Reinventing the sacred: from shrine to monastery at Jabal Hārūn.

Supplement to the proceedingS of the Seminar for arabian StudieS

Volume 42

2012

the nabataeanS in focuS: current archaeological reSearch at petra

Papers from the Special Session of the Seminar for Arabian Studiesheld on 29 July 2011

edited by

Laïla Nehmé and Lucy Wadeson

Seminar for arabian StudieS

archaeopreSSoxford

2012

This Supplement is available with volume 42 of the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies and orders should be sent to Archaeopress, Gordon House, 276 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7ED, UK.Tel/Fax +44-(0)1865-311914.e-mail [email protected]://www.archaeopress.comFor the availability of back issues see the The British Foundation for the Study of Arabia’s web site: www.thebfsa.org/seminar_proceedings.html

Seminar for Arabian Studiesc/o the Department of the Middle East, The British MuseumLondon, WC1B 3DG, United Kingdome-mail [email protected] British Foundation for the Study of Arabia: www.thebfsa.org

The Steering Committee of the Seminar for Arabian Studies is currently made up of thirteen members. The Editorial Committee of the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies includes six additional members as follows:

STEERING COMMITTEE EDITORIAL COMMITTEE: ADDITIONAL MEMBERSMr Simon Alderson (Treasurer)Dr Mark BeechDr Robert CarterDr Nadia DurraniProfessor Dr Robert G. HoylandDr Derek Kennet Mr Michael C.A. MacdonaldDr Ardle MacMahon (Secretary)Dr Venetia PorterDr St John SimpsonMrs Janet C.M. Starkey (Editor)Professor Janet WatsonDr Lloyd Weeks (Chairperson)

Professor Alessandra AvanziniDr Ricardo EichmannProfessor Clive HolesProfessor Khaleel Al-Muaikel Professor Dan PottsProfessor Christian Robin

Opinions expressed in papers published in the Proceedings are those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by the Editorial Committee.

The Proceedings is produced in the Times Semitic New font, which was designed by Paul Bibire for the Seminar for Arabian Studies.

© 2012 Archaeopress, Oxford, UK.All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.ISSN 0308-8421ISBN 978-1-905739-55-4

The Steering Committee of the Seminar for Arabian Studies is most grateful to theMBI Al Jaber Foundation

for its continued generosity in making a substantial grant towards the running costs ofthe Seminar and the editorial expenses of producing the Proceedings.

i

Contents

Transliteration.............................................................................................................................................................. iii

Preface ...........................................................................................................................................................................v

Laïla Nehmé & Lucy Wadeson, Introduction — The Nabataeans in focus ...................................................................1

Susan E. Alcock & Alex R. Knodell, Landscapes north of Petra: the Petra Area and Wādī Silaysil Survey (Brown University Petra Archaeological Project, 2010–2011) .....................................................................................5

Chaim Ben David, Nabataean or Late Roman? Reconsidering the date of the built sections and milestones along the Petra–Gaza road ..........................................................................................................................................17

Zbigniew T. Fiema, Reinventing the sacred: from shrine to monastery at Jabal Hārūn .............................................27

F. Renel, M. Mouton, C. Augé, C. Gauthier, C. Hatté, J-F. Saliège & A. Zazzo, Dating the early phases underthe temenos of the QaΒr al-Bint at Petra .....................................................................................................................39

Marie-Jeanne Roche, A Nabataean shrine to Isis in Wādī Abū ΚUllayqah, in the south-west of Petra .......................55

Stephan G. Schmid, Piotr Bienkowski, Zbigniew T. Fiema & Bernhard Kolb, The palaces of the Nabataean kings at Petra ...............................................................................................................................................................73

Lucy Wadeson, The funerary landscape of Petra: results from a new study ...............................................................99

Robert Wenning in cooperation with Laurent Gorgerat, The International AΒlaΉ Project, Petra: new research and new questions ......................................................................................................................................................127

Papers read in the Special Session of the Seminar for Arabian Studies on 29 July 2011 .........................................143

iii

Transliteration

This Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies employs the following transliteration for Arabic and Nabataean (see table below).

Note that personal names, toponyms, and other words which have entered English in a particular form are used in that form when they occur in an English sentence, unless they are part of a quotation in the original language, or part of a correctly transliterated name or phrase.

Names of sites, archaeological periods, and types of pottery, which have entered archaeological usage in a particular form, are used in that form.

Arabic Transliteration Nabataean Transliterationا Μ Μ

ب b bت t g

ث th d

ج j h

ح Ή w

خ kh z

د d Ή

ذ dh Γ

ر r y

ز z k

س s l

ش sh m

ص Β n

ض Ρ sط Γ Κظ Ξ p

ع Κ Β

غ gh q

ف f r

ق q š

ك k tل lم mن nه hو wي y

Other:• short vowels are transliterated as a i u and long ones as ā ī ū;• diphthongs are transliterated as aw and ay;• initial hamzah is omitted;• alif maqΒūrah is transliterated as ā;• the lām of the article is not assimilated before the ‘sun letters’, thus al-shams not ash-shams;• tāΜ marbūΓah is rendered -ah, except in a construct, where it is -at.

v

Preface

The 46th Seminar for Arabian Studies was held at the British Museum on 28–30 July 2011.1 This annual conference is an important forum for British and international scholars to meet and present their latest research in the humanities on the Arabian Peninsula, from the Palaeolithic period to the end of the Ottoman empire. While the Seminar was originally created to focus on new archaeological research in Arabia, it now encompasses a broad range of subjects including epigraphy, art, architecture, history, literature, linguistics, ethnography, and sociology.

