletter 10(1): 45. 1999a The Petra Lower Market Survey. In Archaeology in Jordan, ed. V. Egan and P. Bikai. AJA. 103: 506-507. 1999b A Paradeisos in Petra: New Light on the ‘Lower Market’. ADAJ 43: 227-239. 2000 Paradise Found: Petra’s Urban Oasis. Expedition 42(2): 2336. 2001 A Pool-Complex in Petra’s City Center. BASOR 323:2341.

190

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Bennett, C. M. 1964 Umm el-Biyara-Pétra. RB 71: 250-253. 1966a Des fouilles à Umm el-Biyarah: les Edomites à Pétra. BTS 84: 6-16. 1966b Fouilles d’Umm el-Biyara. Rapport préliminaire. RB 73: 372-403. Bernard, P. 1978 Campagne des fouilles 1976-77 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan). CRAI: 421-63. 1981 Problèmes d’histoire coloniale grecque à travers l’urbanisme d’une cité hellénistique d’Asie Centrale. In 150 Jahre Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, pp.108-120. Mainz: von Zabern. Bevan, B. 1994 Remote Sensing of Gardens and Fields. In The Archaeology of Garden and Field, ed. N. F. Miller and K. L. Gleason, pp. 70-90. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bikai, P. M. 1999 The North Ridge Church in Petra. AJA 103: 510-11. Bilde, P. 1990 Atargatis/Dea Syria: Hellenization of Her Cult in the Hellenistic-Roman Periods? In Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucud Kingdom, ed. P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad and J. Zahle, pp.151-187. Aarhus University Press. Bilkadi, Z. 1994 Bulls from the Sea. Aramco World 45(4): 20-31. Blagg, T. F. C. 1990 Column Capitals with Elephant-Head Volutes at Petra. Levant XXII.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

Bonneau, D. 1986 Le souverain d’Égypte, juge de l’usage de l’eau. In L’homme et l’eau en Méditerranée et au Proche Orient, vol. 2, ed. F. Métral and J. Métral, pp. 69-80. Universitaire de Lyon. Borza, E. N. 1990 In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon. Princeton. Boucharlat, R. and A. Labrousse 1979 Le palais d’Artaxerxes II sur la rive droite du Chaour à Suse. Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique français en Iran 10: 19-136. Bowden, M. (editor) 1999 Unraveling the Landscape: An Inquisitive Approach to Archaeology. Tempus. Bowersock, G. W. 1971 A Report on Arabia Provincia. JRS 61: 219-242. 1983 Roman Arabia. Harvard University Press. 1991 The Babatha Papyri, Masada, and Rome. JRA 4: 336-344. 1994 Studies on the Eastern Roman Empire: Social, Economic and Administrative History, Religion, Historiography. Goldbach: Keip. Brogli, R. F. 1996 Die Keramik aus den Spät-Römischen Bauten. In Petra. Ez Zantur I, pp.219-282. Mainz: von Zabern. Brookes, J. 1987 Gardens of Paradise: The History and Design of the Great Islamic Gardens. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson. Browning, I. 1973 Petra. London: Chatto & Windus. Brünnow, R. E. and A. Domaszewski 1904-9 Die Provincia Arabia. 3 vols. Strassburg.

192

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Burckhardt, J. 1822 Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. London: J. Murray. Butzer, K. W. 1976 Early Hydraulic Civilizations in Egypt: A Study in Cultural Ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Canaan, Taufik 1929 Studies in the Topography and Folklore of Petra. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society IX:136-218. 1930 Additions to ‘Studies in the Topography and Folklore of Petra’. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society X:178-180. Carroll-Spillecke, M. 1989 Kepos. Der antike griechische Garten. Wohnen in der klassischen Polis III. München. 1992 The Gardens of Greece from Homeric to Roman Times. JGH 12(2): 84-101. Childe, V. G. 1950 The Urban Revolution. The Town Planning Review 21:3-17. Clamer, C. 1989 ‘AinEz-Zara Excavations 1986. ADAJ 33: 217-225. 1997 Fouilles Archéologiques de ‘Aïn ez-Zâra/Callirhoé villégiature hérodienne. Beyrouth: Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient (IFAPO). Clark, G. 1986 Symbols of Excellence: Precious Metals and Expressions of Status. Cambridge University Press. Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1921 Le Paradeisos royal Achemenide de Sidon. RB 30: 106-109. Corning Museum of Glass 1957 Glass from the Ancient World. Corning. Crichton, A. 1852 History of Arabia and its People. Nelson.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

Cronon, W. 1995 Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. London/New York: Newton. Crouch, D. P. 1975 The Water System of Palmyra. Études Palmyréniennes / Studia Palmyrénskie VII: 151-186. 1996 Priene’s Streets and Water Supply. Cura Aquarum in Campania. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region. Pompeii, 1-8 October 1994, ed. N. De Haan and G. C. M. Jansen, pp.137-143. Leiden: Babesch. Crouch, D.P., and K. W. Rinne 1996 Aquae Urbis Romae: an historical overview of water in the public life of Rome. In Cura Aquarum in Campania. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region. Pompeii, 1-8 October 1994, ed. N. de Haan and G.C.M. Jansen, pp. 145-151. Leiden: Babesch. Curtin, P. D. 1984 Cross-Cultural Trade in World History. Cambridge University Press. Dalley, S. 1994 Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens: Cuneiform and Classical Sources Reconciled. Iraq 56: 45-58. Dalman, G. 1912 Neue Petra Forschungen. Leipzig. Damerji, M. 1981 Where are the Gardens of Babylon? Sumer 37: 56-61. (in Arabic). Dandamaev, M. 1984 Royal Paradeisoi in Babylonia. Acta Iranica 23: 113-118.

194

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Davies, N. de G. 1943 The Tomb of Rek-Mi-Rê at Thebes. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition XI. New York. dell’Amore, G., D. Adamesteanu, V. Borroni, and A. Frova 1966 Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. Roma. Deller, K. 1987 Assurbanipal in der Gartenlaube. BaM 18: 229-238. Dentzer, J.-M. and F. Zayadine 1987 L’espace urbain de Petra. SHAJ IV: 233-251. Donner, H. 1992 The Mosaic Map of Madaba. Palestina Antiqua, 7. Kampen: Kok Pharos. Doughty, C. M. 1921 Travels in Arabia Deserta. Cape. Downing, T. E. and M. Gibson (editors) 1974 Irrigation’s Impact on Society. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 25. Tucson: University of Arizona. Eadie, J. W. and J. P. Oleson 1986 The Water-Supply Systems of Nabataean and Roman Humayma. BASOR 262: 49-76. Ebeling, E. 1957 Garten. RLA 3: 147-150. Ehrlich, T. 1989 The Waterworks of Hadrian’s Villa. JGH 9(4): 161-176. Eisenberg, E. 1998 The Ecology of Eden. New York: Knopf. Emery, W. B. 1949 Great Tombs of the First Dynasty. Cairo.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

Endesfelder, E. 1982 Zur Entwicklung der Bewässerungstechnik in Ägypten. In Produktivkräfte und Gesellschaftsformationen in Vorkapitalistischer Zeit, ed. J. Herrmann and I. Sellnow, pp. 141-147. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. English, P. W. 1968 The Origin and Spread of Qanats in the Old World. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 112: 170-181. Evenari, M. and D. Koller 1956 Ancient Masters of the Desert. Scientific American 194(4): 39-45. Evenari, M., L. Shannan, and N. Tadmor 1971 The Negev: The Challenge of the Desert. Harvard University Press. Everson, P., and T. Williamson (editors) 1998 The Archaeology of Landscape: Studies Presented to Christopher Taylor. New York: Manchester University Press. Fall, P. 1990 Deforestation in southern Jordan: Evidence from Fossil Hyrax Middens. In Man’s Rôle in the Shaping of the Eastern Mediterranean Landscape, pp. 271-281. Rotterdam. Farrar, L. 1997 Ancient Roman Gardens. Sutton. Favro, D. 1996 The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge University Press. Fiema, Z. T. 1987 The Roman Annexation of Arabia: A General Perspective. Ancient World 15: 25-35. 1994 Une église byzantine à Pétra. Archéologia 302: 26-35. 1998 The Roman Street of the Petra Project, 1997: A Preliminary Report. ADAJ 42: 395-424.

