The Nabatean, Has- Monean and Herodian Kingdoms in Central Jordan

Home , Aretas III, Decapolis, Jalul, Moab, Tobiads

Chang-Ho C. Ji Chang-Ho C. Ji La Sierra University Riverside, CA 92515 U. S. A.

Drawing the Borderline: the Nabatean, Has- monean and Herodian Kingdoms in Central Jordan

In the analysis that followed his extensive Transjor- dan survey, Glueck (1939; 1970) suggested that the border of the Nabatean kingdom ran from the north end of the Dead Sea to Mådabå, roughly along the course of the Wådπ Zarqå’ Må‘πn, and continued eastward to the desert. Examining the distribution of pottery in Transjordan, Glueck noticed the “complete” absence of Nabatean pottery in the region north of this east-west line. This observation, as illustrated in Figure 1, led to the thesis of “the Madaba line,” which set the northern limit of the Nabatean realm at Mådabå. Once the Mådabå line was set up, Glueck (1939, 1970) proposed another thesis that the northern part of the Nabatean kingdom in Hauran and southern Syria was reached, not through northern Jordan, but through the desert route via the Wådπ as-Sar˙ån. This thesis later led to the view that the area north of the east-west Mådabå line constituted Hasmonean-Herodian Par- ea and the confederation of cities called the Deca- polis, and that this confederation served as a buffer zone between the Hasmonean-Herodian state and the Nabatean kingdom (Abel 1938; Freyne 1980; Smith 1966; Spijkerman 1978; Will 1985). Needless to say, Glueck’s thesis of the Måd- 1. Nelson Glueck’s Madaba line. abå line provided a foundation for the subsequent debate over the northern limit of the Nabatean The purpose of the present study is to revisit the state. According to recent scholarship, contrary to enduring and intense controversy surrounding the Glueck’s proposal, the Nabateans were present in limit of the Nabatean kingdom in central Jordan, the region north of ‘Ammån, and Nabatean com- centering on Glueck’s thesis of the Madaba line, munities in the Decapolis cities provided the basis i.e. the border between the Nabatean kingdom and for a direct route to the Hauran from southern Jor- Hasmonean-Herodian Parea. Although there have dan (Gatier 1986; Graf 1986). In a similar fashion, been a large number of studies devoted to the ques- scholars suspect the credibility of the buffer-zone tions of whether or not the Nabateans were pres- thesis on the basis of the Jewish settlements in the ent north of ‘Ammån and what kind of relation- Decapolis and the continuous Jewish-Nabatean ships they maintained with the Decapolis cities, conflicts in the region (Graf 1986; cf. Avi-Yonah researchers have generally avoided examining the 1977; Tcherikover 1966). issues of where the boundary line lay between the

-617- Chang-Ho C. Ji

Nabatean and Hasmonean-Herodian kingdoms and pand his kingdom to the east and gain commercial how it changed during the course of Hellenistic and and military footholds along the King’s Highway Roman periods1. (Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews [hereinafter Ant] This article proceeds in three parts in order to 13.9.1)3. The six-month siege of Mådabå clearly amend this research lacuna. The first section begins indicates that the city was situated outside of the with a discussion of historical and textual evidence Hasmonean control prior to this battle, despite their related to the north-western border of the Naba- earlier victory over “sons of Jambri”, probably teans in central Jordan and thus the eastern limit members of a nomadic Arab tribe from Mådabå (1 of Hasmonean-Herodian Parea. The second sec- Maccabees [hereinafter Macc] 9:35-42; Ant 13.1.2 tion provides a review of archaeological findings and 4; for the Jambrites see Milik 1980; Harrison related to the Nabatean, Hasmonean and Herodi- 1996a; Bowersock 1983). Mådabå appears again in an kingdoms in central Jordan. The third section the list of cities of Moab held by Alexander Jan- presents a comparison and discussion of historical naeus during his reign (Ant 13.15.4). In 76 / 75BC, and archaeological evidence. In the process, we however, Hyrcanus II offered Mådabå and Libb, promote an alternative to Glueck’s “one-size-fits- along with ten other Hasmonean-held cities, to the all” thesis for the whole late Hellenistic and early Nabatean king Aretas III in return for his help in Roman period. The discussion involves a historical the civil war between Hyrcanus II and his brother division of the period into four stages and, in turn, Aristobulus II (Ant 14.1.4). Later, two funerary ste- describes how the borders between the Nabatean, lae, both of which are dated to the reign of Aretas Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms changed dur- IV, were erected at Mådabå and Umm ar-Raßåß by ing these stages2. a Nabatean military commander to commemorate his father and son (Claremont-Ganneau 1897; Har- Historical Evidence rison 1996a; Milik 1958). The Mådabå Plains Region The political history of Tall Óisbån appears to According to historical evidence, in 129BC the differ slightly from that of Mådabå. Óisbån seems Hasmonean king Hyrcanus I captured Seleucid to have been captured by the Hasmoneans during holdings at Mådabå and Samaga in an effort to ex- the reign of Hyrcanus I and remained under Has-

1 Having laid out the background and purpose of this study, it is as important to both the Nabateans and the Jews in general and timely to consider the potential meaning and nature of boundary played a crucial role in the emergence and development of their in the ancient world taking into account both similarities and dif- kingdoms, although the across-border transhumance was relatively ferences between ancient and modern times. Like modern states, common in the ancient period, and the division along the border Grosby (2002: 23) correctly points out, ancient kingdoms probably was much less conspicuous as measured by modern political and presupposed a conception of a territory that is not only bounded economic criteria. but also perceived to be somewhat contiguous within those bound- 2 The author’s sincere gratitude goes to Drs. Khairieh ‘Amr and aries. Besides, the ancient kingdoms presumably valued their terri- Jong Keun Lee who read and commented on the earlier drafts of tory as highly as do modern states and attempted to either preserve this paper. They also brought some additional related literature to or expand it as much as possible. the author’s attention. Yet, any errors or shortcomings in this ar- Nevertheless, this boundary is likely to have been more ambiguous ticle belong solely to the author. and fluid than is generally acknowledged in modern times. The 3 There is some dispute over the identification of Samaga with as- principal contrast is a different level of transhumance across the Såmik. Most scholars identify it with as-Såmik (Avi-Yonah 1977; political and geographical border; the ancient state borders did not Vyhmeister 1989). Yet, the Óisbån survey team visited as-Såmik serve to keep out general population as strictly as do the modern and collected sherds at the site three times in two different seasons, borders and thus, in antiquities, people could move from one state but failed to find any Hellenistic sherds. Hellenistic sherds were to another for various social and economic activities without much also absent at the sites in the immediate vicinity of as-Samik, which regulation or restriction (cf. Parker 1986). A consequence of such can be called “neighboring places.” This fact raised the question of demographic fluidity is the possible existence of a compact- ter the identification of Hellenistic Samaga. As a result, Ibach (1987: ritory, city, or fortress owned by one nation in the middle of the 170) rules out as-Såmik as a candidate for Hasmonean Samaga. territory belonging to other states (cf. Ji 2002; Wahlin 1993). Pre- However, recall that as-Såmik includes early Roman pottery that sumably, the ownership of these “territorial islands” outside of the is often hard to distinguish from late Hellenistic pottery. Further- regular political and geographical territory was jealously preserved more, “neighboring places” do not have to be located in the im- and protected by the state so that they could be inherited through mediate vicinity of the site. Notice that al-‘Ål and Umm Sirab, two the state political lineage. major Hellenistic sites in the region, are situated only 2 to 3km A similar view may be posed about the late Hellenistic and early northwest of as-Såmik. Accordingly, the author still considers as- Roman period in central Jordan. Along with the preceding discus- Samik a good candidate for Samaga, although it is not improbable sion, the author assumes that the geographical divide between that it may be found at al-‘Ål and Umm Sirab. the Nabatean and Hasmonean-Herodian kingdoms was perceived