From 2007, the Seminar has begun to include ‘Special Sessions’ aimed at focusing on specific topics for which it was felt there have been significant advances in research and findings. The first Special Session (2007) focused on The Palaeolithic of Arabia, and the second (2009) dealt with The Development of Arabic as a written language. Following on from their success, a third Special Session, The Nabataeans in Focus: current archaeological research at Petra, was held at the 2011 Seminar on Friday 29 July. This day-long session was organized by myself with the indispensable guidance and support of the Steering Committee of the Seminar, and in particular Ardle MacMahon. Special thanks are also due to Michael Macdonald and Rob Carter.

With an international mix of scholars working in Nabataean studies, eleven papers were presented on the themes of ‘Religion and Status’, chaired by Laïla Nehmé, ‘Tombs and Burial Customs’, chaired by John Healey, and ‘Environs and Hinterland’ chaired by Peter Parr.2 Papers dealt with the Nabataeans and Petra from the earliest traces of settlement in the Hellenistic period to the thriving community in the city in late antiquity. We were lucky enough to hear the latest results from excavation and survey projects that were fresh out of the field. They dealt with key sites within the city such as Umm al-Biyārah, al-Khubthah, and the QaΒr al-Bint, as well as important locations in the outer suburbs and environs such as the Bāb al-Sīq, Jabal Hārūn, Wādī Slaysil, and BayΡā. The day concluded with a panel discussion on ‘Developing an Agenda for Nabataean Archaeology’ lead by Laïla Nehmé and myself. The challenges still facing Nabataean studies were raised, provoking some interesting feedback from the participants. We are hugely grateful to all the speakers and the chairpersons (John Healey, Laïla Nehmé, and Peter Parr) for stimulating important discussions and making the session a great success.

A suitable introduction to the Special Session was provided by Laïla Nehmé, who delivered the MBI Al Jaber Foundation Public Lecture at the British Museum on the evening of 28 July. The subject of her lecture was ‘From the capital of Petra to the provincial city of Hegra: new insights on the Nabataeans’. I have been fortunate to have Laïla Nehmé as my co-editor in the publication of the Special Session papers as a Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Volume 42, 2012. I benefitted greatly from working with Laïla and would like to express my gratitude to her for all the help and advice she gave me along the way and for working with me. I would also like to thank Helen Knox, Rajka Makjanić, and Janet Starkey for the thorough and efficient work they undertook during the preparation of this Supplement. Any outstanding errors in this volume remain the responsibility of the editors.

The Special Session was made possible through the generous financial support of the Seminar and the MBI Al Jaber Foundation, to whom we offer our deepest thanks. This volume aims to provide new results of recent research at Petra, which will have an impact on our understanding of the Nabataeans, especially in areas where information has been lacking in the past, such as ‘early’ Petra, funerary practices, and religion. As a result of this volume, we hope that a more multi-disciplinary approach to the subject can be encouraged, as well as more collaborative work between different projects. Given the great expansion and popularity of Nabataean studies today, this current publication may well lay the groundwork for plans to establish a scholarly periodical dedicated to this topic in the future.

Lucy WadesonOriental Institute,

Pusey Lane,Oxford OX1 2LE, UK

e-mail [email protected] March 2012

1 See Proceedings 42 and www.thebfsa.org.2 A list of the papers presented is provided at the end of this volume.

Reinventing the sacred: from shrine to monastery at Jabal Hārūn

Zbigniew T. Fiema

SummaryThe Jabal Haroun (Jabal al-Nabī Hārūn), located c.5 km south-west of Petra in southern Jordan, is the highest peak in the area, easily attracting attention and stirring the imagination. According to Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions, the mountain is the burial place of Aaron, Moses’ brother. Since 1997, the Finnish Jabal Hārūn Project (FJHP) has carried out archaeological excavations of a Byzantine monastery located on the high plateau of the mountain. But the existence of the monastery represents only part of the whole spectrum of the religious significance accorded to the mountain from Nabataean times, a significance that continued well into the Islamic period. The excavations revealed that the site was initially occupied by a major Nabataean sanctuary, dated to the first century BC/AD. In the later fifth century, a Byzantine monastery was built at the site, but as early as the fourth century — the period of struggle between traditional Nabataean cults and Christianity — the mountain began to be associated with the biblical tradition of the Exodus, and attracted Christian pilgrimages. Apparently, one of the religious phenomena associated with the rise of Christianity in the Near East — the transformation of a pagan, cultic place into a sacred, biblical location — had taken place at Jabal Hārūn. While presenting the history of the Nabataean cult at Jabal Hārūn, the paper will also concentrate on the critical fourth century during which the Christian reinvention of religious tradition took place in Petra.

