The Small Temple: A Roman Imperial Cult Building in Petra, Jordan 9781463235666

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Maps
List of Tables
List of Illustrations
Acknowledgments
1. The Nabataeans, Petra, and the Archaeological Record
2. Methodology
3. The Small Temple Excavation
4. Marble, Trade, and the Small Temple
5. Ruler Worship and the Imperial Cult
6. The Small Temple as an Imperial Cult Building
Appendix 1: Trench Locations and Descriptions
Appendix 2: Results of Marble Isotopic Analysis
Appendix 3: Standard Deviations and Ancient Units of Measurement
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

The Small Temple

Gorgias Studies in Classical and Late Antiquity

9

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 Small Temple

A Roman Imperial Cult Building in Petra, Jordan

Sara Karz Reid

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

‫ܘ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0234-7 Reprinted from the 2005 edition.

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

CONTENTS List of Maps..............................................................................................ix List of Tables............................................................................................ix List of Illustrations ..................................................................................xi Acknowledgments ................................................................................. xv 1 The Nabataeans, Petra, and the Archaeological Record ...........1 1.1 Geography ..................................................................................3 1.2 Nabataean Origins.....................................................................4 1.3 The Historical Record and the Transition from Nomads to Settlements .......5 1.4 Nabataean Relations..................................................................8 1.4.1 Diplomatic Relations .......................................................8 1.4.2 Trade and Commerce ................................................... 15 1.5 Nabataean Religion .................................................................18 1.6 Nabataean Pottery ...................................................................21 1.7 Petra: The Nabataean Capital ................................................23 1.7.1 Nabataean Petra............................................................. 23 1.7.2 Petra under the Romans............................................... 24 1.7.3 Petra and Bostra ............................................................ 25 1.7.4 Petra after the Roman Period...................................... 27 1.8 Architecture in Petra ...............................................................28 1.9 Previous Research at the Small Temple...............................46

v

vi

2

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Methodology ................................................................................. 49 2.1 Survey Methodology ...............................................................50 2.2 Excavation Strategy.................................................................51 2.3 Site-Formation and Post-Depositional Processes at the Small Temple........................................................53 2.4 Field Notebook and Recording.............................................55 2.4.1 Recording Conventions................................................ 55 2.4.2 Trench Reports .............................................................. 56 2.4.3 Images ............................................................................. 57 2.4.4 Databases ........................................................................ 58 2.5 Post-Excavation.......................................................................58 2.5.1 Storage............................................................................. 58 2.5.2 Consolidation ................................................................. 58 2.5.3 Analyses .......................................................................... 59 3 The Small Temple Excavation ................................................... 61 3.1 Trenches and Stratigraphy .....................................................61 3.2 Architecture..............................................................................62 3.2.1 Architectural Elements and Order ............................. 62 3.2.2 Site Overview ................................................................. 64 3.2.3 Walls and Revetment .................................................... 65 3.2.4 Platforms......................................................................... 69 3.2.5 Basins............................................................................... 70 3.2.6 The Alcove ..................................................................... 73 3.2.7 Roofing............................................................................ 75 3.2.8 Limestone Floor Pavers ............................................... 76 3.2.9 Doorways and Traffic Flow......................................... 79 3.2.10 The Substructure ........................................................... 82 3.2.11 Portico............................................................................. 86 3.2.12 Staircase........................................................................... 88 3.2.13 Upper Precinct............................................................... 92 3.2.14 Courtyard ........................................................................ 92 3.3 Chronological Phases..............................................................93 3.3.1 Phase I: Original Architecture ..................................... 94 3.3.2 Phase II: Placement of the Latest Subfloor Elements ................................. 96 3.3.3 Phase III: Addition of Interior Platforms ................. 97 3.3.4 Phase IV: Latest Decoration of the Interior ............. 98 3.3.5 Phase V: Early Basin Added ........................................ 99

CONTENTS 3.3.6

vii

Phase VI: Modifications in the Southwest Corner............................................. 100 3.3.7 Phase VII: Placement of the Latest Floor ............... 103 3.3.8 Phase VIII: Removal of the Latest Floor ................ 103 3.3.9 Phase IX: Marble Destruction................................... 103 3.3.10 Phase X: Roof Collapse.............................................. 106 3.3.11 Phase XI: Deposit of Overburdens.......................... 106 3.3.12 Phase XII: Later Activity............................................ 107 3.3.13 Phasing Outliers........................................................... 107 3.4 A Possible Motive for the Destruction of the Small Temple ................ 110 4 Marble, Trade, and the Small Temple ..................................... 113 4.1 Marble Finds at the Small Temple..................................... 113 4.1.1 Marble Types................................................................ 113 4.1.2 Sourcing ........................................................................ 114 4.1.3 Revetment..................................................................... 114 4.1.4 Cornices ........................................................................ 116 4.1.5 Inscriptions................................................................... 117 4.2 Marble and Imperial Associations at the Small Temple. 121 4.2.1 Inscriptions Overview ................................................ 123 4.2.2 Inscription Content..................................................... 123 4.2.3 Inscription Phases ....................................................... 132 4.2.4 Imperial and Affluence Associations of Marble..... 135 4.3 Marble Trade and Acquisition............................................ 137 4.3.1 Trade and Commerce in the Roman Empire ......... 137 4.3.2 Quarry Locations......................................................... 140 4.3.3 The Roman Imperial Quarry System: The Ratio Marmorum................................................. 143 4.3.4 Marble Acquisition at Petra ....................................... 147 5 Ruler Worship and the Imperial Cult...................................... 149 5.1 Ruler Worship....................................................................... 150 5.1.1 Near East ...................................................................... 150 5.1.2 Hellenistic World......................................................... 151 5.1.3 Roman Empire............................................................. 151 5.2 Imperial Cult Buildings in the Roman Empire................ 152 5.2.1 Placement of the Imperial Cult within a City.......... 153 5.2.2 Architectural Styles...................................................... 154 5.2.3 Benefactors and Commissioners of the Imperial Cult..................................................... 154

viii

THE SMALL TEMPLE

5.3 Imperial Cult Observance in the Roman Empire ........... 156 5.3.1 The Western and Eastern Roman Empire .............. 156 5.3.2 Examples for Comparison ......................................... 159 5.3.3 Caesarea ........................................................................ 160 5.3.4 Ephesus......................................................................... 164 5.3.5 Aphrodisias................................................................... 166 6 The Small Temple as an Imperial Cult Building.................... 169 6.1 Datable Objects in Context ................................................ 170 6.2 Architecture and Influences................................................ 171 6.2.1 Roman Influences ....................................................... 171 6.2.2 The Pes Monetalis (the Roman Foot) ......................... 173 6.2.3 Imperial Cult Associations with Water and Serapis ............................................... 178 6.3 A Prestigious Location ........................................................ 180 6.4 Imperial Titulature on Imperial Material .......................... 182 6.5 A Symbol of Roman Dominance and Integration.......... 184 Appendix 1: Trench Locations and Descriptions .......................... 189 2000 Season ..................................................................................... 189 2001 Season ..................................................................................... 192 2002 Season ..................................................................................... 197 Appendix 2: Results of Marble Isotopic Analysis .......................... 202 Appendix 3: Standard Deviations and Ancient Units of Measurement .................................. 205 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 217 Index ................................................................................................. 233

LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Petra and the eastern Mediterranean. ......................................3 Map 2. Nabataean area, first century BCE to first century CE. ..........9 Map 3. The Petra city center.................................................................29 Map 4. Map of imperial cult sites for comparison. ........................ 160 Map 5. Marble quarries represented at the Small Temple ............ 204

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Nabataean kinglist, after McKenzie 1990: 57.....................11 Table 2. Chronological phases at the Small Temple.........................94 Table 3. Comparison of standard deviations. ................................. 175 Table 4. Calculation of standard deviation at the ½ Roman foot scale.................................................. 176 Table 5. Results of marble isotopic analysis.................................... 202 Table 6. Calculation of standard deviation at the 1⁄12 scale. .......... 206 Table 7. Calculation of standard deviation at the 1⁄10 scale. .......... 208 Table 8. Calculation of standard deviation at the ¼ scale. ........... 210 Table 9. Calculation of standard deviation at the ½ scale. ........... 212 Table 10. Calculation of standard deviation at the 1⁄10 scale. ........ 214

ix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Frieze of a man leading a camel in the Siq. .......................17 Figure 2. Al-‘Uzza stele in the Petra Museum. ..................................19 Figure 3. A rock-carved shrine in the Siq. ..........................................21 Figure 4. View of the Petra city center to the west...........................30 Figure 5. The entrance to the Siq.........................................................31 Figure 6. The façade of al-Khasna.......................................................32 Figure 7. Tholos on al-Khasna.............................................................33 Figure 8. The Roman Theater in Petra. ..............................................34 Figure 9. The Palace Tomb...................................................................34 Figure 10. The Corinthian Tomb.........................................................35 Figure 11. The Urn Tomb.....................................................................36 Figure 12. View of the Colonnaded Street to the west. ...................37 Figure 13. View of the Upper, Middle, and Lower (Paradeisos) Markets to the south. ......................37 Figure 14. View of the Lower Market (Paradeisos) to the north. .....38 Figure 15. View of the Great Temple to the south...........................39 Figure 16. View of central Petra to the south....................................40 Figure 17. View of the Great Temple, Small Temple, and Qasr al-Bint to the southwest. .......................................41 Figure 18. View of the Temenos Gate to the west. ..........................41 Figure 19. Aerial view of the Qasr al-Bint to the southwest. ..........42 Figure 20. Aerial view of ez-Zantur to the east. ................................43 Figure 21. Aerial view of the Temple of the Winged Lions to the south...............................................................................44 Figure 22. View of ad-Dayr. .................................................................45 Figure 23. Aerial view of the Small Temple to the southwest. .......60 Figure 24. Floral doorjamb capital (Seq. No. 10016)........................63 Figure 25.:South side of north wall, with ashlar holes, mortar, and in situ marble (Trench 4). ..................................67 Figure 26. Fragmentary bronze clamps...............................................67 xi

xii

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 27. Typical marble cornice profile (with bolt hole) in two possible wall mounting positions. ............................68 Figure 28. Basins in the southwest corner of the Small Temple, looking to the west. .................................................................70 Figure 29. Southwest corner of the Small Temple............................71 Figure 30. Limestone ledge that separates the west and east basins. ...............................72 Figure 31. Alcove looking to the northeast........................................74 Figure 32. Large roof tile fragment......................................................76 Figure 33. In situ limestone pavers in the southwest corner of the building...............................77 Figure 34. Raised mortar outlines in the northwest corner of the building (Trench 14).........78 Figure 35. Half column drums with cable-fluted plaster, bonded to the base of the west doorway (Trench 14).......80 Figure 36. Location of a possible doorway in the southern east wall. ........................................................81 Figure 37. Location of numbered hypothetical crosswalls laid over 2002 survey data......................................................84 Figure 38. Weathered limestone head, gazing to the upper left (00-S-1 PLT).............................................................................87 Figure 39. Limestone head with stylized, knobby hair and beard gazing to upper right (02-S-1 PLT). ........................................87 Figure 40. North side of the staircase retaining wall (Trench 21). ..............................................................................89 Figure 41. The single in situ stair tread (Trench 21). .........................90 Figure 42. Phase I: Original Architecture. ..........................................95 Figure 43. Phase III: Addition of the Interior Platforms.................96 Figure 44. Nabataean lamp fragment 02-L-13 PLT..........................97 Figure 45. Phase V: Early Basin Added. .............................................99 Figure 46. Cutaway reconstruction of the Small Temple.............. 100 Figure 47. Phase VI: Modifications in the Southwest Corner...... 101 Figure 48. Panel 01-I-37 PLT............................................................ 102 Figure 49. Inside northeast corner of the building with in situ marble revetment, bolt hole with bronze clamp fragment, and thick deposit of marble debris (Trench 2). ............... 105 Figure 50. Outside northeast corner of the Small Temple and weathered cornice block. ............................................. 108 Figure 51. Later activity on the portico............................................ 109 Figure 52. Cross-section of large and small marble cornices. ...... 116

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

xiii

Figure 53. Panel 01-I-11 PLT............................................................ 118 Figure 54. Section of panel 02-I-87 PLT.......................................... 119 Figure 55. Panel 02-I-2 PLT. ............................................................. 124 Figure 56. Panel 02-I-2 PLT. ............................................................. 125 Figure 57. Greek Trajanic inscription from Petra. ......................... 127 Figure 58. Panel 02-I-87 PLT............................................................ 128 Figure 59. Panel 02-I-85 PLT............................................................ 130 Figure 60. Panel 01-I-38 PLT............................................................ 132 Figure 61. Roman Round lamp fragments with ovolos, 01-L-3 PLT............................................................................ 171 Figure 62. Aerial view of the Small Temple to the south. ............ 187 Figure 63. 2000 surveyed architecture and excavated trenches.... 189 Figure 64. 2001 surveyed architecture and excavated trenches.... 192 Figure 65. 2002 surveyed architecture and excavated trenches.... 197

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The 2000–2002 Small Temple excavations were assumed under the auspices of the Brown University Department of Anthropology, the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, and Dr. Martha Sharp Joukowsky. The Small Temple was excavated under the permit granted for the excavation of the Petra Great Temple. The Petra Excavation Fund at Brown University, several Brown University Graduate School Summer Fellowships, and a Harris/Torch Grant generously provided financial support for the excavation. The Dr. Frances Price Harnish ’25 Fellowship was an indispensable source of support during the writing stage of the project. While a graduate student at Brown University, I was lucky to have had the guidance of almost my entire dissertation committee since the very beginning of my graduate school career, and they have helped see me through many obstacles with patience and encouragement. Dr. Douglas Anderson allowed me to think aloud in his office, leading to numerous suggestions of new avenues to explore. Dr. Richard Gould was the first to suggest using standard deviation to approach the identification of the pes monetalis in the Small Temple and was always ready to help with discussions of trade and commerce. I need to thank Dr. S. Thomas Parker for always encouraging me to think critically about source material. The final member of the committee, although never the least, was its director, Dr. Martha Sharp Joukowsky. I am truly grateful to her for the opportunities that she has given me over the years, from studying glass at the Great Temple to the excavation of the Small Temple. Several other people have been generous with their time and knowledge over the years. Dr. Judith McKenzie and Dr. Jodi Magness have always made themselves available for help and advice. Dr. John Bodel, Dr. Elise Friedland, Dr. Norman Herz, Dr. Thomas Paradise, Dr. Terry Tullis, and Naif Zibbin were all especially helpful xv

xvi

THE SMALL TEMPLE

with issues relating to marble and geology, from reconstructing marble panels to epigraphy to earthquakes to marble sourcing. Dr. Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos not only created the wonderful axonometric reconstruction of the Small Temple, but was also a kind source of architectural information. Thanks to Kathy Grimaldi, Matilde Andrade, and Shirley Gordon for their assistance in navigating the intricacies of university requirements, and for their steady optimism. I wish to thank several of my friends and co-workers at Petra, including Amanda Henry, Steve Larson, and Erin McCracken, for their time supervising trenches at the Small Temple; Brian Brown and Paul Zimmerman for their survey work; and Dr. Deirdre Barrett, Dr. Pierre-Louis Bazin, Dr. Joseph Basile, Monica Sylvester, Dr. LeighAnn Bedal, Chris Cloke, Emily Egan, Emma Libonati, Lee Payne, Karen Stern, and Dr. Drew Willis for their friendship and moral support. Thanks to Artemis Joukowsky for assistance with site and object photography; Dakhilallah Qublan, foreman of the Great and Small Temple excavations; and all of the site workers over the years. Friends in and out of the anthropology department have always been a strong network of support, especially Dr. Sara Bergstresser, Dr. Erick Castellanos, Kipp Bradford, Michelle Zeiler, Wessyl Kelly, Dr. Zeeya Merali, Natalie Moyer Mumpower, Juliette Rogers, Eric Parks, and Dr. Alex Zafiroglu. Together we have sympathized over difficulties and rejoiced in successes. George A. Kiraz, Peter T. Daniels, and everyone at Gorgias Press were helpful, communicative, and patient throughout the publication process. I especially need to thank them for their patience when my daughter Natania Polly arrived just early enough to create a little havoc with the scheduling. Lastly, I want to thank my family and dedicate this work to them: Mom, Dad, Lisa, and especially Forest. You have been there for me through good and bad, always. None of this would have been possible without your encouragement, support, inspiration, and love. And to Natania Polly, just because. Sara Karz Reid October 2005

1 THE NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD The ancient city of Petra, capital of the Nabataean kingdom, is widely recognized for its rock-cut tomb architecture. The city also has an urban and religious center largely composed of freestanding structures. These freestanding structures are, in turn, also widely recognized as Nabataean. The remains of one of these buildings, known as the Small Temple since the nineteenth century, were excavated under the supervision of the author in the first years of the twenty-first century. This building, however, was probably Nabataean in neither design nor function. The results of three seasons of excavation have revealed a building that is more likely to have been Roman than Nabataean, probably constructed after the annexation of Petra by the Roman Empire as part of the Provincia Arabia in 106 CE. Examination of the Small Temple indicated not merely a building with Roman architectural characteristics (including its proportions, stylistic devices, and units of measurement), but a religious building dedicated to the Roman imperial cult; the worship of the Roman emperor and his family. At least one metric ton of marble was excavated at the Small Temple in the form of crustae (plain revetment, or cladding), cornices, and inscriptions. When the building was intact, it may have been decorated with more than four times as much. The discovery of this abundance of marble was particularly striking in Petra because of both its local unavailability and the large amounts in which it was found. Clearly, an enormous effort had been required to transport marble specifically to the building known as the Small Temple, as opposed to some other structure. Marble had not only luxury associations, but Roman imperial associations. When reconstructed, some of the marble inscriptions were at least partially decipherable, revealing an obvious imperial connection through the use of both titulature and proper names. The con1

2

THE SMALL TEMPLE

tent of the inscriptions and the large quantities of marble discovered, taken in context with its associations, make it less and less likely that the presence of marble was merely incidental. The anomalous nature of marble at the Small Temple can at least be relatively quantified by its bulk.1 A further anomaly is the presence of so much marble at a location far inland and away from water transportation—at a site accessible by ship, it could possibly (however improbably) be dismissed as mere ballast in secondary use, thus reducing its presence to an accident of the building’s geographic location. The author believes all of these marble associations were exploited through the use of the material in the Small Temple. The incongruous presence of such large quantities of marble at the Small Temple has been further investigated through the identification of its possible geologic and geographic sources via isotopic analysis, which has helped to shed light on the penetration of the ratio marmorum, the Roman imperial marble business, as far as the eastern frontiers of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent. The lack of uniformity in the expression of imperial cult in the Roman Empire makes a point-by-point comparative analysis between imperial cult buildings difficult. In a review of the history of both ruler worship and the imperial cult (in chap. 5), characteristics that support the proposal that the Small Temple was used for this purpose are discussed. Even though the physical representation of imperial cult varied widely across the empire, there is still value in examining selected imperial cult buildings for comparison, especially in their own use of marble in relation to each city’s access to the luxury material. The presence of an imperial cult building in the Nabataean capital city would have assisted the Romans in solidifying their hold on the newly annexed kingdom. The placement of a physical representation of the newly arrived Roman authority, exemplified in the apotheosis of the emperors, could not help reminding the residents of Petra on a regular basis of their change in status. This work systematically examines the evidence used to support the identification of the Small Temple as an imperial cult building through the discussion of its prominent use of marble, a material with Roman imperial associations. Marble, not locally available in Pet1 Generously estimated, only 5 percent of the city of Petra has been excavated. As more of the city is uncovered, it is entirely likely that this discussion of the anomalousness of marble in Petra will need to be refined.

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

3

Map 1. Petra and the eastern Mediterranean.

ra, was not generally favored by the client kingdoms in the east and had been almost entirely monopolized by the bureaucracy of the Roman Empire. The analysis of architectural evidence and the placement of the Small Temple within the city also supports this identification.

1.1

GEOGRAPHY

Petra is located in southwestern Jordan about 80 km south of the Dead Sea (map 1). It lies in the Great Rift Valley, created over 300 million years ago by shifting tectonic plates, that stretches from southern Turkey in the north to the Red Sea and Africa in the south (Joukowsky 1998b: 4). Petra was the principal city of the Nabataean Kingdom, an area encompassing the Negev Desert, the Mediterranean coast city of Gaza, the eastern Sinai Peninsula, southern modern-day Syria, and southern modern-day Jordan (Dentzer 2003; Glueck 1965: 47; Negev 2003). This rift valley proved both advantageous and detrimental to Petra’s survival. It is a natural corridor, running roughly north–south and bounded on the east and west by parallel ranges of hills and scarps. This corridor would have encouraged trade that also moved north–south along this valley, from Damascus in the north to Aqaba in the south (Browning 1989: 9, 11). These nearby ridges also served as a natural defense against attack. This geography later helped to

4

THE SMALL TEMPLE

define the Roman province of Arabia, “determined essentially by the sweep of desert across the Sinai through the Negev and up into Syria on the one hand, and by the north-south link between Syria and the Gulf of ‘Aqaba on the other. This was an area which quite visibly, linked west to east and north to south” (Bowersock 1983: 10–11). The Siq, the narrow canyon that is the most dramatic entrance to Petra, also provided it with an excellent system of defense. The Siq is the product of thousands of years of flash flooding cutting through the rock along a natural fault. Predictably, the Nabataeans exploited the Siq for their water collection systems, laying pipe down its length. Only five meters across at its narrowest points, the canyon could easily be blocked for purposes of defense (Joukowsky 1998b: 5). Another vital factor, in addition to the defensibility of the Siq, is the presence of water at ‘Ain Musa (Moses’ Spring), approximately 2 km to the northeast (Joukowsky 1998b: 5).

1.2

NABATAEAN ORIGINS

The origin of the Nabataeans, the people most commonly associated with the creation of Petra, remains unclear, although until the late fourth century BCE they appear to have been nomads living in the eastern fringes of the Mediterranean world (Bowersock 1983: 15). While their name is superficially similar to that of a tribe mentioned in the Old Testament, the Nabayot, there appear to be no linguistic grounds for connecting the two (Glueck 1965: 4; Graf 1992: 970). By 312 BCE, the Nabataeans appear to have settled and made their capital at Petra. The Edomites, the previous pastoral inhabitants of the area, had been gradually driven out or assimilated during the Persian Period, some time between 539 and 332 BCE (Parr 2003: 32). Nabataean tribes that arrived in the area by the mid-fourth century BCE may have integrated with the descendants of any remaining Edomite population (Parr 2003: 33). The classical historian Diodorus Siculus identified the Nabataeans as nomadic Arabs that pirated and traded on the Red Sea (Millar 1993: 400), and they were probably a pastoral people by the fourth century BCE (Diod. 19.94–100; Bowersock 1983: 15). These Arab tribes were literate by the fourth century BCE, according to Diodorus, using their own script, although Aramaic seems to have become their spoken language shortly after the mid first millennium BCE (Glueck 1965: 7, 43).

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

5

It is at Petra by the fourth century BCE that the Nabataeans began to establish themselves as traders and merchants, specifically involved with the incense trade from southern Arabia (Graf 1992: 970). By the late second century BCE the Nabataeans had gained greater control of the northern branches of the incense trade routes (Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 65).

1.3

THE HISTORICAL RECORD AND THE TRANSITION FROM NOMADS TO SETTLEMENTS

Archaeological and historical records can support each other (what is suggested by one may be confirmed by the other). Despite some of the problems associated with historical documents, they are not inherently worthless. That authors often use second-hand accounts and cite witnesses who may not necessarily be competent are only two reasons to proceed with caution. However, by judging authors critically and realizing potential shortcomings, archaeologists can still glean useful information from even a severely slanted account (Ramenofsky 1991; Thomas 1989; Wood 1990). The need to make use of potentially flawed historical sources becomes a necessity when attempting to describe the Nabataean transition from a nomadic to a settled lifestyle. Representatives of the Roman Empire, as well, left no small number of records detailing the government’s interactions with the governed, and the relationship between Rome and the Nabataeans is no exception. The following is a discussion of comments relating to the Nabataeans and the development of their kingdom and trading empire by two historical figures, Diodorus Siculus and Strabo. While these historians overlapped in life, their descriptions of the Nabataeans differ greatly. Diodorus Siculus, a historian of the first century BCE, was, as his name suggests, from Sicily. He wrote a history of the world in forty volumes called the Bibliotheke (the Library), relying greatly on unknown, uncritically appraised sources. He did, however, in part rely on an earlier historian, Hieronymus of Cardia of the fourth and third centuries BCE, in his discussion of the Nabataeans. Diodorus described the Nabataeans as a nomadic, unsettled people, noting that “it is their custom neither to plant grain, set out any fruit-bearing tree, use wine, nor construct any house; and if anyone is found acting contrary to this, death is his penalty” (19.94.3). He also mentions Petra, although certainly not the city as recognized today. Diodorus’s Petra is instead merely a specific area that may

6

THE SMALL TEMPLE

have been the place of refuge to which the Nabataeans retreated in 312 BCE when under attack from Antigonus I (Joukowsky 1998b: 18– 19). Strabo was a Roman-educated, Greek-writing geographer from Pontus on the Black Sea who lived around the turn of the era, approximately 64 BCE – 24 CE. Although Strabo traveled widely, including journeys to Egypt, Ethiopia, and Yemen, he rarely claimed firsthand knowledge about any of the places mentioned in his famous Geography. He seems to have made wide use of materials from the library of Alexandria and was generally careful in identifying his sources (Groom 1981: 73–74). Nor did Strabo ever visit Arabia, yet Mesopotamia and Arabia are the subjects of book 16 of the Geography, where he discusses the emperor Augustus’s first prefect, Aelius Gallus (a friend of Strabo’s), and his expedition into the Arabian peninsula in 26/25 BCE (Bowersock 1983: 46–47; Groom 1981: 73). Gallus’s mission succeeded neither in acquiring valuable spice territory, nor in creating an alliance with the Sabaeans who controlled it. In his writings, however, Strabo placed the blame on a minister of the Nabataean king, Obodas, rather than on his friend, Gallus (Geog. 16.4.24). More relevantly to the issue of the Nabataeans’ sedentarization, Strabo describes in detail a very settled people centered at the capital city of Petra: The metropolis of the Nabataeans is Petra, as it is called; for it lies on a site which is otherwise smooth and level, but it is fortified all round by a rock, the outside parts having springs in abundance, both for domestic purposes and for watering gardens. … The Nabataeans are a sensible people, and are so much inclined to acquire possessions that they publicly fine anyone who has diminished his possessions and also confer honours on anyone who has increased them. Since they have but few slaves, they are served by their kinsfolk for the most part, or by one another, or by themselves; so that the custom also extends even to their kings. They prepare common meals together in groups of thirteen persons; and they have two girl-singers for each banquet. The king holds drinking-bouts in magnificent style, but no one drinks more than eleven cupfuls, each time using a different golden cup. The king is so democratic that, in addition to serving himself, he sometimes even serves the rest himself in his turn. He often renders an account of his kingship in the popular assembly; and sometimes his mode of life

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

7

is examined. Their homes through the use of stone, are costly, but on account of peace, the cities are not walled. Most of the country is well supplied with fruits except olive; they use sesame-oil instead. The sheep are white-fleeced and the oxen are large, but the country produces no horses. Camels afford the service they require instead of horses. They go out without tunics, with girdles about their loins, and with slippers on their feet—even the kings, though in their case the colour is purple. Some things are imported wholly from other countries, but others not altogether so, especially in the case of those that are native products, as, for example, gold and silver and most of the aromatics whereas brass and iron, as also purple garb, styrax, crocus, costaria, embossed works, paintings and moulded works are not produced in their country. (16.4.21, 26)

Strabo’s eloquence on the subject of the Nabataeans and their customs is certainly suspect when considering the unlikelihood that he actually witnessed these celebrations first-hand, but it nonetheless convincingly portrays the Nabataeans as a stationary, settled people. It is interesting to note the great contrast between Diodorus’s and Strabo’s accounts of the Nabataeans. These two men who lived in overlapping times wrote about two drastically different sets of customs; the former presented them as nomads, while the latter as settled city-dwellers. Remember, however, that Strabo wrote about the Nabataeans of his own time in the late first century BCE, whereas Diodorus Siculus presented the Nabataeans of the late fourth century BCE, the period of his source, Hieronymus (Bowersock 1983: 12–13). Left trying to piece together a pre-settlement history of the Nabataeans based on historical sources, Bowersock attempted to describe the dilemma. He wrote, “There was no Arab Polybius, no Arab Josephus. It was essential, therefore, to build the history from scattered references in ancient authors, in conjunction with the surviving monuments and inscriptions, viewed within the context of the land itself” (1983: 4). Despite the limitations of the sources discussed above, the rapid sedentarization of the Nabataeans after the fourth century BCE becomes apparent. The Nabataeans became a regional power, making diplomatic, trade, and religious decisions that would have consequences for the entire Near East. In particular, the Nabataean control of trade routes and goods from the southern Arabian peninsula, which included the trade in frankincense and myrrh, would ultimately catch the interest

8

THE SMALL TEMPLE

of the growing Roman Empire in the Mediterranean in the first and second centuries CE.

1.4

NABATAEAN RELATIONS

1.4.1 Diplomatic Relations The Nabataeans neither rose to power nor ruled in a vacuum. As occupiers of a region that today is often identified as the Near or the Middle East, it is important to realize that the geographic definition of the area has changed. Two different definitions of the Near East, the term most commonly used when referring to the past history of the region, have been offered by Kuhrt and by Maisels. Kuhrt proposes that the Near East “extends from Turkey (Anatolia) and Egypt in the west through the Levant (a term that includes the territory of the modern states of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria west of the Euphrates) to Mesopotamia (north Syria east of the Euphrates, and Iraq) into Iran” (1995: 1:1). Maisels, however, not only offers his own geographic definition but also suggests a reason why this region was important enough to have been defined in the first place. He writes that the Near East bridges “Asia to Africa and Europe. It comprises the contemporary states … of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, the states of the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. The region is bounded by five seas: … the Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Persian Gulf and the Red Sea” (Maisels 1993: 56). It is the latter definition, and specifically the suggestion of the Near East as a bridge, that is more compelling. This “bridge,” exploited by various rulers and empires over many centuries, served not only as a location through which ideas and goods passed, but also as a potential starting point for developments such as agriculture. Centrally located on this bridge, the Nabataean kingdom (map 2) was influenced by powers both near and far. Thus the role played by the kingdom was one of dynamism and change. An overview of the geopolitical scenario in the Near East when the Nabataeans became players on the scene will now be examined in order to place the Nabataeans in context. In 331 bce, with the defeat of the last Achaemenid king, Darius III, Alexander the Great became sole ruler of the Persian Empire until his death in Babylon in 323. At its greatest extent, Alexander’s empire included parts of modern-day Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Is-

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

Map 2. Nabataean area, first century 1990: map 2, used with permission).

BCE

to first century

CE

9

(McKenzie

rael, northern Jordan (excluding Petra), Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (Roaf 1990: 214). One of the earliest historical references to the Nabataeans, Hieronymus of Cardia’s description, occurs only a few years after Alexander’s death. The Persian Empire did not survive Alexander intact, and warring between his generals ensued, which divided the empire into several parts. The Ptolemies were based in and around Egypt; the Antigonids settled primarily in Turkey, Syria, and northern Israel; and the

10

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Seleucids (taking the largest part of Alexander’s empire) claimed much of the area of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan (Sacks 1995). The Antigonid kingdom was short-lived, however, and it was absorbed by the Seleucids in 301. The Seleucids and Ptolemies constantly struggled over land, and the geographic area that was the boundary between the two empires in and around the Great Rift was a constant battleground. Initially, in the third century, the Ptolemies held sway over Palestine and Transjordan. By the second century, however, this area had largely shifted to Seleucid control. By 198, Antiochus III of the Seleucids defeated the Ptolemaic army in Banias, taking Palestine, Jerusalem, and Petra (Joukowsky 1998b: 20). In 142 BCE, the Maccabees, a Jewish nationalist group, gained independence from the Seleucids and created the first independent Jewish state in Palestine since the fall of Judah to Babylonia in 586 BCE (Grant 1978: 334; Joukowsky 1998b: 20). Later known as the Hasmonean Dynasty, the new state had its own expansionist desires. The Hasmoneans’ Nabataean neighbors to the east became nervous about threats to their trade routes in the early first century BCE, especially access to the Mediterranean coastal cities of Gaza and Raphia, and joined forces with the Seleucids, although ultimately without success (Joukowsky 1998b: 20–21). It is only a few decades earlier, around 168, that the name of a Nabataean ruler, Aretas I (table 1), appears in association with the early history of the Maccabees (2 Maccabees 5:8). Jason, a Maccabee high priest, asked for asylum from Aretas, a man described as both “the tyrant of the Arabs” and “the king of the Nabatu” (Bowersock 1983: 18–19; Joukowsky 1998b: 22; McKenzie 1990: 57). A single Nabataean inscription of this period also mentions Aretas by name (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 40). Aretas I may have been followed by a poorly attested ruler named Rabbel I (ibid.; Joukowsky 1998b: 23). Aretas II came to power by the beginning of the first century BCE and was probably the first Nabataean ruler to strike coinage (Bowersock 1983: 22). He was referred to as the victor in a siege against the city of Gaza in which he opposed the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus in his attempt to take the Nabataean-controlled port city. Nonetheless, Gaza fell, and shortly thereafter Aretas II was succeeded by Obodas I in either 96 or 92 BCE (depending on the interpretation of the numismatic evidence) and ruled until 86. In or around

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 11

King

Date

Aretas I Rabbel I Aretas II Obodas I Aretas III Philhellenos Malichus I Obodas II Aretas IV “Lover of his People” Malichus II Rabbel II

ca. 168 BCE ? ca. 100–96/92 96/92–86 86–62 62–30 30–9 9 BCE – 40/44 CE 40/44–70 70–106

Table 1. Nabataean kinglist, after McKenzie 1990: 57

the year 93, Obodas also fought Alexander Jannaeus, this time in the northern reaches of the Nabataean kingdom near the Golan, and Obodas came out victorious over the Hasmoneans (Bowersock 1983: 23–24). Obodas battled the Seleucids, then under the rule of Antiochus XII, in southern Syria in 87 BCE as well, and was again the victor and “was so revered that after his death the city of Oboda in the Negev was named for him and is said to have served as the seat of his royal cult” (Joukowsky 1998b: 23). Obodas’s successor was Aretas III, known as Philhellenos (Lover of Hellenism) on his coins; he reigned from 86 to 62 (McKenzie 1990: 57). The Nabataean kingdom expanded into the north during his rule, incorporating Damascus and southern Syria (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 40–41). Roman interest was not limited merely to Petra and Nabataea at that time, however, and in 63 the Judaean civil war ended with the capture of Jerusalem by the Roman general, Pompey. Judaea became a Roman dependency, and Nabataea became a client kingdom of Rome (Joukowsky 1998b: 23–24). In 62 the Romans took their first military action against the Nabataeans, in the form of a campaign against Petra as mentioned by Josephus (AJ 14.80–81). The Nabataean kingdom now paid Roman taxes and served to buffer Roman interests to its west against desert tribes to the east (Joukowsky 1998b: 26). Aretas III was succeeded by Malichus I (62–30) during a time of political turmoil for the Roman Republic (McKenzie 1990: 57). Malichus, whose name means “king” in the Semitic languages, ruled during the invasion of Nabataea by the Syrian governor Gabinius in 55,

12

THE SMALL TEMPLE

to whom he was ultimately forced to pay tribute (Bowersock 1983: 37; Joukowsky 1998b: 24). Malichus ruled Nabataea at a time when a delicate balancing act was required. During his reign, in 40 the Nabataeans backed the Parthians, who ruled a kingdom carved out of the western part of the Seleucid kingdom southeast of the Caspian Sea (Bienkowski 2000), against Rome. That same year, Parthian forces took Jerusalem; and Herod, at that point merely an official in the Hasmonean court, set out to protect his own position. First he turned to Malichus for help, brazenly demanding both protection and the return of territories he had turned over to the Arabs in the past. After Malichus refused, Herod went to Rome and appeared before the Senate, where he made such an impression that he gained Roman backing for the title of king of Judaea (Bowersock 1983: 39). Malichus may have eventually regretted his treatment of Herod. Bowersock writes: As a result of turning Herod away because of his excessive demands, Malichus found himself alienated from the Jews. Lacking the kind of enterprise which took Herod as far as Rome to secure recognition, Malichus confronted the future in strictly Near Eastern terms. With the Parthians in Jerusalem, he chose the path of least resistance and gave his support to the invaders. He … found himself in an exceedingly vulnerable position when Herod returned triumphant from Rome as the recognized king of Judaea and as Rome’s ally. (1983: 39)

Herod’s kingship marked the end of Hasmonean rule, although he did not physically claim his throne until 37 BCE when the Parthians withdrew from Palestine. Herod was only Jewish by descent through his father (who was the son of a forced Idumaean convert to Judaism), and this combined with his status as Rome’s client king made him unpopular with his subjects (Holum et al. 1988: 56). In reaction to a tepid response from his subjects in part because of this tenuous relationship to Judaism, Herod tried to gain favor through the construction of monumental works (including the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem) to placate the Jews (ibid. 62). He also embarked on building programs such as the city of Caesarea to curry favor with Augustus, whom he feared he had alienated by backing Mark Antony (Bowersock 1983: 42–43; Holum et al. 1988). At the same time, Herod also built fortresses throughout his kingdom, including his palace at Masada, in case of revolt by his subjects (Tsafrir 1982; Yadin 1966).

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 13 Malichus I was succeeded by Obodas II, who ruled 30–9 BCE, at a time when relations between Nabataea, Judaea, and Rome were relatively peaceful (Joukowsky 1998b: 24). Obodas even supported Aelius Gallus, Octavian’s prefect in the newly acquired Roman province of Egypt, with a thousand Nabataean troops to aid his expedition to the Arabian peninsula in 26 (Bowersock 1983: 46). Gallus’s objective was the Sabaean kingdom, also known as Arabia Felix, in the southwest corner of the Arabian peninsula, where Augustus had hoped to gain “some kind of share in the [perfume and spice] operations of the Sabaeans on whom both the Egyptian and the Nabataean traffic depended” (ibid. 46–47). Strabo wrote about this mission (ultimately unsuccessful), defending his friend Gallus, and describing the Nabataeans as a sedentary population. Aretas IV Philopater, known as the “Lover of his People” on his coinage, ruled Nabataea at the height of its prosperity from 9 BCE until 40 or 44 CE, during which time many construction projects began, especially at Petra (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 43; Joukowsky 1998b: 24; McKenzie 1990: 57). Aretas took the throne under some controversy because he had not formally sought permission from Rome and Augustus to rule (Bowersock 1983: 52), yet this was generally a prosperous time during which the “monuments at Petra reflect a flourishing economy and unsurpassed wealth from international trade” (Joukowsky 1998b: 24). Nabataean influence continued to dominate in the north, with a specific mention of Aretas by Paul, who recounted, “In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me” (2 Corinthians 11:32). It is during Aretas’s reign that one scholar has presented the possibility of a brief, early Roman annexation of Nabataean territory between 3 and 1 BCE (Bowersock 1983: 56), suggesting that the key lies in Strabo’s writings. Bowersock writes: The geographer Strabo stated unambiguously in a passage that has been curiously neglected, that in his day (í™í äÝ) the Nabataeans, like the Syrians, were subjects of the Romans. He makes this point in connection with the observation that before the Nabataeans were brought under Roman rule, they had been given to making incursions into Syrian territory. The words of Strabo can mean only one thing: the territory of the Nabataeans was, at the time he was writing, a province of the Roman Empire. Yet it is perfectly well known that Aretas IV ruled for some forty-nine years with great success and that the

14

THE SMALL TEMPLE kingdom of the Nabataeans did not become a province of Rome until the age of Trajan. For all that, Strabo ought to have known what he was saying, and his remarks should perhaps be considered in the light of other possibilities than simple egregious error. It is worth asking whether the kingdom of Aretas was actually annexed for a brief interval and returned subsequently as a client state of Rome. Cases of kingdoms annexed and then returned are by no means unexampled in Roman imperial history. (1983: 54)

If Bowersock is correct, Nabataea was under formal Roman control some decades before its widely recognized annexation in the early second century CE. And yet, if he is correct, it is remarkable how little other evidence there is of what would seem to have been a notable event. Malichus II followed Aretas IV and ruled until 70 CE (McKenzie 1990: 57). It is interesting to note an “apparent cessation of all Nabataean coinage” during the final six years of his reign (Bowersock 1983: 71). Bowersock writes that this gap “coincides with the period of Rome’s war against the Jews, [and t]he Romans may conceivably have requisitioned bullion for minting to pay the troops during this time of crisis. … Arab support for the Roman war effort is amply apparent in the contingent sent, doubtless at Roman request, … in 67” (ibid. 72). Rabbel II, Malichus’s successor, the last Nabataean ruler prior to Roman annexation in 106, began his reign in 70 (McKenzie 1990: 57). During his rule, the Nabataean capital may have been moved from Petra to Bostra (to be discussed in §1.7.3), perhaps in response to Petra’s diminishing commercial role and the growing importance of Bostra as the nexus of a trade route through the Wadi Sirhan (Bowersock 1983: 73, Joukowsky 1998b). There has been some speculation that Rabbel arranged with Rome for Nabataea’s annexation as long as Rome did not attack during his lifetime. Nabataea was, in fact, annexed after Rabbel’s death, becoming the Roman Provincia Arabia. The nature of the annexation, however, continues to be debated. Trajanic coins struck five years after the annexation read Arabia adquista (Arabia acquired) rather than Arabia capta (Arabia captured), which some have interpreted as evidence of the peacefulness of the transaction (Bowersock 1983: 81). Others believe that the annexation was merely the final component in Trajan’s general policy of expansion and was not militarily challenged by the Nabataeans (Graf 1978: 6; S. Parker 1986: 123–25).

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 15 Other scholars have suggested that the annexation may actually have been more contentious. Although there is no definitive recorded or archaeological evidence of a clash with Rome, in his Roman History Dio Cassius wrote that the “governor of Syria subdued the part Arabia around Petra and made it subject to the Romans” (68.14). Recent finds in the propylaeum of the Great Temple may represent archaeological evidence of such unrest, although the precise dating of the evidence is still uncertain. More than thirty spherical limestone and sandstone balls ranging from 9 cm to 20 cm in diameter were discovered in the propylaeum. These may have been ballistas, or small missiles.2 In the end, however, interpreting the tenor of the annexation on mere individual words such as adquista or “subdued” is imperfect at best. Even the reasons for the Roman annexation, which might in turn shed light on the mood of the Nabataean reaction, are still uncertain (Fiema 1987; Freeman 1996). A more definitive explanation will have to await better archaeological evidence. 1.4.2 Trade and Commerce Nabataean Petra owed its success to its prominence as a center of trade. Petra enjoyed access to overland routes to Syria, Arabia, and beyond, as well as to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, with many trade routes passing through Nabataea and, more importantly, through the capital itself. These trade routes stretched from Arabia in the south to Damascus in the north, Egypt in the southwest, the Negev and Palestine in the west, and Mesopotamia in the east. With the development of the Nabataean economy, some caravan stations developed into flourishing towns (Glueck 1965: 64, 69). The interpretation of archaeological evidence that would support the existence of these routes prior to Roman annexation, in the form of pottery sherds and fortress architecture along the Petra– Gaza Road, has been hotly debated since the early twentieth century. Excavations of several fortress sites along the road in the 1970s and early 1980s have led Cohen to support early construction dates of the third through second centuries BCE, well within the time of influence of the Nabataean kingdom (1982: 246).

2

Amanda G. Henry, co-supervisor of Trench 87 at the Great Temple, pers. comm., April 2, 2004.

16

THE SMALL TEMPLE

By the fourth century BCE, the Nabataeans had already established themselves in the trade of prized goods from the southern Arabian peninsula to points north, and were becoming prosperous as a result (Glueck 1965: 44). Petra became their entrepôt of choice as they also trafficked in goods traveling from Petra to Gaza to the Sinai, such as bitumen harvested from the Dead Sea for trade to Egypt for embalming and waterproofing (P. Hammond 1959: 44, 47), as well as perfume and spices from points farther south to Petra to Gaza (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 38; Bowersock 1983: 15; Forbes 1936; Glueck 1965: 44). The archaeological evidence for these trade goods is somewhat limited. Currently, the best evidence for these goods instead comes from the historical record. The opulent rock-carved architecture of Petra has been interpreted as an indirect confirmation of the trade success of the city, as has been the relief of the camel caravan carved into the walls of the Siq (fig. 1), probably in the early first century BCE (Graf and Sidebotham 2003: 68). Nabataean pottery sherds and coins discovered in various areas of modern-day Saudi Arabia may also give some hint as to the extent of their trading networks (ibid. 70), but there is only partial evidence of the trade goods themselves in the archaeological record. One example of trade goods that has been recovered at Petra, however, is amethyst in varying stages of bead manufacture discovered in conjunction with Nabataean graffiti at amethyst mines on Egypt’s Red Sea coast (ibid. 71). Much of the area of the Nabataean kingdom itself was relatively poor in marketable trade goods, with the notable exception of bitumen and some copper deposits from the area of Wadi Araba (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 38). More importantly, the Nabataeans acted as middlemen to goods that came across their borders, such as the spices and perfumes from the southern Arabian peninsula. Nabataean caravans transporting incense and spices, including frankincense and myrrh, “traveled the route northward from the Hejaz and, passing through Hegra, arrived in Petra, which functioned as a transit point. From there they were conveyed to the Mediterranean ports, in particular Gaza and Alexandria. The most important route was that between Petra and Gaza. … The goods were then shipped to Greece and Italy” (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 39). Caravan stoppingpoints became thriving towns, and the resultant increase in popula tion and prosperity drove the Nabataeans “intensively to occupy even

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 17

Figure 1. Frieze of a man leading a camel in the Siq.

such marginal lands as the Negev and Sinai, in addition to the fertile areas of former Edom and Moab” (Glueck 1965: 69). After the Roman annexation of Petra in 106 CE, the Romans diverted trade routes away from Nabataea, although the incorporation of what would become Provincia Arabia does not seem to have produced immediate change. The Romans had already begun to com-

18

THE SMALL TEMPLE

mercially exploit the seasonal monsoon winds in the mid first century CE, thus denying Petra a role in trade passing northward between it and Gaza in favor of water traffic along the Egyptian coast, while inland trade became concentrated on the Wadi Sirhan with access to Damascus (Bowersock 1983: 61, 156). The Romans wanted to control the Near East for the trade goods the region had to offer, both luxury goods and staples. The commodities of the Near East, including, grains, perfumes, precious stones, and silk (Groom 1981; Lévy 1964: 74) in addition to the merchandise discussed above, were often luxury items. More and more goods were shipped through the Red Sea, avoiding Petra altogether. Such bypasses took their toll, and Petra eventually fell into decline (Glueck 1965: 70).