196

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Fiema, Z. T. and R. N. Jones 1990 The Nabataean King-List Revised: Further Observations on the Second Nabataean Inscription from Tell EshShuqafiya, Egypt. ADAJ 34: 239-248. Fish, S. K. 1994 Archaeological Palynology of Gardens and Fields. In The Archaeology of Garden and Field, ed. N. F. Miller and K. L. Gleason, pp. 44-69. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Flinder, A. 1982 The pool of Cleopatra at Caesarea and her Cypriot sister. BAnglo-IsrASoc 1: 25-27. Foster, K. P. 1998 Gardens of Eden: Exotic Flora and Fauna in the Ancient Near East. In Transformations of Middle Eastern Natural Environments: Legacies and Lessons, ed. J. Albert, M. Bernhardsson, and R. Kenna. Bulletin Series Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 103, pp.320-329. New Haven: Yale University. 1999 The Earliest Zoos and Gardens. Scientific American 281(1): 48-55. Frankfort, H. 1970 The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 4th edition. Penguin. Fraser, P. M. 1972 Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 Vols. Oxford. Frösen, J. 2000 Burnt Offerings: New Discoveries from the Petra Scrolls. Archaeology Odyssey 3(4): 26-27. Gagos, T. and J. Frösen 1998 Petra Papyri. ADAJ 42: 473-481.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

197

Gallery, L. M. 1978 The Garden of Ancient Egypt. In Immortal Egypt, ed. D. Schmandt-Besserat, pp.43-49. Malibu. Galling, K. 1949 Pauly-Wissowa’s Real-Encyklopädie Altertumswissenschaften. Waldsee.

der

classischen

Garbrecht, G. and Y. Peleg 1994 The Water Supply of the Desert Fortresses in the Jordan Valley. BA 57: 161-170. Geertz, C. 1975 Centers, Kings, and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics of Power. In Culture and Its Creators: Essays in Honor of Edward Shils, ed. J. Ben-David and T. N. Clark, pp. 150-76. The University of Chicago Press. Gentelle, P. 1981 Un ‘Paradis’ hellénistique en Jordanie: étude de geoarchéologie. Herodote 20: 70-101. Gerber, Y. 1997 The Nabataean Coarse Ware Pottery: A Sequence from the End of the Second Century BC to the Beginning of the Second Century CE. SHAJ VI: 407-411. Gerber, Y. and R. F. Brogli 1995 Late Roman Pottery from az-Zantur, Petra. SHAJ V: 649655. Gillings, M., D. Mattingly, J. van Dalen et. al. (editors) 1999 Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology. The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 3. Oxford. Oxbow Books. Gleason, K. L. 1987-8 Garden Excavations at the Herodian Winter Palace in Jericho 1985-7. BAnglo-IsrASoc 7: 21-39.

198

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

1990

The Garden Portico of Pompey the Great: An Ancient Public Park Preserve in the Layers of Rome. Expedition 32(2): 4-13. 1993 A Garden Excavation in the Oasis Palace of Herod the Great at Jericho. Landscape Journal 12.2: 156-167. 1994 Porticus Pompeiana: A New Perspective on the First Public Park of Ancient Rome. JGH 14(1): 13-27. 1997a Gardens. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Vol. 2, ed. E. M. Myers, pp.383-387. New York: Oxford University Press. 1997b Gardens of the Eastern Roman Mediterranean. Albright News 3 (December): 8-11. Gleason, K. L., B. Burrell, E. Netzer, L. Taylor, J. H. Williams 1998 The Promontory Palace at Caesarea Maritima: preliminary evidence for Herod’s Praetorium. JRA 11: 23-52. Glueck, N. 1933-4 Explorations in Eastern Palestine I. AASOR 14. New Haven. 1935 Explorations in Eastern Palestine II. AASOR 15. New Haven. 1938 Nabataean Syria and Nabataean Transjordan. JPOS 18: 1-6. 1953 Explorations in Eastern Palestine. BASOR 131: 6-15. 1959 Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev. New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy. 1965 Deities and Dolphins. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Goddio, F., I. Darwish, A. de Graauw, A. Bernand, E. Bernand, Z Kiss, F. Dunand, and J. Yoyotte. 1998 Alexandria: The Submerged Royal Quarters. London: Periplus. Graf, D. F. 1986 The Nabataeans and the Decapolis. In The Defense of the Roman and Byzantine East, ed. P. Freeman and D. Kennedy, pp.785-796. Oxford: Hadrian Books. 1990a Arabia During the Achaemenid Times. In Achaemenid History IV: Centre and Periphery, ed. H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, pp.131-148. Leiden.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

199

1990b The Origin of the Nabataeans. Aram 2: 45-75. 1992 Nabataean Settlement and Roman Occupation in Arabia Petraea. SHAJ IV: 253-260. 1993 Nabaţ: The Nabaţ al-Sham. Encyclopedia of Islam VII: 834835. 1995 The Via Nova Traiana in Arabia Petraea. JRA 14: 141-167. 1997 Nabataean Inscriptions. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 4, ed. E. M. Myers, pp.8182. New York: Oxford University Press. Grayson, A. K. 1975 Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts. London. Greenfield, J. C. 1974 The Marzeah as a Social Institution. Acta Antiqua Adad. Sc. Hungaricae 22:451-455. Grimal, P. 1969 Les jardins romains. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Grimm, G. 1998 Alexandria: Die erste Königsstadt der hellenistischen Welt. Mainz: Von Zabern. Groom, N. 1977 The Frankincense Region. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 7: 79-89. 1981 Frankincense and Myrrh: A Study of the Arabian Incense Trade. London/New York: Longman. Gruendler, B. 1993 Development of the Arabic Scripts. Harvard Semitic Series, 43. Atlanta. Gunneweg, J., I. Perlman, and F. Asaro 1987 The Origin, Classification and Chronology of Nabataean Fine Ware. JRGZM 35: 315-345.

200

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Gunsam, E. 1980 Die nordliche Hubta-Wasserleitung in Petra. In Petra und das Königreich der Nabatäer, ed. M. Lindner, pp.302-312. Munich. Hadidi, A. 1992 Amman-Philadelphia: Aspects of Roman Urbanism. SHAJ IV: 295-298. Hamblin, D. J. 1987 For Rome, Riches and Glory in an Outpost of Empire. Smithsonian (November): 100-114. Hammond, P. C. 1959 The Nabataean Bitumen Industry at the Dead Sea. BA 22(2): 40-48. 1965 The Excavation of the Main Theater at Petra, 1961-1962. London. 1967 Desert Waterworks of the Ancient Nabataeans. Natural History 7(9): 36-43. 1973 The Nabataeans: Their History, Culture and Archaeology. Gothenburg, Sweden: Paul Åströms Forlag. 1977-8 Capitals from the ‘Temple of the Winged Lions’, Petra. ADAJ 20: 5-30. 1978 Excavations at Petra, 1975-1977. ADAJ 22: 81-101. 1980 New Evidence for the 4th-Century A.D. Destruction of Petra. BASOR 238:65-67. 1991 Petra-Myth and Reality. ARAMCO World (Sept.-Oct.): 3241. 1992a The Goddess of ‘The Temple of the Winged Lions’ at Petra (Jordan). In Petra and the Caravan Cities, ed. F. Zayadine, pp. 115-127. Arabesque. 1992b Nabataean Settlement Patterns inside Petra. SHAJ IV: 261-262. 1996a Petra. In The Dictionary of Art, ed. J. Turner, pp.556-558. New York. 1996b The Temple of the Winged Lions, Petra, Jordan, 1974-1990. Arizona: Petra Publishing. 1997 A City and a People: Lost and Found. The Ancient History Bulletin 11(2-3): 63-88.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

201

Hammond, P. C., D.J. Johnson, and R.N. Jones 1986 A Religio-Nabataean Inscription from the Atargatis/Al‘Uzza Temple at Petra. BASOR 263: 77-80. Harding, G. L. 1958 Recent Discoveries in Jordan. PEQ 90: 7-18. Helms, S. W. 1981 Jawa: Lost City of the Black Desert. London. Hittorff, J. 1862 Pompéi et Pétra. RA 6: 1-18. Hodge, A. T. 1992 Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply. London: Duckworth. 1996 In Vitruvium Pompeianum: Urban Water Distribution Reappraised. AJA 100: 261-276. Hodge, A. T. (editor) 1991 Future Currents in Aqueduct Studies. Leeds: F. Cairns. Hodges, H. 1970

Technology in the Ancient World. New York Knopf.

