Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Hegra and Petra: Some Differences

Hegra and Petra: Some Differences

ARAM, 8 (1996), 253-267 253

HEGRA AND : SOME DIFFERENCES

ROBERT WENNING

Mada'in Salih, the Nabataean , is famous for its rock-cut tomb façades and the large Nabataean inscriptions on these façades. Most of the articles deal- ing with Hegra in recent years discuss just these monuments, as does the excel- lent book published by John F. Healey in 1993.1 Healey gives a good treatment and summary of the other archaeological evidence of the site and its historical and cultural setting as . It seems that almost everything that can be said about Hegra has been said. There is only one group of monuments which has not received the same attention as the tombs, the votive niches and other religious installations of the Jabal Ithlib and its surroundings. I shall give some detailed interpretations of these. In addition we may be able to learn something more from a comparison of Hegra and Petra. There is no need to demonstrate the strong rela- tions between the two sites in great detail, but I would like to point especially to some differences.

1. NATURAL CONDITIONS

In an article published in 19712 Meda'in Salih is described as follows: “Meda'in Salih…lies in a broad basin rather than a valley; the mountains in the immediate vicinity are much broken into isolated stacks and peaks, often weathered into fantastic shapes. It thus presents an appearance very different from that of Petra, despite the comparable architecture. The Meda'in Salih basin is low-lying and sand-filled: it is a collecting area for rain and floods,… Erosion has removed practially all traces of the free-standing town which must have existed in Nabataean times; there are no monumental remains visible,… a few traces of structures remain to testify to the ancient occupation.” I do not want to stress the natural conditions producing differences. Of course, some pecularities of Hegra are to be explained by them. The most serious fact was the lack of rocks around the centre of the settlement. Every larger rock seems to have been reserved for tomb façades. With two exceptions we do not have a triclinium, cultic cella or living room cut into these rocks. At Petra 115 triclinia and about 780 chambers of domestic function have been counted.3 The

1 J.F. Healey, The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada'in Salih (= TIMS), (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 1, Oxford, 1993). I would like to thank John F. Healey for proof- reading of the manuscript and for his valuable comments. Any remaining mistakes are mine. 2 P.J. Parr, G.L. Harding, and J.E. Dayton, BIAL, 10 (1971), 26. 3 L. Nehmé, Occident & Orient, 2 No. 1 (1997), 3. 254 HEGRA AND PETRA: SOME DIFFERENCES lack of nearby gorges has the result that there is only one area with votive niches and graffiti, while are so common in the rocky surroundings of Petra.

2. SETTLEMENT PATTERN

In the Petra became the capital of the in the sense that it was the seat of the tribe and its leaders. For the Greek world Petra was a metropolis4, but we are dealing with and the settlement pat- tern fits with their tradition. Careful consideration of the various pieces of stratigraphical evidence demonstrates that Petra developed from about the mid- dle of the 1st century BC to a typical Semitic settlement, open, with living quar- ters spread over a large area, and dominated by a central sanctuary with a via sacra along a , and surrounded by cemeteries. The great theatre was the only public urban building of classical type (cf. Gerasa) and is probably to be dated later as often suggested. Not before the beginning of the 2nd century, that means with the establishment of the new provincia Arabia in AD 106 was the character of the site transformed into a more Roman shape with a colonnade street, arches and public buildings.5 Concerning town planning, the changes remain limited. The settlement still existed and the population remained. Although a map of the central area of Hegra is not yet published the general layout of the site is clear and can be compared with that of Petra very well: a central settlement area surrounded by a ring of tombs and behind that a sacred area in the rocks (Fig. 1). The size of the central area at Hegra seems even to exceed that of Petra, but is also situated in the plain without an acropolis or tell. The central area was probably not only covered with living quarters but also contained the cultic centre of the site. Inscription H 36 from the tomb of Halafu mentions a temple of the Qaysha.6 So far, neither the temple nor a via sacra have been found. Since 1986 regular excavations have been carried out at the site.7 They have revealed building structures and parts of the city wall.8 There seems to be 4 Strabo, Geogr. XVI 4, 21. 5 R. Wenning, in Th. Weber – R. Wenning, (eds.), Petra. Antike Felsstadt zwischen arabis- cher Tradition und griechischer Norm, (Mainz, 1997), 56-62. 6 J. Starcky, SDB, VII, (Paris, 1966), 1001 translates byt qys' as “la maison de la mesure” according to qa}is = measure. Refuted by Healey, TIMS 120; S. Krone, Die altarabische Gottheit al-Lat, (Heidelberger Orientalistische Studien, 23, Frankfurt, 1992), 536. 7 They are directed by Dhaifalla Al-Talhi for the Department of Antiquities in Riyadh. Pre- liminary reports can be found in Atlal, 11 (1987), 47-57; 12 (1989), 21-28; 13 (1990), 21-32; 14 (1996), 25-42. 8 I am not convinced by the thesis of E.A. Knauf, in Arabian Studies in Honour of Mahmoud Ghul, (ed. M. M. Ibrahim), (Wiesbaden, 1989), 57; E.A. Knauf, in Weber-Wenning, Petra, (1997), 17, 21, portraying Hegra as a non-Nabataean central cultic site (reqem) of the Shalamu tribe. This is also disputed by Healey, TIMS, 25 note 133. Concerning the Salamians: we cannot localize this tribe precisely, other than noting that they were to be found somewhere in the region and in the vicinity of the ('?). R. WENNING 255