-618- NABATEAN, HASMONEAN AND HERODIAN KINGDOMS IN CENTRAL JORDAN monean rule at least until the death of Herod the Herodian farmers settled in the hilly area of Óisbån Great. The site was probably added to the Has- and al-‘Umayrπ. monean territory in 129BC when Hyrcanus I captured Samaga and Mådabå (Ant 13.9.1; Vyhmeister The ‘Ammån-Wådπ as-Sπr Region 1989). Óisbån is also noted alongside Mådabå in The historical accounts of ‘Ammån are quite dif- the list of the cities of Moab that belonged to the ferent from those of Mådabå and Óisbån. First, in Hasmoneans at the beginning of the reign of Al- about 170BC, Jason — the Hellenizing Jewish high exander Jannaeus (Ant 13.15.4; Avi-Yonah 1977). priest — was deposed and forced to flee twice into However, the similarity between the two cities “the region of Ammanitis”. According to The Book ends here. Unlike Mådabå, Óisbån is absent in the of Maccabees (2 Macc 4:26-27, 5:8-9), charges list of twelve cities that Hyrcanus II delivered to against him were laid before “Aretas, tyrant of Arates III (Ant 14.1.4). This absence likely indi- the Arabs” and he fled again, this time to Egypt. cates that the city remained under the control of MacAdam (1992: 31) identifies Aretas the tyrant as the Hasmonean rulers throughout the last days of Aretas I, the Nabatean king. If this identification is the Hasmonean kingdom and into the beginning of correct, the implication is clear that the ‘Ammån the Roman period. This does not mean that Óisbån region was under the control of the Nabateans dur- remained the same all the way through to the end ing the mid-second century BC. Second, two addi- of the early Roman period. Well after the death of tional accounts in The Book of Maccabees (1 Macc Herod the Great, it is possible that Óisbån fell tem- 5:6-8; 2 Macc 12:17-19) also attest to the presence porarily into the hands of either the Nabateans or of Nabateans in the region. According to these ac- of other Arab tribes since, during the early days of counts, Judas Maccabees attacked and captured the first Jewish revolt, insurgent Jews sacked and Jazer and Charax, two cities in Ammanitis, both attempted to capture the city of Óisbån and its dis- of which were under the command of Timotheus. trict (Josephus The Wars of the Jews [hereinafter Although the identity of Timotheus remains am- Wars] 2.18.1). This view differs from Avi-Yonah’s biguous, MacAdam and others suggest that he was alternative view (Avi-Yonah 1977: 77) that Óisbån a Greek strategos of Ammanitis in the pay of the was ceded by Hyrcanus II and retaken by Herod the Nabatean king (Bar-Kochva 1989; Goldstein 1976; Great after his victory over the Nabateans. MacAdam 1992). In addition, it should be recalled A couple of other facts also support this argu- that Jazer and Charax are usually identified as Kh- ment. First, during the early Roman period, Óisbån irbat as-Sπr and Khirbat as-Sør respectively (Avi- appears to have been a military colony of Herod the Yonah 1977; Goldstein 1983; MacAdam 1992). Great. In Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (15.8.5), Given that this identification is plausible, the entire we are told that Herod selected some horse-men region of the Wådπ as-Sπr and ‘Iråq al-Amπr is like- from his armies and settled them at Óisbån / Esbus. ly to have been Nabatean during the early second Second, this view is in accordance with the geo- century BC, after the death of the Tobiad Hyrcanus, graphical division of the Mådabå plains into north- but was soon turned over to the Hasmoneans during ern hilly and southern plateau regions. Both geo- the early days of the Maccabean revolt. However, graphically and topographically, the Mådabå plains there is nothing to indicate that ‘Ammån fell into is clearly divided into a northern hilly and southern the hands of the Hasmoneans; it appears to have re- plateau area, and this sub-division is related to the mained firmly under Nabatean control throughout settlement and political history of the region during the period under discussion. the Iron Age and the Roman-Byzantine period (Ji In addition to the Maccabean account there is Jo- 1998a). Traditionally, the southern plateau is a pas- sephus, who in the year 135BC says that the ‘Am- toral zone and thus has been inhabited primarily by mån region was under the control of Zenon Cotylas nomadic tribes. In contrast, the northern hilly area and his son Theodorus, “tyrants of Philadelphia” constitutes an agricultural heartland with cities, (Ant 13.13.3; Wars 1.4.2). MacAdam (1992: 31) small villages and farmsteads. This sub-regional suggests that they may have been Nabatean mili- division may also be applicable to the late Helle- tary commanders with Hellenized names. Once nistic and early Roman periods, during which the again, Josephus attests to Alexander Jannaeus’ nomadic Nabateans may have controlled the south- siege of Philadelphia, however the Nabateans with- ern plateau region, whereas sedentary Hasmonean- stood these attacks by the Hasmonean king (Ant

-619- Chang-Ho C. Ji

13.13.3; Wars 1.4.3). There is further textual evi- could mean that Jazer remained securely under the dence for the contention that Philadelphia and its control of the Jews during the transition from the vicinity were part of the Nabatean territory during Hasmonean dynasty to the Herodian kingdom. the transition from late Hellenistic to early Roman If Jazer and the unknown fort were respectively periods. According to Josephus, in 65BC Aretax located at Khirbat as-Sπr and Khirbat Sår, an in- III besieged Jerusalem in order to intervene in the triguing question arises: could it be that the upper family quarrel about succession between Aristobu- stream of the Wådπ as-Sπr was the boundary be- lus II and Hyrcanus II. Pompey threatened a Ro- tween Hasmonean-Herodian Parea and Nabatean man invasion of the Nabatean kingdom unless the Ammanitis during the period between the Macca- king withdrew his forces from Jerusalem. Arates III bean conquest of Jazer and Herod’s victory over was terrified and retired from Judea to Philadelphia Malichus I in 31BC? In light of the historical sum- (Wars 1.6.3). This account suggests that Philadel- mary above, it is certainly possible. Indeed, it is phia was under the control of the Nabateans during more likely in view of the fact that Tall al-Jådør, the period from the mid-second century BC until identified with Parean Gadar, is located north of the the Roman invasion (MacAdam 1992). upper stream of the Wådπ as-Sπr. This seems also to be the case during the early Roman period. According to Josephus’ account The Libb-Machaerus Region (Ant 20.1.1-3), in 44 – 45AD the Judean procura- The literary evidence that comments on the region tor Cuspius Fadus had to settle a dispute between of Machaerus and the Wådπ al-Møjib is also rela- the Jews in Parea and the Nabateans in the city of tively abundant and clear (Piccirillo 1979; Strobel Philadelphia regarding the boundaries of the vil- 1974). According to Josephus (Wars 7.6.2), Alex- lage called Zia. Zia is commonly identified with ander Jannaeus founded a fort at Machaerus after modern Zay, several kilometers west of the city stabilizing his control of the Wådπ Zarqå’ Må‘πn of as-Sal† (MacAdam 1992: 33). At this point, it is region. In 57BC, the citadel was demolished for worth mentioning Tall al-Jådør, the best candidate the first time by Gabinius when Pompey waged for ancient Gadar, one of four capital cities of the a punitive war against Aristobulus II. Herod the Parea with its own toparchy. Tall al-Jådør is locat- Great rebuilt a strong fort at the site in 30BC, soon ed near the modern city of as-Sal†, just a few kilo- after he became king of Judea. Ancient historians meters south-west of the village of Zay. This fact, and geographers are silent about what happened to added to the previous observation, indicates that Machaerus during the period of 57-30BC. Howev- the as-Sal† region was probably settled by Jewish er, in view of the fact that the Nabateans were most residents and that the boundary between them and likely aiming for the territory west of the modern the Nabateans at ‘Ammån was located somewhere King’s Highway during this period, it is not im- between ‘Ammån and as-Sal†. possible that they extended their control into the In contrast, the fate of the Wådπ as-Sπr region — Machaerus region after the Gabinius’ victory over south of Tall al-Jådør — remains somewhat vague the Hasmoneans at Machaerus. during the early Roman period. In 31 BC, Herod Upon the death of Herod the Great in 4BC, his waged a war in the ‘Ammån region against the kingdom was divided into three parts. Herod Anti- Nabateans and took possession of a fort belonging pas inherited the Machaerus region as part of Par- to the Nabateans (Wars 1.19.5). MacAdam (1992) ea. Machaerus came under direct Roman admin- identifies this fort with Khirbat as-Sør. However, istration following the death of Herod’s nephew in the author’s view this identification is not with- Agrippa (44AD) and was dismantled once again in out problem, since as-Sør is situated within the 72AD, during the Jewish revolt against the Roman boundaries of Parea, far to the west of Tall al-Jådør Empire (Wars 7.6.1-4). In the meantime, Herod An- and ‘Ammån. A better candidate might be Khirbat tipas fell in love with his cousin Herodias and had Sår near the modern city of Wådπ as-Sπr, where to divorce his legitimate wife, a Nabatean princess. the ‘Iråq al-Amπr survey team found copious early Upon discovering her fate, the Nabatean princess Roman pottery (Ji and Lee 2002). In this vein, it went to Machaerus without informing Herod Anti- should be recalled that the historical sources are pas of any of her intentions and from there fled to silent concerning Jazer, which was captured by Ju- her farther, Aretas IV, via Herodian fortresses in the das Maccabees in the mid-second century BC. This Sayl Hπdån (Ant 18.5.1; Strobel 1997). Concomi-