Hölscher, U. 1910 Das Hihe Tor von Medinet Habu, Eine Baugeschichlichte Untersuchungen. Leipzig. 1951a The Mortuary Temple of Ramses III, Pt. I (The Excavation of Medinet Habu III). The University of Chicago Press. 1951b The Mortuary Temple of Ramses III, Pt. II (The Excavation of Medinet Habu IV). The University of Chicago Press. Holum, K. G., R. L. Hohlfelder, R. L. Vann, and R. B. Maltese (editors) 1988 King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea. New York: Norton. Horsfield, G. and A. Conway 1930 Historical and Topographical Notes on Edom with an Account of the First Excavations at Petra. The Geographical Journal 76: 369-390.

202

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Horsfield, G. and A. Horsfield 1938 Sela-Petra, the Rock of Edom and Nabatene. QDAP 7: 1-42. Hugonot, J. C. 1989 Le Jardin dans l’Egypte ancienne. Frankfurt. 1992 Ägyptische Gärten. In Der Garten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter, ed. M. Caroll-Spillecke, pp.9-44. Mainz. Hyams, E. 1971 A History of Gardens and Gardening. New York: Praeger. Irby, C. and J. Mangles 1868 Travels in Egypt and Nubia, Syria and the Holy Land. Murray. Jacobsen, T. 1987 The Harps that Once...Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven and London. Jacobsen, T. and S. Lloyd 1935 Sennacherib’s Aqueduct at Jerwan. The University of Chicago Press. Jashemski, W. F. 1979 The Gardens of Pompeii: Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius. New Rochelle: Caratzas. 1981 The Campanian Peristyle Garden. In Ancient Roman Gardens, ed. E. B. MacDougall and W. F. Jashemski, pp. 29-48. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. 1987 The Villas at Boscoreale and Oplontis. In Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, ed. E.B MacDougall, pp. 33-75. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. 1992a The Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Ancient Roman Gardens. In Garden History: Issues, Approaches, Methods, ed. J. D. Hunt, pp. 5-30. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. 1992b The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius. JGH 12(2): 102-125. 1993 The Gardens of Pompeii: Herculaneum and theVillas Destroyed by Vesuvius. Vol. 2. New Rochelle: Caratzas.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1995 1996a 1996b

203

Roman Gardens in Tunisia: Preliminary Excavations in the House of Bacchus and Ariadne and in the East Temple at Thuburbo. AJA 99(4): 559-576. Ancient Roman Gardens in Compania and Tunisia: A Comparison of the Evidence. JGH 16(4):231-243. The Use of Water in Pompeian Gardens. In Cura Aquarum in Campania. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region. Pompeii, 1-8 October 1994, ed. N. De Haan and G. C. M. Jansen, pp.51-58. Leiden: Babesch

Jellicoe, S. and G. Jellicoe 1971 Water: The Use of Water in Landscape Architecture. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Johnson, D. J. 1987 Nabataean Trade: Intensification and Culture Change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah. Johnson, S. 1989 Rome and Its Empire. London/New York: Routledge Jones, A. H. M. 1971 The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jones, R. and D. Robinson 1998 Water Wealth and Status at Pompeii: the House of the Vestals in the First Century CE. Paper for 100th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America December 27-30, 1998, Washington DC. Joukowsky, M. S. 1997 The Water Canalization System of the Petra Southern Temple. SHAJ VI: 303-311. 1998 Petra Great Temple, Volume I: Brown University Excavations, 1993-1997. Providence, RI.

204 1999

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX The Brown University 1998 Excavations at the Petra Great Temple ADAJ 43: 195-222.

Kanellopoulos, C. 1999 Petra. Roman Street Project. AJA 103(3): 507-510. 2001 The Architecture of the Shops and Colonnaded Street in Petra. BASOR 323. (forthcoming). Kelso, J. L. and D. C. Baramki 1955 The Excavation of New Testament Jericho. AASOR 2930: 1-49. Kelso, W. M. and R. Most (eds.) 1990 Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaaeology. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. Kennedy, A. B. W. 1925 Petra. Its History and Monuments. London. Kennedy, D. and D. Riley 1990 Rome’s Desert Frontier from the Air. Austin: First University of Texas Press. Kenyon, K. M. 1979 Archaeology in the Holy Land. 4th ed. New York: Norton. Khairy, N. L. 1990 The 1981 Petra Harrassowitz.

Excavations,

Vol.

I.

Weisbaden:

Kirkbride, A. S. and L. Harding 1947 Hasma. PEQ 79: 6-26. Kirkbride, D. 1960 A Short Account of the Excavations at Petra in 1955-56. ADAJ 4-5: 117-122. Kleiss, W. 1980 Zur Entwicklung der Achaemenidische palastarchitektur. IranAnt 15: 199-211.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

205

Koenen, L. 1996 The Carbonized Archive at Petra. JRA 9: 177-188. Kolb, B. 1996 Die spätromischen Bauten. in Petra. Ez Zantur I, pp. 51-90. Mainz: von Zabern. 1997 Swiss-Leichtenstein Excavations at az-Zantur in Petra 1996: the seventh season. ADAJ 41: 231-242. 1998 Swiss-Leichtenstein Excavations at az-Zantur in Petra 1997. ADAJ 42: 259-277. Koldeway, R. 1914 The Excavations at Babylon. London: Macmillan. Koloski-Ostrow, A., et al. 1997 Water in the Roman Town: New Research from Cura Aquarum and the Frontinus Society. JRA 10: 181-190. Kovacs, M. G. 1989 The Epic of Gilgamesh. Stanford University Press. Kraeling, C. H. 1938 Gerasa. New Haven. Kramer, S. N. 1988 History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Man’s Recorded History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kryder-Reid, E. 1991 Landscape and Luxury: The Garden of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Society for Historical Archaeology. Richmond, Va. 1994 ‘As Is the Gardener, So Is the Garden’: The Archaeology of Landscape as Myth. In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, ed. P. A. Shackel and B. J. Little, pp. 131-148. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press. La Rocca, E. 1986 Il lusso come espressione di potere. In Le tranquille dimore degli dei, ed. M. Cima and E. La Rocca, pp. 3-35. Venezia.

206

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

LaBorde, L. D. 1830 Voyage de l’Arabie Pétrée. Paris. Lagrange, M.-J. 1898 Recherche épigr. à Pétra: lettre á M. le marquis de Vogüe. RB 7: 165-182. Landels, J.G. 1978 Engineering in the Ancient World. Berkeley. Laureano, P. 1994 Abitare il deserto: il giardino come oasi. Giardino Islamico: Architettora, Natura, Paesaggio, ed. A. Petrucciolo, pp.63-84. Milano: Electa. Laurence, R. and A. Wallace-Hadrill (editors) 1997 Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. JRA Suppl. Series 22. Portsmouth, RI. Lauter, H. 1986 Die Architektura des Hellenismus. Darmstadt. Lawlor, J. I. 1974 The Nabataeans in Historical Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Leone, M.P. 1984 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: Using the Rules of Perspective in the William Paca Garden in Annapolis, Maryland. In Ideology, Power and Prehistory, ed. D. Miller and C. Tilley, pp. 25-36. Cambridge University Press. Leveau, P. et. al. (eds.) 1999 Environmental Reconstructon in Mediterranean Landscape Archaeology. The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes 2. Oxford: Oxbow Press. Levine, L. I. and E. Netzer 1986 Excavations at Caesarea Maritima 1975, 1976, 1977: final report. Jerusalem.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