Fig. 1: Mada'in Salih/Hegra, Map of the Sit (Courtesy J. F. Healey, TIMS Map II) nothing of a Nabataean settlement that can be dated before the middle of the 1st century BC when Hegra was taken over by the Nabataeans from the Lihyanites.9 It is not yet possible to compare the houses from both sites exactly; there seem to be differences.

3. THE TOMBS

There are various differences between the Hegra and Petra tombs. These are discussed often and I can limit myself to some remarks. At Petra 619 tomb façades have been counted, at Hegra 82, of which 36 bear large inscriptions, while at Petra only the Turkmaniye tomb and in a different category the Flo- rentinus tomb (and possibly the Obelisk tomb) do. We can only speculate

9 Cf. Healey, TIMS, 25f. F.V. Sherd Winnett, – W. L. Reed, Ancient Records from North Ara- bia (= WR), (Toronto, 1970), Fig. 81,11 belongs to phase 2a according to the typology of S.G. Schmid, SHAJ, V, (1995), 637-647, which is dated to 50-30/20 BC. A coin published by A. Jaussen – R. Savignac, Mission archéologique en Arabie I, (= JS), (Paris, 1909), 441 as that of Obodas III (followed by R. Wenning, Die Nabatäer [NTOA, 3, Göttingen-Fribourg, 1987], 119) is to be attributed to Aretas IV. It corresponds to coin type No. 47 in the catalogue of Y. Meshorer, Nabatean Coins, (Qedem, 3, , 1975) dated to 9 BC. Even so, the coin belongs to the earliest dated artefacts from the site. The first dated tomb is from 1 BC/AD. 256 HEGRA AND PETRA: SOME DIFFERENCES about this phenomenon.10 The wish to mark the tomb clearly visible as belong- ing to a particular family for posterity by writing the legal agreements about the use of the tomb on the façade in addition to the original document deposited in the temple or a civic registry (note that the façades are directed towards the settlement/temple) could find an explanation when we consider that owners of the tombs may have been at Hegra only for a shorter period, so that there was nobody to safeguard the family tomb after their death. Other differences are found inside the tomb chambers. In general the cham- bers are less well carved at Hegra and there seems to be a greater use of bur- ial niches high in the walls, while at Petra loculi at the ground level are pre- ferred. The average number of burials in one tomb is greater at Hegra. This might be explained by the limited number of available chambers; the inscrip- tions point to the fact that different sections of one family had to share a tomb. On the other hand, the insistent prohibitions in the inscriptions could easily reflect just a normal situation in that owners like to prevent through their doc- uments and inscriptions the selling or leasing of burial places and tombs. An important consideration in the classification of the tombs was to relate the different types of façades to the social background of the owners.11 Ten of the tombs belonged to families of high ranking officers. This should not be surprising for a frontier district of such strategic and commercial importance. The military aspect seems to be overstressed in scholarly discussion.12 It should be bore in mind that the inscriptions reflect a very complex society at Hegra. We are dealing with families from different tribes (Salamians, Sah- mites, Lihyanites, , Huwayya?, ) and different towns (Tayma', GHR, Mazin; ). In relation to the owners it is interesting to note which façades have got figural decorations and which seem to avoid such figures, as did the families from Tayma'. It was noted that one group of façades does not appear at Hegra at all, the so-called Gable Tombs and Roman Temple Tombs. If these tombs should be attributed to the royal dynasty and related to “leading families” of the tribe we possibly would have an explanation why they are not found at Hegra. The classification of the Hegra façades by workshops of masons was an important step forwards to a better understanding of the stylistic developments but also showed relations to Petra.13

10 Cf. Healey, TIMS, 39; M. Gawlikowski, Berytus, 24 (1975/76), 35-41. 11 J.-C. Balty, in: Architecture et societé. Actes du colloque de Rome 1980, (CÉFR, 66, Rome, 1983), 303-324; A. , RB, 83 (1976), 203-236. 12 For Nabataean military organization, cf. D.F. Graf, in E. Dabrowa, (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East. Colloquium Krakow 1992, (Krakow, 1994), 274-311, where he dis- cusses the idea that the ‘strg' was charged with both the civil and military administration. 13 Cf. A. Schmidt-Colinet, SHAJ, III (1987), 143-150; J. McKenzie, The Architecture of Petra, (Oxford, 1990), 11-31. Not all the relations posited can with stand criticism. A. Schmidt- Colinet, Berytus, 31 (1983), 98 note 28 pointed to a Petraean votive niche in the Qa††ar ed-Deir as a type with a “hooked architrave” typical of the mason Aftah, but he referred to an illustration R. WENNING 257

