Nabataean Façade Tombs a New Chronology

8/11/2019 Nabataean Faade Tombs a New Chronology

1/22

-507-

Lucy WadesonOriental InstituteUniversity of OxfordUnited [email protected]

Lucy Wadeson

Nabataean Faade Tombs: A NewChronology

IntroductionThe faade tombs of the Nabataeans are uniqueamong the funerary architecture of the ancientworld. They owe their distinctive design to the in-genuity of the Nabataeans in combining architec-

tural elements from diverse cultures and adaptingthem to local tastes and the geographical environ-ment of Petra and Madin li to create originalforms of art and architecture. The faades of thesetombs have proved a rich source of material forthe study of Nabataean architecture. However, twomain issues regarding the tombs remain the topicof scholarly debate: the funerary practices that tookplace in them and the chronological relationshipbetween the different types of faade. This is dueto the fact that at Petra the majority of the tombshave been looted and re-used for a variety of pur-poses since antiquity resulting in the loss of cru-cial burial evidence and datable material such ascoins, inscriptions and ceramics. Historical sourcesonly confound the issue, since our sole referenceto funerary practices at Petra is Strabos statementthat the Nabataeans treated their dead like dung(Geog. 16.4.26), a concept which does not accordwith the monumental tomb architecture and thefew burials that do survive.

Attempts at establishing a chronology for thebulk of the faade tombs have been largely based on

stylistic studies of the faades (e.g. von Domasze-wski 1904: 137-91; more recently Netzer 2003:13-36, 39-47), while burial practices have beententatively reconstructed according to the scant ev-idence that remains in a handful of tombs and theburials excavated in non-monumental shaft tombsand pit graves (e.g. Bikai and Perry 2001: 59-78;Perry 2002: 265-270; Schmid and Barmasse 2006:

220-227; Schmid et al. 2008: 135-160). In order toenhance our knowledge of these elusive subjects,the current author conducted the rst detailed ex-amination of the interior architecture of the faadetombs at Petra (Wadeson 2010b)1, which have only

become accessible in the last two decades follow-ing the departure of the local Bdool tribe that in-habited the chambers. In addition, several tombshad their oors cleared in a World Bank-support-ed project in 2003, which greatly facilitated theirstudy. By analysing the rock-cut installations forburial and ritual inside the tombs in relation to thefew surviving inscriptions and excavated burials,and comparing them with well-documented tombsin the wider region, such as those in Jerusalem andAlexandria, it has been possible to reconstruct cer-tain funerary customs practiced by the Nabataeans.These practices have both distinctive elements andaspects related to the traditions of neighboring cul-tures.

However, relevant to this paper are new ndingsconcerning the chronology of the faade tombs. Byanalyzing the physical relationship of faade tombscarved side by side at Petra and collecting examplesof relative chronology between tombs of differenttypes, a pattern emerged whereby the larger, morecomplex faade types (e.g. Hegr and Double Pylon)tended to be carved earlier than the smaller, simpler

versions of them (e.g. Step, Proto-Hegr, Single Py-lon) (FIG. 1). This chronological pattern contrastswith traditional typologically-based chronologiesin which tomb architecture at Petra developed fromsimple to complex over time (Brnnow and vonDomaszewski 1904; Browning 1973). However, itaccords with the ndings of more recent studies ofNabataean sculpture, ceramics and classical-style

1Wadeson, L. 2010. The Faade Tombs of Petra: from Exterior to Interior. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.


2/22

LUCY WADESON

-508-

architecture (Schmid 2001: 367-426; McKenzie2003: 165-91). The results of this novel study wererecently published in detail and are therefore only

summarized here (Wadeson 2010a: 48-69). The fo-cus of this paper is on the social reasons behindthe changes in funerary architecture, which werediscovered through a comprehensive study of thedated inscriptions on the Nabataean faade tombsat Madin li in relation to their interior plansand faade types, and to the tombs at Petra. Thecontent of those inscriptions both conrms the newchronology proposed for the tombs at Petra andprovides the key to understanding why the smaller

and simpler faade types were introduced later thantheir larger, more complex versions.

The rst part of this paper provides an overview

of the typology and chronology (both traditionaland novel) of the faade tombs at Petra. The re-sults of the analysis of the Madin li tombs andtheir inscriptions will then be presented and it willbe argued that changing types of tomb ownershipplayed a signicant role in the design and layout ofthe tombs. In conclusion, it will be suggested thatsocial change in both the Nabataean kingdom andthe wider region during the 1st century AD was asignicant factor motivating the developments in

1. Faade tomb-types at Petra (Brnnow and von Domaszewski 1904: gs 122, 126, 151, `159, 163, 174, 187, 192).This image is reproduced with the permission of the publisher and copyright holder, Maney Publishing and Council for BritishResearch in the Levant. It originally appears in Wadeson 2010a: 51, g. 2 (www.maney.co.uk/journals/lev ; www.ingentacon-nect.com/content/maney/lev).


3/22

NABATAEAN FAADE TOMBS: A NEW CHRONOLOGY

-509-

funerary architecture, burial practices and possiblyother aspects of Nabataean material culture.

The Faade Tombs at PetraAt Petra, 628 faade tombs have been recorded ascarved in the sandstone rock-faces of the wadisand mountains surrounding the city centre (Nehm

2003b: 158). Several tombs are in isolated posi-

tions, such as Tombs 276, 559 and 6762(FIG. 2),and these tend to be part of large funerary complex-es, typically including triclinia, platforms, basins,cisterns or reservoirs, all crucial to the funerary rit-uals taking place at the tomb. However, the major-ity of tombs are clustered in groups, the most con-centrated being in the Street of Faades and Wd

al-Muayira (FIG. 3). Due to their monumental,

3. Street of Faades, Petra (Photo byL. Wadeson).

2. Double Pylon Tomb 276, Wd Far-asa, Petra (Photo by L. Wadeson).

2 The numbering system of Brnnow and von Domaszewski (1904) is used in this study for the tombs at Petra.


4/22

LUCY WADESON

-510-

decorative faades, they are prominent in the land-scape and are visible from considerable distances.It ought to be remembered that many of the faadeswere once plastered and painted and this wouldhave created a remarkable effect in contrast to thenatural hues of the sandstone (McKenzie 1990: 33,117; Shaer 2000: 133).

TypologyAccording to the carved decoration on the faades,the tombs can be divided into the following eighttypes: Single Pylon, Double Pylon, Step, Proto-Hegr, Hegr, Arch, Simple Classical and ComplexClassical (Wadeson 2010a: 51-2) (FIG. 1). Thesegroupings and their nomenclature are slightly mod-ied from those rst suggested by von Domasze-wski (1904: 137-91). During the authors docu-mentation of the tombs at Petra, 441 tombs were

identied as belonging to one of the eight types.Apart from the Arch and Classical tombs, the re-mainder of the types are characterised by the crow-step motif. Notably, 86% of the tombs have crow-steps carved on their faades (often with elementsfrom classical architecture), while 14% have onlyclassical motifs, testifying to the crowsteps impor-tance as a component in tomb design.