1.5

NABATAEAN RELIGION

Nabataean religion was polytheistic and, while dominated by Nabataean deities, was not immune to associations with deities of other empires and cultures. This cultural contact is perhaps borne out most obviously in Nabataean architecture, but also in the Nabataean pantheon itself. The god Dushara (Lord of the Shara), associated with the Shara Mountains to the east of Petra, was the preeminent god of the Nabataean pantheon (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 47). Dushara is associated with fertility and vegetation and with the two large carved blocks in the city of Petra, sometimes called Djin Blocks, located at the entry to the Siq, that may have housed his spirit (Joukowsky 1998b: 35). Cubic ‘god-blocks’ on smaller scales are evident elsewhere throughout Petra as well, and “affinities with the square block of the Kaȧba (itself of pre-Islamic origins) in Mecca, forming a focal point for Arab identity as well as the Islamic faith” are hard to escape (W. Ball 2001: 67–68). Dushara has been identified with several other nonNabataean deities, perhaps most strongly with the Greek Dionysus, but also with Zeus, Ares, Serapis, and Isis (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 48; Joukowsky 1998b: 35). The goddess al-‘Uzza was the “Nabataean mother goddess, the Arabian Aphrodite sometimes referred to as al-‘Uzza-Aphrodite” (Joukowsky 1998b: 36). Like Dushara, al-‘Uzza also had multiple associations, including the Syrian Atargatis, Tyche, and Isis, as well as Aphrodite (Bowersock 1983: 86–87; Joukowsky 1998b: 36). The goddess has sometimes been depicted with stylized facial features on a

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 19

Figure 2. Al-‘Uzza stele in the Petra Museum.

square or rectangular block and may be best illustrated on a stela from the Temple of the Winged Lions in Petra (fig. 2). Al-‘Uzza was Dushara’s consort and also symbolized fertility and vegetation (ibid.). Other Nabataean deities included the goddesses Allat and Manawat, and the gods Illaalge and Sai’ al-Qaum (ibid. 36–37). Not all were worshiped throughout the Nabataean world. Allat seems to

20

THE SMALL TEMPLE

have been worshiped only in Wadi Ramm, for example, while Illaalge was local to Petra (ibid. 36). The Nabataeans frequently used betyls (fig. 3), or symbolic forms such as the Djin Blocks (Wenning 2001: 79), instead of iconic representation. These betyls often took the form of rectangular stone slabs, sometimes placed in votive niches (ibid. 81), that stood for the presence of divinity (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 49). In Petra there are hundreds of betyls in varying sizes carved into the walls of the Siq. There has been some speculation that these betyls are associated with other rock-carving activities, such as water channels in the Siq walls. The act of carving into the rock may have then required the addition of a betyl, perhaps to honor the god Dushara, whose stone would otherwise be considered defaced by the presence of a channel or other construction activity.3 The Nabataeans also paid homage to their pantheon through the use of open high places, ritual meals, and temples. The sacred high places have often been described as locations for sacrifice, potentially human. W. Ball, however, suggests that these high places with their associated altars and channels may have been “no more than a [symbolic] ritual gesture …, perhaps involving the entry of a young man into the priesthood. Of course, some sort of sacrifice may have been involved at the high place, but it may have been purely symbolic” (2001: 68). High places, as well as temples, may also have been used in the settings of sacred or cultic meals, such as the extravagant feasts described by Strabo. Glueck also notes: The importance of the ritual meal in the religious practices of the Nabataeans, held especially on calendrical occasions, with which feasts commemorative of the dead, as well as the departure and resurrection of some of the gods on the two autumn and spring equinoctial days must be associated, is evidenced by the prevalence of triclinia in contemporary temples of related architecture and worship both inside and outside the Nabataean kingdom. (1965: 165)

The most important Nabataean high place may have been one in Petra located on the summit of the Zibb Attuf ridge (McKenzie 1990: 172).

3

Ulrich Bellwald, pers. comm., August 1, 2001.

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 21

Figure 3. A rock-carved shrine in the Siq.

1.6

NABATAEAN POTTERY

Many archaeological excavations in the Nabataean kingdom, particularly those in Petra, are greatly assisted by the information provided by the distinctive Nabataean pottery. Nabataean pottery is archaeologically important as a horizon style throughout the region, and even

22

THE SMALL TEMPLE

today fragments in the thousands can be seen scattered on the surface throughout the entire site of Petra. “Horizon style,” described by Wesler as “a specialized cultural continuum represented by the wide distribution of a recognizable art style in a restricted time period, indicating … a rapid spread of new ideas over wide geographic space” (1991: 278), is less specific than the more precise term “horizon marker” with its implications of contemporaneity across an entire region. Nabataean pottery has commonly been grouped into three phases with associated subphases. These three phases did not exist as mutually exclusive forms, without overlap, but instead show evidence of continuous development (Schmid 1995: 644). The first phase appears in the early first century BCE, with the third phase fading out by the early third century CE (Schmid 2003). The painted plates and bowls so characteristic of this type of pottery, while most commonly associated with Nabataean culture, have been found primarily in the southern area of Nabataean territory including the Sinai Peninsula, the Negev, and parts of Saudi Arabia, although fragments have also been found infrequently as far north as Amman and Jarash and as far west as Gaza (Schmitt-Korte 1971: 50–51). Neutron activation analysis of this pottery has shown that practically all of the fine ware originated from Petra clays (Bedal 1998: 352; Joukowsky 1998b: 38). The pottery is distinctive in appearance, even through its multiple phases of development. Glueck writes that much of this “wheelturned, kiln-baked ware was almost unbelievably thin, requiring high skills in its manufacture. It was beautifully decorated with sophisticated designs mainly of branches and leaves and fruits. Delicate rouletting was also a common form of ornamentation, and sigillata of Pergamene type was manufactured too” (1965: 6). Harding even describes it favorably in comparison to porcelain, writing that it is “even more remarkable than porcelain in some ways, for it is all thrown on the wheel and turned, or smoothed down afterwards, whereas porcelain is cast in a mould” (1967: 119). While this distinctive pottery style has proven invaluable as a horizon style, it has played only a limited role in the investigation of the Small Temple. Very few fragments were discovered in relevant contexts at the site, and it is entirely likely that the vast majority simply washed into the site (presumably from al-Katute) after the abandonment of the site.

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 23

1.7

PETRA: THE NABATAEAN CAPITAL

1.7.1 Nabataean Petra Petra’s location gave it some natural defensibility, although at first glance this appears counterintuitive as the city is located at the bottom of a valley, rather than on the heights. Entrance through the narrow Siq, however, was able to provide some sense of security. Another obstacle for the maintenance of a stationary population is that of water supply. While there are springs, notably ‘Ain Musa located six kilometers east of Petra (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 57), it is through intelligent and resourceful water management that a city of population of 20,000 to 30,000 (Joukowsky 1998b: 21) could have been supported. Much of the surrounding landscape is rock and impermeable to water. While the need for water in such an arid environment is great, too much can be as harmful as too little, as winter rains can produce flash flooding. Joukowsky notes: Among the most remarkable of Nabataean achievements are the hydraulic engineering systems they developed for water conservation. Utilizing their ingenuity, they constructed dams, terraces, and aqueducts to divert and harness the rush of swollen winter waters. In addition to dams and great tunnels, the Nabataeans constructed a brilliant engineering system to divert the flash flood waters around the rugged Jabal Al-Khubtha mountain so they could bring this precious resource of the Wadi Al-Mudhlim into the city via the Wadi al-Mataha. The Nabataeans also tapped water found in the mountain springs surrounding the city and they diverted it to Petra by a complex series of channels and pipes. In the interests of water conservation, they harnessed and stored this critical commodity in extensive reservoirs and cisterns. (1998b: 5)

Among the excavated buildings in Petra’s center, many show evidence of canalization and cisterns beneath, including the Great Temple, and the Lower Market (actually a paradeisos, to be discussed in §1.8), demonstrating the Nabataean commitment to water management. Covered channels carved into the walls of the Siq not only conserved water, but helped to prevent deadly flooding (J. Taylor 2001: 84-85). McKenzie’s (1990) grouping of Petra’s monuments based on architectural decoration has provided a relative chronology of construction in both the civic and religious centers of the city. Petra’s major

24

THE SMALL TEMPLE

architectural elements, both tombs and city buildings, many of which are discussed in §1.8, were built largely between the first century BCE and the first century CE. Even though the height of construction in Petra preceded Roman annexation, there was certainly further growth in the city in later periods. Three Christian churches were constructed at different times on the north side of the Colonnaded Street, and Petra eventually became the seat of a bishopric (Bikai 2002). It is likely that shortly after Petra’s annexation by the Roman Empire in 106 CE, the Small Temple was built within the Temenos enclosure of the Qasr al-Bint. Millar points out that while few of the tomb façades of Petra include datable inscriptions, stylistic comparisons between the tombs of Petra and those of the Nabataean city of Meda’in Saleh (in modern-day Saudi Arabia), many of which are inscribed with dates, suggest that the majority of Petra’s architecture was completed prior to Roman annexation (Millar 1993: 406). 1.7.2 Petra under the Romans Pompey’s arrival in the Near East in 63 BCE effectively marked the end of Nabataean independence when it became a client kingdom. In 40 BCE Petra also felt the far reach of Rome when the Nabataeans made the mistake of siding with the Parthians against Rome in her attempt to conquer Palestine. Petra was forced to pay fines to Rome after the Parthians were defeated. In 106 CE, Nabataea was formally annexed during the reign of the emperor Trajan and became part of the Roman Empire (then at its greatest extent). The days of an autonomous Nabataean kingdom were over. The initial impact of the annexation, however, seems to have been minimal, as monumental buildings continued to be erected even though the local state structure had been replaced by an imperial power. The Romans, of course, had their own view of their presence in the Near East. Of archaeological interest are the Roman limites, or fortified lines of defense on the eastern edges of the frontier, east of the Dead Sea (S. Parker 1987: 152). Parker suggests that the Roman motivation for the limes was primarily fear of nomadic uprisings, although “it is difficult to judge the success of the frontier system except in general terms. The literary sources sometimes refer to particularly serious nomadic incursions, but there was no reason to mention the provincial defenses when these functioned effectively” (153). In contrast to Parker, Wheeler romantically writes that the “boundaries

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 25 of the Empire, particularly in the East, were sufficiently fluid to ensure a constant awareness of more distant horizons, of greater riches, more marvels, fresh menaces” (1955:15). To him the limes was less the boundary between friend and foe than a line separating Roman haves from non-Roman have-nots. Despite the nervousness exhibited by the Romans in the construction of their limites, the Romans also likely reinvigorated and restructured the area and insisted on taking advantage of this already established locale for economic gain; this was a primary explanation for their interest in the region in the first place. 1.7.3 Petra and Bostra Bowersock contends that the Nabataean “transference of the capital to Bostra had been long coming and was a reflection of the ever increasing sedentarization of the Nabataeans in the north as the commercial role of Petra was diminished” (1983: 73). As mentioned in §1.4.1, discovery of the monsoons may have had a role in this change. Under the name Nova Traiana Bostra, Bostra became the garrison town of the Third Cyrenaica Legion (W. Ball 2001: 198). Nabataean trade successes encouraged expansionism, and by the reign of Malichus II the northern areas around Damascus were increasingly considered part of Nabataean territory; the possible transfer of the Nabataean capital from Petra to Bostra may have been considered a mark of this shifting of attentions (ibid. 63). Such a move would also have placed the Nabataean capital within the enclave of the Decapolis, the name given to a group of Greek cities (originally ten in number) located between Philadelphia (modern-day Amman) and Damascus (S. Parker 1975: 440–41). Despite Bowersock’s certainty, there is some debate over whether Petra did, in fact, lose its position as the Nabataean capital. The evidence on which he bases this move is an inscription from 93 CE that describes Rabbel as “our lord who is at Bostra” (1983: 73). Controversy aside, Emperor Trajan nonetheless granted Petra the title of metropolis by 114, suggesting to Bowersock that the placement of the provincial capital at Bostra was not intended to detract from Petra’s position as a trade center for the southern part of the province (ibid. 85). Regardless of whether the Nabataeans chose to move their capital to Bostra, there is no doubt that the Romans chose Bostra as the capital of Provincia Arabia upon its annexation.

26

THE SMALL TEMPLE

While archaeological evidence fails to fully bear out Bowersock’s assertion that the title of metropolis was granted to soften the blow of the change in capital, it has been able to confirm Petra’s continued role in trade. D. J. Johnson discusses the distribution of piriform unguentaria from Petra, used to store and transport perfume oils, some found as far away as Jerusalem. The unguentaria show a change in style over time, with a third grouping corresponding to the second to third centuries CE, and the fourth and latest group after the first quarter of the third century (1987: 53–64). It seems clear that the perfume trade, at least, thrived in Petra despite the change in capital. The emperor Hadrian also made sure to take official notice of Petra, and at the same time to associate his name with a city in Provincia Arabia during his travels in Palestine and Syria between 129 and 130. Bostra by this time officially bore the name Nova Traiana Bostra, so Hadrian awarded Petra the epithet Hadrianē (Bowersock 1983: 110). The newly created Roman province might have given Bostra the status that the Nabataean kingdom had not. The Petra versus Bostra debate in this sphere concerns which city became the administrative center for the first governor of the province (Bowersock 2003: 23).4 Bowersock acknowledges the confusion surrounding this argument with three pieces of evidence: Petra’s title of metropolis from 114 CE, the identification of the Roman legionary camp at Bostra, and a Nabataean inscription declaring “year three of the governor of Bostra” (2003: 23). While the first item suggests the governor was likely to have been located at Petra, the second and third are more favorable toward Bostra. Regardless of the location of the Nabataean capital or the Roman governor, Petra and Bostra were the two major cities of the Nabataean kingdom. The Roman annexation marked the beginning of new construction in Bostra, which soon saw the addition of a theater to the city and other improvements on the west side of the cardo maximus (Bowersock 1983: 112). Petra saw fewer architectural changes than did Bostra but at that time remained, nonetheless, a city worthy of comparison.

4

There is no doubt, however, that Bostra ultimately became the seat of the governor for the province.

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 27 1.7.4 Petra after the Roman Period The Byzantine period, from the fourth to sixth centuries, saw the widespread introduction of Christianity to the area and the shift of the seat of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople. Petra, no longer considered part of Provincia Arabia, became the capital of a province of the eastern Roman Empire, called Palestine Salutaris/Tertia (Joukowsky 1998b: 27). A Byzantine renaissance took the form of rebuilding and renovation, and many Nabataean structures were rebuilt and/or reused—a testament to their engineering achievements (Glueck 1965: 519). In 363, an earthquake destroyed much of Petra and was the beginning of a more drastic decline (El-Isa 1985; Russell 1980). There is, however, evidence that the post-earthquake decline has perhaps been exaggerated. Excavations at the Petra Church uncovered 140 carbonized papyrus rolls destroyed in a fire of the early seventh century (Fiema 1998; Koenen, Daniel, and Gagos 2003; Lehtinen 2002). Examination of the rolls, several still in the process of being conserved and deciphered, has revealed a sixth-century corpus written in Byzantine Greek concerning the taxation and property transactions of the family of Theodoros son of Obodianos (Koenen, Daniel, and Gagos 2003: 250; Lehtinen 2002: 278). The three Petra churches (mentioned in §1.7.1) and the economic activities discussed in the papyri suggest that city’s decline was not necessarily as abrupt as has often been presented. In 636, the Muslim Conquest marked the beginning of the Islamic period. Petra and the area of the former Nabataean Kingdom fell to the conquest sometime between 630 and 640. The Islamic occupation of Petra left little material evidence. During the rule of the Umayyad Dynasty in the late seventh to early eighth centuries, Petra was on the route from Damascus to Mecca. The shift of the Abbasid Dynasty’s court to Baghdad, however, reduced the importance of Petra, and poverty quickly followed (Joukowsky 1998b: 28). In the twelfth century, Crusaders built an outpost in Petra with a fortress on top of al-Habis, the rocky outcrop west of the Qasr alBint, which itself was later converted into stables. The Crusaders were forced to abandon their settlement to Saladin and retreat to the Mediterranean in 1189 (Joukowsky 1998b: 28–30). In 1276, Petra was visited by Sultan Baibars and his chronicler, Nuwairi, as the sultan journeyed from Cairo to Kerak. Nuwairi’s account describes the tomb façades of the Siq, indicating that even at

28

THE SMALL TEMPLE

this late date the site of Petra had not yet been forgotten, at least in the east, although its name may have been lost by this time (Browning 1989: 63–65). Petra came under Ottoman rule in the sixteenth century, although by this time the site appears to have been entirely overlooked. Starting in the seventeenth century, the Near East again became accessible to Europeans. There was a growing curiosity about different cultures and customs in general, and specifically those of the Near East, in part because of its association with the Bible. Men traveling in Arab disguise piqued the romantic interest of the armchair explorer and engaged imperial interest, considering both potential economic opportunity as well as possible political control (Eickelman 1989: 27). The reports of early adventurers set the tone for future investigations. One such explorer was Johann Ludwig Burckhardt, who volunteered for the Association for Promoting the Discovery of the Interior Parts of Africa in the early nineteenth century. Using an assumed name and wearing local dress, his travels eventually took him to the vicinity of Petra. In his account in Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, Burckhardt remarked upon seeing the impressive façade of alKhazna, “My guide told me that no antiquities existed in these valleys, but the testimony of these people on such subjects is little to be relied” (1822: 424).

1.8

ARCHITECTURE IN PETRA

Throughout Petra, both the façades and the free-standing buildings give indication that Nabataean architecture reflected a combination of local and imported characteristics (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 82). W. Ball notes that practically all of the “major building work at Petra was completed before the Roman annexation of AD 106. This not only included the more Nabataean and non-classical types of building—most notably the majority of the tomb façades and the temples—but also the more ‘Roman’ styles of building, such as the theatre and the colonnaded street” (2001: 64, 67). Starting at the Siq entrance to the city, this admixture of architectural styles, as well as pantheons, can be seen in the architecture, from the rock-cut façades of the spectacular tombs to the ruins of the once free-standing buildings, many now undergoing excavation and investigation (map 3). The Nabataeans, for example, “borrowed the use of the engaged or blind colonnade in the interior of a building from their neighbors, as

Key. A. Qasr al Bint; B. Small Temple; C. Temenos Gate; E. Baths; G./H. Great Temple; K. Colonnaded Street; L. Paradeisos (Lower Market); M. Middle Market; N. Upper Market; U. Temple of the Winged Lions; W. Petra Church; X. Blue Chapel; Y. Ridge Church.

Map 3. The Petra city center.

Map 3. Map of the Petra city center (used with permission).

Map copyright © 2002, Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, American Center of Oriental Research, & Hashemite University

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 29

30

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 4. View of the Petra city center to the west.

can be seen in the Temple of the Winged Lions. Sometimes they used it in the facade, as in the Qasr al-Bint, with either real or false pediment, and a portico enclosing a courtyard or sheltering annexes” (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 83). The following discussion is organized around the order in which a traveler, perhaps accompanying a caravan of goods for trade, would encounter Petra’s monuments and buildings (fig. 4). The entrance to Petra is through the Siq (fig. 5), a narrow, dramatic gorge between sandstone cliffs that leads to the most famous of Petra’s monuments, al-Khasna, and then opens up to a partially colonnaded processional way around which many of Petra’s freestanding buildings (including the Small Temple) are clustered. The beginning of the Siq is marked by the two Djin Blocks. Carved directly into the sandstone cliff face, al-Khasna (fig. 6) is without question the most famous monument in Petra, having been immortalized in poem, painting, photograph, and film. The structure has also sometimes been referred to as “The Treasury” because the urn near the top of the façade was rumored to contain gold. The many bulletholes that pock the urn attest to the belief in this legend, one that bears no relationship to the Khasna’s original purpose. The structure, in all likelihood a funerary monument, is an amalgam of this legend, one that bears no relationship to the Khasna’s original purpose. The structure, in all likelihood a funerary monument, is an

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 31

Figure 5. The entrance to the Siq.

amalgam of architectural characteristics and deities, with a female figure poised in the tholos (fig. 7), or central circular structure, with a carved badge at her feet displaying the device of Isis, goddess of the Egyptian pantheon (Joukowsky 1998b: 8). Other figures depicted in-

32

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 6. The façade of al-Khasna.

clude men mounted on horses, possible Amazons, and eagles. The lower level of the façade has six columns with Corinthian capitals, four of them beneath a triangular pediment. The upper level is divided into three sections, a central tholos flanked by two halves of a broken pediment. Through the main entry is a large, twelve-metersquare central chamber, with small rooms on either side, and a third

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 33

Figure 7. Tholos on al-Khasna.

in the back. There are also two additional rooms that are accessed through doorways under the central colonnade. The dating of this sophisticated façade is still debated. Many scholars have attempted to date the Khasna through comparison to soundly dated architectural features, although much of this comparative data has not been from the Petra area, and this has led to dates

34

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 8. The Roman Theater in Petra.

Figure 9. The Palace Tomb.

ranging from the first century BCE to the second century CE (McKenzie 1990: 4, 7). McKenzie has placed the buildings and monuments of Petra in groups based on the details of their architectural decoration and includes the Khasna in a group with the Qasr alBint, which has a terminus ante quem of the beginning of the first century CE (40) and suggests that it be dated “as early as 96/92 B.C. or earlier” (51). Gelb, however, suggests that the Khasna instead dates to

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 35

Figure 10. The Corinthian Tomb.

the Hadrianic period and was constructed in honor of Hadrian’s visit to Petra in 130 CE, based in part on an analysis of its architectural decoration, such as Corinthian capitals, that she argues were foreign to the Nabataean decorative tradition (2003). The Main Theater is the next major architectural feature to come into view after the Khasna. Excavated in the early 1960s by P. Hammond, the theater (fig. 8), containing 45 rows of seats with a seating capacity of 7,000 to 10,000 people (McKenzie 1990: 144), is almost entirely carved out of the rock face. P. Hammond dates the structure to the first century BCE, during Nabataean rule (1973: 51; Joukowsky 1998b: 8). Past the Main Theater is an area called the Royal Tombs, a series of rock-cut façades in the western flank of Jabal al-Khubtha, including the well-known Palace, Corinthian, and Urn Tombs (figs. 9–11). All exhibit various stages of weathering and collapse, with the Corinthian Tomb faring the worst of the group. While it seems logical to attribute this group of tombs to the Nabataean kings, thus far there is no convincing evidence to identify any specific members of the royal family (Wenning 2003: 137). The Colonnaded Street (fig. 12), an east–west street along the south side of the Wadi Musa, is a characteristic urban planning feature of many cities of the Roman Near East, “serving to unify space and to give the pedestrian the sense of a grand, coherent urban structure” (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 76). The paved street is six meters

36

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 11. The Urn Tomb.

wide and flanked by wide pavements upon which sandstone columns with Attic bases stood (McKenzie 1990: 131–32). The street, which acted as a market and center of activity, was probably built during the Nabataean period as a sand or gravel path and enlarged and paved in the early second century CE (Kanellopoulos 2001: 9, 14). Interestingly, the columns for which the Colonnaded Street is named may not have extended its entire length, instead being limited to its eastern

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 37

Figure 12. View of the Colonnaded Street to the west.

Figure 13. View of the Upper, Middle, and Lower (Paradeisos) Markets to the south.

section, with the transition occurring between the Middle and Lower Markets (Zimmerman 2000). A large area south of the Colonnaded Street has traditionally been considered the marketplace, consisting of three separate areas called the Upper, Middle, and Lower Markets (fig. 13). This identification was based primarily on the belief that, as an important entrepôt,

38

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 14. View of the Lower Market (Paradeisos) to the north.

Petra would have been expected to possess open spaces for trade (Bedal 2004: 39). While the Upper and Middle Markets have not been thoroughly investigated, excavations at the south side of the Colonnaded Street at the east end have revealed several small shops (Fiema 2002: 198). Excavations in the area of the Lower Market revealed some surprising results. The area was excavated by L.-A. Bedal in 1998, at which time it was revealed to be something quite different: a paradeisos or pool complex with associated gardens (2004) (fig. 14). Bedal proposes the construction of the pool (with an island pavilion in the middle) sometime during the first century BCE, during the reign of Aretas IV, with renovations in the early second century CE after the Roman annexation (2004: 72). The presence of a pool and garden, both requiring the extravagant use of water in an arid region, both highlights Nabataean mastery of water collection and management and “would have delivered a powerful statement to merchants and foreign delegates passing through the city. … Citizens and visitors alike would have been impressed by the gratuitous display of conspicuous consumption” (Bedal 2001: 39). Adjacent to the paradeisos, to the west, is a structure known as the Great Temple (fig. 15). Excavated since 1993 under the direction of M. S. Joukowsky, the building’s identification as a religious structure has sometimes been controversial, especially in light of the discovery of a central internal theater during the 1997 season, with

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 39

Figure 15. View of the Great Temple to the south.

seating capacity for roughly 600 (Joukowsky 1998b: 11, 2000; Joukowsky and Basile 2001). The precinct includes a propylaeum, lower and upper temenoi (with staircases connecting the two in the east and west), and the temple proper (Joukowsky and Basile 2001: 43). The temple exhibits typical Nabataean architecture and is tetrastyle in antis, with solid outer walls and four columns on the porch (Schluntz 1998:

40

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 16. View of central Petra to the south.

210). The lower temenos is flanked on east and west by a triple colonnade, the columns of which were once capped with Asian elephantheaded capitals (Joukowsky and Basile 2001: 47), in a variation on the traditional Ionic capital. Initially built in the last quarter of the first century BCE, it was subsequently modified with the addition of the theater and intercolumnar walls built between the columns surrounding the main structure, possibly some time in the first century CE (Joukowsky 2003: 221–22). The so-called Bath Complex, west of the Great Temple, is identified as such on early maps of the city, although at the present time there is little to support such a firm identification (fig. 16). The complex consists of a “circular chamber with an adjoining square chamber and staircase” (McKenzie 1990). The entire complex is buried underground, although there has been some investigation of the circular chamber, which has been accessed through an oculus in the dome that caps it. The lack of expected bath-related artifacts, such as hypocaust tiles, does little to support the traditional designation of the area, although only future excavations can provide more certainty. The Small Temple, the focus of this work, is located between the Baths and the Great Temple to the east, the Qasr al-Bint to the west, and the Temenos to the north (fig. 17). The Temenos Gate is a triple-arched gateway that marks the entrance to the precinct, or Temenos, of the Qasr al-Bint (fig. 18). The

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 41

Figure 17. View of the Great Temple, Small Temple (labeled), and Qasr alBint to the southwest.

Figure 18. View of the Temenos Gate to the west.

Temenos itself, a sacred area, is 150 m in length with a “row of wellpreserved benches, where there is an inscription for the statue of Aretas IV, [that] borders the south side of the precinct, and on the west is a well-constructed exedra” (Joukowsky 1998b: 11). Sockets, door hinges, and bolts in the gate suggest that it once could have been closed, separating the commercial and religious parts of the city (McKenzie 1990: 133). The gate was constructed some time after the

42

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 19. Aerial view of the Qasr al-Bint to the southwest.

Colonnaded Street, with a terminus post quem of 76 CE (ibid. 134). In the 1964 campaign, Parr discovered an inscription from the reign of Aretas IV in the Temenos area of the Qasr al-Bint in which Aretas takes the credit for the construction of the Temenos (Joukowsky 1998b: 25).

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 43

Figure 20. Aerial view of ez-Zantur to the east.

The Qasr al-Bint is one of the largest free-standing buildings in Petra and is located west of the Colonnaded Street, at the western end of the Temenos, at the foot of al-Habis (Wright 1961: 10) (fig. 19). Constructed no later than the early first century CE (Parr 1967– 68: 16), this tetrastyle in antis temple with the wide cella was dedicated to Dushara (Joukowsky 1998b: 11) and approached by marble-faced steps (McKenzie 1990: 136). The ez-Zantur district, located on the al-Katute ridge to the south of the Great Temple, is the location of several structures unusual in Petra because they represent the remains of private dwellings rather than religious buildings (Kolb, Keller, and Brogli 1997; Kolb, Keller, and Gerber 1998). Excavations in the area during the 1990s have revealed three major phases, beginning with seasonal encampments of the second century BCE followed by a stone construction, and culminating in a well-appointed house including mosaics and frescoes from the first century BCE (Augé and Dentzer 2000: 72) (fig. 20). Across the street, the Temple of the Winged Lions has been excavated under the direction of P. Hammond intermittently over the last three decades (fig. 21). Located on the north side of the Wadi Musa, this Nabataean temple, named for the winged lions adorning its column capitals, is dedicated to either the goddess Allat or al‘Uzza and was built in the early first century CE (P. Hammond 2003: 224). Distinct work areas dedicated to the maintenance and repair ac-

44

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 21. Aerial view of the Temple of the Winged Lions to the south.

tivities required by the temple itself were discovered in the west complex of the temple area (P. Hammond 1987: 129). Last is ad-Dayr, also commonly known as the Monastery, the largest rock-cut monument in Petra, although it is located some distance away and above the city center near the top of Jabal ad-Dayr (McKenzie 1990: 161) (fig. 22). The two-story façade, like that of al-

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 45

Figure 22. View of ad-Dayr.

Khasna, has a broken pediment flanking a tholos in its upper level. The Dayr, unlike al-Khasna, has niches for statues and sculptural elements, now gone. Also unlike the Khasna, the Dayr is totally aniconic, without human or vegetal representation, instead decorated with a simple Doric frieze of alternating triglyphs and metopes (J. Taylor 2001: 94). Probably carved sometime between 40 and 70 CE (Joukowsky 1998b: 12), the Dayr once included a colonnade “at right

46

THE SMALL TEMPLE

angles to the façade, from which some drums with stuccoed cabled fluting … and their foundation wall survive” (McKenzie 1990: 161).

1.9

PREVIOUS RESEARCH AT THE SMALL TEMPLE

Burckhardt’s journeys of the early nineteenth century marked the formal reintroduction of the Western world to Petra, although he did not himself either see or report on the Small Temple. While the Small Temple has appeared on several maps and plans of the city of Petra since the first decade of the twentieth century, there has been little previous research at the site, although there has been some speculation about the use and function of the structure over the years. The first Western mention of the building appears to have been on a 1904 map in the first volume of Brünnow and Domaszewski’s Die Provincia Arabia, labeling the structure as the “Kleiner Tempel” (McKenzie 1990: map 5). An early, but brief, discussion of the building, then called “Der prostyle Hexastylos,” appears in 1921 (Wiegand 1921: 48–49). The earlier name, now translated directly into English as the “Small Temple,” however, is the more common moniker on maps and in texts until the present day. In Wiegand’s discussion of “Der prostyle Hexastylos,” as part of his work with Bachmann and Watzinger, he describes the precinct as a terrace on which the main structure sits and above which it rises another three meters. He goes on to discuss the basic dimensions of the building; the north wall with a length of approximately 15.50 m, wall thickness at 1.24 m. Interestingly, he also mentions that the inside of the building, the cella, is roughly square, measuring approximately twelve meters on a side, yet the accompanying diagram shows the plan of a distinctly rectangular interior, approximately 10.50 m north to south, and 13.20 m east to west. The column plinths that define the hexastyle nature of the portico are described as each consisting of two blocks, which has been confirmed by the author’s investigations. For the architectural decoration of the building, Wiegand describes acanthus leaf column capital fragments and strongly suggests the use of the Corinthian order throughout. He also presents a building in a state of deplorable ruin and closes by describing the overall execution of the building as crude and derivative (ibid.). Browning’s brief discussion of the Small Temple (although he does not quite present it by name) is less judgmental of its architectural qualities than is Wiegand’s. Browning mentions a building he describes as a “small ‘protostyle’ temple” [sic] and proceeds to pro-

NABATAEANS, PETRA, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD 47 pose a relationship between this building and a low platform abutted against the north face of the Temenos Wall. He suggests that this platform could be the remains of a staircase leading to the temple, with their common axes of construction. Browning, however, also notes that this theory would entail the steps originally passing over the top of the wall or through it if the wall had been carried to any great height. There is no indication in the stonework to suggest that a flight of steps was ever integrated into the wall or had abutted it, which leads one to conclude that the original steps were dismantled when the present Temenos South Wall was built, leaving only the bottom steps. The small temple would then have been isolated from the precinct and without direct access to it. This suggests that the temple and the platform under discussion are of an earlier date than the South Wall. (1989: 160)

McKenzie in her seminal work The Architecture of Petra briefly mentions the building she calls “Wiegand’s ‘Small Temple” because of its association with several other free-standing buildings of similar alignment in the center of Petra. The Small Temple shares an alignment with the Temenos Bench (abutted by the Temenos Wall to its south), the Qasr al-Bint, the Temple of the Winged Lions, and the Temenos Gate (McKenzie 1990: 34, 108). Since its initial identification, there has perhaps been one prior investigation in which the Small Temple was examined. In the mid 1980s a German expedition conducted a survey of downtown Petra.5 They left behind hundreds of architectural fragments labeled with an alphanumeric identification code in bright green paint. Whether or not these architectural fragments were moved from their findspots is uncertain. Eleven such painted fragments have been discovered during the three seasons of excavation at the Small Temple, all beginning with the code “HS” followed by a numeral. In short, since the identification of the building between the Qasr al-Bint and the Temenos Gate, there has been only speculation accompanied by some minor physical examination of the area, but no full-scale excavation until the summer of 2000.

5 Very little is certain about either the activities or the date of this survey. Thanks to Manfred Lindner for providing some of the scant information regarding this project.

2 METHODOLOGY The goal of the excavation was to identify the purpose and era of construction of the Small Temple and the subsequent history of the structure, as well as to examine its relationship to other structures of central Petra and whether or not it exhibited characteristics that would allow it to be integrated into the political milieu at the beginning of the second century CE when Petra was officially annexed by the Roman Empire. Necessarily, once excavation began, certain unforeseen elements of the building’s structure and decoration became evident and raised their own questions. The major category of material find, identified within the first days of excavation at the site, was marble, a material not local to the area. Plain marble crustae (or revetment) fragments were followed by the discovery of architectural and inscribed fragments. The total number of marble fragments would eventually reach into the thousands. The surprising abundance of marble, a material strongly associated with the elite of the Roman Empire, led to the formation of more specific goals for the exploration of the site, especially relating to the phase of Petra’s Roman annexation. The presence of large quantities of marble with a Roman “stamp,” as it were, in the form of inscriptions, has led to the observation that many Roman characteristics are associated with the building, including the use of marble, the Latin language, and elements of Roman architecture. Can the examination of the architecture and the quantities of marble in its context at the Petra Small Temple clarify the relationships between the Romans and the Nabataeans, and the intended function of the building? Regardless of the impetus (Roman or Nabataean), it is obvious that the marble must have physically come from somewhere else. The nearest marble quarries are located in central Anatolia (Fischer 1998: 246), at least 1000 km distant as the crow flies. What does the presence of marble say about the patterns of 49

50

THE SMALL TEMPLE

trade, both within the Roman Empire itself and between the Roman Empire and the populations on its frontiers? The suggestion that the marble at the Petra Small Temple is likely to shed light on the relationship between the Romans and the Nabataeans is based on several facts: there are no geologic sources of marble anywhere near of Petra; by the middle of the first century CE the Romans controlled the marble trade in the Mediterranean (WardPerkins 1992b: 24); and in 106 the Romans officially annexed Petra. Moreover, marble had certain imperial connotations during the time of the Roman Empire (Fant 1988: 149; Fischer 1998: 49, 284), a further suggestion that this building had a role in mediating Roman– Nabataean relations. The marble makes an interesting case study because there is little to no evidence that it was a material favored by the Nabataeans, and its very nature meant it had to have been an import, which implies some sort of relationship with a trading network. Such a relationship would have required interaction with Romans, if not with the actual Roman imperial system, which would have been a necessity because of the Roman control of marble quarries throughout the Mediterranean region (Fant 1988; Fischer 1998: 41, 247, 284). Roman client rulers in the Levant appear to have rarely used marble, which further supports the idea that the use of the material had a particularly Roman connotation.6 There is also the likelihood that the building, at least in its later if not in its initial phases, was used as an imperial cult building, which raises new variations of the above questions of differentiation. The imperial cult, while Roman, is most commonly associated with the eastern Roman Empire, where ruler worship was believed to have long been an accepted concept (Adkins and Adkins 2000: 104).

2.1

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Before any trenches were opened at the Small Temple, a survey of all visible in situ architecture in the precinct was conducted. Surveying for all seasons was completed with the same Electronic Digital Mapping System (EDM) in use at the Great Temple. The EDM, a Topcon laser transit provided by the Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA) of the University of Pennsylvania, was operated by Brian A. Brown of the University of California at Berkeley 6

S. Thomas Parker, pers. comm., March 29, 2004.

METHODOLOGY

51

and Paul C. Zimmerman of MASCA. All survey data collected at the Small Temple was based on an established control point used at the Great Temple. This point, CP 104, is located south of the West Exedra wall of the Great Temple and has an elevation of 903.896 m. All in situ architecture within the precinct area was recorded by the EDM and used in the creation of accurate top plans. During the course of mapping of in situ blocks and the rolling away of out-of-situ blocks, there was the inescapable discovery of a range of small finds. Out of concern that these finds would be vulnerable to either exposure or overzealous tourists, they were collected and recorded. Because the bulk of the surveying was concentrated around the footprint of the structure itself, all of these material finds were discovered within the boundaries of the structure. This preliminary survey and all resultant material data were recorded as Trench 1. Of course, this survey in no way represented a trench in the usual sense of the word. The reason for this unorthodox nomenclature, calling this survey a “trench” despite the fact that there was no actual excavation, responded to the need to keep a detailed record of the survey that would be consistent with the data to be collected when excavation started in earnest. In particular, this method allowed for consistent recording of all artifacts discovered during the survey itself.

2.2

EXCAVATION STRATEGY

Excavation began after the preliminary survey work of 2000. A trench supervisor, occasionally with the help of an assistant, directed the excavation in each individual trench. Supervisors and assistants, all graduate and undergraduate students at Brown University, included the author (Small Temple supervisor, 2000–2002), Amanda G. Henry (2001–2), Steven J. Larson (2000, 2002), and Erin E. McCracken (2000). Three to eight workers completed the excavation team for each trench. The workers, without whom nothing would have been possible, were all men employed from nearby Bedouin villages and from the town of Wadi Musa. The excavation season of 2000 was very short, consisting of only eight days of fieldwork. Two trenches were opened during this time, both located along the north wall of the building: one trench inside the northeast corner of the building (Trench 2), and the second inside the north doorway, centered along the north wall (Trench 3). By contrast, the 2001 and 2002 seasons were full summer seasons of

52

THE SMALL TEMPLE

eight to ten weeks (see appendix 1 for a brief discussion of the trenches and a map of trench locations). During the 2000 and 2001 seasons, excavation was focused on identifying the dimensions and layout of the main structure. To achieve this end, all of the trenches were located either along the inside perimeter of the building or immediately outside the north wall. The abbreviated 2000 season saw the completion of Trench 1 (the first survey trench as discussed in §2.1) and two standard trenches. The first of these, Trench 2, was placed in the interior northeast corner of the building with the goals of locating the north and east walls of the structure and determining their levels of preservation. Trench 3 was placed in the center of the north wall in order to find the threshold of the building, which would in turn be a first indication of the likely depth of deposit. The following season, the summer of 2001, saw the excavation of an additional ten trenches. The primary goal for this season was to solidify our understanding of the basic dimensions of the building by excavating as much of the interior perimeter of the building as possible. Trenches 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 13 fulfilled this purpose. Two additional trenches, Trenches 9 and 12, were placed on the west and central portions of the portico respectively, in order to identify the extent of the platform on which the building had been constructed. Lastly, there were two additional survey trenches during the 2001 season; Trenches 6 and 10, both concerned with the clearing of out-of-situ artifacts from the portico and the staircase respectively, much in the manner of the clearing and surveying of the main structure as part of Trench 1 in 2000. By the end of the 2001 season, the entire inside perimeter of the building had been cleared, with the exception of the inside northwest corner, as had the western two thirds of the portico. The 2002 season saw the completion of the excavation of the interior of the building and the portico and the first exploration of the outer precinct of the Small Temple. Trench 17, located against the exterior south wall of the building in the east, was placed so as to clear up any lingering doubts about the location of the south wall of the building. Trench 18, the largest trench of the season, served several purposes, including the exposure of the architecture of the east half of the portico, the determination of the relationship between the portico and staircase, the floor level and stratigraphy east of the portico, and the examination of the possibility that there may have been

METHODOLOGY

53

communication between the building’s substructure and the surrounding outer precinct by means of a doorway or other egress. Trench 19, which examined the substructure of the building from the inside, was intended to complement Trench 18. Trench 20, the removal of the interior rubble of the east platform, was excavated in order to explore the relationship between this platform and the exterior walls of the building, and also to more soundly place the relative dating of the addition of marble architectural and decorative elements. The final trench of the season, Trench 21, incorporated the entire staircase as well as a small portion of the courtyard for the purpose of examining the level of preservation of the stairs, and to find the depth of deposit in the courtyard.

2.3

SITE-FORMATION AND POST-DEPOSITIONAL PROCESSES AT THE SMALL TEMPLE

Schiffer has written an influential series of articles concerned with site-formation processes, the post-depositional fate of archaeological materials, and how an understanding of these factors can improve the researcher’s comprehension of a site’s history (1972, 1983, 1985). Over the course of excavation at the Small Temple, several of these factors came into play when interpreting the role of excavated material remains. Although Binford has challenged some of Schiffer’s hypotheses (1981), arguing, for example, that some events that Schiffer would consider to be cultural processes or transformations should merely be considered part of the processes of daily life. Furthermore, Binford believes it is naïve to think that archaeologists can truly take into account all formation processes that affect the archaeological record (Trigger 1989: 361). These criticisms aside, Schiffer’s observations should not be discounted because they at least provide archaeologists with an improved comprehension of the limits of the archaeological record (ibid. 387). In “Archaeological Context and Systemic Context,” Schiffer presents two types of “context,” writing that “Systemic context labels the condition of an element which is participating in a behavioral system. Archaeological context describes materials which have passed through a cultural system, and which are now the objects of investigation of archaeologists” (1972: 157). Before an archaeologist can attempt to analyze the archaeological context, it is necessary to con-

54

THE SMALL TEMPLE

sider the systemic. In other words, “How is the archaeological record formed by behavior in a cultural system” (156)? Deposition occurs during the transfer of the artifact from systemic to archaeological contexts. The systemic context can be divided into processes that include procurement, manufacture, use, maintenance-recycling, and discard (157–58). When considering the marble at the Small Temple, for example, it quickly becomes evident that its procurement can safely be assumed to have occurred elsewhere because there are no marble quarries in the area. Thus, the first process of systemic context occurring at the Small Temple relating to marble could have been that of ‘manufacture.’ Evidence of ‘recycling’ of marble at the Small Temple has been inferred through the discovery of reshaped marble fragments discovered as ‘discards’ among the shattered marble fill. In “Is There a ‘Pompeii Premise’ in Archaeology?” Schiffer presents five types of behavior that can “modify or ‘deplete’ de facto refuse relative to the systemic artifact inventory” (1985: 26). “De facto refuse” includes “elements which reach archaeological context without the performance of discard activities” (Schiffer 1972: 160). These behaviors include the transport and abandonment of items, the shift of used objects to different users, the reduction of household inventories in response to abandonment, scavenging and stockpiling from a site after its abandonment, and looting (both historic and modern) (Schiffer 1985: 26–28). Several examples of these categorical behaviors at the Small Temple are discussed throughout. Lastly, the site morphology reflects natural as well as cultural formation processes and includes factors such as “mound slope, furrows and plow scars, and potholes” (Schiffer 1983: 692). The slope of the sediment deposit at the Small Temple, decreasing from south to north, is presumably a reflection of the predominant direction of sediment flow from the north face of al-Katute, located south of the precinct. Plow marks and other indications of agricultural activity, evident at many locations in Petra, were largely absent at the Small Temple, however. But there is anecdotal evidence of relatively recent agricultural activity at the Small Temple (to be discussed in §3.3.12).

METHODOLOGY

2.4

55

FIELD NOTEBOOK AND RECORDING

2.4.1 Recording Conventions The field notebook and reporting procedures are the same as those developed by M. S. Joukowsky for use at the Great Temple, with the addition of one form specifically to be used for inscription fragments and another form to cover all miscellaneous activity. The site code for the Small Temple is “PLT,” meant to signify the Petra Little Temple. The code remained even though eventually the site name reverted back to the historical Petra Small Temple for the sake of continuity.7 The most important control, common to all of the various forms, is an identifying feature called a “Sequence Number,” often abbreviated as “Seq. No.” or sometimes merely as “SN” on the forms. Joukowsky succinctly describes the Sequence Number as a number “allocated as a distinct serial number to each form used, thereby tracing the sequence of the excavation and recording as data is recovered. Every record carries its own sequence number which is also a discrete (i.e., not to be repeated) field number” (1998a: 58). Additionally, the Sequence Number denotes some “action,” be it the creation of a specific form in a notebook, the identification of a newly discovered artifact (e.g., an inscribed marble fragment), or the creation of a bucket for the collection of a specific type of material (e.g., pottery fragments from one locus on one day). By collecting these Sequence Numbers in one place, the Number Log (discussed in §2.4.1), it becomes possible to recreate in order the series of actions during the excavation of a trench. All Sequence Numbers consist of either four or five digits. In both cases, the digits in the thousands place represent the number of the trench in which the Sequence Number was assigned. For example, the Sequence Numbers 4056 and 15003 were assigned in Trenches 4 and 15, respectively. The final three digits represent the order in which the “action” took place. Sequence Number 4056 represents the fifty-sixth action taken in Trench 4. An unintended consequence of this system is that any trench requiring more than

7 The site code “PST” was unavailable because it has been in use at the Petra Great Temple since its excavation began in 1993, when the site was known as the Petra Southern Temple.

56

THE SMALL TEMPLE

999 actions will run out of available Sequence Numbers. In practice at the Small Temple, however, this limit has never been reached. The Small Temple excavation uses nine field forms to record different categories of information: the Number Log to record all Sequence Numbers in a trench, the Daily Field Form to record the activities of a single day, the Locus Form to record individual loci (defined as either a soil or an immovable architectural feature), the Architectural Fragment Form to record individual architectural elements such as column capitals or column drums, the Grosso Modo form to categorize and record material categories (e.g., pottery, bone, or glass) found in bulk, the Artifact Field Form to record objects deserving of special attention because of completeness or uniqueness (e.g., complete pottery vessels, or coins), the Inscriptions Artifact Field Form used to record all inscription fragments, the Miscellaneous Form (created for use at the Small Temple) to fill any unforeseen needs in recording that could not be met by any of the preexisting recording forms (such as interviews), and the Burial Form, which still remains unused at the Small Temple. In addition to a Sequence Number, each object recorded on an Artifact Field Form is later assigned a second, unique identifier in the form of a Catalog ID. Objects were given catalog identification codes according to the scheme year–material code–object number PLT, as applied to all artifacts recovered at the Small Temple. Thus, an inscription fragment recovered in the 2001 season could receive the Catalog ID 01-I-1 PLT, where I is the material code for an inscription, and PLT is the site identifier for the Small Temple. The use of these forms guarantees that the desired information is recorded by the trench supervisor with maximum uniformity despite different individual styles. Each trench requires its own Field Notebook and set of forms, which are closed at the completion of the trench. 2.4.2 Trench Reports After the closure of each individual trench, the Trench supervisor writes a formal report, incorporating brief descriptions of all loci presented in phases, all material finds sorted by locus, and the supervisor’s interpretations and hypotheses related both to the trench and to the site as a whole.

METHODOLOGY

57

2.4.3 Images Several types of images have been used to depict objects and architecture of the Small Temple. All trenches were photographed in black-and-white and color, as were all Special Find objects. All photographs include scales, north arrows where appropriate, and identifying information in the frame. Small objects, including Special Finds and Architectural Fragments, were drawn by the excavator in pencil on the appropriate form at the time of their discovery. Important objects were drawn by the author or a staff artist associated with the Great Temple excavations. Within trenches, individual walls and balks were drawn to scale. These drawings were produced using one of two processes: the first used the stringing of a horizontal line and a plumb bob and ruler to facilitate drawing the wall or balk at a 1:20 scale. The second method was developed during the 2002 season by Pierre-Louis Bazin and Andrew R. Willis, both of the Brown University Division of Engineering SHAPE Lab, and was used exclusively for wall drawings.8 This method calls for a digital photograph to be taken of the wall with a calibration board used for scale. Later, with the assistance of a computer-based drawing program such as Wall-Drawer, the photograph is manipulated as necessary to the appropriate angle and scale to produce a 1:20 drawing. Another type of computerized scanning was performed on several objects from the Small Temple, including sculptural fragments as well as some of the more major inscription fragments. Conducted by Bazin and Willis, these objects were scanned as three-dimensional reproductions that can be manipulated and viewed from all angles. This method produces an extremely faithful reproduction of an object in all dimensions. At the end of the season the original objects were turned over to the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. At the end of each subsequent excavation season, backups are made of all visuals by scanning them into a computer, where they can be accessed and duplicated as necessary.