4. THE ACROTERIA

The Hegra acroteria are different from those at Petra. Typical for Petra is a monumental middle acroterium in form of a bulbous vessel with a lid, proba- bly an urn. This type is taken from Alexandrian prototypes as reflected at best in the façade of the Khazne. And the Khazne became the prototype for other façades at Petra. The practise of cremation, to which the covered urn belongs, was not the Nabataean burial custom. It seems that the Nabataeans did not connect the urn with the traditional Greek funerary practice, but took it as a vessel to store water for ritual use. That would explain why urns and even open vessels are found also as acroteria of the aediculae of the votive niches at Hegra. At Hegra we do not have the Petraean single monumental acroterium, but either three vessels or a central eagle with two vessels at the sides as acroteria of the gable of the entrance door. This type is not common in the Greek world and could be a local invention.14 The type with three urns occurs at Petra in three examples (Br. 229, 452, 455), but crowning the gable of the monument, not that of the entrance door. Only the Renaissance Tomb (Br. 229) doubles this system and has got three urn acroteria upon the arch of the entrance system too. It might be that the Petra examples are influenced by the Hegra monuments rather than the opposite. It should be mentioned already here that none of the many Petra niches show urns on their acroteria bases as the niches at Hegra often do. The eagle as an acroterium, so common in the Hegra façades, did not become common at Petra, although it was introduced by the Khazne as acro- teria at the sides of the upper broken pediment. In the Greek world the eagle is related to Zeus and could be a symbol of apotheosis in any funerary context. In the eagle is the symbol of the god of heaven and as such have been attributed to Ba'al-Shamin, and . At Petra only in the tomb of Sextius Florentinus does an eagle crown the arched tympanum of the attica. This reminds one rather of the well-known Atargatis-pediment of the temple at Khirbet et-Tannur than of the Hegra examples. Indeed, the eagles in the Hegra façades seem to have a particular function. They crown the pediment of the entrance to the tomb. That means the eagle, respectively Dushara protects the tomb. The wings of the eagles are spread and pulled back more or less flat against the façade. This indicates activity and readiness. by A. Musil which is incorrectly drawn. The niche does not have such an architrave. Cf. G. Dal- man, Petra und seine Felsheiligtümer (= D.), (Leipzig, 1908), Fig. 195 No. 437. He related ptwr' in inscription JS I 29 to Petra. This is refuted by Healey, TIMS, 198. The arguments for the “Tomb of Sullay” are also very weak. 14 It seems that most inventions are to be connected with the mason Aftah and his “school”. Tomb B 19 from 1 BC/AD by Wahballahi shows three urns and an eagle in the arched tympa- num, but B 6 of the same year, attributed to the school of Aftah by McKenzie, Architecture (1990), 17, already has the central eagle with two urns. 258 HEGRA AND PETRA: SOME DIFFERENCES

Normally the inscription plaque is placed high on the façade and not related to the eagle below.15 But in some cases the plaque is lowered just above the eagle. The impression is that the eagle carries and protects also the inscrip- tion.16 Possibly the mason would indicate that the observance of the legal agreements is put under the responsibility of Dushara, and that is exactly what the inscriptions do in fact say. Beside the eagles, sphinxes, lions and a mask between snakes, probably a local adoption of the Greek gorgoneion, which are all symbols, there are no human figures sculptured on the façades or in the votive niches, and so far no sculptures have been found at Hegra, which is different to the situation at Petra. This seems not to be accidental; anthropomorphic representations are rejected in terms of the veneration of the in the traditional betyls. While the Greek attitude at Petra can be explained best by the many foreigners at the royal court and the need of the prosperous kingdom to demonstrate its self- confidence in forms common to the Greek world, we do not have expect to find many at Hegra to whom monuments are adressed. Rather other Arab tribes had to be impressed by the monumental tomb façades.

5. THE GODS OF THE TOMBS

There was a temple of Qaysha in Hegra, mentioned in inscription H 36 from AD 31/32. We know almost nothing about this god who must be the local deity of Hegra.17 Qaysha is listed already in the oldest tomb inscription of 1 BC/AD., where he is presented in close relation to Manotu.18 This seems com- parable to the relationship between Dushara and Al-'Uzza at Petra. One would expect in the tomb inscriptions much reference to Qaysha, but this is not the case. It is Dushara, the god of the Shara and especially of Petra, who dominates funerary affairs also at Hegra. This fact shows how much Hegra depended on Petra. With the royal administrators and officers Dushara as the god of the dynasty was introduced as the god of law and order. He was claimed to supervise the banning of misuse of the tombs and it was he and the king (or the governor) who were to be paid the fines for violation of the writ-