Keywords: Petra, Nabataean religion, early Christianity, fourth century, sanctuary

Epiphanius, the Christian bishop of Constantia (Salamis on Cyprus) undertook the massive task of studying all religious groups and Christian sects — other than orthodox Christianity — which had existed from the beginning of humankind to his time. The result of the studies was an exhaustive work, created between 374 and 376 and entitled the ‘Medicine chest’, as it was intended to provide the antidotes to these poisonous ideologies by exposing their fallacies and errors.

Not surprisingly, Palestine and Arabia turned out to be the cradle of many heresies, sects and misguided religious groups but Nabataea also had its fair share. Whatever was understood by Nabataea as a region in the time of Epiphanius, it appears to have encompassed southern Transjordan with Petra as its centre. For example, Epiphanius mentions the Ossaeans or Sampsaeans and the followers of the ‘false’ prophet Elxai, who lived in Nabataea, Ituraea and Moab (Panarion haer. 19.1.2; 19.2.10 = H1.218–219; 1990: 56–57).1 According to Epiphanius another Judaeo-Christian sect, the Ebionites, also originated in Nabataea, Moab, and northern Arabia

1 Division of text as in the selected passages published by Amidon in 1990. H indicates the volume number and section number by K. Holl and D the revised edition by J. Dummer.

(Panarion haer. 30.18.1 = H1.358). Specifically for Petra, Epiphanius mentioned what he apparently considered curious practices of mixed pagan idolatry and Christian elements. After a detailed description of the celebration of the birth of Kore’s son Aion at Alexandria, Epiphanius continues:

‘This is also done in the city of Petra (this is the capital of Arabia, which is called Edom in the scriptures) in the temple of the idol there. They sing hymns to the virgin in Arabic, calling her in Arabic ‘Chaamou’, which means Core or ‘virgin’, and the one born from her ‘Dusares’, which means ‘only-begotten of the Lord’. The rite is also performed in the city of Elusa on that night as in Petra and Alexandria’ (Panarion haer. 51.22.11, = H/D2.287).

The identification of Chaamou and the interpretation of the entire passage are much debated. Most recently, it has been suggested that Epiphanius recorded a much older tradition and, indeed, referred to a situation well before the mid-fourth century.2 This is perhaps further supported by the fact that Epiphanius intended to study

2 R. Wenning, personal communication. See also comments in Janif 2006–2007: 342–343. Bagnall (2008: 25–26, 28) suggests caution in the evaluation of the objectives and methods of Christian writers who wrote about the state of paganism and Christian-pagan relations of their time. See also comments by Frankfurter (2008: 137–8).

Supplement to Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42 (2012): 27–38

and present all sectarian and heretical doctrines, not only those that still persisted during his time. It is, however, also safe to assume that the old Nabataean religion and traditions must still have persisted to a certain extent and still have been practised in fourth-century Petra,3 as documented in other contemporary sources.

Although the transition from Nabataean pagan to Christian Petra is poorly documented, an example of that process is provided by the recently excavated architectural complex on Jabal al-Nabī Hārūn (Fig. 1), located c.5 km south-west of Petra, which illustrates well, from the archaeological standpoint, the transformation of a pagan cultic centre into a Byzantine monastery.4 A full understanding of that appropriation of the sacred space,

3 As proposed by Janif 2006–2007: 343, 351.4 For a brief site description, see Fiema 2008a.

however, requires an account of the invention of the Christian tradition, as viewed within the framework of Petra in the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

The Nabataean cultic centre

Jabal al-Nabī Hārūn is the highest and most prominent mountain in the Petra area. The highest peak of the mountain is the site of a fourteenth-century Islamic shrine (weli) dedicated to the veneration of the Prophet Hārūn, whose tomb is traditionally located there.5 The mountain clearly invites a comparison with the locations of other Nabataean sacral installations of the ‘high place’ type. In the early twentieth century, some scholars suggested

5 For descriptions see Wiegand 1920: 136–145 and Miettunen 2008: 34–38.

Figure 1. The FJHP site following the end of excavations in 2007. (Photograph Z.T. Fiema.)

Zbigniew T. Fiema28

Figure 2. A plan of the FJHP site. (Drawing by K. Koistinen and V. Putkonen.)

Reinventing the sacred: from shrine to monastery at Jabal Hārūn 29

that Jabal Hārūn might have been the location of the chief mountain sanctuary of the city (e.g. Robinson 1908). No investigations can be carried out under the weli, but it is the site of the FJHP excavations on the high plateau of the mountain (Fig. 2) which provides the evidence for the pre-Byzantine occupation, and the investigations there permit a tentative reconstruction of what would have been a Nabataean sacral complex, probably including a shrine.