8 The SHAPE (SHape, Archaeology, Photogrammetry, Entropy) Lab is working to develop new forms of computer modeling and research software.

58

THE SMALL TEMPLE

2.4.4 Databases After the 2000 season, the author created a relational database using FileMaker Pro 4.0 for Windows incorporating all of the data recorded in the trench Field Notebooks, as well as all drawings and photographs of the site and its material finds. The relational database provides the ability to make both wide and narrow search requests very quickly, and also serves as a backup. Should anything happen to the Field Notebooks, all of the data recorded therein is duplicated within this database. After the 2002 season the database was upgraded from FileMaker Pro 4.0 to FileMaker Pro 6, although this change has had no significant effect on the operations or mechanics of the database.

2.5

POST-EXCAVATION

2.5.1 Storage Post-excavation, material finds are housed in one of several locations. Special Finds deemed complete or otherwise of interest (with the exception of the marble) were turned over to the Jordanian Department of Antiquities at the Petra Museum, located near the Small Temple. Some material finds were reburied, due to storage constraints, in a specially dug trench south and west of the main building. Architectural fragments have been sorted into labeled crates by trench. Diagnostic pottery has been sorted into labeled bags by Sequence Number and then placed in crates. These crates are then buried. Nondiagnostic pottery, after being cataloged into the Grosso Modo form, is moved to a dump pile near the pottery processing area. Most of the remaining material finds of the Small Temple are in storage in a locked cave near the J. L. Burckhardt Archaeological Center, located in Petra. This collection of Small Temple material includes all plain and inscribed marble from all three excavation seasons (with the exception of two panels given to the museum, 02-I-1 PLT and 02-I-2 PLT) contained in 32 crates, the total material finds of the 2000 season in one crate, and another crate containing all bone, glass, lamps, metal, shell, stucco, and vegetal matter excavated in all three seasons.

METHODOLOGY

59

2.5.2 Consolidation At this time there has been no architectural consolidation or restoration at the site, although this may prove desirable at some point in the future. The northeast corner of the building, for example, may be a vulnerable point later requiring buttressing. Several categories of material finds, however, have received attention. All coins discovered at the Small Temple have been taken to the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) in Amman, where they have been cleaned for greater ease in identification. During the 2002 season, Naif Zibbin spent several weeks working with both the plain and inscribed marble from all excavation seasons, attempting to rejoin fragments and, as feasible, glue them back together. One refitting study in lithics distinguishes between three types of refits, based on production sequence, object modification, and both intentional and unintentional breakage (Cziesla 1990: 9). Refitting the inscriptions falls into the last of these three categories. This refitting effort was of great importance because of the extremely fragmentary nature of the inscriptions. The limited use of paleography meant that unless significant portions of the inscribed panels could be reconstructed for an analysis of the content of the inscription, the value of the inscription fragments for the interpretation of the Small Temple would be greatly diminished. Zibbin was particularly successful with the reconstruction of significant portions of a green marble panel (to be discussed in §4.2.2) broken into over forty inscribed fragments. Some of these individual fragments contained only single or partial letters, which became far more informative when seen in context with adjoining letters and thus words. 2.5.3 Analyses Most, but not all, of the physical and chemical analysis at the Small Temple was limited to the study of the marble using isotopic analysis, to be discussed in §4.1.2. All of the analyses were conducted in order to provide evidence relevant to the contention that the Small Temple was an imperial cult building of the post-annexation Roman era in Petra. Specifically, the intention was that these varied analyses would narrow down the date range in which it was built.

60

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 23. Aerial view of the Small Temple to the southwest.

3 THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION 3.1

TRENCHES AND STRATIGRAPHY

The Small Temple is situated on a flat plain, located between the base of the al-Katute to the south and the Temenos to the north (see map 3). The rise to the south effectively creates the southern border for the precinct. The north side of the precinct is bounded by the Temenos Wall, and the east by the remains of an unexcavated wall. There is no clear western boundary to the precinct, which currently stretches uninterrupted to the Qasr al-Bint. The complex incorporates two levels; the building itself located on the rise in the south, and the courtyard to the north (fig. 23). The inclined slope between the north side of the building and the south side of the courtyard initially appeared to be a staircase, offering access between the two levels, although after the 2002 excavation season, doubts about this have been raised. The approximate overall dimensions of the complex are 76 m (north–south) × 31 m (east– west), with a total area of 2356 m2, although the east–west measurement is necessarily a rough approximation. The total area represented by the combined main structure and portico is approximately 338 m2. Excavations in the first two seasons focused on the building itself and the adjacent portico to the north, while the third season of excavation moved into the surrounding precinct. The stratigraphy in the interior of the building generally followed a predictable, set pattern. The topsoil loci, or overburdens, were typically 0.50 to 1.50 m thick, sandy in texture, containing large, unshaped rocks and the occasional architectural fragment. Below the overburden was a thin layer of roof tile fill, usually less than 0.30 m thick, and consisting almost entirely of roof tile fragments, with the occasional marble revetment or inscription fragment. After the removal of the roof tile fill, marble (plain revetment, inscribed fragments, and carved into cornices) was found in abundance from this depth to the subfloor level, where excavation ended. This predictable 61

62

The Small Temple

stratigraphy did, however, show some variation with the excavation of two trenches, Trenches 15 and 16, in the center of the building, which produced a much smaller amount of marble fragments. The overburden encountered in the Small Temple precinct most probably washed in over the centuries from al-Katute.

3.2

ARCHITECTURE

3.2.1 Architectural Elements and Order The Small Temple, thus far, can be classified as a prostyle building, constructed on a raised platform with steps leading to a portico on one end (MacDonald 1986: 110). One heavily weathered red sandstone column drum, measuring 1.01 m in diameter, may have been identified in situ near the northeast corner of the portico. This drum is plausibly located where one might expect to find one of six columns across the front of the portico. Bachmann’s map, the result of his work with Watzinger and Wiegand, and later maps of the city center support this conclusion, although it is by no means definitive. Uncertainty about the architecture in the rear, or south, of the building may change the classification. If evidence of columns is later discovered in the south, the Small Temple would instead be classified as an amphiprostyle building, with a portico at each end. The exterior architectural decoration of the Small Temple is still uncertain. The scarcity of architectural elements may be the result of Bedouin agricultural practice in the area in recent decades, including plowing in the flatter areas of several sites and the removal of fragments that were revealed in the process. With the exception of several doorjamb capitals found in close proximity to the north doorway, no other large architectural fragments excavated at the Small Temple can be closely tied to any specific location of the complex, with the possible exception of the aforementioned column drum. Several other weathered sandstone column drums were found, but only seven were complete enough to determine diameter, ranging from 0.40 m to 1.01 m. Two large architectural fragments of interest were discovered outside the southwest corner of the building, in Trench 11. Both are deeply carved with vines, grape clusters, and grape leaves and may once have been part of a frieze, the middle part of the entablature molding. Unfortunately, the fragments are so damaged that it is difficult to judge their original dimensions.

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

63

Figure 24. Floral doorjamb capital (Seq. No. 10016).

The 139 limestone capital fragments strongly suggest the use of the Corinthian order at the Small Temple, although there are some notable exceptions. Several L-shaped doorjamb fragments discovered on the portico have a floral motif, with a floral frieze in the upper register and rosettes in the lower. The carving in the upper register bears a striking resemblance to the capital decoration from the Temenos Gate, to which McKenzie attributes a terminus post quem of ca. 76 ce (1990: 36, 39, pl. 47d). It is interesting to note that one of the doorjamb capitals (Seq. No. 10016) has three double-lobed fourpetaled rosettes and one single rosette with six petals (fig. 24). Despite the shared alignment of the Small Temple, the Qasr alBint to the west (probably constructed no later than the first century CE [McKenzie 1990: 35]), and the Baths to the east, it seems unwise to immediately jump to the conclusion that the Small Temple was constructed during the same time period as the other two. Many of the architectural features of the building are more in line with Roman characteristics than Nabataean. The portico columns that stand on pedestals rather than directly on the portico floor, and the use of the prostyle form, for example, are more Roman in style than Nabataean, although it is also important to remember that there is no reason that these “Roman characteristics” could not have been adopted before the annexation.

64

The Small Temple

3.2.2 Site Overview The Small Temple is a freestanding structure aligned on an axis approximately 18º east of north. The building is square, with an average wall thickness of 1.47 m and an axial length and width of 14.62 m. This axial measurement is almost the equivalent of 50 Roman feet (to be discussed in §6.2.2). While no definitive in situ column drums have been discovered on its hexastyle portico, two square pedestals on the east side of the portico identify their location. The main entry is in the north wall, although there is another, smaller doorway in the west. There may also be a doorway in the east wall, at the south end of the building, although this is still uncertain. The main threshold, centered in the north wall, measures 3.40 m in width and is constructed of two limestone ashlars, the western ashlar being considerably larger than the eastern. This threshold is flanked by unadorned, L-shaped doorjambs to the east and west that bond to their adjacent walls, preserved to a maximum height of 1.69 m. In the area north of the doorway, four decorated limestone doorjamb capitals were discovered, with an additional three doorjamb fragments found east of the north wall. Floral designs on the doorjambs incorporate pomegranate, flower, and vine motifs. While there cannot be complete certainty that these were once incorporated into the doorway, their measurements are consistent with the in situ doorjambs flanking the threshold. Before excavation began, all that was visible of the structure was a small but distinct squarish mound rising at least a meter above the surrounding landscape, with a defined portico area and an even descent on its north side suggesting a staircase. These characteristics defined the basic structure of the building prior to excavation. After the 2002 season of excavation, the hexastyle nature of the Small Temple became clear. There is currently no evidence of columns continuing around the sides and back of the building, thus ruling out a peristyle temple, nor does the building exhibit any antae. At this time, any determination of the original height of the building is largely conjecture. While Jones would suggest a 1:10 ratio between column diameter and height, which conforms to Roman metropolitan taste (2000: 73), Kanellopoulos instead advocates that a smaller ratio was in use in Petra, closer to 1:8 or 1:9 (2001: 16). He believes these ratios better reflect a trend that has been observed at several structures in Petra, including the Great Temple, Urn Tomb, and the Khasna itself (Kanellopoulos 2004). However, if the Small

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

65

Temple is in fact a Roman building in execution, it may instead have followed this Roman metropolitan preference for taller columns, as seen at first-century-CE structures such as the Temple of Bel in Palmyra (ibid.). The expected ratio between column diameter and entablature height may be estimated as 1:2.5.9 Thus, with column drums approximately 1 m in diameter (as based on the speculative in situ column drum mentioned in §3.2.1), it is reasonable to suggest that the hexastyle building had columns 8–10 m tall, with a total building height between 10.50 and 12.50 m (including the entablature). The reason to specifically mention building height “from the floor” is because of the surprising discovery during the 2002 season that the Small Temple had been built on a platform that raised it far above the level of its surrounding precinct. Trench 17, excavated south of the building, reached a depth of 1.45 m below the interior floor level without reaching any sort of original surface. Trenches north and east of the structure, such as Trench 18, eventually reached depths of 4.5 m before finally arriving at an original surface. It appears, then, that the building stood at least four meters above its own precinct. 3.2.3 Walls and Revetment The ashlars used in the building’s walls are roughly shaped sandstone and nonuniform in size. Along several interior walls, however, these rough ashlars are hidden by marble revetment. Different colors of marble, including gray-and-white and black-and-white, have been identified in situ, affixed to the walls with bronze clamps and a generous layer of mortar approximately 10 cm thick. The foundation walls of the building, however, display regular, large ashlars. Wall height is best preserved in the north, with a maximum height of 2.23 m, and at the poorest in the south, where it has almost totally disappeared. This difference in preservation between the north and south walls is likely due to the direction of winter flooding over the millennia. Winter floods would have washed sediment and debris down from al-Katute to the north. It appears that the force of the sediment wash destroyed the south wall, which collapsed inward, to the north. The wash then slowed and was deposited behind the north wall, which stayed more or less intact.

9

Judith McKenzie, pers. comm., October 6, 2002.

66

The Small Temple

It is interesting to note, however, that during the course of excavation of the interior of the building, relatively few ashlars were recovered; certainly not enough to account for the likely original height of the structure. It is possible that eventual excavation of the courtyard will reveal these missing ashlars, but it is also possible that over the centuries the Small Temple saw the gradual removal of these ashlars for reuse. The main structure rests on a stepped podium, most clearly visible on the exterior side of the west wall. One architectural feature of the exterior north wall may allude to the Nabataean setting of the building. While initially thought to be two pairs of “niches” in the north side of the north wall of the building, it seems more likely that they were meant to be looked at in the negative. That is, rather than defining the pair of indentations on each side of the main entry as points of focus, perhaps it is the pier between them (one on each side of the main entry) that instead deserves attention. If, in fact, the adornment on the north face of the Small Temple represents platforms rather than niches, this is an architectural component that appears more Nabataean in design than Roman, and it would have carried reliefs, in a parallel with the façade of the Nabataean temple complex at Khirbet et-Tannur (McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes 2002).10 Unfortunately, the low height of preservation of the north wall makes it difficult to distinguish between the intentional termination of the “piers” at a height that would definitively make them platforms, on the one hand, and destruction and collapse over time on the other. Almost all of the interior wall surfaces are plumb (with one exception in the interior southwest corner, to be discussed in §3.2.6), with no obvious pattern in ashlar color or size. The ashlar surfaces are rough and unfinished, suggesting that while the building was in use, at the very least the inside walls would have been plastered and/or revetted to cover this unevenness. Those walls extant at least to a third course display several holes drilled into the ashlars on the interior face. Some of these holes are plugged with bronze fragments, marble chips, or both. The holes are not all on the same horizontal line, but cluster around two separate heights (fig. 25).11 10 Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, pers. comm., September 12, 2002, and Judith McKenzie, pers. comm., October 6, 2002. 11 Some of the walls exhibit what could be considered a third register of

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

67

Figure 25.:South side of north wall, with ashlar holes, mortar, and in situ marble (Trench 4).

Figure 26. Fragmentary bronze clamps.

The lower register of holes clearly corresponds with the top edge of the marble revetment panels, some of which were discovered in situ in the interior northeast corner of the building, in Trenches 2 and 4. Of the in situ panels with the top edge preserved, several exhibit a V-shaped notch that lines up with an ashlar hole directly behind it. The presence of corroded bronze in some of these holes, green corrosion in the V-notches, and the discovery of 25 fragments ashlar holes. These holes do not appear to conform to a pattern and may represent the placement of individual inscribed panels rather than the regular placement of plain marble revetment.

68

The Small Temple

Figure 27. Typical marble cornice profile (with bolt hole) in two possible wall mounting positions.

of bronze clamps that align with both V-notch and ashlar hole clearly indicate that these holes served to hold bronze clamps (fig. 26) that in turn held the marble revetment in position. No more than two clamps appear to have been used for any given panel, even for the largest panel identified, measuring 0.91 m × 0.60 m × 0.02 m. The distance between clamps is 0.56 m, as indicated by a pair of Vnotches on the top edge of this panel. There is no evidence, either on the revetment panels or in the ashlar walls, to indicate the use of clamps anywhere but along the top edge of the revetment. Some of the in situ revetment shows a line of red paint, applied as a horizontal line, near the bottom of the tile. The purpose of this line is uncertain, although some possible explanations for these lines are presented in §4.1.3. In places where neither revetment nor plaster is present, drilled holes in the ashlars indicate their earlier existence. It is probable, then, considering the size and, more importantly, weight of these larger panels, that these relatively small clamps were only intended to help to position the panel, rather than to hold it in place against the wall (L. Ball 2002: 561). The generous use of mortar behind the marble revetment, sometimes as much as 10 cm thick, probably played a greater role than the clamps in keeping the panels firmly attached.

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

69

The upper register of holes is associated with the placement of marble cornices. However, unlike the revetment, not one cornice fragment has been discovered attached to any wall of the Small Temple. Of the 245 cornice fragments discovered, 30 fragments display one or more drilled holes on the bottom or back sides, some with green corrosion or bronze fragments still inside. These cornices, when placed on top of the in situ marble revetment, line up neatly with this upper register in the ashlar walls. Although there is still some uncertainty regarding the positioning of the cornices (fig. 27), there may have been an advantage to having mounted them flat side down. If the cornices had been mounted directly against the ashlars, as seems likely since no significant mortar accretions have been discovered at the second register level, the revetment mounted over a thick, 10-cm, layer of mortar would appear to neatly abut the front edge of the cornice. 3.2.4 Platforms Although there are no walls that bond or abut the inside walls of the main structure, the area is broken up by a series of three platforms of equal size, with one each centered on the east, west, and south walls. The original height of these platforms is still unknown. The width and positioning of the south platform line up neatly with the north doorway. The south and east platforms show evidence of having once been clad with marble revetment. The east platform still exhibits revetment in situ on its south side. This platform, the best preserved of the three, consists of two extant courses of ashlars forming its north, south, and west boundaries. Its interior fill includes several large architectural elements in reuse, including a fragment (Seq. No. 20006) that could credibly come from a column capital of the Great Temple, and three square ashlars (Seq. Nos. 5005, 20007, 20012) with a 0.16 m round hole in the center of each for an unknown purpose. The west platform is the most poorly preserved of the three, with its facing totally removed and only a packed cobble fill remaining. The south platform is difficult to evaluate. The south wall that the platform presumably once abutted is no longer extant, and even much of the platform fill is gone. However, despite the varying conditions of the three platforms, it is still possible to compare and con trast certain points of their construction, especially relating to the west and east platforms.

70

The Small Temple

Figure 28. Basins in the southwest corner of the Small Temple, looking to the west.

There is no evidence of either marble revetment or mortar on the walls behind the platforms, suggesting that the marble was not added until after the platforms were in place. 3.2.5 Basins A major architectural element in the building itself is a pair of marble and limestone basins in the southwest of the building (fig. 28). The two basins are roughly equal in size (although the west basin is slightly larger) and adjacent to each other (fig. 29). The west basin measures 2.57 m east–west, while the east basin is only 2.49 m. Both basins are

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

71

Figure 29. Southwest corner of the Small Temple.

1.09 m north–south and roughly 0.18 m deep (although the depth varies slightly). The volume of the west basin is thus 0.50 m3; of the east basin, 0.49 m3. A ledge constructed of yellowish fossiliferous limestone facing over a mortar core separates the two basins (fig. 30). The floor of the east basin is entirely paved with gray-and-white veined marble, while the west basin displays a continuation of this gray-and-white veined marble in its eastern portion, with the remainder paved with limestone slabs. The east edge of the east basin and the westernmost edge of the marble floor in the west basin line up exactly with the eastern and western extents of the south platform.

72

The Small Temple

Figure 30. Limestone ledge that separates the west and east basins.

It seems likely that the south platform stood independent of the early basin for at least a short period of time, because of the presence of marble veneer on the north side of the platform, behind the basin

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

73

wall. To place this marble only to have immediately covered it up would have been a waste of the resource. Later, when the second basin was built in the southwest corner of the building, it incorporated parts of the original basin. The addition of the second basin destroyed the symmetry of the building around its north–south axis. This was accomplished by removing the west wall of the original basin (the early basin), excavating into the subfloor west of the original basin, laying down additional basin floor in the newly excavated area, putting in new basin walls (in the north, south, and west only), and then dividing the single early basin into two separate basins by placing the limestone-faced ledge on the basin floor. There are several differences between these two basins that allow for such a certain distinction between the two. The new section of basin floor, added west of the original marble basin floor, is entirely composed of the same fossiliferous limestone laid in a brick-like pattern of small tiles. The walls of the west basin on the north, south, and west sides are variously composed of this same limestone, gray-and-white veined marble, and white marble. The floor of the early basin clearly goes underneath the ledge dividing the two basins. A final important element relating to the west basin concerns the marble used in the construction of its north wall. Three segments of the north wall of the west basin collapsed during the course of excavation in 2001. Two of these sections were inscribed in Greek on the back side, which indicates they were in secondary use. The level of preservation of these fragments, to be discussed in greater detail in §4.2.2, is quite high. Bright orange paint is still visible in the clearly cut letters. The existence and placement of several other architectural features are directly related to the expansion and division of this original basin. The construction of the west basin forced a significant architectural change in the southwest corner of the building in an area called the alcove. 3.2.6 The Alcove At the same time as the reconfiguration of the original basin into two basins, the west and south platforms were extended, destroying the original symmetry of the building and creating an alcove outside its southwest corner (see fig. 29). The alcove had to have been intentional

74

The Small Temple

Figure 31. Alcove looking to the northeast.

because its walls show evidence of marble cladding, including mortar, ashlar holes, and fragments of in situ marble against its east wall (fig. 31). Logic dictated that the south platform, which was clearly related to the original early basin, be expanded to the west in order to have the same relationship with the new west basin as well. The south platform was thus expanded to the west by the addition of a section of wall. Interestingly, this new wall segment west of the south platform was not constructed across the entire area between the south platform and the west wall, but only halfway across. The west platform was then expanded to the south to block the remaining western portion of this area. The result of these platform expansions, increasing the size of the south platform to the west and the west platform to the south, was to fill in the southwest corner of the building. There are a few loose ends relating to this area of the building and hints that these later builders may not have been expert craftsmen. First of all, the extended platforms neither abut nor bond in the southwest corner. There is actually a gap of at least 7 cm, which has been filled in with a very thick layer of mortar, perhaps to cover the mistake. Also, the expanded section of the west platform is oddly constructed. The bottom two courses protrude into the Small Temple interior several centimeters beyond the courses above. The mortar on the bottom courses is very thin here; only 3 cm as opposed to the usual 9 cm or 10 cm seen in the extant mortar in the rest of the building. The builders may have forgotten to take into account the thickness of the combined mortar and marble revetment (usually to-

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

75

taling 0.11–0.13 m in thickness) and how it would encroach on the interior dimensions of the building. By using a very thin layer of mortar, they were able to reclaim some of this space. The upper courses that have been set further back may reflect an attempt to correct the mistake, allowing for the usual thickness of mortar (Reid 2002: 374– 75). The seeming shoddiness and improvisational nature of these alterations is a reminder that while the “mutable character of the design process is self-evident to architects, … it may be less obvious to others. Archaeologists and historians tend to address the subject as a fait accompli rather than a process” (Jones 2000: 50). It is clear that marble revetment was still a decorative element of the Small Temple at the time these modifications were made in the southwest corner. Even though little to no in situ marble is preserved on the platform additions, drilled holes in their constituent ashlars indicate the placement of clamps used for marble revetment and cornices, as seen elsewhere in the interior of the building. The alcove is defined on at least three sides; on the north and east by the expansion of the west and south platforms to the south and west, and by the original west wall of the building in the west. The alcove itself contained 55 inscription fragments. Perhaps at some point the alcove became a dumping ground for broken or otherwise undesirable and irrelevant inscriptions, or was even where some inscriptions had been displayed. 3.2.7 Roofing One major factor in the preservation of the marble elements of the Small Temple was the collapse of the roof, effectively sealing everything beneath it. While little is known about the appearance of the roof, although it may have been pitched, the extremely large number of ceramic roof tile fragments gives ample testimony as to its composition (fig. 32). Associated with the roof tile fragments were over 300 iron nail fragments, which presumably had been nailed into nowmissing wooden beams that formed the skeletal roof structure. Almost 12,000 roof tile fragments in a wide range of sizes were recovered, the vast majority of which were found in a single dense stratigraphic layer inside the main structure, roughly a meter above floor level.

76

The Small Temple

Figure 32. Large roof tile fragment.

Almost 98 percent of the roof tile fragments were discovered within the building itself. Of these fragments within the structure, the vast majority were found in concentrated loci rather than evenly distributed throughout the soil column. As mentioned previously, this certainly implied that the roof collapsed suddenly and catastrophically. The layer of roof tile fill was generally less than 0.30 m thick throughout the interior, sandwiched between an overlying layer of overburden (ashlars, rocks, soil) and an underlying marble and matrix layer. Although the roof tile fill consisted almost entirely of roof tile fragments, it included the occasional fragment of marble revetment or inscription. 3.2.8 Limestone Floor Pavers Only one small area of in situ floor pavers is preserved, in the southwest corner of the building, west of the west basin (fig. 33). In a building filled with marble fragments, the floor is notable in that it is instead composed of the type of limestone used in the expansion of the basin. Fragments of this limestone flooring (less than 300 fragments total) were discovered only within the building, and found in situ only in the southwest corner, to the west and south of the basins,

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

77

Figure 33. In situ limestone pavers in the southwest corner of the building.

with an additional paver in situ immediately south of the east basin. Almost 85 percent of these fossiliferous limestone fragments were also found in this southwest corner area. Like the marble revetment, these fragments, too, are only polished to a shine on one side. Unlike the marble, which is also flat on the reverse, the limestone pavers are rough-cut on the bottom or back side, and extremely thick, up to 0.20 m. While some of the limestone fragments are cobble-sized or smaller, many were large enough to display what was clearly a flat and polished surface, with a rough-hewn underside that would have been placed into the mortar of the subfloor. The almost complete absence of in situ floor pavers meant that after the completion of the excavation of the interior of the building, the subfloor mortar became visible, showing the arrangement of the latest floor of the building, even without the presence of the floor itself. Judging from the remains of the mortar outlines (fig. 34), the pavers had been placed in straight rows east to west, with no apparent north-south alignment. The width of the rows was not consistent, varying from row to row. It is important to note that the remains of this floor surface, both limestone and mortar outlines, merely represent the final floor that had been placed in the building. As the subfloor mortar was uncovered, it became clear that this last floor had been robbed out before the destruction of the marble interior, which in turn occurred before the collapse of the roof. Had any significant portion of the floor remained before the collapse of the

78

The Small Temple

Figure 34. Raised mortar outlines in the northwest corner of the building (Trench 14).

the roof, large amounts of stone either embedded in the mortar in situ, or in loose, broken pieces in the matrix, would have been expected. During the excavation of Trench 11, in the southwest corner mentioned in §3.2.1, there was some occurrence of the latter scenario, but not nearly enough to account for the entire floor surface. But how to be certain that at least some of the marble, which of course has been found in no small quantity within the building, did not also represent the floor surface itself? After the excavation of Trench 16, it became clear when examining the mortar outlines of the floor tiles that almost all of the individual tiles had to have been quite thick, up to 15 cm in thickness, and jagged or unfinished on the bottom. This description coordinates quite nicely with the excavated limestone fragments. The marble revetment, by comparison, was usually no thicker than 2 cm. There are, however, some exceptions to these thick, jagged mortar outlines. While most of the individual tiles were clearly very hefty and thick, there are a few mortar outlines in the subfloor that are very shallow with flat, finished, bottom sides. In short, these outlines represent the location of flat, relatively thin tiles. There may be a few possible explanations for this scenario. While no specific pattern to the distribution of flat tiles amongst the thicker limestone tiles could be discerned from the mortar outlines, it is possible that these shal-

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

79

low outlines represent the use of a different type of paving stone in the floor, perhaps even marble, at these locations. It is also possible that limestone was laid across the entire floor surface, with some limestone pavers that were sanded flat on the bottom while others were left jagged and thick. The in situ limestone floor that so neatly abuts the west side of the west basin seems a good indicator that this floor surface was not placed until after the changes were made to the original basin, dividing it into west and east. While there can be no certainty about the missing floor pavers, it is possible that some of them were reused in other structures in Petra. For example, two churches south of the Roman Road (see fig. 6) use this same type of fossiliferous limestone. However, the closest source of this limestone is very close indeed, located approximately 5 km away on Jabal Shahar behind the modern town of Wadi Musa (Paradise 1998: 154). 3.2.9 Doorways and Traffic Flow The flow pattern for the Small Temple complex is still somewhat mysterious, especially in relation to the staircase. The main structure itself has two clearly identified doorways, the main doorway in the north and a smaller doorway in the west. The western doorway, similar in position and size to the small southern doorway at Khirbet etTannur, may have served as a priest’s entrance (Glueck 1965: 141; McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes 2002: 56). This doorway would have allowed temple officiants to enter unobtrusively from the west and then grandly open the main doors from the inside when appropriate. Once inside the building, a visitor would encounter the three platforms and basin, or basins, depending on the phase of the structure being examined. Another possible explanation for this doorway is that it was deliberately placed in the west wall so as to frame a view of the Qasr alBint to the west. Two half column drums with cable-fluted plaster were discovered bonded to the base of the doorway with one drum on each side (fig. 35), strongly suggesting that the doorway had been framed by engaged columns with a lintel along the top. This columned doorway could be interpreted as an aedicula, a small shrine or

80

The Small Temple

Figure 35. Half column drums with cable-fluted plaster, bonded to the base of the west doorway (Trench 14).

tabernacle, that referenced the old Nabataean gods through its display of the Qasr al-Bint.12 Determining the traffic flow in the precinct, outside of the main structure, is more difficult. As noted before, the staircase does not descend to the level of the courtyard floor, nor is there any evidence that a floor surface was ever at a high enough elevation to make the staircase functional. The excavation of Trench 18, specifically the area of the trench that exposed the east side of the staircase, portico, and part of the outer east wall of the main structure, did not reveal any section of the staircase that descended to the the courtyard level. The northern part of Trench 21, placed so as to include the north– south axis line of the structure, also produced no evidence that the staircase descended to courtyard level. Trench 17, placed outside the south wall of the building, further supported the idea that the Small Temple was elevated above its surroundings, as there is no evidence here of either floor or a means of descent. While there are no doorways in the south wall, there may be a yet undiscovered doorway in the east wall. While it is quite certain that there are no doorways in the northern segment of the east wall, as this region has been fully excavated, there may have been a doorway in its southern end. Currently, the poor preservation of the east 12

Thanks to Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos for this suggestion.

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

81

Figure 36. Location of a possible doorway in the southern east wall.

wall in the south, and the area still unexcavated immediately outside the east wall in this area, preclude any certainty on the matter. There are two reasons to consider that it is possible, although by no means certain, that there is a door in the east (fig. 36). First, the termination of the east wall in the south, while poorly preserved, does have a “finished” look to it, suggesting perhaps the north edge of a doorframe. Second, a doorway in this location would complete a geometric relationship with the door in the west on an imaginary diagonal axis through the building. The final problem in determining traffic flow is identifying the means of entry to the precinct itself, as discussed in chapter 1. It is hoped that future excavations will be able to address these shortcom-

82

The Small Temple

ings in determining traffic flow, not only in the main structure, but in the precinct as a whole. 3.2.10 The Substructure While a section under the subfloor of the Small Temple had briefly been explored during the 2002 season, by then there had already been several clues suggesting that there was a subterranean component to the building. The string course of the north wall in Trench 4 near the northeast corner had buckled slightly.13 After excavation in this trench was completed, small sinkholes began to appear in the subfloor, into which a plumb bob could be dropped to over 10 cm. There are also indications of subterranean elements in the portico. Outside the northwest corner of the building there is evidence of canalization that extends under the building in the form of a stone-lined channel. Where the channel terminates is still unknown, but it is believed that the entire building and portico were constructed on an artificial platform, and the channel may lead to a reservoir under the structure. The raison d’être for Trench 19 was to examine the subfloor architecture of the Small Temple, which gained attention after the excavation of Trench 4. The trench was placed in the northeast corner because there was no preserved floor mortar in the area, unlike in the center of the building; thus a trench in this corner would not destroy any mortar paver outlines. Material finds in this trench were quite minimal, consisting of six architectural fragments, all found near the top of Locus 1, and small amounts of pottery, bone, metal, stucco, and vegetal matter. Despite the minimal material finds, the pottery may be very helpful in the dating of the building. The subfloor may be considered a sealed locus, and thus any pottery (or any other datable find, for that matter) could provide a terminus post quem, if not for the building, then at least for its latest floor. Despite the two trenches (Trenches 19 and 20) that have been excavated below the interior floor level of the main structure, very little is known with certainty about the substructure and construction of the artificial platform beneath both structure and portico. There 13 A string course is a “single horizontal course of a wall consisting of … long ashlars” (McKenzie 1990: 184). At the Small Temple there is a string course running along the base of the building walls.

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

83

are, however, some clues that may be interpreted from the manner of collapse and settling of the building. A hypothesis proposed by Steven J. Larson, trench supervisor during the 2000 and 2002 seasons, has implications for the construction of the substructure of the complex: main structure, portico, and possibly even the staircase.14 The top surface of a subfloor wall identified in 2001 may be just one in a series of east–west walls underneath the building, spaced approximately 2 m apart, that together make up the substructure of the Small Temple. This substructure might have been intended to make up for a shortfall in the underlying bedrock in the area (such as the construction of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem [Kahn 1996: 136]), or merely to raise the building above the surrounding precinct in order to draw attention to it. The first subfloor wall, a line of seven ashlars running east–west at the level of the subfloor, was identified during the excavation of Trench 5 (Locus 15), just south of the southern extent of the east platform. There are at least an additional eight parallel east–west walls (fig. 37); the northernmost of which is the retaining wall on the north side of the portico, and the southernmost the south exterior wall of the Small Temple. From north to south, these walls have been numbered arbitrarily for identification purposes. The north wall of the portico is Wall 1, the south exterior wall of the building is Wall 9, and the wall south of the east platform is Wall 7. According to this scheme, Wall 1 is located approximately 4 m north of the north wall of the building, which is Wall 3. The position of Wall 2, extrapolated from the positions of Walls 1 and 3, would be two meters south of the former and north of the latter. Wall 4 is identified by several sinkholes approximately two meters north of the Wall 5 subsidence, which in turn is located just north of the north side of the east platform. Wall 6 is clearly visible in the surface of the subfloor two meters south of Wall 5. Wall 7, the first one identified, is the subfloor wall immediately south of the east platform. Wall 8 is clearly visible in the subfloor, and Wall 9 is represented by the exterior south wall of the Small Temple. This suggestion of subfloor walls allows for greater assurances that the south wall identified in Trench 5 really is the exterior south wall of the building. Wall 6, which neatly bisects the north–south di14 Interestingly, the retaining wall of the staircase is much closer to 3 m north of the retaining wall of the portico, rather than 2 m, as might have been expected.

84

The Small Temple

Figure 37. Location of numbered hypothetical crosswalls laid over 2002 survey data.

dimension of the east platform, would then mark the north–south midpoint of the main structure, with three walls to its north (Walls 3– 5) and then also three walls to its south (Walls 7–9). If this type of symmetry is exhibited in the Small Temple, then Wall 9 should be the exterior south wall of the building. The excavation of Trench 17, in fact, does seem to confirm this, because no evidence of a substructure wall, or any other type of architecture for that matter, was discovered two meters south of the exterior south wall of the Small Temple. The sinkholes associated with the crosswalls may indicate subfloor passage or storage, or it is possible that these walls were connected by a series of arches that in turn supported the floor. It now seems likely that the north–south dimensions of the basins added in

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

85

the south, and later in the southwest interior of the building, would have been constrained by Wall 7 to the north and Wall 8 to the south. Located between these walls, the basins sink 0.18–0.20 m below the floor surface. The north–south dimension of both basins, 1.09 m, would fit neatly between the approximate 2-m center-tocenter distance between these subfloor walls. The results of Trench 19, which examined the substructure in the northeast corner, do not seem to completely support the existence of these crosswalls, however. The main goal for Trench 19 was to examine the subfloor structure, to test the subfloor wall hypothesis. A buckled string course in the north wall, identified during the excavation of Trench 2, continued to be intriguing. Could this be indicative of a doorway, or canalization under the floor? This question could not be answered in the center of the building. The hypothetical east–west subfloor crosswalls could be investigated in either location, but only in the northeast corner (or, more accurately, in a trench abutting a wall) could there be an investigation of the relationship of the subfloor walls to the exterior walls of the building. The first potential crosswall identified in Trench 19 was not two meters south of the north exterior wall as expected, but less than one meter south of it. A second, parallel crosswall was later identified in approximately the expected location. However, it is rather difficult to distinguish between the two walls because they appear to merge together, especially in the west area of the trench. In fact, this pair of walls pretty much negated another of the reasons for having placed Trench 19 against a wall in the first place. Both walls end well short of the east wall of the building, making all questions of whether these crosswalls bond or abut with this exterior wall moot. Only additional subfloor trenches may be able to further clarify the existence and relationship of these subfloor crosswalls. The buckled string course in Trench 19 can be explained by the fact that directly underneath it are two things: the continuation of the north wall behind its north side, and loosely packed fill beneath its south side. There does not appear to be either doorway or canalization directly beneath this buckled section, although worries about compromising the strength of the entire northeast corner of the building prematurely ended excavation in this area. Interestingly, while there also appears to be a gap under the east wall string course, there is no such buckling of the overlying exterior wall. The subfloor architecture beneath the east wall may be a water

86

The Small Temple

channel, although there can be no removal of any of these “capstones” to prove or disprove this theory until it is possible to survey them with the EDM. The possible water channel discovered in Trench 9 in 2001 may have a parallel channel in the east half of the building. If so, one might expect another channel in approximately this location. At this time there does not appear to have been any means of passage between the east exterior subwall and the east precinct of the site. Furthermore, it now seems unlikely that there was any subfloor storage space, at least not in the latest phases of use of the Small Temple, although, of course, all of these conclusions may be applicable only in this particular area of the subfloor. It is possible that future subfloor investigations will indicate that the use of the subfloor varied by area. At the close of Trench 19, neither bedrock nor a floor surface had been discovered. The fill consisted entirely of unshaped rocks and matrix, with scattered white plaster crumbs. One possible explanation of the condition and contents of the subfloor is that it is a later fill, possibly similar in purpose to the fill and crosswalls below the east triple colonnade on the Lower Temenos in the Petra Great Temple. Once accessible from street level, these areas beneath the colonnades would have been cryptoporticoes, until a later phase during which they were filled in, perhaps to prevent post-earthquake collapse (Joukowsky and Basile 2001: 45, 50). Later subfloor trenches in the Small Temple may show that the subfloor fill encountered in Trench 19 is a later addition intentionally deposited into an area that once had been accessible to human passage. As the matter currently stands, there is no evidence that there was human access to areas beneath the subfloor of the Small Temple, either for passage or storage. While there may be a pattern to the subfloor architecture, Trench 19 was not able to clarify it. It is possible that the soil fill was never tightly packed and it settled over the centuries, probably both as the result of the passage of time and with the additional help of the occasional earthquake. As the fill settled, the symptoms of this settling would be seen as the sinkholes seen today in the subfloor. 3.2.11 Portico Three trenches were excavated on the portico of the Small Temple (Trenches 9, 12, and 18). The portico is paved with both square and

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

Figure 38. Weathered limestone head, gazing to the upper left (00-S-1 PLT).

87

Figure 39. Limestone head with stylized, knobby hair and beard gazing to upper right (02-S-1 PLT).

rectangular white limestone pavers in varying states of repair. A very few pavers are relatively intact, although most were crushed to varying degrees. The floor surface is no longer flat but resembles the surface of rippled water. Three important sculptural elements were discovered in the central area of the portico, near the north doorway. A complete but wellworn head gazing to the upper left, 00-S-1 PLT (Seq. No. 3019), was discovered in 2000 (fig. 38). The reverse side of the head is flat, indicating that it was not meant to be viewed from the back, and the nose has been shorn off. The head, 0.25 m × 0.13 m, was found in the north doorway of the building, and may be a representation of a veiled, bearded, male figure, such as a priest or deity. This fragment bears a resemblance in composition to the Hellenistic “Dushara” head in the Petra museum annex (J. Taylor 1996: 58). The second head, 02-S-1 PLT (Seq. No. 18189), is slightly larger at 0.31 m × 0.19 m, and gazes to the upper right (fig. 39). This head depicts a bearded male with uncovered, curly hair represented by carved knobs and was discovered in the portico area east of the north

88

THE SMALL TEMPLE

doorway. These mirror-image positioned heads, similar in size and both discovered in the vicinity of the main doorway, may suggest original placements flanking the door and mounted above it so that the back sides would not have been visible by people below. The pair of heads bear a notable similarity to another bust in high relief discovered at Khirbet et-Tannur, described by Glueck as “projecting from a limestone block inserted at one time into a wall” (1965: 227). Both of these fragments, however, were discovered in fill well above the portico pavers, and their attribution to the Small Temple may be optimistic. The remains of three small walls were also identified on the portico: a pair of walls (separated by a doorway) east of and perpendicular to the north entry, and a single wall west of and perpendicular to the north entry. These installations are made up of reused building materials (including a small but nicely fashioned doorjamb). The construction quality, however, is quite poor, with dirt and chinking stone fill. The ashlars rest directly on the collapsed and crushed portico pavers. This fact would seem to indicate that the installation was constructed after the collapse of the upper registers of the portico architecture—and, thus, after the demise of the building as a temple proper. These walls would have rendered the area on either side of the central doorway useless as a portico. It filled in the space between the columns that flanked the doorway and generally closing off the area that had been constructed initially as an open porch. A concentration of large storage jar fragments found mixed in with the broken-up pavers and mortar in the north part of the east portico may also suggest a later, perhaps domestic, reuse of the area. 3.2.12 Staircase During the 2002 season, the staircase on the north was cleared. An interesting discovery came to light at the base of this “staircase.” Instead of descending all the way to the courtyard, the stairs suddenly fall off, with a drop of 2.95 m to the courtyard below. Interestingly, 2.95 m is almost the equivalent of a single Roman rod, or ten Roman feet, a unit of measurement also evident in the main structure (to be discussed in more depth later). At the moment, it is not clear how people would have accessed the building from the courtyard. The staircase, excavated in its entirety as part of Trench 21, has proven to be one of the more confusing aspects of the Small Temple. Needless to say, the stairs are simply not functional as such in this

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

89

Figure 40. North side of the staircase retaining wall (Trench 21).

condition. There are two possible ways to explain this scenario: the front of the staircase is no longer extant, or this retaining wall was intentional and access to the portico was achieved through an area that has not yet been excavated. The latter explanation seems more likely because there appears to be no real advantage to building the stairs in such a piecemeal manner. The arrangement may prove to be

90

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 41. The single in situ stair tread (Trench 21).

similar to the division between the Lower and Upper Temenoi of the Great Temple, which is achieved through a similar vertical wall at the back (south) end of the Lower Temenos, with access to the Upper Temenos achieved via a pair of staircases to the east and west. Unlike the Great Temple, however, the retaining wall at the Small Temple is a rough piece of construction, and today there is no evidence of a presentable facing, as at the Great Temple. The retaining wall at the Small Temple, while neat with a plumb face, is very plain, being constructed of unshaped cobble- and the occasional boulder-sized rock, with a dirt matrix (fig. 40). This seems out of character when compared with the decoration of the rest of the Small Temple, especially the interior with its marble revetment and basins. While it is tempting to speculate about the prior existence of a moreregular facing, today there is no evidence of such. It would be a surprise, however, if a marble facing is discovered on this wall because there is no good evidence for either thick mortar or bolt holes, both of which are clearly associated with marble revetment in the interior of the building. Future trenches against the north face of the staircase, however, may provide a more complete picture. Considering that it is unlikely that the entire width of the staircase was functional, with access at best limited to only small sections of the whole, the question becomes, Why continue to consider the installation a staircase? There is, of course, the possibility that the stair bedding merely represents the degeneration and erosion of plat-

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

91

form fill, reaching a uniform height from north to south, thus creating a flat surface. However, the slope, while uneven to walk on, is quite uniform in its rate of descent, similar to the drop-off of a staircase. The best evidence, however, is the existence of a single stair tread in situ (fig. 41). Had this area once been a flat platform, this tread (or rather, paver, if the installation is not a staircase) is in a highly unlikely location, approximately halfway down the descent. One intriguing possibility is that the portico functioned as a pronaos, or presentation area for religious ceremony. A descending staircase would give people gathered below a less obstructed view of the proceedings on the portico. A final discussion about the stairs evaluates its temporal relationship to the rest of the building, the portico in particular. When examining the stairs from the top, they appear to abut the north side of the portico. If the stairs are examined from the east side (that is, from Trench 18), this relationship becomes quite clear. There is no doubt that the staircase postdates the portico and, by extension, the main structure itself. Since only the relative rather than the absolute date of the stairs is known, it is not currently possible to fit the stairs neatly into the overall phasing of the building, beyond a very general sense. Currently, it seems possible that this staircase could have been added any time after the construction of the original building until its final abandonment. The entire exterior east wall of the building, including retaining walls for the staircase and portico and east wall of the building, is divided into three distinct sections. The east retaining wall of the staircase abuts the east retaining wall of the portico, which in turn abuts the east wall of the building. All three sections are in alignment, but a clear vertical seam exists at their respective joining points. If these abutments represent three distinct building phases, then one must conclude that the portico was built separately against the main structure, and only later were the front stairs added to the front of the portico. This seems unlikely. Instead, one would think that, if the portico was an addition, the stairs that extend the width of the portico and provide access up to its level would have been built as one continuous whole. Would such abutting structures have made for a less stable construction, especially in a location with such a high risk of earthquake damage? Or, instead, would "floating" foundational elements have allowed for greater give under earthquake conditions?

92

THE SMALL TEMPLE

One piece of architectural decoration seems to indicate that the portico (and thus the staircase) may have been a late addition. At the corner where the north and east walls of the building came together, at the level of the portico floor, there is a large cornice, carved on the east and north sides. Due to the eroded state of the east edge of the portico floor, the north side of this cornice is now fully visible. There is no indication that this would have been visible when the portico was intact and unweathered, as the floor pavers appear to have been placed all the way to the edge of the portico. It is possible that this particular cornice is a reused piece, but given the fact that the east wall of the building and east retaining wall of the portico abut at this point, this would seem to indicate that there was an earlier phase of the building in which the front access was, at the very least, built to a narrower width than it stands now. In addition, the cornicing continues southward along the east wall of the building. Whether or not there was a smaller portico, which did not extend the width of the building, or only a narrower central staircase, is not known. It could be possible that the small doorway in the west wall of the building was the only point of entry into the Small Temple at this time.15 3.2.13 Upper Precinct The upper precinct surrounds the main structure on the west, south, and east. The area is bounded to the south by the rise toward alKatute and to the east by an unidentified wall. The west boundary is arbitrary and is not marked by any physical structure or natural feature. Trench 17, as previously discussed, was excavated immediately south of the main structure in hopes of finding a floor surface, although none was identified. 3.2.14 Courtyard The courtyard is located north of the staircase, bounded on the north by the Temenos Wall that defines the sacred temenos area of the Qasr al-Bint (Joukowsky 1998b: 11). On the last hour of the last day of excavation of the 2002 season, a floor level was finally identified. The brief investigation into the courtyard of the Small Temple as part of Trench 21 was, as with the stairs, both enlightening and frustrating at the same time. It exists today as the remains of a mortar 15

These ideas regarding the addition of the staircase and portico were brought to my attention by Steven J. Larson, supervisor of Trench 18.