15 The reason for placing the inscription so high on the façade could be to protect it from damage and destruction. 16 Cf. B 5, B 1, B 7, and C 10. Is this a type invented by Aftah? 17 Cf. M. Höfner, Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient, (Stuttgart, 1965), 460f.; J. Starcky, SDB, VII (Paris, 1966) 1001; Healey, TIMS, 33f., 119f. 18 Healey prefers to distinguish the two forms of the name in the inscriptions. He takes qys' in H 36 as relating to the god Qasyha, but construes qysh in H 8 and 16 as a measuring instru- ment used by Manotu or, even better, as a form of this . Discussion of the older parallel phrase “Yahweh and his ” (cf. H.-P. Müller, ZAH, 5 [1992], 27-33) suggests that in our case qysh could very well refer to the god himself. The suffix indicates the strong relationship between Manotu and Qasyha. Cf. P. Xella, UF 27 (1995), 599-610. R. WENNING 259 ten stipulations. Beside Dushara the other gods mentioned in these inscriptions are of minor importance, except perhaps Manotu who was the most venerated goddess of the region. At Hegra she was taken as the local female aspect of the deity instead of Al-{Uzza. Nabataean religion is close to Henotheism, but seemingly polytheistic concerning the names connected with various functions of god.

6. THE SACRED AREA (Fig. 2)

6.1 The High Place At Petra the cultic centre is connected with a High Place. There is no such prominent great High Place at Hegra like the famous al-madhbah in Petra. At

Fig. 2: Mada'in Salih/Hegra, Sacred Area of Jabal Ithlib (Courtesy J. F. Healey, TIMS Map III)

Petra this High Place and the one on Jabal Hubtha were integrated into the official sacrificial rituals as an affair of state, as is indicated by the rock-cut steps large enough for processions leading from the central area to these places. There is a small installation at Hegra in the sacred area of Jabal Ithlib which shows general features to be interpreted as a High Place.19 It consists of

19 JS I 423f. Fig. 211; Healey, TIMS 10 plate 12. Contrary to Healey, TIMS, 10, 35 and map III, two other installations, JS I Fig. 215 and Fig. 217, are not High Places. For the motab, cf. Healey, TIMS, 156-158. 260 HEGRA AND PETRA: SOME DIFFERENCES a rectangular rock of about 2.3 x 2 m in a large niche. It is possible to walk all around the rock which is a typical motab, a sacred podium to carry the betyl during cultic rituals. This special arrangement, which can also be found in many Nabataean temples, allows the well-known ritual of the †awaf. Two further facts might be of importance. The High Place is situated near a water conduit. We know from other Nabataean sites that the Nabateans vener- ated Dushara at places where water could be found and even along water con- duits. The other fact is the orientation of the High Place towards the East. This direction may point to Dushara as the god of heaven to be seen in the sun, especially the rising sun, as it is the case in Petra. In inscription H 2 he is called the god “who separates night from day”. Dushara in a Helios type is depicted in a medallion from the metopes of the Qasr el-Bint at Petra. The Helios type as symbol for the god of heaven was common among the Nabataeans also in the and in Moab.

6.2. The mrzÌ I like to attribute the installations and cultic ensemblages inside and outside the Jabal Ithlib to Kultgenossenschaften, thiasoi, called in Nabataean a mrzÌ. Members of a mrzÌ could belong to a family clan or to an association of an occupational group, like the officers and so on.20 This type of sacred place can be found at Hegra only in this area. Jabal Ithlib was the only nearby mountain which offered such possibilities and formed a kind of natural Ìaram or Ìima without any tomb21. At Petra these groupings of installations are scattered all around the central area of the site, but again situated in rocky areas. There is another major difference between the two sites: at Petra it is possible to assign such a gorge or a grouping of installations to a particular god, often Dushara or Al-{Uzza, while at Hegra various groups with different deities shared in the same area. The following examples demonstrate this pecularity.

6.3. The Diwan There is only one large rock-cut hall at Hegra, the so-called Diwan, a tri- clinium as shown by recent clearance.22 It is situated close to the entrance, but still outside the gorge of Jabal Ithlib. There is no niche at the back of the tri-