Besides the traditional stylistic basis for thetypology of the faades, the authors dimensionalstudy of the tombs discovered that the types are alsodifferentiated by the size of their faades (Wadeson2010a: 52-3). Each type was found to have a dif-fering average faade width and its own range ofdimensions. These data are presented in the chartin (FIG. 4), in which the faade types have beenordered from smallest to largest according to theiraverage width. Notably, it is observed that the

4. Chart of faade width statistics according to tomb-type at Petra (in order of average width).This image is reproduced with the permission of the publisher and copyright holder, Maney Publishing and Council for BritishResearch in the Levant. It originally appears in Wadeson 2010a: 53, g. 5 (www.maney.co.uk/journals/lev ; www.ingentacon-nect.com/content/maney/lev).


5/22


-511-

tombs with a simpler type of faade design, suchas the Arch, Single Pylon, Step and Simple Classi-cal types, tend to be smaller than those with morecomplicated faade designs, such as the DoublePylon, Hegr and Complex Classical types. It canthus be concluded that the smaller tombs are sim-pler versions of the larger tombs in terms of theirdesign (i.e. Single Pylon tombs are a simplied ver-sion of Double Pylon tombs, Step and Proto-Hegrtombs are a simplied versions of Hegr tombs, andSimple Classical tombs are a simplied version ofComplex Classical tombs). The smaller, simplertombs are also more standardised in terms of theirdimensions, suggesting they were more regularisedas types.

Similar patterns were observed in the analysisof the tomb chambers, which were documentedand studied in detail for the rst time. Among the

tombs surveyed, 97% have a single square-shapedchamber centred on the doorway in the faade. Ananalysis of the dimensions of the chambers accord-ing to their type of faade revealed that the larg-est faades with a more complicated design tendalso to have the largest burial chambers, while theirsimpler versions have smaller burial chambers(Wadeson 2010a: 58-60). For example, the aver-age square root of the chamber oor area of Hegrtombs is 7.17 m, while that of Step tombs is 5.18 mand that of Proto-Hegr tombs is 6.15m. These dataare summarised in TABLE 1. Again, the smallertombs tend to be more standardised in terms oftheir chamber dimensions.

Besides these new ndings on the relationshipbetween the faade type of a tomb and its size, itwas also discovered that the arrangements for buri-al differed among the tombs. Burial installations

are carved in the walls and oors of the chambersand include ve distinct forms: loculi, loculus-chambers, recesses, burial niches and oor graves(Wadeson 2010a: 60-1). The most commonly oc-curring are loculi, tall openings in the walls that aredeeper than they are wide, and graves carved in thechamber oor (FIGS. 5 - 6).

By analysing the presence, number and locationof the burial structures according to the faade typeof the tombs, it was found that among the non-clas-sical tombs, those with the largest and more com-plex faades, such as the Hegr tombs, were morelikely to have loculi carved in their chamber walls,arranged evenly and symmetrically according to aspecic plan (Wadeson 2010a: 62-63). For exam-ple, Hegr Tomb 676 has 15 loculi carved in its backand side walls, almost identical in size and evenlyplaced (FIG. 7). The tool-work is also particularly

neat in this chamber, demonstrating the high qual-ity that was aimed for in its carving. Similarly,

5. Loculi in Hegr Tomb 361, Petra (Photo by L. Wadeson).

Table 1. Petra: Statistical Summary of Square Root of Chamber Floor Area According to Faade-Type. This table is reproduced with the permission of the publisher and copyright holder, Maney Publishing and Council for

British Research in the Levant. It originally appears in Wadeson 2010a: 59, Table 5 (www.maney.co.uk/journals/lev ;www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/lev).


6/22

LUCY WADESON

-512-

Tomb 781 is characterised by a neat arrangement

of loculi in its walls, but in this case they culmi-nate in a subsidiary chamber carved in the middle

of the back wall and elaborated by carved architec-

tural decoration (FIG. 8). Within this chamber is anarched recess, presumably for the owner(s) of thetomb given its prominent placement and large size3.These well-planned tombs were likely intended forthe burial of a family unit, and there is often a so-cial hierarchy evident in the inclusion of a larger,more prominent burial place in the back wall.

Quite the opposite is observed in many of thesmaller tombs with simpler faades, particularlythe Single Pylon and Step tombs. These tombs aremore likely to have graves carved in their oors,

than monumental structures in the walls. In ad-dition, those with loculi in the walls tend to have

3 This arcosolium was recently cleared and excavated in the rstseason of the International al-Khubthah Tombs Project (IKTP) di-

rected by the author: http://www.auac.ch/iktp/

6. Floor graves in Single Pylon Tomb 545, Wd al-MuayiraWest, Petra (Photo by L. Wadeson).

7. Loculi in Hegr Tomb 676 (view towards back right corner),Mughur an-Nara, Petra (Photo by L. Wadeson).

8. Reconstruction drawing of the inte-rior of Hegr Tomb 781, al-Khubthah,Petra (drawing by Qais Tweissi).

This image is reproduced with thepermission of the publisher andcopyright holder, Maney Publishingand Council for British Research inthe Levant. It originally appears inWadeson 2010a: 62, g. 11b (www.maney.co.uk/journals/lev ; www.in-gentaconnect.com/content/maney/lev).


7/22


-513-

them randomly arranged in different parts of thechamber, such as the far corners of walls (Wade-

son 2010a: 62). These usually vary in size and arecrudely executed (FIG. 9). Examples include theloculi in Tombs 143, 146, 283, 436, 513 and 602A.The plan of these burial chambers suggests thatdifferent factors inuenced their arrangement fromthose of the larger, more organised tombs. Thesefactors will be revealed when the Madin litomb inscriptions are considered below. Firstly,the new evidence from Petra for a relative chronol-ogy between the various tomb-types just discussedwill be presented to demonstrate the chronologicaldistinction between the large, complex tombs andtheir smaller, simpler versions.

ChronologyAccording to the little evidence that exists for dat-ing the faade tombs at Petra, such as the gravegoods found upon clearance of a handful of tombsand the few surviving inscriptions, it seems thatfaade tombs existed by 50 BC and continued tobe carved after the Roman annexation (AD 106),as late as AD 129 (see Wadeson 2010a: 54, Table3). The earliest dated tombs are those of the Hegr

type (Tombs 62D and 62E), discovered beneaththe Khazneh during the courtyard excavations con-ducted by the Department of Antiquities (Farajatand Nawaeh 2005: 373-93). Since these tombs arerelated to the early gravel road of the Sq, they havea terminus ante quemof 50 BC, when that road wasreplaced by a paved one (McKenzie 2004, 559;Ruben 2003, 35-40). The latest dated tomb is thatof Sextius Florentinus, a Complex Classical tombcarved at the base of al-Khubthah. The Roman of-

cial, to whom the tomb was dedicated accordingto the Latin inscription on its faade, was gover-nor of Arabia in AD 127 and was succeeded by AD130, as indicated by Greek papyri from the Cave ofLetters (CIL III 1414810; Yadin 1962: 259; Negev1977: 597; McKenzie 1990: 33). Thus, the tombshould be dated to around that period, unless it was

re-used, as has been suggested by several scholars(Negev 1977: 598; Freyberger 1991: 1-8).