-620- NABATEAN, HASMONEAN AND HERODIAN KINGDOMS IN CENTRAL JORDAN tantly, we should not discount the possibility that spread and intensive. This view accords with the Machaerus fell temporarily into the hands of the results from subsequent excavations that produced Nabatean ruler during the rule of Herod Antipas a wealth of Nabatean material evidence. (Vyhmeister 1989: 12). Additionally, we now have stratified evidence Two suggestions emerge from this textual ex- for the late Hellenistic settlement at Mådabå: a ploration. The first point we can deduce is that the series of walls, at least two towers, various cook- region of Machaerus was annexed into the Has- ing installations and large quantities of pottery and monean realm no later than the reign of Alexander coins (Harrison et al. 2000; van Elderen 1972). Fer- Jannaeus and to all intents and purposes remained guson (2002), based on his analysis of the archae- part of Herodian Parea until the first Jewish revolt ological evidence, credibly suggests that Mådabå broke out. Nevertheless, this Hasmonean-Herodian was occupied during the late-second and early-first occupation of the site was interrupted, possibly centuries BC and had “clear connections with the twice, by the Nabateans — once during the period Hasmoneans” during the late Hellenistic period. 58-30BC and then again at some time before the The relatively strong representation of Nabatean first Jewish revolt in the first century AD. The sec- activity in Mådabå stands in contrast with the ar- ond point is that the historical accounts strongly chaeological evidence from nearby Mount Nebo. imply that the region of Hasmonean-Herodian Par- Despite decades of excavation, there is no conclu- ea had a common border with the Nabateans some- sive evidence for Nabatean settlement and activity where near the gorges of Sayl Hπdån and Wådπ al- in the Mount Nebo area (cf. Piccirillo and Alliata Møjib. This notion is based on the identification of 1998). In similar vein, Gitler (1998) studied 157 Machaerus with Qal‘at al-Mishnaqa and the loca- coins recovered between 1969 and 1996, but his tion of Herodian fortresses in Sayl Hπdån and Wådπ catalogue lacks Nabatean coins. In contrast, coins al-Møjib (Piccirillo 1979; Strobel 1974, 1997). minted in the time of Alexander Jannaeus are com- What is unclear from the texts is whether or not mon in the Mount Nebo area, indicating a Has- Herod the Great ever recaptured the cities east of monean presence in the area during the first century Machaerus, such as ‘A†arøz and Libb, when he re- BC (Ji and Lee 2004). built the Hasmonean fort at Machaerus and forti- On the other hand, excavations at Óisbån have fied the surrounding area. We have no textual refer- discovered two settlement phases dated to the late ence to what happened to the areas of ‘A†arøz and Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Stratum 15 Libb after Hyrcanus II handed Libb over to Aretas appears to have been a late Hellenistic military III. One scenario is that the ‘A†arøz-Libb area was fort with a small number of buildings at the foot of again incorporated within Herodian Parea late in the fortress. Mitchel (1992) relates this stratum to the first century BC when Machaerus was rebuilt. the Hasmoneans and dates it to the period of 198- Another scenario is that these cities remained 63BC. According to a new interpretation, however, within the bounds of Nabatean territory despite the Stratum 15 is more likely to have been inhabited Herodian advance toward Machaerus and Wådπ al- from the late-second century to the mid-first cen- Møjib. tury BC, and the fort at the site appears to be associated with Alexander Jannaeus rather than his Archaeological Evidence Hasmonean predecessors (Ji and Lee 2004). In co- The Mådabå Plains Region nytrast, Stratum 14 appears to represent the early Having explored the historical record, we now Roman period. Mitchel (1992, 1994) suggests that turn to archaeological evidence. In 1993, Harrison early Roman Óisbån was a small village around (1996b) conducted a collection of surface sherds the Hasmonean fort on the summit of the site that covering 166 squares, each measuring 50 x 50m., was occupied by Herod’s veterans. A further ob- in order to understand changes in settlement pat- servation that supports the hypothesis of continu- terns at Mådabå. Nabatean pottery was present in ous Jewish settlement at Óisbån is the smooth and 22 squares and early Roman in 23 squares. The gradual transition from Stratum 15 to Stratum 14. strong representation of Nabatean pottery in the This point can be established more firmly once survey posits that the early Roman settlement at we take two additional findings into consideration. Mådabå took place under the auspices of the Na- First, note the discovery of early Roman tombs with bateans and that their occupation was both wide- a rolling-stone door and interior individual loculi

-621- Chang-Ho C. Ji at Tall Óisbån (Waterhouse 1994, 1998). This type for Nabatean activity at Óisbån, however, still im- of tomb is not only unusual in Jordan, but is also poses limitations on the validity of such an inter- geographically associated with the Jerusalem area pretation for Strata 13-14 (Mitchel 1992: 64). (Kritzeck and Nitowski 1980). To date, there is no A potential analogy exists at Tall al-‘Umayrπ. hint that tombs with rolling-stone doors are found During the late Hellenistic and Roman periods, Tall elsewhere in Jordan, especially in the Nabatean al-‘Umayrπ was a farming village with domestic heartland of southern Jordan. This indicates that the buildings, semi-circular bins and several pits (Herr early Roman settlers at Óisbån were closely associ- et al. 1999). The ethnic identification of this village ated with the Herodian Jews in the Jerusalem area, stands out all the more clearly once the plaster-lined rather than the Arab and Nabatean tribes east of bath of Field A is taken into consideration. This the Jordan River. Second, the ceramic corpus also bath is a typical example of the ceremonial bath points to the existence of a Herodian population at known as miqveh, which was associated with the Óisbån during the early Roman period. According Jewish population during the late Hellenistic and to Sauer (1994), early Roman pottery from Óisbån Roman periods (cf. Reich 1990)4. The question of contrasts with contemporary ceramic assemblages the exact date of the ritual bath at Tall al-‘Umayrπ from other sites in Jordan. The best parallels come remains unresolved. Originally, the excavators dat- from Qumrån, Masada, Machaerus, Khirbat al- ed it to the early Roman period on the basis of the Mukhayya† and ‘Iråq al-Amπr. It is noteworthy that latest pottery associated with the installation (Herr all these sites were part of the Herodian kingdom et al. 2000; Lawlor 1991; personal communication or Parea. The distinctive nature of the Óisbån pot- with Douglas Clark 2001). A more probable expla- tery led Sauer to conclude that Óisbån was part of nation is that this installation belongs to the late Herodian Parea, not Nabatea, during the early Ro- Hellenistic occupation on the southern summit of man period. the site (cf. Herr et al. 1999). The late Hellenistic At Tall Óisbån, the 1968-74 excavations yielded remains cluster on the central and south sides of the more than 250 coins, including five Hasmonean and summit, including Fields A, H, and L. Note that the 19 Nabatean coins (Terian 1971, 1974, 1976). All bath was located in Field A. Similarly, it is notice- of the Hasmonean coins, except for one from the able that no early Roman architecture has as yet time of Antigonus Mattathias, were minted during been uncovered at Tall al-‘Umayrπ, although Ro- the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. All the Nabatean man sherds are sporadically found on the surface. coins are assigned to either Aretas IV or Rabbel II. In any case, a Hellenistic date for the ritual bath Of particular interest to us is the discovery of an is not easily dismissed as no definitive evidence is Alexander Jannaeus coin from the bedrock surface available; on the basis of its presence at the site, associated with the late Hellenistic fortress (Mitchel Tall al-‘Umayrπ appears to have been Hasmonean 1992: 161; Terian 1976: 134), which gives a clue to and Herodian in the late Hellenistic — early Ro- the construction date of the late Hellenistic fortress man period. and its relationship to the Hasmonean kingdom. The Óisbån survey team visited 148 sites within Given the discovery of this coin, the early years of a 10km. radius of Tall Óisbån (Ibach 1987). Sherds the first century BC could be regarded as aterminus of the Hellenistic and early Roman periods were post quem for the construction of this fortress, with found at 21 and 57 sites respectively, with a heavy Alexander Jannaeus as its builder. Equally interest- concentration in the region between al-‘Umayrπ and ing to us is the stratigraphic distribution of Naba- Óisbån. Nabatean evidence is noticeably absent in tean coins; three coins came from Stratum 14 and the survey area. Only two Nabatean sherds were seven from Stratum 13. No Nabatean coins were found during the three seasons of surface explora- found in Stratum 15 and Stratum 12 (see Mitchel tion, both of which came from Tall Jaløl on the des- 1992: 161-163). One may argue that this relatively ert fringe (Ibach 1987). Equally noteworthy is the narrow distribution of Nabatean coins indicates the absence of Nabatean evidence at Tall al-‘Umayrπ Nabatean connection with Strata 13-14. The virtual and its surroundings. Despite years of extensive ex- absence of ceramic and other artifactual evidence cavation, distinctive Nabatean pottery sherds were

4 The author would like to thank Nachum Sagiv, who originally led and archaeological importance to the study of the Hasmonean and his attention to the ritual bath at Khirbat ‘A†arøz, and its historical Herodian periods in Jordan.

