Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: an Appraisal

ARAM, 21 (2009) 353-371. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.21.0.2047100

Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

Dr. Fahad M. Al-Otaibi (Al-Qasim University – Saudi Arabia)

INTRODUCTION

Since the discovery of the Nabataean metropolis of Petra, the Nabataeans have attracted scholars’ opinions, both as explicans as well as explicandum. As the former, they, for example, have been used to explain the fiasco of Gallus’ expedition to South Arabia. Strabo attributed the misfortune of this expedition to the treachery of the Nabataean vizier Syllaeus. Similarly, Diodorus Siculus (first century b.C.E.) argued that the Nabataeans lived in the open air, did not build houses, plant grain, nor drink wine. This nomadic life, he went on to argue, was the reason why the Greeks failed to conquer them. Modern scholars also use the Nabataeans to account for the destruction of the Edomite society; to explain the flourishing trade that existed between arabia Felix and the Mediterranean,in which the Nabataean was a main player; and to explain the emergence of the Arabic script, to give but three examples. As explicandum,however, these people have been treated for their own sake. Their highly developed civilization has appealed to interested scholars since ancient times. Therefore, we find accounts regarding their customs and way of living. For instance, Strabo (c. 64 B.C.E.–c. 25 C.E.) was interested in Naba- taean civilization, yet his account of the Nabataeans gives a different picture from that of Diodorus. Strabo described a sedentary people who did not rely much on slaves but rather served themselves. Those people did drink wine in a sophisticated manner; they drank out of golden cups and built very costly houses. Their common meal which they prepared regularly was entertained by two female singers. Their royal institution is democratic in that the king serves his subjects. However, in spite of the fact that Strabo’s account may seem to give a positive picture of the Nabataeans and their society, a careful reading undertaken elsewhere1 may show a different picture. Scholars have approached Nabataean history from different angles: archaeology, epigraphy, theology, and history. However, no one has tried so far to

1 Al-Otaibi, F, (2005). Rome and Nabataea: Post-Colonialism and the Writing of History, Ph.D., Manchester University. • I would like to thank Prof. John F. Healey for his valuable comments to improve the content of the manuscript of this article.

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 353 21/04/10 11:51 354 Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

utilize an interdisciplinary approach to Nabataean history. In this essay, we shall look at the method by which scholars identify sites as Nabataean. Nelson Glueck is taken as an example. Glueck relied heavily on Nabataean pottery in this process. His approach had been accepted by old scholars in Nabataean studies. However, since I am interested in modern theories of criticism and the interdisciplinary approach to history, I find many problems with Glueck’s approach. For example, pottery cannot be taken as an ethnic symbol owing to its actual nature. We have many stories of archaeologists who have tried to use pottery to establish the ethnic status of certain sites but failed. to give only one example, one may mention the story of Colono-Indian Ware in North America2. The ware was dated to the period of colonization and was similar to the Native American ware that prevailed in the eastern part of United States of America. However, the difficulty, which Glueck may not have noticed when he discussed Nabataean pottery, is that this pottery was also found in sites that Native Americans never dwelt in. In addition, scholars have noticed that this ware is always found in the area of African-American slaves. In addition, the use of the pottery in establishing the ethnic status of these sites by Glueck rests on two related erroneous assumptions. The first assumption is that there was a fixed relationship between the style of this pottery and Nabataean identity. the second one is that Nabataean identity was homogenous and bounded regardless of many variables such as the different time, place, or socio-economic factors which evidently affect ethnicity. Such suppositions need to be evaluated. One may ask why, if the Nabataean pottery had been the single clear ethnic marker of the Nabataean sites, has it not been found in the Jebel Druze in southern Syria and northern Transjordan, which were undoubtedly Nabataean areas as attested by Nabataean sculpture, temples, and inscriptions? Hence, we can see how delicate is the equation made by Glueck between the Nabataeans’ identity and their pottery. When Glueck tried to find a cause for thisabsence of Nabataean ware from these Nabataean sites, he gave the following justification: the number of the Nabataeans who lived there might not have been adequate to ‘warrant manufacturing or even importing their strikingly unique and beautiful pottery’ (cf. Glueck, 1965: 249). Such justification cannot be accepted at face value. We believe that the existence of even only a single member of an ethnic group is enough to articulate ethnicity. Looking again at the Jebel Druze where Nabataean ware is absent, we find that Nabataean deities were present. What is more,the Nabataeans inhibited these lands for around two hundred years which, one may say, must have been accompanied by a fairly wide Nabataean presence there.

2 More information about the dramatic story of Colono-Ware and the different ways used by archaeologists to interpret this pottery is found in (Orser, 1996: 118-123).

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 354 21/04/10 11:51 f.m. al-otaibi 355

This essay is divided into two parts. In the first part, the historical background of the Nabataeans is given. The second part focuses on evaluating Nelson Glueck’s approach to Nabataean ethnicity, highlighting its main weakness. After that, our conclusion is drawn drawn.

Part One the Nabataeans: Historical Background

The Nabataeans called themselves Nb†w, which is translated as ‘Nabataeans.’ This term was employed in four different ways. First, the word Nb†w was used in the context of the royal title of the Nabataean kings, ‘X the king of the Nabataeans’, or as the Nabataeans put it ‘X malik nabatu’. This shows, on the assumption that the majority of these inscriptions were written by Nabataeans, that the Nabataeans looked at themselves as a distinct socio-political entity different from other peoples and having political institutions headed by a malik. The importance of the latter, the king, is due to the fact that kingship was one of the clear indicia of nationalism3 in the ancient Near East (Mendels, 1992: 1). Other indications of the fact that the Nabataeans constituted a nation include: their land, their coins, and their army. To these it may be added that the Naba- taeans apparently retained their autonomy from their first appearance in the political arena of the ancient Near East in the 4th century B.C.E. until their sub- jugation by the Romans in the 2nd century C.E. By contrast, the Jews lost their political independence more than once, but they are still regarded by ancient and modern scholars as a nation (see schwartz, 2001: 5-6). thus Mendels insists that a nation could exist in the ancient Near East even without a country (1992: 15). In fact the Nabataeans kept their nationhood up till the final destruction in 106 C.E. and were an example of ‘an indigenous population successfully creating a national state’ (1992: 26). At any rate, the above use of the word ‘Nabataean’ by the Nabataeans to refer to themselves means that they stated their identity emically. The other emic attestation of Nabataean identity brings us to the second use of the term Nb†w, namely the reference of some individuals to themselves as ‘Nabataeans.’ However, in the case when such a reference to the Nabataeans was made by non-Nabataeans, this is a clear etic attestation of Nabataean identity. For this latter use, we have clear evidence. shubayth ‘the Jew’, a resident of Hegra, dated his inscription to ‘the first day of Ab, the third year of king Maliku, king of the Nabataeans’ i.e. July/August 42/43 C.E. (Healey, 1993: 95, n. 4, line 7). Here Shubayth knew that he was living in the midst of a distinct social entity, which was headed by their own political institution symbolized by their malik.