However, it remains unknown when the rst fa-ade tombs were carved, what type they were andhow the types developed. Scholars have attemptedto establish a typologically-based chronology forthe tombs, based on stylistic studies of their faadesand an assumed development in design from sim-ple to complex with time. The rst chronology wasproposed by von Domaszewski early in the 20thcentury, who argued that the more complex faade

types developed out of the simple ones, with eachtype staying in use once introduced (1904: 137-91). He suggested that the earliest tombs in Petrawere the Single Pylon tombs, out of which devel-oped the Double Pylon, Step and Proto-Hegr tombs(FIG. 1). The culmination of the crowstep faades,he believed, came with the Hegr tombs, which hedated to the reign of Aretas IV (9 BC - AD 40) ow-ing to their presence in Madin li during thisperiod. Finally, he dated the classical tombs to the2nd century AD, in the opinion that the classical ar-chitectural elements were Roman-inuenced ratherthan Greek.

According to von Domaszewski, this chrono-logical sequence is reected in the topographicallocation of the tombs. He assumes that the tombscarved higher up in the rock-faces, which are usu-ally the larger, more complex types, should be dat-ed later than those carved below (1904: 137, 146,190) (FIG. 3). However, it is likely that the large,and supposedly more expensive, tombs, such as theHegr and Double Pylon types, were placed in highpositions where they could be highly visible in the

landscape, less accessible to looters and protectedfrom ooding at the level of the wadi bed.

Despite the assumptions in von Domaszewskischronology, it has still largely been adhered to inscholarship with only minor modications (Ken-nedy 1925: 38, 45; Browning 1973: 79; Netzer2003: 13-36, 39-45, 46-7). McKenzies work onthe classical faades proved that these tombs werecarved as early as the 1st century BC and were in-uenced by Hellenistic architecture, rather than

9. Loculi in Single Pylon Tomb 146, Theatre, Petra (Photo byL. Wadeson).


8/22

LUCY WADESON

-514-

Roman (1990: 33-59). By studying the relationshipbetween the mouldings on the tombs and those ondated monuments in the city, as well as the datedtombs at Madin li, she also demonstrated thatthere was a simplication in the classical archi-tectural decoration with time (1990: 24-5; 33-59).However, the traditional sequence proposed for the

non-classical tombs has not been rigorously re-as-sessed.

As a result of the authors detailed documenta-tion and study of the faade tombs at Petra it hasbeen possible to suggest a new chronological se-

quence for the non-classical faades (Wadeson2010a: 56-7, 65-6). This is based on an analysis ofthe physical relationship between tombs of differ-ent faade types carved side by side. The interpre-tation of this relationship was only possible havingestablished the various stages involved in carvingthe tombs and having determined the typical form

and dimensions of the faades and their burialchambers. Examples were collected where it waspossible to tell which tomb was carved rst amongpairs or groups of tombs. These are listed in TA-BLES 2 and 3, depending on whether the relative

Table 2. Petra: Relative Chronology of Faade Tomb-Types.This table is reproduced with the permission of the publisher and copyright holder, Maney Publishing and Council forBritish Research in the Levant. It originally appears in Wadeson 2010a: 56, Table 4 (www.maney.co.uk/journals/lev ;www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/lev).

Table 3. Petra: Relative Chronology of Faade Tomb-Types According to their Interior Arrangements. This table is reproduced with the permission of the publisher and copyright holder, Maney Publishing and Council for

British Research in the Levant. It originally appears in Wadeson 2010a: 66, Table 9 (www.maney.co.uk/journals/lev ;www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/lev).


9/22


-515-

chronology was determined through the faades orthe interiors of the tombs. Also listed is the chrono-logical relationship between specic tombs and thereasons for this.

The following were found to be the most com-mon grounds for determining the relative chronol-ogy between two tombs:

1. One tomb is carved in the exterior rock wing ofanother tomb proving that it post-dates it (e.g.Single Pylon Tomb 211 is carved in the rightrock wing of Double Pylon Tomb 210 (FIG.10); Double Pylon Tomb 802 is carved in theleft rock wing of Hegr Tomb 803).

2. Part of a tomb was destroyed with the carving ofanother tomb at a later period (e.g. Hegr tombs62D and 62E had their tops removed with thecarving of the Khazneh above; the left part ofTomb 782 was demolished with the creation of

the courtyard of Tomb 781).3. When one tomb is carved in a prominent po-

sition and uses the rock space liberally, whileanother tomb appears to be squeezed into theavailable space and partly obscured, it is as-sumed that the latter tomb was carved later (e.g.Proto-Hegr Tomb 576 appears to be squeezedinto the corner space to the right of DoublePylon Tomb 575; Double Pylon Tomb 824 ob-scures Hegr Tomb 825, which is tted into thecorner space behind).

4. Pairs of tombs unnished to the same degree

reasonably began to be carved at the same time(e.g. Single Pylon Tomb 338 and Step [or Pro-to-Hegr] Tomb 339; Proto-Hegr Tomb 530 andStep Tomb 531 [FIG. 11]).

5. When the chamber of one tomb is not centredon the entrance, but extends either to the rightor left owing to a pre-existing chamber of a

neighbouring tomb or its burial installations(e.g. the chamber of Proto-Hegr Tomb 576 hadto extend to the right as the chamber of DoublePylon Tomb 575 had already utilised the spaceeither side of its faade; the loculi in the left wallof Hegr Tomb 586 caused the chamber of ArchTomb 585 to extend to the left).

6. The carving of one burial chamber destroyedthe chamber of another tomb (e.g. the chamberof Simple Classical Tomb 647 cut into that ofProto-Hegr Tomb 648; as a result the chambers

were joined and the oor level of the latter tombwas lowered).Based on all the collected examples of a relative

chronology between two tombs of different types, apattern emerged in which the larger, more complextombs, such as the Hegr and Double Pylon, tendedto be carved earlier than their smaller, simpler ver-sions, for example the Single Pylon, Step and Pro-to-Hegr tombs. This contrasts with the traditionalchronologies proposed for the tombs, in which thesimpler, smaller tombs pre-dated the larger, morecomplex ones. It is, however, in accordance with

10. Double Pylon Tomb 210 and SinglePylon Tomb 211 (in shade), WdFarasa, Petra.This image is reproduced with thepermission of the publisher andcopyright holder, Maney Publishingand Council for British Research inthe Levant. It originally appears inWadeson 2010a: 57, g. 6 (www.maney.co.uk/journals/lev ; www.in-gentaconnect.com/content/maney/lev).