207

Lewis, N. 1989 The Documents from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of the Letters. Jerusalem. Linderski, J. 1989 Garden Parlors: Nobles and Birds. In Studia Pompeiana & Classica in honor of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski II: Classica, ed. R. I. Curtis, pp. 105-127. New York: Caratzas. Lindner, M. 1982a Über die Wasserversorgung einer antiken Stadt. Sturzwasserfuehrung, Talsperre und Wasserleitung am ‘Theaterberg’ von Sabra. Das Altertum 28: 27-39. 1982b An Archaeological Survey of the Theatre Mount and Catchwater Regulation System at Sabra, South of Petra, 1980. ADAJ 26: 231-242. Lindner, M., and E. Gunsam 1995 A Newly Described Nabataean Temple near Petra: The Pond Temple. SHAJ V: 199-214. Littlewood, A.R. 1987 Ancient Literary Evidence for the Pleasure Gardens of Roman Country Villas. In Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, ed. E.B MacDougall, pp. 7-30. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Luckenbill, D. D. 1927 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. University of Chicago. Lyttleton, M. 1974 Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity. London. 1987 The Design of Temple and Sanctuaries in Asia Minor in the Roman Imperial Period. In Roman Architecture in the Greek World, ed. S. Macready and F. H. Thompson, pp.3849. London. 1990 Aspects of the Iconography of the Sculptural Decoration of the Khasneh at Petra. In Petra and the Caravan Cities, ed. F. Zayadine, pp.19-29. Amman.

208

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Lyttleton, M. and T. Blagg 1990 Sculpture in Nabataean Petra, and the Question of Roman Influence. In Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire, ed. M. Henig, pp.91-107. Oxford, Oxford University Press. MacDonald, W. L. 1986 Connection and Passage in North African Architecture. In Rome and the Provinces: Studies in the Transformation of Art and Architecture in the Mediterranean World, ed. C. B. McClendon, pp.29-36. The New Haven Society for the Archeological Institute of America. MacDonald, W. L. and J. A. Pinto 1995 Hadrian’s Villa and its Legacy. Yale University Press. Margueron, J.-C. 2000 “A Stroll through the Palace,” Near Eastern Archaeology 63/4: 205-207. Markell, A. 1995 The Historical Archaeology of Vergelegen, and Early Farmstead at the Cape of Good Hope. Historical Archaeology 29(3): 29-35. Matheson, S. B. 1980 Ancient Glass in the Yale University Art Gallery. Meriden, Ct: Yale University Art Gallery. McKay, A.G. 1998 Houses, Villas, and Palaces in the Roman World. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. McKenzie, J. 1990 The Architecture of Petra. London: Oxford University Press. Meshel, Z. and Y. Tsafrir 1975 The Nabataean Road from ‘Avdat to Sha’ar. PEQ 107: 321.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

209

Mettinger, T. N. D. 1995 No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell. Milik, J. T. 1982 Origines des Nabatéens. SHAJ I: 261-265. Milik, J. T. and J. Starcky 1975 Inscriptions recement decouverts à Petra. ADAJ 20: 111130. Miller, J. I. 1969 The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire, 29 BC to AD 641. Oxford Clarendon Press. Miller, N. and K. L. Gleason 1994 Fertilizer in the Identification and Analysis of Cultivated Soil. In The Archaeology of Garden and Field, ed. N. F. Miller and K. L. Gleason, pp.25-43. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Millar, F. 1993 The Roman Near East, 31 BC-AD 337. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Moens, M. F. 1985 The Ancient Egyptian Garden in the New Kingdom. Orientalia Lovaniensa Periodica 15: 11-53. Moore, J. D. 1996 The Archaeology of Plazas and the Proxemics of Ritual: Three Andean Traditions. American Anthropology 98(4): 789802. Moynihan, E. B. 1979 Paradise as a Garden: in Persia and Mughal India. New York: George Brazillier. Murray, M. and J. C. Ellis 1940 A Street in Petra. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt.

210

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Murray, O. 1996 Hellenistic Royal Symposia. In Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship, ed. P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle, pp.15-27. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization VII. Aarhus University Press. Neely, J. A. and H. T. Wright 19941 Early Settlement and Irrigation on the Deh Luran Plain: Village and Early State Societies in Southwestern Iran. The Regents of the University of Michigan. Negev, A. 1961 Nabataean Inscriptions from Avdat (Oboda). IEJ 11: 113118. 1963 Nabataean Inscriptions from Avdat (Oboda) II. IEJ 13: 117-122. 1977a The Inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, Sinai. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. 1977b The Nabataeans and the Provincia Arabia. In Aufsteig und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, pp.520-686. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1986 Nabataean Archaeology Today. New York University. 1991 Personal Names in the Nabataean Realm. Qedem 32. Jerusalem. Nehme, L. 1994 Provisional Bibliography of Petra and the Nabataeans. Paris. Netzer, E. 1975 The Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces at Jericho. IEJ 25: 89-100. 1977 The Winter Palaces of the Judean Kings at Jericho at the End of the Second Temple Period. BASOR 228: 1-13. 1981a Greater Herodium. Jerusalem. 1981b Herod’s Building Projects: State Necessity or Personal Need? The Jerusalem Cathedra I: 48-61, 73-80. 1985 The Swimming-Pools of the Hasmonean Period at Jericho. Eretz-Israel 18:344-352. (in Hebrew). 1987 Herodium: An Archaeological Guide. Jerusalem: Cana.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1990

1991 1996 1999

211

Architecture in Palaestina prior to and during the Days of Herod the Great. In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie Berlin 1988, pp.37-50. Mainz: von Zabern. Masada III. The Buildings, Stratigraphy and Architecture. The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965. Final Reports. Jerusalem. The Hasmonean Palaces in Palaestina. In Basileia: Die Palaste der hellenistischen Könige, ed. W. Hoepfner and G. Brands, pp.203-208. Mainz: von Zabern. Floating in the Desert: A Pleasure Palace in Jordan. Odyssey 2(1): 46-55.

Nielsen, I. 1993 From Periphery to Centre: Italic Palaces. In Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World IV, ed. P. Bilde, T. EngbergPedersen, L. Hannestad, J. Zahle, and K. Randsborg, pp.210-229. Aarhus University Press. 1994 Hellenistic Palaces: Tradition and Renewal. Aarhus University Press. 1996 Oriental Models for Hellenistic Palaces. Basileia: Die Palaste der hellenistischen Könige, ed. W. Hoepfner and G. Brands, pp. 209-212. Mainz: von Zabern. Oates, J. 1973 The background and development of early farming communities in Mesopotamia and the Zagros. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39: 147-181. Oleson, J. P. 1990 Humeima Hydraulic Survey. Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views XXXIV(2): 145-163. 1995 The Origins and Design of Nabataean Water-Supply Systems. SHAJ V: 707-719. Oleson, J. P. and G. Branton 1992 The technology of King Herod’s Harbour. In Caesarea papers: Straton’s tower, Herod’s harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea, ed. R. L. Vann, pp.49-67. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

212

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Oppenheim, A. L. 1965 On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia. JNES 24: 328-334. Parr, P. J. 1957 Recent discoveries at Petra. PEQ 89: 5-16. 1960 Excavations at Petra 1958-1959. PEQ 92: 124-135. 1962 Le ‘Conway High Place’ à Pétra. RB 69: 64-79. 1965 The Beginnings of Hellenization at Petra. In Le rayonnement de civilizations grecque et romaine sur les cultures périphériques. 8me Congrès International d’archéologie classique (1963), pp.527-533. Paris: De Boccard. 1967-8 Recent Discoveries in the Sanctuary of the Qasr Bint Far’un at Petra: account of the recent excavations. ADAJ 12-13: 5-19. 1970 A Sequence of Pottery from Petra. In Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century:Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck, ed. J. A. Sanders, pp.348-381. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1978 Pottery, People and Politics. In Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleeen Kenyon, ed. P. R. S. Moorey and P. J. Parr, pp.203-209. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Parr, P. J., K.B. Atkinson, E. Wickens 1975 Photogrammetric Work at Petra, 1965-1968, and interim report. ADAJ 20:31-45. Patrich, J. 1990 The Formation of Nabataean Art: Prohibition of a Graven Image Among the Nabataeans. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Pattison, P. (editor) 1998 There by Design: Field Archaeology in Parks and Gardens. BAR British Series 267. Oxford: Archaeopress. Payne, E. E. 1998 Evidence for the Nabataean Subterranean Canalization System. Petra Great Temple, Volume I: Brown University Excavations, 1993-1997, ed. M. S. Joukowsky, pp.171-178. Providence, RI.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