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

93

subfloor, with no evidence of the actual floor surface itself. Perhaps the missing floor was removed at the same time as the floor surface in the interior of the building. It is also possible that this floor surface was removed after the interior floor, which would have become inaccessible after the collapse of the roof. There would have been no such hindrance on the courtyard, without a known roof to collapse, which means that the floor surface could have been removed with more leisure. It is unknown whether the courtyard level identified in 2002 was the original courtyard surface, or merely a later courtyard. The subfloor of the courtyard, frustratingly, terminates in Trench 21 without a clear understanding of its relationship to the retaining wall of the staircase. It would be logical to assume that the floor continues, at least briefly, underneath (south of) the retaining wall, but currently there is no clear evidence of this. If this floor surface clearly abuts the wall, then it could be considered a later floor surface, later than the staircase that abuts the terrace of the building itself. Yet again, it is not possible to tell. Hopefully future excavations against the retaining wall will clarify the relationship.

3.3

CHRONOLOGICAL PHASES

Based on site deposition, three seasons of excavation have determined the general progression, or phases of the construction, collapse, and abandonment of the Small Temple. The current evidence best supports twelve phases; seven major construction phases followed by a series of five destruction phases. In addition, there are two major construction events and one minor one that cannot yet be placed with any great degree of precision into the phasing scheme. The difficulties associated with these events are discussed under the heading “Phasing Outliers.”16 The scarcity of diagnostic pottery forms 16

A further difficulty is the possibility that not all of these phases can be applied uniformly to the entire building. It is distinctly possible that a destruction event affected one part of the building while construction occurred in another. This latter scenario may even have occurred during one of the problematic “phasing outlier” events on the portico, to be discussed toward the end of this chapter. Fortunately, the compact size and single-room nature of the cella of the Small Temple does de-emphasize the nature of this problem, although it cannot mitigate it completely. These same factors also bear on the value of plotting stratigraphic sequences (better known as Harris Matrices) at this site. Harris himself suggests that correlation alone may be an adequate means of understanding the stratigraphic sequence at a relatively

94

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Phase

Name Construction

I II III IV V VI VII

Original architecture Placement of the latest subfloor elements Addition of interior platforms Latest decoration of the interior Early basin added Modifications in the southwest corner Placement of the latest floor Destruction

VIII IX X XI XII

Removal of the latest floor Marble destruction Roof collapse Deposit of overburdens Modern activity

Table 2. Chronological phases at the Small Temple.

and total lack of datable coins17 in sealed contexts has very much limited the ability to attach absolute dates to the phases, leaving the resultant discussion with some regrettable holes and ambiguities (Table 2). 3.3.1 Phase I: Original Architecture The first phase consists of the preparation of the site, including any quarrying (of which there is currently no evidence) or other prerequisites for the construction of the artificial platform on which the main structure, also part of this phase, was built. At the time of construction, the main structure itself would have only incorporated the building shell as the interior platforms and basins belong to later phases (fig. 42). Where extant, the building walls bond in the corners, indicating an expected contemporaneity in their construction, as do the Lshaped doorjambs of the main entry. In fact, there is no evidence of any kind to suggest any modification of the exterior walls after this small site (1975: 112). The Small Temple consists of only one main room (the cella), which would seem to conform to this description. 17 Of the seventeen coins excavated, ten were at least partially identifiable, although all were discovered in the soil matrix. The identifiable coins range in age from the early first century CE to the first half of the fifth century.

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

95

Figure 42. Phase I: Original Architecture.

time, with the possible exception of some modifications in the southwest corner of the building, which are part of Phase IV. All doorways, walls, and corners bond. While there may have been no change to these structural elements after their construction, this does not mean to imply that there was never a change in surface treatment. The ashlars of the building walls, for example, probably would have been covered by stucco or plaster during this phase, or by some other material because of the lack of uniformity in their execution. While individual rows of ashlars are straight and parallel, there is no particular uniformity between the individual ashlars themselves; they vary in length from slightly more than 10 cm to well over one meter. It is highly unlikely that the ashlars

96

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 43. Phase III: Addition of the Interior Platforms.

were left bare. Today, however, no evidence remains of any initial surface covering. 3.3.2 Phase II: Placement of the Latest Subfloor Elements At this time, there is little support for the idea that the subfloor area was once accessible, either as storage or for human use. However, it is premature to discount the possibility that it was never so. Therefore, because of this uncertainty, it is only possible to state that this fill is the latest subfloor activity for the Small Temple. The subfloor fill, excavated to a depth of 0.84 m below the surface of the subfloor,

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

97

Figure 44. Nabataean lamp fragment 02-L-13 PLT (center).

consisted entirely of unshaped rocks and matrix, with small scattered plaster fragments. The existence of an actual floor surface—in this case, one of limestone pavers mounted in mortar—belongs to a separate and later phase because of the interim addition of interior platforms and basins. 3.3.3 Phase III: Addition of Interior Platforms The third phase is distinguished by the addition of the three platforms in the west, east, and south, where they abut the west, east, and south walls respectively (fig. 43). The platforms exist today invarying degrees of collapse and disintegration. During the course of the excavation of Trench 20, the interior of the east platform (Locus 1), a fragment of the base of a Nabataean volute lamp (02-L-13 PLT) dating from the early first century CE to somewhere around the year 70 (cf. Rosenthal and Sivan 1978: 97 no. 394), was discovered in the platform fill (fig. 44).18 Thus the first three phases of the site could not have occurred before this date. Along with this datable lamp fragment, the platform fill incorporated a single green marble fragment and seven architectural fragments (not all identifiable), including column drum fragments, a column base fragment, an ashlar fragment, and a column capital fragment (perhaps part of a leaf). The marble fragment is exactly like the other pieces of green marble discovered throughout the precinct, and 18

Thanks to Deirdre G. Barrett for all lamp identification and dating at the Small Temple.

98

THE SMALL TEMPLE

it is entirely believable that it, too, was once meant to be part of the Small Temple decorative scheme.19 The architectural fragments, however, bear no such clear identification with this building and could have come to the platform fill from almost anywhere (in Petra, presumably); either a building under renovation, or possibly one that had been abandoned.20 The section of the east wall revealed behind the east platform fill was in particularly bad condition, although one ashlar with a square face has a single hole in its center. It is unlikely that this was a hole for a bronze clamp because its height is too low for the known height of the marble cladding found in situ in the northeast corner of the building, and there were no traces of marble, bronze, mortar, or metal corrosion in the hole, all signs of former revetment. It is possible that this single block was in secondary use in the east wall of the Small Temple. 3.3.4 Phase IV: Latest Decoration of the Interior Some time after the addition of the platforms, possibly immediately after and as part of the same construction project, the interior of the building was clad in marble at least up to a height of 0.65 m. In situ revetment was best preserved in the northeast corner, with additional smaller fragments found in situ throughout the rest of the interior, including west and south faces of the east platform. 19

Whether this fragment was once part of revetment or an inscription panel, or merely waste product (perhaps cast off after a panel was cut to size for installation), is unknown. Marble fragments have also been found stuffed into the holes drilled into the ashlars of the building to receive the bronze clamps used to anchor the marble revetment, presumably to help stabilize the clamps. As it seems unlikely that these marble fragments were in secondary use, the same might also apply to the marble fragment in the platform. The platform fill was not particularly solidly packed, however, and this marble fragment may also have fallen in at a later time, after the abandonment of the building. 20 In the event that these architectural fragments came from an abandoned building, it could imply a relatively late date in the history of Petra, a time when buildings were actively falling out of use without further repair, perhaps after the earthquake of 363 CE. If this was the case, however, the platforms at the Small Temple would also have to date to this late time, which seems unlikely when considering the much earlier Trajan-era inscription (02-I-2 PLT, Seq. No. 5356) found to the north of the platform and once probably mounted on it.

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

99

Figure 45. Phase V: Early Basin Added.

The lack of marble revetment indicators behind the abutting platforms seems to suggest that the marble decoration was not added to the building until after the platforms were in place. 3.3.5 Phase V: Early Basin Added The fifth phase saw the addition of a single rectangular basin (the early basin) on the north side of the south platform (fig. 45). The width of this basin and the south platform both correspond in position and width to the length of the opening of the main entry in the north wall of the building. The basin does not abut the front of the

100

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 46. Cutaway reconstruction of the Small Temple (drawing by Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos).

platform but is placed 0.49 m north of its north face, and it is sunk 0.18 m below the floor surface (fig. 46). 3.3.6 Phase VI: Modifications in the Southwest Corner The sixth phase is convoluted. Much of the construction activity in this phase relates to the southwest corner of the building (fig. 47). The west and south platforms were expanded, creating an alcove out-

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

101

Figure 47. Phase VI: Modifications in the Southwest Corner.

side the southwest corner of the building. This alcove, in turn, was clad with marble, indicating that the south side of the expanded west platform and the west side of the expanded south platform were intended to be seen. The early basin was expanded and reconfigured as the west and east basins. Two Greek inscription fragments in white marble (01-I-37 PLT and 01-I-38 PLT) were discovered in secondary use in the new west basin. These fragments point to a renovation of the building, indicating at least two phases during which inscriptions were on display in the Small Temple. During the first inscription phase, these inscriptions

102

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 48. Panel 01-I-37 PLT.

tions would have been visible. At some later point in time, they were no longer relevant and were reused in the expansion of the early basin. It is quite clear that the inscriptions were cut to size specifically for use in the basin wall. One of the basin fragments (01-I-37 PLT), for example, clearly shows a line of text that has been cut off to produce a fragment of the correct dimensions (fig. 48). There is one important point of caution, however, regarding the use of inscriptions in the Small Temple. It is possible that the inscription fragments discovered in the Small Temple were all in secondary

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

103

use and none of them were ever intentionally on display. This extreme possibility is unlikely to have been the case, however, because almost all of the inscriptions had clean faces, free of the mortar that should have been noted in at least minimal quantities to indicate that the inscriptions had been mounted to the walls or other surfaces of the building. Regardless of how or where the inscriptions were used at the Small Temple, it is important to recognize the importance of such an abundance of marble inscriptions in Petra, where many of the previously known inscriptions of the city were inscribed on local stone (Tracy 1998: 372). 3.3.7 Phase VII: Placement of the Latest Floor After the installation of the marble revetment, the final floor surface of the building was installed. A layer of gray mortar was applied to the subfloor surface, and paving stones were placed in rows in the mortar. As very few of the pavers remain today, it is the mortar itself that reveals the floor tile pattern. The mortar clearly abuts the west side of the east platform and in situ revetment on the building walls, indicating that it was installed after the addition of the platforms and related revetment. Like the subfloor, there is no indication of how many predecessors it may have had, so all that it is possible to say with certainty is that this was the final complete floor surface installed in the building. 3.3.8 Phase VIII: Removal of the Latest Floor Most of the limestone floor pavers were removed from the building at a subsequent time, potentially for reuse elsewhere, leaving behind raised mortar outlines indicating their positions. In situ pavers remain in the parts of the southwest corner of the building in the area around the basins. Concentrations of broken fossiliferous limestone pavers were also discovered in this area immediately above the mortar remains in the northwest part of Trench 11, especially in Locus 5. 3.3.9 Phase IX: Marble Destruction After the removal of the floor, marble revetment and inscriptions were removed from the walls and smashed. Whether or not earthquakes had a role in this marble removal and destruction is not clear, although it is necessary that human agency was responsible to at least some degree in the destruction of the inscriptions. An unknown

104

THE SMALL TEMPLE

amount of marble may have been removed from the site at this time for reuse elsewhere. However, since the original extent of marble within the Small Temple remains unknown, it is impossible to determine how much of it may be missing. There are physical indications that at least some of the marble was intended for secondary use, as illustrated by the discovery of six fragments of marble in several colors found in the marble destruction layer of Trenches 5, 8, and 14 with crudely rounded corners, creating a two-dimensional oval shape. These fragments stand out among the thousands of others that have been discovered with clean breaks and jagged edges. The effort necessary to produce such rounded fragments would have been significant, especially considering the hardness of marble in comparison to pottery sherds, which have also occasionally been found with the same treatment (although none from the Small Temple). It is possible that such fragments, marble and ceramic alike, were used as counters or game pieces. That any such pieces were found within the Small Temple suggests that one or more people may have been conducting such alterations on the site, either taking advantage of already fragmentary marble for this production, or perhaps even breaking the marble in the first place. While marble collapse was discovered throughout the building, the lowest concentrations of marble were associated with the central area of the building (Trenches 15 and 16), suggesting a correlation between marble density and proximity to a wall surface from which the marble was presumably removed. Whether this indicates that marble removed from wall was simply deposited on the floor below this wall, or was intentionally cleared from the center of the building to facilitate a small marble reworking industry, as mentioned above, is uncertain. If the wrecked interior of the building remained accessible after the marble destruction, over time people may have kicked or otherwise moved aside marble that impeded movement in the center of the building, thus forcing it to collect against the inside perimeter. As an illustration of such accumulations of marble in presumed lowtraffic areas, consider the thick deposit of marble fragments in the southwest alcove (Trench 11, Loci 35 and 39) and in the interior northeast corner of the building (Trench 2, Locus 7) (fig. 49). Also in support of human agency in the marble destruction is the distribution of joining inscription fragments. While an earthquake

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

105

certainly could have knocked marble off the walls, it is improbable that an earthquake could have tossed fragments of a single inscribed

Figure 49. Inside northeast corner of the building with in situ marble revetment against the north and east walls, bolt hole with bronze clamp fragment above the revetment panel on the east wall, and thick deposit of marble debris (Trench 2).

panel to all corners of the building, as seems to have been the case with one particular inscription (02-I-87 PLT), to be discussed in §4.2.2. Since almost all of the marble, inscribed and otherwise, lies

106

THE SMALL TEMPLE

beneath the roof collapse, it means that this human scatter had to have occurred before the roof fell in. 3.3.10 Phase X: Roof Collapse The roof collapsed catastrophically after the destruction of the marble, sealing the remains. After this point, the marble cache beneath was untouched, as there was no evidence in any of the interior trenches of roof tile removal or pit digging. Neither is there evidence of fire that burnt away wooden roof beams, thus leading to collapse, so human intervention or an earthquake seem most realistic. The earthquake of 363, of course, is as likely a natural culprit in Petra as any, and there is archaeological evidence from other sites in Petra indicating great damage to the city’s architecture (Bedal 2000; El-Isa 1985; Joukowsky 1998b; Russell 1980). No remains of roof beams were discovered, charred or otherwise, anywhere in the debris. 3.3.11 Phase XI: Deposit of Overburdens The collapse of the walls of the structure, intentional or natural, continued during this phase. Ashlars from the walls may have been removed for reuse elsewhere in the city. Fill began to accumulate inside the building, washing in from al-Katute. The lower courtyard, however, may yet reveal itself to be the depository of at least some of this building material. The fill within the walls of the Small Temple, in particular, has proven to contain very sparse material remains above the roof tile deposit. The lower courtyard and the upper precinct to the west, east, and south of the main structure are buried deeply, with estimated deposits from 2.50 m in the north end of the courtyard, to over five meters in the south. The trenches excavated around the building perimeter, Trenches 17, 18, and 21, produced very little in material remains. Two fragments of limestone elephant trunks, carved in full relief, were discovered east of the Small Temple, in Trench 18 (02-S-3 PLT, Seq. No. 18157, and 02-S-4 PLT, Seq. No. 18099). After the discovery of hundreds of identical fragments on the Lower Temenos of the Great Temple, along with several complete limestone elephant heads, there is no possible conclusion other than that these fragments came from the Great Temple. Both fragments were found high in the balk profile of Trench 18, suggesting that the elephant trunks were deposited within the Small Temple precinct after the building had

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

107

collapsed, and it is unlikely that their presence bears any relation to the use or destruction of the Small Temple. There is little question that they were ever part of the design scheme at the Small Temple, and they were clearly only deposited at the site long after the destruction of both structures. 3.3.12 Phase XII: Later Activity The state in which the Small Temple was discovered during the three seasons of excavation was sometimes perplexing. That the remains of the main structure itself rise slightly above the rest of the precinct has still not been adequately explained. With al-Katute rising to the south, it would have been reasonable to expect the structure to have been filled in and surrounded by fill and debris washing down from the slope behind the precinct. Instead, the entire main structure projected above the contemporary ground level. One clue that might explain this strange depositional phenomenon comes courtesy of an interview with Abu Shair, a member of the Bedoul tribe who recounted memories of his father’s and grandfather’s use of the Small Temple area to a volunteer worker at the Small Temple in 2000. He related that this particular area was used by his father between 65 and 100 ago and was probably in use before that. The area that was the remains of the main structure had been used for threshing wheat until 1984, when the Bedoul tribe was relocated from Petra to the new nearby village of Umm Sayhun. However, Abu Shair stated that the entire area was flat at the time, and that the building did not rise above the rest of the precinct. While this does not explain the state of the platform prior to excavation, it does nonetheless imply that this pre-excavation appearance was a relatively recent occurrence. Two installations were discovered, both placed directly on soil, that are likely of later date and possibly represent relatively recent activity. The first of these was a small wall or dike composed of unshaped cobble- and boulder-sized rubble with the occasional architectural fragment that had clearly originated in the Small Temple. It had been constructed in the small gap between the northeast corner of the building and a small rise to the east. The second feature was a reuse wall or corral composed of nine rectangular ashlars placed vertically into the fill south of the building (discovered in Trench 17). Currently there is no known purpose for either installation.

108

THE SMALL TEMPLE

3.3.13 Phasing Outliers The portico and the staircase can only be placed into this scheme of phases in a very broad sense. When examining the exterior east side

Figure 50. Outside northeast corner of the Small Temple and weathered cornice block.

of the building, revealed by the excavation of Trench 18, it is immediately clear that the portico abuts the north side of the main structure and platform, and that the staircase in turn abuts the north side of the portico. While it seems most likely that the portico was built during the same construction effort that produced the main structure during Phase I, especially when considering the architectural scheme of the building as a whole and that a portico would have been a prerequisite for the placement of the hexastyle columns, there is also no evidence insisting that this must be so. One specific element of architectural decoration, however, does seem to indicate that the portico, and thus the staircase, were later additions to the precinct. At the corner where the north and east walls of the building join, at the level of the portico floor pavers, there is a large cornice carved on both the east and the north sides (fig. 50). Due to the eroded state of the east edge of the portico floor, the north side of this cornice is now fully visible. There is no indication that this would have been visible when the portico was complete; the floor pavers appear to have extended to the east edge of the

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

109

portico. This could indicate an earlier phase of the building in which a portico was built at smaller proportions then it exists currently. This cornice continues southward along the east wall of the building (Trench 18, Locus 12). Whether or not there was a smaller

Figure 51. Later activity on the portico.

portico, narrower in width, or only a narrower central staircase, is not known. It should be restated here that there is also a door on the west side of the building which may prove to have been a point of access (if not the only point of access). There is currently no evidence that there was an earlier form of entrance, however, or that an earlier, lower form of the building was used.

110

THE SMALL TEMPLE

The last architectural element that cannot be placed with any degree of specificity in this phasing scheme is the reuse and reconfiguration of the portico. The bottom courses of two small walls using reused ashlars, including what appears to be a small L-shaped doorjamb, were discovered on the portico in Trenches 9 and 18. These walls are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the north wall of the building, one on each side of the main entry, with a doorway in each (fig. 51). It appears that these walls would have divided the portico into three distinct areas. The eroded state of the portico, especially on its east and west sides, gives no indication of whether these areas were also walled off, creating two rooms flanking the entryway. The remains of the wall on the western side of the portico show poor construction and are placed on a layer of soil that raises it above the floor level of the portico by a few centimeters, suggesting that these modifications may not have occurred until after at least a minor period of abandonment of the precinct, allowing for the accumulation of sediment. If so, these wall installations may indicate a squatter’s residence, although there was no indication of any domestic activity anywhere on the site, such as a hearth or the remains of cooking pots. As always, any or all of these issues of uncertainty, regarding the phasing outliers or any individual elements of ambiguity throughout the rest of this phasing scheme, may ultimately be resolved through continued excavation at the Small Temple.

3.4

A POSSIBLE MOTIVE FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE SMALL TEMPLE

It is possible that the Small Temple’s intended purpose, as a pagan building, also contributed to its destruction. Earthquakes in Petra have destroyed many buildings, including quakes in 363, 551, and 658 (El-Isa 1985; Russell 1980). There is good evidence, however, that at least some of the destruction in the Small Temple was intentional. There are several churches at Petra, including the sixth-century Petra Church across the Roman Road. Its congregants may have been responsible for the destruction of a pagan building. Archaeological evidence from the Vicus Temple, near the Roman legionary fortress at al-Lejjşn in central Jordan, suggests that it may have been destroyed in the fourth century. It may be possible to link this destruction to one of the Christian Roman emperors at the

THE SMALL TEMPLE EXCAVATION

111

time, perhaps as early as Constantine (Clark 2004). Although pagan temples in general may have gone out of favor after Constantine, there may yet have been acceptance for imperial cult buildings, which, after all, honored the rulers of the Roman Empire. Christianity may have become the preferred religion, but the emperors still ruled and would have been unlikely to look kindly on the destruction of buildings honoring their predecessors. Constantine, for example, allowed a group of towns in central Italy to erect a temple to his family but would no longer allow pagan sacrifices (Price 1999: 510). Until there is more concrete evidence relating to the date of the destruction of the building, however, especially the date at which the marble inscriptions were destroyed, this cannot be substantiated. If nothing else, the fourth century earthquake would have caused major damage to the structure, if not ending its use outright. While the city of Petra continued, albeit into a decline by the Byzantine period, it seems that the Small Temple did not long outlast the Roman Empire that likely created it in the first place. The earthquake of 363 was probably not the single event that destroyed the building, but merely the postscript to destruction that already began with the removal of the limestone floor and continued with the probable human factor in the destruction of its marble.

4 MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE The marble discovered at the Small Temple has been a particularly telling category of find for several reasons. That it is foreign to the area necessitated trade relationships that allowed it to cover great distances; that it was particularly valued by the Romans gives it possible resonance as a culturally desirable item; and that much of it was inscribed in Latin gives physical indication of Roman influence. This chapter discusses the types of marble discovered at the Small Temple and how and why it was analyzed; Roman associations and connections with marble in general and in relation to specific inscriptions at the Small Temple; and the trade network through which marble traveled across the Roman Empire.

4.1

MARBLE FINDS AT THE SMALL TEMPLE

4.1.1 Marble Types Three categories of marble were uncovered in the Small Temple: crustae, cornices, and fragmentary inscribed marble. Like the marble cornices, none of these were found in situ, with two notable exceptions to be discussed in §4.2.2. Six hundred twenty-four inscribed fragments were identified, all but 45 found within the walls of the building. These fragments range from small pieces only two or three centimeters long, to much larger pieces over half a meter across. The identifiable fragments include both Greek and Latin letters, but no complete inscriptions. The total number of marble fragments of any type (revetment, cornice, or inscription) is 6173. Ninety-three percent of the total, or 5723 of these fragments, were discovered within the building. Over 40 percent of the inscribed fragments are so small that it is impossible to make any determination of language. 113

114

THE SMALL TEMPLE

4.1.2 Sourcing As mentioned in §2.5.3, the use of isotopic analysis helped to identify the geological sources of marble discovered at the Small Temple. At present, the Small Temple marble corpus traces most of its points of origin to western Anatolia and the Balkan Peninsula (see appendix 2 for results and a map of quarry locations). Isotopic analysis, as discussed by Craig and Craig (1972), can be used to determine geographic provenance of marble. Only small amounts of marble (less than 50 mg in powder form) are needed for analysis to determine a sample’s “signature.” This signature is the deviation of the ratio of 18O and 13C, to 16O and 12C, to the PDB (Pee Dee Belemnite) isotopic standard (Craig and Craig 1972; Herz 1987; Herz and Wenner 1981). These signatures are then compared to existing records of signatures associated with known quarries in the Roman world in order to determine marble provenance (Dodge and Ward-Perkins 1992; Fischer 1998; Fischer, Magaritz, and Pearl 1992; Herz 1987). During the 2001 season, 42 drill samples were collected from marble excavated at the Small Temple, including marble from both the 2000 and 2001 seasons. An additional two samples were taken during the 2002 season. Twenty-seven samples were taken from inscription fragments, 15 samples from plain fragments of marble, and 2 from marble cornice fragments. The samples were analyzed at the Center for Applied Isotope Studies of the University of Georgia by Dr. Norman Herz. Determining the geographic sources of marble at the Small Temple can help demonstrate variety in both the marble trade business of the Roman Empire and the Small Temple and can be an indicator of the distances the marble would have traveled to reach its final destination in Petra. 4.1.3 Revetment It is in the over 5000 revetment fragments that there is the greatest variation in colors of marble used, including gray, white, black and white, green, and a single fragment of reddish-purple marble. As mentioned previously, some of the in situ revetment shows a horizontal red line of paint. Several loose fragments of revetment discovered within the fill also exhibit a similar red paint line, with an additional few fragments with two red paint lines joining at a right angle.

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

115

It is this set of fragments with perpendicular red paint lines that may be the best indication that this feature served a decorative function. It is possible that a horizontal paint line parallel to the floor may in fact have been an indication of the elevation of the floor surface itself. The missing floor surface would again make this guide line visible. The vertical paint lines that are perpendicular to the floor are more difficult to account for with this rationale, as it is unlikely they were covered as the result of architectural placement. The only scenario in which these vertical paint lines could be considered guides for placement is if these panels had been placed in the corners of the building, where the horizontal line was covered by the floor and the vertical line was covered by the overlap of the abutting panel in the join. However, this is not borne out by the in situ revetment panels without vertical paint lines that were, in fact, found in the northeast corner of the building. It is interesting to note that miltos, an ochre-based red pigment, is probably the most likely basis of this red paint. Used for waterproofing and cosmetics, it could also be used to make inscriptions more legible and to indicate spots in need of further polishing when rubbed over a rough surface, such as marble. Why miltos would be found selectively on both cornice fragments and crustae is uncertain. While in situ revetment has been discovered in several areas of the building, including the northeast and northwest corners, and the south half of the east wall, in none of these locations is any marble preserved above the bottom course. Only in the northeast corner were any panels preserved in their entirety, clearly indicating the top edge of this lowest register of revetment. It is interesting to note that in the northeast corner the heights of these individual panels vary by as much as several centimeters. It is clear that the panels were placed first, before the floor surface, because the mortar into which the floor tiles were placed abuts the in situ revetment. The bottom edges of some of the panels, however, do not descend quite as far down as others. This may indicate the replacement of individual panels at some time after the floor was placed. Such replacement revetment would abut the top of the floor surface, rather than continue behind it. However, the inconsistency of the preservation of the floor paver mortar makes this uncertain.

116

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 52. Cross-section of large and small marble cornices.

4.1.4 Cornices Two hundred forty-five fragments of marble cornices have been discovered at the Small Temple, all but seven found within the walls of the building itself. All of the cornices are of white or grayish-white marble, usually with a medium to large crystalline structure. The cornice fragments can be divided into two categories; large and small (fig. 52). The majority of the fragments, 191 in total, fall into the former category, and only 54 fragments into the latter. It seems clear that these cornices would have been used in different locations in the temple. The large cornice fragments, with drill holes that correspond so neatly to the upper register of drill holes in the temple’s ashlars, seem certain to have been mounted on the walls at least at this one level. The small cornice fragments show no evidence of drill holes or any other type of mounting hardware. It is possible that this cornice ran along the floor surface at the join between floor and walls, although there is no compelling evidence for this. The total length of the large cornice fragments, if placed end-toend, is 29.02 m. The inside perimeter of the building, taking into account the gaps of the north and west doorways as well as the three platforms that had also been clad, measures 48.85 m. Thus the length of excavated large cornice fragments represents 59 percent of the total inside perimeter. Thirty of the large cornice fragments preserve a total of 32 bolt holes on the bottom or back sides, with one of

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

117

these bolt holes still containing a corroded bronze fragment, clearly indicating the relationship between the bronze clamps and the mounting of these large cornices. Some of the cornice fragments are quite long, four of them longer than half a meter. The bolt holes on the back and/or bottom sides of several of the cornices are clearly related to the upper register of holes discovered in some of the in situ ashlars. The distance between the lower register of holes (associated with the bronze tacks used to hold the revetment in place) and the upper is spaced perfectly to allow for the placement of these marble cornices. That the total length of these large cornices represents such a large percentage of the building’s interior circumference suggests that much of this cornicing has already been recovered. The small cornices are much less ornate than their larger counterparts and have been found in much smaller numbers. Their total length is only 4.53 m, only 9 percent of the inside perimeter. These cornices exhibit neither bolt holes nor corroded metal. Some of them, however, have red paint (presumably miltos) on either the top or the bottom of the fragment, but usually on the top side. It is still unclear how these cornices were used in the building, although the red paint may indicate a relationship with the painted marble revetment. 4.1.5 Inscriptions Of the over 600 fragments of inscribed marble, a relatively small percentage have been reconstructed into legible, coherent panels (none of them complete). There are three larger reconstructed panel sections, however, that are relevant and are discussed in §4.2.2. Since so few of the inscription fragments can be analyzed for content because of their small size, it has been tempting to attempt to date the corpus through the use of palaeography, the study of letter forms. However, “Dating inscriptions by letter-forms is notoriously problematic. Even when a large number of well-dated texts document the scripts used period by period in a given region, … the use of those scripts cannot furnish chronological evidence for inscriptions from other regions” (Lehmann and Holum 2000: 30). Nonetheless, several Greek and Latin letter forms discovered at the Small Temple are intriguing and deserve mention. One of three joining Greek fragments, part of panel 01-I-11 PLT (fig. 53), exhibits an unusually formed Greek sigma of a subtype called a lunate sigma.

118

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 53. Panel 01-I-11 PLT.

Typically, the lunate sigma looks like a Roman “C.” In this fragment, however, the lunate sigma is boxy, and looks like a Roman “E” without the middle bar. The simplest explanation for the boxy lunate sigma is also the easiest to dismiss; that an inexperienced carver chose to make the process less complicated by inscribing straight rather than curved lines. The problem with this explanation is that two other

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

119

Figure 54. Section of panel 02-I-87 PLT. Note unusually shaped “L” (circled).

letters of this same panel (a fragmentary Ø or Ö, and a complete Â) exhibit the curved lines avoided by this unorthodox lunate sigma. The second example is an odd Latin “L,” which appears at least four times in slight variations in the Small Temple inscription corpus (01-I-89 PLT and 02-I-87 PLT) (fig. 54). The “L” does not always

120

THE SMALL TEMPLE

connect at the join between vertical and horizontal strokes, and, in fact, in this variation the horizontal bar is curved. The “L” looks something like an upside down shepherd’s crook and is sometimes accompanied by a line that looks like an acute accent to its right, and appears to be a local variation. The findspots of the inscription fragments are worth discussing. Unlike the plain revetment, which in many cases probably bears a distinct correlation between findspot and original mounting location, the distribution of the inscribed fragments is much less predictable. The best example of this wide distribution of joining inscription fragments is provided by panel 02-I-87 PLT, which consists of 43 inscribed fragments. Thirteen fragments were discovered in the northeast quadrant of the building (Trenches 2, 4, 5, and 16), two in the south central area of the building (Trenches 8 and 11), three on the portico (Trench 12), 24 in the alcove outside the southwest corner of the building (along with another 37 inscribed fragments that are not part of this panel, in Trench 11), and one at the bottom of the staircase (Trench 21). While the widely distributed fragments of 02-I-87 PLT present the most dramatic illustration of the lack of correlation between an inscription fragment’s findspot and other joining fragments, there are several other examples where joining fragments were discovered in different areas of the precinct. These widely scattered joining inscription fragments are important when considering the various possible causes of destruction in the Small Temple. How the marble of the Small Temple, plain and inscribed, was broken into so many fragments remains unknown, although it is likely that any of the earthquakes striking the area could have had a role. However, it is unreasonable to rule out human agency for this stage of the marble destruction, because there is no conclusive proof for or against either culprit. The distribution of the inscription fragments within the building, however, does strongly suggest human agency. There is no way that nature could have transported the broken fragments of this inscription through what had to have been an intact building at the time. Remember that the catastrophic collapse of the roof, as evidenced by the coherent stratigraphic layer of broken roof tile fragments, sealed the inscription fragments in the interior of the building. This means that the inscription must have been broken and scattered before the roof caved in, which in turn implies that the walls of the building had been intact up until this point in time because the

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

121

roof had to have been held up by something. So, regardless of whether the inscription had been mounted in the alcove, where the majority of its pieces were discovered, or placed somewhere inside the building, the pieces could not have reached their final resting places without human agency. Thus, while an earthquake certainly could have ruined the building beyond all use, it could not have been responsible for this type of distribution of inscription fragments within the Small Temple.

4.2

MARBLE AND IMPERIAL ASSOCIATIONS AT THE SMALL TEMPLE

While there are still uncertainties regarding the use of marble at the Small Temple—specifically, whether this marked primary, secondary, or even later use of the material—the sheer amounts of it are cause for investigation and interpretation. As mentioned in §4, the lack of marble quarries in and around Petra would have made it necessary to import the material. It would have needed two types of transportation, including a trip over water. Then there would have been an overland journey from the port to Petra itself. Goods coming from the relatively close port of Gaza would have traveled at least 160 km from port to Petra, while goods from Caesarea would have traveled at least 240 km.21 Despite these handicaps, marble has been discovered at several sites in Petra. Marble has been found in architectural and decorative use in the Temple of the Winged Lions, the Great Temple, The Lower Market/paradeisos, the Qasr al-Bint, and the Byzantine-era Petra Church. Road transport to Petra from any originating maritime port city would have been an ordeal, even though the Roman Empire took pride in the network of roads that worked as a tool for the emperors to preserve the most resilient empire in European history (Casson 1994: 163). Furthermore, the Romans “considered a well-organized road network and an efficient traffic system as basic elements for proper imperial administration[, investing] great efforts in the form of resources, planning, labor, and technological skill in road-building” (Roll 1996: 549). 21 Although the port of Aila (on the Gulf of Aqaba) is less than 100 km to the south, it would not have been a port for marble arrival, at least not for marble for the Small Temple, since this marble primarily originated in western Anatolia and the Greek islands.

122

THE SMALL TEMPLE

The highly touted glories of the Roman road system would not have made the transport of marble an easy task. Vitruvius’s description of the transport of column drums from the Ephesian quarries to their final destination at the Temple of Diana provides some idea of the challenges faced by the architect, Chersiphron. He writes: It is quite germane to our subject to describe an ingenious contrivance of Chersiphron. When he desired to bring down the shafts of the columns from the quarries to the Temple of Diana at Ephesus, he tried the following arrangement. For he distrusted his two-wheeled carts, fearing lest the wheels should sink down in the yielding country lanes because of the huge loads. He framed together four wooden pieces of four-inch timbers: two of them being cross-pieces as long as the stone column. At each end of the column, he ran in iron pivots with lead, dovetailing them, and fixed sockets in the wood frame to received the pivots, binding the ends with wood cheeks: thus the pivots fitted into the sockets and turned freely. Thus when oxen were yoked and drew the frame, the columns turned in the sockets with their pivots and revolved without hindrance. Now when they had thus brought all the shafts, and set about bringing the architraves, Metagenes, the son of Chersiphron, applied the method of conveying the shafts to the transport of the lintels. For he made wheels about twelve feet in diameter, and fixed the ends of the architraves in the middle of the wheels. In the same way he fixed pivots and sockets at the ends of the architraves. Thus when the frames of four-inch timber were drawn by the oxen, the pivots moving in the sockets turned the wheels, while the architraves being enclosed like axles in the wheels (in the same way as the shafts) reached the building without delay. (A similar machine is used when rollers level the walks in the palaestrae.) This expedient would not have been possible unless, to begin with, the distance had been short. It is not more than eight miles from the quarries to the temple, and there are no hills but an unbroken plain. (10.2.11– 12)

Even over moderately short overland distances, stone transport was no simple feat. Relatively little of the marble in Petra has been discovered with inscriptions, although four fragments of Latin-inscribed white marble were excavated at the Great Temple in 1996 (Tracy 1998).

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

123

4.2.1 Inscriptions Overview With 624 inscribed fragments, hundreds of them showing only the smallest fraction of a single letter, the process of reconstructing the original panels is slow, labor-intensive, and ongoing. Currently, fewer than a dozen panels are in any condition to be examined by a trained epigrapher. In matters of dating and identifying the function of the Small Temple, three panels are relevant to the discussion at hand. Before discussing the content of individual panels, however, it is important to reiterate some of the limitations of this exercise and to be realistic about its usefulness. Inscriptions, “particularly those of a foreign occupier—hardly imply such thing as ‘character’: they are by their very nature propagandistic. It is as if an assessment were attempted of the Palestinian West Bank based solely on modern Israeli road signs which mention only Jewish settlements, not Palestinian” (W. Ball 2001: 446). Even Nabataean inscriptions for a Nabataean audience can contain elements of propaganda, but at the Small Temple history has been written (and inscribed in stone) by the winners. Specific to the corpus at the Small Temple is Ball’s further warning regarding Latin inscriptions, in that they “merely prove that some Latin-speakers instructed some masons to make inscriptions and do not necessarily have any bearing on the character of a settlement or the make-up of its population” (447). Keeping such warnings in mind, nonetheless, it would be ill advised to disregard such a large and potentially informative corpus. It is simply necessary to be cautious and not let the content of the inscriptions alone override any potentially contradictory evidence. 4.2.2 Inscription Content Three partially reconstructed inscribed marble panels have been particularly informative, providing dates, dedications, and proper names. All names are those of Roman emperors of the post-annexation era. These inscriptions, all with references to the emperor and imperial titulature, convey at the very least a desire to mark an imperial presence in Petra at the building called the Small Temple. The largest single fragment to date from the Small Temple is 02I-2 PLT (figs. 55–56). First identified inside the temple, face down, at

124

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 55. Panel 02-I-2 PLT.

floor level on the north side of the east platform, during the 2001 season, it was initially left in place as a possible in situ floor paver. When it was removed at the beginning of the 2002 season, the inscription was discovered. Since the panel was found resting on dirt rather than directly on the mortar floor bedding, its find spot is unlikely to represent an in situ secondary use as a floor paver. Moreover, the mortar subfloor preserves the outlines of the original floor tiles, none of which is remotely large enough to have once accommodated a fragment of this size. The panel, which may originally have been mounted on the north face of the east platform, possibly fell into its place of discovery at the time of the building’s destruction. Today, none of the three platforms, each measuring 3.71 × 2.39 m, is preserved to a height much above one meter. Presumably taller in antiquity, it is likely that one of the platforms’ sides accommodated this panel. The panel is in good condition. The fragment preserves the left side of a rectangular plaque of microcrystalline white marble, weathered in some places to an off-white color and broken diagonally along the right side and evenly across the bottom (0.42 m × 0.51 m × 0.05 m). Drill holes preserved along the top and left edges contain corroded traces of the bronze dowels used to mount the panel to a wall or other surface.

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

125

Figure 56. Panel 02-I-2 PLT (drawing by Emily Catherine Egan after the author’s sketch).

The inscription reads:

5

I.MP CAESARI D . [IVI] NERVAE FIL N.[ERVÆ] T.RAIANO AV[G GERM] DACICO PONT[IF MAX] T.RIB POTEST XV.[. .IMP VI] [- - -] Imp(eratori) Caesari D[ivi] / Nervae fil(io) N[ervae] Traiano Au[g(usto) Germ(anico)] / Dacico pont[if(ici) max(imo)] / trib(unicia) potestat(e) ((10 + ?)) / [- - -] / [- - -].

The text records a dedication, probably of a statue erected on one the bases found nearby, to the emperor Trajan during the latter half of his reign. The text reads, “To Emperor Caesar, son of the deified Nerva, Trajan Augustus Germanicus Dacicus, pontifex maximus, in the (10 + ?) year of his tribunician power.” The regularity of imperial titulature during this period makes the supplements of the first five lines virtually certain; the next, missing line of text would have included a record of the number of consulships (co(n)s(uli) V or, from 1 January 112, VI: see below) and the acclamation p(atri)

126

THE SMALL TEMPLE

p(atriae) (cf. Dessau 1892–1916: 289ff., esp. 292–95 for the most relevant years). Whether the inscription originally included additional lines of text recording the dedicator(s) and the reason for the dedication remains uncertain. The date of the dedication depends on the year of Trajan’s tribunician power and the reading of the fragmentary character after X at the end of the last preserved line. The supralinear bar extending over the X to the right edge of the stone shows that the numeral included at least one more figure, traces of the upper left corner of which are preserved at the edge of the stone. The inscription must therefore belong after the beginning of 106, when Trajan entered the eleventh year of his tribunician power and later in the same year annexed the province of Arabia, and before July or August of 114, when the honorific “Optimus” was added to his titles after “Traianus.” The angle of the break of the stone at this point and what seem to be traces of the left tail of a serif are perhaps more compatible with the carving of the Vs (lines 2, 3) than the Is on this stone, but certainty is impossible. If a V, then the date cannot be earlier than January 1, 110, when Trajan entered the fifteenth year of tribunician power. If, as is usually the case, the number of the imperial salutations was recorded on the same line as the title ‘Imp.’, then considerations of space would seem to allow only one or at most two, but not three, vertical strokes after the V—that is, XV, XVI, or possibly XVII, but not XVIII. By this reasoning, the inscription could be tentatively dated between the beginning of 110 and December 10, 112. More securely, it may be assigned to between the beginning of 106 (Imp. XI) and July or August 114 (Imp. XIX), a period when several other dedications to Trajan were erected in the city (Tracy 1998, 1999a, 1999b).22 Panel 02-I-2 PLT is particularly important because it establishes a clear imperial presence at the Small Temple via a dedication to an emperor, and also because Trajan, the emperor in question, was in power at the time of the Roman annexation, which confirms the existence of the building around that time. Another inscription was discovered in Petra, in 1956 (Bowersock 1982: 198), with some similar content, although carved into sandstone rather than marble (fig. 57). The inscription is firmly dated to 114 ce, although this inscription is in Greek, and was discovered on 22

This section is adapted from Bodel and Reid (2002).

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

127

Figure 57. Greek Trajanic inscription from Petra.

three inscribed blocks, perhaps the remains of an arch, from the staircase to the Upper Market (Kanellopoulos 2001: 9 n.3). The inscription reads: [ÁšôïêñÜôïñé · Êáßóá]ñé · Èéï™ [· ÍÝñïõá · õj²]· ÍÝñïõá · Ô.ñ.á[éáí§é EÁñßóôùé] 2. [vac. Óåâáóô§é · Ãåñìáíéê§é · Äáêéê]§é · Pñ÷éåñås · ìåãßóôv · ä[çìáñ]÷éêyò · dîïõßáò · ҕô.’ · [é]çA · ášôïêñÜôïñé · ô’ æA · ›ð.[Üôv · ô’ · òA · ðáôñr · ðáôñßäïò vac.] 3. [ vac. ½ · ôyò · EÁñáâßáò ìç]ôñüðïëéò · ÐÝôñá · dðr · Ãáßïõ · Êë[áõäßï]õ · ÓåïõÞñïõ vac. 3 ðñåóâå.[õô]ï.™ · vac. 3 PíôéóôñáôÞãïõ vac. (Tracy 1999a: 53)23 The inscription clearly gives the title metropolis to the city of Petra during Trajan’s rule (Bowersock 1982: 198) and also mentions Gaius Claudius Severus, the governor of the province, in the third line (Tracy 1999a: 55). The completeness of this Greek inscription with such similar content to Trajan’s Latin inscription at the Small Temple may give a more accurate idea of its missing content. Panel 02-I-87 PLT, a Latin inscription carved into green marble, consists of 44 joining inscription fragments, of which 19 were discovered scattered throughout the interior of the building, a concentra23

Tracy’s version of this text is slightly different from the first version published by Bowersock (1982: 198).

128

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 58. Panel 02-I-87 PLT.

tion of 24 fragments was discovered in the alcove outside the southwest corner of the building, and one additional fragment was found at the base of the staircase on the north side of the structure (fig. 58).24 While no fragments were discovered in situ, that over half of them were found in the alcove may suggest that that at some point in time the panel had been removed to this place or even mounted there. The wide left margin of the panel is preserved and measures approximately 0.24 m. The right side of the reconstructed panel appears to have been cut, perhaps evidence of secondary use. If so, the 24

Thanks to John Bodel for assistance with panels 02-I-87 PLT and 02I-85 PLT.

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

129

panel may have been mounted in the alcove with the inscription side in, for use as plain revetment. The panel is notable for both the poor quality of the inscription and the poor preparation of the marble itself. The heights of the letters are highly inconsistent, as is their execution. Note, for example, the varied appearances of the letter M, inscribed reasonably neatly as the first letter in line 5, asymmetrically as the last letter in this same line, and as an intermediate form in line 7. The marble surface seems to have been badly prepared, as its front face is not flush. There is a vertical notch visible in lines 6 and 7, through the axis of the T in line 6 and the R in line 7, probably a saw mark that was never polished away after the slab was cut. The awkwardly carved letters combined with the poorly prepared marble at the very least suggest a low degree of quality control over the production of this panel. The inscription reads:

5

IMPERATORI CAESARI [- c.8 -]O PIO F…[CIA]… M[- c.5 -]O TRIB POTEST COS COL ANTONI…A NOBIL IN M[- c.6 -].. IARUM [- - -] PETR[- c.8 -] OLIS A. PER ULI. [- c.5 -]M ET [- c.10-11 -] [- c.6 -]…[- c.4 -] M . [- c.9-10 -] [- - -] Imperatori Caesari [M. Aurelio Severo] / [[[A.l.e.x.a.n.d.]r.o]] Pio F[eli] c.i. A.u.g.(usto), [pontifici] / [[m.a.x.I.m.o]], trib(unicia) potest(ate), co(n)s(uli), [pat(ri) patriae] / col(onia) Antonin[ia]na nobil(issima ?) in[ gent(ibus) Araborunm] / m[- c.6 -]..iarum [- - -] / Petr[a metrop]olis A.[rabiae - c.3-4 -] / PER ULI.[- c.5 -]m et [- c.10-11 -] / [- c.6 -] … [- c.4 -] m . .[- c.9-10 ] / [- - -].

The precise dating of this text, another imperial dedication, depends in part on the precise restoration of the first word in line 2. If, as suggested in the restoration above, that word is Alexandro, then this panel was a dedication to the emperor Severus Alexander (r. 222–35) and would have read, “To the emperor Caesar [Marcus Aurelius Severus] [[Alexander]] Pius Felix Augustus, [pontifex] [[maximus]], with tribunician power, consul, the colony Antoniniana, noblest among [the nations of the Arabs,] M[- - -]..iarum … Petr[a the metro-

130

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 59. Panel 02-I-85 PLT.

p]olis of A[rabia …]”. If instead, the missing word is Antonino, the first line would have to be restored as only Imperatori Caesari [M. Aurelio], and the panel would instead prove to be a dedication to Seve-rus Alexander’s predecessor and adoptive father Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, better known as Elagabalus (r. 218–22). Evidence of deliberate damage on the face of the inscription, most notable in the first words of lines 2 and 3, most likely represents the application of a damnatio memoriae (discussed in more detail in §4.2.3). Both Elagabalus and Severus Alexander received this treatment after their deaths, although Severus Alexander’s was short-lived and he was ultimately deified in 238.

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

131

Panel 02-I-85 PLT, another Latin inscription carved into green marble, consists of 14 joining fragments discovered scattered throughout the interior of the building (fig. 59). These fragments have been tentatively sourced to Marmara. Several of the letters display unusual forms, the V and D in particular. The face of the inscription shows evidence of lines of ordination (a lightly inscribed grid used to guide the carving) marking approximately 3 cm between rows. The face of the inscription bears possible evidence of weathering, in the form of a rough texture in the second and third rows. No margins are preserved, and no fragments of this panel were discovered in situ. The inscription reads:

5

[I]MPERA AVRELIO SEV.RO . [A]V.G DIVI MAGNI A [- ca.1 -] [D]I.VI SEVERI. [- ca.3 -] NEPOT.I. [- ca.3 -] ONINI [- ca.3 -] NOBIL IN GEN [- ca.2 -] R.IA [- - -] [I]mpera[tori Caesari M.] / Aurelio Se.v.r.o. [[[Alexandro]] P(io) F(elici)] / [A]u.g(usto), divi Magni A[ntonini Pii (Felicis ?) filio] / [d]ivi Severi Pii nepoti (vac.) [ - - - col(onia) ?] / [Ant]onini[ana] n.obil(issima) in gen[t(ibus) Araborum ?] / [..]r. ia [- ca. 17–19 -] / [- - -].