The core of that complex was the Western Building built in front of the natural cavity in the bedrock (Fig. 2, Courtyard 44, cistern; Fig. 3). This fissure or deep depression in the bedrock, which would also have served as a cistern, must have played an important role in the history of the site. Notably, it does not seem to have ever been enlarged or modified. The architecture and the construction technique of the Western Building, as well as the finds of the first–second-century pottery, indicate the Nabataean origins of this building.

The two rooms of the Western Building (Fig. 2,

Rooms 25 and 26), together with a large stairway, might originally have been a Nabataean shrine. Whether there was a sacrificial altar located in one of the compartments of the building or whether such an altar was located up on the highest peak of the mountain, cannot be ascertained. The massive, well-cut ashlars and fragments of cornices and other decorative elements, found reused in the later — Byzantine — structures, suggest that the structure was of monumental design and that the exterior of the building was also decorated. Another room (Fig. 2, Room 27), structurally a component of the Western Building, was already added to its southern side in the Nabataean period. The room features three arches spanning the interior, and three benches along the walls, resembling a triclinium.6 Parallels are provided by Nabataean temple architecture, e.g. at Khirbat al-Tannūr where three triclinia are the components of the Nabataean sacral complex (McKenzie, Gibson & Reyes 2002: 69–71). South and

6 For Nabataean triclinia, see Healey 2001: 165–169.

Figure 3. The Western Building with the bedrock fissure in front of it. (Photograph Z.T. Fiema.)

Zbigniew T. Fiema30

south-east of the Western Building, there is a wing of rooms forming the southernmost part of the complex (Fig. 2, Rooms 28, 30, 33–35 and 37). This area features a particularly complicated architectural history that must have already begun in Nabataean times. In front of these rooms, a rock-cut cistern of Nabataean date was partially excavated (Fig. 2, Room 36). All of these structures were enclosed in a quadrangular temenos and clearly centred on the bedrock fissure in front of the Western Building. Most significantly, the entire early design at Jabal Hārūn shows a clearly different orientation (south-west–north-east) than that of the succeeding Byzantine monastery (west–east).

Significantly, in addition to the FJHP site, the entire area of the high plateau of Jabal Hārūn bears traces of intensive Nabataean activities. At the foot of the highest peak of the mountain, where a path begins to ascend towards the weli, there is a large cistern (c.20 x 4 m), probably of Nabataean origin, spanned by a row of fifteen arches supporting its roof. A small Nabataean cultic site, featuring a rock-cut niche and a semi-circular enclosure, is located close to the cistern (Frösén et al. 1998: 493). In its vicinity, heavily eroded rock-cut staircases — probably Nabataean — ascend towards the summit. A second cistern, accompanied by elaborate rock-cut water channels and cultic niches, is located south of the FJHP site (Lahelma & Fiema 2009: 203). In addition to the Nabataean remains on the high plateau, an extensive system of barrages and terrace walls on the slopes of the mountain has been documented by the FJHP survey. Judging by the large quantities of Nabataean ceramics found, the earliest phase of their utilization probably dates to the Nabataean period. These extensive installations form a clearly meaningful water conservation system related to the runoff cultivation, which would probably have been built and maintained by a single management, possibly an estate administered by the keepers of a shrine on top of the mountain.

Combining all available evidence, it is thus reasonable to postulate that, during the Nabataean period, Jabal Hārūn had a shrine associated with the cultic infrastructure. The location was spectacular and the presence of the natural bedrock fissure — probably the main focus of liturgical attention — at such a high altitude and probably filled with water, would coincide well with Nabataean beliefs and cultic observances. The presence of what is considered a pilgrimage-related infrastructure, such as a triclinium, cisterns, cultic niches and processional ways7

7 For a description and discussion, see el-Khouri 2006–2007.

would strongly support the pilgrimage-oriented character of the cult at Jabal Hārūn. Although the identity of the deity worshipped there cannot be easily determined, a female deity associated with fertility and agriculture might be suggested. Recently, Isis was postulated to have been such a deity.8 In this context, the natural fissure-cum-cistern on the high plateau of Jabal Hārūn, being the focal point of the Nabataean shrine, is probably a significant cultic installation, perhaps to be interpreted as a sacred spring.

The archaeological record indicates that the Nabataean cultic centre at Jabal Hārūn was seriously damaged by the earthquake of 19 May 363 (Brock 1977; Russell 1980), which also substantially affected Petra. Although the following decades witnessed some kind of occupation at the site, it was rather of a limited and casual nature and thus the sanctuary clearly remained in decline until the late fifth century, when the Byzantine monastery was constructed there.

Petra in the fourth–fifth centuries

Except for the reference to the earthquake in 363, all other extant references to Petra in the fourth century emphasize the conflicts between pagans and Christians. For example, in his Onomasticon (c.295), Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea specifies Petra as a ‘noble/famous city’ (Onom. 36.13–14), while noting in a later account (between 324 and 337) that churches were built there (Comm. in Isaiam 2.23.42.11–12). In the same account, however, Eusebius condemns Petra as a place ‘filled with superstitious men, who have sunk in diabolical error’ (Comm. in Isaiam II.23.38–41). It is possible that the cult of ‘demons’ mentioned by Eusebius refers to the same reality as that exposed fifty years later by Epiphanius.