Pesce, G. 1950 Il Pallazzo delle Colonne in Tolemaid di Cirenaica. Rome. Peters, F. E. 1983 City Planning in Greco-Roman Syria: Some New Considerations. Damaszener Mitteilungen I: 269-277. Phillips, W. 1955 Qataban and Sheba. New York: Harcourt Brace. Porter, B. 1993 Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52(2): 129139. Postgate, J. N. 1973 The Governor’s Palace Archives: Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud, 2. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Potts, D. 1984 Northeastern Arabia in the Later Pre-Islamic Era. AOMIM: 85-144. Pritchard, J. B. 1958 The Excavation at Herodian Jericho 1951. AASOR: 32-33. 1973 The Ancient Near East. Volume II: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton University Press. 1975 The Ancient Near East. Volume II: A New Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Princeton University Press. Rapoport , A. 1982 The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Sage. Raschke, M. G. 1978 New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East. In Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt (Geschichte und Kultur Roms in Spiegel der Neueren Forschung), Vol II.9.2, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase, pp.604-1378. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

214

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Reade, J. 1983 Assyrian Sculpture. London. Revere, R. 1957 No Man’s Coast: Ports of Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Trade and Market in the Early Empires: Economics in History and Theory, ed. K. Polanyi, C. M. Arensberg, and H. W. Pearson, pp. 38-63. New York: Free Press. Richardson, L., Jr. 1988 Water Triclinia and Biclinia in Pompeii. In Studia Pompeiana and Classica in Honor of Wilhelmina F Jashemski, I, ed. R. I. Curtis, pp. 305-316. New York: Caratzas. Richardson, P. 1993 Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Ricotti, E. S. P. 1987 The Importance of Water in Roman Garden Triclinia. In Ancient Roman Villa Gardens, ed. E. B. MacDougall, pp.135184. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Roberts, D. 1842-9 The Holy Land. London: Moon. Robinson, E. 1941 Biblical Researches in Palestine. London. Roller, D. W. 1998 The Building Program of Herod the Great. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rostovtzeff, M. 1941 The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford University Press. 1971 Caravan Cities. New York: AMS Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

Roux, G. 1964 Ancient Iraq. New York. Russell, K. W. 1980 The Earthquake of May, 19 AD 363. BASOR 238: 47-64. 1985 The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the second through the mid-eighth centuries AD. BASOR 260: 37-59. Sackville-West, V. 1953 Persian Gardens. In The Legacy of Persia, ed. A. J. Arberry, pp.259-291. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Savignac, M. R. and G. Horsfield 1935 Le Temple de Ramm. RB 44: 245-78. Schick, R. 1995 The Christian Communities of Palestine from Byzantine to Islamic rule: A Historical and Archaeological Study. Princeton: Darwin Press. Schick, R., Z. Fiema, and K. ‘Amr 1993 The Petra Church Project 1992-1993: a Preliminary Report. ADAJ 37: 55-66. Schluntz, E. L. 1998a The Upper Temenos and the Great Temple. In Petra Great Temple, Volume I: Brown University Excavations, 1993-1997, ed. M. S. Joukowsky, pp.209-224. Providence, RI. 1998b The Architectural Sculpture of the Great Temple. Petra Great Temple, Volume I: Brown University Excavations, 19931997, ed. M. S. Joukowsky, pp.225-234. Providence, RI. 1999 From Royal to Public Assembly Space: The Transformation of the ‘Great Temple’ Complex at Petra, Jordan. Ph.D. dissertation, Brown University. Schmid, S. G. 1995 Nabatean Fine Ware from Petra. SHAJ V: 637-647. 1996 Die Feinkeramik. In Petra. Ez Zantur I, pp. 151-218. Mainz: von Zabern.

216 1997

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX Nabataean Fine Ware Pottery and the Destructions of Petra in the Late First and Early Second Century AD. SHAJ VI: 413-419.

Schmidt, E. F. 1953 Persepolis I. Chicago. Schmitte-Korte, K. 1968 Beitrag zur nabataïschen Keramik. Archäologischer Anziger. 83:496-519. 1971 A Contribution to the Study of Nabataean Pottery. ADAJ 16:47-60. 1980 Die bemalte nabataïsche Keramik: Verbreitung, Typologie und Chronologie. In Petra und das Königreich der Nabatäer, ed. M. Lindner, pp.174-197. München. Sedge, M. 1999 Cleopatra’s Sunken (Mar/Apr): 38-46.

Palace.

Discovering

Archaeology

Segal, A. 1988 Town Planning and Architecture in Provincia Arabia: The Cities Along the Via Traiana Nova in the 1st-3rd centuries C.E. BAR international series, no. 419. Oxford. 1997 From Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, Syria and Provincia Arabia. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Shaw, B. 1982 ‘Eaters of Flesh, Drinkers of Milk’: The Ancient Mediterranean Ideology of the Pastoral Nomad. Ancient Society 13(14): 5-31. Smith, W. S. 1962 The Land of Punt. JARCE 1:59-60. Spooner, B. 1974 City and River in Iran: Urbanization and Irrigation of the Iranian Plateau. Iranian Studies 7: 681-713.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

Spooner, B., and H. S. Mann (editors) 1982 Desertifcation and Development: Dryland Ecology in Social Perspective. London: Academic Press Stadelmann, R. 1993 Pyramiden und Nekropole des Snofre in Dahschur, Dritter Vorbericht über die Grabungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Dahschur. MDAIK 49. Starcky, J. 1955 The Nabataeans: a Historical Sketch. BA 18(4): 84-106. 1965 Nouvelle épitaphe nabatéene donnant le nom sémitique de Pétra. RB 72: 95-97. 1966 Pétra et la Nabatène. Dictionaire de la Bible, supplement 7: 886-1017. Steward, J. H. 1955 Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Washington, DC: Pan American Union. Strobel, A. and C. Clamer 1986 Excavations at Ez-Zara. ADAJ 30: 381-384. Stronach, D. 1978 Pasargadae: A Report on the Excavations Conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963. Oxford. 1989 The Royal Garden at Pasargadae: Evolution and Legacy. In Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in Honorem Louis Venden Berghe, ed. L. D. Meyer and E. Haerinck, pp.475502. Gent. 1990 The Garden as a Political Statement: Some Case Studies from the Near East in the First Millennium B.C.. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 4: 171-180. 1994 Parterres and Stone Water Courses at Pasargadae: Notes on the Achaemenid Contribution to Garden Design. JGH 14(1): 3-12. Stucky, R. A. 1983 Ein Reise nach Marib, in die Stadt der Konigin von Saba. Antike Welt 14(1): 3-13.