20 Inscription JS 40 and 57 offer direct support for this assumption. Cf. WR 57; J. Starcky, SDB, VI (Paris, 1966) 1015; R. Wenning, AOAT, 248 (1997) 181f. Against the late dating of JS, 57 by Starcky, cf. Healey, TIMS 222. 21 Not all monuments and installations of this area have been documented in JS. Beside that, the modern approach also interprets religious monuments in the light of their contexts and the social backgrounds of the devotees rather than offering a purely typological classification. A new survey would significantly increase our knowledge of this area and of the distinctive features of Hegra. The following remarks can therefore be no more than preliminary. 22 JS, I 405-411 Figs. 197-199; Healey, TIMS 9, 35f. Pl. 10. Healey, TIMS 10, map III indi- cates some other smaller rock-cut rooms, serving similar purposes, which are not yet described. R. WENNING 261 clinium and no inscription indicates which god was venerated there. Nearby niches and inscriptions are devoted to various gods and cannot be directly related to the Diwan. Contrary to almost all triclinia at Petra23 the Diwan has a completely open front. Concerning the size of the hall G. Dalman suggested about 20-25 persons could participate in a mrzÌ here.24 According to other sug- gestions the large opening may imply participation by a large congregation of people in front of the Diwan. It might be that the Diwan was shared by different groups. Among the graf- fiti, JS 61-62 from the Diwan, “‘Abd‘allahi from…, the governor” and “Haflagu, the mason” may indicate two such groups. In the sacred area there are further references to both groups, graffiti JS 40, (65), 84 for other governors (here no other ranks of officers are named as they are in the tomb inscriptions) and JS 71, 76, (91?, 105?), 125 for sculptors. JS 40 possibly marks the assem- bly place (mskb') for a particular group with a governor as the patron of a mrzÌ. This place is further inside the gorge, where Healey indicates rooms nearby.

6.4. Niches and deities of the Jabal Ithlib gorge High on the rock to the right of the Diwan there is a relief “figure” in a roughly triangular niche.25 The basic element of the “figure” is clearly a rec- tangular betyl. According the proportion of 1: 2 it could be a mesgida, which is a kind of altar. On top of the betyl there seems to be a head in a medallion. Others understand the frame of the medallion as the arms of the “figure”. A mesgida/betyl in combination with a head (of Dushara) in a medallion is known from Petra in the Wadi Farasa on the way to the High Place.26 On the other hand the Hegra relief reminds one strongly of the relief of Allat from at Ain Shellaleh in Wadi Ramm.27 There the goddess is depicted as a rectangular betyl on a postament and with another rounded betyl on top. The identification of the goddess is given by an inscription. Below the goddess the sickle of the new moon is visible. In the light of this relief it seems possible to find the same combination in the Hegra relief. Instead of a head in a medallion then we would have a rounded betyl above the new moon.28

23 There is only one triclinium at Petra with as large an opening: Br. (= R.E. Brünnow – A. von Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia I, (Strassburg, 1904), 65, opposite the Khazne; Kennedy, Sir B.W. Alexander Petra. Its History and Monuments, (London, 1925), Fig. 198. If this triclinium belongs to the Khazne, it should be dated as early as the third quarter of the 1st century BC. Other halls comparable with the Diwan are either not triclinia or do not have the large opening. 24 D. p. 90. 25 JS I 411-417 Figs. 201, 203. 26 P.C. Hammond, BASOR, 192 (1968), 16-21. 27 R. Savignac, RB, 43 (1934), 582-585 Fig. 7, Pl. 39, with reference to the Hegra relief. Fur- ther investigation of this niche convinced me of tenability the betyl-interpretation for both niches (correcting R. Wenning, in A. Invernizzi – J.-F. Salles, (eds.), Arabia Antiqua, (Rome, 1993), 93. 28 Cf. also D. 629. 262 HEGRA AND PETRA: SOME DIFFERENCES

On the rock opposite the Diwan there is a niche with an aedicula which shows unusual broad pilasters without capitals.29 It is possible to understand the aedicula as an empty one or to take the space between the pilasters as a large rectangular betyl. In the tympanum there seems to be an eagle. All three acroteria are bulbous vessels. These figural elements imitate the tomb decora- tion and this is clearly a local tradition as shown by more examples from Hegra. The niche has particular importance because of graffito JS 72, referring to Shay' al-Qaum. There are only a few references to this god in the Nabataean material. Shay' al-Qaum was the tutelar god of the people in the desert, the and the caravaneers, but also of the warriors. Inside what is called a like the famous Siq at Petra, even it is a few metres only, we find a mesgida in a roughly cut niche and below it inscription JS 39: “This is the mesgida, which was made by Sakuhu, son of Taura, for A‘ra, who is in Bosra, the god of Rabb'el; in the month of Nisan, year one of Malichus, the king”. The mesgida in the proportions of 1: 2 shows profiles at bottom and top. The god A‘ra became a local hypostasis of Dushara at Nabataean Bosra and is known from other inscriptions, almost all dated to the period of Rabb'el II. The Hegra inscription too should be dated to AD 106, the first year of Malichus III, who never became an accepted king by Rome.30 The inscription is an argument among others that the Nabataean presence at the site continued after AD 75, the latest date of a tomb inscription. Opposite the A‘ra stele there is an aedicula niche with three betyls.31 The betyls are rectangular and are separated from each other by broad cuttings, while at Petra the betyls are usually close together; the middle one is a little bit higher. The same arrangement can be found at Hegra with seven other niches, five times in an arched niche or aedicula, and twice in a rectangular niche.32 Dalman explained the three betyls as different aspects of one god. That might be a correct explanation. On the other hand, this clear separation supports the assumption that we should see three deities. The aedicula, again with three vessels as acroteria, probably emphasises the importance of the betyls. In this case we would like to identify the betyls with Qaysha, Dushara and Manotu, who are the most important gods at Hegra according to the inscriptions, but this can be no more than a suggestion and we need to be open to other expla- nations, such as Dushara, Hubalu and Manotu, following H 16.