In the fourth century Petra, like many other cities of the Byzantine East, was probably a potentially volatile place where the supporters of polytheism, Jews and proponents of different theological orientations of Christianity clashed with each other and where ritualized violence was a common occurrence.9 The apparently continuing pagan ceremonies and observances could have been either intentionally, or through ignorance,

8 For such suggestions, in association with the sanctuary of Isis in Wādī Abū ΚUllayqah, see Lindner 2003: 178–180 and Lahelma & Fiema 2009: 211. For the rituals and traditions associated with the pilgrimages to Jabal Hārūn, which are probably the remnants of far more ancient rituals, see Miettunen 2008: 42–43.9 Sivan provides vivid reconstructions of clashes, riots and disturbances in the Palestinian cities, which involved Christians, Jews, Samaritans and polytheists (2008: 117–123, 145–156, 167–175, 333–337).


misinterpreted by the Christians as mocking their religion and would have provoked violent disputes and clashes. This was not helped by the fact that Christians at Petra were themselves deeply divided over theological matters, resulting in — depending on their orientation — some bishops from Petra attending Orthodox councils while others attended Arian councils. For example, at the Council of Sardica in 343, Asterius of Petra deserted the Arians and went over to the anti-Arian side for which he was banished by the emperor Constantius. Once reinstated by Julian, he attended the Orthodox council in Alexandria in 362. On the other hand, Germanus of Petra was one of the signatories of the semi-Arian Council of Seleucia in 359.10

Even at the end of that century, the pagans in Petra and Areopolis (al-Rabba in Moab) actively contended on behalf of their temples, as mentioned by Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. 7.15,11), despite the series of edicts (391–392) by Theodosius I, which forbade pagan cult practices. Apparently, more dramatic means were required to convince the Petraeans of their persistent error and the early fifth-century apocryphal story of the monk Bar Sauma amply demonstrates this. Judging from his career in ‘cleansing the cultural landscape’,11 Bar Sauma was a firm believer in strong measures. He had encountered the pagan temples in Petra around 419–423. Upon the monk’s call to abandon pagan practices and temples, the inhabitants of Petra closed the city gates against him, despite his threats to burn the city down. Only divine intervention — a miraculous rain in the city that was suffering a long drought — changed their attitude and led to mass conversions, including those of pagan priests (Nau 1927: 186–87).

The Christianization of Jabal Hārūn

The profound changes that affected the late antique cities in the East in terms of their appearance, administration, function and economy undoubtedly also reflected the transition from a classical pagan to a Christian city.12 This process, while reflecting the profound ideological

10 Sardica: Asterius of Petra in Arabia (Mansi 1759: 39, 42, 45, 63–64, 69–70); Seleucia: Germanus of Petra (1759: 323–24); Alexandria: Asterius of Petra in Arabia (1759: 353–54). The listing of Arius in association with Petra in Palestine, at the Council of Sardica, appears to be a scribal error (Schick 2001: 1). See also Fedalto (1988: 1040) with references to all the known bishops of Petra.11 For the exploits of Bar Sauma, other than in Petra, see Sivan 2008: 175–186, 215–217.12 The literature on the subject is abundant. Among more recent syntheses, the most comprehensive is the fundamental work by Liebeschuetz (2001). For Petra see Fiema 2002.

change in the Roman Empire, would often have been influenced by various specific social and cultural agendas of the local populations in which Christian attempts to achieve local supremacy over the pagans would have played an important role. One of these was the Christian appropriation of pagan sacred spaces. This proceeded either through the destruction or dismantling of the existent sacral structures or through the Christianization of pagan cultic places by attaching biblical or Early Church origins to these and eradicating any reference to pagan cults and tradition.13

Christianization could proceed through inventio — the miraculous finds, following a vision or dream, of tombs that preserved bodies of persons associated with the biblical tradition and/or the early Christian Church, which would then become a place of pilgrimage and the logical spot for the construction of a Christian edifice (see Di Segni 2006–2007). Although inventio was not restricted to the association of a burial with a church to be built, many early churches were erected on holy places known in the Jewish and Christian tradition, which often contained very ancient tombs. In some cases, an ancient tomb is connected to a monastic church, either because of a local tradition identifying the tomb as that of some venerated figure or for practical reasons (2006–2007: 391). Inventio involving an ancient tomb or burial place had therefore a particularly strong impact on the foundation of churches as pilgrim sites, thus focusing the Christian cult on potentially non-Christian holy places.