218

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

1996a Die Nabatäischen Bauten. In Petra. Ez Zantur I, pp.13-50. Mainz: von Zabern. 1997 The Nabataean House and the Urbanistic System of the Habitation Quarters in Petra. SHAJ V: 193-198. Stucky, R. A., B. Kolb, et. al. 1995 Swiss-Leichtenstein Excavations at ez-Zantur in Petra 1994: The Sixth Campaign. ADAJ 39: 297-315. Stucky, R. A., A. Bignasca, et. al. 1996 Petra. Ez Zantur I: Ergebnisse der SchweizerischLiechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen 1988-1992. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. Taylor, C. 1983 The Archaeology of Gardens. Shire Archaeology 30. Aylesbury, Bucks, UK: Shire. Taylor, C. (editor) 1991 Garden Archaoelogy: Papers Presented to a Conference at Knouston Hall, Northamptonshire, April 1988. CBA Research Report No. 78. London: Council for British Archaeology. Taylor, J. 2001 Petra and the Lost Kingdom of the Nabataeans. London: I.B. Tauris. (in press) Thirgood, J. V. 1981 Man and the Mediterranean Forest: A History of Resource Depletion. London: Academic Press. Thompson, D. B. 1950 Parks and Gardens of the Ancient Empires. Archaeology 3(2): 101-106. Tilia, A. B. 1974 Discovery of an Achaemenian Palace near Takht-i Rustam to the North of the Terrace of Persepolis. Iran 12: 200-204.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

Tracy, S. 1999 The Dedicatory Inscription to Trajan at the ‘Metropolis’ of Petra. In The Roman and Byzantine Near East Volume 2. Some Recent Archaeological Research, ed. J. H. Humphrey, pp.51-58. Portsmouth. Trigger, B.G. 1991 Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behavior. World Archaeology 22(2): 119-131. Tsafrir, Y. 1976 Symmetry at Herodian, ‘megalomania’ in Herodian Architecture, and the Place of Roman Technology. The Jerusalem Cathedra I: 68-72. Tsuk, T. 1997 Hydraulics. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Vol. 3, ed. E. M. Myers, pp.130-132. New York: Oxford University Press. Tullis, T. A. and C. Worthington 1998 Ground-Penetrating Radar Study of the Petra Great Temple. In Petra Great Temple, Volume I: Brown University Excavations, 1993-1997, ed. M. S. Joukowsky, pp.179-186. Providence, RI. Vallat, F. 1979 Les inscriptions du palais d’Artaxerxes II. Cahiers de la Délégation archéologique français en Iran 10: 45-154. VanBeek, G. 1959 Frankincense and Myrrh. BA 22: 71-95. Vannini, G. and A. V. Desideri 1985 Archaeological Research on Medieval Petra: A Preliminary Report. ADAJ 39: 509-540.

220

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Vannini, G. and C. Tonghini 1997 Mediaeval Petra. The Stratigraphic Evidence from Recent Archaeological Excavations at al-Wu’ayra. SHAJ VI: 371384. Veblen, T. 1965 The Theory of the Leisure Class. 2nd edition. New York. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1994 Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton University Press. Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1994 Roman Imperial Architecture. Yale University Press. Wenning, R. 1987 Die Nabatäer-Denkmäler und Geschichte: Eine Bestandesaufnahme des archäologischen Befundes. Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag. 1993 Eine neuerstellte Liste der nabäische Dynastie. Munstersche Beiträge zur Archaeologie. Boreas, Band 16: 25-38. Wertime, T. A. 1983 The Furnace Versus the Goat: The Pyrotechnological Industries and Mediterranean Deforestation in Antiquity. Journal of Field Archaeology 10:445-452. Wiggers, J. B. M. 1996 The Urban Water Supply of Pompeii. In Cura Aquarum in Campania: Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region (Pompeii, 1-8, October 1994), ed. N. De Haan and G. C. M. Jansen, pp.29-32. Leiden: Babesch. Wigoder, G., et. al. 1986 Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible. New York: MacMillan.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

Wilbur, D. N. 1979 Persian Gardens and Garden Pavilions. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Wilkinson, A. 1990 The Garden in Ancient Egypt: Their Locations and Symbolism. JGH 10: 199-208. 1998 The Garden in Ancient Egypt. London: Rubicon Press. Wilkinson, J. C. 1974 Ancient Jerusalem: Its Water Supply and Population. PEQ 106: 33-51. 1977 Water and Tribal Settlement in South-East Arabia: A Study of the Aflaj of Oman. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Will, E. 1991 ‘Iraq el Amir. Le chateau du Tobiade Hyrcan. Paris. Wilson, A. 1995 Running Water and Social Status in North Africa. Center for Mediterranean Studies, CMS occasional paper, no. 13: 52-56. Winnett, F. V. and W. L. Reed 1970 Ancient Records of North Arabia. Toronto. Wiseman, D. J. 1952 A New Stele of Assur-nasir-pal II. Iraq XIV: 22-44. 1983 Mesopotamian Gardens. Anatolian Studies 33: 136-144. 1984 Palace and Temple Gardens in the Ancient Near East. In Monarchies and Socio-Religious Traditions in the Ancient Near East, I, ed. H.I.H. Prince Mikasa, pp.37-43. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz. Wittfogel, K. A. 1957 Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven, Yale University Press. Wolkstein, D. and S. N. Kramer 1983 Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth. Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer. London: Rider.

222

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

Wright, G. R. H. 1967-8 Recent Discoveries in the Sanctuary of the Qasr Bint Far’un at Petra: Some Aspects Concerning the Architecture and Sculpture. ADAJ 12-13: 20-29. 1973 The Date of the Khaznet Fir’aun at Petra in the Light of an Iconographic Detail. PEQ 105: 83-90. Yadin, Y. 1963 The Finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of the Letters. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University. Yamin, R., and K. B. Metheny 1996 Landscape Archheology: Reading and Interpreting the American historical Landscape. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press. Yentsch, A. E. 1996 Close Attention to Place: Landscape Studies by Historical Archaeologists. In Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape, ed. R Yamin and K.B. Metheny, pp. xxiii-xliii. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee. Yon, M. 1997 Ugarit. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 5, ed. E. M. Meyers, pp.259-262. New York: Oxford University Press. Zayadine, F. 1974 Excavations at Petra (1973-1974). ADAJ 19: 135-151. 1982 Recent Excavations at Petra (1979-1981). ADAJ 26: 365393. 1985 Recent Excavation and Restoration at Qasr el Bint of Petra. ADAJ 29: 239-249. 1987 Decorative Stucco at Petra and other Hellenistic Sites. SHAJ III: 131-142. Zeitler, J. P. 1990 A Private Building from the First Century B.C. in Petra. Aram 2: 385-420.

223 Zimmerman, P. 2000 Mapping Petra. Expedition 42(2): 37-41.

INDEX

115, 137, 140, 151, 153, 165, 174 Jewish Wars, 8, 27, 109, 115, 153, 165166, 173, 182 Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 109-110, 146, 149, 153, 157, 182 Pliny the Younger, Epistularum Libri Decem, 109, 160 Plutarch Demetrius, 152 Lucullus, 158 Pompeius, 160 Propertius, Elegius, 90 Quintus Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander, 137 Strabo, Geography, 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 19, 21, 31, 94, 111, 137, 142, 148-149, 152-153, 157, 162, 177, 181 Suetonius Divus Augustus, 160 Divus Julius Caesar, 160 Theocritus, Idylls, 149 Varro, De Re Rustica, 157

ANCIENT SOURCES BIBLICAL I Kings, 128, 140 II Kings, 140 Nehemiah, 140 Ecclesiastes, 139 Song of Songs, 125 Jeremiah, 140 Esther, 136, 144 Maccabees, 9, 11, 153 CLASSICAL Aristotle, Politika, 7 Athenaeus, Deipnosophiastae, 110, 112, 146, 149 Cicero Cato Maior de Senectute, 141 De Amicitia, 159 De Legibus, 157 De Republica, 159 Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 5, 7, 910, 29, 93, 137, 146 Josephus, Flavius Contra Apionem, 137 Jewish Antiquities, 5, 8, 15, 107, 109, 113, 225

226

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX Vitruvius, Ten Books of Architecture, 105, 161162, 177 Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, 97 Xenophon Anabasis, 145 Oeconomicus, 122, 145 Zenon, Papyri greci e latini, 7

PROPER NAMES DEITIES Al-’Uzza. See Atargatis Aphrodite Anadyomene, 99 Atargatis/Al-’Uzza, 33, 99-100, 175 Dimuzi, 125 Dushares, 31, 33-34, 99 Inanna, 124-125, 128 PEOPLE (ANCIENT) Aaron/Haroun (Moses’ brother), 18, 21, See Petra-toponyms-Jebel Haroun Adad-shuma-usur, 121 Ahab, 128, 140 Alexander Jannaeus, 113, 154, 171 Alexander the Great, 26, 112, 142, 147149, 153, 159 Alexandra (of Judea), 113, 154