-622- NABATEAN, HASMONEAN AND HERODIAN KINGDOMS IN CENTRAL JORDAN not found anywhere in the al-‘Umayrπ survey re- ties rather than permanent settlement. gion (cf. Herr et al. 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000). The al-‘Umayrπ survey team visited 140 sites within a The ‘Ammån-Wådπ as-Sπr Region 5km. radius of the site and documented 19 early One of the most noteworthy results of the series of Roman sites (Boling 1989; Christopherson et al. excavations at ‘Ammån Citadel is the extensive late 2002; Younker 1991). This number is larger than Hellenistic — early Roman occupation revealed on the seven attributed to the Hellenistic period. This both the lower and upper terraces. Furthermore, this relative abundance of early Roman evidence stands occupation appears to be linked to the Nabateans in stark contrast to the total absence of Nabatean (Bennett 1979; Russell et al. 1997; Zayadine 1973, evidence within a 5km. radius of al-‘Umayrπ. In 1977; Zayadine, Najjar and Greene 1987). Specifi- the author’s view, these oddities in the survey data cally, excavations on the lower terrace revealed the — combined with the presence of a ritual bath at remains of early Roman architecture with a floor Tall al-‘Umayrπ — tilts the balance of probability upon which Nabatean coins of Aretas IV were in favor of Hasmonean and Herodian control of the found (Zayadine 1973), thereby suggesting that the Óisbån and al-‘Umayrπ region during the late Hel- area was used by the Nabateans during the first half lenistic and early Roman periods. of the first century AD. The early Roman settle- Given that Tall Jaløl is the only solid evidence ment was built upon the late Hellenistic one. There for a Nabatean presence that has come out of the are no traces of violent destruction between the late Óisbån-al-‘Umayrπ survey, we continue to examine Hellenistic phase and the early Roman one. This is the results of the ongoing excavations and inten- somewhat surprising given the Hasmonean attack sive surveys at this site. The excavation team have on the city at about 100BC; perhaps it remained in- recovered abundant evidence for Iron Age I and tact despite the war. When excavations progressed II settlements, but no data — except for a small to the upper terrace of the citadel, Zayadine (1977) amount of post-Persian debris in Field B — for Has- again uncovered the remains of a late Hellenistic monean and Nabatean settlement at the site (Herr et — early Roman settlement and reservoir, followed al. 1996; Younker and Merling 2000; Younker et al. by another early Roman phase. A Nabatean date 1996). In 1976 and 2000, the Óisbån survey team for the reservoir is possible, given the discovery of conducted intensive surface surveys at Jaløl, which decorated Nabatean ware in the foundation trench yielded approximately 4,800 diagnostic sherds of its walls. A bronze coin of Aretas IV found on (Groves, Borstad, and Christopherson 1995; Ibach the floor of the reservoir is further evidence for a 1978). Two hypotheses arise from this result. First, Nabatean link with this feature. the scarcity of Hellenistic pottery points to a poten- The Roman Forum has additional evidence for tial gap in occupation at Jaløl during the Hellenistic late Hellenistic — early Roman — Nabatean activ- period, despite the discovery of a few Hellenistic ity in the ‘Ammån area (Hadidi 1974). The stra- sherds from the pit in Field B (personal commu- tigraphy of the excavated area shows a mixture of nication with Gary L. Christopherson 2002). Sec- late Hellenistic and early Roman sherds, coins and ond, in contrast to the Hellenistic period, Jaløl was artifacts. What is particularly interesting for the clearly occupied during the early Roman period; present study is the fill underneath the second cen- the discovery of Nabatean pottery during the 1976 tury Roman building phase. This foundation fill in- survey could indicate that this Roman settlement cludes Hellenistic sherds and Seluecid coins, all of was connected with Nabatean activity at the site at which date to the second century BC. Also note the this time (Ibach 1978). Third, we turn to the results discovery of one Sidonian and two Nabatean coins of the survey around Jaløl. According to the Jaløl from the same fill. The Sidonian coin dates to 60/ regional survey, there are only four archaeological 59BC; one Nabatean coin is of Aretas IV and the sites within a 5km. radius of the site, one of which other of Rabbel II. The complete absence of early yielded Hellenistic and Nabatean sherds. This re- Hellenistic and Ptolemaic sherds and coins is strik- sult clearly suggests that the Jaløl region, like Tall ing. This suggests that the settlement around the Jaløl itself, was sparsely settled during the Helle- Roman Forum was founded in the Seleucid period nistic and early Roman periods. In all likelihood, and continued in use into the first century AD, very the Nabatean presence at Jaløl and its surroundings likely under the auspices of the Nabatean kings. was connected with nomadic or commercial activi- Analysis of the coins from the 1964-67 excavations

-623- Chang-Ho C. Ji provides supporting numismatic evidence (Hadidi — early Roman settlements in the ‘Iråq al-Amπr 1973). The coin catalogue includes three Seleucid area. The excavations at ‘Iråq al-Amπr yielded one coins, dated to the second and early-first centuries Hasmonean coin of Alexander Jannaeus and three BC, and four Nabatean coins of Aretas II, Aretas Nabatean coins of Aretas IV (Lapp 1983). Another IV and Rabbel II 5. Hasmonean coin was recovered in the area of the Turning to the area south of ‘Ammån, we see monumental gateway to the Qaßr al-Abd and was no evidence of later Hellenistic and early Roman dated to the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (Dentzer, settlement at Sa˙åb (Ibrahim 1972, 1974, 1975). Villeneuve and Larché 1983). At Khirbet as-Sør, The Sa˙åb regional survey documented more than the ‘Iråq al-Amπr survey team conducted a coin 130 sites (Ibrahim et al. 1984). Of these, only two survey, which yielded six Hellenistic and early Ro- sites yielded Nabatean sherds, whereas five and man coins, including one Hasmonean coin of Hy- seven sites yielded late Hellenistic — early Ro- racanus I and one Nabatean coin dated to Malichus man and early Roman pottery respectively. Much II (Ji and Lee 2004). The Hasmonean and Nabatean the same can be said for Tall Jåwå. Several seasons coins from Khirbat as-Sør, along with those from of excavation at Jåwå have uncovered no Hellenis- ‘Iråq al-Amπr, are important to our discussion of tic or early Roman occupation phases (cf. Daviau the late Hellenistic history of the region; they may 1992; 1993; 1994; 1996). Given these results, the point to Hasmonean and Nabatean activity during Jåwå-Sa˙åb region appears to have been sparsely this period. Until now, however, there is no archi- occupied during the Hellenistic and early Roman tectural or ceramic evidence for specific Nabatean periods. settlements in the region to support the late Naba- As stated above, the Wådπ as-Sπr region is tean numismatic evidence from the village of ‘Iråq thought by most scholars to be related to the early al-Amπr. What is also noteworthy is the absence of Hasmonean expansion east of the Jordan and their distinctive Nabatean sherds at and around Khirbat wars against the Nabateans. Excavations at ‘Iråq as-Sør, Khirbat as-Sπr and Khirbat Sår. al-Amπr uncovered a late Hellenistic — early Ro- man settlement phase comprising two sub-phases, The Libb-Machaerus Region with a short period of abandonment between the Excavation of the Hellenistic-Roman remains at two (Lapp 1962, 1963). In addition, the Wådπ as- Machaerus has demonstrated that a Hasmonean Sπr region has been the subject of intensive surveys fort was built there during the reign of Alexander which show that the area around ‘Iråq al-Amπr gen- Jannaeus and subsequently underwent substantial erally experienced a relatively high level of human transformation under the auspices of Herodian rul- activity during the late Hellenistic and early Roman ers during the early Roman period (Bianchi and periods (Ji 1998b, 2001; Ji and Lee 1999, 2002; Vil- Faggella 1993; Corbo 1980; Corbo and Loffreda leneuve 1988). For the moment, we are especially 1981; Loffreda 1980; Piccirillo 1979, 1980). The concerned with the evidence from Khirbat as-Sør, author’s ongoing excavations at nearby Khirbat Khirbat as-Sπr and Khirbat Sår. Different survey ‘A†arøz have also uncovered late Hellenistic — teams have visited Khirbat Sår and collected Hel- early Roman ceramic fills and building remains lenistic and early Roman material, indicating that it linked with the Hasmonean-Herodian settlements. was resettled at this time (Glueck 1939; Ji and Lee A case in point is another example of the under- 1999, 2002). The survey data from Khirbat as-Sπr ground ritual bath known as miqveh, this time lo- and Khirbat as-Sør also suggest that they were in cated on the eastern slope of Khirbat ‘A†arøz. As use during the Hellenistic — early Roman periods. mentioned above, this type of bath was associated There is also numismatic evidence for the with the Hasmonean-Herodian population. Hasmonean connection with the late Hellenistic Far more difficult to determine is the extent of the