In the context of inventio practices, the Christians at Petra were in a fortunate position since, as early as the first century AD, Josephus suggested that certain episodes of the Exodus, prominently featuring Moses and his brother Aaron, took place in the area of Petra:

‘After a purification held in such wise in consequence of the mourning for the sister of their chief, he (Moses) led his forces away through the desert and came to a place in Arabia which the Arabs have deemed their metropolis, formerly called Arce, today named Petra. There Aaron ascended a lofty mountain range that encloses the spot, Moses having revealed to him that he was about to die, and, in the sight of the whole army — for the ground was steep — he divested himself of his high priestly robes and, after delivering them to Eleazar his son, upon whom by right of age the high priesthood descended, he died with the eyes of the multitude upon him.’ (Jewish Antiquities 4.82–83).

13 See Ward-Perkins 2003: 287–288, noting the clear differences in such practices between the Roman West and East.

Zbigniew T. Fiema32

Eusebius of Caesarea followed Josephus’ lead while adding a significant detail: ‘Or. The mountain on which Aaron died near the city of Petra, on which even until today is shown the rock (from which water) flowed by Moses’ (Onom. 176: 7).

Although the route of the Exodus and the identification of specific localities are much debated in scholarly literature, the proposition by Josephus that the death and burial of Aaron took place on the mountain near Petra is of paramount importance. Jabal Hārūn is the highest mountain in the area, easily attracting attention and imagination, and for the Christians in fourth-century Petra it might easily be identified with Mount Hor (Or).14 Even more significant is the detail added by Eusebius that, apparently, by his time the tradition placed not only Aaron’s death and his burial place on the same mountain near Petra but also a miraculous event. It is then not inconceivable that Eusebius’ statement may refer to the natural bedrock fissure on the high plateau of Jabal Hārūn, assigning to it a new meaning — that of the rock from which Moses miraculously produced water.

It is thus apparent that in the fourth century the association of the Petra area, including Jabal Hārūn, with the Israelite wanderings in the desert was already well established, and this tradition would have provided the Christians of Petra with a convenient and compelling reason to claim the mountain and its sanctity as their own. Indeed, it is possible that the enthusiasm of Petraean Christian inventors for promoting the veneration of Moses and Aaron went beyond reasonable limits because Epiphanius gravely states:

‘The profundities of sacred scripture, which are glorious and surpass human intelligence, have fooled many. The people of Petra in Arabia, a city which is called Rekem and Edom, who admired Moses because of the miracles, [undertook?] in their error to worship his image which once existed and which they fashioned; that just man was not responsible for what they did, but it was their error which in their ignorance used him to form for them an illusion of reality.’ (Panarion haer. 55.1.9 =H/D2.325).

The reference to the worship of Moses’s image is puzzling but it must reflect the particular attachment of the Christians of Petra to the story of the Exodus and its heroes. Furthermore, in the climate of reinventions of the religious tradition, the process of Christianization of pagan-related locations in the Petra area would naturally

14 For a discussion on the different identifications of Mt Or, see Frösen & Miettunen 2008.

have been much in the interest of the ascending religious elite. In this context, one of the religious phenomena associated with the rise of Early Christianity in the Near East — the transformation of a pagan cultic place into a sacred, biblical location — took place at Jabal Hārūn. An additional ‘bonus’ in this process was that the attempt to eradicate the pagan cult of the (female?) deity would have culminated with its replacement by that of the well-known biblical male figure, Aaron.

The hiatus between the common knowledge of Jabal Hārūn as a sacred biblical place in the early fourth century and the establishment of the monastery only in the later fifth is puzzling. It can possibly be related to the strength of paganism in Petra at that time, and the extant examples of considerable pagan opposition in Petra and elsewhere amply demonstrate this (see Saradi 2008: 115–116). Notably, the sources imply that the mountain was already a focus of Christian pilgrimage in the fourth century, even before the 363 earthquake and thus when the Nabataean cultic centre was still functioning. Therefore, it must be only after the earthquake and the associated destruction of the site that the opportunity for the Christian takeover of the site would gradually increase.15

Evidently, no dramatic destruction or immediate conversion of the pagan shrine should be visualized but rather its fall into neglect or gradual abandonment, a much more common phenomenon in the Early Byzantine period.16 It might even be that the period of limited use or even a gradual abandonment of the Nabataean sanctuary, after 363, may coincide with the beginning of the monastic settlement, as examples are known of monks and saints inhabiting disused or ruined temples.17 During the ‘transitory’ period between the Nabataean shrine and the Byzantine monastery, the place was probably frequented by both Christians and pagans, just as the holy place at Mamre was frequented by pilgrims of various denominations in late antiquity.18 It is relatively rare that abandoned, deserted or partially destroyed pagan edifices were immediately reoccupied by Christians with the aim of constructing a church or chapel there.

15 For various theoretical aspects of the process, including the consideration that the transformation into a church often involved a temple that was no longer active, see Emmel, Gotter & Hahn 2008, esp. 12–13. See also Bagnall 2008: 32–33, 38–39.16 Bar (2008: 288) argues that large-scale destructions of pagan temples were relatively rare in Palestine and that many temples were left untouched and were more vulnerable to natural disasters and natural decay than to active violence.17 For examples and discussion, see Brakke 2008: 98–101; Saradi 2008: 115–116, 125–128.18 See Bar 2008 for Mamre and other multi-religious cultic places in late antique Palestine.