10/22

LUCY WADESON

-516-

the results from the dimensional study of the tombs.This revealed that the smaller, simpler tomb-typeswere much more standardised in terms of their sizethan the larger tombs, which would be expectedif they were later in the series and tomb carvinghad possibly become more industrialised and spacemore of an issue.

According to this new study of the faades andinteriors of the tombs at Petra, the larger tombswith more complex faade design and a neat inte-rior plan, such as the Hegr and Double Pylon types,were introduced earlier than their smaller, simplerversions with less well-designed interiors, such asthe Single Pylon, Step and Proto-Hegr types. Thus,we are observing a simplication and standardisa-tion in the funerary architecture and changes in theorganisation of the burial space. We now turn to theNabataean faade tombs at Madin li, the in-scriptions on which conrm this new chronologicalsequence and provide the reasons for the changes

in funerary architecture.

The Faade Tombs at Madin liMadin li (ancient Egra), the southernmost

outpost and commercial centre of the Nabataeankingdom, is the only other major site where many

faade tombs comparable to those at Petra arefound4. The city is situated approximately 460kmsouth-east of Petra and ca.170km inland from thecoastal city of el-Wedj on the Red Sea, in modernSaudi Arabia (FIG. 12). Similar to Petra, it has acentral settlement area surrounded by rocky out-crops (FIG. 13). However, unlike Petra, it lies in asandy basin rather than a valley and the rock for-mations differ in appearance (Wenning 1996: 253).

The 94 recorded faade tombs at Madin liare carved in the various rocky outcrops surround-ing the settlement area, including Jabal al-Mahjarto the north, Qar al-Bint to the northeast, Jebel al-Ahmar to the south and Jebel el-Khraymat to thewest (Nehm et al. 2006a: 76). There are also sev-eral isolated tombs to the south of the site, includ-ing Qasr el-Ferid (IGN 1105), Qasr es-Sane (IGN102) and Tomb D (IGN 109). The most thoroughdocumentation of these tombs was rst made byJaussen and Savignac from their visits in 1907 and

1909-10, who focused on recording and describingthe faades rather than the interiors (1909: 112-131, 307-404; 1914: 78-108). However, in the lastdecade the Saudi French Archaeological Proj-ect (2000 - present) has carefully recorded all thechambers making the documentation of the tombs

11. Unnished Tombs 530 and 531,

Wd Muayira West, Petra (Photoby L. Wadeson).

4 A few similar faade tombs have been noted at el-Bed (MughairShuayb) in Saudi Arabia: Rihani 2004: 371-78.

5 Both the Jaussen and Savignac and IGN (French Institut

Gographique National) numbering for the tombs are used in thisstudy.


11/22


-517-

complete (Nehm et al. 2006a: 41-124; 2006b:59-90). Since we await the nal publication ofthis data, the current analysis of the Madin litombs is based on the information provided in pre-liminary reports of the Saudi French project andthe work of Jaussen and Savignac. The inscriptions

on the tombs have been examined in detail by JohnHealey (1993). His work is invaluable to the cur-rent study, which makes the rst in-depth exami-nation of the relationship between the informationin the inscriptions and the faade type and interiorarrangement of the tombs.

12. The Near East and Egypt (Map byA. Wilkins).

13. General view of tombs (facing easttowards Qar al-Bint), Madinli (Photo by Mahmoud Hawari).


12/22

LUCY WADESON

-518-

Relation to the Tombs at PetraAmong the 94 tombs at Madin li, 72 can beidentied as belonging to the faade types found atPetra, excepting the Simple and Complex Classicaltombs. However, at Madin li the tombs withcrowsteps on their faades have a higher frequencyof classical architectural elements than is observed

at Petra, such as pilasters framing the edges of Sin-gle Pylon and Double Pylon tombs and complexdoorway orders (Schmidt-Colinet 1983: 98; 1987:144). Furthermore, there is more apotropaic imag-ery at Madin li, such as mythological faces,eagles, snakes, sphinxes and grifns (McKenzie1998: 39-41) (FIG. 14). Madin li was moreexposed than Petra, being situated on the edge ofNabataean territory and lacking the high mountains,which might explain why the tombs needed moreprotection through apotropaic motifs. This may

also explain why 36 of the tombs at Madin liare accompanied by formal Nabataean inscriptions

that are cast in legal terms and protect and governtheir ownership (Nehm 2003a: 253). Most of theseinscriptions are carved in panels above the entrancein the faade (FIG. 14) and include informationabout the tomb owner, the individuals allowed tobe buried within, the components of the tomb andallocation of the burial space, prohibitions, curses

and penalties concerning misuse of the tomb andsometimes the name of the stone-mason (Healey1993: 43-8). They are also dated by the regnal yearof the king and span the period AD 1 - 76. At Pe-tra, the only tomb with such an inscription on itsfaade is the Turkmaniyah Tomb (Brnnow andvon Domaszewski No. 633; CIS II 350; see Healey1993: 238-42 for bibliography and translation).However, this inscription fails to mention either thename of an owner or the ruling king.

Before considering the epigraphic evidence on

the tombs and its signicance for our understand-ing of Nabataean funerary architecture, it was nec-

14. Hegr Tomb E18 / IGN 93, Madinli, AD 31 (Photo by MahmoudHawari).


13/22


-519-

essary to determine whether the same relationshipsbetween faade type, tomb size and interior planthat were noted for the tombs at Petra were evidentfor the tombs at Madin li. Although a com-plete statistical analysis of the dimensions of theMadin li tombs is not possible until the g-ures are published by the Saudi - French Archaeo-

logical Project, there is sufcient information pro-vided in the preliminary reports of this project andthe earlier publications of Jaussen and Savignac toverify that the same architectural patterns occur inthe faade tombs of both sites6.

Firstly, based on the approximate scales pro-vided by Jaussen and Savignac in their drawingsof the faades and photos of the tombs, it is clear

that the Hegr and Double Pylon tombs are usuallythe largest, and the Proto-Hegr, Step and Single Py-lon tombs tend to be considerably smaller. Nehmet al. (2006a: 76) recorded that the largest faadeat Madin li belongs to Hegr Tomb Qasr el-Ferid (IGN 110) which, although unnished, hasa height of 21.5 m and a width of 13.8 m (FIG.