3 For the appropriateness of the use of the term ‘nationalism’ in antiquity, see (Mendels, 1992: 13).

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 355 21/04/10 11:51 356 Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

The third employment of the term nb†w can be seen in the context of the legal prohibition concerning the sanctity of tombs: “inviolable according to the nature of inviolability among the Nabataeans and Salamians”. This last use of this name makes it clear (contra al-Fassi, 2000: 62-62) that it is an ethnic usage and there is no reason for her wondering whether it is a family name. That is, as starcky (1966:900) already argues, nb†w ‘doit être un nom eth- nique’ since it is mentioned side by side with the Salamians, and we know the latter was an ethnic group. The fourth usage of the term nb†w is seen in royal coins where Nabataean kings describe themselves by using the phrase mlk nb†w. In all the above-mentioned cases, by referring to themselves as a collectiv- ity, these people recognized their similarity on the one hand as well as their difference from others on the other. Such self-awareness has been regarded by scholars as one of the key factors in forming ethnic identity since it implies the ‘perception of the otherness’ (Renfrew, 1996: 1996). That is, the Nabataeans emphasized that the king is ‘the king of the Nabataeans’ and the law ‘is the law of the Nabataeans’, not the king or the law of ‘others’ who might, from a Nabataean perspective, have a ‘different king’ and a ‘different law’– one may speculate that the idea of superiority may have been involved. What was the basis of this perceived Nabataean similarity? It seems that it was culture or perhaps a blood tie. However, the role of the political institution in fostering the feeling of belonging among the Nabataeans ought not to be underesti- mated. For some scholars (e.g. Graf, 2004: 150), Nabataean identity is political and they prefer to understand the term Nabataean as a political concept. Another employment, however, of the term ‘Nabataean’ is that by classical writers who wrote about the Nabataeans as shall be seen further below. Clas- sical writers use the name N♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ (e.g. Josephus, Antiquity, 8. 387, 88, 89-92; Strabo, Geography, 16. 4. 18). Cultural differences may come in to play since an etic perspective on ethnicity is usually built on such disparities. Here again the use of the name ‘Nabataean’ by other peoples to refer to the Nabataeans underlines the fact that the Nabataeans were different from other peoples such as the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews, and that they were a distinct social entity as early as the 4th century B.C.E. – the first Greek contact with the Nabataeans. In spite of the fact that a full discussion of the ancient notion of ethnos is not within the scope of this paper, it is known that such a notion was built on the belief in common ancestors and shared customs (Janowitz, 2000: 206). This may support the argument that Nabataean identity, at least from an etic perspective, was ethnic. The value of the term nb†w as far as Nabataean ethnic identity is concerned resides in the following two facts. First, one of the main indicia of ethnicity is the use of an ethnonym. That is, an ethnic group must have a name. Second, this name must be given by the people in question to themselves and not be

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 356 21/04/10 11:51 f.m. al-otaibi 357

imposed upon them. ‘A true ethnic group’, Renfrew (1996: 130) tells us, ‘will have an ethnonym, and it will be an ethnonym which they have given to themselves.’ Indeed, this is the case with the Nabataeans as can be seen from the above-mentioned different uses of this name. Many ethnic names that are taken for granted by scholars have been imposed on their bearers from without, whether by ancient or modern writers. A clear example of an ethnic group created by ancient writers, a creation accepted by many modern scholars, are the so-called ‘Celts’. the names Keltoi and Galatae are a product of classical writers rather than the people themselves (Ross, 1977: 33, Renfrew, 1996: 132). ‘[…] I shall argue again’, writes Ren- frew (1996: 128), ‘as others have done recently (e.g., Merriaman 1987), that ‘the Celts’ never existed in any meaningful sense […].’ The invention of the so-called ‘Safaitic people’, however, is a much-quoted example of an ethnic group invented by modern scholars. In the 19th century, scholars decided to name certain inscriptions discovered in the syrian and arabian deserts ‘the Safaitic inscriptions’. The reason behind this is that these texts appear near a geographical region south-east of Damascus named the ∑afa (Macdonald, 1998: 183). unfortunately, this geographical name was extended from the script to the people who wrote the inscriptions. Thus a new community called ‘the Safaitic community’ was ‘born’. We do not possess a single piece of evidence of a writer of the so-called ‘Safaitic inscriptions’ who describes himself as ‘Safaitic’. This term was never used by the writers of these texts in any ethnic sense. ‘ “Safaitic”,’ we are told by Macdonald (1993: 305), ‘is an entirely modern term. It bears no relation to what the authors of these inscriptions called themselves and is, in fact, a misnomer of these texts.’ However, to say that these inscriptions were not produced by a distinct ethnic group is an argu- mentum e silentio. We simply do not know for sure. It is known that the earliest attested appearance of the term ‘Nabataean’ is in Assyrian texts, dating to the seventh century BC. In an inscription of Asur- banipal, it is stated that the king reached a waterless and remote location where he fought the Na-ba-ia-ti. It is also stated that youtha}a (Youthe}e), who is described as the ‘king of the Arabs’, fled the Assyrians and entered the land of the Na-ba-ia-ti, which was a desert place. Not much information is known about the Nabataeans prior to their contact with the Greek army in 312 B.C.E. At that time, they established themselves in the land of Edom, Moab, and the Negev. This area was inhabited as early as 4000 B.C.E. In 1900 B.C.E., it was occupied by semitic nomads before the Edomites took hold of it and built their agricultural civilization there around the 14th or the 13th century B.C.E. (Glueck, 1974: 77). As far as Nabataean early history is concerned, there are two disputed points that have occupied scholarly attention for a long time. First is the relationship of the Nabataeans to Nebaioth, Ishmael’s eldest son (see Gen. 25: 12;

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 357 21/04/10 11:51 358 Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