5 In the late 1980s, a systematic archaeological survey was mounted total lack of Hellenistic evidence and a very poor representation in the north Greater Amman region (Abu Dayyah et al. 1991). The of early Roman in the northeast area of the Amman region (Sim- survey team visited 222 archaeological sites and found Hellenistic mons and Kafafi 1988). Unfortunately, however, in both surveys, and early Roman evidence at 14 and 61 sites, in the order given. the early Roman pottery was not further specified into Nabatean This result indicates a moderate level of Hellenistic settlement in and general early Roman pottery, and hence, is not of great help the region and a subsequent sharp increase in population during the for our purposes. early Roman period. In contrast, the ‘Ayn Ghazål survey shows a

-624- NABATEAN, HASMONEAN AND HERODIAN KINGDOMS IN CENTRAL JORDAN evidence for Nabatean occupation in the ‘A†arøz- settlements and caravan routes, either building Machaerus region. Gleuck’s survey of the Libb- new structures or repairing earlier Iron Age II for- Machaerus area indicated that Nabatean sherds are tifications. The Nabatean period also witnessed an common at ‘A†arøz, Machaerus and in the region be- impressive settlement intensification at Mudayna tween Wådπ Zarqå’ Må‘πn and Sayl Hπdån (Gleuck ath-Thamad (Daviau, Mulder-Hymans and Foley 1939: 131-136). At ‘A†arøz, however, ongoing ex- 2000). The excavations at Mudayna ath-Thamad cavations have so far failed to recover any Nabatean have revealed a major Nabatean settlement at this evidence, which is in conflict with Glueck’s survey site, consisting of at least two settlement phases report, although further excavations at the site may dated to the early Roman period. yet provide a definitive answer. Finally, remains of the Nabatean period are Not far from ‘A†arøz is Khirbat Libb, a place prominant on the Dhπbån plateau. The Dhπbån Pla- mentioned several times in Glueck’s survey report. teau Survey demonstrated that 27 of the 421 survey Much of our current knowledge of the history of sites in the region had fine Nabatean painted ware Khirbat Libb comes from the efforts of three sepa- (Ji and Lee in press). Tushingham (1972, 1989) rate archeological surveys, conducted by Glueck, distinguished two periods of Nabatean settlement Elder and the author. The results are however con- at Dhπbån, both dated to the first century AD. Al- tradictory or, at best, inconsistent regarding the Na- Låhøn was also inhabited during the Nabatean pe- batean period. Gleuck (1939) visited Khirbat Libb riod, as indicated by a small square temple built on during his Transjordan survey and, as he claimed to bedrock in Area B2 and a large building complex have collected Nabatean sherds, asserted that it was in Area A1 (Homes-Fredericq 1986, 1989; Homes- occupied by the Nabateans. Libb was revisited by Fredericq and Naster 1979). Also, three seasons of the author in summer 2001 as part of the ‘A†arøz- excavation at ‘Arå‘ir have revealed Hellenistic and Machaerus area survey. Although the entire area of Nabatean remains dated to the late Hellenistic and ancient occupation has suffered from modern de- early Roman periods (Olavarri 1965). No interrup- velopment, the survey team still managed to collect tion of settlement seems to have occurred between more than 400 diagnostic sherds at the site. Not- the Hellenistic and Nabatean periods. withstanding the presence of early Roman sherds, no distinctive Nabatean pottery was found on the Discussion surface. In one sense, this caveat is partially recon- Textual Reconstruction of the Border Line ciled as Elder (2001) found two Nabatean sherds In light of the historical survey above, the late during his surveys of Khirbat Libb in 2000-01. Hellenistic to early Roman period upon which we Nevertheless, the dearth of Nabatean sherds at are concentrating can conveniently be divided into Khirbat Libb remains problematic in view of the four eras, according to the history and chronology of quantitative analysis made by the surveyor, which the Nabatean, Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms. demonstrated that Nabatean sherds constitute a The first period may be designated the Hasmonean near-zero percentage of the hundreds of diagnostic expansion era, the second and early-first centuries early Roman sherds gathered from the surface of BC. The second period would be the first Nabatean Khirbat Libb and in its immediate vicinity. expansion era, the mid-first century BC, while the On the other hand, the further we proceed from third period may be described as the era of Herodian Libb to the east, the stronger the evidence for a expansion, the late-first century BC. The fourth pe- Nabatean presence in the south-eastern part of the riod corresponds to the first century AD and is char- Mådabå plains becomes. This arid, desert fringe acterized by the revival of Nabatean fortunes in the area includes several early Roman and Nabatean area. Looking back over the early-second century sites, plus the extensive Nabatean settlement and BC, we can suggest that the region between ‘Am- caravansary at Umm al-Walπd (Glueck 1934: 10- mån and the Dhπbån plateau was largely under the 13, 1939: 137-139). The Limes Arabicus project control of Arab tribes and nomads (cf. Ant 12.4.11). also brought to light a cluster of Nabatean sites These tribes possibly advanced westward to the as- along the desert fringe in the south-eastern part of Sør region following the death of Tobiad Hyrcanus the Mådabå plains. In this area, according to Parker in the mid-second century BC. (1976; 1986), the Nabateans constructed a system The first stage of this historical sequence started of forts and watchtowers in order to defend their during the mid- and late-second century BC, when

-625- Chang-Ho C. Ji Maccabean leaders attacked and captured Jazer and Charax in the ‘Iråq al-Amπr region and the cities of Mådabå and Samaga on the Mådabå plains. The Hasmonean territory continued to expand south- ward to Sayl Hπdån during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, who built a fort at Machaerus and possibly other smaller defensive structures in the region. Óisbån and Libb are not mentioned in the list of the cities captured by the Hasmoneans, but very likely they were also incorporated around this time, as they are mentioned later as being among the cities of Moab that were in the Hasmonean hands during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. Further expansion of Hasmonean territory appears to have been blocked by Obodas I and Arates III, both of who defeated Alexander Jannaeus in their wars in Transjordan which occurred about 20 years apart. Be that as it may, in the mid-second and early-first century BC, the eastern limit of the Hasmonean kingdom seems to have run through al-‘Umayrπ, Óisbån, Mådabå and Libb, from Tall al-Jådør and as-Sπr in the north to Sayl Hπdån in the south (see FIG. 2). The western boundary of the Nabatean realm seems to have run along a line connecting ‘Ammån and Mudayna 2. The Hasmonean expansion period. ath-Thamad via Jaløl. The civil strife between Aristobulus II and Hyr- canus II led to a substantial reduction of Hasmonean territory in central Jordan. The cities of Libb and Mådabå were delivered to Aretas III. Possibly, the area of ‘A†arøz and Machaerus also fell into Na- batean hands after the destruction of Machaerus by the Roman army in 57BC. At the same time, the Nabateans seem to have advanced westward in the Wådπ as-Sπr region and built some fortresses, as implied by the statement that Herod the Great later took a fort possessed by the Nabateans. The hilly region of al-‘Umayrπ and Óisbån, however, appears to have stayed in Hasmonean and Jewish hands. This being the case, we may suggest that the advancing Nabatean people stopped along the line of Wådπ as-Sπr, ‘Ammån, Sa˙åb, Mådabå and the Wådπ Zarqå’ Må‘πn (see FIG. 3). The third phase of border dispute began with the emergence of the Herodian kingdom. The early reign of Herod the Great was characterised by successive wars, but Herod decisively defeated Malichus I in the ‘Ammån region in 32-31BC. In all likelihood, the Nabateans had to give up towns and fortresses in the region of Wådπ as-Sπr. After Machaerus fell under Herodian control, Herod rebuilt the Has- monean fort at the site. He also stationed some of 3. The first Nabatean expansion period.