In all likelihood the text records a dedication to Emperor Severus Alexander, and reads “To the emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Sevrus [[[Alexander]] Pius Felix A]ug(ustus), son of the divine Magnus A[ntoninus Pius (Felix ?) (Caracalla) Augustus, grandson of the divine (Septimius) Severus Pius, the [colony Ant]onini[ana], most noble among [the nations of the Arabs ?] . . . .” This panel was a dedication by the colony of Petra to the emperor Severus Alexander, most likely in commemoration of the elevation of the community to colonial status. The panel was presumably dedicated no earlier than 222, the first year of his reign. It is interesting to note that Severus Alexander was born in Syria, where his father was a procurator. Both of these panels, dedicated to Severus Alexander and perhaps to his predecessor, Elagabalus, clearly indicate that the Small Temple remained in use at least through 235.

132

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Figure 60. Panel 01-I-38 PLT.

Lastly, there are four inscriptions on the back or bottom sides of cornices that deserve mention. One of the marble cornices, 01-I-246 PLT (Seq. No. 5292), has what appears to be the Greek Letter Ö incised on the back, perhaps a mason’s mark, although no other such marks have been found thus far at the Small Temple. The other three inscribed cornices, 00-I-14 PLT (Seq. No. 2068), 01-I-247 PLT (Seq. No. 4104), and 02-I-33 PLT (Seq. No. 15067), may be inscribed with Nabataean script and are the only three such inscriptions thus far discovered in the entire precinct, although the quality of the inscriptions makes it difficult to be certain of language. What is clear, however, is that none of these three inscriptions is Latin or Greek. Whether the text is graffiti, or some variation of a mason’s mark, is also uncertain, but it is important to note that these non-Latin, nonGreek inscriptions only appear on surfaces that would not have been seen when the cornices were mounted. The native language of the Nabataeans, the inhabitants and rulers of Petra until annexation, was not to be seen by a visitor to this building. Latin and Greek, two languages in wide use in the Roman Empire, however, would have been seen in abundance at the Small Temple. 4.2.3 Inscription Phases One sizable inscription panel fragment consisting of three joining pieces was discovered in secondary use in situ in the north wall of the west basin. The panel 01-I-38 PLT mentioned in §4.2.2 was ce-

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

133

mented in place with the text upside down with its plain back side visible as the inside wall of the basin (fig. 60). The inscription consists of three lines of text in Greek with red paint still visible in some of the letters and reads: ÁÂÉÁ ÅÌÏÍÅÕÏÍÔ[Ï] ÁÔÏÕÊÔÉÓÔÏ

In the first line, the place name “ÁÑÁÂÉÁ” (Arabia) seems likely. The content of the second and third lines is more perplexing because there are no spaces to mark word breaks. Nonetheless, the last six letters of the third line, “ÊÔÉÓÔÏ,” stand out and clearly relate to a declension of the word “êôßóôçò” (founder). The use of this word is particularly evocative when looking at the divine honors accorded to rulers in the Hellenistic world. This was “a way of honouring an individual person out of gratitude for the benefits his power had conferred, a point often emphasized by the use of such terms as founder (êôßóôçò), benefactor (åšåñãÝôçò) or saviour (óïôÞñ)” (Fishwick 1987: 11). The smaller joining pair of Greek inscription fragments mentioned in §4.2.2 was also discovered in the same sort of reuse in the west basin. The two sets of fragments do not join. These two fragments, 01-I-37 PLT (Seq. No. 11282), contain only four complete letters and there is no real possibility of distinguishing any individual words (see fig. 48). Nonetheless, despite the limiting factors of these partial panels, they do point to a renovation of the building that indicates at least two phases during which inscriptions were on display in the Small Temple. During the first inscription phase, the Greek inscriptions in the basin would have been on display somewhere within the building. At a later time, they were no longer relevant (or were even offensive) and were reused in the expansion of the early basin. It is quite clear that these inscriptions were cut to size specifically for use in the basin wall. The smaller inscription, for example, clearly shows a line of text that has been cut off to produce a fragment of the correct dimensions. The use of the word “founder” in 01-I-38 PLT is intriguing and not at all at odds with sentiments that may have been expressed in relation to an honored individual, perhaps a leader, or even an emperor. It is interesting that both reused fragments are inscribed in Greek, the language that would have been the lingua franca of Petra,

134

THE SMALL TEMPLE

yet the vast majority of the inscription fragments are in Latin, “the language of the army and the Roman administration” (Tracy 1999a: 56). Forty-four fragments were discovered with what appears to be intentional damage done to the inscriptions. Eight of these fragments are part of 02-I-87 PLT, discussed in §4.2.2, and are in part responsible for some of the difficulties in deciphering the content of the panel. This deliberate destruction of names in inscriptions likely represents damnatio memoriae, the “practice of erasing a condemned person’s name from public monuments, particularly common during the Roman empire, [that] symbolically represented the abolition of the memory of his or her existence” (Bodel 2001: 23), and also the abolition an emperor’s acts (Balsdon and Levick 2003: 427). Damnatio memoriae did not attempt to erase the existence or rule of a bad emperor, but instead illustrated the opposite, that “the erasures were, and should be, visible as … ‘anti-monuments’ of damned rulers. Anonymity was to be their conspicuous punishment” (Gradel 2002: 287). The act of chiseling away the names of the condemned was perhaps the most popular way of carrying out such punishment, but not the only way, and not the only way represented at the Small Temple. The fragmentary inscriptions discussed above, found in secondary use in the construction of the west basin, were simply removed from public view, and thus the person or persons commemorated therein were removed from prominence. A similar fate befell a panel mentioning the emperor Domitian. After his death in 96, not only was the text chiseled away from an inscription in Pozzuoli, but the panel was reused as part of a frieze mounted with the inscription side hidden from view (Keppie 1991: 22). In addition to the chiseled fragments of 02-I-87 PLT, and the fragments of 01-I-37 PLT and 01-I-38 PLT that have been reused, there are another 36 fragments that show evidence of the same type of intentional damage. Damnatio memoriae was not solely the domain of emperors but could also be applied to prominent senators and imperial family members (ibid.). The punishment could be said to have generally applied only to people of high rank. The concentration of so many chiseled and hidden fragments is suggestive. While a temple could be expected to have one such panel (maybe even one where the benefactor’s name was ultimately chiseled

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

135

out due to perceived transgressions), several such panels seems unlikely. To have so many fragments of evidence of damnationes in an individual building at the very least suggests an unusual concentration of these accolades in the first place, unless the primary purpose of the building was to honor an individual person, or a class of multiple people who have held a single position. However, this result would be extremely plausible in a building dedicated solely to such an individual of high rank (e.g., the emperor Elagabalus), or to a position held by an individual (e.g., the emperor, a position held by Elagabalus and several dozen other individuals), such as an imperial cult building. The latter type of commemoration, of a position rather than an individual, seems most reasonable in the Small Temple when considering the presence of an unaltered inscription panel like 02-I-2 PLT. Inscriptions relating to emperors whose memory was not condemned (such as Trajan) were left untouched, while those inscriptions relating to emperors who received damnatio memoriae would have been aggressively damaged. 4.2.4 Imperial and Affluence Associations of Marble Considering the effort involved in obtaining and transporting marble from distant sources, the presence of marble at the Small Temple, in a city where none was locally available, suggests that the building had been of some importance. Furthermore, marble was associated with wealth, power, and even the emperor himself (Fant 1988: 149). No doubt this image was in part created by Augustus and his use of Luna marble in “all the buildings to which [he] entrusted propagandistic and ideological messages of his new power” (Pensabene 1995: 13). By using marble, the builders may have hoped that some of the imperial prestige of the material would rub off onto their buildings. The extravagance of the marble becomes clear when considering the enormous effort that would have been necessary to get it to Petra. Marble may have been considered so valuable that shipwrecks with marble cargo were even worth salvaging (A. Parker 1992: 95). The road from Gaza to Petra, however, may not have been in particularly good condition by the time of Roman annexation. Certainly by the Late Byzantine Period, the road saw little use, judging by the paucity of Late Byzantine ceramics (Fiema 2002: 232–33). Bowersock contends that even as early as the middle of the first century CE, the road began to see a decrease in usage (1983: 64).

136

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Early on, especially during the reign of Augustus, although marble was initially used “as a substitute for the travertines and tufas of established architectural usage, it soon came to be valued as a material with which to clothe the bare bones of the new concrete architecture, and the rapid increase in the use of the latter was accompanied by a hardly less rapid development in the uses of marble veneering” (Ward-Perkins 1981: 117). Marble revetment and tiles of opus sectile, or inlay, were frequently stripped from buildings for reuse as luxury adornments when their original context had lost meaning or value (R. Taylor 2003: 232). While the presence of so much marble in the Small Temple, a clearly pillaged, and perhaps abandoned, building, may initially seem surprising when considering the value of marble to the Romans, the catastrophic collapse of the roof would have neatly sealed it and kept it from all but the most determined of scavengers, as would its now fragmentary nature after the collapse. Seneca the Younger, political advisor to the Emperor Nero in the first century CE, wrote of the opulence implied by the generous use of marble: We think ourselves poor and mean if our walls are not resplendent with large and costly mirrors; if our marbles from Alexandria are not set off by mosaics of Numidian stone, if their borders are not faced over on all sides with difficult patterns, arranged in many colours like paintings; if our vaulted ceilings are not buried in glass; if our swimming-pools are not lined with Thasian marble, once a rare and wonderful sight in any temple—pools into which we let down our bodies after they have been drained weak by abundant perspiration; and finally, if the water has not poured from silver spigots. (Ep. 86.6–7)

The quantities of marble at the Small Temple were no exception to this lavishness. Over time, beginning in the first century CE and culminating with the development of the marble business, or ratio marmorum (to be discussed in §4.3.3), the use of marble came to symbolize the connection between Rome and her provinces, and it came to be marketed throughout the Mediterranean (Fant 1988: 147; Fischer 1996: 251).

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

4.3

137

MARBLE TRADE AND ACQUISITION

4.3.1 Trade and Commerce in the Roman Empire Mauss warns against oversimplifying ancient economic relationships, writing: In the economic and legal systems that have preceded our own, one hardly ever finds a simple exchange of goods, wealth, and products in transaction concluded by individuals. First, it is not individuals but collectivities that impose obligations of exchange and contract upon each other. The contracting parties are legal entities: clans, tribes, and families who confront and oppose one another either in groups who meet face to face in one spot, or through their chiefs, or in both these ways at once. (1990: 5)

The exchange systems of the Roman Empire, especially in relation to the trade of luxury goods, such as marble, are a prime example of this. Those geographic areas in possession of desired goods, again, such as marble, “have an economic/political interrelationship with zones that trade for their produce” (Weigand, Harbottle, and Sayre 1977: 23). As to whether there was market trade in the ancient world, the crux of Finley’s model is that there was not, that “most people in the ancient world lived off the land, in one fashion or another, and that they themselves recognized the land to be the fountainhead of all good, material and moral” (1999: 97). According to Paterson (1998: 156), however, market trade did in fact exist, although Finley’s influence has caused it to be played down. Paterson is critical that Finley’s “marginalisation of traders and of the scale of their enterprises is based on his studies of archaic and classical Greece, and that at least until late in life he was skeptical of archaeological evidence. All the evidence suggests that trading activity in the Roman empire is not just greater in scale than in the classical Greek world, but that it is different in kind” (157). B. Johnson and Stager’s discussion of the wine trade in Ashkelon from the Late Bronze Age to the Byzantine period (1995) relies on examination of the transport amphorae discovered at the intended destinations of these deliveries, rather than as wrecks on the sea floor. In their essay, they use Braudel’s concept of la longue durée as a framework for their discussion. The longue durée is one of three levels of historical events as defined by Fernand Braudel, that “operate con-

138

THE SMALL TEMPLE

temporaneously but at different wavelengths in time. The reality observed when we reveal how a particular era or region underwent historical change is the final result of an inner dialectic between these different temporalities” (Bintliff 1991: 6–7).25 While an interesting point, the concept of longue durée, “time moving at its slowest and least perceptible pulse” (Horden and Purcell 2000: 37), seems to be primarily a descriptive label and not an explanation of how cultural processes actually work. As such, its practicality is limited. By examining characteristic “Gaza” wine amphorae, documented through the stratigraphic sequence at Ashkelon, and the distribution pattern of their contents, Johnson and Stager claim to be able to “illuminate a small but revealing facet of the economy of an ecumenic empire and relate that facet to the spread of Christianity throughout the Holy Land and the Late Roman, Early Byzantine world” (95). While they have documented that this movement of Gaza wine did exist, invoking the concept of the longue durée really does nothing to further their argument. Fernand Braudel’s discussion, however, appears to have made at least some concession to the idea that cargoes may be carried on ships, and devotes some effort to differentiating between different types of voyages. Point-to-point voyaging, or destination-conscious shipping, refers to the movement of open seagoing ships, usually loaded with one type of cargo that is being transported directly from point of origin to destination. This method of shipping became especially popular during the Roman era. He also coined the term “tramping,” to refer to the movement of coast-hugging ships that pick up and exchange cargo from one port to the next, often without the assistance of a fixed itinerary (Braudel 1972: 107; Gould 2000: 152). Marble was necessarily imported to Petra, which would have added to a building’s expense, yet was unnecessary for the structural integrity of the building. Isotopic results strongly suggest that the bulk of the marble originated in either western Anatolia or the Greek islands. Furthermore, marble’s Roman imperial associations (Fant 1988: 149) meant that, using the same material valued by Roman dynasts, one could hope to add some of the same prestige to any building incorporating it. Marble would probably have been considered even more of a luxury at Petra than at Caesarea. Walker points out that “land and not sea transport was the critical factor in determining the cost of pro25

The other two levels are the short durée and the moyenne durée.

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

139

duction of marble; once the goods were on the boat, distance was no object” (1988: 190–91). The location of Caesarea, a port city on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, would have allowed for relatively easy movement of a marble cargo from ship to final location. Petra, however, located far inland, would have required additional transport of the marble via an overland route after being unloaded from a ship. According to Fant, “Long-distance trade in stone is an improbable phenomenon. Stone is dense, voluminous, and very expensive to transport. Most kinds of stone were distributed locally; the frequency of finds drops off sharply with distance from the source” (1988: 147). However, there is a possible caveat to this rule of distance decay that should also be considered. Renfrew proposes a law of monotonic decrement, stating, “When a commodity is available only at a highly localized source or sources for the material, its distribution in space frequently conforms to a very general pattern. Finds are abundant near the source, and there is a fall-off in frequency or abundance with distance from the source” (1977: 72). Ray offers a refinement to distance decay (1978) that might be applicable in the eastern Roman Empire, and at the least should not be indiscriminately dismissed. In his discussion of the American fur trade in the eighteenth century, Ray suggests that there would not necessarily be a direct and linear link between the amount of a certain type of material and its distance from the source. Instead, there could be a comparatively empty zone in the middle representing an exchange of goods by middlemen, thus removing these goods from the archaeological record in these locations. In short, he presents a cautionary tale, suggesting that not all objects or trade goods were (or are) treated the same and thus will not always conform to the same patterns in the archaeological record. The applicability of either of these approaches in the case of the Small Temple will be considered. The transport of any material, marble or otherwise, was often both cheaper and easier over water than land. The emperor Diocletian’s Edict of Maximum Prices, issued in 301, set an upper price limit on thousands of items, including marble (Corcoran and DeLaine 1994), and also gives an idea of the costs associated with land and water transport. In The Ancient Economy, Finley writes: The transport figures in Diocletian’s edict of maximum prices imply that a 1200-pound wagon-load of wheat would double in price in 300 miles, that shipment of grain by sea from one end of the Mediterranean to the other would cost less (ignoring the

140

THE SMALL TEMPLE risks) than carting it seventy-five miles. A state could afford to engage ox-teams for the extraordinary purpose of shifting marble column-drums for temples, employing an average thirty yoke for each drum, and it could perform other extraordinary feats, especially if the army required them. But individuals could not move bulky merchandise long distances by land as a normal activity, nor could any but the wealthiest and most powerful communities. (1999: 126)

Cheapness and ease of transport, however, do not mean that goods were never moved over land. In the case of Petra, located near neither river nor sea, overland movement of goods was, of course, a necessity. A city such as Athens, much nearer to any body of water than Petra, is still seven miles away from the port of Piraeus, and thus was also reliant on overland routes (Burford 1960: 3). The transport of wheat, for example, could incorporate a journey of multiple legs, including sea, river, and land, making it simplistic to suggest that transport over water precluded any transport over land (Laurence 1998: 134). 4.3.2 Quarry Locations The results of the isotopic analysis suggest that the samples tested a originated lmost entirely in western Anatolia, the Balkan Peninsula, and the Cyclades. Of the 44 marble fragments analyzed, ten possible quarries were represented (see appendix 2 for results and a map of quarry locations). The quarry locations present two types of information: they illustrate the wide-ranging marble network of the Roman Empire, and they can indirectly provide clues about the dating of the extraction of the marble. While the marble itself cannot be physically dated in any sort of useful way in an archaeological context, in some cases it is possible to date the use of the quarry itself. Datable objects recovered from quarries, such as inscriptions, pottery, coins, and tools, can help pinpoint its time of use and abandonment, as can a knowledge of the history of nearby road networks, with the assumption that quarries away from sea or river coastlines could not profitably operate without such access (Dworakowska 1983: 49, 61, 63). Such evidence allows at least tentative dating of the time ranges during which specific types of marble may have been quarried, and, by extension, aid in the dating of the phases of marble use within the Small Temple.

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

141

While dated quarries may initially seem a windfall for the dating of marble usage, the reality is that many dated quarries were mined over such long periods of time that they are almost useless in helping to date the Small Temple. Dodge and Ward-Perkins have compiled a partial summary of decorative stones used in the Roman Empire, including quarries represented at the Small Temple. Of these quarries, several types of marble from the small temple are mentioned, including Luna, Paros, Penteli, and Thasos. All were in use by at least the first century BCE and continued in use until at least the fourth century CE (Dodge and Ward-Perkins 1992: 153–59). In short, these four quarries represented at the Small Temple could have been exploited in Petra both before and after the Roman annexation. While these quarry dates do not contradict the idea that the placement of marble was possible at the time of Roman annexation, neither do they confirm it. The Penteli quarry was also in use during this period (Bruno, Gorgoni, and Pallante 2003; Tsompos, Epitropou, and Skilodimou 2003), but there is further information about this particular quarry that may help to narrow its range of use significantly. Pausanias claims that Herodes Atticus, the owner of the Penteli quarries, had depleted the quarries during his lifetime (Dworakowska 1983: 29). Atticus died ca. 137 CE (Hazel 2001: 138), which would provide a latest closing date for the quarry. Assuming the marble at the Small Temple to be in primary use, it is feasible that the Small Temple was constructed in the wake of the Roman annexation. The 249 marble cornice fragments, including the four with inscriptions, are all of a medium- to large-crystalline grayish-white marble. Four of these cornice fragments were subjected to isotopic analysis.26 The results for all four were 81 percent or higher probability that they had originated in the marble quarries of Marmara. Unlike the marble cornices, the uninscribed marble revetment fragments were identified in a variety of colors, from green to white to gray to black. Fourteen of these samples were analyzed. The results were grouped around color, with all of the gray samples having the greatest probability of originating in Afyon, the single white sample possibly from Luna, the green samples from Marmara, and the black samples both possibly from Sardis. 26 Cornice fragments with the following Sequence Numbers were tested: Seq. No. 5147, Seq. No. 11221, Seq. No. 4104 (01-I-247 PLT), and Seq. No. 5292 (01-I-246 PLT).

142

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Twenty-two inscription fragments were also analyzed, not including the two inscribed cornice fragments (which were included in the discussion in §4.2.2 with the other cornice fragments). Among the non-cornice inscription fragments there was a much greater variety in identified quarries, although there continued to be concord between quarry identification and marble color. The several green samples were all likely from Marmara, and grayish-white samples may have been from the Chorodaki quarry on Paros, Penteli, or Sardis. There were an additional four grayish-white samples possibly originating at Usak, Aliki, Cape Pahneri, and Cape Vathy. Several of these 22 inscription fragments are fragments of three panels of joining fragments. Once fragment joins were identified, it was not necessary to test multiple fragments from the same panel. However, some joining fragments were intentionally tested in order to examine the results of the isotopic analysis and its success in identifying the same source for both. Some fragments were tested before common joins were identified, only to gain this knowledge at a later date. Today there exist one set each of four, three, and two joining fragments that have been tested. While the results for each set have not been identical in terms of percentage of probability of originating from a given source, ultimately the members of each set have been attributed to the same source, adding to the credibility of the analysis initially proposed by Craig and Craig (1972). Herz described the interpretation of these percentages: The isotopic results were analyzed by a least squares program which compares the values to the Classical Marble database. The percentage of probabilities should not be taken literally since the program only measures the distance on a δ13C-δ18O plot between the sample point and the centroid of any given quarry field. Thus where the data from three quarries overlaps, the highest percentage probability is given to the quarry whose centroid is closest to the sample whereas in reality, the true source may be any one of the three.27

The marble sources can be identified with only a degree of probability, but not absolute certainty.

27

Norman Herz, pers. comm., December 5, 2001.

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE 4.3.3

143

The Roman Imperial Quarry System: The Ratio Marmorum The Roman Imperial quarry system made possible Augustus’s alleged boast that he found Rome a city of brick, and left it built in marble (ut iure sit gloriatus marmoream se relinquere, quam latericiam accepisset) (Suetonius, Aug. 28). At the end of the first century BCE, and into the beginning of the first century CE, the marble trade in and around the Mediterranean fell under the control of a Roman Imperial quarry system (Fant 1988: 147; Fischer 1996: 251, 1998: 41; Waelkens, De Paepe, and Moens 1988: 19). The Thalassocracy Theory proposes that the uniformities of cultural materials throughout the eastern Mediterranean denote the existence of some central authority in the region that would have controlled trade and set the standards of measurement (Knapp 1993). In this case, such a central authority would be the newly-organized ratio marmorum, or marble business, that “took over many sources of the already famous varieties of marble, especially polychrome. Part of the appeal of these stones had been precisely that they were in short supply” (Fant 1988: 147). Under Augustus, the quarries of the Mediterranean began to find increasing demand for their products in Rome, but the available supplies of the time were not immediately able to meet the need, which in turn led to the creation of the ratio (WardPerkins 1992b: 23–24). Ultimately, it was this insatiable demand for marble from Rome that eventually led to provincial interest in this building material with its imperial associations. As described by Fischer, this process of centralizing and collecting the marble sources of the empire only became possible with the revolutionary changes that occurred in Roman economy, technology, politics, and social structures. Its main characteristics are the development of an efficient transport system by sea, by river, and on land; a combination of central control of quarries, which came under imperial ownership, and a decentralized system of “overseas agencies”; an economic rationalization of production including new quarrying methods, standardization, and prefabrication, and leading inter alia, to the appearance of the marmorarii [or marble workers] as a link with “overseas agencies” and regional workshops; and the existence of a highly developed municipal administration interested in and economically able to afford the purchase, transport, and use of marble products. (1996: 251–52)

144

THE SMALL TEMPLE

While it seems clear that many, if not most, of the quarries within the boundaries of the empire were owned by the emperor, it has not always been possible to identify these quarries with great certainty because not all of the quarries used the same epigraphical conventions that denoted imperial oversight (Fant 1988: 152). Once quarried (usually in bulk), many luxury stones were stored either in the quarries themselves, or in marble yards in the provinces to which they were shipped, often in the form of roughly shaped blocks (Ward-Perkins 1992a: 115). There were marble yards in Rome itself where material from widely dispersed quarries was received and organized. The marble yard of Rome on the Tiber, called the Marmorata in the Emporium, was the largest such depository, including marble from quarries in Asia Minor, Greece, and Africa (Dworakowska 1983: 69; Fant 1988: 152). Ward-Perkins and Dodge have both discussed six factors that allowed for the successful organization of the ratio marmorum. These elements, some discussed above, did not necessarily all occur at once, but, “they all developed naturally and logically from the new situation resulting from the imperial take-over of many of the quarries” (Dodge 1988: 217). These factors were: Imperial and/or state control of the major quarries by the middle of the first century CE; Reorganization of quarry management and methods with an eye toward greater efficiency; A new trend in the customer–supplier relationship in which marble was stockpiled both at its source and at the marble yards, as well as being produced in bulk; Standardization and prefabrication in which some objects, such as sarcophagi and architectural elements, were shipped in an already roughed-out form; Availability of specialized craftsmen at some quarries to facilitate the handling of specific elements; Instituting of overseas agencies to simplify ordering and distribution, which allowed individual quarries to cultivate specific markets and provide options with regional appeal. (Dodge 1988: 215; Ward-Perkins 1992b: 24–26)

Early Augustan-era marble demand for the city of Rome was for marble from the Luna quarries of the Italian peninsula, although shortly thereafter demand for marble began to expand to more distant quarries from elsewhere in the Mediterranean (Ward-Perkins 1992b: 23).

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

145

Marble excavated in the provinces of the Roman Empire eventually drew from these diverse sources as well, even marbles that had to travel overland to reach Mediterranean ports (Corcoran and DeLaine 1994: 266). Marble supplied to Palestine during this time primarily originated in the quarries of Asia Minor, especially Marmara and Afyon, while Greek marbles were much more rare (Fischer 1998: 257–58). These quarries are in all likelihood also well represented at the Small Temple. The wide range of places of discovery of various marbles (and other desirable stones), far from their places of geological origin, is particularly noteworthy when considering its vast bulk. Water transport became the preferred method of movement for these heavy and awkward cargoes (Greene 1986: 151). It is not surprising that first of all harbour cities themselves became richly adorned cities. In Roman Palestine, Caesarea even held the indisputable primacy among the cities of the province, since it rapidly became a real metropole and its capital. Its harbour was the main gate of the country, linking it with the inland and even with the Decapolis and Arabia. (Fischer 1998: 259)

The reach of marble into non-seaside cities could only have been possible through the presence of roads. A city such as Scythopolis, located approximately 70 km east of Caesarea, was served by a Roman road that joined the two cities via Legio (Fischer 1998: 260). Marble destined for Petra would have to have been transported via this same method. It is in the transport of marble over water, however, that profitmaximizing and even risk-taking behavior can be best illustrated. A Roman wreck off the east coast of Sicily in the bay of Giardini Naxos was discovered with a cargo of marble. This particular ship “probably commenced her final voyage in Greece, as is shown by the cargo. A careful sampling carried out on all the cargo pieces has established that the blocks are of Cipollino marble from Euboea, and the columns of a white marble with grey veins” (Basile 1988: 138–39). It is possible that this particular ship had been loaded in more than one location, “at a port in Asia Minor or the islands, and then in Euboea. There is also the third possibility that the cargo was all loaded at once in a harbour where products from various quarries were collected and mixed together, as has been supposed for the ‘mixed’ cargoes of Punta Scifo and Torre Sgarrata” (139). Simply put, this scenario is an example of Renfrew’s Principle of Equifinality, the idea that “final

146

THE SMALL TEMPLE

results may be achieved with different initial conditions and in different ways. This view suggests that the social organisation can accomplish its objectives with varying inputs and varying internal activities” (1977: 83). Another Roman wreck, this one off the coast of the Italian peninsula, southeast of Taranto near San Pietro, was discovered with a cargo of marble sarcophagi. The sarcophagi had been quarried and loaded onto the ship to maximize the use of space. For example, some sarcophagi were doubled, “not as double sarcophagi but as double units for shipping, with space left in the middle to make sides of the correct thickness when the sarcophagi were separated at their destination” (Ward-Perkins and Throckmorton 1965: 203, 205). The authors speculate on the sinking of this Greek ship: It was easy to imagine how the ship had gone down. Her captain must have taken a chance and sailed from Asia Minor late in the season. After clearing Cape Malea and rounding the Peloponnesus he would have headed across the Adriatic. Then must have come the storm, with days of thrashing in heavy seas and no idea of his actual location until, finally, came an unexpected landfall on a coast with no harbor for a big ship. Heavily loaded and with sails of a type that did not work well for going to windward, the ship was inevitably driven ashore. (209)

Risk-taking behavior, such as a desire to deliver a cargo of marble at a marginal time of year, may have ultimately led to the sinking of the ship. The wreck off Punta Scifo near Crotone in southern Italy consisted of pavonazzetto Synnadic and Proconnesian marble, both from western Anatolia and dating no later than 200 CE (Pensabene 1978: 105, 107, 112). Pensabene suggests that finding these different kinds of marble together is not problematic because “there must have been ports in Asia Minor which acted as collecting points for the export of marble from the nearby regions” (107). All of these wrecks show evidence of transport in multiple stages, even though their final destinations remain unknown. Before these ships sank with their marble cargoes, the cargoes themselves had been mixed and intermingled, necessitating earlier journeys from their initial points of departure. These prior journeys could have been the result of tramping. The marble of the Punta Scifo wreck in particular, from multiple points of origin in western Anatolia, would

MARBLE, TRADE, AND THE SMALL TEMPLE

147

have needed an overland journey west to a port city prior to its loading. 4.3.4 Marble Acquisition at Petra The centralized nature of the ratio marmorum meant that, even though there were marble yards besides those in Rome itself, any marble would have had a great distance to travel before reaching Petra. Even with this limitation, marble did see use in Petra, although often only in the type of revetment discovered at the Small Temple (Fischer 1998: 264). And yet even despite this usage, several provinces of the eastern Mediterranean were only “sporadically connected with the Roman marble trade. This state of affairs could be partly due to the long distances from the Mediterranean and the lack of rivers or canals, found in other regions” (ibid.). Interestingly, one of the most obvious limitations in the transport of marble, its weight, was not taken into account in the pricing of the material. Diocletian’s Edict of Prices of 301 indicates instead that it was sold by measure (Basile 1988: 139). While according to Fischer, Caesarea may have been the primary marble harbor of Roman Palestine (1996: 261), the maritime port city that Petra would likely have had the closest contact with would have been Gaza. The marble discovered in situ and loose in the matrix of the Small Temple, as mentioned previously, is overwhelmingly in the form of plain revetment. This use of marble as cladding would have allowed a maximum area to be covered by a minimum volume of marble. At the very least it appears that the Small Temple was clad from floor level to a height of approximately 0.65 m, or one register of marble slabs, along an inside perimeter length (including the three platforms, which were also clad) of 54.72 m. The thickness of these slabs usually ranges from 1.5 to 1.7 cm, which corresponds well with Ward-Perkins’s estimation of a 2.0 cm allotment for such slabs including sawing waste (Fant 1993: 154 n. 63; Ward-Perkins 1951: 99 n. 84). Slabs cut to such a thickness would cover a relatively large area of 35.57 m2. Yet if all of this marble used to clad a single register at the Small Temple was combined into one solid square block of marble, the block would only need to measure 0.89 m on a side, for a total volume of 0.71 m3. To clad a second register of the same height, as could be possible given the height of some drill holes in the interior building walls (especially in Trench 4), twice as much marble would have been needed.

148

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Of course, since several different types of marble were used for the revetment of the interior, it is impossible that all of the marble at the Small Temple could have originated from a single block. The discussion above is meant to give a sense of how far a relatively compact volume of marble could go if used only to thinly veneer the walls. Marble crustae were, in fact, “the way in which marble was most widely used in public and private buildings alike. Even a lowly thermopolium counter of the 60s or 70s in Pompeii or Herculaneum could have a patchwork of reused marble fragments, often including the highly-prized imperial types, at a time when the large-scale use of imported marbles was limited to Rome before the expansion of marble production in the early 2nd c. A.D.” (Corcoran and DeLaine 1994: 268–69). While it seems likely that the use of marble throughout the Roman Empire was intended to emulate the imperial use of marble in Rome itself, the predominant use of revetment rather than any other marble architectural feature displays a frugality on the part of the builders, with their ability to make small amounts of the resource go a long way. This becomes especially likely when considering how the centralization of marble resources within the empire was organized primarily for the benefit of the center of the empire itself (which is to say, Rome), leaving any provincial areas wishing to emulate the center to find ingenious ways of incorporating the expensive and cumbersome material, even if in smaller amounts, and to find their own paths through the ratio marmorum.

5 RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT The final chapter, “The Small Temple as an Imperial Cult Building,” integrates the evidence gathered in the previous chapters to support an understanding of the Small Temple as an imperial cult building. This requires, however, further consideration. How was ruler worship perceived and conducted in the classical world, and, more specifically, how was the Roman imperial cult observed and disseminated? Before the Small Temple can be formally presented as an imperial cult building of the eastern Roman Empire, one must consider this background. The terms “Ruler Worship” and “Imperial Cult” appear straightforward, yet neither has a simple, one-meaning-fits-all definition. Misconceptions of ruler worship and ruler cult, in fact, have a long history, with the Latinized Romans of the western empire using their own preconceived notions to make assumptions about the sophistication (or lack thereof) of the residents of the eastern Mediterranean provinces. While today imperial cult may conjure up images of a cult uniformly administered and observed in all parts of the Roman Empire, there is much evidence to the contrary. To say “imperial cult” is to imply a range of architectural styles, observances, and rationales, not only from the source of power (as represented by the emperor and the Roman Empire), but from those on the receiving end of this rule (at the imperial and provincial level), with their own varying justifications either welcoming or grudgingly accepting this physical imperial presence in their midst. Friesen distills the issue: The diverse nature of the evidence for imperial cults will prevent any study from obtaining detailed conclusions if that study is predicated on the assumption that “imperial cult” was a static phenomenon, rather than a modern reification of a

149

150

THE SMALL TEMPLE group of ancient cults, each of which had its own historical and cultural context. … Imperial cults may have been even more diverse than other cults because they honored many different individuals and several families. Although these all offered cultic honors to political leaders, we should not assume that they necessarily had to share the same features. Imperial cults did not comprise a static phenomenon; they were a series of historically-contextualized institutions. (1993: 142, 145)

Even limited to the eastern Roman Empire, such as the comparative examples in this chapter, the architectural approaches to imperial cult differ widely.

5.1

RULER WORSHIP

5.1.1 Near East While several civilizations in the ancient Near East did, in some form or another, recognize the divine in their leaders, the rationale varied from kingdom to kingdom. The ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Phoenicians, and Hittites, to name merely a few, all understood their leaders either to have been born, or even conceived, as divine, or to attain divinity after death (Engnell 1967: 4, 57). There is evidence that the Nabataeans did worship at least one of their kings as a god, probably after his death. The town of Avdat in the Negev, sometimes called Obodas, was named for Obodas I. He was revered as a god, as shown by Nabataean inscriptions and a temple at the city itself (Bowersock 1971: 27). Excavations at Avdat have revealed a town constructed by the Nabataeans in the early third century BCE (Negev 1966: 95), with a temple dedicated to the cult of the defied Obodas on the acropolis (Negev 1991: 63). In a historical mention by Stephanus of Byzantium (possibly of the early sixth century), Avdat is described as the burial place of the king who was also worshipped as a god (ibid. 76). The Nabataean and early Roman pottery found on the acropolis indicate that the town did not outlive the middle of the first century CE (Negev 1996: 223). Negev suggests that We do not know the reasons for the apotheosis of this king, thought it is possible that the order of events was the following: the defeat of the Nabateans at Gaza in about 100 B.C. and their retreat from the Negev; the renewed expansion of the Nabateans in the central Negev at the beginning of the reign of Obodas II in 30 B.C.; the foundation of the large and impor-

RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT

151

tant caravan centre and the construction of the great cult centre; the death of Obodas in 9 B.C., his burial at his city Oboda and his apotheosis. (1996: 233–34)

Not all kingdoms in the Near East revered their rulers as gods, however. The Jews, for example, did not worship their kings either during or after their lifetimes. 5.1.2 Hellenistic World In the Hellenistic world, Alexander the Great is perhaps the best example of ruler worship. Predating Alexander was the concept that if one person had done a great favor for another, such as the saving of a life, the gratitude of the saved could plausibly take the form of honors that would be bestowed on a god (Charlesworth 1935: 9). Nock writes that from “Homeric times onwards the Greeks regarded certain individuals as more than human, as Èåsïé, with more or less qualification. Such an individual might be called a god, either unreservedly or with reference to yourself, a god to you” (1928: 31 [emphasis in original]). In the case of Alexander the Great, the accomplishments of his campaigns were so great, his success in freeing Greece from the occupation of Persia so revered, that to regard him as more than human would have been quite plausible (Charlesworth 1935: 13–14). Further support of Alexander’s godhead is found in his association with Zeus Ammon. According to the Delphic Oracle, Alexander had been conceived by his mother, Olympias, through the god Zeus Ammon disguised as a dragon. In 331 BCE, after Alexander founded the Egyptian city of Alexandria, he visited the oracle of Zeus Ammon in Siwah and was recognized as the son of Zeus (N. Hammond 1997: 102). 5.1.3 Roman Empire That a Roman leader could possess elements of the divine became more accentuated after the death of Julius Caesar, and even shortly before his assassination. Before his death he had taken on several godlike attributes, including “the right to have a priest (flamen) for his cult, to adorn his house with a pediment (as if it were a temple) and to place his own image in formal processions of images of the gods” (Beard, North, and Price 1998: 140). After his death, these kinds of tributes only increased, and Caesar received other types of divine

152

THE SMALL TEMPLE

status including “altars, sacrifices, a temple and in 42 B.C. a formal decree of deification, making him divus Julius” (ibid.). In 29 BCE, Octavian, triumvir and Caesar’s adopted son, dedicated a temple to Divus Julius, the Divine Julius, in the Roman Forum (ibid. 253; Ward-Perkins 1981: 22). Once Caesar was safely identified as divus, Octavian could present himself as divi filius, son of a god (Futrell 1997: 87). In January of 27 BCE, having freed himself of his fellow triumvirs, Mark Antony and M. Æmilius Lepidus, Octavian offered to relinquish control to the Senate and Roman people and was subsequently honored by the Senate as the restorer of the Republic. At this time that the Senate bestowed upon him the name of Augustus, or revered one. Octavian allowed the construction of temples dedicated jointly to the goddess Roma and the emperor in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, including Pontus-Bithynia and Asia, from 29 onward (Beard, North, and Price 1998: 352; Price 1984: 56). In the western provinces such worship was not allowed until 12 BCE, at which time a cult of Roma and Augustus was established at Lugdunum, now Lyon, France (Fishwick 1987: 97; Gregg 2001: 45). Over time the prohibition against worshiping the emperor, even while alive, began to fade. The goddess Roma was associated with this cult less and less frequently, especially in the eastern provinces (Adkins and Adkins 2000: 106). Even though there began to be formal channels through which a petitioning city or metropolis might seek to receive permission to honor the imperial cult, there was really no such thing as the imperial cult. These “cults of the emperor were not an independent element of religious life: sometimes the emperor was placed under the protection of the Olympian pantheon or linked with the traditional gods …, sometimes cult was offered directly to him. These forms of cult were rarely a separate export to the provinces from Rome, but developed in different ways in the context of the various forms of Romanized religion that operated there” (Beard, North, and Price 1998: 348). The physical expression of imperial cult varied across the empire.

5.2

IMPERIAL CULT BUILDINGS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

The worship of the emperor and his family as divinities was not a Roman concept; initially it took root in the eastern portions of the empire. Although not unknown in the west (as in Tarraco in Spain)

RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT

153

(Fishwick 1996), the early flowering of Roman imperial cult was in the east. As an uncentralized foreign concept, that is, one developed within neither the traditional bounds of the city of Rome nor the Italian peninsula, there is a predictable lack of uniformity in the presentation of temples to honor this cult. Without styles dictated from Rome, the center of power itself, there was a greater freedom of expression and a greater variety in those areas where the imperial cult was observed. The difficulties in identifying imperial cult structures is in part a result of the lack of empire-wide consensus in their construction. Imperial cult structures from areas of the western Roman Empire, where they appear to be more rare (such as Spain), have different goals and appearances than those in the eastern Roman Empire (such as Ephesus). 5.2.1 Placement of the Imperial Cult within a City While the physical expression of imperial cult varied greatly in different geographic locations, there was a predictability in the placement of shrines and buildings, which were generally built at important and prominent sites in the city (Price 1984: 136). Importance and prominence, however, could be found in several places within a city. In smaller cities, imperial cult might be located within the civic center itself overlooking the city center, such as the Caesareum at Cibyra Minor (137). In larger population centers, imperial cult activities would often be located in positions of great status, such as the temple of Trajan and Zeus Philios at Pergamum near the highest point of the acropolis (ibid.). In Narbo, modern-day Narbonne, an imperial cult complex was built at the city’s edge, allowing room for growth, such as the addition of an amphitheater and portico in the area of the sanctuary (Futrell 1997: 88). In Lugdunum, the Altar of Rome and Augustus was on a rise above the convergence of the Saône and Rhône rivers (Gregg 2001: 49). Another example of imperial cult placement is particularly interesting because of the symbolism associated with its location. A temple of Roma and Augustus was built on the Athenian acropolis, less than 25 m from the Parthenon, probably after Augustus’s visit to Athens in 19 BCE (Hoff 1996: 188, 194). The Acropolis itself “could be viewed as an all-purpose panhellenic victory monument over the east,” and the placement of an imperial cult structure on the Acropo-

154

THE SMALL TEMPLE

lis “echoes the visual allusions of historical Greek victories” (193– 94). 5.2.2 Architectural Styles Of the variety encountered in imperial cult architecture, Michael C. Hoff writes: Areas of special importance to the imperial cult are often called either kaisaria or sebasteia. The terms are evidently interchangeable. The form of the sanctuary and its architectural setting can vary enormously according to the availability of space and funds. The kaisareion at Alexandria, for example, built by Cleopatra and described by Philo in the mid-1st c. A.D., was “a very large enclosure adorned with porticoes, libraries, meeting rooms, gardens, propylaia, open terraces and hypaethral courts.” On the other hand, it could be a temple, a sanctuary without temples, simple altar, single or suite of rooms within or attached to a portico, or an independent structure such as a basilica that has been outfitted for cult purposes. (1996: 195)

Like the placement of imperial cult architecture, the architectural forms of imperial cult were varied and diverse as well. In Asia Minor, for example, the architecture of the cult showed the influence of both Greece and Rome, eclectically and arbitrarily (Lyttelton and Blagg 1990: 39). More specifically, imperial cult architecture could take the form of individual temples, such as those of Rome, Ostia, and Pompeii, but on other occasions they might be annexed to other structures, such as at the basilica of Sabratha (Ward-Perkins 1981: 183). 5.2.3 Benefactors and Commissioners of the Imperial Cult In the eastern empire, the impetus for the construction of altars or buildings for the express purpose of the observance of imperial cult was often, but not always, local. That is to say, the requests for permission originated at the city level, with “an appeal directed to the throne by the envoys of some distressed city, or by an imperial magistrate on its behalf, or [even] by the spontaneous good will of the emperor himself” (MacMullen 1959: 207). While direct intercession of the emperor was not a necessity, Mitchell points out that, in the background, this support was vital. An emperor’s possession of “important sources of raw materials enabled him to support building projects in the most basic way; his control of revenue raising made it possible for him to subsidize construction

RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT

155

simply by offering tax exemption; his actual wealth gave him opportunities for direct financial patronage on a scale that dwarfed private undertakings” (1987: 24). Identifying a single individual responsible for such a plea for construction, however, is usually difficult or impossible, yet it is with this individual that much interest lies. A request from Pergamum to establish a cult to the emperor, for example, in no way indicates the status or affiliation of the individual as either Roman or provincial. After Pompeii recovered from an earthquake in 62 CE, for example, an imperial cult building constructed in the forum (perhaps after this natural disaster) may have had an imperial patron, possibly Nero or Vespasian. Without written sources, however, it is impossible to know. Maybe the building had been constructed not with imperial patronage, but in gratitude for imperial financial help that had aided the recovery after the earthquake (Dobbins 1996: 112). In some cities there are indications that the likely impetus for establishing an imperial cult came from business-minded provincials, rather than from the Roman administration. In the shipping industry in particular, merchants wishing to link to the imperial market “tied into a pyramid of reciprocal relationships that extended all the way to the Emperor. Participation in the imperial cult became an important symbol of a provincial’s cooperation with his or her benefactors. Pressure to accept the cult also came from provincial peers who were eager to continue good relations with Rome” (Kraybill 1996: 135– 36). Friesen discusses Tacitus’s writings on Asia, in which he noted that although Asia’s cult was sponsored by the whole province, it also was an occasion for intense competition between the cities of the province. While the motives of the cities are not made explicit, we can extrapolate that the presence of such a cult would enhance a city’s development in many ways. It would enrich the cultic life of the city; it would increase the city’s status in relation to other cities; it would create new offices for wealthy individuals to demonstrate their commitment to the city’s well-being; it would bring these individuals and the city in closer contact with the Senate and the emperor; and, it would improve the city’s economy through a building program partially funded by outside sources and through periodic festivals. (1993: 18)

Not surprisingly, entire provinces also recognized the value of being home to imperial cult.

156

THE SMALL TEMPLE

A final example of impetus for the construction of an imperial cult building is from Tarraco, in Spain. Augustus spent several years in Tarraco, possibly on two occasions, which would have made Tarraco the seat of the imperial court (Fishwick 1996: 165). A possible imperial cult building dating to some decades later, perhaps nearing completion around 15 CE, may have been constructed to commemorate the presence of the emperor, his court, and thus, briefly, the center of the world (Fishwick 1996: 165, 173). Some of the concrete details regarding requests made or permission granted to perform imperial cult do survive. In 29 BCE Octavian (not yet styling himself “Augustus”) received requests from cities including Ephesus, Nicaea, Pergamum, and Nicomedia, all wishing to prove their loyalty to the emperor with the establishment of a cult in his honor. Octavian allowed the cult, but, with an eye toward how this action would be received in Rome, insisted that the cult be dedicated both to him and the goddess Roma (Adkins and Adkins 2000: 105; Futrell 1997: 79). In the end, impetus for the construction of any imperial cult facility usually cannot be narrowed down to a single source, even if, in fact, a single benefactor did exist. Provinces, cities, and individuals made their own alliances and decisions for the perceived benefit of the province, city, or individual. This benefit may be determined from an economic, political capital, or religious capital point of view. The next section brings together this discussion of placement, architecture, and benefactor in discussions of three specific cities in the eastern Roman Empire with imperial cult centers, culminating with an argument for the Petra Small Temple as an imperial cult building in the next chapter.