1 Chron. 1: 29). Second is the relationship of the Nabataeans to groups mentioned in the Assyrian documents. In spite of the fact that it is not within the scope of this paper to discuss these questions, it may be said that Starcky, who does not see a connection between the Nabataeans and either of the groups mentioned above (1955: 85-86), does not build his objection on geographical or ethnographical grounds, but rather on a linguistic one. For him, while the word “Nabataean” is written in the Nabataean inscriptions with emphatic †, the word Nabayat/Nebaioth is written with soft t 4. However, Lawlor believes that the Nabataeans of the Assyrian documents are one and the same Nabatae- ans (1974: 29). Accordingly, he placed the first mention of the Nabataeans in history in the year 650 B.C.E. Bartlett argues similarly (1979; 1989). Bartlett claims that the Na-ba-ia-ti of the Assyrian sources, the Biblical Nebaioth and the Tayma Nabayat are more likely to be referring to the same ethnic group, the later Nabataeans (1979: 63-66; 1989: 172-173). Such an argument is supported by the detailed linguistic study of Abu Taleb (1984). The transformation of t in one Semitic language into † in another Semitic language, Abu Taleb believes, is attested and likely to take place. As for the Nabataean original homeland, many suggestions have been given by scholars: South Arabia, the Arabian Gulf, southern Jawf, western Arabia, eastern Arabia, Mesopotamia, northern Najd, Edom (as a continuation of the Edomites), or as descendants of Qedar (see al-Fassi, 2000: 64, al-Theeb, 1997). For example, Starcky believed that the Nabataeans came from southern Arabia (ancient yemen). He based his theory on the similarity in agricultural tech- nique between the peoples of South Arabia and the Nabataeans (Starcky 1955: 87). For J. Bartlett the original homeland of the Nabataeans is the northwest of arabia. as he says, “the obvious area for [the Nabataeans] to occupy is that bounded by the mountains of edom to the west, the Hisma plateau to the south-west, Tima [Tayma] to the south, the Nafud to the east, and the Wadi Sirhan to the north-east” (1989: 174). However, Graf (1990) has different theory. According to him, Mesopotamia is the original Nabataean homeland (1990: 67-68). He builds his theory on the fact that the assyrian references which mentioned the Nabataeans are best understood as relating to the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Another interesting theory of the original homeland of the Nabataeans is given by al-Theeb (1997). He looked at the different descriptions of the Naba- taean lands in the Assyrian sources and found that the only possible place which fits this description is the desert situated to the north-east of al-Qassim, where the Assyrian record says there is no water and no birds live (al-Theeb 1997: 238).

4 Winnett and Reed (1970: 99) supported Starcky’s conclusion. They arguethat it is unlikely that the loss of the y in root NBYand the transformation of t to † would occur at the same time.

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 358 21/04/10 11:51 f.m. al-otaibi 359

All the same, it is only in the 4th century B.C.E. that we start to step on solid ground as far as the history of the Nabataeans is concerned. In the year 312 B.C.E., Antigonus, a general of Alexander the Great, decided to conquer these people The fact that they attracted the attention of the Greeks shows clearly that they were more than nomads roaming the land. As shall be seen further below, they were sedentary by that time. Much evidence can be given for this. They wrote in Aramaic, the langua franca of the ancient Near East at the time. In addition, they seem to have had a highly organized army which managed to defeat Antig- onus’ army; such an army was unlikely to be available to a mere nomadic tribe. More importantly the fact that they had a known abode which was known to the Greeks, who attacked the place more than once, shows clearly that they had already settled down. At any rate, Antigonus (c. 380-301), after controlling Syria, sent Athenaeus at the head of the Macedonian army to Petra. Athenaeus managed to collect booty from the Nabataeans and to kill some of them, since the majority of the Nabataean men were outside Petra. Diodorus Siculus (19. 94-96) tells us that at a certain time of the year, the Nabataeans used to leave their belongings at a certain rock pé♣♣♣♣ (perhaps Petra) together with their women, children, and elderly men. the fact that the Greeks knew this time and attacked the Nabataeans then may indicate that they had fairly good knowledge about these people. Would this knowledge be available had the Nabataeans been nomads? When they got to know about the Greek attack, the Nabataeans chased the imperial army and defeated it. From that time on, the Nabataeans received mention in different historical sources, mainly classical ones. Aretas I, the first Nabataean ruler as far as our information can tell, was called ‘tyrant of the Arabs.’ He captured Jason, the Jewish High Priest. As Starcky noted, the fact that he was called tyrant shows that the Nabataeans were independent at the time and that they had their royal institution (1955: 89). It would appear that the Nabataeans constitute an ethnie. An ‘ethnic group’ is defined as: […] a firm aggregate of people, historically established on a given territory, possessing in common relatively stable particularities of language and culture, and also recognising their unity and differences from other similar formations (self-awareness) and expressing this in a self-appointed name (ethnonym) (Dragadze, 1980: 162). The Nabataeans were an aggregate of people who were associated with a certain geographical land (Transjordan). They had their own culture, which included their unique religion, language, and material culture. And above all, both emic and etic perspectives of their ethnicity are well attested. By emic perspective of ethnicity, we mean a self-perception (perception from within) while the etic perception denotes the perception from without. As for the former, we

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 359 21/04/10 11:51 360 Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