-626- NABATEAN, HASMONEAN AND HERODIAN KINGDOMS IN CENTRAL JORDAN his army veterans at Óisbån to protect the area from tean Arab tribes, although the possibility of a Na- his enemies. It is uncertain whether or not Libb and batean connection cannot entirely be ruled out. In Mådabå became part of Herodian Parea. It is pos- any event, the new inhabitants probably had close sible that the Herodian expansion failed to reach economic ties with the Nabateans given the use of Libb and Mådabå at this time, given the absence Nabatean coins at Óisbån. On the other hand, ac- of textual evidence. This view would concur with cording to Josephus’ Antiquities 18.5.1 — which the written record that a Nabatean strategoi ruled describes the political history of Herod Antipas — in Mådabå during the first century AD. If so, in the the Machaerus region may temporarily have fallen second half of the first century BC the eastern limit under the influence of the Nabateans. Except for of the kingdom of Herod — and thus the western this possible interruption, the ‘A†arøz-Machaerus border of the Nabateans — would have been rep- region seems to have remained part of the kingdom resented by the eastern and western extent of the of Herod Antipas during the first century AD. Thus, Hasmonean and Nabatean kingdoms in the late- the western boundary of the Nabatean kingdom at second and early-first centuries BC, although the that time can be drawn along the line of ‘Ammån, Nabateans continuously maintained control over Sa˙åb and Mådabå (see FIG. 5). The historical re- the regions of Libb and Mådabå (see FIG. 4). cords are again silent about whether or not Libb After the death of Herod the Great, Óisbån was constituted part of the Nabatean kingdom, but the probably taken over by a non-Jewish population, absence of textual evidence suggests that this may in view of the fact that that insurgent Jews sacked have been the case. The remaining southern part of Óisbån and its vicinity at the outbreak of the Jewish the Nabatean boundary is therefore likely to have war. These new inhabitants could have been Naba- run along the line Mådabå-Libb-Sayl Hπdån. teans from the area of Mådabå, or else they were other Arab tribes from east of the Mådabå plains. Comparison to Archaeological Evidence Looking at the archaeological evidence from Óis- The archaeological data, to our dismay, do not en- bån, they are more likely to have been non-Naba- tirely support the textual reconstruction of border

4. The Herodian expansion period. 5. The second Nabatean expansion period.

-627- Chang-Ho C. Ji changes in the Nabateans and the Hasmonean- to show that Mådabå could have been occupied by Herodian kingdoms outlined above. The historical the Hasmoneans at some point during the late Hel- description of the Wådπ as-Sπr region is suscep- lenistic period, even though the exact nature of this tible to change as research is ongoing in that re- Hasmonean occupation remains somewhat elusive gion. The same is also true for the extent of Has- and awaits further excavation and publication. monean-Herodian control in the Libb-Machaerus In addition, the settlements to the south-east of region during the mid-first centuries BC and AD Mådabå have convincing evidence of Nabatean ac- In particular Gleuck’s report of Nabatean pottery at tivity; examples include Umm al-Walπd and Muday- and around Libb and Machaerus presents a special na ath-Thamad. Similarly, there are also large num- problem for the hypothesis of Hasmonean-Herodi- bers of early Roman Nabatean sites on the Dhπbån an dominance over that region. Responding to this plateau. The author has ascertained through surface dilemma, Gleuck (1939: 146) focused on the mar- survey that many of the early Roman Nabatean sites riage of Herod Antipas to the daughter of the Naba- on the Dhπbån plateau also include a number of tean king Aretas IV. This, in turn, led him to relate sherds dated to either the late Hellenistic period or the appearance of Nabatean pottery in the region the transition to the early Roman period (Ji and Lee to the short-lived detente between Herod Antipas in press). This fact may posit that, as in the ‘Ammån and Aretas IV. In keeping with this view, one may region, the earliest Nabatean activity on the Dhπbån point to potential trade between the Nabateans and plateau occurred prior to the early Roman period. the inhabitants of the Hasmonean-Herodian king- Related to these findings is the general infrequency doms. Another tenable answer can be found in the of Nabatean settlements in the Jaløl-Sa˙åb region. aforementioned interruptions in Jewish control of This suggests that, during the Nabatean period, the the region. Thus, the Nabatean pottery found by eastern Mådabå plains region probably served as a Glueck in the Libb-Machaerus region may have corridor for trade and traffic, rather than a settle- been associated with one of these two waves of Na- ment zone, that connected the Nabatean settlements batean expansion into the area north of Sayl Hπdån. in the ‘Ammån region with those on the Dhπbån pla- In short, the questions of whether or not and, if so, teau and south-eastern Mådabå plains. when the Nabateans controlled the regions of Wådπ In contrast, Hasmonean-Herodian evidence as-Sπr, Libb and Machaerus warrants further field- abounds in the areas of ‘Iråq al-Amπr, Mount Nebo work and studies of archaeological data. and the north-western Mådabå plains. This supports Despite these caveats, however, the general the historical accounts of Hasmonean and Herodi- credibility of the above historical reconstruction is an occupation of these areas. However, distinctive bolstered by some impressive consistency between Nabatean pottery is absent or, at best, scarce in archaeological and textual data. First of all, the ex- these regions. The area of Óisbån and al-‘Umayrπ cavations at ‘Ammån Citadel and the Roman Forum has been systematically surveyed and excavated are indicative of a Nabatean connection with early by various research teams, yet no trace of Naba- Roman settlement in the ‘Ammån region, which is tean settlement has so far been located in this area. in harmony with the historical records. The exca- The absence of Nabatean ceramic evidence is just vation reports for the ‘Ammån Citadel do not of- as apparent in the Nebo and ‘Iråq al-Amπr areas. fer up any definitive insights into the relationship What is however clear is the relative abundance of between the Nabatean settlers and their late Helle- Hasmonean coins in these areas, compared with nistic predecessors. However, it is likely that — as ‘Ammån, Jaløl and the Dhπbån plateau. Moreover, in the early Roman period — the late Hellenistic all the Nabatean coins so far found in the areas of settlement was also associated with the Nabateans Óisbån and ‘Iråq al-Amπr belong to the first century in view of the smooth and peaceful transition into AD. Quantitative analysis has shown that at Óisbån the early Roman period. and ‘Iråq al-Amπr, the entire Nabatean numismatic For Mådabå, the archaeological evidence also assemblages is made up of this late corpus of coins. seems to be fairly consistent with the ancient texts. Related to this finding is the discovery of a ritual On the basis of archaeological evidence currently bath at al-‘Umayrπ, which should be attributed to available, it can be suggested that Mådabå was set- either Hasmonean or Herodian settlers at the site. tled by or associated with the Nabateans in the ear- Of course, casual use of material evidence to re- ly Roman period. There is also material evidence construct the ethnic identity of the inhabitants of a

-628- NABATEAN, HASMONEAN AND HERODIAN KINGDOMS IN CENTRAL JORDAN given region can be problematic (Graf 1986: 792). behind the Nabatean frontier. The east-west stretch Nevertheless, we should not ignore potential affini- of Wådπ al-Wåla and Sayl Hπdån formed the south- ties between material culture and ethnic identity ern boundary between the Nabatean and Jewish (cf. Parr 1970, 1978; Schmid 1995). kingdoms, even though Herod built a couple of Be that as it may, the combination of various military fortresses in the middle of Wådπ al-Møjib findings gives weight on the thesis that the late Hel- and Sayl Hπdån during the early Roman period lenistic occupation of the areas north of the Måd- (Strobel 1997). abå line occurred under the auspices of Jewish rul- Finally, the present study has shown that, in cen- ers rather than Nabatean kings. The same may also tral Jordan, the struggle between the Nabatean and be true of the early Roman period, given the virtual Hasmonean-Herodian kingdoms centered on three absence of Nabatean sherds and non-numismatic areas: Wådπ as-Sπr, Mådabå and Libb-Machaerus. artifacts at the sites under consideration. The early The Hasmoneans took possession of the forts and Roman tombs at Óisbån with a rolling-stone door, towns in the Wådπ as-Sπr region in the mid-second like those in the Jerusalem area, are also indicative century BC. This area probably remained under of a Herodian occupation of Óisbån during the first Hasmonean and Herodian control for the rest of centuries BC and AD. This suggests that most of the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods, de- the cities and towns in Wådπ as-Sπr and the Óisbån- spite intermittent wars in the ‘Ammån region be- al-‘Umayrπ area were probably inhabited by Has- tween these rulers and the Nabatean kings and a monean and Herodian citizens alongside, most potentially short-lived Nabatean expansion into the probably, a much smaller number of non-Jews. area prior to the rule of Herod the Great. The Has- moneans extended their territory to Óisbån, Måd- Conclusion abå, Libb and Machaerus during the second cen- This study helps us to re-evaluate Glueck’s origi- tury BC. However, Hasmonean control of Libb and nal thesis that the boundary of the Nabatean state Mådabå did not last long as they fell into the hands should be drawn eastward from the Dead Sea to of Nabateans after the civil war between Hyrcanus Mådabå, roughly along the line of Wådπ Zarqå’ II and his brother Aristobulus II. Óisbån also seems Må‘πn. In view of the findings of the present study, to have been incorporated, albeit for a short period Glueck may have misunderstood the nature of the and in a de facto manner, within the Nabatean state northern border of the kingdom of Nabateans when in the first century BC when a non-Jewish popula- he viewed it as fixed and permanent boundary along tion group occupied the site. the Machaerus-Mådabå line during the late Hel- In similar fashion, the question of who controlled lenistic and early Roman periods. This study has the ‘A†arøz-Machaerus area can be answered differ- shown that the border probably far more flexible ently at different times. As noted above, Hasmonean than Glueck allowed. Put another way, the extent influence reached this area during the reign of Al- of the kingdom of the Nabateans in central Jordan exander Jannaeus. Machaerus was destroyed by the now appears to fluctuate during the period in ques- Roman army in 57BC, after which the Nabateans tion, and these changes were closely tied with the likely expanded northwards across Sayl Hπdån and vicissitudes of Hasmonean, Herodian and Naba- into the Machaerus area. Only after the establish- tean fortunes east of the Jordan. ment of the rule of Herod the Great did Machaerus Despite frequent shifts in the border, the present once more come under Herodian control; the city study supports the idea that Glueck’s original thesis was subsequently given to Herod Antipas after the was in some respects correct about the identifica- death of Herod the Great. The clash with the Naba- tion of the border of the Nabatean kingdom. For teans during the reign of Herod Antipas may how- almost all of the period under consideration, the ever have resulted in a temporary setback for the hilly region of Óisbån, al-‘Umayrπ and Nebo seems Herodians in the ‘A†arøz-Machaerus area. to have remained in the hands of the Hasmonean- Herodian state, although Óisbån may very briefly References have come under the control of a non-Jewish popu- Abel, F.M. 1938. Géographie de la Palestine (Volume lation some time in the first century AD. In con- II). Paris: J. Gabalda. trast, the ‘Ammån region and the desert fringe of Abu Dayyah, A.S. et al. 1991. Archaeological Survey Sa˙åb, Jaløl and the Dhπbån plateau lay securely of Greater Amman, Phase 1: Final Report. ADAJ 35:

-629- Chang-Ho C. Ji

361-395. cavations at Araq el-Emir I. Winona Lake: Ameri- Avi-Yonah, M. 1977. The Holy Land: From the Persian can Schools of Oriental Research. to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C.E. to C.E. 640): A Elder, D. 2001. Libb Surface Survey. Retrieved March Historical Geography. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. 15, 2007, from http://www.utoronto.ca/ tmap/ Bar-Kochva, B. 1989. Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish prelim_2001.html. Struggle against the Seleucids. New York: Cam- Ferguson, J. 2002. Madaba of Nabataea: An Historical bridge University. and Archaeological Investigation. Paper presented at Bennett, C.-M. 1979. Excavation at the Citadel (al- the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Schools Qal’a), Amman 1977. ADAJ 23: 151-171. of Oriental Research, Toronto, Canada. Bianchi, S. and Faggella, F. 1993. The Resumption of Freyne, S. 1980. Galilee from Alexander the Great to the Archaeological Investigation at Qal’at el-Mish- Hadrain, 323 BCE to 135 CE. South Bend, IN: Uni- naqa, 1992 Excavation: A Preliminary Report. ADAJ versity of Notre Dame. 37: 407-416. Gatier, P. L. 1986. Philadelphie et Gerasa, du Royaume Bowersock, G. W. 1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, Nabatéen á la province d’Arabie. Pp. 135-156 in MA: Harvard University. Gatier, P. et al. (eds.), Géographie Historique au Boling, R. G. 1989. Site Survey in the al-‘Umayri Re- Proche-Orient. Paris: Centre National de la Recher- gion. Pp. 98-188 in L. T. Geraty et al. (eds.), Mada- che Scientifique. ba Plains Project 1. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Gitler, H. 1998. The Coins. Pp. 550-567 in M. Piccirillo University. and E. Alliata (eds.), Mount Nebo: New Archaeo- Christopherson, G. L. et al. 2002. Summary Descrip- logical Excavations 1967-1997. Jerusalem: Studium tions of Archaeological Sites from the Survey at Tall Biblicum Franscicanum. al-‘Umayri, Jordan. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from Glueck, N. 1934. Exploration in Eastern Palestine I. http://www.casa. arizona.edu/MPP/umsites. Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Re- Claremont-Ganneau, C.1897. Les Nabatéens dans le search. Pays de Moab. Recueil d’archéologie orientale 2: ––– 1939. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, III. New 185-218. Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Corbo, V. 1980. La Fortezza di Macheronte (Al Mish- ––– 1970. The Other Side of the Jordan. Cambridge: naqa), Rapporto Preliminaire alla Tera Campagna di American Schools of Oriental Research. Scavo: 8-Settembre-11 Ottobre 1980. Liber Annuus Goldstein, J. A. 1976. I Maccabees. New York: Double- 30: 365-376. day. Corbo, V. and Loffreda, S. 1981. Nuove Scoperte alla ––– 1983. II Maccabees. New York: Doubleday. Fortezza di Machaeronte, Rapporto Preliminare alla Graf, D. F. 1986. The Nabataeans and the Decapolis. Quarta Campagna di Scavo: 7-Settembre-10 Ottobre Pp. 785-796 in P. Freeman and D. Kennedy (eds.), 1981. Liber Annuus 31: 257-286. The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East. Lon- Daviau, P. M. 1992. Preliminary Report of the Excava- don: BAR International. tions at Tell J in the Madaba Plains (1991). ADAJ Grosby, S. 2002. Biblical Ideas of Nationality: Ancient 36: 145-159. and Modern. Winona Lakes: Eisenbrauns. ––– 1993. Preliminary Report of the Third Season of Groves, J. L., Borstad, K. A., and Christopherson, G. L. Excavations at Tell J, Jordan (1992). ADAJ 37: 325- 1995. A Preliminary Report on the Tall Jalul Surface 340. Sherding Project. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from ––– 1994. Excavations at Tell J, Jordan (1993). ADAJ http://www.casa.arizona. edu /MPP/tjsurf_surv/ tjss- 38: 173-193. pap.html. ––– 1996. The Fifth Season of Excavations at Tall J Hadidi, A. 1973. Some Bronze Coins from Amman. (1994). ADAJ 40: 83-100. ADAJ 18: 51-53. Daviau, P. M., Mulder-Hymans, N., and Foley, L. 2000. ––– 1974. The Excavation of the Roman Forum at Am- Preliminary Report of Excavations at Khirbat al- man. ADAJ 19: 71-91. Mudayna on Wadi ath-Thamad (1996-1999): The Harrison, T. 1996a. History of Madaba. Pp. 1-18 in P. Nabataean Buildings. ADAJ 44: 271-285. M. Bikai and T. A. Dailey (eds.), Madaba: Cultural Dentzer, J-M., Villeneuve, F., and Larché, F. 1983. The Heritage. Amman: American Center of Oriental Re- Monumental Gateway and the Princely Estate of search. Araq el-Emir. Pp. 133-148 in N. Lapp (ed.), The Ex- ––– 1996b. Surface Survey. Pp. 19-24 in P. M. Bikai