5.3

IMPERIAL CULT OBSERVANCE IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE

5.3.1 The Western and Eastern Roman Empire While there were many varieties in the observance of the worship of the Roman emperor within the two halves of the empire, west and east, there were also more general differences between the west and east. To summarize briefly, in the western Roman Empire, deified emperors were associated with the worship of the goddess Roma, as Rome personified. In the eastern Roman Empire, this imperial wor-

RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT

157

ship was more likely to exist independently of Roma, or even to supersede Roma (Adkins and Adkins 2000: 104, 106). Another generalization about differences between western and eastern observances of imperial cult, and one with wide influence in many texts, is that in the east, there was unquestioned acceptance of the emperor as a god. This view is simplistic at best, and outright misleading at worst. Statements such as “With the expansion of the empire in the late republic, Rome came to rule eastern Hellenistic nations, whose people were accustomed to venerating their living rulers as gods, and who readily transferred their worship to Roman rulers” (Adkins and Adkins 2000: 104), and “In the eastern part of the Mediterranean world, people had worshipped their kings as gods for hundreds of years. When these people were conquered by the Romans, they began naturally to look upon their new Roman rulers as divine figures” (Shelton 1988: 389 [emphasis added]), are commonplace in discussions of the development of imperial cult in the east versus the west. The generalization that in the Hellenistic east the ruler was worshiped and understood as a god is an oversimplification. There was hardly a cross-culturally unified point of view on the divinity of a ruler, as discussed previously in this chapter. Some rulers attained divinity after death, some were conceived and born divine, and some received divinity based on actions or merit, specifically related to defense of the homeland. The implication of the concept that the Hellenized east blindly apotheosized the conquering Roman emperor is that the eastern provinces were, in fact, provincial, in the unsophisticated sense of the word. This patronizing attitude is the result of a double bias. The first bias is that the emperor trod lightly with the Latinized Romans and only gingerly broached the topic of imperial worship if it was dulled by joint worship with the goddess Roma. That no such mollifying was considered necessary in the east portrays these provinces as unrefined and not in need of such genteel refinements. The second bias is a modern one, inserted into the argument by modern scholars with a well-developed sense of separation of church and state, an inherently modern innovation that has been retroactively mapped onto the Roman Empire. They, like the emperor, recognize that Latinized Romans usually associated emperor worship with Roma, while the Hellenized East was not understood to need any such inducement. These scholars accept the classical reasoning

158

THE SMALL TEMPLE

that the lack of the goddess Roma implies a lack of sophistication, perpetuating the “backward east” stereotype. Again, it is the lack of insistence on associating Roma with emperor worship in the east that condemns the eastern provinces to smug pronouncements of their unquestioning, immediate adoption of the Roman emperor as a god. Despite these expectations, modern and historic, that suggest that the joint worship of Roma and an emperor was limited to the western Roman Empire, two of the comparative imperial cult examples of the eastern Roman Empire discussed in §§5.3.3–4 (Caesarea and Ephesus) also incorporate the worship of Roma. These examples of the worship of Roma in the eastern Roman Empire belie this particular stereotype of the western and eastern empires. S. R. F. Price has been a frequent opponent of the idea that the east’s automatic elevation of the Roman emperor to a god was a key difference between western and eastern imperial cult observance. He notes that in the east “a crucial distinction existed between sacrifices to and sacrifices on behalf of the emperor” (1980: 30 [emphasis added]). A sacrifice would never have been made on behalf of the gods, but rather, directly to the gods. On the other hand, with the exception of Caligula, sacrifices would be made on behalf of an emperor, but not directly to him (ibid.). This distinction has sometimes been lost, both by contemporaneous commentators on the Roman Empire and by scholars today. Yet recognizing this distinction is vital for understanding how this argument has demoted the eastern Roman Empire in relation to the west. Fortunately, several thoughtful and relevant avenues have been followed in relation to the imperial cult habits of west versus east. There is a meaningful comparison between the temple design of imperial cult in the west and east. The western provinces tended to produce buildings of more conservative design, while the eastern provinces were more inventive (MacDonald 1986: 119, 121). In the Roman Near East, for example, a theater, often a city’s most sophisticated structure, could act as a center for official and imperial cults (Fischer 1998: 236), a format unlikely to be found in the west. There is also evidence for the establishment of imperial cult in both west and east. In Gaul, the imperial cult seems to have been initiated as an instrument for keeping the peace in a time of upheaval, especially in response to taxes collected to help in the Roman expansion on the German frontier. The imperial cult was introduced as a way to present an image of united loyalty, thus unifying fringe

RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT

159

Gaulish elements (Futrell 1997: 80–81). That is to say, the imperial cult was utilized as “a mechanism for the integration of worshippers into the group identity” (87). In the Hellenistic east, a contemporary interpretation for the necessity of imperial cults was provided by Dio Cassius, who wrote in his Roman History that these cults provided tangible evidence of subservience to Rome (51.20.7–8). Dio further documented several other types of imperial cult systems in the empire. He subdivided the western observance into two categories; imperial cult worship in Rome, and that in other western provinces. In the city of Rome itself, he described imperial cult as a hero worship, as earned by good rulers and offered after death. In Rome, he referred to this type of shrine a heroon (a shrine for a hero) and a temenos, or sacred precinct for imperial cult in the provinces (ibid.). At this early time in the growth and development of imperial cult, Augustus was treading lightly with his insistence on such worship only after the death of an emperor. And at this time the only possible candidate was, of course, Julius Caesar. Even in the eastern provinces of Asia and Bithynia, Augustus only established temenoi with a double dedication to Roma and Julius, rather than Roma and Augustus. Fidelity to Augustus, while not explicit, was certainly implied. The Hellenes were scandalously allowed to worship Augustus and Roma (ibid.). Friesen sums up these different hierarchical relationships and systems of imperial cult best, writing that they were “among Romans in Rome, between expatriate Romans and the imperial center, and between subjugated foreigners and the imperial center” (ibid.). 5.3.2 Examples for Comparison Even though the execution of imperial cult buildings varied across the Roman Empire, it can still be useful to compare structures. Caesarea, Ephesus, and Aphrodisias (map. 4) are particularly interesting cities to contrast with Petra because of various factors that they do or do not have in common, and because of how these differences have played out in the expression of imperial cult. Petra was landlocked, with no access to local marble. Despite its lack of a port, however, Polanyi describes Petra as a quasi port of trade because of its location “on the border of the desert, that alter ego of the sea” (1963: 31). Ephesus, by comparison, was a port city with access to its own marble. Caesarea and Aphrodisias fall in the middle; Caesarea

160

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Map 4. Map of imperial cult sites for comparison.

had a port but no marble, while Aphrodisias had local marble but no port. All four cities were eventually drawn into the network of the Roman Empire (with Caesarea having been created almost from whole cloth by Herod for the purpose) and eventually became homes to differing incarnations of the Roman imperial cult. 5.3.3 Caesarea The city of Caesarea, located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, was founded by Herod the Great as a showcase city on the site of Strato’s Tower, an earlier Phoenician colony founded in the fourth century BCE. Herod had several motives in founding Caesarea; the city would demonstrate Herod’s loyalty to the emperor Augustus (who had given Strato’s Tower to Herod after the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE), and it could serve as a refuge for the paranoid Herod against insurrection by his subjects. Herod also had aspirations of greatness for his new port of Sebastos (associated with Caesarea), even hoping that it would eclipse Alexandria in Egypt, replacing it as the primary emporium in the eastern Mediterranean (Hohlfelder 1992: 76; Levine 1975b: 3). The

RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT

161

construction of Sebastos was one of the great engineering feats in the Roman Empire, creating an artificial harbor with several anchorages where none had naturally existed before (Hohlfelder 1992: 75). However, Sebastos ultimately proved an economic disappointment to Herod, and it never truly threatened the supremacy of Alexandria. A datable shipwreck indicates that the integrity of the breakwater may have even been lost as early as the mid third century CE (Raban 1992: 119). Herod’s prodigious building program at Strato’s Tower lasted from 22 to 10/9 BCE, culminating with lavish dedicatory festivities lasting several days (Chancey and Porter 2001: 169; Levine 1975a: 11). After Herod left his mark on the site, now renamed Caesarea in honor of the Roman emperor, the city remained inhabited until the end of the thirteenth century (Holum et al. 1988: 23). After the Roman annexation of the province of Judaea in 6 CE, Caesarea became its administrative center (Chancey and Porter 2001: 178). Later, the emperor Vespasian promoted Caesarea to the rank of a Roman colony, an event commemorated on coinage of the city (ibid. 185; Holum et al. 1988: 113–14). The Roman period of Caesarea began with the city’s founding and ended with the relocation of the imperial capital from Rome to Constantinople in 330 (Toombs 1978: 230). Caesarea was one of Herod’s greatest undertakings, perhaps comparable only to his rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. Josephus interpreted Herod’s massive building activities as in part a bid for his own immortality. Caesarea and Sebastos enhanced Herod’s reputation. Josephus’s description of the construction of Caesarea and Sebastos illustrates Herod’s attention to his new favorite benefactor, Augustus, and his ancestors. In his description of Sebastos, Josephus notes Herod’s attention to Augustus’s family, writing, “From this wall arose, at intervals, massive towers, the loftiest and most magnificent of which was called Drusion after the step-son of Caesar” (BJ 1.412). Herod wanted Caesarea to be a noticeably Roman city, unlike the holy city of Jerusalem, with trappings including a Temple to Roma and Augustus, a basilica, and a forum (W. Ball 2001: 177). Caesarea comprised a grid of streets aligned north–south, east–west. The city also had a theater, hippodrome, amphitheater, and at least one aqueduct, along with a city wall.

162

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Due to Herod’s prodigious construction efforts, Caesarea would vie to become one of the primary harbors on the east coast of the Mediterranean and may have been the natural place for imports, such as marble, to enter Palestine (Fischer 1998: 233). The city was ranked with Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, Cadiz, Cartagena, Tarragona, Narbonne, Marseilles, and Arles among the foremost entrepôts encircling the Mediterranean basin, connected to each other by major sea lanes, and to nearby smaller ports by coastal sailings (Casson 1994: 150). Caesarea’s harbor was the main point of entry into the province and was linked to inland cities, such as the Decapolis, Petra, and Arabia, by a network of Roman roads (Fischer 1998: 259). The heavy use of marble in Caesarea is no doubt a direct result of its location on the Mediterranean, and Herod’s grand aspirations for the city he founded to honor Augustus, an emperor who boasted that he made Rome into a city of marble. In fact, in Roman Palestine, Caesarea was without question the primary consumer of marble, judging from the amounts of marble found scattered throughout the remains of the city, and seems to have been the main (if not only) marble harbor of the province (Fischer 1996: 261, 1998: 232). It is interesting that Roman Palestine as a whole used marble in relatively small amounts compared to Caesarea (Fischer 1996: 261). Fischer notes that the “marble supplied to ancient Israel during the Roman period originated mainly in the quarries of Asia Minor, especially Marmara (Proconnesus) and Afyon. About 50–60 percent of the marble recorded in Israel originated in Proconnesian quarries” (ibid.). The extravagant use of marble in Caesarea, and its relatively low usage elsewhere in the province, can possibly be seen as an indication of Herod’s desire to have his showcase city flatter Augustus by imitating the chosen decorative material of Rome. Of course, the name “Caesarea” itself is no small indication of Herod’s desire to have the city recognized at the imperial level. Herod’s wide use of marble as a status symbol at Caesarea would have furthered his goal of presenting the city as a showplace and successful emporium. By comparison, the use of marble at the Petra Small Temple, albeit on a much smaller scale, could also be read as a means of drawing attention, although for different objectives. Petra’s location inland, and the need to transport marble over land as well as water, would have made the marble display all the more conspicuous, drawing attention to the Romanness of this single

RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT

163

building and its focus on the emperor gods, rather than an entire Roman city (as at Caesarea). It is not surprising that Herod, with his grand use of marble in this port city, would also commission a temple of Roma and Augustus. Such a structure was ultimately placed on the artificial platform looking over nearby Sebastos (Holum et al. 1988: 142). In fact, according to Josephus, Herod was responsible for at least two additional imperial cult buildings dedicated to Augustus; a temple in northern Palestine (possibly Banias, ancient Caesarea Philippi), and another in Samaria-Sebaste (Jacobson 2001: 103; Overman, Olive, and Nelson 2003: 44). There is some dispute, however, about whether the temple at Sebastos really had been consecrated to Roma and Augustus (Fishwick 1987: 147). Josephus claims that the building, begun in 20/19 BCE, contained colossal cult statues of both Roma and Augustus (Fischer 1998: 236; Fishwick 1987: 147). The Temple of Roma and Augustus in Caesarea was a pagan temple built by a Jewish king of Jewish subjects in a Roman-inspired city named in honor of the king’s benefactor. Of course, this list of contradictions about Herod makes more sense when considered in light of his path to client kingship and his complicated diplomatic relationships with the growing force of the Roman Empire to his west and the ever-changing political scenario to his east. Located in the south-central area of the city, the temple faced the sea and the harbor, visually linking harbor and city, and dominated the skyline (Holum et al. 1988: 89). In Herod’s drive to rebuild Strato’s Tower in honor of Augustus, he added this temple dedicated jointly to Roma and Augustus. Constructed on a vaulted platform for elevation, the new temple mount was the exaggeration of a natural high place (Kahn 1996: 136). The vaulted platform was constructed on a bedrock ridge that had first been leveled with fill with a terminus post quem of the last quarter of the first century BCE (Holum 1999: 19). The building itself was hexastyle in the Corinthian order with entablature above, approximately 30 m across the front of the façade and 21 m in height (ibid.; Kahn 1996: 145). Josephus also described the temple, with mentions of its cult statues of Roma and Augustus and its location above the harbor, writing that the temple was “remarkable for its beauty and grand proportions; it contained a colossal statue of the emperor … and another of Rome, rivaling that of Hera at Argos” (BJ 1.414).

164

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Caesarea was likely the prime marble harbor for Roman Palestine (Fischer 1996: 261). And yet despite Caesarea’s enviable (if artificially constructed) location on the Mediterranean, with its easy access to the Roman marble network, it is interesting to notice that the Temple to Roma and Augustus made use of local sandstone, probably quarried locally (Kahn 1996: 132), rather than marble. This lack of marble use, despite its availability, is further suggestion that the wide use of marble was not particularly associated with the client kingdoms of the eastern Roman Empire. 5.3.4 Ephesus Like Caesarea, the city of Ephesus was also a port city, although located on the west coast of Asia Minor on the Aegean Sea rather than the Mediterranean. Founded in the eleventh century BCE by Ionian Greeks from the mainland, Ephesus fell to the Lydian king Croesus in the mid sixth century, shortly thereafter to the Persians, then became part of the Athenian-controlled Delian League in the fifth century, then to Persian rule, and was then liberated by Alexander the Great in 334 (N. Hammond 1997: 73–74). A Hellenistic city was rebuilt at a new site by Lysimachus in the early third century, and Ephesus became a major trading center of its age (Scarre 1995: 89; Scherrer 1995: 3). The city then fell under the influence of the Seleucids in the mid third century, to the kingdom of Pergamum, and finally to Rome in 133 BCE (Sacks 1995: 89). Ephesus became the province capital of Asia under Augustus, and it and the other Asia Minor cities of Pergamum and Apamea became hubs of the Roman road network system (Casson 1994: 166), connecting the port to inland destinations. During this period the city was intensively rebuilt, with public buildings, baths, colonnaded streets, and pilgrim-attracting cults to Artemis as well as to Augustus (Scarre 1995: 76; Scherrer 1995: 5). The harbor at Ephesus would have made the city a bustling place that would have dealt in a wide range of trade goods, including grain from Egypt and ceramic vessels for both import and export, among others (Zabehlicky 1995: 213). The city was also a caravan terminus for the interior of Asia (Sacks 1995: 89) and was known as a center for marble as far back as the Hellenistic period (Ward-Perkins 1981: 296). Inscriptions dating to the Roman period attest to its continued use, although (unusually) the quarries may have been munici-

RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT

165

pal property and not under direct ownership of the emperor during this time (Dworakowska 1983: 29, 48). East and slightly south of the harbor, in an area of Ephesus called the Upper Square, are several buildings, some of them temples dedicated to various Roman emperors. Two are of particular interest here: a double temple thought to be dedicated to the goddess Roma and the deified Julius Caesar, and the much larger Temple of the Sebastoi, sometimes called the Temple of Domitian. Several cities in Asia, including Pergamum, Nicomedia, Ephesus, and Nicaea, requested permission from Augustus to establish a temple and cult in his name. Wary of allowing worship to himself alone, even in the east, Augustus permitted joint temples to Roma and Augustus in the first two cities, and the cult of Roma and the divine Julius Caesar in the latter (Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986: 65). The two pairings, Roma and Augustus on the one hand, and Roma and Julius Caesar on the other, were understood as an indication of who would be expected to worship at each of these temples. Dio Cassius noted that the temples dedicated to Augustus and Roma were meant for the Greek population, while the temples honoring Julius Caesar and Roma were meant for the Roman (51.20.7). The Temples of Roma and Divus Iulius built in Ephesus consist of two tetrastyle buildings built next to each other on a single podium, the precinct surrounded on three sides by columns. Its Italianinfluenced design seems appropriate, considering that it was built specifically for worship by Roman citizens of the province, although the presence of a bilingual Greek and Latin dedication does acknowledge the existence of the noncitizenry (Price 1984: 169). The Temple of the Sebastoi, by comparison, is much larger than the Temples of Roma and Divus Iulius. Rededicated after Domitian received the damnatio memoriae, the original dedicatory inscriptions refer to the temple as “the Ephesian temple (naos) of the Sebastoi” (Price 1984: 178, 255). This Hellenistic tetrastyle temple with peristyle colonnade was built in a vast precinct approximately 100 × 58 m. At the time of its dedication in 89/90 CE, “cities from all over Asia dedicated statues on inscribed bases for installation in the temple precincts. In these inscriptions, the term neokoros appears for the first time in what may be considered an officially sanctioned city title” (Friesen 1995: 232). By the Roman imperial period, the term neokoros indicated a city where a provincial temple of the emperors was located (ibid. 229).

166

THE SMALL TEMPLE

5.3.5 Aphrodisias Located in southwestern Asia Minor, Aphrodisias has a long, if hazy, history. A prehistoric mound, abutted by the rear of a Roman theater, shows datable evidence of settlements dating at least as far back as the Early Bronze Age (Akurgal 1985: 174). Early associations between the city and Nanai, the Akkadian name for Ishtar, the Mesopotamian goddess of love and war, were likely to have been inspired the city’s later association with the Greek goddess Aphrodite in the late Hellenistic era (Erim 1986: 26). This association with Aphrodite, obviously related to the city name Aphrodisias, brought the city her greatest renown. Small idol figures, in marble and other stones, discovered throughout the city attest to the importance and antiquity of this cult of Aphrodite (Akurgal 1985: 171). Despite the long association with the goddess, relatively little is known about Aphrodisias prior to the first century BCE, at which time inscriptions indicate that the city supported Rome (Jory 2002: 243). Sulla, the Roman dictator, reportedly sent a double-headed axe in honor of Aphrodite in 82 BCE (Akurgal 1985: 172), and Julius Caesar dedicated a golden statue of Eros to the goddess (Jory 2002: 243). Caesar’s own family, “the gens Julia, claimed direct descent from Venus; the dedication [on the Eros statue] therefore suggests that the Aphrodisians had already begun to establish ties with Caesar and the Julian family via their goddess before the dictator’s assassination” (Erim 1986: 29). The city reached its peak under the emperors of the Roman Empire, in part due to its flourishing school of sculpture that took advantage of quarries of white marble less than two kilometers from the center of the city (Akurgal 1985: 172; Dodge and WardPerkins 1992: 153). It is interesting to note that it is at around this time, possibly in the mid first century CE, that the Aphrodisian quarries saw a major reorganization that could be seen as a demonstration of “the willingness of individuals or the city to invest in marble production” (Rockwell 1996: 103). It is possible that this reorganization was a result of the entrance of these quarries into the ratio marmorum. The city held its privileged status, as granted by the emperors, which lasted until the third century (Erim 1986: 31–32). At the eastern edge of the agora in the center of the city is a structure that has been identified as a sebasteion, or shrine dedicated to the cult of the deified emperors. The existence of such a building was actually anticipated some time before its discovery. A number of in-

RULER WORSHIP AND THE IMPERIAL CULT

167

scriptions referring to a sebasteion and/or imperial cult in Aphrodisias were analyzed and published (Reynolds 1980, 1981) prior to its excavation in the early 1980s, although none of these inscriptions were ultimately able to help in identifying its location (Erim 1986: 106). The Aphrodisias Sebasteion is quite different in execution from the buildings described previously and is also different from the Small Temple. Rather than a compact square or rectangular structure, the Sebasteion “consists of two parallel porticoes about eighty metres long. These porticoes faced one another, but were separated by a paved area, about fourteen metres wide, which may have acted as a sort of a processional way. At the west end of the complex, these terminated in, or were joined into, a propylon” (Erim 1986: 107). The porticoes themselves were three-storied, displaying (from top to bottom) columns of Corinthian, Ionic, and Doric orders (Jory 2002: 244). There may have been a temple located on the platform at the eastern end of the porticoes. Despite uncertainties related to its eastern portion, much is known about the extensive marble decoration of the Sebasteion. The structure was “decorated with a remarkable series of relief panels which have a rich combination of subject matter—mythological, allegorical, and imperial … [with a] juxtaposition of Greek and Roman elements, imperial and mythological” (Smith 1990: 89). Statuary recovered from the western end of the Sebasteion includes representations of Augustus’s grandsons Lucius and Gaius Caesar, Tiberius’s son Drusus Caesar, the mythological hero Aeneas, as well as Aphrodite (Erim 1986: 111). The close relationship between Aphrodisias and Rome might account for another category of sculpture associated with the Sebasteion. Symbolic statuary from the northern portico depicted various ethnic groups that came to be under the control of the Roman Empire (Jory 2002: 244). Perhaps Aphrodisias’s good relations with Rome meant that it could be spared such graphic sculptural symbolism that would have represented itself under Roman control. These ethnē sculptures may have been placed instead to illustrate the breadth of the empire’s control, without it being necessary to show Aphrodisias as well in a subservient position. One interesting parallel between the Small Temple and the Sebasteion is the apparent use of damnatio memoriae, in this case seen as intentional damage to a sculpture of Nero (Erim 1986: 116–17). The whole complex received further intentional damage around the

168

THE SMALL TEMPLE

fourth century, possibly at the hands of observant Christians (Erim 1986: 116). An inscription on the propylon was “dedicated to ‘Aphrodite, the divine Augusti and the People’, by Eusebes, Menander, their sister Apphias and her daughter Tata as well as her grandchildren” (Erim 1986: 112). The combination of epigraphic evidence and sculptural decoration allows the structure to be dated to the beginning of the first century CE (ibid.).

6 THE SMALL TEMPLE AS AN IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING While it seems unlikely that it can ever be known who was responsible for the construction of the Small Temple (Romans, Nabataeans, or Nabataeans acting under Roman will), this question is only of immediate relevance if it can assist in the identification of the structure as an imperial cult building. And yet, even without this information, there is evidence at the Small Temple that points to a postannexation date, Roman architectural characteristics, and imperial cult associations. Taken together, this evidence suggests that the Small Temple was an imperial cult building of the post-annexation era. The lack of uniformity in imperial cult architecture and ritual makes this identification of the Petra Small Temple as an imperial cult building difficult, with no specific single characteristic to point to and say that this is the decisive evidence. However, even the limited inscriptional content that has been deciphered so far has been suggestive. This chapter places in context the inscriptions and their potential relationship to the imperial cult and to other aspects of the temple that tie it to Roman characteristics, from the few datable objects in context to Roman architectural conceits and mores, to its location in the city, to the marble trade, and ultimately to its symbolic value as an instrument of Roman dominance and integration. Evidence is presented of a building constructed at and as a place of status, adorned with prestigious, expensive materials in abundance, with inscriptions that make reference to the most powerful leaders of the world, and all at a time consistent with the annexation of the Nabataean kingdom by the Roman Empire. All of this evidence leads to the identification of the Small Temple as a building of no small importance in the center of Petra, and one with an undeniable Roman imprint, designed to place the newly absorbed Nabataeans into the grand format of the Roman Empire. 169

170

THE SMALL TEMPLE

6.1

DATABLE OBJECTS IN CONTEXT

There were few datable ceramic objects in useful contexts. With the exception of the over 11,000 ceramic roof tile fragments, very little pottery was excavated at the Small Temple; fewer than 3000 fragments (2797, to be exact). And of these few thousand, only several hundred (747, to be exact) were discovered in contexts that could potentially be useful in the dating of the structure, if they were in fact capable of being dated at all, as the result of extremely small size or extremely poor condition.28 Of the 41 excavated lamp fragments, fragments from only two lamps were identified in sealed contexts. Lamp 01-L-3 PLT (fig. 61) consists of three lamp fragments of a Roman round lamp with impressed ovolos, dating from the first century CE (cf. Hayes 1980: 51 no. 231; Horsfield and Horsfield 1942: pl. XXI no. 161). These fragments were discovered in the mortar subfloor of Trench 4, giving the latest floor installed in the Small Temple a terminus ante quem. Lamp 02-L-13 PLT (also discussed in chap. 3, see fig. 44), a single fragment of a Nabataean volute lamp, dates from the early first century CE through approximately the year 70. This fragment was found in the platform fill of the east platform in Trench 20, providing a terminus post quem for the construction of the platforms. The relative dating of these lamp fragments, with the fragment from the platform predating the fragments in the subfloor, is also consistent with the relative dating of these architectural elements of the Small Temple interior. The platforms would have necessarily predated the latest floor surface installed, because the mortar subfloor abuts the exterior sides of the platforms. Neither of these lamps precludes a construction date for the Small Temple after Roman annexation.

28

Of course, there is no set number of sherds that determines a complete vessel. Three thousand fragments could just as easily represent ten complete vessels as fifty. By comparison, over 90,000 fragments were excavated at the Great Temple over five seasons (Joukowsky and D’agostino 1998: 244), although this comparison is not entirely fair due to the great size of the Great Temple excavation in contrast to that of the Small Temple.

SMALL TEMPLE AS IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

171

Figure 61. Roman Round lamp fragments with ovolos, 01-L-3 PLT.

6.2

ARCHITECTURE AND INFLUENCES

The architectural style of the Small Temple, while suggestive of temple architecture, also has many features that specifically suggest the Roman over the Nabataean aesthetic in design. While, of course, this does not necessarily point to Roman construction, or even a construction date post-annexation in a city with such a documented pastiche of architectural styles and influences, these features are nonetheless worth mentioning as some of several elements that ultimately help the identification of the building. 6.2.1 Roman Influences There are several elements of Roman influence at the Small Temple, perhaps best typified by some of the discoveries in Trench 18, which encompassed the eastern third of the portico and a long section abutting the eastern exterior side of the building, portico, and staircase. In the report for Trench 18, Larson writes: It became clear that this structure was built upon a raised foundation. In addition, it was determined that the building was prostyle (six columns across; there was no indication of an

172

THE SMALL TEMPLE anta wall), rather than peristyle, with stairs that only extended the width of the facade. These are all indications that this structure was a Roman style temple. It was built on a podium with only frontal access and frontal columniation. (2003: 13)

Several elements characteristic of Roman architecture are apparent in the layout and design of the Small Temple. The most basic commonality is in the prostyle layout of the building itself. The form is that of a “traditional Roman temple, with a high podium and with steps leading up to a portico at one end only, [that] stood in every western town … [and] it was built frequently in the east as well” (MacDonald 1986: 119). The perplexing and cavitied subfloor fill of the Small Temple may also represent another level of conformity with Roman architectural standards. Remember that the Small Temple subfloor contained a loosely packed fill, initially raising questions of subfloor access, either for passage or for storage. The excavation of Trenches 19 and 20 revealed an impassable, inaccessible jumble of terminating wall-like structures, unshaped rocks, soil, and little else. Trench 19 revealed two of these “walls” parallel to each other and to the north wall of the structure. Neither wall touched, abutted, or bonded with the main structure itself, thus complicating the identification of their relationship to the overall building. Furthermore, in the west area of the trench these walls seem to merge together to form what may be more adequately described as a pillar-like structure. R. Taylor’s description of subfloor structures in Roman architecture might present an explanation for this situation. He writes that “ground-level floors are the final feature of a building’s substratum. … They are essentially independent of the superstructure both physically and logistically. Having no substantial load they often have no foundations. Roman ground floors rest on rammed earth, the vaults of subterranean voids, or hypocaust pillars” (2003: 88). Further excavation might confirm this scenario at the Small Temple. The presence of the two in situ column plinths on the east side of the portico are also an indication of Roman architectural forms rather than Nabataean. Column plinths are not particularly Nabataean in character, and it is interesting that other structures in Petra with column plinths, such as the Temenos Gate and the South Nymphaeon (east of the Upper Market) were built in the second century, after Roman annexation (Kanellopoulos 2001: 17 n. 17). The columns that comprise the Colonnaded Street, built prior to annexation,

SMALL TEMPLE AS IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

173

have no plinths and are a typical Hellenistic characteristic (Kanellopoulos 2001: 17). To compare the Small Temple against Nabataean architectural preferences, it should be stated again that the main structure, excluding the portico, is square. By contrast, the Qasr al-Bint, a Nabataean structure predating Roman annexation (McKenzie 1990: 34), is squat and shallower in depth than width. The overall footprint of the Qasr, including its pronaos, is in fact square, yet the interior consists of a broad cella with a tripartite adyton (Wright 1961: 29). These physical manifestations of Roman architectural characteristics do not have any direct bearing on whether or not the Small Temple was an imperial cult building. They do, however, present a picture of a building more of Roman character than Nabataean, differentiating it from other free-standing structures in Petra. These characteristics make the possibility that the Small Temple was not constructed until after 106 CE more plausible. 6.2.2 The Pes Monetalis (the Roman Foot) As mentioned previously, there is evidence of the use of Roman units of measurement at the Small Temple. The Roman foot, or pes monetalis, is equivalent to 0.296 m (Engels 1985: 305; Jones 2000: 72) and was first noted in the height of the drop at the base of the staircase, which measures 2.95 m (almost exactly ten Roman feet, or one Roman rod). Examination of other dimensions at the Small Temple suggested that this was not coincidental. The average axial length of the four walls of the structure, that is, the length of an imaginary line bisecting the thickness of the wall, is 14.624 m, or 49.405 Roman feet, reasonably close to the nicely round figure of 50 feet. These outcomes, while promising, could hardly be considered conclusive. A thorough analysis of a variety of ancient units of measurement was necessary. While there has been some theoretical discussion regarding the use and identification of ancient units of measurement (Röttlander 1996), up until now there has not been a method of analysis to help identify the correct unit used in construction. In addition to the Roman foot, the Egyptian cubit, Greek cubit, Greek foot, and Roman cubit were considered. For the purpose of this study, the Egyptian cubit is taken to be 0.523 m (Dilke 1987: 23), the Greek cubit is taken to be 0.491 m (ibid. 26),29 the Greek foot is 29

Figures for the Greek cubit vary widely among different sources. For

174

THE SMALL TEMPLE

taken to be 0.327 m (ibid.), and the Roman cubit is taken to be 0.444 m (Jones 2000: 234 n. 53).30 Twenty-one architectural features from the Small Temple were measured for analysis, based on features believed to have existed from the time of the creation of the building until the addition of the early marble basin. The north–south symmetry of the building was lost after this time with the alterations in the southwest corner of the building. Some limitations in this study include the relatively small set of measurements used, the uncertainty of the relative time at which the portico and staircase were constructed (even though their addition did not disrupt the building’s symmetry), and uncertainties introduced by erosion and small displacements over time. The results, however, should still be statistically meaningful. These 21 empirical measurements taken at the site were then converted to the aforementioned ancient units. In order to make a meaningful comparison of these units, some practical building techniques had to be considered. When designing a building, an architect will use a round measurement according to a scheme. For example, an architect may design a structure built with all measurements in increments of half a foot, or a quarter of a foot, or a twelfth of a foot (i.e., an inch). Thus the following five increments were chosen for examination: the 1⁄12 unit because the Romans, like Americans today, often used duodecimal fractions (Duncan-Jones 1980: 130); the 1⁄10 unit, which although unlikely in ancient usage, is common today; ¼ and ½ units, which remain common to this day in non-metric countries; and whole units, which, although probably lacking in fineness at the architectural scale, have been included for completeness. For the purposes of this analysis the degree of fineness assumed on the part this investigation, the value used is that which gives the closest correspondence to the measured dimensions of the Small Temple. This choice was made so as not to insert a bias against the Greek cubit into the analysis. 30 Values for ancient units of measurement have been identified in a variety of ways. As described by Jones, the Roman foot, for example, “may be deduced from bronze measuring instruments, representations of them inscribed on architects’ and builders’ tombs, and metrical standards set up in public places (these were common in regions where the coexistence of different units was a potential source of confusion. Together these yield a mean value of around 296 mm” (2000: 72). A potential error has been introduced because there is variation for all ancient units of measurement, so in many cases the figures used here for comparison represent an average from many geographically diverse locations (Dilke 1987: 26; Jacobson 1986: 75 n. 36).

SMALL TEMPLE AS IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

175

Unit of Measurement

Scale 1⁄12

1⁄10

¼

½

1.0

Egyptian cubit

0.022

0.033

0.080

0.129

0.293

Greek cubit

0.020

0.025

0.069

0.151

0.269

Greek foot

0.021

0.025

0.076

0.128

0.292

Roman cubit

0.021

0.032

0.070

0.134

0.296

Roman foot

0.022

0.024

0.071

0.089

0.319

Table 3. Comparison of standard deviations.

of the architect (e.g., 1⁄12 unit) will be referred to as the scale of the measurement. Each of the 21 features was rounded at each scale and for each unit of measurement. For example, at the ¼ unit scale, the west doorway, which measures 2.365 Egyptian cubits, is rounded to 2.25 Egyptian cubits. The deviation from this rounded number was then calculatedfor each feature, so the deviation for this example is 2.365 − 2.25 = 0.115. Then the standard deviation was calculated at each scale for each unit of measurement (see appendix 3 for all results).31 Standard deviation depends on the size of the deviations in a set. For example, at the ¼ scale all deviations will fall between ±ȴ, while at the ½ scale all deviations will fall between ±¼. Therefore, standard deviations can only be directly compared across units of measurement at a particular scale. The standard deviation of the Egyptian ¼ cubit (0.080) can be compared directly to the standard deviation of the Roman ¼ foot (0.071), but not directly to the standard deviation of the Egyptian 1⁄12 cubit (0.022). The more precise the construction of the temple, the closer the standard deviation will be to zero when compared to the scale and unit of measurement used by the original builder. Therefore, comparisons can be made between different units of measure at a single particular scale. If one of the standard deviations at this scale is dramatically closer to zero than the others at the same scale, this constitutes strong qualitative evidence that the builder was, in fact, using this particular scale and unit.

31

Thanks to Forest Reid for assistance with this section.

176

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Feature

Meters

Roman Rounded feet feet Deviation

Basin, early (length)

3.850

13.007

13.0

0.007

Basin, early (width)

1.090

3.682

3.5

0.182

Column plinth (space between)

1.330

4.493

4.5

–0.007

Column plinth (square)

1.345

4.544

4.5

0.044

Doorway, north

3.400

11.486

11.5

–0.014

Doorway, west

1.237

4.179

4.0

0.179

Platforms (length)

3.707

12.524

12.5

0.024

Platforms (width)

2.394

8.088

8.0

0.088

Portico (length)

16.019

54.118

54.0

0.118

Portico (width)

5.023

16.970

17.0

–0.030

Stairs (length)

16.019

54.118

54.0

0.118

Stairs (width)

3.102

10.480

10.5

–0.020

Stairs, drop

2.950

9.966

10.0

–0.034

Wall (axial)

14.624

49.405

49.5

–0.095

Wall (exterior)

16.044

54.203

54.0

0.203

Wall (interior)

13.203

44.605

44.5

0.105

Wall (thickness)

1.472

4.973

5.0

–0.027

Wall, flanking N door (axial)

5.522

18.655

18.5

0.155

Wall, flanking N door (exterior)

6.415

21.672

21.5

0.172

Wall, flanking N door (interior)

4.628

15.635

15.5

0.135

Wall, flanking platforms

4.735

15.997

16.0

–0.003

Standard deviation: 0.089

Table 4. Calculation of standard deviation at the ½ Roman foot scale.

Looking at the table of standard deviations at all units of measurement and scales (table 3), it is clear that only one number fits this criterion. All of the standard deviations in each column resemble each other, with the notable exception of that of the ½ unit scale (table 4). In this column the Roman foot has a significantly smaller standard deviation than the other units of measurement. These results strongly suggest that the architect of the Small Temple worked

SMALL TEMPLE AS IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

177

in increments of ½ Roman foot, although further study is required to substantiate this conclusion.32 Applying the analysis discussed above to other buildings in Petra may allow researchers to differentiate Nabataean buildings from postannexation construction, assuming different units of measurement. Unfortunately, very little has been published on ancient units of measurement at this time, let alone how they were used in Petra, or even in the wider Roman Empire. This association between the use of the Roman foot and characteristics of Roman architecture rests on the assumption that the pes monetalis was a distinctly Roman unit of measurement, and one that was not used in Nabataean architecture. Until there is more comparative data from other structures, however, this analysis of the Small Temple can only be considered preliminary. The author suggests a twofold approach: first to apply this method of analysis to a known Roman building (or one designed by a Roman architect), in order to ascertain that the Roman foot was, in fact, Roman; and then to analyze the Qasr al-Bint and other recognized Nabataean structures in Petra to see if the use of the pes monetalis in Petra can be considered an indication of post-annexation construction. If there was a common unit of measurement used for the Nabataean buildings, one that is different from the pes used at the Small Temple, this result would strongly suggest that the Small Temple was the product of a different (perhaps Roman) architectural approach. The likely use of the ½ pes monetalis in the construction of the Small Temple, like the Roman architectural characteristics discussed so far, does not on its own prove that the building was Roman. Considering these architectural characteristics and units of measurement in tandem does create a stronger case, however, for a post-annexation date of construction. It seems more and more likely that the construction of the Small Temple represented a movement away from the Hellenizing influences observed in much of the freestanding and rock-cut architecture in Petra predating 106.

32

Preliminary analysis comparing these standard deviations to that expected from a completely random set indicates that all measurements other than the ½ Roman foot are statistically indistinguishable from random. Furthermore, preliminary analysis also indicates that the likelihood of this standard deviation at the ½ Roman foot scale being a random result is extremely small.

178

THE SMALL TEMPLE

6.2.3 Imperial Cult Associations with Water and Serapis Two types of evidence possibly relate to the use and display of water at the Small Temple. The first is the presence of a north–south canalization channel identified in Trenches 9 and 21, descending underneath the northwest corner of the building, possibly into an as yet unidentified cistern for the collection of water. The channel is identified by a gap between two separate structures: a foundation platform for the portico that forms the east side of the channel, and a wall-like structure that forms its west side. Today there is no evidence of any sort of plaster lining in the channel, nor has its depth been identified, leaving its interpretation uncomfortably uncertain. If there is, in fact, a cistern or other water cachement area related to the channel, then this installation would bear the unmistakable imprint of Nabataean water management skills. This channel would then have to be considered part of the same tradition that created the rock-cut water channels in the Siq, the cistern and canalization beneath the Great Temple (Payne 1998: 171), and the nearby paradeisos with its extravagant display of water. However, it is also possible to interpret this channel from another point of view. Instead of collecting water that would flow into the channel for collection and storage, water might have flowed out of the channel as a form of display related to the presentation of the precinct to the public. This type of presentation of water, presumably flowing out from a reservoir underneath the building and terminating in some sort of a pool or nymphaeum in the lower courtyard (or even as far down as the Temenos itself) would be related to the use of water inside the Small Temple in the basins. The presence of the pair of marble and limestone basins in the southern interior of the Small Temple is evocative and allows another interpretation of the role of water in the precinct, especially if the channel discussed above was used for water display rather than water collection. The basins, although added to the building in two separate phases as discussed in §3.2.5, were most likely used for similar purposes as the original, early basin. The early basin was aligned with the original south platform; it was expanded to the west and divided into two at the same time as the significant modifications were made to the south and west platforms in the southwest corner of the building. That there is a relationship between the placement of the basins and platforms seems obvious, and thus it is reasonable to consider a relationship in their usage. Perhaps the basins were reflecting pools

SMALL TEMPLE AS IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

179

associated with statuary placed on the platforms, or as places for ablution before worship. Although the basins are relatively small, filling them with water (and emptying them) would have been cumbersome as there is a total absence of plumbing and drainage.33 These water display facilities may be associated with the observance of imperial cult. The worship of the Egyptian god Serapis, and his association with individual emperors, Caracalla in particular, may offer a potential explanation for the later additions of marble and limestone basins to the Small Temple. Associated with water and the use of water in his worship (Wild 1981), Serapis was “a GraecoAlexandrian reinterpretation of Osiris in his role of sovereign and protector of the dead. In Hellenistic and Roman worship, he had acquired the attributes of a healer-god, helpful to anyone who invoked him” (Turcan 2000: 122). According to Wild, almost 60 percent of precincts to Serapis and Isis include ablution basins, probably for the use of the priests in purification (1981: 3, 9). The worship of Serapis seems to have struck a chord with many residents of the Roman Empire, and even with several of her emperors. Of all the Roman emperors, Serapis was most closely associated with the early-third-century Caracalla (sometimes known as Philosarapis or lover of Serapis), who dedicated a temple to him in Rome (Turcan 2000: 125). Two of Caracalla’s predecessors, Commodus in the late second century and Septimius Severus in the late second to early third, were also associated with the increasing influence of this imported god (Wild 1981: 4). Foreign cults did not necessarily need such strong imperial support as given by Caracalla in the form of a temple to survive in the Roman Empire. The sociopolitical environment did allow people to find their own alternatives (Takács 1997: 16–17). The cult of Serapis had even survived condemnation in Rome during the Republican Period when, in 59 BCE, the Senate ordered the destruction of an altar to Serapis, only to reverse the decree because of the violent response of the people (Turcan 2000: 121). The Temple of Serapis in Ephesus might provide a useful comparison for the basin-and-platform scenario at the Small Temple. Built during the reign of Emperor Caracalla in the early third century, the building had imperial cult associations, including the display of 33 Intriguingly, however, a single crushed section of lead pipe was discovered to the east of the east basin, although it was the only find of its type and was identified in fill several centimeters above the subfloor surface.

180

THE SMALL TEMPLE

water (a Serapean trait). This temple, it is also interesting to note, is similar in shape and layout to that of the Small Temple, although much larger in size and extent. An octostyle building on a high podium south of the Street of Arcadius, the temple measures 29 × 37 m, with limestone walls revetted in marble (Walters 1995: 296–97). Caracalla’s connection with the temple is demonstrated by an inscription on a statue base dedicated to the emperor discovered in the temple precinct that reads “for those who sacrifice to Sarapis in the presence of my Nile god” (ôïsò dðr Èåï™ ìïõ Íåßëïõ ÓåñÜðéäé Èýïõóé) (Walters 1995: 292, 299). The conspicuous water system associated with the building, with water entering the cella at several points in the main room, initially led researchers to identify it as a nymphaeum (ibid. 298). The shallow basin located in front of the area where a cult statue may have once stood in the temple may have been used by priests of the sanctuary for washing in preparation for ceremonies, or before entering particular areas of the temple (ibid. 301). The Small Temple, by comparison, is a much smaller, hexastyle building, although the relationship between the basins and platforms appears similar. The basins, known to be a later addition to the building, may have been added during a time of increasing Serapis interest in Rome itself, or even during the reign of Caracalla with his pronounced personal interest in the cult. However, until the basin additions can be dated absolutely, this can only be a hypothesis. The basins in the Small Temple (and perhaps the channel) may indicate a Serapean association, one exploited by several Roman emperors, and on occasion presented in imperial cult structures in honor of both. The Small Temple may represent another such building.

6.3

A PRESTIGIOUS LOCATION

Not only is the Small Temple within the central area of the city itself, but within the temenos of the Qasr al-Bint, where the Temenos Gate marks the entry to the temenos proper. This sacred precinct was constructed no earlier than 76 CE (McKenzie 1990: 36). The Qasr al-Bint itself is today the best-preserved free-standing building in Petra. A square building, with “a broad vestibule, a broad cella, and a tripartite adyton” (ibid. 136), it has a terminus ante quem of the beginning of the first century CE (ibid. 34). Immediately inside the Temenos Gate (to its west and south) is the so-called Bath Complex. The last known building inside the Temenos area is a Nabataean

SMALL TEMPLE AS IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

181

structure located just east of the Qasr al-Bint (Augé et al. 2002: 309). Excavations here, conducted by the French Archaeological Mission, are in early stages and there are no solid conclusions regarding the purpose of the structure at this time. All of the known structures west of the Temenos Gate, including the Small Temple, are located on the south side of the Temenos. All of these structures, Temenos Gate, Qasr al-Bint, Bath Complex, the unidentified Nabataean building, and the Small Temple, share the same alignment, as does the Temple of Winged Lions located west and north of the Temenos Gate. While several of these structures, namely the Qasr al-Bint, Temple of Winged Lions, and the Baths, likely share a similar date, this common alignment in no way proves that they are all of a specific date range of initial construction. While the location and alignment of the Small Temple cannot on its own prove the importance of the building, for religious purposes or otherwise, it is nonetheless true that it is located within the religious center of Petra. On its own, this is merely suggestive, but when considered with other categories of information about the structure, the location of the Small Temple could reasonably be seen as an indicator of its magnitude. If the Small Temple was, in fact, built in the wake of Roman annexation, this raises some perplexing issues. By the time of the annexation, Petra may have been replaced by Bostra as the Nabataean capital, and there is no doubt that the Roman provincial capital was ultimately located at Bostra. Why would the Romans want a temple for the emperor away from the official seat of government? It may be possible to extrapolate an explanation from the situation in Asia, where cities such as Ephesus were in competition for the honor of hosting the imperial cult. The decision was not simply handed down from on high (from the Roman government), but based on pleas made from within the new province itself, hoping for the benefits such a cult might bring. Petra and Bostra were certainly competitors, and the possible sting of having had the Nabataean capital removed from the former to the latter may not yet have faded in the minds of Petra’s residents. What better way to reassert authority and standing within this new governmental hierarchy than by winning the first neokorate? If the Nabataean capital did not move from Petra, the presence of an imperial cult building is even simpler to explain. What else would better indicate your subjugation than a temple honoring foreign rulers in your capital city?

182

THE SMALL TEMPLE

In the eyes of the new Roman government, placing an imperial cult building in Petra may also have had other distinct advantages. Whether or not Petra ever lost its status as the Nabataean capital, it would always remain the first capital, which, when combined with the stature granted by the grand rock-cut tombs of kings, would have made the city a more symbolically resonant choice. This would have been further enhanced by the placement of the Small Temple within the sacred temenos of the Qasr al-Bint. Simply, Petra may have been able to provide a backdrop of aura, permanence, and tradition that Bostra could not, regardless of its titulature. Petra eventually gained the upper hand in its official Roman titulature, perhaps even as the result of the imperial cult coup. Petra received the title colonia from Elagabalus in the early third century, while Bostra did not receive it until the time of Severus Alexander, Elagabalus’ successor. Of greater importance, however, is that Petra was the only city in the province to hold the title metropolis, bestowed by Trajan in 114, until Philip the Arab evened the playing field for Bostra in the mid-third century (Bowersock 1983: 121). The location of the Small Temple within the sacred enclosure of the Qasr al-Bint indicates prestige. In Petra, what other location could have had more prestige than this, inside the Temenos Gate at the end of the processional way? The location of the Small Temple would have been a natural spot for the placement of an imperial cult temple.