have some Nabataean inscriptions in which the writers define themselves as Nabataean. This indeed shows, as already stated, that the Nabataeans were aware of the fact that they were different from other peoples. However, the etic perspective of Nabataean identity is documented as early as the 4th century B.C.E. Both classical writers and modern writers see the Nabataeans as a distinct group of people which had its ethnonym, language, religion and personal names; basically its sui generis culture. Even if we look at Islamic sources, we will find reference to the Nabataeans in spite of the fact that these references are not many. In his book al-AÒnam (1924: 80), Ibn Al-Kalbi mentions that the cult of the idols was brought to Mecca from the Anba†. These Nabataeans may well have been the Nabataeans of Petra who continued to wor- ship their deities such as Du-Shara in al-Îejaz until the rise of Islam (Abdul- Karim, 1990: 423). Ibn Khaldun, however, makes a more specific reference to the Nabataeans which could be understood as an acknowledgement of their Arabness. He says that among the states that were conquered by the Romans was that of the Arabs of al-Îejaz. It is known that the Nabataeans were the only Arabs in the area who were subdued by the Romans (1990: ibid.). One of the vexed questions regarding the Nabataeans which has occupied scholars’ attention is whether the Nabataeans were Arabs or not. For some scholars, they were. They worshipped Arab deities, had Arabic names and were called by classical writers as well as intertestamental literature ‘Arabs.’ For others, they were not. However, the writer thinks such confusion is due to the fact that these scholars have not distinguished between emic and etic perception of ethnicity. Those who say that we cannot regard the Nabataeans as arabs because they basically did not express their Arabness, commit two mistakes. First, they treat ancient ethnic groups as they do their modern counterparts. However, if we can access the opinions of the latter, we cannot with many of the former. Hence, in spite of the fact that ethnicity is a self-definition, such definition must be based on certain distinctions as can be seen further below. Second, though we believe that the notion of ‘Arabness’ was known before the 4th century C.E., it was the intensive contact between the ‘Arabs’ and the two giant powers in the ancient Near East, the Persians and the Romans, during the 3rd and the 4th centuries C.E. which intensified the Arabs’ sense of common identity. Imruˆ al-Qays b. ¨Amr of the Namarh inscription, who used the term ‘Arab’ in an ethnic sense for the first time, was an ally of the Persians before he became a friend of the romans. It would not be too much to say that the destruction of Nabataea and later of Palmyra were among the reasons which led to the raising of Arabs’ awareness of their ethnicity. However, this is not to say that it is only threatened groups that establish ethnic boundaries to distance themselves from others. As Sparks (1998: 5-6) argues, during the European expansion, the Europeans created ethnic boundaries between themselves and the ‘new’ peoples. One result was the popularity of polygenesis.

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 360 21/04/10 11:51 f.m. al-otaibi 361

Hence, it is unreasonable to say that the Nabataeans were not Arabs simply because they did not claim to be arabs. any approach to ancient ethnicity must take the cultural element into consideration. If this is done, one can be assured that the Nabataeans were indeed Arabs. The Nabataeansspoke Arabic, had Arabic personal names and had some ancient Arabian deities such as Hubal who was a Meccan deity. Therefore, the Nabataeans were Arabs (see Healey, 1989: 38-44)5. In addition, there are also some indications of the Arabness of the Nabataeans which one can see from a careful reading of their history. To give only one example, when Alexander Jannaeus attacked Gaza in 100 B.C.E. the Arabs of Gaza waited for the help of Haretat II, the Arabs’ king. ♣ (Negev, 1974: 72) However, in spite of the fact that such help never came, this incident may be understood as an indication of Nabataean Arabness.

Part Two Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

Glueck (1970: 209) claims: During our archaeological survey of the territories in southern Transjordan, once occupied by edom and Moab, we discovered more than five hundred Nabataean watchtowers, fortresses, villages, and hamlets most of them situated in their day in the midst of cultivated fields, or alongside of travel and trade- routes. These sites can be recognized as Nabataean, even in places where there are no standing ruins, by the evidence of Nabataean pottery [my italics]. In another passage, he says: ‘A kilometre before arriving at et-Telah, it was possible to identify the site as Nabataean by the countless fragments of Naba- taean pottery strewn over the surface of the ground […]’(Glueck, 1970: 61).

This led another writer to say:

Without a doubt, the archaeological approach to their [the Nabataeans’] study has made possible the greater share of the cultural information that is available today; and it has assisted in clarifying and confirming much of the historical information. Probably the greatest contributor to the reservoir of archaeological information was Dr. Nelson Glueck, former president of Hebrew Union College and Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, Ohio. In the early thirties, and again the early fifties, he made archaeological exploratory expedi- tions into eastern and western Palestine, respectively. As a result of these two extensive exploratory trips, he observed and investigated more than five hundred distinctively Nabataean sites. The identifying feature at each of these was

5 on ethnicity in the Roman Near East, see Macdonald(1989).

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 361 21/04/10 11:51 362 Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

the unmistakable Nabataean pottery or pottery remains. This in itself gives evidence of the important role that archaeology has played in the rediscovery of their [the Nabataeans] history [my emphasis] (Lawlor, 1974: 14-16). In the above-quoted excerpts, Nelson Glueck claimed and is credited as being able to identify more than five hundred Nabataean sites using Nabataean pottery6. What this means is that the identity of these sites and thus Nabataean identity was ‘reduced’ to the level of Nabataean pottery. Put in mathematical language, Nabataean sites = Nabataean ethnicity = Nabataean pottery. How- ever, to what extent can Nabataean pottery be representative in terms of Naba- taean ethnicity and is this equation correct? So far as Nabataean pottery is concerned, we cannot rely on it in discussing Nabataean ethnicity7. This may relate to the actual nature of the pottery itself as an ethnic symbol. The stories of archaeologists who try to use the pottery to establish the ethnic status of certain sites but failed are many. However, it may suffice here to mention only two examples. First is the story of Colono-Indian Ware8. In brief, the ware was dated to the period of colonization and was similar to the Native American ware that prevailed in the eastern part of United Sates of America. However, the difficulty, which Glueck might not have taken in to account when discussing Nabataean pottery, is that this pottery was found also in sites that Native Americans never dwelt in. What is more is that this ware is always found in the area of the African-American slaves (see Orser, 1996: 118). The other instance is the case of pottery in Zambia. In Zambia, what is known as the Luangwa tradition reflects very little variation and extended over a wide area, but in actual fact, it is made by different peoples (see Hodder, 1978: 14).

6 the Nabataean ware was first recognized by George Horsfield. For more information about this ware, see, (Horsfield and Conway, 1930, Khairy, 1982). It seems that Glueck relied heavily on pottery when identifying certain archaeological areas in the ancient Near East. This was not by any means exclusive to Nabataean history. ‘The discovery of the Edomite centre of Tawilan is’, Glueck (1970: 32) writes, ‘a somewhat extreme, but by no means isolated, example of how ancient and long forgotten sites may be recovered through modern archaeological exploration, especially through the means of pottery identification’ [my italics]. 7 as early as 1973, Hammond (1973: 67-68) casts doubt on identifying these sites as Naba- taean on the basis of the ‘Nabataean’ pottery as he says, ‘Among these are Hellenistic and Roman pottery, whose origins are clear, as well as “local” ceramic materials whose presence is ubiqui- tous elsewhere on Syro-Palestinian, but not necessarily Nabataean, sites.’ Later Graf (1997: 792) criticizes Glueck for the use of pottery in identifiynig sites and discussing ethnicity. As he says, ‘As finds from Philadelphia and Jerash illustrate, Glueck’s ceramic frontier was both misleading and incorrect. Nevertheless, in spite of discoveries of Nabataean fineware north of his Madaba line, the use of pottery as an index to the identity of the people inhabiting the Decapolis repre- sents a false guideline.’ However, we do not know what is the difference between the people of the Decapolis and the rest of peoples, which prevents Graf from generalizing the deficiency of pottery in this regard. 8 More information about the dramatic story of Colono-Ware and the different ways used by archaeologists to interpret this pottery is found in (Orser, 1996: 118-123).