From shrine to monastery

Consequently, the site was not fully and finally appropriated by the Christians until almost 100 years after the 363 earthquake. The foundation of a monastery and the memorial church dedicated to St Aaron in the later fifth century meant the ultimate end of pagan practices on Jabal Hārūn.19 In contrast to the Nabataean cultic centre, the overall orientation of the monastery was changed to west–east, with the newly constructed church facing east. The Byzantine complex, however, was still clearly centred on the bedrock fissure, just like its Nabataean predecessor. Some structures of the original Nabataean complex, such as the Western Building, were now incorporated into the monastery, but the builders were careful to eradicate all the more tangible traces of the previous pagan occupation. The central room of the Western Building — possibly the main cultic place of the Nabataean shrine — was completely filled with stones as if to prevent the pagan ‘demons’ from emerging. This act of neutralization, or ‘spatial Christianization’ of a pagan space, was meant as a symbolic appropriation.20 The room remained blocked off throughout the entire period of the Christian occupation at Jabal Hārūn. That it was blocked off and not totally destroyed may be explained by the fact that the exceptional quality and monumentality of the structure was somewhat beyond the effort of demolishing; more likely, however, pragmatism dictated that the useful structure of monumental design be incorporated and that only the sanctum of the Nabataean shrine be made inaccessible.

The total eradication of traces of paganism and the replacement of pagan tradition with the new ideology was consequently followed by the newly established monastic community. The Jabal Hārūn church is a large

19 Notably, the fifth century marks the emergence of active opposition to pagan deities and still-existing pagan edifices as part of a monk’s identity. For a discussion see Brakke 2008: 107.20 For examples of purification and neutralization of pagan spaces, see Frankfurter 2008: 149–154.

tripartite, mono-apsidal basilica associated with a chapel containing a baptismal font, which would have provided much more space than required for the liturgical services of the monastic community. Only a few monastic churches in the region can be compared with the Jabal Hārūn church,21 and most of these are memorial churches commemorating a specific biblical event or person and clearly associated with pilgrimages (Hirschfeld 1992: 55–56, 130). It was then in the interest of Christians to project the image of the site as one which attracted the attention of pilgrims and thus replace the tradition of the pagan pilgrimages with that of the Christian one. In this context, the construction of sixteen relatively large rooms around the northern courtyard of the monastery is important; this part of the monastery may have served as the pilgrims’ accommodation. Notably, Muslim pilgrimages to the tomb of the Prophet Hārūn began in the Early Islamic period22 and these must have coincided with Christian pilgrimages.

All monasteries built around memorial churches were of the coenobium type (Hirschfeld 1992: 55–56) and the Jabal Hārūn monastery is no exception. The terraced fields associated with the extensive runoff agriculture, which were documented by the FJHP survey and which might, presumably, have originally formed a temple estate, were now probably under the administration of the Byzantine monastery.

The Nabataean cultic centre and the Byzantine monastery at Jabal Hārūn appear to have been quite successful in terms of their longevity and the attraction for pilgrims. After all, this site, so significant for Judaism, Christianity and Islam as well as for Nabataean history and religion, existed for almost 1000 years — probably without major interruption — and produced a wealth of archaeological data and material culture remains.

21 Fiema 2008b: 426–429 for comparative examples.22 Note the Islamic inscriptions published by al-Salameen and al-Falahat 2007.

Zbigniew T. Fiema34

References

Bagnall R.S. 2008. Models and evidence in the study of religion in Late Roman Egypt. Pages 23–42 in Hahn, Emmel &

Gotter 2008.Bar D. 2008. Continuity and change in the cultic topography of late antique Palestine. Pages 275–298 in Hahn,

Emmel & Gotter 2008.Brakke D. 2008. From temple to cell, from gods to demons: pagan temples in the monastic topography of fourth-century

Egypt. Pages 91–112 in Hahn, Emmel & Gotter 2008.Brock S. 1977. A letter attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the rebuilding of the Temple. Bulletin of the School of

Oriental and African Studies 40/2: 267–286.Di Segni L. 2006–2007. On the development of Christian cult sites on tombs of the Second Temple period. ARAM 18–19:

381–401.Emmel S., Gotter U. & Hahn J. 2008. From temple to church: analysing a late antique phenomenon of transformation. Pages 1–22 in Hahn,

Emmel & Gotter 2008.Epiphanius/ed. and transl. K. Holl & J. Dummer. 1980. Panarion haer. 34–64. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Epiphanius/ed. and transl. P.R. Amidon, SJ. 1990. The Panarion of St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis. Selected Passages. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Eusebius of Caesarea/ed. and transl. E. Klostermann. 1904. Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen mit der lateinischen Übersetzung des Hieronymus. (Die

griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 11/I [Eusebius Werke 3/1]). Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs [Reprinted, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966.]

Eusebius of Caesarea/ed. J. Ziegler. 1975. Commentarius in Isaiam: Der Jesajakommentar. (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten

drei Jahrhunderte, 9 [Eusebius Werke 9]). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Fedalto, G. 1988. Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis. Series Episcoporum Ecclesiarum Christianorum Orientalium. ii.