6.4

IMPERIAL TITULATURE ON IMPERIAL MATERIAL

There are several factors relating to the inscriptions that point to Roman influence, and more specifically to imperial cult at the Small Temple. The first factors relate simply to the marble itself, the material found inscribed in profusion at the temple, which has both Roman imperial and luxury associations. The latter is particularly pronounced when discussed in relation to Petra, which not only had no local access to the material, but would have needed to import it over both water and land before it reached its final destination. Not only would the marble have had to travel great distances to Petra from its points of geological origin, but access to this marble was unlikely to have been possible without access first to the ratio marmorum, the imperially owned Roman marble business. The presence of marble in such large quantities at the Small Temple (inscribed, architectural, and

SMALL TEMPLE AS IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

183

crustae) implies Roman influence that would account for both its great desirability and its procurement. The inscriptions on the marble, even though extremely fragmentary, are even more explicit in their Roman imperial associations. Emperors are referred to by name (such as Trajan’s name on panel 02-I-2 PLT), by title (such as the fragment of the word “IMPERATOR,” “emperor,” on panel 02-I-85 PLT), and even probably by omission through destruction (such as the examples of damnatio memoriae on panel 02-I-87 PLT). Moreover, these three panels represent at least two different emperors. Trajan never received a damnatio, so he cannot be the name removed from panel 02-I-87 PLT, and the partial name “AURELIOS” found on panel 02-I-85 is most likely part of the official name of the emperor Severus Alexander. Furthermore, there are several examples of each of these three types. Proper names of emperors, or parts of proper names, so far identified at the Small Temple include Trajan, Hadrian (01-I-6 PLT), and Septimius Severus (02-I-1 PLT), emperors of several different dynasties. These different and multiple references to the Roman emperor (either a specific emperor referred to by name, or a general title of the position) found in such quantity in such a small building are difficult to explain outside imperial cult. A non–imperial cult building, religious or otherwise, may have had a single imperial dedication, but it is unreasonable to expect so many. While it is technically possible that all of these imperially related inscriptions were removed to the Small Temple as a dumping ground from other locations in Petra, the presence of so much other marble in the building, some of it in situ, makes this scenario very unlikely. With clear evidence that plain marble had been used in the decoration scheme of the building, the presence of so much inscribed marble also seems in character. An imperial cult building would be reasonably expected to contain many dedications to the Roman emperor, both by name and by position, over the reign of many individual rulers. Even those panels that have not yet been reconstructed testify to the great diversity of inscriptions, with different carving styles, different languages, and different types of marble. Conservatively, at least a dozen such panels were once housed at the Small Temple. The quantities of inscribed marble at the Small Temple imply Roman mores, access to Roman-controlled matériel, and the celebration of multiple emperors over at least several decades. The marble evidence alone cannot be explained by any other type of religious

184

THE SMALL TEMPLE

building than one meant to honor the Roman emperor and his family.

6.5

A SYMBOL OF ROMAN DOMINANCE AND INTEGRATION

All of the disparate elements discussed in this chapter, rather than any single indisputable element, create a preponderance of circumstantial evidence that allows for the identification of the Small Temple as an imperial cult building constructed in Petra after the Roman annexation. Located in the religious heart of Petra, an imperial cult temple must clearly be read as symbolic of Roman dominance over the new Provincia Arabia. The concluding statement of Price’s study of the imperial cult in Asia Minor crystallizes the hegemonic relationship not only between ruler and ruled, but the religious order of the world as a whole: The imperial cult stabilized the religious order of the world. The system of ritual was carefully structured; the symbolism evoked a picture of the relationship between the emperor and the gods. The ritual was also structuring; it imposed a definition of the world. The imperial cult, along with politics and diplomacy, constructed the reality of the Roman empire. (1984: 248)

The presence of an imperial cult structure in the religious center of Petra would daily draw the attention of the city’s inhabitants to “a cosmology with an imaginary geography centered on the city of Rome and a calendar organized around Roman dominion” (Friesen 2001: 162). In other words, the temple was a physical reminder of the reordering of the hierarchy of their world now that the supreme power, in both the governmental and religious senses, had been removed to Rome. Imperial cult considerations would have even insinuated themselves into trade and commercial relationships in Petra. Residents of Petra now had a vested interest in observing the niceties of imperial cult. For provincials wishing to participate in trade at an empire-wide level, it was advantageous to enter into this chain of relationships that reached even as far as the emperor. By participating in the imperial cult, an entrepreneur symbolized his cooperation with his benefactors (Kraybill 1996: 135). There was also pressure to accept the cult, because it “was so prevalent in the shipping industry and imperial port

SMALL TEMPLE AS IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

185

cities that a maritime merchant could not avoid it” (ibid. 136). As a trading center, it seems unlikely that the residents of Petra would have been immune from such pressures, especially after the construction of an imperial cult building in their midst. Although a symbol of Roman dominance, the Small Temple also integrated the new province into the Roman Empire by asking it to take upon itself part of the burden of protecting the emperor through the observance of imperial cult. In Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity, Alföldy writes: The ruler was a god, or was at least something like a god. His insuperable and therefore divine power, at once a very real and present force for most of his subjects, was regarded by these people as the guarantee of their salus [“health and welfare”]. Moreover, to secure the continual operation of this power, it was necessary to fulfill the demands of cult—with prayers, victims, and further rites—in the same way as one might acquire the help of other gods. The only difference was that the emperor was also a human being, liable to illness and death, i.e., he could guarantee the salus of his subjects only when his own salus was secured. Precisely this double nature of the ruler, however, magnified the importance of his cult. On the one hand, it was necessary to honor and adore him; but it was also essential to sacrifice for his safety. In other words, one sacrificed not only to him as a god, but also for him as a man. (1996: 255)

While on the one hand the Roman emperor was the source of stability, he still needed “the divine protection which came from sacrifices made to the gods on his behalf. The emperor stood at the focal point between human and divine” (Price 1984: 233). This integration included not only building a bridge between a province and the new source of power, but also the inclusion of urban residents (beyond merely the elite), in order to embrace the entire population (Curchin 1996: 151; Price 1984: 108). The Small Temple, with its location in central Petra and its proximity to the Qasr al-Bint, could not have failed to gain the attention of the local population. It would have been a tool to both integrate and resign the residents to Roman rule, while at the same time reminding them of their new subservient position within the expanding empire that had absorbed their kingdom. While located unobtrusively just inside the temenos enclosure of the Qasr al-Bint, the presence of the Small Temple within this sacred area at all would also

186

THE SMALL TEMPLE

have been noticed (fig. 62). The message was that the Roman emperor-gods were to be just as revered as Dushara. In a contact relationship between two cultures, one is often perceived as a higher magnitude than the other, and all acculturation moves from conqueror to conquered (Quimby and Spoehr 1951). The relationship between the Roman Empire and the Nabataean kingdom, for example, is often considered from the point of view that the Nabataean kingdom had been enfolded into the network of the Roman Empire, and from then on all cultural exchange flowed from the greater (Rome) to the lesser (Nabataea). In the dissemination of imperial cult, however, this one-sided relationship does not hold true. The variation on imperial cult seen more often in the eastern than the western Roman Empire (but not always) was the worship of the emperor unaccompanied by the goddess Roma. This variation was introduced in the first place based on the western perception of eastern attitudes toward ruler worship. In short, the attitude of the western Roman Empire toward imperial cult, that it was only palatable when associated with Roma, was changed by cultural encounters in the east. Acculturation flows in all directions rather than just unidirectionally, as noted by Wolf in Europe and the People Without History (1997). While some scholars have argued that Roman-ness was presented to the provinces through the office and actions of the governor (Braund 1998), buildings like the Small Temple indicate otherwise. Governmental oversight was certainly one way to transmit new ideas, but imperial cult should certainly be considered another. In Petra, an imperial cult building would have conveyed information about Nabataea’s new standing, but it also would have been affected by Rome’s interpretation of the cultures on her own frontiers. The presence of marble in such quantities at the Small Temple seems the greatest indication of the applicability to the building of Kraybill’s comments regarding devoutness and entrepreneurship. Those people who commissioned the imperial cult building in Petra may have been responsible for priming the pump that could provide marble, a luxury good with imperial associations, for the decoration of a building with blatant imperial associations, and one that would laud the new hierarchy and hegemony that officially came into being with the annexation in 106. The same economic ties that brought marble to Petra may have been able to bring in other goods, and also to bring trade items out of Petra to the wider empire as well.

SMALL TEMPLE AS IMPERIAL CULT BUILDING

187

Figure 62. Aerial view of the Small Temple to the south.

The people responsible for acquiring marble for at least this one major construction phase of the Small Temple (the addition of the marble revetment) managed to gain entry into the overwhelmingly imperially controlled marble trade network (Fant 1988, 1992, 1993; Marc 1995; Ward-Perkins 1992b). The presence of an imperial cult structure in the heart of Petra would have likely played a role in the procurement of this imperially associated luxury material.

188

THE SMALL TEMPLE

While clearly influenced by the environment in which it was built—from its alignment with other buildings in Petra, to the Nabataean sensibilities regarding water management, possibly even to the adoption of an Egyptian god accepted in Rome—the Small Temple is nonetheless a Roman building. As such, it is significant. R. Taylor notes that Roman buildings always carried meaning; indeed they could not be called Roman without it. In one way or another, they expressed the unifying principles of dominion lying at the heart of the empire’s diversity. They spoke of strength, control, and stability. The intent was to induce participatory pride and willing submission and allegiance to the emperor. … Roman building always had an imagined center: the idea of Rome, the source of power and prosperity. (2003: 8–9)

The Small Temple, an imperial cult building in the heart of Petra, would have been meant to convey all of these attributes to help reconcile the population of the city with her new reality and relationship to Roman hegemony after 106. If the annexation of Petra had in fact been a peaceful one, it might have necessitated a symbol all the more. Perhaps without a military victory to punctuate the change in rule, a tangible building dedicated to the imperial cult may have been the gesture necessary to call attention to the city’s change in status to its residents, and the extravagant use of a tightly imperially controlled luxury good such as marble would have further emphasized the transformation.

APPENDIX 1: TRENCH LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS 2000 SEASON

Tr. 3 Tr. 2

Figure 63. 2000 surveyed architecture and excavated trenches.

189

190

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Trench 1 Trench 1 represents a surface survey of the main structure of the Small Temple, rather than a traditionally defined trench, undertaken prior to any actual excavation in the 2000 season. This survey activity made it possible to discern some basic dimensional characteristics of the structure, which was then a squarish mound oriented slightly east of north. The main body of the structure was defined by rubble and in situ blocks, and because it projected up from the ground, appearing as a small, raised, flat, rectangular platform. Architectural fragments collected included capital fragments, column drum fragments, and several unknown fragments. Several of these surface fragments were marked with green paint numbers, presumably left by the German surveying expedition at Petra in the 1980s. The trench supervisor for Trench 1 was the author. Trench 2 Trench 2, the first excavated trench, was located inside the northeast corner of the structure and measured 5.18 m (east–west) × 3.40 m (north–south). The purpose of Trench 2 was to define the northern and eastern walls of the building and to identify in situ architecture. The insides of the north and east walls were identified and found to be constructed of variously sized ashlars, and marble revetment was discovered in situ on the inside of both walls, with a thick layer of mortar behind the revetment. A concentration of marble fragments was discovered in the northeastern area of the trench, slightly below and to the south of a concentration of roof tile. The depth of deposit in this trench was 1.46 m. Trench 2 was backfilled at the end of the 2000 season in order to protect the in situ revetment. The trench supervisor for Trench 2 was the author (fig. 63). Trench 3 Trench 3 was located on the north side of the north wall and placed approximately in the center of its length in hopes of identifying the main doorway of the structure. The dimensions of the trench were 2.05 m (north–south) × 5.5 m (east–west). Work began with the removal of soil between the two doorjambs, which were already visible on the surface when excavation began. Architectural fragments were found from the beginning, almost all of them fragments of columns or column capitals. Decorative elements included volutes, acanthus leaf fragments, and vines. Roof tile fragments were also discovered in

APPENDIX 1: TRENCH DESCRIPTIONS

191

small quantities in this soil locus (Locus 1). A sculptural head (00-S-1 PLT), was discovered in Locus 1 on the second day of excavation. While the threshold was not discovered during the excavation of Trench 3, the dimensions of the northern doorway were elucidated. The depth of deposit excavated was 1.05 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 3 was S. J. Larson (fig. 63).

192

THE SMALL TEMPLE

2001 SEASON

Tr. 9

Tr. 12 Tr. 7

Tr. 13 Tr. 11

Tr. 5

Tr. 4

Tr. 8

Figure 64. 2001 surveyed architecture and excavated trenches.

Trench 4 In 2001, the excavation of Trench 4 began with the removal of the backfill from Trench 2 and then proceeded to expand to the south in the interior northeast corner of the building, eventually reaching final dimensions of 3.90 m (north–south) × 4.9 m (east–west). The primary goals for Trench 4 were to continue to expose the interior wall of the main structure and to reach and identify a floor level. The floor level of the structure was ultimately identified, although at the time of its excavation there was debate regarding its phasing, and whether or not it was original to the structure. Marble fragments (plain and inscribed) and cornices continued to be identified in the

APPENDIX 1: TRENCH DESCRIPTIONS

193

soil matrices. With the exception of a large amount of roof tile fragments, pottery sherds were minimal throughout the trench. With the exception of the interior walls, no other architecture was identified. The depth of deposit excavated was 1.34 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 4 was the author (fig. 64). Trench 5 Trench 5 was located against the inside east wall of the building, south of Trench 4, extending south to the presumed southern wall of the building, and measured 9.70 m (north–south) × 2.15 m east–west. The primary goal for this trench was to continue to follow the inside of the east wall south to the interior southeast corner of the structure, thus obtaining an accurate measurement of its depth, north to south. It would not be until the excavation of Trench 17 in 2002, however, that the south wall of the building could be identified with any great certainty because the south wall had been reduced to only a single ashlar in Trench 5. While Trench 5 did ultimately correctly identify this single ashlar as the south wall, it was a tentative identification. The primary architectural feature discovered in Trench 5 was the east platform with small fragments of in situ marble on its south side. The Trajan inscription (02-I-2 PLT) was also discovered in this trench, although at the time of its excavation the inscription was found face down and thought to be a possible floor paver. The inscription was not removed and identified as such until 2002. The depth of deposit excavated in this trench was 1.42 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 5 was the author (fig. 64). Trench 6 Trench 6 was another survey trench, like Trench 1. Located to the north of the Small Temple, it measured 31.4 m × 10.9 m and incorporated the portico and staircase. The purpose of this trench was to clear away surface rubble from the area in order to facilitate a clearer understanding of the relationship among the Small Temple, the Terrace Wall, and the Lower Platform. A few small fragments of marble were discovered, somewhat unexpectedly, but the low numbers seemed to indicate that these pieces merely washed down from the Small Temple. There was no evident stratigraphy, although none was expected due to the clearing-only nature of this trench. The trench supervisor for Trench 6 was A. G. Henry.

194

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Trench 7 Trench 7 was located within the north doorway of the Small Temple, west of Trench 4, and measured 4.2 m (east–west) × 3.8 m (north– south). While part of this area had been excavated as part of Trench 3, a threshold had not been reached, and this became one of the major goals for the excavation of Trench 7. The threshold and subfloor level were identified, along with several in situ L-shaped doorjamb ashlars. Relatively few marble fragments were excavated in this trench. The depth of deposit was 1.49 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 7 was A. G. Henry (fig. 64). Trench 8 Trench 8 was located in the southeast corner of the building, west of and adjacent to the southern portion of Trench 5, and measured 5.6 m (north–south) × 2.15 m (east–west). The primary goal for the excavation of this trench was to continue to clarify building dimensions by clearing more of the inside of the south wall (tentatively identified in Trench 5). An extremely dense roof tile locus (Locus 2) in this trench suggested that much of the roof (at least in this area of the building) collapsed suddenly and quickly, rather than falling into the building (and subsequent fills) piecemeal. While there was a significant amount of marble in this Locus 2 fill, there was far more of it in the loci below, suggesting that the interior marble decoration of the building had been falling into the building (or been intentionally pulled from the walls) for some time preceding the collapse of the roof. Seventy-eight inscription fragments were excavated in this trench. While the identification of the south wall remained in doubt after the excavation of this trench, three significant architectural features were uncovered; the east side of the early marble basin located in the southwest of the trench, the eastern portion of the south platform, and subwall feature Wall 7 (although it was not recognized as such at the time). The depth of deposit in this trench was 1.45 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 8 was the author (fig. 64). Trench 9 Trench 9 was located on the western third of the portico and measured 6.6 m (east–west) × 1.28 m (north–south). The primary goals of this trench, the first to be excavated outside of the interior of the building, were to clarify the relationship of the portico to the main structure and to examine the exterior face of the north wall. Crushed

APPENDIX 1: TRENCH DESCRIPTIONS

195

rectangular white limestone pavers were identified as the portico flooring, and an unexplained channel was discovered at the west edge of the portico. The north side of the north wall was cleared and initially interpreted as having two niches rather than a single platform on its face. The lowest course of a reuse wall was discovered on the portico in this trench. The depth of deposit was only 0.15 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 9 was A. G. Henry (fig. 64). Trench 10 Trench 10 is the last of the three survey trenches (the others being Trenches 1 and 6), and it measured 9.50 m (east–west) × 5.00 m (north–south). This trench incorporated a small area in the east central area of the precinct; an apparent late rubble wall located between the northeast corner of the structure and a slight rise to the east. The rubble wall appears to have been built long after the Small Temple was destroyed, because several of the ashlars and columns bore similarities to architectural fragments discovered in the walls of the Small Temple itself. The main goal of this trench was to clear this area of the precinct of obviously out-of-situ elements in order to gain a clearer view of the extant architecture before beginning excavation in the area. The trench supervisor for Trench 10 was A. G. Henry. Trench 11 Trench 11 was placed adjacent to and west of Trench 8, and its maximum dimensions were 7.65 m (east–west) × 5.60 m (north– south). The trench was opened with the goals of uncovering the rest of the basin and platform discovered in Trench 8, and excavating the interior southwest corner of the building. Trench 11 also revealed the alterations in the southwest corner of the building, including the west basin, the extensions of the south and west platforms, a small section of in situ limestone pavers in the south and west of the basins, and the alcove outside the southwest corner of the building that contained 61 inscription fragments, 24 of which belonged to the 02-I-87 PLT inscription panel. During the excavation of this trench, an examination of the basin floors revealed that there had originally been a single, early basin that predated the west and east basins. The depth of deposit for Trench 11 was 1.57 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 11 was the author (fig. 64).

196

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Trench 12 Trench 12 was located in the center third of the portico, east of Trench 9 and north of Trench 7, and measured 4.20 m (north–south) × 3.90 m (east–west). The goals for this trench were to clear the north doorway and to see if the limestone pavement discovered in Trench 9 continued across the front of the portico (which it did). There were no major architectural discoveries in this trench. The depth of deposit was 0.92 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 12 was A. G. Henry (fig. 64). Trench 13 Trench 13 was located north of Trench 11 abutting the inside of the west wall and measured 5.95 m (east–west) × 4.25 m (north–south). The primary goal for this trench was to find the extent of the west wall. The west wall was identified and found to be in better condition than the corresponding east wall. The west platform was also discovered at this time, although it was found to be in worse condition than the corresponding east platform, as only the platform fill of unshaped cobbles remained. The possibility of a doorway in the west wall was considered, although this was not confirmed until the excavation of Trench 14. Relatively little marble was discovered in this trench. The depth of deposit was 1.36 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 13 was A. G. Henry (fig. 64).

APPENDIX 1: TRENCH DESCRIPTIONS

197

2002 SEASON

Tr. 21

Tr. 18

Tr. 14Tr. 19 Tr. 15

Tr. 16

Tr. 20

Tr. 17

Figure 65. 2002 surveyed architecture and excavated trenches.

Trench 14 Trench 14 was located in the interior northwest corner of the building, and it measured 4.22 m (north–south) × 3.81 m (east–west). The main goal for Trench 14 was to complete the excavation of the inside perimeter of the Small Temple, which started in 2000 with Trench 2

198

THE SMALL TEMPLE

and continued in 2001 with the excavation of Trenches 4, 5, 8, 11, and 13. The west doorway that was hypothesized during the excavation of Trench 13 was discovered, along with a pair of engaged semicolumns flanking the opening. Several dozen inscription fragments were discovered below the roof tile layer, and some small revetment fragments were found in situ on the south face of the north wall. Several corroded metal fragments (presumably bronze) were discovered in the vicinity of the west doorway, leading to the suggestion that they represented fragments of hardware associated with a door, now missing. The subfloor mortar in this trench was in good condition and revealed, through raised mortar outlines, the original size and position of the last floor surface in the building. The depth of deposit was 2.01 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 14 was the author (fig. 65). Trench 15 Trench 15 was located in the west central area of the building and measured 6.40 m (north–south) × 3.25 m (east–west). The main goal for this trench was to take a first look at the center of the building to see whether it contained any architectural features. While there was some continuation of the raised mortar outlines discovered in Trench 14, along with several sinkholes in the subfloor, there were no other major discoveries. Very little marble was found underneath the roof tile layer, or anywhere else in the soil column. The depth of deposit was 1.62 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 15 was the author (fig. 65). Trench 16 Trench 16 was located in the east central area of the building, adjacent to Trench 15, and was notable because the excavation of this trench completed the excavation of the interior of the Small Temple. Trench 16 measured 5.24 m (north–south) × 3.64 m (east–west). The main goals for this trench were to complete the excavation of the interior and to expose the west face of the east platform that had initially been identified in Trench 5. A few mortar paver outlines were discovered, as were a few fragments of marble, presumably associated with the east platform. No further architectural features were discovered in the center of the building. The depth of deposit was 1.63 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 16 was the author (fig. 65).

APPENDIX 1: TRENCH DESCRIPTIONS

199

Trench 17 Trench 17 abutted the south side of the south wall in the east (south of Trenches 5 and 8). The dimensions of this trench were 3.20 m (east–west) × 4.50 m (north–south). Neither the dimensions nor the location of Trench 17 was in any way arbitrary. The north boundary of the trench was placed to include both the south wall tentatively identified in Trench 5 in 2001, as well as the east part of the south side of the south platform identified in Trench 8 in 2001. These two elements (wall and platform) were the southernmost architectural elements known in the Small Temple at that time, and the excavator wanted to be certain that Trench 17 would bridge the known to the unknown (the precinct surrounding the building). The primary goal for this trench was to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the south wall. Other goals included the identification of the original precinct floor level and to confirm that the building was prostyle rather than peristyle or amphiprostyle. The north–south dimension of the trench was intended to parallel the dimensions of the portico out of the belief that if the Small Temple was amphiprostyle, the columns on the south side of the building would be found in the same relationship as the columns on the portico. When Trench 17 was closed, although the identification of the south wall had been confirmed, no precinct floor had been identified, and there was no evidence of any columns south of the main structure. Further excavation in this area is necessary. The depth of deposit was 2.01 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 17 was the author (fig. 65). Trench 18 Trench 18 was a very large trench, encompassing the eastern third of the portico (4.50 m [north–south] × 6.60 m [east–west]) and a long strip along the east side of the staircase and portico and the northern section of the east wall of the main structure (12.80 m [north–south] × 3.50 m [east–west]). The main goals of the trench were to expose the remains of the architecture of the east half of the portico and to determine its eastern extent and relationship with the east exterior wall of the building and staircase, as well as to identify the floor level on the east side of the portico, examine the intervening stratigraphy, and develop a rudimentary phasing for the architecture in the northeast corner of the Small Temple. In addition, the excavator wished to determine if there was any communication between the east side of the building and any potential substructure in the interior. The east

200

THE SMALL TEMPLE

retaining wall of the staircase abuts the east retaining wall of the portico, which in turn abuts the east wall of the building, creating some difficulties for the overall phasing of the precinct. The only evidence for later reuse of the structure is a small north–south wall with doorway constructed across the portico (clearly a parallel construction to the low reuse wall in Trench 9). This installation was also composed of reused building materials, with a poor quality of construction. The ashlars used rest directly on the collapsed and crushed portico pavers. This fact would seem to indicate that these installations in the east (and west) were constructed after the collapse of the upper registers of the portico architecture—and thus after the disuse of the building as a temple proper. On the last day of excavation for this trench, a floor level in the courtyard was tentatively identified, almost five meters below the interior floor level of the building. The depth of deposit in the east side of this trench was 6.11 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 18 was S. J. Larson (fig. 65). Trench 19 Trench 19 was a small trench, measuring 3.80 m (north–south) × 2.00 m (east–west), sunk into the subfloor in the northeast corner of the building. Its north–south dimension was constrained by the north face of the east platform and by concerns that excavating too close to it would compromise the integrity of the feature. The main goals for Trench 19 were to examine the subfloor architecture of the Small Temple, look for the hypothesized subfloor walls, and see if excavation would reveal the reason for the buckled string course at the base of the north wall. While some subfloor structures were revealed, they were not in the expected location for the subfloor walls, nor did they either bond or abut the exterior walls of the structure. The depth of deposit was 0.91 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 19 was the author (fig. 65). Trench 20 Trench 20 was located in the east platform, and its goal was the removal of the interior of the platform in order to better examine the relationship between the platforms and the walls which they abut. The trench measured 3.71 m (north–south) × 2.40 m (east–west), with a depth of deposit of 1.18 m. There was no clear evidence of marble revetment or plaster on the east wall behind the platform, which does not contradict the idea that the revetment was not added

APPENDIX 1: TRENCH DESCRIPTIONS

201

until after the construction of the platforms. The platform fill included several architectural fragments of unknown origin, including fragments of column capitals, drums, and bases. The trench supervisor for Trench 20 was A. G. Henry (fig. 65). Trench 21 Trench 21 incorporated the entire surface of the staircase, as well as a small portion of the courtyard. The staircase portion of the trench measured 2.60 m (north–south) × 13.70 m (east–west), while the courtyard portion measured 2.00 m (north–south) × 2.50 m (east– west). The excavation of the staircase proved to be quick and uneventful, as there was a shallow depth of deposit. Only one in situ stair tread was identified, in the center of the staircase. The courtyard portion of the trench was added in hopes of identifying the courtyard floor level, which was ultimately identified almost three meters below the bottom stair tread. The north face of the staircase installation to be plumb, but constructed of unshaped rubble. The depth of deposit in the courtyard was 2.95 m. The trench supervisor for Trench 21 was the author (fig. 65)

APPENDIX 2: RESULTS OF MARBLE ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS Sample ID

Color

Highest probability geographic source*

%

δ13C

δ18O

Seq. No. 5245 Seq. No.11301 Seq. No.5278 Seq. No.5245 Seq. No.5061 02-I-85 PLT Seq. No.13032 01-I-38 PLT 01-I-98 PLT 01-I-16 PLT 01-I-44 PLT 01-I-15 PLT 01-I-163 PLT 01-I-10 PLT 01-I-12 PLT 02-I-87 PLT Seq. No.7082 02-I-85 PLT Seq. No.8163 01-I-89 PLT 02-I-85 PLT 02-I-87 PLT 02-I-87 PLT Seq. No.11042

B&W B&W gray gray gray gray gray gray gray gray gray gray gray gray gray green green green green green green green green green

Sardis Sardis Afyon Afyon Afyon Marmara Marmara Paros/Chorodaki Paros/Chorodaki Penteli Penteli Sardis Sardis Thasos/Cape Pahneri Usak Marmara Marmara Marmara Marmara Marmara Marmara Marmara Marmara Marmara

59 40 86 74 59 85 49 81 80 65 60 61 30 90 74 89 87 87 86 86 86 85 84 83

3.33 4.15 2.55 2.60 2.65 2.59 2.82 2.39 2.41 2.47 2.49 2.46 1.81 2.29 2.52 2.38 2.72 2.77 2.53 2.50 2.61 2.44 2.46 2.43

–6.58 –5.61 –3.64 –3.84 –3.65 –2.71 –3.54 –1.02 –0.99 –6.15 –5.99 –8.33 –8.80 –0.99 –3.55 –2.14 –2.71 –2.69 –2.58 –2.50 –2.70 –2.13 –2.46 –2.37

* See map 5 (overleaf).

Table 5. Results of marble isotopic analysis.

202

APPENDIX 2: MARBLE ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS

203

Sample ID

Color

Highest probability geographic source*

%

δ13C

δ18O

Seq. No.11077 02-I-87 PLT Seq. No.11005 Seq. No.8137 01-I-246 PLT 01-I-247 PLT Seq. No. 11221 Seq. No. 5147 Seq. No.4039 01-I-6 PLT 01-I-31 PLT 02-I-2 PLT 02-I-34 PLT 02-I-34 PLT 02-I-1 PLT 02-I-34 PLT 01-I-19 PLT Seq. No.5151 Seq. No.11203 00-I-9 PLT

green green red white white white white white white white white white white white white white white white white white

Marmara Marmara Luna † Luna Marmara Marmara Marmara Marmara Marmara Paros/Chorodaki Paros/Chorodaki Penteli Sardis Sardis Sardis Sardis Thasos/Aliki Thasos/Aliki Thasos/Aliki Thasos/Cape Vathy

82 78 91 80 96 94 81 79 76 79 76 83 53 50 38 31 95 89 45 98

2.43 2.39 2.01 2.44 2.61 2.84 2.40 3.17 2.50 2.48 2.38 2.63 3.65 3.67 3.13 4.08 3.04 3.15 3.02 3.62

–2.46 –2.50 –2.41 –0.99 –1.94 –1.52 –2.30 –1.60 –0.91 –1.04 –0.83 –7.99 –6.15 –6.01 –5.93 –5.05 0.04 0.04 –0.62 –2.95

* See map 5 (overleaf). † The Luna quarries are not known for red stone. This identification for the sample is unlikely.

Table 5. Results of marble isotopic analysis (cont.).

204

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Map 5. Marble quarries represented at the Small Temple. 1. Luna, 2. Paros, 3. Penteli, 4. Thasos, 5. Marmara, 6. Sardis, 7. Usak, 8. Afyon.

APPENDIX 3: STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND ANCIENT UNITS OF MEASUREMENT The following tables show the calculation of standard deviation at each of five scales (1⁄12 unit, 1⁄10 unit, ¼ unit, ½ unit, and the whole or 1.0 unit), and for each of five units of measurement (the Egyptian cubit, Greek cubit, Greek foot, Roman cubit, and Roman foot; “Rdd.” = “rounded off”). The most likely unit applied in the construction of the Small Temple is the Roman foot (pes monetalis) at the ½ unit scale.

205

206

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Feature

Egypt. Rdd. Meters cubits cubits

Dev.

Greek cubits

Rdd. cubits

Dev.

0.011

Basin, early (length)

3.850

7.361

7.330

0.031

7.841

7.830

Basin, early (width)

1.090

2.084

2.083

0.002

2.220

2.249 –0.029

Column plinth (space between)

1.330

2.543

2.582 –0.039

2.709

2.749 –0.040

Column plinth (square)

1.345

2.572

2.582 –0.011

2.739

2.749 –0.010

Doorway, north

3.400

6.501

6.497

0.004

6.925

6.914

0.011

Doorway, west

1.237

2.365

2.332

0.033

2.519

2.499

0.020

Platforms (length)

3.707

7.088

7.081

0.007

7.550

7.580 –0.030

Platforms (width)

2.394

4.577

4.582 –0.004

4.876

4.915 –0.039

Portico (length) Portico (width) Stairs (length)

16.019 30.629 30.654 –0.025 32.625 32.654 –0.028 5.023

9.604

9.580

0.025 10.230 10.246 –0.016

16.019 30.629 30.654 –0.025 32.625 32.654 –0.028

Stairs (width)

3.102

5.931

5.914

0.017

6.318

6.331 –0.013

Stairs, drop

2.950

5.641

5.664 –0.024

6.008

5.998

0.011

Wall (axial)

14.624 27.962 27.989 –0.027 29.784 29.821 –0.037

Wall (exterior)

16.044 30.677 30.654

0.022 32.676 32.654

Wall (interior)

13.203 25.245 25.240

0.005 26.890 26.906 –0.016

2.815

2.832 –0.018

2.998

0.023

Wall (thickness)

1.472

2.999 –0.001

Wall, flanking N door (axial)

5.522 10.558 10.579 –0.021 11.246 11.246

Wall, flanking N door (exterior)

6.415 12.266 12.245

0.021 13.065 13.078 –0.013

Wall, flanking N door (interior)

4.628

8.849

8.830

0.019

9.426

9.413

Wall, flanking platforms

4.735

9.054

9.080 –0.026

9.644

9.663 –0.019

0.001

0.013

Standard deviation 0.022 Standard devation 0.020

Table 6. Calculation of standard deviation at the 1⁄12 scale.

APPENDIX 3: ANCIENT UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Greek Meters feet

Rdd. feet

Rdd. feet

Dev.

Dev.

3.850 11.774 11.745

0.028

8.671

8.663

0.008 13.007 12.995

0.012

1.090

3.333

3.332

0.001

2.455

2.416

0.039

3.682

3.665

0.017

1.330

4.067

4.082 –0.014

2.995

2.999 –0.003

4.493

4.498 –0.005

1.345

4.113

4.082

0.031

3.029

2.999

4.544

4.582 –0.038

3.400 10.398 10.413 –0.015

7.658

7.664 –0.006 11.486 11.495 –0.009

1.237

Dev.

0.030

Roman feet

3.749

0.034

2.786

2.749

0.037

4.165

0.014

3.707 11.336 11.329

0.008

8.349

8.330

0.019 12.524 12.495

0.029

7.330 –0.009

5.392

5.415 –0.023

2.394

3.783

Roman Rdd. cubits cubits

207

7.321

16.019 48.988 48.980 5.023 15.361 15.327 16.019 48.988 48.980

0.007 36.079 36.069

4.179 8.088

8.080

0.008

0.010 54.118 54.145 –0.027

0.034 11.313 11.329 –0.016 16.970 16.993 –0.024 0.007 36.079 36.069

0.010 54.118 54.145 –0.027

3.102

9.486

9.496 –0.010

6.986

6.997 –0.011 10.480 10.496 –0.016

2.950

9.021

8.996

6.644

6.664 –0.020

0.025

14.624 44.722 44.732 –0.010 32.937 32.904 16.044 49.064 49.064

9.966

9.996 –0.030

0.033 49.405 49.397

0.001 36.135 36.152 –0.017 54.203 54.228 –0.026

13.203 40.376 40.401 –0.024 29.736 29.738 –0.002 44.605 44.566 1.472

4.502

4.498

0.009

0.003

3.315

3.332 –0.017

4.973

0.039

4.998 –0.025

5.522 16.887 16.910 –0.023 12.437 12.412

0.025 18.655 18.659 –0.004

6.415 19.618 19.659 –0.041 14.448 14.411

0.037 21.672 21.658

4.628 14.153 14.161 –0.008 10.423 10.413

0.011 15.635 15.660 –0.025

4.735 14.480 14.494 –0.014 10.664 10.662

0.002 15.997 15.994

0.014

0.003

Standard deviation 0.021 Standard deviation 0.021 Standard deviation 0.022

Table 6. Calculation of standard deviation at the 1⁄12 scale (cont.).

208

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Feature

Egypt. Rdd. Meters cubits cubits

Dev.

Greek cubits

Rdd. cubits

Dev.

Basin, early (length)

3.850

7.361

7.4 –0.039

7.841

7.8

0.041

Basin, early (width)

1.090

2.084

2.1 –0.016

2.220

2.2

0.020

Column plinth (space between)

1.330

2.543

2.5

0.043

2.709

2.7

0.009

Column plinth (square)

1.345

2.572

2.6 –0.028

2.739

2.7

0.039

Doorway, north

3.400

6.501

6.5

0.001

6.925

6.9

0.025

Doorway, west

1.237

2.365

2.4 –0.035

2.519

2.5

0.019

Platforms (length)

3.707

7.088

7.1 –0.012

7.550

7.5

0.050

Platforms (width)

2.394

4.577

4.6 –0.023

4.876

4.9 –0.024

Portico (length) Portico (width) Stairs (length)

16.019 30.629

30.6

0.029 32.625

32.6

0.025

9.604

9.6

0.004 10.230

10.2

0.030

16.019 30.629

30.6

0.029 32.625

32.6

0.025

5.023

Stairs (width)

3.102

5.931

5.9

0.031

6.318

6.3

0.018

Stairs, drop

2.950

5.641

5.6

0.041

6.008

6.0

0.008

Wall (axial)

14.624 27.962

28.0 –0.038 29.784

29.8 –0.016

Wall (exterior)

16.044 30.677

30.7 –0.023 32.676

32.7 –0.024

Wall (interior)

13.203 25.245

25.2

26.9 –0.010

2.815

2.8

0.045 26.890

Wall (thickness)

1.472

0.015

2.998

3.0 –0.002

Wall, flanking N door (axial)

5.522 10.558

10.6 –0.042 11.246

11.2

Wall, flanking N door (exterior)

6.415 12.266

12.3 –0.034 13.065

13.1 –0.035

Wall, flanking N door (interior)

4.628

8.849

8.8

0.049

9.426

9.4

0.026

Wall, flanking platforms

4.735

9.054

9.1 –0.046

9.644

9.6

0.044

0.046

Standard deviation 0.033 Standard devation 0.025

Table 7. Calculation of standard deviation at the 1⁄10 scale.

APPENDIX 3: ANCIENT UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Greek Meters feet

3.850 11.774

Rdd. feet

Dev.

11.8 –0.026

Roman Rdd. cubits cubits

Dev.

Roman feet

8.671

8.7 –0.029 13.007

209

Rdd. feet

Dev.

13.0

0.007

1.090

3.333

3.3

0.033

2.455

2.5 –0.045

3.682

3.7 –0.018

1.330

4.067

4.1 –0.033

2.995

3.0 –0.005

4.493

4.5 –0.007

1.345

4.113

4.1

0.013

3.029

3.0

4.544

4.5

10.4 –0.002

7.658

7.7 –0.042 11.486

3.8 –0.017

2.786

2.8 –0.014

3.400 10.398 1.237

3.783

3.707 11.336 2.394

7.321

0.029

11.3

0.036

8.349

8.3

7.3

0.021

5.392

5.4 –0.008

4.179

0.049 12.524 8.088

0.044

11.5 –0.014 4.2 –0.021 12.5

0.024

8.1 –0.012

16.019 48.988

49.0 –0.012 36.079

36.1 –0.021 54.118

54.1

5.023 15.361

15.4 –0.039 11.313

11.3

17.0 –0.030

16.019 48.988

49.0 –0.012 36.079

36.1 –0.021 54.118

0.013 16.970

54.1

0.018 0.018

3.102

9.486

9.5 –0.014

6.986

7.0 –0.014 10.480

10.5 –0.020

2.950

9.021

9.0

6.644

6.6

10.0 –0.034

14.624 44.722

44.7

0.022 32.937

32.9

0.037 49.405

49.4

0.005

16.044 49.064

49.1 –0.036 36.135

36.1

0.035 54.203

54.2

0.003

13.203 40.376

40.4 –0.024 29.736

29.7

0.036 44.605

44.6

0.005

1.472

4.502

4.5

0.021

0.002

3.315

3.3

5.522 16.887

16.9 –0.013 12.437

6.415 19.618

19.6

0.044

0.015

9.966

4.973

5.0 –0.027

12.4

0.037 18.655

18.7 –0.045

0.018 14.448

14.4

0.048 21.672

21.7 –0.028

4.628 14.153

14.2 –0.047 10.423

10.4

0.023 15.635

15.6

4.735 14.480

14.5 –0.020 10.664

10.7 –0.036 15.997

0.035

16.0 –0.003

Standard deviation 0.025 Standard deviation 0.032 Standard deviation 0.024

Table 7. Calculation of standard deviation at the 1⁄10 scale (cont.).

210

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Feature

Egypt. Rdd. Meters cubits cubits

Dev.

Greek cubits

Rdd. cubits

Dev.

0.091

Basin, early (length)

3.850

7.361

7.25

0.111

7.841

7.75

Basin, early (width)

1.090

2.084

2.00

0.084

2.220

2.25 –0.030

Column plinth (space between)

1.330

2.543

2.50

0.043

2.709

2.75 –0.041

Column plinth (square)

1.345

2.572

2.50

0.072

2.739

2.75 –0.011

Doorway, north

3.400

6.501

6.50

0.001

6.925

7.00 –0.075

Doorway, west

1.237

2.365

2.25

0.115

2.519

2.50

0.019

Platforms (length)

3.707

7.088

7.00

0.088

7.550

7.50

0.050

Platforms (width)

2.394

4.577

4.50

0.077

4.876

5.00 –0.124

30.75 –0.121 32.625

32.75 –0.125

Portico (length) Portico (width) Stairs (length)

16.019 30.629 5.023

9.604

16.019 30.629

9.50

0.104 10.230

10.25 –0.020

30.75 –0.121 32.625

32.75 –0.125

Stairs (width)

3.102

5.931

6.00 –0.069

6.318

6.25

0.068

Stairs, drop

2.950

5.641

5.75 –0.109

6.008

6.00

0.008 0.034

Wall (axial)

14.624 27.962

28.00 –0.038 29.784

29.75

Wall (exterior)

16.044 30.677

30.75 –0.073 32.676

32.75 –0.074

Wall (interior)

13.203 25.245

25.25 –0.005 26.890

27.00 –0.110

Wall (thickness)

1.472

2.815

2.75

0.065

2.998

3.00 –0.002

Wall, flanking N door (axial)

5.522 10.558

10.50

0.058 11.246

11.25 –0.004

Wall, flanking N door (exterior)

6.415 12.266

12.25

0.016 13.065

13.00

Wall, flanking N door (interior)

4.628

8.849

8.75

0.099

9.426

9.50 –0.074

Wall, flanking platforms

4.735

9.054

9.00

0.054

9.644

9.75 –0.106

0.065

Standard deviation 0.080 Standard devation 0.069

Table 8. Calculation of standard deviation at the ¼ scale.

APPENDIX 3: ANCIENT UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Greek Meters feet

Rdd. feet

Roman Rdd. cubits cubits

Dev.

3.850 11.774

11.75

0.024

8.671

8.75 –0.079 13.007

Dev.

Roman feet

211

Rdd. feet

Dev.

13.00

0.007

1.090

3.333

3.25

0.083

2.455

2.50 –0.045

3.682

3.75 –0.068

1.330

4.067

4.00

0.067

2.995

3.00 –0.005

4.493

4.50 –0.007

1.345

4.113

4.00

0.113

3.029

3.00

4.544

4.50

10.50 –0.102

7.658

7.75 –0.092 11.486

3.400 10.398 1.237

0.029

3.783

3.75

0.033

2.786

2.75

0.036

3.707 11.336

11.25

0.086

8.349

8.25

0.099 12.524

7.25

0.071

5.392

5.50 –0.108

2.394

7.321

16.019 48.988 5.023 15.361 16.019 48.988

4.179

0.044

11.50 –0.014 4.25 –0.071 12.50

0.024

8.088

8.00

0.088 0.118

49.00 –0.012 36.079

36.00

0.079 54.118

54.00

15.25

0.111 11.313

11.25

0.063 16.970

17.00 –0.030

49.00 –0.012 36.079

36.00

0.079 54.118

54.00

0.118

3.102

9.486

9.50 –0.014

6.986

7.00 –0.014 10.480

10.50 –0.020

2.950

9.021

9.00

6.644

6.75 –0.106

9.966

10.00 –0.034

0.021

14.624 44.722

44.75 –0.028 32.937

33.00 –0.063 49.405

49.50 –0.095

16.044 49.064

49.00

0.064 36.135

36.25 –0.115 54.203

54.25 –0.047

13.203 40.376

40.50 –0.124 29.736

29.75 –0.014 44.605

44.50

1.472

4.502

4.50

0.002

3.315

3.25

0.065

0.105

4.973

5.00 –0.027

5.522 16.887

17.00 –0.113 12.437

12.50 –0.063 18.655

18.75 –0.095

6.415 19.618

19.50

0.118 14.448

14.50 –0.052 21.672

21.75 –0.078

4.628 14.153

14.25 –0.097 10.423

10.50 –0.077 15.635

15.75 –0.115

4.735 14.480

14.50 –0.020 10.664

10.75 –0.086 15.997

16.00 –0.003

Standard deviation 0.076 Standard deviation 0.070 Standard deviation 0.071

Table 8. Calculation of standard deviation at the ¼ scale (cont.).

212

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Feature

Egypt. Rdd. Meters cubits cubits

Dev.

Greek cubits

Rdd. cubits

Dev.

Basin, early (length)

3.850

7.361

7.5 –0.139

7.841

8.0 –0.159

Basin, early (width)

1.090

2.084

2.0

0.084

2.220

2.0

0.220

Column plinth (space between)

1.330

2.543

2.5

0.043

2.709

2.5

0.209

Column plinth (square)

1.345

2.572

2.5

0.072

2.739

2.5

0.239

Doorway, north

3.400

6.501

6.5

0.001

6.925

7.0 –0.075

Doorway, west

1.237

2.365

2.5 –0.135

2.519

2.5

0.019

Platforms (length)

3.707

7.088

7.0

0.088

7.550

7.5

0.050

Platforms (width)

2.394

4.577

4.5

0.077

4.876

5.0 –0.124

16.019 30.629

30.5

0.129 32.625

32.5

0.125

9.604

9.5

0.104 10.230

10.0

0.230

16.019 30.629

30.5

0.129 32.625

32.5

0.125

Portico (length) Portico (width) Stairs (length)

5.023

Stairs (width)

3.102

5.931

6.0 –0.069

6.318

6.5 –0.182

Stairs, drop

2.950

5.641

5.5

6.008

6.0

0.141

0.008

Wall (axial)

14.624 27.962

28.0 –0.038 29.784

30.0 –0.216

Wall (exterior)

16.044 30.677

30.5

0.177 32.676

32.5

Wall (interior)

13.203 25.245

25.0

0.245 26.890

27.0 –0.110

2.815

3.0 –0.185

Wall (thickness)

1.472

Wall, flanking N door (axial)

5.522 10.558

10.5

0.058 11.246

11.0

0.246

Wall, flanking N door (exterior)

6.415 12.266

12.5 –0.234 13.065

13.0

0.065

Wall, flanking N door (interior)

4.628

8.849

9.0 –0.151

9.426

9.5 –0.074

Wall, flanking platforms

4.735

9.054

9.0

9.644

9.5

0.054

2.998

0.176

3.0 –0.002

0.144

Standard deviation 0.129 Standard devation 0.151

Table 9. Calculation of standard deviation at the ½ scale.

APPENDIX 3: ANCIENT UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Greek Meters feet

3.850 11.774

Rdd. feet

Dev.

Roman Rdd. cubits cubits

12.0 –0.226

8.671

8.5

Dev.

Roman feet

0.171 13.007

213

Rdd. feet

Dev.

13.0

0.007 0.182

1.090

3.333

3.5 –0.167

2.455

2.5 –0.045

3.682

3.5

1.330

4.067

4.0

0.067

2.995

3.0 –0.005

4.493

4.5 –0.007

1.345

4.113

4.0

0.113

3.029

3.0

0.029

4.544

4.5

10.5 –0.102

7.658

7.5

0.158 11.486

3.783

4.0 –0.217

2.786

3.0 –0.214

4.179

4.0

0.179

3.707 11.336

11.5 –0.164

8.349

8.5 –0.151 12.524

12.5

0.024

7.5 –0.179

5.392

5.5 –0.108

8.088

8.0

0.088

0.079 54.118

54.0

0.118

3.400 10.398 1.237 2.394

7.321

0.044

11.5 –0.014

16.019 48.988

49.0 –0.012 36.079

36.0

5.023 15.361

15.5 –0.139 11.313

11.5 –0.187 16.970

17.0 –0.030

16.019 48.988

49.0 –0.012 36.079

36.0

54.0

0.079 54.118

0.118

3.102

9.486

9.5 –0.014

6.986

7.0 –0.014 10.480

10.5 –0.020

2.950

9.021

9.0

6.644

6.5

9.966

10.0 –0.034

14.624 44.722

44.5

0.222 32.937

33.0 –0.063 49.405

49.5 –0.095

16.044 49.064

49.0

0.064 36.135

36.0

0.135 54.203

54.0

0.203

13.203 40.376

40.5 –0.124 29.736

29.5

0.236 44.605

44.5

0.105

1.472

4.502

4.5

0.021

0.002

3.315

0.144

3.5 –0.185

4.973

5.0 –0.027

5.522 16.887

17.0 –0.113 12.437

12.5 –0.063 18.655

18.5

0.155

6.415 19.618

19.5

0.118 14.448

14.5 –0.052 21.672

21.5

0.172

4.628 14.153

14.0

0.153 10.423

10.5 –0.077 15.635

15.5

0.135

4.735 14.480

14.5 –0.020 10.664

10.5

16.0 –0.003

0.164 15.997

Standard deviation 0.128 Standard deviation 0.134 Standard deviation 0.089

Table 9. Calculation of standard deviation at the ½ scale (cont.).