29 JS, I 415 Fig. 204. 30 Cf. Wenning in Arabia Antiqua, 88f., 97f.; R. Wenning, Boreas 16 (1993), 37f. It should be noted that the above three monuments refer to various gods which have relations with the Hauran; but to explain this, we can only speculate. All of these might date to the Late Nabataean period. 31 JS, I 415-417 Fig. 205. 32 JS, I Figs. 205. 208. 213,1.2. 220; 219,2.3; and one niche without figure and description. Only Fig. 219,2 shows the betyls close together as is case in most of the niches in Petra; cf. D. p. 72 (cf. 53f.); G. Dalman, Neue Petra-Forschungen, (Leipzig, 1912), 48f. Only D. 801 (Fig. 313), outside Petra, is of the type found at Hegra. R. WENNING 263

Near the mesgida for A‘ra is a roughly cut arched aedicula. The acroteria with an eagle for the centre and vessels at the sides follows the most common order of the tomb façades at Hegra (13 examples), but it is not found at Petra. The eagle seems to indicate the god of heaven. Inside the aedicula an ompha- los-like betyl is sculptured. This type is connected with Dushara at Petra.33 Graffito JS 81/82 in the reading of J. T. Milik and J. Starcky refers to a mes- gida for the god of Sa‘bu.34 According to a Palmyrenian inscription he was venerated as god of fortune (Gad) by the Nabataeans. He is mentioned also in inscription D. 92, found at Petra and dated to the reign of Rabb'el II, as “the god who resides in… of Hubta”. Next to the High Place, mentioned above, there are three niches, the first one with an aedicula with a betyl with rounded top. This type in combination with an arched aedicula is related to Dushara.35 The second niche is empty. Next to it is the relief of a horned altar with base and profiles. Like the mesigda these altars represent both everlasting sacrifice and the venerated deity. Besides the many graffiti with personal names some very rough-cut arched niches without framing on the opposite rock indicate that we are indeed deal- ing with private votive installations; they again show the three separated betyls as in the aedicula niches above.36 The following two rectangular niches, better shaped, have each got one betyl.37 The last niche shows a cavity in the form of a betyl. In this case the negative itself is not the betyl because at the bottom there is a groove hollowed out to put in a portable betyl. The betyl could be kept at home and was taken to the niche for special rituals from time to time. E. A. Knauf has mentioned the charming idea that the betyls in this way were re-loaded with sanctity.38 A more developed place to pray and to venerate one's own god consists of some steps from a rock ledge to another ledge and a niche with a rectangular betyl. Some steps in front are broken away. To the right of the steps there are two water basins in a type called “Nischenbassin” by Dalman.39 This reminds one of an arrangement at el-Medras at Petra (D. 62) among many other simi- lar installations. The steps, the lustration basins, the ledge, and the “bench” in front of the niche, are all elements of a typical Nabataean niche ‘sanctuary',

33 H. Merklein, in M. Görg, (ed.), Meilenstein. Festgabe für Herbert Donner, (ÄgAT, 30, Wiesbaden, 1995), 111f., 115f. 34 WR No. 111. The graffito is near a niche, JS I Fig. 209?, which is empty. Sa'bu as PN is attested in the nearby graffito JS 87/WR 77. For Sa'bu, cf. Milik in WR p. 158; J.T. Milik, SHAJ, I (1982), 263-265; K. Dijkstra, Life and Loyality, (Leiden, 1995), 61f., 310-314. 35 Cf. Merklein in Meilenstein, (1995), 110f., 114. 36 JS, I 424 Fig. 213, 1-2. 37 JS, I 424 Fig. 213, 3-4. 38 E.A. Knauf, in Weber-Wenning, Petra, (1997), 20. 39 JS, I 425 et seq.; figs. 215 et seq. For evidence of “Nischenbassins” at Petra and their function, cf. D. p. 93-95. 264 HEGRA AND PETRA: SOME DIFFERENCES better called a veneration place. Two such basins side by side are unusual. They could have been used for different purposes. There are no other basins in the area. Further up the hill some more steps lead to a small plateau with a rectangu- lar betyl in a roughly cut rectangular niche.40 The plateau is large enough to assemble some devotees in front of the betyl, but it is hardly a High Place as suggested by Healey; there are no cultic installations. The betyl is decorated with two square “eyes” and a “nose”. The eyes are a well-known element in ancient Arabian art. In the Nabataean betyls they seem to indicate the astral connotation of the deity. These eye-idols are commonly attributed to Al- {Uzza41, but do not exclusively represent this goddess, as is clear from the betyl of Al-Kutba at Ain Shellaleh in Wadi Ramm. The graffiti around the niche (JS 111-118) do not help us to identify the deity: they present just per- sonal names. Although Al-{Uzza was in the late Pre-Islamic period one of the great in the region, there is no reference at all to her among the Nabataean inscriptions of the region, not even in theophoric names. Therefore we should be cautious in identifying the Hegra betyl with Al-{Uzza, though this remains still a possibility. Summarizing, there are several gods and goddesses venerated in this area and there are some cultic installations for ritual performances and places to assemble. Some of them seem to be shared by different groups, others - strate their private character. Unlike at Petra various gods and their devotees are brought together in a very small area. This does not allow each group to have its own halls etc. The phenomenon is comparable to the tombs, where all available rocks had to be used for burial chambers, leaving no room for tri- clinia, and where chambers had to be shared for burial.