Amenhotep IV, 111, 131-132 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 11, 152 Antipas, 27 Antipater II, 27 Aretas I, 12, 153 Aretas III, 12-13, 178 Aretas IV, 12, 14-15, 27, 31-33, 35, 69, 72, 85, 95, 171, 180 Aristobolus III, 113 Artaxerxes II, 144-145, 191, 219 Artaxerxes III, 145 Ashurnasirpal II, 134 Augustus Caesar, 27, 118, 158-160, 162, 168 Belyses, 141, 145 Cato, 156 Cleopatra, 10, 148-149, 153 Crusaders, 18, 21, 49, 84 Cypros, 27 Cyrus the Great, xxv, 142, 144 Cyrus the Younger, 145 Darius I, 143-144 Diocletian, 17 Dionysius I, 146 Gelon, 110, 112, 146 Gilgamesh, 127 Gudea of Lagash, 133 Hadrian, 38, 184, See Hadrian's Villa, Tivoli, in PLACE NAMES-Sites

INDEX Hasmoneans, 26, 89, 108, 113, 153-154, 162, 168 Hatshepsut, 129-130 Herod the Great, xxv, 26-27, 32, 73, 89, 90, 107-108, 113-115, 119, 153, 162-163, 165-166, 168, 171, 173, 176-178, 184 Herodotus, 6, 137 Hieron II, 146 Hieronymous of Cardia, 6 Hyrcanus I, 113, 153, 155 Hyrcanus II, 113 Hyrcanus the Tobiad, 107, 111, 150-151, 154 Julius Caesar, 160 Maccabees, 11 Malichus I, 12, 27 Marcus Antonius, 153, 162 Menes, 129 Merire, 132-133 Moses, 5, 18, 21, 32, 95 Nebhepetra Menthuhetep II, 129 Nebuchadrezzar, 140 Obodas III, 6, 12, 14-15 Ovid, 156 Palma, A. Cornelius, 14 Pompey, 13, 15, 90, 158-159, 162, 183 Ptolemy I, 148-149 Ptolemy II, 150 Ptolemy VIII, 150

227 Rabb’el II, 12, 14-16, 38, 183 Ramses III, 129-130 Salah-ad-Din, 18 Sargon I, 127 Sargon II, 135-137 Scipio Aemilianus, 159 Seneferu, 129 Sennacherib, 89, 136137 Shalmaneser III, 134 Solomon, 139 Trajan, 14-16, 19, 37 Tuthmoses III, 130 Varro, 156

PLACE NAMES GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS Dead Sea, 1, 4, 10, 109, 115, 153 Negev Desert, 3, 5, 13, 23, 91-92, 99 Sharā Mountains, 1 Sinai, 10, 13, 23 Wadi ‘Arabah, 3-4, 91, 93 REGIONS/COUNTRIES Achaemenia/Achaemen id, 121-122, 141-143, 145, See Persia/ Persian Akkad/Akkadian, 127, 133

228

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX Assyria/Assyrian, 5, 89, 121, 133-136, 138, 141 Babylonia/Babylonians, 4, 121, 133, 136, 140 Campania, 118, 156157, 159 Chaldea. See PLACE NAMESRegions/CountriesBabylonia Edom/Edomites, 4, 5, 29, 91 Egypt/Egyptian Ptolemaic/Ptolemies, 11, 15, 111-112, 147-153, 181 Egypt/Egyptians, xxv, 9-10, 14, 24-25, 88, 106, 110-111, 128131, 133, 147-149, 151, 153-154, 174 Elam/Elamite, 133, 138 Greece/Greeks, 6-7, 26, 36, 122, 146-147, 155 Hawran, 7, 13 Idumea/Idumean. See India, 10, 13 Italy/Italian, 155, 157, 159, 168 Judea/Judean, xxv, 1, 5, 8, 11, 13-14, 26, 32, 89, 90, 113, 151, 153154, 162-163, 166, 178, 184 Latium, 157, 159 Macedonia/Macedonia n, 146, 147 Mesopotamia/Mesopot amian, 4, 28, 88, 108,

121, 124, 127-128, 133, 141, 147 Nabataea/Nabataean, 1 Nabataea/Nabataeans, xxiii, 5-9, 12 kingdom/monarchy, xxii, 6, 8, 11-14 origins, 4-5, 7, 9 Palestine, 1, 11, 17, 24, 93, 130, 153, 162, 184 Persia/Persians, 25, 88, 108, 111, 121, 123124, 126, 140-141, 145-149, 151-152, 154-155, 157 Ptolemaic/Ptolemies. See PLACE NAMESRegions/CountriesEgypt/Egyptians Punt, 130 Seleucia/Seleucids, 11, 15, 147, 152-153, 178, 181 Sicily/Sicilian, 110, 112, 146-147, 155 Syria/Syrian, 3, 9, 10, 13-15, 24, 130, 135136, 141, 145, 151152, 184 SITES ‘Iraq el-Amir, 72, 108, 112, 150, 154 Aï Khanoum, 112, 153, 155 Aila (Aqaba), 13, 16 Alexandria, 25, 111-112, 118, 147-151, 154, 157, 159, 165, 166

INDEX Antioch, 147, 152, 154, 166 Apamea, 152 Avaris, 132 Babylon, 136-137, 140, 152 Bostra, 13-14, 16, 23, 37, 119 Caesarea Maritima, 27, 71, 109, 117, 119, 163, 165, 168, 171 Dahshur, 129 Damascus, 13 Daphne, 152 Decapolis, 15 Deir el-Bahari, 129 Elusa, 13 Forum Boarium, xxii Gaza, 3, 9 Gerasa, 23, 37, 184 Hadrian’s Villa, Tivoli, 105, 110, 119, 184 Herodium, 72, 89-90, 107, 117, 163, 166, 168, 171, 184 Humeima (Auara), 73, 75, 93, 94, 176 Jericho, 10, 32, 73, 88, 90, 108, 113-114, 153-155, 162-163, 168, 171, 174, 178, 182 Jerusalem, 18, 88-89, 115, 139-140, 153, 163-166 Kallirhoë, 109 Karnak, 130 Khirbet et-Tannur, 100 Khorsabad (DurŠarrukin), 133, 135

229 Leuce Come, 13 Ma’rib, 89 Mampsis, 13, 99 Mari (Tell Hariri), 133 Masada, 32, 89, 90, 115, 117, 163, 165, 168, 177 Meda’in Saleh, 16, 23, 25, 28, 56 Medinet Habu, 129 Memphis, 111, 133, 148 Nessana (Nitzana/Auja al-Hafir), 13, 92 Nimrud (Calah), 133134 Nineveh, 89, 133, 136139, 141 Oboda (Abda/‘Avdat), 13 Oplontis, Villa of Poppaea, 118 Palmyra, 16, 139 Pasargadae, vii, xxv, 126, 142, 144 Pergamum, 146 Persepolis, 143, 144 Philadelphia (Amman), 23, 37 Philippopolis, 37 Pompeii, xxii, xxiv, 108, 110, 118, 156, 158159, 162, 184 Loreius Tibertinus, House of, 110 Ptolemais, 108, 112, 117, 150, 152, 155, 173 Qasr el-Abd. See ‘Iraq el-Amir Qasr Rabbah, 100

230

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX Rehovot (Ruheibeh), 13 Rome, 10, 90, 118, 155, 157-162, 166, 183184 Samaria, 29, 140 Saqqara, 129 Sardis, 141, 145 Seleucia, 152 Sidon, 141, 146, 192 Sobota, 13, 94 Sperlonga, 109, 110 Susa, 136, 143-144 Syracusia, 146 Tawilan, 4 Tell el-Amarna, 111, 131, 132 Tell Jawa, 89 Thebes, 130, 132 Ugarit, 133, 139

PETRA BUILDINGS AND MONUMENTS Baths, 21, 31, 34, 58, 70, 80, 177 Blue Chapel, 17 City Center, xxii, 14, 17, 22, 24, 34, 36-38, 41, 47-48, 66, 68, 86, 95, 96, 103, 173 Colonnaded Street, xxiii, 20, 29, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 68 ed-Deir, 17, 34, 80, 99 Great Temple, v, vi, xxiii, 9, 21,-22, 32-33,