214

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Feature

Egypt. Rdd. Meters cubits cubits

Dev.

Greek cubits

Rdd. cubits

Dev.

Basin, early (length)

3.850

7.361

7

0.361

7.841

8 –0.159

Basin, early (width)

1.090

2.084

2

0.084

2.220

2

Column plinth (space between)

1.330

2.543

3 –0.457

2.709

3 –0.291

Column plinth (square)

1.345

2.572

3 –0.428

2.739

3 –0.261

Doorway, north

3.400

6.501

7 –0.499

6.925

7 –0.075

Doorway, west

1.237

2.365

2

0.365

2.519

3 –0.481

Platforms (length)

3.707

7.088

7

0.088

7.550

8 –0.450

Platforms (width)

2.394

4.577

5 –0.423

4.876

5 –0.124

31 –0.371 32.625

33 –0.375

9.604

10 –0.396 10.230

10

16.019 30.629

31 –0.371 32.625

33 –0.375

Portico (length) Portico (width) Stairs (length)

16.019 30.629 5.023

0.220

0.230

Stairs (width)

3.102

5.931

6 –0.069

6.318

6

0.318

Stairs, drop

2.950

5.641

6 –0.359

6.008

6

0.008

Wall (axial)

14.624 27.962

28 –0.038 29.784

30 –0.216

Wall (exterior)

16.044 30.677

31 –0.323 32.676

33 –0.324

Wall (interior)

13.203 25.245

25

27 –0.110

2.815

0.245 26.890

Wall (thickness)

1.472

3 –0.185

2.998

Wall, flanking N door (axial)

5.522 10.558

11 –0.442 11.246

11

0.246

Wall, flanking N door (exterior)

6.415 12.266

12

13

0.065

Wall, flanking N door (interior)

4.628

8.849

9 –0.151

9.426

9

0.426

Wall, flanking platforms

4.735

9.054

9

9.644

0.266 13.065

0.054

3 –0.002

10 –0.356

Standard deviation 0.293 Standard devation 0.269

Table 10. Calculation of standard deviation at the 1⁄10 scale.

APPENDIX 3: ANCIENT UNITS OF MEASUREMENT

Greek Meters feet

3.850 11.774

Rdd. feet

Dev.

12 –0.226

Roman Rdd. cubits cubits

Dev.

Roman feet

8.671

9 –0.329 13.007

215

Rdd. feet

Dev.

13

0.007

1.090

3.333

3

0.333

2.455

2

0.455

3.682

4 –0.318

1.330

4.067

4

0.067

2.995

3 –0.005

4.493

4

1.345

4.113

4

0.113

3.029

3

4.544

5 –0.456

3.400 10.398

10

0.398

7.658

8 –0.342 11.486

4 –0.217

2.786

3 –0.214

1.237

3.783

3.707 11.336 2.394

7.321

16.019 48.988 5.023 15.361 16.019 48.988

0.029

4.179

11

0.336

8.349

8

0.349 12.524

7

0.321

5.392

5

0.392

49 –0.012 36.079 15

0.493

11

0.486

4

0.179

13 –0.476

8.088

8

0.088

36

0.079 54.118

54

0.118

0.361 11.313

11

0.313 16.970

17 –0.030

49 –0.012 36.079

36

0.079 54.118

54

0.118 0.480

3.102

9.486

9

0.486

6.986

7 –0.014 10.480

10

2.950

9.021

9

0.021

6.644

7 –0.356

10 –0.034

9.966

14.624 44.722

45 –0.278 32.937

33 –0.063 49.405

49

0.405

16.044 49.064

49

0.064 36.135

36

54

0.203

13.203 40.376

40

0.376 29.736

30 –0.264 44.605

1.472

4.502

5 –0.498

3.315

3

5.522 16.887

17 –0.113 12.437

6.415 19.618

0.135 54.203 0.315

45 –0.395

4.973

5 –0.027

12

0.437 18.655

19 –0.345

20 –0.382 14.448

14

0.448 21.672

22 –0.328

4.628 14.153

14

0.153 10.423

10

0.423 15.635

16 –0.365

4.735 14.480

14

0.480 10.664

11 –0.336 15.997

16 –0.003

Standard deviation 0.292 Standard deviation 0.296 Standard deviation 0.319

Table 10. Calculation of standard deviation at the 1⁄10 scale (cont.).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adkins, Lesley, and Roy A. Adkins. 2000. Dictionary of Roman Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Akurgal, Ekrem. 1985. Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey: From Prehistoric Times until the End of the Roman Empire. 6th ed. Istanbul: Haset Kitabevi. Alföldy, Géza. 1996. “Subject and Ruler, Subjects and Methods: An Attempt at a Conclusion.” In Small 1996: 254–61. Augé, Christian, and Jean-Marie Dentzer. 2000. Petra: Lost City of the Ancient World. Discoveries. New York: Abrams. Augé, Christian, François Renel, Laurent Borel, and Chrystelle March. 2002. “New Excavations in the Qasr al-Bint Area at Petra.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 46: 309–13. Ball, Larry F. 2002. “How Did the Romans Install Revetment?” American Journal of Archaeology 106: 551–73. Ball, Warwick. 2001. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. New York: Routledge. Balsdon, J. P. V. D., and Barbara M. Levick. 2003. “Damnatio memoriae.” In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., edited by S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 427. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Basile, Beatrice. 1988. “A Roman Wreck with a Cargo of Marble in the Bay of Giardini Naxos (Sicily).” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 17: 133–42. Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. 1998. Religions of Rome: A History. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bedal, Leigh-Ann. 1998. “Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery.” In Joukowsky 1998c: 346–67. ———. 2001. “A Pool Complex in Petra’s City Center.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 324: 23–41. 217

218

THE SMALL TEMPLE

———. 2004. The Petra Pool-Complex: A Hellenistic Paradeisos in the Nabataean Capital. Gorgias Dissertations 7, Near Eastern Studies 5. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press. Bienkowski, Piotr. 2000. “Parthians.” in Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, edited by Piotr Bienkowski and A. Millard, 223. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bikai, Patricia Maynor. 2002. “The Churches of Byzantine Petra.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 271–76. Binford, Lewis R. 1981. “Behavioral Archaeology and the ‘Pompeii Premise’.” Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 195–208. Bintliff, John. 1991. “The Contribution of an Annaliste/Structural History Approach to Archaeology.” In The Annales School and Archaeology, edited by J. Bintliff, 1–26. New York: New York University Press. Bodel, John P. 2001. “Epigraphy and the Ancient Historian.” In Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from Inscriptions, edited by J. P. Bodel, 1–56. New York: Routledge. Bodel, John P., and Sara Karz Reid. 2002. “A Dedicatory Inscription to the Emperor Trajan from the Small Temple at Petra, Jordan.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 249–50. Bowersock, G. W. 1971. “A Report on Arabia Provincia.” Journal of Roman Studies 61: 219–42. ———. 1982. Review of The Coins of the Decapolis and Provincia Arabia, by A. Spijkerman. Journal of Roman Studies 72: 197–98. ———. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 2003. “The Nabataeans in Historical Context.” In Markoe 2003: 19–25. Braudel, Fernand. 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. Translated by S. Reynolds. Vol. 1. New York: Harper and Row. Braund, David. 1998. “Cohors: the Governor and His Entourage in the Self-Image of the Roman Republic.” In Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, edited by R. Laurence and J. Berry, 12–22. New York: Routledge. Browning, Iain. 1989. Petra. 3rd ed. Amman: Jordan Distribution Agency. Brünnow, Rudolf Ernst, and Alfred von Domaszewski. 1904. Die Provincia Arabia: Auf Grund zweier in den Jahren 1897 und 1898 unternommenen Reisen und der Berichte früherer Reisender. Vol. 1. Strassburg: Trübner.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

Bruno, Matthias, Carlo Gorgoni, and Paolo Pallante. 2003. “On the Provenance of White Marbles Used in the Baths of Caracalla in Rome.” Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones used in Antiquity, Thassos, Greece, 2003. Burckhardt, Johann Ludwig. 1822. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. London: John Murray. Burford, A. 1960. “Heavy Transport in Classical Antiquity.” Economic History Review 13: 1–18. Casson, Lionel. 1994. Travel in the Ancient World. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Chancey, Mark A., and Adam Porter. 2001. “The Archaeology of Roman Palestine.” Near Eastern Archaeology 64: 164–203. Charlesworth, M. P. 1935. “Some Observations on Ruler-Cult, Especially in Rome.” Harvard Theological Review 28: 5–44. Clark, Vincent A. 2004. “The Vicus Temple (Area Q).” In The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980–1989, vol. 1. Edited by S. T. Parker. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Cohen, R. 1982. “New Light on the Date of the Petra–Gaza Road.” Biblical Archaeologist 45: 240–47. Corcoran, Simon, and Janet DeLaine. 1994. “The Unit Measurement of Marble in Diocletian’s Prices Edict.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 7: 263–73. Craig, Harmon, and Valerie Craig. 1972. “Greek Marbles: Determination of Provenance by Isotopic Analysis.” Science 176: 401–3. Curchin, Leonard A. 1996. “Cult and Celt: Indigenous Participation in Emperor Worship in Central Spain.” In Small 1996: 142–52. Cziesla, E. 1990. “On Refitting Stone Artefacts.” In The Big Puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artifacts, Monrepos 1987, edited by E. Cziesla, S. Eickhoff, N. Arts, and D. Winter, 9–44. Studies in Modern Archaeology 1. Bonn: Holos. Dentzer, Jean-Marie. 2003. “The Nabataeans at Bosra and in Southern Syria.” In Markoe 2003: 109–11. Dessau, Hermann, ed. 1892–1916. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. 3 vols. in 5. Berlin: Weidmann. Dilke, O. A. W. 1987. Mathematics and Measurement. Reading the Past. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

220

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Dobbins, John J. 1996. “The Imperial Cult Building in the Forum at Pompeii.” In Small 1996: 99–114. Dodge, Hazel. 1988. “Palmyra and the Roman Marble Trade: Evidence From the Baths of Diocletian.” Levant 20: 215–30. Dodge, Hazel, and Bryan Ward-Perkins, eds. 1992. Marble in Antiquity: Collected Papers of J. B. Ward-Perkins. Archaeological Monographs 6. London: British School at Rome. Duncan-Jones, R. P. 1980. “Length-Units in Roman Town Planning: The Pes Monetalis and the Pes Drusianus.” Britannia 11: 127–33. Dworakowska, Angelina. 1983. Quarries in Roman Provinces. Bibliotheca Antiqua 16. Wroclaw: Polish Academy of Sciences. Eickelman, Dale F. 1989. The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. El-Isa, Zuhair H. 1985. “Earthquake Studies of some Archaeological Sites in Jordan.” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 2: 229–35. Engels, Donald. 1985. “The Length of Eratosthenes’ Stade.” American Journal of Philology 106: 298–311. Engnell, Ivan. 1967. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Erim, Kenan T. 1986. Aphrodisias: City of Venus Aphrodite. New York: Facts on File. Fant, J. Clayton. 1988. “The Roman Emperors in the Marble Business: Capitalists, Middlemen or Philanthropists?” In Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade, edited by Norman Herz and Marc Waelkens, 147–58. NATO ASI Series 153. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ———. 1992. “The Roman Imperial Marble Yard at Portus,” in Ancient Stones, Quarrying, Trade and Provenance: Interdisciplinary Studies on Stones and Stone Technology in Europe and the Near East from the Prehistoric to the Early Christian Period, edited by Marc Waelkens, Norman Herz, and Luc Moens, 115–20. Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia, Monographiae 4. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ———. 1993. “Ideology, Gift, and Trade: A Distribution Model for the Roman Imperial Marbles.” In The Inscribed Economy: Production and Distribution in the Roman Empire in Light of Instrumentum Domesticum, edited by W. V. Harris, 145–70. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 6. Ann Arbor, Mich.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

Fiema, Zbigniew T. 1987. “The Roman Annexation of Arabia: A General Perspective.” Ancient World 15: 25–35. ———. 1998. “La Découverte des Papyrus Byzantins de Pétra.” In Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres, July– October 1997, 733–38. ———. 2002. “Late-antique Petra and its Hinterland: Recent Research and New Interpretations.” In The Roman and Byzantine Near East, edited by J. H. Humphrey, 191–252. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 49. Portsmouth, R.I. Finley, M. I. 1999. The Ancient Economy. Updated ed. Sather Classical Lectures 48. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Fischer, Moshe L. 1996. “Marble, Urbanism, and Ideology in Roman Palestine: The Caesarea Example.” In Raban and Holum 1996: 251–61. ———. 1998. Marble Studies: Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade. Xenia 40. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz. Fischer, Moshe L., M. Magaritz, and Ze’ev Pearl. 1992. “Isotopic and Artistic Analysis of Corinthian Marble Capitals from Caesarea: A Case Study.” In Vann 1992: 214–21. Fishwick, Duncan. 1987. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Etudes Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain 1.1. New York: Brill. ———. 1996. “Four Temples at Tarraco.” In Small 1996: 165–84. Forbes, R. J. 1936. Bitumen and Petroleum in Antiquity. Leiden: Brill. Freeman, Philip. 1996. “The Annexation of Arabia and Imperial Grand Strategy,” in The Roman Army in the East, edited by D. L. Kennedy, 91–118. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 18. Ann Arbor, Mich. Friesen, Steven J. 1993. Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia, and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family. Leiden: Brill. ———. 1995. “The Cult of the Roman Emperors in Ephesos: Temple Wardens, City Titles, and the Interpretation of the Revelation of John.” In Koester 1995: 229–50. ———. 2001. Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins. New York: Oxford University Press. Futrell, Alison. 1997. Blood in the Arena: The Spectacle of Roman Power. Austin: University of Texas Press.

222

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Gelb, Susan. 2003. “Invisible Paths: Hadrian’s Itinerary through Arabia in AD 130.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Atlanta, Georgia. Glueck, Nelson. 1965. Deities and Dolphins: The Story of the Nabataeans. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Gould, Richard A. 2000. Archaeology and the Social History of Ships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gradel, Ittai. 2002. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon. Graf, David F. 1978. “The Saracens and the Defense of the Arabian Frontier.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 229: 1–26. ———. 1992. “Nabataeans.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 4:970–73. New York: Doubleday. Graf, David F., and Steven E. Sidebotham. 2003. “Nabataean Trade.” In Markoe 2003: 65–73. Grant, Michael. 1978. History of Rome. New York: Scribner’s. Greene, Kevin. 1986. The Archaeology of the Roman Economy. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Gregg, Christopher. 2001. “Augustan Policy and Celtic Tradition: The Imperial Cult at Lugdunum.” Archaeological News 23: 45–55. Groom, Nigel. 1981. Frankincense and Myrrh: A Study of the Arabian Incense Trade. Arab Background Series. London: Longman. Hammond, N. G. L. 1997. The Genius of Alexander the Great. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Hammond, Philip C. 1959. “The Nabataean Bitumen Industry at the Dead Sea.” Biblical Archaeologist 22: 40–48. ———. 1973. The Nabataeans: Their History, Culture and Archaeology. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology. Gothenburg: Paul Åström. ———. 1987. “Three Workshops at Petra (Jordan).” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 119: 129–41. ———. 2003. “The Temple of the Winged Lions.” In Markoe 2003: 223–29. Harding, G. Lankester. 1967. The Antiquities of Jordan. Rev. ed. Amman: Jordan Distribution Agency. Harris, E. C. 1975. “The Stratigraphic Sequence: A Question of Time.” World Archaeology 7: 109–21.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

Hayes, John W. 1980. Ancient Lamps in the Royal Ontario Museum, vol. 1: Greek and Roman Clay Lamps: A Catalogue. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. Hazel, John. 2001. Who’s Who in the Roman World. London: Routledge. Herz, Norman. 1987. “Carbon and Oxygen Isotopic Ratios: A Data Base for Classical Greek and Roman Marble.” Archaeometry 29: 35–43. Herz, Norman, and Marc Waelkens, eds. 1988. Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade. NATO ASI Series 153. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Herz, Norman, and David B. Wenner. 1981. “Tracing the Origins of Marble.” Archaeology 34: 14–21. Hoff, Michael C. 1996. “The Politics and Architecture of the Athenian Imperial Cult.” In Small 1996: 185–200. Hohlfelder, Robert L. 1992. “The Changing Fortunes of Caesarea’s Harbours in the Roman Period.” In Vann 1992: 75–78. Holum, Kenneth G. 1999. “The Temple Platform: Progress Report on the Excavations,” in Caesarea Papers 2: Herod’s Temple, the Provincial Governor’s Praetorium and Granaries, the Later Harbor, a Gold Coin Hoard, and Other Studies, edited by Kenneth G. Holum, Avner Raban, and J. Patrich, 12–34. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Holum, Kenneth G., Robert L. Hohlfelder, Robert J. Bull, and Avner Raban. 1988. King Herod’s Dream: Caesarea on the Sea. New York: Norton. Horden, Peregrine, and Nicholas Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Horsfield, G., and A. Horsfield. 1942. “Sela-Petra, the Rock of Edom and Nabatene, IV: The Finds.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 9: 105–204. Jacobson, David M. 1986. “Hadrianic Architecture and Geometry.” American Journal of Archaeology 90: 69–85. ———. 2001. “Herod the Great Shows His True Colors.” Near Eastern Archaeology 64: 100–104. Johnson, Barbara L., and Lawrence E. Stager. 1995. “Ashkelon: Wine Emporium of the Holy Land.” In Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West, edited by S. Gitin, 95–109. Archaeological Institute of America Colloquia and Conference Papers 122. Dubuque, Ia: Kendall/Hunt.

224

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Johnson, David J. 1987. “Nabataean Trade: Intensification and Culture Change.” Ph.D. diss., University of Utah. Jones, Mark Wilson. 2000. Principles of Roman Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jory, John. 2002. “The Masks on the Propylon of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.” In Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, edited by P. Easterling and E. Hall, 238–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joukowsky, Martha Sharp. 1998a. “History of the Brown University Excavations.” In Joukowsky 1998c: 47–148. ———. 1998b. “Introduction.” In Joukowsky 1998c: 1–46. ———, ed. 1998c. Petra Great Temple, vol. 1: Brown University Excavations 1993–1997. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Petra Exploration Fund. ———. 2000. “Brown University 1999 Excavations at the Petra Great Temple.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44: 313–34. ———. 2003. “The Great Temple.” In Markoe 2003: 214–22. Joukowsky, Martha Sharp, and Joseph J. Basile. 2001. “More Pieces in the Petra Great Temple Puzzle.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 324: 43–58. Joukowsky, Martha Sharp, and D. J. D’Agostino. 1998. “Artifact Studies and Databases.” In Joukowsky 1998c: 237–74. Kahn, Lisa C. 1996. “King Herod’s Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima.” In Raban and Holum 1996: 130–45. Kanellopoulos, Chrysanthos. 2001. “The Architecture of the Shops and Colonnaded Street in Petra.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 324: 9–22. ———. 2004. “The Temples of Petra: An Architectural Analysis.” Archäologische Anzeiger 2004, no. 1, 221–39. Keppie, Lawrence. 1991. Understanding Roman Inscriptions. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Knapp, A. Bernard. 1993. “Thalassocracies in Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Making and Breaking a Myth.” World Archaeology 24: 332–47. Koenen, Ludwig, Robert W. Daniel, and Traianos Gagos. 2003. “Petra in the Sixth Century: The Evidence of the Carbonized Papyri.” In Markoe 2003: 250–61.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

Koester, H., ed. 1995. Ephesos Metropolis of Asia: An Interdisciplinary Approach to its Archaeology, Religion, and Culture. Harvard Theological Studies 41. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International. Kolb, Bernhard, Daniel Keller, and Regine Fellmann Brogli. 1997. “Swiss–Liechtenstein Excavations at Az-Zantur in Petra 1996: The Seventh Season.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 41: 231–54. Kolb, Bernhard, Daniel Keller, and Yvonne Gerber. 1998. “Swiss– Liechtenstein Excavations at Az-Zantur in Petra 1997.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 42: 259–77. Kraybill, J. Nelson. 1996. Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 132. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Kuhrt, Amélie. 1995. The Ancient Near East. 2 vols. Routledge History of the Ancient World. London: Routledge. Larson, Steven J. 2003. “Trench 18, 2002: East Portico of the Petra Small Temple.” Unpublished trench report. Laurence, Ray. 1998. “Land Transport in Roman Italy: Costs, Practice and the Economy.” In Parkins and Smith 1998: 129–46. Lehmann, Clayton Miles, and Kenneth G. Holum. 2000. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima. The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima Excavation Reports 5. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. Lehtinen, Mary. 2002. “The Petra Papyri.” Near Eastern Archaeology 65: 277–78. Levine, Lee I. 1975a. Caesarea under Roman Rule. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 7. Leiden: Brill. —. 1975b. Roman Caesarea: An Archaeological-Topographical Study. Qedem: Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 2. Jerusalem. Lévy, Jean-Philippe. 1964. The Economic Life of the Ancient World. Translated by J. G. Biram. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lyttelton, Margaret, and Thomas Blagg. 1990. “Sculpture in Nabataean Petra, and the Question of Roman Influence.” In Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire, edited by M. Henig, 91–107. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 29. Oxford.

226

THE SMALL TEMPLE

MacDonald, William L. 1986. The Architecture of the Roman Empire: An Urban Appraisal. Yale Publications in the History of Art 2. New Haven: Yale University Press. MacMullen, Ramsay. 1959. “Roman Imperial Building in the Provinces.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 64: 207–35. Maisels, Charles Keith. 1993. The Near East. Experience of Archaeology. London: Routledge. Maniatis, Y., Norman Herz, and Y. Basiakos, eds. 1995. The Study of Marble and Other Stones Used in Antiquity. London: Archetype. Marc, Jean-Yves. 1995. “Who Owned the Marble Quarries of Thasos during the Imperial Period?” In Maniatis, Herz, and Basiakos 1995: 33–37. Markoe, G., ed. 2003. Petra Rediscovered: Lost City of the Nabataeans. New York: Abrams. Mauss, Marcel. 1990. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: Norton. McKenzie, Judith S. 1990. The Architecture of Petra. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology. New York: Oxford University Press. McKenzie, Judith S., Sheila Gibson, and A. T. Reyes. 2002. “Reconstruction of the Nabataean Temple Complex at Khirbet etTannur.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 134: 44–83. Millar, Fergus. 1993. The Roman Near East. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mitchell, Stephen. 1987. “Imperial Building in the Eastern Roman Provinces.” In Roman Architecture in the Greek World, edited by S. Macready and F. H. Thompson, 18–25. Occasional Papers NS 10. London: Society of Antiquaries. Negev, Avraham. 1966. “The Date of the Petra–Gaza Road.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 98: 89–98. ———. 1991. “The Temple of Obodas: Excavations at Oboda in July 1989.” Israel Exploration Journal 41: 62–80. ———. 1996. “Oboda: The City of Obodas the God.” In Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in Light of Archaeological Evidence: Acts of a Symposium Organized by the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Archaeological Insitute, GeorgAugust-University of Göttingen at Jerusalem, November 3rd–4th 1988, edited by K. Fittschen and G. Foerster, 219–51. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

———. 2003. “The Negev and the Nabataeans.” In Markoe 2003: 101–5. Nock, A. D. 1928. “Notes on Ruler-Cult, I–IV.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 48: 21–43. Overman, J. Andrew, Jack Olive, and Michael Nelson. 2003. “Discovering Herod’s Shrine to Augustus.” Biblical Archaeology Review 29: 40-49, 67–68. Paradise, Thomas R. 1998. “Environmental Setting and Stone Weathering.” In Joukowsky 1998c: 151–66. Parker, A. J. 1992. “Cargoes, Containers and Stowage: The Ancient Mediterranean.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21: 89– 100. Parker, S. Thomas. 1975. “The Decapolis Reviewed.” Journal of Biblical Literature 94: 437–41. ———. 1986. Romans and Saracens: A History of the Arabian Frontier. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series 6. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. ———. 1987. “The Roman Limes in Jordan.” In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, edited by A. Hadidi, 3:151–64. Amman: Department of Antiquities. Parkins, H., and C. Smith, eds. 1998. Trade, Traders and the Ancient City. New York: Routledge. Parr, Peter J. 1967–68. “Recent Discoveries in the Sanctuary of the Qasr Bint Far’un at Petra, I: Account of the Recent Excavations.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 12–13: 5– 19. ———. 2003. “The Origins and Emergence of the Nabataeans.” In Markoe 2003: 27–35. Paterson, Jeremy. 1998. “Trade and Traders in the Roman World: Scale, Structure, and Organisation.” In Parkins and Smith 1998: 149–67. Payne, Elizabeth E. 1998. “Evidence for the Nabataean Subterranean Canalization System.” In Joukowsky 1998c: 170–78. Pensabene, Patrizio. 1978. “A Cargo of Marble Shipwrecked at Punta Scifo near Crotone (Italy).” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 7: 105–18. ———. 1995. “Some Problems Related to the Use of Luna Marble in Rome and the Western Provinces during the First Century AD.” In Maniatis, Herz, and Basiakos 1995: 13–16.

228

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Polanyi, Karl. 1963. “Ports of Trade in Early Societies.” Journal of Economic History 23: 30–45. Price, Simon R. F. 1980. “Between Man and God: Sacrifice in the Roman Imperial Cult.” Journal of Roman Studies 70: 28–43. ———. 1984. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1999. “Imperial Cult.” In Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World, edited by G. W. Bowersock, P. Brown, and O. Grabar, 510. Cambridge: Harvard University Press/Belknap. Quimby, George I., and Alexander Spoehr. 1951. “Acculturation and Material Culture—I.” Fieldiana: Anthropology 36: 107–47. Raban, Avner. 1992. “Sebastos: The Royal Harbour at Caesarea Maritima—A Short-Lived Giant.” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21: 111–24. Raban, Avner, and Kenneth G. Holum, eds. 1996. Caesarea Maritima: A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and Civilisation 21. Leiden: Brill. Ramenofsky, Ann F. 1991. “Historical Science and Contact Period Studies.” In The Spanish Borderlands in Pan-American Perspective, edited by D. H. Thomas, 437–52. Columbian Consequences 3. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Ratté, Christopher, Thomas N. Howe, and Clive Foss. 1986. “An Early Imperial Pseudodipteral Temple at Sardis.” American Journal of Archaeology 90: 45–68. Ray, Arthur J. 1978. “History and Archaeology of the Northern Fur Trade.” American Antiquity 43: 26–34. Reid, Sara Karz. 2002. “Excavations at the Petra Small Temple, 2000–2001.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 46: 363–79. Renfrew, Colin. 1977. “Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribution.” In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson, 71–90. Studies in Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Reynolds, J. M. 1980. “The Origins and Beginnings of Imperial Cult at Aphrodisias.” Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 206: 70–84. ———. 1981. “New Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 43: 317–27. Roaf, Michael. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York: Facts on File.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

Rockwell, Peter. 1996. “The Marble Quarries: A Preliminary Survey.” In Roueché and Smith 1996: 81–103. Roll, Israel. 1996. “Roman Roads to Caesarea Maritima.” In Raban and Holum 1996: 549–58. Rosenthal, Renate, and Renee Sivan. 1978. Ancient Lamps in the Schloessinger Collection. Qedem Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 8. Jerusalem. Röttlander, Rolf C. A. 1996. “New Ideas about Old Units of Length.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 21: 235–41. Roueché, C., and R. R. R. Smith, eds. 1996. Aphrodisias Papers 3: The Setting and Quarries, Mythological and Other Sculptural Decoration, Architectural Development, Portico of Tiberius, and Tetrapylon; Including the Papers Given at the Fourth International Aphrodisias Colloquium Held at King's College, London on 14 March, 1992, in Memory of Kenan T. Erim. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 20. Ann Arbor, Mich. Russell, Kenneth W. 1980. “The Earthquake of May 19, A.D. 363.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238: 47–64. Sacks, David. 1995. A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World. New York: Oxford University Press. Scarre, Chris. 1995. The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome. London: Penguin. Scherrer, Peter. 1995. “The City of Ephesos from the Roman Period to Late Antiquity.” In Koester 1995: 1–25. Schiffer, Michael B. 1972. “Archaeological Context and Systemic Context.” American Antiquity 37: 156–65. ———. 1983. “Toward the Identification of Formation Processes.” American Antiquity 48: 675–706. ———. 1985. “Is There a ‘Pompeii Premise’ in Archaeology?” Journal of Anthropological Research 41: 18–41. Schluntz, Erika A. 1998. “The Upper Temenos and the Great Temple.” In Joukowsky 1998c: 209–24. Schmid, Stephan G. 1995. “Nabataean Fine Ware from Petra.” In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, edited by K. ‘Amr, F. Zayadine, and M. Zaghloul, 637–47. Amman: Department of Antiquities. ———. 2003. “Nabataean Pottery.” In Markoe 2003: 75–81. Schmitt-Korte, Karl. 1971. “A Contribution to the Study of Nabataean Pottery.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 16: 47–60.

230

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Shelton, Jo-Ann. 1988. As the Romans Did. New York: Oxford University Press. Small, A., ed. 1996. Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity: Papers Presented at a Conference Held in the University of Alberta on April 13–15, 1994, to Celebrate the 65th Anniversary of Duncan Fishwick. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 17. Ann Arbor, Mich. Smith, R. R. R. 1990. “Myth and Allegory in the Sebasteion.” In Aphrodisias Papers: Recent Work on Architecture and Sculpture, Including the Papers Given at the Second International Aphrodisias Colloquium Held at King’s College London on 14 November, 1987, edited by C. Roueché and K. T. Erim, 89–100. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 1. Ann Arbor, Mich. Takács, Sarolta A. 1997. Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 124. Leiden: Brill. Taylor, Jane. 1996. Petra. London: Aurum Press. ———. 2001. Petra and the Lost Kingdom of the Nabataeans. London: I.B. Tauris. Taylor, Rabun. 2003. Roman Builders: A Study in Architectural Process. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, Nicholas. 1989. “Travellers philosophical and unphilosophical.” In Out of Time: History and Evolution in Anthropological Discourse, edited by M. Fortes, E. Leach, J. Goody, and S. Tambiah, 69–85. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 67. New York: Cambridge University Press. Toombs, Lawrence E. 1978. “The Stratigraphy of Caesarea Maritima.” In Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon, edited by P. R. S. Moorey and Peter Parr, 223–32. Warminster: Aris & Phillips. Tracy, Stephen V. 1998. “An Imperial Inscription.” In Joukowsky 1998c: 370–75. ———. 1999a. “The Dedicatory Inscription to Trajan at the ‘Metropolis’ of Petra.” In The Roman and Byzantine Near East, vol. 2: , The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research, edited by J. H. Humphrey, 51–58. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 31. Portsmouth, R.I. ———. 1999b. “Two Inscriptions from Petra.” Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 43: 305–9. Trigger, Bruce G. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

Tsafrir, Y. 1982. “The Desert Fortresses of Judea in the Second Temple Period.” In The Jerusalem Cathedra, edited by Lee I. Levine, 2:120–45. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press. Tsompos, P., N. Epitropou, and C. Skilodimou. 2003. “GeologicalGeomorphological Observations and Quantity Measurements on the Classical Marble Quarries of Aliki Peninsula in Thasos (Greece), Using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques.” Paper presented at the 7th International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones used in Antiquity, Thassos, Greece. Turcan, Robert. 2000. The Gods of Ancient Rome: Religion in Everyday Life from Archaic to Imperial Times. New York: Routledge. Vann, R. L., ed. 1992. Caesarea Papers: Straton’s Tower, Herod’s Harbour, and Roman and Byzantine Caesarea. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 5. Ann Arbor, Mich. Vitruvius. 1970. On Architecture, vol. 2: Books 0–00. Edited and translated by . Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Waelkens, Marc, Paul De Paepe, and Luc Moens. 1988. “Quarries and the Marble Trade in Antiquity.” In Herz and Waelkens 1988: 11–28. Walker, Susan. 1988. “From West to East: Evidence for a Shift in the Balance of Trade in White Marbles.” In Herz and Waelkens 1988: 187–95. Walters, James. 1995. “Egyptian Religions in Ephesos.” in Koester 1995: 281–309. Ward-Perkins, John B. 1951. “Tripolitania and the Marble Trade.” The Journal of Roman Studies 41: 89–104. ———. 1981. Roman Imperial Architecture. Pelican History of Art. New Haven: Yale University Press. ———. 1992a. “Dalmatia and the Marble Trade.” In Dodge and Ward-Perkins 1992: 115–19. ———. 1992b. “The Roman System in Operation.” In Dodge and Ward-Perkins 1992: 23–30. Ward-Perkins, John B., and Peter Throckmorton. 1965. “New Light on the Roman Marble Trade: The San Pietro Wreck.” Archaeology 18: 201–9. Weigand, Phil C., Garman Harbottle, and Edward V. Sayre. 1977. “Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: Mesoamerican and the

232

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Southwestern U.S.A.” In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson, 15–34. Studies in Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. Wenning, Robert. 2001. “The Betyls of Petra.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 324:79–95. ———. 2003. “The Rock-Cut Architecture of Petra.” in Markoe 2003: 133–43. Wesler, Kit W. 1991. “Ceramics, Chronology, and Horizon Markers at Wickliffe Mounds.” American Antiquity 56: 278–90. Wheeler, Mortimer. 1955. Rome Beyond the Imperial Frontiers. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Wiegand, Theodor. 1921. “Der prostyle Hexastylos.” In Petra, edited by T. Wiegand, 48–49. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen des deutsch-türkischen Denkmalschutz-Kommandos 3. Berlin: De Gruyter. Wild, Robert A. 1981. Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Sarapis. Etudes Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain 87. Leiden: Brill. Wolf, Eric R. 1997. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Wood, W. Raymond. 1990. “Ethnohistory and Historical Method.” Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 81–110. Wright, G. R. H. 1961. “Structure of the Qasr Bint Far’un: A Preliminary Review.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 93: 8–37. Yadin, Yigael. 1966. Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealot’s Last Stand. Jerusalem: Steimatzky. Zabehlicky, Heinrich. 1995. “Preliminary Views of the Ephesian Harbor.” In Koester 1995: 201–15. Zimmerman, Paul. 2000. “Mapping Petra.” Expedition 42: 37–41.

INDEX Cairo, 27 Caligula, 158 canalization, 23, 82, 85, 178 Caracalla, 131, 179, 180 caravans, 15, 16, 30, 151, 164 Cassius Dio, 15, 159, 165 Chersiphron, 122 Cibyra Minor, 153 cisterns, 23, 178 Cleopatra, 154 coins, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 56, 59, 94, 140, 161 Constantine, 110 copper, 16 Corinthians, II, 13 Crusader Period, 27 cubit Egyptian, 173, 175, 205 Greek, 173, 174, 175, 205 Roman, 173, 174, 175, 205 Dacia, 125 Damascus, 3, 11, 13, 15, 18, 25, 27 damnatio memoriae, 130, 134, 135, 165, 167, 183 Darius III, 8 Dead Sea, 3, 16, 24 Decapolis cities, 25, 145, 162 deities Al-‘Uzza, 19 Allat, 19, 43 Aphrodite, 18, 166, 167, 168 Ares, 18 Atargatis, 18 Dionysus, 18 Dushara, 18, 19, 20, 43, 87, 186 Illaalge, 19, 20 Isis, 18, 31, 179 Manawat, 19 Roma, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 163, 164, 165, 186 Sai’ al-Qaum, 19 Serapis, 18, 179, 180 Tyche, 18

‘Ain Musa, 4, 23 Abbasid Dynasty, 27 Achaemenids, 8 Aemilius Lepidus, M., 152 Alexander Jannaeus, 10, 11 Alexander the Great, 8, 151, 164 Alexandria, 6, 16, 136, 151, 154, 160, 162 amethyst, 16 Amman. See Philadelphia Aphrodisias, 159, 166, 167 apotheosis, 2, 150 Aqaba, 3, 121 Arabia, 1, 4, 5, 6, 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 46, 126, 133, 145, 162, 184 Arabia Felix, 13 Aramaic, 4 archaeological context, 53 Aretas I, 10, 11 Aretas II, 10, 11 Aretas III, 11 Aretas IV, 11, 13, 14, 38, 42 Ashkelon, 137 Association for Promoting the Discovery of the Interior Parts of Africa, 28 Athens, 140, 153 Augustus, 6, 12, 13, 125, 129, 131, 135, 136, 143, 152, 153, 156, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167 Avdat, 150 Baghdad, 27 Baibars, 27 Banias. See Caesarea Philippi betyls, 20 Bibliotheke, 5 bitumen, 16 Bostra, 14, 25, 26, 181, 182 bronze clamps, 65, 67, 68, 98, 105, 117 Burckhardt, Johann Ludwig, 28, 46, 58 Byzantine Period, 27, 111, 121, 135, 137, 138 Caesarea, 12, 121, 138, 145, 147, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164 Caesarea Philippi, 10, 163

233

234

THE SMALL TEMPLE

Zeus, 18, 151, 153 Delian League, 164 Delphic Oracle, 151 Dio, 159 Diocletian, 139, 147 Diocletian's Edict of Maximum Prices, 139 Diodorus Siculus, 4, 5, 7 divi, 131, 152 Divus Augustus, 143 Domitian, 134, 165 earthquakes, 27, 86, 91, 98, 103, 104, 106, 111, 120, 121, 155 Edom, Edomites, 4, 17 Egypt, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 160, 164 Elagabalus, 130, 131, 135, 182 Ephesus, 122, 153, 156, 158, 159, 164, 165, 179, 181 Epistles, 136 Euboea, 145 flamen, 151 foot Greek, 173, 175, 205, 207 Roman, 88, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 205, 210 frankincense, 7, 16 Gallus, Aelius, 6, 13 Gaza, 3, 10, 16, 18, 22, 121, 135, 138, 147, 150 Geography, 6 Giardini Naxos, 145 Great Rift Valley, 3 Gulf of Aqaba, 4, 121 Hadrian, 26, 35, 183 Hasmonean Dynasty, 10, 11, 12 Hellenistic Period, 87, 133, 151, 157, 159, 164, 165, 166, 173, 179 Herod the Great, 12, 160, 161, 162, 163 Herodes Atticus, 141 heroon, 159 Hieronymus of Cardia, 5, 7, 9 incense, 5, 16 inscription Greek, 25 inscriptions, 1, 2, 7, 10, 16, 24, 41, 42, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 75, 76, 98, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 111, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 140, 141, 142, 150, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 180, 182, 183, 193, 194, 195, 198 Islamic Period, 27 Jarash, 22 Jason, high priest, 10 Jerusalem, 10, 11, 12, 26, 83, 161 Josephus, 7, 11, 161, 163

Judaea, 11, 12, 13, 161 Julius Caesar, 151, 152, 159, 165, 166 kaisaria, kaisareion, 154 Kerak, 27 Khirbet et-Tannur, 66, 79, 88 lamps, 58, 97, 170, 171 Lejjşn, 110 limes, 24, 25 longue durée, 137 Lugdunum. See Lyon Lyon, 152, 153 Maccabees, 10 Malichus I, 11, 12, 13 Malichus II, 11, 14, 25 marble cladding. See marble, crustae cornices, 1, 61, 68, 69, 75, 92, 108, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 132, 141, 142, 192 crustae, 1, 49, 61, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 90, 98, 99, 103, 105, 113, 114, 115, 117, 120, 129, 136, 141, 147, 148, 183, 187, 190, 198, 200 inscribed. See inscriptions isotopic analysis, 2, 59, 114, 140, 141, 142, 202, 203 marmorarii, 143 opus sectile, 136 pavonazzetto, 146 quarries Africa, 144 Anatolia, 49, 114, 138, 140, 146 Balkan Peninsula, 114, 140 Chorodaki, 142, 202, 203 Cipollino, 145 Cyclades, 140 Luna, 135, 141, 144, 203 Marmara, 131, 141, 142, 145, 162, 202, 203 Paros, 141, 142, 202, 203, 204 Penteli, 141, 142, 202, 203 Proconnesian, 146, 162 Sardis, 141, 142, 202, 203, 204 Synnadic, 146 Thasos, 141, 202, 203, 204 Usak, 142, 202 ratio marmorum, 2, 136, 143, 144, 147, 148, 166, 182 sarcophagi, 144, 146 Mark Antony, 12, 152 Marmorata, 144 Masada, 12 Meda’in Saleh, 24 Mediterranean Sea, 3, 4, 8, 10, 15, 16, 27, 50, 136, 139, 143, 144, 145, 147, 149,

INDEX 157, 160, 162, 164 Mesopotamia, 6, 8, 15 Metagenes, 122 miltos, 115, 117 Moab, Moabites, 17 Muslim Conquest, 27 myrrh, 7, 16 Nabataea, Nabataeans, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 35, 36, 38, 39, 43, 49, 50, 63, 66, 80, 97, 123, 132, 150, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 186, 188 Nabayot, 4 Narbo. See Narbonne Narbonne, 153 Near East, 7, 8, 18, 24, 28, 35, 150, 151, 158 Negev Desert, 3 neokoros, 165 Nero, 136, 155, 167 Nerva, 125 Nicaea, 156, 165 Nicomedia, 156, 165 Nuwairi, 27 Obodas. See Avdat Obodas I, 6, 10, 11, 150 Obodas II, 11, 13, 150 Obodas, city of, 151 Octavian. See Augustus Old Testament, 4 Ostia, 154 Ottoman Period, 28 Palestine, 10, 12, 15, 24, 26, 27, 145, 147, 162, 163, 164 Palestine Salutaris/Tertia, 27 Palmyra, 65 Parthenon, 153 Parthia, Parthians, 12, 24 Paul of Tarsus, 13 Pausanias, 141 perfume, 13, 16, 26 Pergamum, 153, 155, 156, 164, 165 Persian Empire, 8, 9 pes monetalis. See foot, Roman Petra annexed by Rome, 2, 14, 24, 49, 50, 126 Bath Complex, 40, 180, 181 colonia, 182 Colonnaded Street, 24, 29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 172 Corinthian Tomb, 35 Dayr, 44, 45 Djin Blocks, 18, 20, 30 Great Temple, 15, 23, 29, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 50, 51, 55, 57, 64, 69, 86, 90,

235 106, 121, 122, 170, 178 Habis, 27, 43 high places, 20 Jabal al-Khubtha, 35 Jabal Shahar, 79 Katute, 22, 43, 54, 61, 62, 65, 92, 106, 107 Khasna, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 45, 64 Lower Market. See Petra, Paradeisos Main Theater, 35 metropolis, 25, 26, 127, 182 Middle Market, 29, 37, 38 Monastery. See Petra, Dayr Palace Tomb, 34, 35 Paradeisos, 23, 37, 38, 121, 178 Petra Church, 27, 29, 110, 121 Qasr al-Bint, 24, 27, 29, 30, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 61, 63, 79, 80, 92, 121, 173, 177, 180, 181, 182, 185 Roman Road, 79, 110 Royal Tombs, 35 Siq, 4, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 178 Temenos Gate, 29, 40, 41, 47, 63, 172, 180, 181, 182 Temple of the Winged Lions, 19, 29, 30, 43, 44, 47, 121 Treasury. See Petra, Khasna Umm Sayhun, 107 Upper Market, 29, 38, 127, 172 Urn Tomb, 35, 36, 64 Wadi al-Mataha, 23 Wadi al-Mudhlim, 23 Wadi Musa, 35, 43, 51, 79 Zantur, 43 Zibb Attuf, 20 Petra-Gaza Road, 15 Philadelphia, 22, 25, 59 Philo of Alexandria, 154 Piraeus, 140 Polybius, 7 Pompeii, 54, 148, 154, 155 Pompey, 11, 24 pottery, 15, 16, 21, 22, 55, 56, 58, 82, 104, 110, 135, 140, 150, 164, 170, 193 Pozzuoli, 134 priests, 10, 79, 87, 151, 179, 180 Provincia Arabia, 14 Ptolemies, 9, 10 Punta Scifo, 145, 146 Rabbel I, 10, 11 Rabbel II, 11, 14, 25 Raphia, 10 Red Sea, 3, 4, 8, 15, 16, 18 religion, 18, 111, 152 revetment. See marble, crustae

236

THE SMALL TEMPLE

rod, Roman, 88 Roman Empire, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 24, 27, 49, 50, 110, 111, 113, 114, 121, 132, 137, 139, 140, 141, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 177, 179, 185, 186 Roman History, 15 Rome, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 24, 27, 136, 143, 144, 147, 148, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 179, 180, 184, 186, 188 ruler worship, 2, 50, 149, 151, 186 imperial cult, 1, 2, 50, 59, 110, 135, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 167, 169, 173, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Sabaea, Sabaeans, 6, 13 Sabratha, 154 San Pietro, 146 Saudi Arabia, 16 sebasteia, 154 Sebasteion of Aphrodisias, 167, 168 Sebastos, 160, 161, 163 Seleucid Empire, 10, 11, 12, 164 Seneca the Younger, 136 Septimius Severus, 179, 183 Severus Alexander, 129, 130, 131, 182, 183 Severus, Gaius Claudius, 127 Sinai Peninsula, 3, 22 Small Temple alcove, 73, 75, 100, 101, 104, 120, 121, 128, 129, 195 basins, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 84, 85, 90, 94, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 132, 133, 134, 162, 174, 178, 179, 180, 194, 195 courtyard, 53, 61, 66, 80, 88, 92, 93, 106, 178, 200, 201 floor pavers, 76, 77, 79, 87, 88, 92, 97, 103, 108, 195, 200 platforms, 47, 52, 53, 62, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 82, 83, 84, 91, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 107, 108, 116, 124, 147, 163, 167, 170, 176, 178, 179, 180, 190, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 206, 208, 210, 212, 214

podium, 66, 172 portico, 46, 52, 61, 62, 63, 64, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 107, 108, 109, 110, 120, 153, 154, 167, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200 roofing, 61, 75, 76, 77, 78, 93, 105, 106, 120, 121, 136, 170, 190, 193, 194, 198 sinkholes, 82, 83, 84, 86, 198 staircase, 47, 52, 53, 61, 64, 79, 80, 83, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 107, 108, 109, 120, 127, 128, 171, 173, 174, 193, 199, 200, 201 substructure, 53, 82, 83, 84, 85, 199 Temenos Wall, 47, 61, 92 traffic flow, 13, 18, 80, 81, 82, 104, 121 upper precinct, 92, 106 Strabo, 5, 6, 7, 13, 20 Strato’s Tower, 160, 161, 163 Suetonius, 143 Sulla, 166 systemic context, 53 Tacitus, 155 Taranto, 146 Tarraco, 152, 156 Temple of Bel, 65 Temple of Diana, 122 Temple of Roma and Augustus, 153 Temple of Serapis, 179 Temple of the Sebastoi, 165 Temples of Roma and Divus Iulius, 165 Ten Books on Architecture, 122 Thalassocracy Theory, 143 Torre Sgarrata, 145 trade, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 38, 50, 113, 114, 137, 138, 139, 143, 147, 156, 159, 161, 164, 169, 184, 186, 187 Trajan, 14, 24, 25, 125, 126, 127, 135, 153, 182, 183, 193 Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, 28 Umayyad Dynasty, 27 Vespasian, 155, 161 Vicus Temple, 110 Vitruvius, 122 Wadi Sirhan, 14, 18