6.5. Niches and deities outside the Jabal Ithlib gorge There are a few more veneration places for different groups along the west- ern faces and gorges of the Jabal Ithlib and to the south of it. They clearly belong to the sacred area. Between parts of a quarry and obviously somehow connected to the place with the eye-idol five graffiti (JS 57-60; 119) are from the members of a mrzÌ of the “Lord of the Temple”. Names and titles show that the devotees

40 JS, I 426 Fig. 247; Healey, TIMS, 10, 35, Pl. 13. 41 Cf. M. Lindner, ZDPV, 104 (1988), 84-91; F. Zayadine,, MEFRA, 103 (1991), 283-289. The eye-idol in the Department of Antiquities at Riyadh is probably much older and closer to reliefs from Tayma', though it differs from them. Cf. C. Edens - G. Bawden, JESHO, 32 (1989), 63f. No. 11. The famous eye-idol of Hayyan from the temple of the winged lions at Petra could be related to this old type and be connected with the renovatio under Rabb'el II rather than show- ing anthropomorphic features which are closer to Greek ideas. Cf. Wenning, in Arabia Antiqua, (1993), 86-93; H. Merhlein - R. Wenning, in FS M. Lindner, BBB (1998), 71-91. R. WENNING 265 belong to a particular group of high-ranking persons, among them a stan- dard-bearer(?), and a goldsmith, while the governors mentioned do not belong. Some of the personal names relate to the dynasty: ‘Abd‘obodat, Maliku, Sullay. This was a common attitude among royal officers42, but also among the masons (‘Abdobodat, ‘Abdmaliku, ‘Abdharetat). In the graffiti the restoration of a place for the god and a betyl(?) are mentioned but have not yet been identified in the difficult terrain. “The Lord of the Temple” is known from other inscriptions from Petra and Ain Shellaleh and is related to Dushara there. This expression has particular significance at Ain Shellaleh, where Allat had her temple. Therefore at Hegra too Dushara can be identi- fied with this epitheton rather than the local Qaysha.43 There is a second pos- sible explanation for the epitheton, which should be considered. Byt can denote a temple but also a dynasty. “The Lord of the Dynasty” would be again Dushara. South of the quarry there is a niche with an arched aedicula with a rectan- gular betyl.44 The style of the relief with an expression of monumentality is quite different from the others with aediculae.45 The arched tympanum shows an eagle who seems to hold in his claws a wreath which hangs down the archi- trave. The acroteria at the sides are large open vessels. Above, the eagle was related to Dushara or the god of heaven. Both niches with an eagle acroterium show a single betyl which can be identified with Dushara. At the bottom of the betyl, another small betyl is carved. A betyl in a betyl is not unusual and the very small size of the one put into the other is normal too. This combination may reflect the relation of two gods to each other. They could be the tribal or dynastic god Dushara and the family god. A little to the East there is a larger group of niches and graffiti which have only been partly published.46 Graffiti JS 139-141 give the names of three masons near a simple arched niche with three separated betyls47. There seems hardly to be any connection between these graffiti and the niche. Graffito JS 142 calls upon Dushara in the name of a secretary and it is below an aedicula with two betyls.48 The aedicula is set upon a monumental profiled podium which is too large compared with the aedicula. Therefore it should be consid- ered whether instead of one monument upon the other it can be seen as one