15). Secondly, according to the few plans and illus-trations of the tomb interiors that are available, itappears that the same relationship between faadetype, chamber size and arrangements for burial ex-ists at Madin li, as it does at Petra. Althoughthe average size of the chamber oor area for eachfaade type is signicantly lower than the averagesdetermined at Petra, it is still obvious that the Hegr

6 The conclusions drawn here may need to be altered once the data become fully available.

15. Unnished faade of Qasr el-Ferid/ IGN 110, Madin li (Photo byMahmoud Hawari).


14/22

LUCY WADESON

-520-

tombs tend to have the largest chambers7. For ex-ample, the oor area of Hegr Tomb B4/IGN 20 is71.2m2. The other faade types are less well rep-resented in the publications, but among those re-corded, the largest chamber oor area belongs toProto-Hegr Tomb A8/IGN 12 which does not ex-ceed 34.5m2.

The same types of burial installations are foundin the faade tombs of both Petra and Madinli, although at the latter site burial niches aremore prolic than loculi. Burial niches are smallopenings carved in the chamber walls that are wid-er than they are deep (FIG. 16). The total numberrecorded across the tombs at Madin li (281) ismore than double that of loculi (100) (Nehm et al.2006a: 79), whereas at Petra only 77 burial nicheswere recorded, as opposed to 886 loculi.

Nevertheless, the arrangement of the burial in-

stallations according to faade type follows thesame patterns at Madin li as it does at Pe-tra. Thus, at Madin li, Hegr tombs have themost well-planned and neatly arranged interiors,with loculi carved symmetrically and evenly in thewalls, as in Tomb B6/IGN 22 (FIG. 17), which aremore prone to being neatly carved and of similardimensions, as in Tomb B7/IGN 24. There are alsoone or more prominent burial places in the backwall, aligned with the entrance, such as in TombsA3/IGN 9, B1/IGN 20, B6/IGN 22 and B7/IGN

24. In these tombs there is an obvious hierarchy ofburial and the interiors appear to have been plannedas a whole in most cases. At Petra, the large DoublePylon tombs showed a tendency to have similarly-arranged interiors to the Hegr tombs. However, atMadin li this is difcult to prove at this stage,since only two plans of Double Pylon tombs are

currently available. The chamber of Tomb C16/IGN 119 shows a neat arrangement of oor gravesand a centrally aligned loculus in the back wall,whereas tomb E9/IGN 76 has a small chamber withrandomly arranged burial features (Jaussen andSavignac 1909: g. 125; 1914: g. 42).

By contrast, the simpler and smaller faadetypes, such as the Single Pylon, Step and Proto-Hegr tombs, show a markedly different interior ar-rangement from the Hegr tombs. Overall they havea lower number of burial features, which tend to

cluster in the corners of the chambers, as opposedto the centre of the walls, and appear randomly ar-ranged, as in Tombs B11/IGN 30 and C6/IGN 27(FIGS. 18-19). There is a lack of symmetry andthe impression that the features were carved whenneeded, rather than planned in advance.

Seeing as there are the same patterns of differ-entiation in the size and interior organisation oftombs according to their faade type at both Petraand Madin li, it is likely that the reasons forthe varying architectural types were the same in

16. Burial niches in Hegr Tomb B22/ IGN 44, Madin li, AD 26(Photo by Mahmoud Hawari).

7 Measurements taken from Jaussen and Savignac 1909; 1914; Dentzer et al. 2002; 2003; Nehm et al. 2006a; 2006b.


15/22


-521-

both cities. It will now be demonstrated how thesereasons are in fact related to differing types of tombownership, as expressed in the inscriptions on theMadin li tombs. Moreover, the dates providedin the inscriptions support the new chronologicalsequence that was suggested for the faade tombs

at Petra and reveal that the issues of tomb owner-ship are part of social and economic change duringthe 1st century AD.

Chronology and Tomb OwnershipSince the majority of the inscriptions on the faades

17. Plan and sections of Hegr TombB6 / IGN 22, Madin li, AD 1(Jaussen and Savignac 1909, g.183).


16/22

LUCY WADESON

-522-

of 36 tombs at Madin li mention the year ofthe ruling Nabataean king, it has been determinedthat 32 of the tombs fall between the period AD 1- 76 (Healey 1993: 6). These dated tombs cover allthe faade types, excepting the single Arch tombwhich lacks an inscription. The co-existence of thevarious types led scholars to assume that either anytypological development that occurred was com-

plete by AD 1 (Jaussen and Savignac 1909: 391),or that there was in fact no chronological distinc-tion between the tomb-types but rather they were areection of the differing social standing and nan-cial means of their owners (Negev 1976: 219, 235).

However, when the dated tombs were analysedin their chronological order, McKenzie (1990: 19)observed that the Hegr and Double Pylon tombstended to occur earlier than the Step, Proto-Hegrand Single Pylon tombs, which are their smaller andsimpler versions. The latter tombs are dated laterin the 1st century AD (after ca.AD 35). This sheset out in a useful diagram, in which the tombs are

plotted according to their date and type (1990: 13,Diagram 1). Nevertheless, one tomb-type did notreplace another and the last dated Hegr tomb wascarved by AD 63. McKenzie also noted a chrono-logical simplication of the architectural elementswithin each tomb-type and an increasing squatnessin the proportions of the faades (McKenzie 1990:19-22).

McKenzies observations conrm the new chro-nology that is proposed here for the Petra tombs.

18. Plan and sections of Proto-Hegr Tomb B11 / IGN 30,Madin li, AD 57 (Jaussen and Savignac 1914, g.32).

19. Plan and section of Proto-Hegr Tomb C6 / IGN 127,Madin li, AD 36 (Jaussen and Savignac 1914, g.36).


17/22


-523-

The new evidence presented in the rst part of thispaper suggested that the Hegr and Double Pylontombs were the earliest to be carved in Petra andthat the Step, Proto-Hegr and Single Pylon tombswere chronologically later. Patterns of simplica-tion and standardisation were noted, since the Step,Proto-Hegr and Single Pylon types are smaller and

simpler versions of the earlier Hegr and DoublePylon types. Thus, the same chronological trendsappear to occur in both Petra and Madin li.

The reasons behind these changes in the funer-ary architecture during the course of the 1st centuryAD were discovered through an examination of thecontent of the Madin li tomb inscriptions inrelation to the faade types and the interior arrange-ment of the chambers. The observed dichotomy be-tween the large, well-planned tombs and the small-er, simpler ones with a seemingly more haphazard

arrangement appears to have resulted from dif-fering types of ownership of the tombs. The largeHegr and Double Pylon Tombs were mostly made,i.e. commissioned, and dedicated by a single ownerof high social status for him / herself and certainfamily members, whereas the small Single Pylon,Step and Proto-Hegr tombs, occurring later in thecentury, were usually ownedand shared betweennumerous individuals, who lack any notable statusand are not necessarily related. Negev had notedthe relationship between faade type and socio-economic status at Madin li (1976: 219), buthe did not recognise the differing terminology usedon the tombs, the effect of ownership on the inte-rior plan, nor the chronological factor.