Padua.Fiema Z.T. 2002. Late-antique Petra and its hinterland: recent research and new interpretations. Pages 191–252 in J.

Humphrey (ed.), The Roman and Byzantine Near East. iii. (Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. Series, 49). Portsmouth, RI.

2008a. The FJHP site. Pages 87–98 in Fiema & Frösén 2008. 2008b. The concluding remarks. Pages 425–441 in Fiema & Frösén 2008.Fiema Z.T. & Frösén J. 2008. Petra — The Mountain of Aaron. i. The Church and the Chapel. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Frankfurter D. 2008. Iconoclasm and Christianization in late antique Egypt: Christian treatments of space and image. Pages

135–160 in Hahn, Emmel & Gotter 2008.Frösén J. & Miettunen P. 2008. Aaron in religious literature, myth and legend. Pages 5–26 in Fiema & Frösén 2008.


Frösén J., Fiema Z.T., Haggrén H., Koistinen K., Lavento M. & Peterman G.L. 1998. The Finnish Jabal Hārūn Project report on the 1997 season. Annual of the Department of Antiquities

of Jordan 42: 483–502.Hahn J., Emmel S. & Gotter U. (eds). 2008. From temple to church. Destruction and renewal of local cultic topography in late antiquity. Leiden:

Brill.Healey J.F. 2001. The religion of the Nabataeans: a conspectus. Boston: Brill.Hirschfeld Y. 1992. The Judean desert monasteries in the Byzantine period. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Janif M.M. 2006–2007. Sacred time in Petra and Nabataea: some perspectives. ARAM 18–19: 341–361.Josephus/ed. and transl. H.St.H. Thackeray. 1991. Jewish Antiquities. Books I–IV. (The Loeb Classical Library, Josephus 4). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press/London: W. Heinemann. [First edition 1930.]el-Khouri L. 2006–2007. Nabataean pilgrimage as seen through their archaeological remains. ARAM 18–19: 325–340.Lahelma L. & Fiema Z.T. 2009. From goddess to prophet: 2000 years of cult continuity on the mountain of Aaron near Petra, Jordan.

TEMENOS — Nordic Journal of Comparative Religion 44/2: 191–222.Liebeschuetz J.H.W.G. 2001. The decline and fall of the Roman city. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lindner M. 2003. Von Isis zu Aaron. Archäologische Wallfahrt zum Jebel Harun. Pages 177–204 in M. Lindner (ed.),

Über Petra hinaus. Archäologische Erkundungen im südlichen Jordanien. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

McKenzie J., Gibson S. & Reyes A.T. 2002. Reconstruction of the Nabataean temple complex at Khirbet et-Tannur. Palestine Exploration Quarterly

134/1: 44–83.Mansi J.D. 1759. Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio. Vol iii, years 347–409. Florence.Miettunen P. 2008. Jabal Haroun: history, past explorations, monuments and pilgrimages. Pages 27–50 in Fiema & Frösén

2008.Nau F. 1927. Deux épisodes de l’histoire juive sous Théodose II (423 et 438) d’après la vie de Barsauma le Syrien.

Revue des Études Juives 83: 184–206.Robinson G.L. 1908. The High-places of Petra. The Biblical World 31/1: 8–21.Russell K.W. 1980. The earthquake of May 19, A.D. 363. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238:

47–64.al-Salameen Z. & al-Falahat H. 2007. Jabal Haroun during the Islamic period: a study in the light of newly discovered inscriptions. Arabian

Archaeology and Epigraphy 18: 258–264.Saradi H. 2008. The Christianization of pagan temples in the Greek hagiographical texts. Pages 113–134 in Hahn,

Emmel & Gotter 2008.

Zbigniew T. Fiema36

Schick R. 2001. Ecclesiastical history of Petra. Pages 1–6 in Z.T. Fiema, C. Kanellopoulos, R. Schick & T. Waliszewski,

The Petra church. Amman: ACOR.Sivan H. 2008. Palestine in late antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sozomen/ed. and transl. P. Schaff & H. Wace. 1957. A Select library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. ii. Socrates, Sozomenus:

Church Histories. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.Ward-Perkins B. 2003. Reconfiguring sacred space: from pagan shrines to Christian churches. Pages 285–290 in G. Brands &

H-G. Severin (eds), Die spätantike Stadt und ihre Christianisierung. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Wiegand T. 1920. Sinai. (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen des Deutsch-Türkischen Denkmalschutz-Kommandos,

Heft 1). Berlin/Leipzig: De Gruyter.

Author’s addressZbigniew T. Fiema, Institutum Classicum/Dept. of World Cultures, PL 24, Unioninkatu 40a, FIN-00014 Helsinki University, Helsinki, Finland.e-mail: [email protected]


Reinventing the sacred: from shrine to monastery at Jabal Hārūn.

Documents

Transcript of Reinventing the sacred: from shrine to monastery at Jabal Hārūn.