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 362 21/04/10 11:51 f.m. al-otaibi 363

In addition, the use of the pottery in establishing the ethnic status of these sites by Glueck, one may say, rests on two related erroneous assumptions. First, that there was a fixed relationship between the style of this pottery and Nabataean identity. Second, that Nabataean identity was homogenous and bounded regardless of the different time, place, or socio-economic factors which evidently affect ethnicity. These suppositions need to be questioned. Had the Nabataean pottery been the single clear ethnic marker of the Nabataean sites, why has it not been found in the Jebel Druze in southern Syria and northernmost Transjordan that undoubtedly were Nabataean areas as attested by the Nabataean sculpture, temples, and inscriptions (Glueck, 1965: 486)? Here it becomes plain how delicate is the equation made by Glueck between the Nabataeans’ identity and their pottery. Glueck’s (1965: ibid.) explanation of the aforesaid absence of the Naba- taean ware from these Nabataean sites is that the number of the Nabataeans who lived there might not have been adequate to ‘warrant manufacturing or even importing their strikingly unique and beautiful pottery’ (cf. Glueck, 1965: 249). Such justification seems untenable, however, because the existence of even only a single member of an ethnic group is enough to articulate ethnicity. Thus, in the Jebel Druze where the Nabataean ware is absent, Nabataean deities were found. In addition, the Nabataeans controlled these lands for around two hundred years which, one may say, must have been accompanied by a fairly wide Nabataean presence there. An explanation should be sought in the culture-ethnicity relation. It can be said that in these Nabataean sites where there is no trace of the Naba- taean pottery the latter might have not had ‘ethnical value’ as symbol. Oddly enough Glueck, and those who accept his identification of these sites, overlook the possibility that this pottery may have been made to be sold as a source of income9. therefore, it cannot be assumed that those who used it were Nabataeans, nor can we identify sites containing it as Nabataean10. Such conclusion has been emphasised by Posnansky (1973: 159)11. studying the relation between peoples and potteries in Ghana he concludes: The ancient trade in pottery was a complex matter, and the simplistic belief that different wares represent different groups of people can rarely be sub- stantiated. A single Mo potter of the present day makes several distinct types of ware which are used by a variety of different linguistic groups, while a consumer, even before the advent of modern transport, would buy, or obtain by barter, specific types of vessel from relatively long distances [my italics].

9 For information about the affect of the long-distance trade on pottery, see (Nicklin, 1971). 10 there are many other difficulties pertaining the use of material culture, not least pottery in identifying past peoples. First, is that some peoples try to left out most of the artefacts when they abandon the site. Hence, the remaining, if there is any, does not reflect the actual culture. Second, is that in some cases there are no systematic excavations, but rather selected parts of sites which hinder any actual picture of the studied society. For more information, see (Hodder, 1978: 19-22). 11 For similar argument, see (Crossland and Posnansky, 1978: 88).

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 363 21/04/10 11:51 364 Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

Therefore, it could be argued that the Nabataean pottery was economically distributed rather than ethnically. A parallel case would be that of Palestine in medieval times. Three communities, we are told by Finkelstein (1997: 224), resided there, namely local Muslims, eastern Christians, and Franks. The Frank- ish villages can be distinguished according to detailed texts and some architec- tural traits. However, as far as the pottery is concerned, it was the ‘Crusader’ pottery that prevailed in all three communities. Hence, Finkelstein (Gorer) points at wealth as the responsible factor in this distribution rather than the ethnic one. However, if Glueck’s approach to pottery is used in this case, one might identify the three types of sites as Crusader. Additionally, scholars have found that in many cases pottery differences between peoples related mainly to the differences in ceramic resources available to them rather than ethnic alliances (Arnold, 1978: 58). Consequently, if members of an ethnic group occupy different ecological niches, they tend to produce dissimilar ceramics, whereas if different ethnic communities lived in the same niche, they produce similar, if not identical, ware. For this reason, we see simi- larities in ware made in the Pokom Mixco community and in the cakchiquel communities of San Raimundo and La Cienega in spite of their linguistic and cultural differences. Per contra, the Pokom communities that share cultural and linguistic traits produce dissimilar ceramic (see Arnold, 1978: 58-59). In addition, this pottery as well as items of the Nabataean material culture that are widely spread might have been produced and used in myriads of ways, in order to express the different ethnic affiliation of their users, even if the latter lived within the confines of the Nabataean political state. Moreover, cultures12 are always wider than ethnic groups which leads the latter to articulate their ethnicities via the selection of cultural symbols. In other words, not all aspects of culture are activated in the expression of ethnicity. Hence, the possibility exists that Nabataean pottery was passive regarding Nabataean ethnicity, or was active in certain times and passive in others. Therefore, the Nabataean ethnicity cannot be encapsulated by emphasizing one element of their material culture (e.g. pottery). However, if we accept for the sake of the argument that Nabataean pottery is representative of Nabataean ethnicity, we would face the second question about the relations between ethnicity and material culture. Indeed, there was a widespread of the Nabataean styles and material culture, but this does not mean that all those who lived in these areas had the same ethnic identity. Though it is not our intention here to discuss the relations between archaeology and ethnicity13, it is worth asking where did Glueck get his naïve assumption

12 In case this sentence be misunderstood, it should be noted that cultures are not regarded here as bounded, monolithic, and unified entities. 13 For the discussion of this relation, see, for example, (Jones, 1997)