Apart from three exceptions8, all the Hegr andDouble Pylon tombs with inscriptions at Madinli were made by a single named person for him /herself and certain family members, some of whomare also named. The verb used is bd(to make)and the formula is This is the tomb which x madefor y (Healey 1993: 45-46, 70, 129). Among theseinscribed tombs, those that have published plans

tend to have a more prominent burial installation,usually a loculus, carved in the centre of the backwall in alignment with the entrance, which onewould naturally assume would have belonged tothe tomb owner. This is in fact conrmed by an in-

scription carved between the two central loculi inthe back wall of Tomb A3/IGN 9 (FIG. 20), whichstates:

These are the two burial-niches9of Hawshabuson of Nayu and Abdalga and Habbu, his chil-dren, Sahmites. And may he who separates nightfrom day curse whoever removes them for ever.

(Inscription H2; Healey 1993: 81)Hawshabu is mentioned on the faade inscrip-

tion as the tomb owner, but the names of his chil-dren are not. These two loculi are the largest andmost prominent in the chamber and aligned withthe entrance. Thus, it is unsurprising to learn thatthe owner was buried alone in one of them, whileboth children are buried together in the other.

Other tombs with a single owner and a centralburial place in the back wall include Hegr TombsB1/IGN 17 and B6/IGN 22 (FIG. 17). The less

prominent burial places in the chamber presum-

8 Tomb B19/IGN 39 was made by a mother and her daughter. TombC1/IGN 121 does not mention the verb to make but rather states:This is the tomb of Sukaynatand her sons and daughters(Healey 1993: 178). Tomb E1/IGN 58 was made by a brother andsister. All three tombs are of Double Pylon type and owned by at

least one female, who perhaps could not afford the full cost of thetomb alone.

9 i.e. loculi. The Nabataean word is gw (niches for burial). It isrelated to the Palmyrene word gwm: Healey 1993: 82.

20. Plan and sections of Hegr Tomb A3 / IGN 9, Madinli, AD 5 (Jaussen and Savignac 1909, g. 174).


18/22

LUCY WADESON

-524-

ably belonged to the family members mentioned inthe faade inscriptions. These are generally neatlyarranged, suggesting they were pre-carved for thefamily unit. Hegr Tombs B4/IGN 20 and B7/IGN24 both contain three prominent loculi in their backwalls, with the central one aligned with the door-way. The inscription on Tomb B7 specically men-

tions the names of three persons to be buried in thetomb: Abdobodat the owner, Wailat his daughterand Huru his brother (Healey 1993: 123), presum-ably in the three equally sized and neatly arrangedloculi.

The faade decoration, size and plans of theseHegr and Double Pylon tombs suggest the high so-cial standing and wealth of the tomb owner. Thisis also expressed in the accompanying inscriptions,especially those carved on the Hegr tombs. Theirprofessions all appear to be careers of ofcial and

high status, comprising the ruling upper class, orconnected to the military, such as governors, pre-fects, an omen-diviner and a physician (Negev1976: 223-227). These individuals were expressingtheir status in society through monumental tombbuilding, which made provision for the burials oftheir prestigious families but also emphasised theirown importance through a hierarchy of burial.

In contrast, the 11 inscribed tombs with small-er and simpler faade types, such as Single Py-lon, Step and Proto-Hegr, mostly lack any men-tion of status or profession in regards to the tombowner(s). Among these tombs, four were madeby one or more owners, while seven belong topeople. These tombs are clearly cheaper versionsof the Hegr and Double Pylon tombs, yet in mostcases the cost still had to be shared between people.Thus, it seems they belonged to individuals of less-er means than the owners of the Hegr and DoublePylon tombs.

Among the four tombs made by the owners inthe manner of the larger tombs, Proto-Hegr TombC6/IGN 127 and Single Pylon Tomb B10/IGN 29,

were made by more than one person. The formerwas made by a husband and wife on behalf of thewifes brothers, while the latter was made by amother and her two daughters. In these cases, thecost had to be shared between more than one per-son, despite the tombs being smaller and simpler.The single loculus in Tomb B10 is located in thefar right of the back wall. We know it belongs to

Wushuh (the mother), rst mentioned in the faadeinscription, because of a further inscription carvedto the left of this loculus (Healey 1993: 131). Itstates that she made the loculus for herself and is-sues a warning in the form of curses and nes onanyone who opens it and removes her remains.The choice of location is signicant, considering

the only other burial feature in the walls is a smallburial niche.

Tomb C6/IGN 127 was not only made by twopeople, but also divided between them (FIG. 19).The faade inscription informs us the husbandowns a third of the tomb andburial-chamber andthe wife owns two-thirds (Healey 1993: 180). Morespecically, it also states that she owns the burialstructures in the east side and he owns the burialstructures in the south-east side. Taking into con-sideration the plan of the chamber, in real terms,

this seems to suggest that the wife owned the twofeatures in the left part of the back wall, while thehusband owned the right corner of the back walland the features in the right wall (Healey 1993:184). The terms east and south-east relate to actualgeographical location, rather than within the tombitself. This division also coincides with a neat shareof two-thirds of the chamber proper for her and athird for him. It is signicant that ownership of thechamber and the burial features within it seem tobe distinct, as they are treated as separate mattersin the inscription. This was not noted by previousscholars who had trouble seeing how the chambercould be divided into thirds (Healey 1993: 184).

The irregular arrangement of the burial features,which is common for the simpler faade types,may nd explanation in the fact that tomb interiorscould be shared between multiple owners. Althoughin Tomb C6 the burial installations seem to havebeen carved before the inscription was added to thefaade, the lack of symmetry in the planning mustresult from the unequal division of the chamber be-tween the two owners. The two corner features be-

longing to the husband are loculus-chambers whichboth extend in space towards the back corner. Thus,it is likely that he was maximising his share of thewall-space in this part of the chamber. It is alsonoteworthy that husband and wife were to be buriedin their own separate parts of the chamber and thatthe female owns more than the male10. She was ob-viously from a prestigious family, since her father

10 Al-Fassi (2007: 56) suggests this is because her share must accommodate the burial of her brothers.


19/22


-525-

was Taymu the governor, and she was presumablyburied in the loculus aligned with the entrance.

The remaining seven (64%) of the inscribedsimpler faade tombs (Single Pylon, Step, Proto-Hegr) belong to one or more owners11. The ex-pression used is dy l-and the formula is This isthe tomb which belongs to x (Healey 1993: 129).

This change in terminology implies the tombs werepre-carved and then bought by people, rather thancommissioned by them. Several pieces of archaeo-logical evidence support such a theory. Firstly, onTomb B9/IGN 27, the name of the mason is men-tioned within the cartouche of the faade inscrip-tion and also repeated below, outside the frame.The mason obviously signed his name outside thecartouche before the main inscription was added(Healey 1993: 128-129). Healey suggests that thismay indicate the tomb was carved and signed by

the stonemason before being sold, pointing to an-other example of Single Pylon Tomb B17/IGN 39where only the masons name is recorded and thereis no other inscription (Healey 1993: 130). In addi-tion, the name of the stonemason is carved on therock wing of uninscribed Tomb E20/IGN 95.