35, 37, 41, 43, 47, 4950, 59, 61, 63, 66, 6974, 76, 81-82, 85, 119, 171, 176-177, 181, 183 Gymnasium, 21-22, See Temple of the Winged Lions High Place of Sacrifice, 100 houses, 4, 8, 19, 28-31, 68 Khaznat al-Faroun/alKhazneh, 34, 69, 80, 180 Lion Fountain, 100 Lower Market, v, vii, xxii, 29, 33-34, 39-41, 43, 45-46, 48-49, 52, 60, 66-67, 69, See Pool-Complex Main Theater, 27, 34, 80, 173 Middle Market, xxii, xxiii, 21, 39, 40, 63, 76 North Ridge Church, 17 Nymphaeum, North, 21, 36, 100, 102, 105 Nymphaeum, South, 21, 73, 101 Palace Tomb, 102-103 Petra Church, 9, 18 Pool-Complex, vii, xxv, 67-76, 78-82, 84-85, 87, 100, 103, 119120, 168, 171, 173, 176-178, 182-183, See Lower Market

INDEX Qasr el-Bint Faroun, 21, 31-32, 34, 58-59, 70, 80 rock-cut façades, 17, 19, 25, 30, 34, See edDeir, Khaznat alFaroun, Palace Tomb, Snake Monument, Tomb of Sextius Florentius, and Urn Tomb shops, xxiii, 20, 34-35, 37, 183 Siq, 28, 34, 36, 93, 95, 98, 180 Small Temple, 21 Snake Monument, 29 Southern Temple. See Great Temple Temenos Area, 31-33, 36-37, 70, 178 Temenos Gate, 36-37, 58 Temple of the Winged Lions, 22, 27, 33, 70, 80, 173, 178 Tomb of Sextius Florentinus, 38 Umm al-Biyara, 4, 5, 29, 34 Upper Market, xxii, xxiii, 21, 36, 39, 40 Urn Tomb, 17, 80 via sacra, 34, 98, See Siq Wu’ayra, 84 TOPONYMS ’Ain Braq, 95 ’Ain Musa, 95 el-Habis, 28, 84

231 ez-Zantur, 14, 24-25, 30, 41, 48, 66, 74, 84, 103 Jebel al-Khubtha, 38, 95, 102 Jebel Attuf, 100 Jebel Haroun, 21 Wadi al-Mataha, 28, 36, 95, 100 Wadi es-Sabra, 102, 119 Wadi es-Siyagh, 96, 100 Wadi Musa, 20-21, 2932, 36-37, 67-68, 70, 72, 95, 100, 178

232

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX

TOPICS Arabia Petraea, 9, 11, 1416 audience hall, 22, 108, 176-177, 181, See oecus aviary, 147, 150, 157 Babatha Letters, 9, 35, 38, 183-184 balsam, 10, 153, 163, 182 banquet, 107-109, 122, 150-152, 154, 157, 163, 165-166, 168, 177, 180, 181, 183 marzeah, 13, 139

Bedouin (Bedoul tribe), vi, 21, 45, 48-49, 84 bitānu/bîtan, 136, 144 bit-hilāni, 136 boule, 35, 183 bouleuterion, 22, 35, 74, 119, 183 camel, 8, 78, 98-99, 134 ceramics, vii, 4, 13, 22, 24, 32, 78 gardens, 142 coin, vii, 12, 14-15, 29, 33, 43, 69, 80, 178, 184 concrete, 26, 28, 51-52, 55, 60-61, 71-72, 93, 103 dynastic marriage, 27, 173 earthquake, 17-18, 38, 79, 82-83, 85, 103, 162 elephant, 130, 133-134, 181 fishponds, 73, 105, 109110, 112, 117, 132-133, 146, 157, 161

garden archaeology, xxiiixxv gardens, xxi-xxiii, xxv, 1, 18, 66, 70, 73, 76, 78, 81, 86-87, 90-92, 94, 104, 106-115, 118-134, 136-147, 149-150, 152163, 166, 168, 173, 177, 182-185 "Hanging Gardens", 137, 140-141 botanical, 130, 132-133, 141, 150 funerary, 129-130, 142, 144, 149, 162 hortus/horti, 121, 156-158, 160 kirû/kirî ekallim/kirimahu, 121, 135 pairadaeza, 121-122, 124, 141-142, 146 palace/royal, vii, xxv, 121, 126, 131, 133, 135-141, 149, 163 paradeisos, ix, xxiii, 67, 70, 122, 126, 140, 150-155, 157, 181-183 public, xxiv, 118-119, 159160, 162, 183-184 temple, xxv, 111, 122, 128-131, 149, 160, 162

hellenization, 26, 120, 155, 178 Historical Archaeology, xxiv hunting preserve/game reserve, 121, 139, 141, 145, 147, 157 hydraulics, vii, ix, xxiii, 8, 49, 60-61, 63, 67, 71-72, 74-76, 79, 81, 85, 87,

INDEX 89-91, 95, 97-98, 102103, 107-108, 120, 166, 182 aqueduct, 61, 85, 89, 94, 97, 101-102, 105, 107, 110, 126, 137, 154, 156, 158, 166 castellum divisorium, 62-63, 67, 74-76, 80-81, 94, 105 catchment system, 89, 9192, 94, 99, 101 channels/conduits, 49, 5455, 61-64, 67, 74, 78, 80-81, 85, 89, 92, 94-95, 98-100, 103-106, 109, 117, 124, 137, 142-143, 176 cisterns, vii, 4, 7, 70, 7273, 89-90, 92-94, 97, 102, 105, 107-108, 158, 176 hydraulic. See water display pipelines, 31, 50, 61-64, 73, 75, 81, 89, 94-95, 98, 103-104, 108-109, 117, 177 qanats, 88 reservoirs, vii, 51, 55, 70, 72, 73, 78, 89, 92-95, 97, 101-103, 109, 117

iconography, 33, 100, 175 incense, 8-10, 30, 130 irrigation, ix, xxiii, 48, 76, 81, 85, 87-89, 91-92, 94, 105, 117, 121, 124, 127, 134, 137, 142-143, 149, 151 Landscape Archaeology, xxiv Landscape Architecture, xxiv

233 lions, 22, 27, 33, 80, 100, 139, 151, 173 nomadism, 4, 6, 7, 10, 15, 29-30, 90, 99 odeion, 22, 35, 37, 74, 119, 183 oecus, 22, 108, 176 oil lamps, 76, 83 pavilion island-pavilion (Herodium), 117, 171 island-pavilion (Petra), vii, ix, xxiii, 55-56, 58-59, 67, 71-72, 78-80, 85, 171, 177, 184

pavilions, xxii, 58, 67, 81, 84, 117, 132, 135-137, 142, 144, 147, 149-150, 154, 157, 163, 168 peristyles, 32, 70, 108, 112, 115, 117, 147, 152, 155, 157, 163, 165-166, 168, 173, 177 Petra Scrolls, 9, 18 porticoes, xxi, 54, 113, 136-137, 142, 144, 154155, 157, 159, 161, 163, 166, 168, 171 sedentarization, 6, 8 theaters, 27, 34-35, 80, 102, 105, 119, 147, 152, 159, 166, 173, 183 trade, xvii, 3, 4, 8-11, 13, 16, 30, 39, 40, 148 triclinium, 22, 109, 110, 151, 154, 177 Via Nova Traianus, 16 water display, ix, xxiii, 86, 87, 97, 99, 102, 104-108,

234

THE PETRA POOL-COMPLEX 110, 114, 119, 168, 182, 185 fountains, xxi, 36, 87-89, 90, 97, 99-102, 104-109, 119-120, 126, 147, 152, 156, 158, 161 lakes, 106, 108, 111-112, 119, 129, 131-132, 144, 148, 151-152, 154, 160

naumachiae, 103, 107, 119 nymphaeum, 36, 101, 109 swimming-pools, xxiii, 90, 104, 111-113, 115, 117, 146, 153-155, 163, 165166, 168, 173, 175, 184 waterfalls, 87, 101-104, 106, 119, 135, 182

zoos, 133, 147, 150