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 364 21/04/10 11:51 f.m. al-otaibi 365

from. It seems that he was influenced by nineteenth century ideas regarding the relations between material culture and human groups14. one sequel of the appearance of archaeology as an independent academic discipline in the 19th century was the emergence of the concept of archaeological culture. Archaeological culture is taken as the basic archaeological unit that consists of assemblages of archaeological materials which are linked to specific ethnic groups. It has long been held that objects were produced and used by certain human groups and these materials could reflect the group characteristics of their producers and users (Hides, 1996: 26, shanks and tilley, 1992: 117). These assumptions led to the construction of the past as consisting of monolithic and timeless groups. This school of thought first appeared in Germany under the influence of the ‘German romantic school of history’ (Dolukhanov, 1994: 26). The most ill-famed archaeological bid to link artefacts with ethnicities, or Volk, was that advocated by the German scholar Gustaf Kossinna who did so within a philo- sophical nationalistic framework15. For Kossinna, the reason behind the pro- ductivity and success of the Germani lies in their racial superiority over other peoples around the globe (Hides, 1996: 6). In Britain, one of the doyens of ‘archaeological culture’ was Gordon Childe16 who believed ethnic groups equal cultures17. Such an equation of cultures with peoples, as Jones (1996: 74) mentions, has been jettisoned. However, in fairness to Childe, it should be mentioned that although, undoubtedly, he was influenced by Kossinna, he did not take up the biological model of social evolution presented by the former (Hides, 1996: 40-41, Díaz-Andreu, 1996: 56, Renfrew, 1996: 126, Dolukhanov, 1994: 27)18. As a result of the archaeological cultural approach, ancient societies were represented as monolithic timeless unities. This is because ‘cultures’ were classified into different entities (peoples). Then, prehistory19 was seen as the interaction

14 For how this relation were conceptualised before the nineteenth century, see, for example, (Hides, 1996). 15 to see how Kossinna linked peoples and certain archaeological cultures, see, for example, his book about the origin of the Germans Die Herkunft der Germanen, 1911. 16 Gordon childe (1892-1957) was a british archaeologist who was born in australia. Between 1927 and 1946, he was a professor of prehistoric archaeology at the university of Edinburgh. After 1946, however, he became a director of the Institute of Archaeology at the University college of london. childe committed suicide in 1957 finishing a long scientific journey (Dolukhanov, 1994: 170). 17 some scholars argue that the association of cultures and ancient peoples predated Kossinna and Child. They argue that Sir Edward Burnett Tylor was one of the earliest writers who did this, especially in his book Primitive Culture (1871). For more information, see (Díaz-Andreu, 1996: 49). 18 For more information about the concept of archaeological culture in Eastern Europe as well as Russia, see, among others, (Dolukhanov, 1994: 26-27). 19 this term is an european invention which mistakenly suggests that peoples were living outside history before the found of writing.

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 365 21/04/10 11:51 366 Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

between these unlike unities (migration or invasion) (see Shanks and Tilley, 1992: 117). However, as recent researches show us, the reality is different. It has been demonstrated that ethnic groups are not fixed and monolithic, nor is there a one to one correlation between culture and peoplehood (Jones, 1996: 66). In addition, some scholars regard material culture as archaeological rather than ethnic, whereas others doubt the existence of homogenous assemblages (see Shanks and Tilley, 1992: 117). However, since the second half of the twentieth century there has been a shift in the focus of scientific enquiry into ethnicity from the culture-history approach to focusing on ethnic boundaries. That is, from the objective to the subjective approach to ethnicity. More importance is placed on the self-perception of ethnic groups themselves, which is associated with the formation of ethnic boundaries as means of defining themselves either for defensive reasons or for pursuing interests20. the turning point to this approach was initiated by the Norwegian anthropologist Fredrik Barth who sets not only a theoretical framework for students of ethnicity to operate within, but also a terminological one (see Barth, 1969). Another mistake in which Glueck failed is that he looks at ethnic boundaries according to geographical ones. therefore, should the sites be in the Naba- taean area and contain Nabataean pottery, then they are designated as such. However, as we learn from the modern literature of ethnicity, the boundaries that separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ are social boundaries which may have territorial counterparts but not necessarily (see Barth, 1969: 15). Therefore, in the western Sudan, the Fur (agriculturalists) and the Baggara (cattle nomads) who are in a constant contact keep their distinctiveness and sense of identity whether through, language, customs, marriage, or even the system of norms and values.

CONCLUSION

The Nabataeans, as already been noticed, constitute an ethnie. We defined an ‘ethnic group’ as: ‘[…] A firm aggregate of people, historically established on a given territory, possessing in common relatively stable particularities of language and culture, and also recognising their unity and differences from other similar formations (self-awareness) and expressing this in a self-appointed name (ethnonym)’ (Dragadze, 1980: 162). As has been said in the second part, Nelson Glueck claimed that he was able to identify five hundred Nabataean sites using Nabataean pottery, the claim

20 For example, some of the hoe-agricultural Fur of the Sudan took up the lifestyle as well as the identity of the Baggara, nomadic cattle Arabs, for economic reasons. For more information, see (Barth, 1969: 25-26).

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 366 21/04/10 11:51 f.m. al-otaibi 367

which is accepted by other scholars. Can we accept this claim? Our answer in the second chapter was no, since this claim is built in the assumption that Nabataean sites = Nabataean ethnicity = Nabataean pottery. It is impossible to rely heavily on Nabataean pottery when identifying sites as Nabataean because of the actual nature of the pottery itself as an ethnic symbol. We have many stories of archaeologists who try to use pottery to establish the ethnic status of certain sites but failed. One of these stories is that of Colono-Indian Ware. The ware was similar to the Native American ware that prevailed in the eastern part of United Sates of America and was dated to the period of colonization. However, as has been seen, not only this pottery was found also in sites that Native Americans never dwelt in, but also is always found in the area of the African-American slaves. The Luangwa tradition in Zambia is another example. This tradition shows very little variation and extended over a wide area in spite of the fcat that it is made by different peoples. The assumptions that there was a fixed relationship between the style of this pottery and Nabataean identity, and that Nabataean identity was homogenous and bounded regardless of the different time, place, or socio-economic factors which evidently affect ethnicity, which lay behind Glueck usage of Nabataean pottery as ethnic marker are not accurate. the fact that this pottery was not found in the Jebel druze in southern syria and northernmost transjordan which were Nabataean areas as attested by the Nabataean sculpture, temples, and inscriptions shows that it is impossible to look at the Nabataean pottery as the single clear ethnic marker of the Nabataean sites. As has been argued above, there are many cases when pottery was made to be sold as a source of income, therefore, it can be taken as an ethnic marker. Therefore, we cannot assume that those who used what is called Nabataean pottery were Nabataeans, nor can we identify sites containing it as Nabataean. Such conclusion has been emphasised by Posnansky (1973: 159)21. Studying the relation between peoples and potteries in Ghana he concludes: The ancient trade in pottery was a complex matter, and the simplistic belief that different wares represent different groups of people can rarely be sub- stantiated. A single Mo potter of the present day makes several distinct types of ware which are used by a variety of different linguistic groups, while a consumer, even before the advent of modern transport, would buy, or obtain by barter, specific types of vessel from relatively long distances [my italics]. We have assumed above, therefore, that the Nabataean pottery was economically distributed rather than ethnically. Also, we have seen above that scholars have found that in many cases pottery differences between peoples were due to the differences in ceramic resources