Two other tombs seem to be designed withoutprovision for an inscription in the form of a car-touche. For example, the inscription on Tomb B11/IGN 30 is squeezed into the space above and tothe left of the tympanum, implying the tomb wasdesigned and carved according to the taste of thestonemason and later sold to the owners, who thendecided to add the inscription (Healey 1993: 151).The inscription on Tomb E14/IGN 87 is also lack-ing a cartouche and is carved on to a worked areaof the faade (Healey 1993: 220).

There are no inscribed Hegr or Double Pylontombs that either specically belong to people orwere shared between owners. Thus, we seem to bedealing with cheaper and simpler versions of themore elaborate tombs being carved and sold tothose of lesser means. These bought tombs also

commonly had their chambers divided legally be-tween the owners.

Among the seven bought tombs, only one planis available to us, that of Proto-Hegr Tomb B11/IGN 30 (FIG. 18). This tomb belongs to two unre-lated women, Hagaru and Mahmiyyat. The faadeinscription states that the burial chamber is equallydivided between them: Hagaru owns ve cubits to

the right and Mahmiyyat owns ve cubits to the left(Healey 1993: 147). This division is conrmed inthe tomb plan and further interior inscription. Thesingle loculus in the far right of the back wall is ac-companied by an inscription which states:

This is the burial-niche (i.e. loculus) whichHagaru made for Maslamu, her brother, and for

Mahmiyyat, her aunt. Let it not be opened overthem for ever. (Inscription H13; Healey 1993:144-146)

This proves that Hagaru in fact owned this partof the chamber. The burial niches in the left part ofthe chamber would have then belonged to Mahmiy-yat. The difference in ceiling height, approximatelyin the middle of the chamber, may have even beena physical marker for this division. The irregularand asymmetrical arrangement of the burial instal-lations in this chamber can thus be explained by the

multiple ownership of the tomb. Such division doesnot allow for a central burial place in the back wall,either physically or conceptually. It is more dif-cult to discern a hierarchy of burial in these dividedtombs, since there is a lack of centrality and burialfeatures cluster in certain parts of the chamber.

If we consider these new ndings in the chrono-logical framework, it becomes evident that therewere signicant social and economic changes inNabataean funerary tradition during the 1st centuryAD. According to the inscribed tombs at Madinli, in the rst third of the century, individualsof a high social and economic status were commis-sioning the monumental Hegr and Double Pylontombs to be made for themselves and their fami-lies. The plans of these tombs reected the struc-ture of the family and the prestige of its head, i.e.the tomb owner, by having neatly arranged burialinstallations often culminating in a more prominentburial place in the back wall of the chamber. Thesetombs continue to be made up until AD 63, but theybecome less frequent once their simpler, smallerversions, the Single Pylon, Step and Proto-Hegr

tombs, start to be carved from AD 34 onwards.From AD 39, the latter tombs exclusively belongto individuals, as opposed to being commissionedby them. As argued above, it is likely these werepre-carved before being sold. The owners of thesetombs appear to have a lower socio-economic sta-tus than those of the larger, elaborate tombs. Theyalso shared the cost of the tomb and divided the

11 Tombs B9/IGN 27, B11/IGN 30, D/IGN 111, E6/IGN 7, E14/IGN 87, E16/IGN 89 and E19/IGN 94.


20/22

LUCY WADESON

-526-

burial space accordingly. This explains the less or-derly plans, with burial installations clustering inthe corners of the walls and chamber.

It is signicant that around AD 39 there emergesa group of individuals in Nabataean society withthe means and desire to own monumental tombs inimitation of the ruling elite. This change in practice

coincides with the transition between the reigns ofAretas IV (9 BC - AD 40) and Malichos II (AD 40 -70). It is also a time of prosperity in the Nabataeankingdom (Healey 1993: 22-7; Graf and Sidebotham2003: 68). We may thus speculate that the middleclass of society became wealthier throughout thecourse of the 1st century AD as a result of trade andcommerce, giving them the chance to behave likethe elite, whose status did not need to be earned. Itmay also be that at this time there was a need forexpression of a Nabataean cultural identity among

a broader group of individuals. In order to full theneeds of this changing society, tomb carving seemsto have become an industry, whereby cheaper ver-sions of the original designer tombs were carvedbefore being sold. It is likely that the burial instal-lations within these tombs were only carved oncethe tomb was sold and made to suit the require-ments of the owners. This hypothesis accords withthe standardisation in size and simplication of de-sign observed in the Single Pylon, Step and Proto-Hegr tombs at Petra.

ConclusionsThe new chronological sequence proposed for Na-bataean faade tombs sees trends towards simpli-cation and standardisation. It is argued that the ear-liest of the non-classical faade tombs to be carvedat Petra and Madin li were the largest andmost elaborate Hegr and Double Pylon types, whichwere commissioned by the ruling elite. Smallerand simpler versions of these tombs, such as theSingle Pylon, Step and Proto-Hegr types, weresubsequently made to satisfy the needs of a rising

middle class who wished to express a new socialand economic status as a result of their commercialactivities. The cost of these simpler tombs oftenhad to be shared between multiple owners, whosedivision of the burial space resulted in the asym-metrical plans. Similar trends towards simplica-tion and standardisation were noted by McKenziein her study of the classical architectural elementsin Nabataean architecture, and Nabataean sculp-ture (1990: 24-5; 33-59; 2003: 165-91). Schmid

has also observed comparable patterns in dated ex-amples from a broad range of media in Nabataeanmaterial culture, such as ceramics and coinage, aswell as sculpture and architecture (2001: 367-426).

Notably, similar patterns appear in other majorcities of the Greco-Roman Near East around thesame time and may therefore be part of a wider re-

gional trend. For example, the Egyptian mummyportraits appear in AD 40 and the Palmyrene funer-ary busts begin to be made ca.AD 50 (Borg 1995:229-233; Walker 2000: 35-36; Colledge 1976:67). In both these cases we nd a broader rangeof people having the means and desire to presentthemselves in the manner of the elite or, more pre-cisely, in a Greco-Roman fashion during a periodof economic prosperity. While different cultures ofthe Levant and Egypt were inuenced by similarsocial and cultural trends as a result of Greek and

then Roman dominance of the area, they interpret-ed them locally, resulting in distinctive forms of artand architecture. The Nabataean faade tombs arebut one facet of this and it is hoped that the trendsdiscovered in their development will further un-derstanding of other aspects of Nabataean materialculture.