-630- NABATEAN, HASMONEAN AND HERODIAN KINGDOMS IN CENTRAL JORDAN

and T. A. Dailey (eds.), Madaba: Cultural Heritage. Madaba Plains Project 5. Berrien Springs, MI: An- Amman: American Center of Oriental Research. drews University. Harrison, T. et al. 2000. Urban Life in the Highlands Ji, C. C. and Lee, J. K. 1999. The 1998 Season of Ar- of Central Jordan: A Preliminary Report of the 1996 chaeological Survey in the Region of Iraq al-‘Amir Tall Madaba Excavations. ADAJ 44: 211-229. and the Wadi al-Kafrayn: A Preliminary Report. Herr, L. G. et al. 1996. Madaba Plains Project 1994: Ex- ADAJ 43: 521-539. cavations at Tall al-‘Umayri, Tall Jalul, and Vicinity. ––– 2002. The Survey in the Regions of Iraq al-‘Amir ADAJ 40: 63-83. and the Wadi al-Kafrayn, 2001. ADAJ 45: 179-195. ––– 1997. Madaba Plains Project 1996: Excavations at ––– 2004. From the Tobiads to the Hasmoneans: The Tall al-‘Umayri, Tall Jalul, and Vicinity. ADAJ 41: Hellenistic Pottery, Coins, and History in the Re- 145-167. gions of Iraq al-‘Amir and the Wadi Hesban. SHAJ ––– 1999. Madaba Plains Project: Excavations at Tall 8: 177-188. al-‘Umayri, 1998. ADAJ 43: 99-114. ––– 2007. The Hellenistic Period in the Dhiban Plateau: ––– 2000. Madaba Plains Project Tall al-‘Umayri, 1998. A Quantitative Analysis. SHAJ 9: 233-240. Andrews University Seminary Studies 38: 29-44. Kritzeck, J. A. and Nitowski, E. L. 1980. The Rolling- Homes-Fredericq, D. 1986. Excavation at Lahun, Dis- Stone Tomb F.1 at Tell Hesban. Andrews University trict of Madaba: Preliminary Report on the Seventh Seminary Studies 18: 77-89. Season of the Belgian Excavations in Jordan (Fall Lapp, P. W. 1962. Soundings at ‘Araq el-Emir (Jordan). 1986). Brussel: Art Museum. BASOR 165: 16-34. ––– 1989. Lahun (el/ Khirbet el). Pp. 349-359 in Homes- ––– 1963. The Second and Third Campaigns at Araq el- Fredericq and J. B. Hennessy (eds.), Archaeology of Emir. BASOR 171: 8-39. Jordan. Leuven: Peeters. Lapp, N. L. 1983. Coins. Pp. 13-20 in N. L. Lapp (ed.), Homes-Fredericq, D. and Naster, P. 1979. Excavation The Excavations at Araq el-Emir. Cambridge: Amer- at Lahun, District of Madaba: Preliminary Report ican Schools of Oriental Research. on the First Campaign of the Belgian Excavations in Lawlor, J. I. 1991. Field A. The Ammonite Citadel. Pp. Jordan (Fall 1979). Brussel: Art Museum. 15-52 in L. T. Geraty et al. (eds.), Madaba Plains Ibach, R. 1978. An Intensive Surface Survey at Jalul. Project 2. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews Univer- Andrews University Seminary Studies 14: 215-222. sity. ––– 1987. Archaeological Survey of the Hesban Region. Loffreda, S. 1980. Alcuni Vasi Ben Datari della Fortezza Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University. di Macheronte, Rapporto Preliminare. Liber Annuus Ibrahim, M. M. 1972. Archaeological Excavations at 30: 377-402. Sahab, 1972. ADAJ 17: 23-36. MacAdam, H. I. 1992. The History of Philadelphia ––– 1974. Second Season of Excavation at Sahab, 1973. in the Classical Period. Pp. 27-45 in A. Northedge ADAJ 19: 55-61. (ed.), Studies on Roman and Islamic ‘Amman. Ox- ––– 1975. Third Season of Excavations at Sahab, 1975. ford: Oxford University. ADAJ 20: 69-82. Milik, J. T. 1958. Nouvelles inscriptions Nabatéenes. Ibrahim, M. M. et al. 1984. Archaeological Survey in Syria 35: 227-251. the Area Sahab Southeast of Amman, 1983. Unpub- ––– 1980. La tribu des Bani Àmrat en Jordanie de lished Manuscript, Yarmouk University. l’epoque Grecque et Romaine. ADAJ 24: 41-54. Ji, C. C. 1998a. Settlement Patterns in the Region of Mitchel, L. A. 1992. Hellenistic and Roman Strata. Ber- Hesban and ‘Umayri, Jordan: A Review of 1973- rien Springs, MI: Andrews University. 1992 Archaeological Survey Data. Near Eastern Ar- ––– 1994. Caves, Storage Facilities, and Life at Hel- chaeological Society Bulletin. 43: 1-22. lenistic and Early Roman Hesban. Pp. 97-108 in P. ––– 1998b. Archaeological Survey and Settlement Pat- D. Merling and L. T. Geraty (eds.), Hesban after 25 terns in the Region of Iraq al-‘Amir 1996: A Prelimi- Years. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeol- nary Report. ADAJ 42: 587-608. ogy. ––– 2001. Iraq al-‘Amir and Hellenistic Settlements in Olavarri, E. 1965. Sondages a Àroèr sur l’Arnon. Reu- Central and Northern Jordan. SHAJ 7: 379-390. vue Biblique 72: 77-94. ––– 2002. Tribes and Sedentarization in the Madaba Parker, S. T. 1976. Archaeological Survey of the Limes Plains and Central Jordan during the Iron I and Otto- Arabicus: A Preliminary Report. ADAJ 21: 19-31. man Periods. Pp. 389-398 in L. G. Herr et al. (eds.), ––– 1986. Romans and Saracens: A History of the Ara-

-631- Chang-Ho C. Ji

bian Frontier. Winona Lake, IN: American Schools ––– 1976. Coins from the 1973 and 1974 Excavations at of Oriental Research. Heshbon. Andrews University Seminary Studies 14: Parr, P. J. 1970. A Sequence of Pottery from Petra. Pp. 133-142. 348-381 in J. A. Sanders (ed.), Near Eastern Archae- Tushingham, A. D. 1972. The Excavations at Dibon ology in the Twentieth Century. Garden City, NY: (Dhiban) in Moab. Cambridge: American Schools Doubleday. of Oriental Research. ––– 1978. Pottery, People and Politics. Pp. 203-209 in ––– 1989. Dhiban. Pp. 206-210 in D. Homes-Fredericq R. Moorey and P. J. Parr (eds.), Archaeology in the and J. B. Hennessy (eds.), Archaeology of Jordan. Levant. Oxford: Warminster. Leuven: Peeters. Piccirillo, M. 1979. First Excavation Campaign at Qal’at van Elderen, B. 1972. The Salayta District Church in el-Mishnaqa, Meqawer. ADAJ 23: 177-184. Madaba: A Preliminary Report. ADAJ 17: 77-83. ––– 1980. Le Monete Della Fortezza di Macheronte. Villeneuve, F. 1988. Prospection archéologique et Liber Annuus 30: 403-414. géographie historique: la région d’Iraq al-Amir (Jor- Piccirillo, M. and Alliata, E. 1998. Mount Nebo: New danie). Pp. 257-288 in Gatier, P. et al. (eds.), Géog- Archaeological Excavations 1967-1997. Jerusalem: raphie Historique au Proche-Orient. Paris: Centre Studium Biblicum Franscicanum. National de la Recherche Scientifique. Reich, R. 1990. Miqwa’ot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Vyhmeister, W. K. 1989. History of Heshbon from the Baths) in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple, Mish- Literary Sources. Pp. 1-24 in L. T. Geraty and L. G. nah, and Talmud Periods. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Uni- Running (eds.), Historical Foundations: Studies of versity. Literary References to Hesban and Vicinity. Berrien Russell, K. W. et al. 1997. Coins. Pp. 23-38 in A. Kout- Springs, MI: Andrews University. soukou et al. (eds.), The Great Temple of Amman: Wahlin, L. 1993. Villages North of as-Salt, Jordan: An The Excavations. Amman: American Center of Ori- Historical Geographical Survey. Stockholm: Stock- ental Research. holm University. Sauer, J. A. 1994. The Pottery at Hesban and its Rela- Waterhouse, S. D. 1994. Tomb Types in the Roman and tionships to the History of Jordan: An Interim Hes- Byzantine Cemeteries of Hesban. Pp. 283-300 in P. ban Pottery Report, 1993. Pp. 225-282 in P. D. Mer- D. Merling and L. T. Geraty (eds.), Hesban after 25 ling and L. T. Geraty (eds.), Hesban after 25 Years. Years. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeol- Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology. ogy. Schmid, S. 1995. Nabataean Fine Ware from Petra. ––– 1998. The Necropolis of Hesban. Berrien Springs, SHAJ 5: 637-648. MI: Andrews University. Simmons, A. H. and Kafafi, Z. 1988. Preliminary Re- Will, E. 1985. L’urbanisation de la Jordanie aux époques port on the ‘Ain Ghazal Archaeological Survey, hellénistique er romaine: conditions géographiques 1987. ADAJ 31: 27-40. et ethniques. SHAJ 2: 237-241. Smith, G. A. 1966. The Historical Geography of the Younker, R. W. 1991. The Judgment Survey. Pp. 269- Holy Land. New York: Harper and Row. 334 in L. T. Geraty et al. (eds.), Madaba Plains Proj- Spijkerman, A. 1978. The Coins of the Decapolis and ect 2. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University. Provicia Arabia. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Younker, R. W. and Merling, D. 2000. Madaba Plains Press. Project Tall Jalul, 1999. Andrews University Semi- Strobel, A. 1974. Observations about the Roman Instal- nary Studies 38: 45-50. lation at Mukawer. ADAJ 19: 101-128. Younker, R. W. et al. 1996. Preliminary Report of the ––– 1997. Ancient Roads in the Roman District of South 1994 Season of the Madaba Plains Project: Regional Parea: Routes of Communication in the Eastern Area Survey, Tall al-‘Umayri, and Tall Jalul Excavations. of the Dead Sea. SHAJ 6: 271-280. Andrews University Seminary Studies 34: 65-92. Tcherikover, V. 1966. Hellenistic Civilization and the Zayadine, F. 1973. Recent Excavations on the Citadel of Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Amman: A Preliminary Report. ADAJ 18: 17-35. Terian, A. 1971. Coins from the1968 Excavations at ––– 1977. Excavations on the Upper Citadel of Amman Heshbon. Andrews University Seminary Studies 9: Area A (1975 and 1977). ADAJ 22: 20-56. 147-160. Zayadine, F., Najjar, M. and Greene, J. A. 1987. Recent ––– 1974. Coins from the 1971 Excavations at Heshbon. Excavations on the Citadel of Amman (Lower Ter- Andrews University Seminary Studies 12: 35-46. race): A Preliminary Report. ADAJ 31: 299-311.

-632-