42 Cf. Graf 1994 in Dabrowa (1994), 293-295. 43 The epitheton of JS, 59 is follwed by “'lht”, which does not fit. JS considered the reference to be to a female deity. M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik III, (Giessen, 1915), 270, added a personal name: “the god of T[aymu]”. J.-B. Chabot, RES, 1111, reads: “his god”. 44 JS, I 427-429 Fig. 218. 45 The eagle can be compared with that of tomb D (AD 74/75). For the different styles of the eagles, cf. McKenzie, Architecture, (1990), 16f. For a cup with the relief of an eagle from the central area, cf. M. Al-Ibrahim – D. Talhi, Atlal, 12 (1989), 23 Pl. 17,1. 46 JS, I 429 Fig. 219, 1-3-221. 47 JS, I 430 Fig. 220. 48 JS, I 430-432 Fig. 221. 266 HEGRA AND PETRA: SOME DIFFERENCES behind the other, as it have been suggested for the two floors of the Khazne in Petra. Then we would have an altar in front of the aedicula. The aedicula type is related to temple architecture and possibly symbolizes a Ìamana, a shrine.49 Different from the other Hegra aediculae, this one has no acroteria on the acroteria bases while this type is very common at Petra. There we have also examples of two betyls in such aediculae, one betyl smaller than the other. They seem to represent Dushara and a female hypostasis, called Al-{Uzza. If the type has been transferred from Petra to Hegra it would be possible to assume that it is also the case concerning the deities. We have to consider that people like to venerate their gods “abroad” in familiar forms and do not changes names and types. On the other hand, we lack evidence for Al-{Uzza in the region. Therefore there it also could be possible to identify the betyls with Dushara and Manotu, although this means just a change of names, not of the function. South of the small sanctuary (see below) there is in the plain another iso- lated rock outcrop with niches and graffiti. Four niches are published50, one with a horned altar and three arched aediculae, one with a rectangular betyl, and two with two betyls. In both cases the right betyl is smaller. One of the aediculae has an urn as central acroterium. If these local elements51 affect also the identification of the betyls, we could have a different combination of deities than in the tympanum aedicula above, where we opted for Dushara and Manotu(?). Here Manotu and her Qaysha would fit nicely, but this cannot be more than a suggestion.52 One may wonder if these elements of the composition of the niches can be taken for such definite interpretation. Of course, there is a danger of overinterpreting the evidence and we should be careful to identify the betyls with particular gods too absolutely. But, for the Nabataeans it must have been possible to recognize the betyls. The shape of a betyl, the different grouping of betyls, the various types of framing the niche and its decoration and the immediate surroundings are the elements for a clear identification of the betyl/deity, if an inscription is missing. We need further research to be able to read the betyls as easily as the Nabataeans. It might be that we never reach this ability, but we should not be satisfied to take the betyls just as nameless idols.

49 Cf. K.S. Freyberger, in Weber-Wenning, Petra, (1997), 82-84. 50 JS, I 432-434 Figs. 223-224. 51 For the aedicula type, cf. JS I Figs. 209 and 226b and a slightly different type in figs. 205, 206, and 208. The small pillars with bevelled tops on both sides of the betyls in aedicula fig. 224 b are highly unusual. 52 Two other rock outcrops are in the settlement area of ez-Zemeileh. In connection with the southern one, details of an inaccessible chamber and two roughly-cut niches with betyls and graf- fiti have been published in JS II, (Paris, 1914), 106 Pl. 55,3. Some of the tombs also have small niches with a betyl (cf. JS, I Fig. 225; WR Fig. 65). R. WENNING 267

6.6. The so-called small sanctuary There is a small single rock of about 4.5 m height in the plain 150 m south of group JS 139-142, called a sanctuary by Jaussen-Savignac. It contains a chamber of 5 x 4-5.4 m, which opens towards the Jabal Ithlib.53 There are var- ious niches in the walls and a small unfinished burial-chamber(?) in the north- western corner. Healey points to the fact that there are installations on the flat roof of the rock, which could support the interpretation as a sanctuary. This reminds one of Strabo (XVI 4, 26) from whom we learn that the Nabataeans venerated the heavenly god (for him the sun) on the roof of their houses. That the niches of the chamber were used to set up betyls needs to be checked.54 Nevertheless, the isolated rock, the orientation towards Jabal Ithlib, the arrangement of the niches and the proximity to other votive niches and cultic installations give reason rather to suggest some equal function here too. The three graffiti from the chamber are not sufficient to decide for what the room was used and who were the owners.

The comparison of Hegra and Petra brings out similarities and differences of various kinds. It is still possible to learn from each site about the other. The differences cannot be explained by one factor only. Some are to be explained by local pecularities and local traditions due to the mixed population of Hegra, others are explained by the strong influence of Petra and the royal administra- tion. Of course the different functions of the two sites, one the capital and open to the Greek world, the other a border settlement engaged in the protection of the incense trade necessarily produced differences. The importance of Hegra for the Nabataean kingdom was the reason that the Nabataean king seemed to be so prominent at Hegra and Hegra so close to Petra despite all local ele- ments. Cultural interchange took place between the two cities but also between Hegra and the cities and tribes of the region, while it is still difficult to see direct interchange with the Greek world. Nevertheless, Greek elements were introduced by the masons and probably also by the officials from the capital. Hegra deserves its own rights.

53 JS, I 432 Fig. 222 (reversed); II 103f. Fig. 45, Pl. 55,1; Healey, TIMS, 11 Pl. 8. For the position of the rock, cf. JS, I Pl. 3 and 6. 54 Graffito JS 159, which is beside one of the niches, does not relate to a statue of a private person: The size of the niche (22 cm by 31 cm) is too small. In JS II a relief is suggested. A miniature portrait cannot be excluded, because the votive inscription is dated to the Sub- Nabataean Roman period, AD 126 at the earliest.

Top View