AcknowledgementsI am most grateful to the late Dr Fawwaz al-Khray-sheh, former Director General of the Departmentof Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jor-dan, for granting me the permission to undertakeeldwork in Petra between 2005 and 2007. I wouldalso like to thank the following individuals for allthe help and support they provided in my research,both in Jordan and the United Kingdom: AlisonDamick, Suleiman Farajat, Prof Bill Finlayson, DrMahmoud Hawari, Prof John Healey, Dr JaimieLovell, Dr Judith McKenzie, Kat McRae, Nad-

ja Qaisi, Dr Shaher Rababeh, Mette Rabitz, ProfStephan Schmid, Qais Tweissi, Prof Alan Walms-ley and Prof Robert Wenning, as well as the staff of

the Petra Archaeological Park and members of theBdool tribe. Financial support for this research waskindly provided by various funding bodies at theUniversity of Oxford, including the Craven Fund,the Meyerstein Fund and the Keble Association.The complete data upon which this paper is basedis to be found in the authors doctoral thesis: TheFaade Tombs of Petra: from Exterior to Interior(Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford,2010).


21/22


-527-

BibliographyBikai, P.M. and Perry, M.A. 2001. Petra North Ridge

Tombs 1 and 2: Preliminary Report. BASOR 324:

59-78.

Borg, B. 1995. Problems in the Dating of the Mummy

Portraits. Pp. 229-233 in E. Doxiadis (ed.), The Mys-

terious Fayum Portraits: Faces from Ancient Egypt.

London: Thames and Hudson.

Browning, I. 1973. Petra. London: Chatto and Windus.

Brnnow, R.E. and von Domaszewski, A. 1904. Die

Provincia ArabiaVol. 1. Strassburg: Trbner.

Colledge, M.A.R. 1976. The Art of Palmyra. London:

Thames and Hudson.

Dentzer, J.M. et al. 2002. Report on the 2001 Season of

the Saudi-French Archaeological Project at Madain

Salih, Ancient Hegra.ATLAL 17: 101-126.

2003. Report on the 2002, Second Season of the

Saudi-French Archaeological Project at Madain Sa-

lih.ATLAL 18: 61-80.Farajat, S. and Nawaeh, S. 2005. Report on the al-

Khazna Courtyard Excavation at Petra (2003 Sea-

son).ADAJ49: 373-393.

Al-Fassi, H.A. 2007. Women in Pre-Islamic Arabia:

Nabataea. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Freyberger, K.S. 1991. Zur Datierung des Grabmals des

Sextius Florentinus in Petra.DM 5: 1-8.

Graf, D.F. and Sidebotham, S.E. 2003. Nabataean

Trade. Pp. 65-73 in G. Markoe (ed.), Petra Redis-

covered. London: Thames and Hudson.

Healey, J.F. 1993. The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of

Madain Salih. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jaussen, A. and Savignac, R. 1909. Mission archo-

logique en Arabie Vol. 1. Paris: Institut Franais

darchologie Orientale.

1914.Mission archologique en ArabieVol. 2. Par-

is: Institut Franais darchologie Orientale.

Kennedy, A.B.W. 1925. Petra: Its History and Monu-

ments. London: Country Life.

McKenzie, J.S. 1990. The Architecture of Petra. Ox-

ford: Oxford University Press.

2003. Carvings in the Desert: The Sculpture of Pet-

ra and Khirbet et-Tannur. Pp. 165-191 in G. Markoe(ed.), Petra Rediscovered. London: Thames and

Hudson.

2004. Temples, tombs, and other recent discoveries

from the Rose Red City.JRA17: 559-568.

McKenzie, J.S. et al. 1998. Faces in the Rock at Petra

and Medain Saleh. PEQ130: 35-50.

Negev, A. 1976. The Nabataean Necropolis at Egra.RB

83: 203-236.

1977. The Nabataeans and the Provincia Arabia.

ANRW 2.8: 520-686.

Nehm, L. 2003a. Les inscriptions des chambres

funraires nabatennes et la question de lanoymat

des tombes.AAE 14.2: 203-258.

2003b. The Petra Survey Project. Pp. 145-163 in G.

Markoe (ed.), Petra Rediscovered. London: Thames

and Hudson.

Nehm, L. et al. 2006a. Mission archologique deMadin li (Arabie Saoudite): Recherches

menes de 2001 2003 dans lancienne Hijra des

Nabatens (1).AAE 171: 41-124.

2006b. Report on the Third Season 2003 of the Sau-

di-French Archaeological Project at Madin li.

ATLAL19: 59-90.

Netzer, E. 2003. Nabatische Architektur. Mainz am

Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Perry, M.A. 2002. Life and Death in Nabataea: The

North Ridge Tombs and Nabataean Burial Practices.

NEA 65.4: 265-270.Rihani, B. 2004. Identication of Some Archaeological

Nabataean Sites in North-West Saudi Arabia. SHAJ

8: 371-378.

Ruben, I. (ed.) 2003. ThePetra Siq: Nabataean Hydrol-

ogy Uncovered. Amman: Petra National Trust.

Schmid, S.G. 2001. The Nabataeans: Travellers be-

tween Lifestyles. Pp. 367-426 in B. MacDonald, R.

Adams and P. Bienkowski (eds.),The Archaeology

of Jordan. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press.

Schmid, S.G. and Barmasse, A. 2006. The International

Wadi Farasa Project (IWFP): Preliminary Report on

the 2005 Season.ADAJ50: 217-227.

Schmid, S.G., Amour, A., Barmasse, A., Duchesne, S.,

Huguenot, C. and Wadeson, L. 2008. New Insights

into Nabataean Funerary Practices. Pp. 135-160 in

J.M. Crdoba et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th

International Conference on the Archaeology of the

Ancient Near East. Madrid.

Schmidt-Colinet, A. 1983. A Nabataean Family of

Sculptors at Hegra.Berytus

1987. The Masons Workshop of Hegra, its Rela-

tions to Petra, and the Tomb of Syllaios. SHAJ 3:

143-150.Shaer, M. 2000. Verputz und farbige Fassung der Fels-

fassaden von Petra. Pp. 133-148 in M. Khlenthal

and H. Fischer (eds.), Petra: Die Restaurierung der

Grabfassaden. Mnchen: Bayerisches Landesamt

fr Denkmalpege.

Wadeson, L. 2010a. The Chronology of the Faade

Tombs at Petra: a Structural and Metrical Analysis.

Levant42.1: 48-69.

2010b. The Faade Tombs of Petra: from Exterior


22/22

LUCY WADESON

to Interior. University of Oxford: D.Phil. thesis.

Walker, S. 2000. A Note on the Dating of Mummy Por-

traits. Pp. 34-36 in S. Walker (ed.), Ancient Faces:

Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt. New York:

The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Wenning, R. 1996. Hegra and Petra: Some Differences.

ARAM8.2: 253-267.

Yadin, Y. 1962. The Expedition to the Judean Desert,

1961: Expedition D.IEJ12: 227-257.

Documents

Nabataean Façade Tombs a New Chronology