21 For similar argument, see (Crossland and Posnansky, 1978: 88).

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 367 21/04/10 11:51 368 Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

available to them rather than ethnic alliances. Therefore, it has been found if members of an ethnic group occupy different ecological niches, they tend to produce dissimilar ceramics, whereas if different ethnic communities lived in the same niche, they produce similar, if not identical, ware. Accordingly, simi larities in ware made in the Pokom Mixco community and in the Cakchiquel communities of San Raimundo and La Cienega in spite of their linguistic and cultural differences are found whereas the Pokom communities that share cultural and linguistic traits produce dissimilar ceramic. In addition, as has been argued above, even if we accept Glueck’s approach to Nabataean ethnicity, the second question about the relations betwe en ethnicity and material culture is met. The fact that there was a widespread of the Nabataean styles and material culture does not mean that all those who lived in these areas had the same ethnic identity. looking for the source behind Glueck’s naïve assumption that all those who used Nabataean pottery or any other element of Nabataean culture were Nabataeans, we find that he was influenced by nineteenth century ideas regarding the relations between material culture and human groups. The concept of archaeological culture came as a result of the appearance of archaeology as an independent academic discipline in the 19th century. Archaeological culture was regarded as the basic archaeological unit that consists of assemblages of archaeological materials which are linked to specific ethnic groups. As has been argued above, it has long been believed that objects were made and used by certain human groups. The past was depicted as consisting of monolithic and timeless groups, and ancient societies were represented as monolithic timeless unities. This is because ‘cultures’ were classified into different entities (peoples). However, as we have seen above, ethnic groups are not fixed and monolithic, nor is there a one to one correlation between culture and peoplehood. Finally, Glueck made another mistake when he looked at ethnic boundaries according to geographical ones,. We learn from the modern literature of ethnicity that the boundaries which separate ‘us’ from ‘them’ are social boundaries which may have territorial counterparts but not necessarily. If all these points are taken into consideration, Glueck’s relying on Nabataean pottery to identify Nabataean sites is no longer tenable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdul-Karim, M. (1990). Lexical, Historical and Literary Sources of the Nabataeans in the Arab Tradition. Aram, 2, 421-424. Abu Taleb, M. (1984). “Nabayati, Nebayot, Nebayat and Nabatu: The Lingustic Problem Revisited”, Dirasat 11, 3-11. Al-Fassi, H. (2000) Women and Power in ancient Northern arabia: Nabataea. the University of Manchester.

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 368 21/04/10 11:51 f.m. al-otaibi 369

Al-Theeb, S. (1997). The Native Land of the Nabataeans. New Arabian Studies, 4, 233-242. Arnold, d. (1978). ceramic variability, environment and culture history among the Pokom in the vally of Guatemala. In Hodder, I. (Ed.) The Spatial Organisation of Culture. London, Duckworth. Banton, M. (1977), The Idea of Race, Tavistoc Publication Limited, London. Barth, F. (1969), ‘Introduction’, Pp. 9-38. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (Ed, Barth, F.) Little Brown, Boston. Black, J. and MacRaild, D. D. (2000), Studying History, Palgrave, New York. Chap- man, M., et al. (1989), ‘Introduction’, Pp. 1-21. In History and Ethnicity (Ed, Chapman, M.) Routledge, London New York. Bartlett, J. (1979). ‘From Edomites to Nabataeans: A Study of Continuity’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 111, 53-66. Clifford, J. (1988), The Predicament of Culture, Harvard University Press, Cam- bridge. Cohen, R. (1978), ‘Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 7, 379-403. Crossland, L. B. & Posnansky, M. (1978). Pottery, people and trade at Begho, Ghana. In Hodder, I. (Ed.) The Spatial Organisation of Culture. London, Duckworth. Dhaz-Andrew, M. (1996). constructing Identities through culture: the Past in the forging of Europe. In Gamble, C. (Ed.) Cultural Identity and Archaeology. London, Routledge. Dolukhanov, P. (1994). Environment and Ethnicity in the Ancient Middle East, Hamp- shire, Ashgate. Dragadze, t. (1980), “The Place of ‘Ethnos’ theory in soviet anthropology”, Pp. 161-70. In Soviet and Western Anthropology (Ed, Gellner, e.) duckworth, London. Eriksen, T. (1993), Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, Pluto Press, London. al-Fassi, H. (2000), Women and Power in Ancient Northern Arabia: Nabataea, Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, Fenton, S. (1999), Ethnicity: racism, class and culture, Rowman & Littlefield, Lan- ham, Md. Glazer, N. and Moynihan, D. (1963), Beyond the Melting-pot, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Glazer, N. and Moynihan, D. P. (1975), ‘Introduction’, Pp. 1-26. In Ethnicity: Theory and Experience (Ed, Moynihan, D. P.) Harvard University Press, London. Glueck, N. (1965). Deities and Dolphins, London, Cassell. — (1970). The Other Side of the Jordan, Cmabridge, American Schools of Oriental Research. — (1974). The Civilization of the Edomites. Biblical Archaeologists, 10, 77-84. Gorer, G. (1975). English Identity Over Time and Empire. In Devos, G. & Romanucci- Ross, L. (Eds.) Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change. California, Mayfield Publishing Company. Graf, D. F. (2004). Nabataean Identity and Ethnicity: The Epigraphic Perspective. In Al-Khraysheh, F. (Ed.) Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. Amman, The Department of Antiquities. Graf, d. (1997). rome and the saracens: reassessing the Nomadic Menace. In Graf, D. (Ed.) Rome and the Arabian Frontire: from the Nabataeans to the Sara- cens. Aldershot, Ashgate.

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 369 21/04/10 11:51 370 Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: An Appraisal

— (1990). ‘The Origin of the Nabataeans’, Aram, 2, 45-75. Guthrie, W. (1957), In the Beginnig: Some Greek Views of the Origins of Life and the Early State of Man, Methuen&Co, London. Hammond, P. (1973). The Nabataeans – Their History, Culture and Archaeology, Gothenburg, Paul Aströms Förlag. Hall, J. M. (1997), Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, University Press, Cambridge. Harris, M. (1968), The Rise of Anthropological Theory, HarperCollins, New York. Healey, J. (1989). Were the Nabataeans Arabs. Aram, 1, 38-44. — (1993). The Nabataean tomb inscriptions of Mada’in Salih, Oxford, Oxford Univer- sity Press. Hides, S. (1996). The Genealogy of Material Culture and Cultural Identity. In Gamble, C. (Ed.) Cultural Identity and Archaeology. London, Routledge. Hodder, I. (1978). Simple correlations between material culture and society: a review. In Hodder, I. (Ed.) The Spatial Organisation of Culture. London, Duckworth. Horsfield, G. & Conway, A. (1930). A Historical and Topographical Account of the First Excavations at Petra. Geographical Journal, 76, 369-390. Ibn-Al-Kalbi (1924). Kitab al-AÒnam, Cairo, al-Dar al-qawmiyyah li-l-†ba¨ah wa al-nasr. James, S. (1999), The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention?, British Museum Press, London. Janowttz, N. (2000). Rethinking Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity. In Mitchell, S. & Greatrex, G. (Eds.) Ethnicity and Culture in Late Antiquity. London, Duckworth. Jones, S. (2000), ‘Discourses od Identity in the Iinterpretation of the Past’, Pp. 445- 457. In Interpretive Archaeology (Ed, thomas, J.) leicester university Press, London, New Yourk. — (1997), The archaeology of ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and present, Routledge, London; New York. — (1996). Discources of Identity in the Interpretation of the Past. In Gamble, C. (Ed.) Cultural Identity and Archaeology. London, Routledge. Jones, S. and Graves-Brown, P. (1996), ‘Archaeology and Cultural Identity in Europe’, Pp. 1-24. In Cultural Identity and Archaeology (Ed, Graves-Brown, P.) Routledge, London. Khairy, N. (1982). Fine Nabataean Ware with Impressed and Roulted Decoration. In Hadidi, A. (Ed.) Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. Amman, Department of Antiquities. Kuper, A. (1988), The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformations of an Illusion, Routledge, London. Lawlor, J. I. (1974). The Nabataeans in Historical Perspective, Michigan, Baker Book House. Macdonald, M. C. (1993). Nomads and the Îawran in the Late Hellenistic and Roman Periods: A Reassessment of the Epigraphic Evidence. Syria, 70, 303-413. — (1998). some reflections on epigraphy and ethnicity in the roman Near east. Mediterranean Archaeology, II, 177-190. Marcus, A. D. (2001). The View from Nebo: How Archaeology is Writing the Bible and Reshaping the Middle East, London, Back Bay Books. Mason, D. (2000), ‘Ethnicity’, Pp. 91-114. In Social Division (Ed, Payne, G.) Macmillan Press Ltd, London. Mendels, D. (1992). The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, Cambridge, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Moerman, M. (1965), ‘Ethnic Identification in a Complex Civilization: Who are the Lue?’ American Anthropologist, 67, 1215-30.

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 370 21/04/10 11:51 f.m. al-otaibi 371

Narroll, r. (1964), ‘On ethnic unit classification’, Current Anthropology, 5, 283- 291. Negev, A. (1974). Petra and the Nabataeans [Hebrew]. Qadmoniot, 18, 71-93. Nicklin, K. (1971). World Archaeology, 3, 13-48. Omi, M. and Winant, H. (1994), Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s, Routledge, New York, London. Orser, C. E. (1996). A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World, London, Plenum Press. Parsons, T. (1975), ‘Some Theoretical Considerations on the Nature and Trends of Change of ethnicity’, Pp. 53-83. In Ethnicity: Theory and Experience (Ed, Moynihan, D. P.) Harvard University Press, London. Perry, W. J. (1924), The Growth of Civilization, Methuen & Co, London. Posnansky, M. (1973). aspects of early west african trade. World Archaeology, 5, 149-162. Radcliff-Brown, A. (1952), Structure and Function in Primitive Socioty: Essays and Addresses, Routledge& Kegan Paul Ltd, London. Renfrew, C. (1996), ‘Prehistory and the Identity of Europe’, Pp. 125-137. In Cultural Identity and Archaeology (Ed, Gamble, C.) Routledge, London. Rich, N. (1989), ‘Hitler’s Foreign Policy’, Pp. 190-207. In War, Peace and Social Change in Twentieth-Century Europe (Ed, emsley, c.) open university Press, Philadelphia. Ross, A. (1977). Pagan Celtic Britain, London, Cardinal. Roosens, E. (1989), Creating Ethnicity: The Process of Ethnogenesis, Sage, London. Roseman, M. (1989), ‘World War I I and Social Change in Germany’, Pp. 300-18. In War, Peace and Social Change in Twentieth-Cuntury Europe (Ed, Simpson, W.) Open University Press, Philadelphia. Schwartz, S. (2001). Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E., Oxford, Oxford University Press. Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. (1992). Re-Constructing Archaeology, London, Routledge. Sinker, G. (1971), The Racial Attitudes of American Presidents from Abraham Lincoln to Theodore Roosevelt, Doubleday, New Yourk. Smith, A. D. (1986), The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. — (1999), Myths and Memories of the Nation, Oxford University Press Inc, New York. Sokolovskii, S. and Tishkov, V. (1996), ‘Ethnicity’, Pp. 190-93. In Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology (Ed, Spencer, J.) Routledge, London. Sollors, W. (1996), ‘Foreword: Theories of American Ethnicity’, Pp. x-xliv. In Theo- ries of Ethnicity (Ed, Sollors, W.) Macmillan Press Ltd, London. Souter, A. (1916), A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sparks, K. L. (1998). Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel, Indiana, Eisenbrauns. Starcky, J. (1955). The Nabataeans: A Historical Sketch. The Biblical Archaeologist, 58, 84-106. Stocking, G. (1987), Victorian Anthropology, The Free Press, New York. Tekiner, R. (1991), ‘Race and the Issue of National Identity in Israel’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 23, 39-55. Webster, J. (1996), “Roman Imperialism and the ‘Post Imperial Age’”, Pp. 1-17. In Roman Imperialism: Post-Colonial Perspectives (Ed, Cooper, N. J.) The School of Archaeological Studies: University of Leicester, Leicester. Winnett, F and Reed, W. (1970). Ancient Records from North Arabia, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 371 21/04/10 11:51