Men on the Rocks

The Formation of Nabataean Petra

M. Mouton & S. G. Schmid (editors)

λογος
Men on the Rocks
The Formation of Nabataean Petra

Proceedings of a conference held in Berlin

2–4 December 2011

M. Mouton & S. G. Schmid (editors)

Berlin 2013

λογος
 Supplement to the Bulletin of Nabataean Studies, 1

Layout and CAP by Pascale & Marc Balty – Art’Air Edition

http://www.artair-edition.fr

All texts translated or edited by Isabelle Ruben

Jacket photography: S. G. Schmid

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliograie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Copyright Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH 2012 and individual authors

All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-3-8325-3313-7

Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH

Comeniushof, Gubener Str. 47 / D-10243 Berlin, Germany
phone: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 90 / fax: +49 (0)30 42 85 10 92
http://www.logos-verlag.com
 Table of contents

Michel Mouton & Stephan G. SchMid. Preface ....................................................................... 5

RobeRt WenninG. Towards “Early Petra”: an overview of the early history of the Nabataeans
in its context ...................................................................................................................... 7
piotR bienkoWSki. The Iron Age in Petra and the issue of continuity with Nabataean
occupation ......................................................................................................................... 23
david F. GRaF. Petra and the Nabataeans in the Early Hellenistic period: the literary and
archaeological evidence ...................................................................................................... 35
FRançoiS R enel & Michel Mouton. The architectural remains and pottery assemblage from the
early phases at the Qasr al-Bint .......................................................................................... 57
Jean-FRançoiS SalièGe †, antoine ZaZZo, chRiStine hatté & caRoline GauthieR. Radiocarbon
dating in Petra: limitations and potential in semi-arid environments .................................. 79
SebaStian hoFFMann. Indications for ‘Early Petra’ based on pottery inds in the city centre:
El-Habis as a case study ..................................................................................................... 93
Yvonne GeRbeR. Archaeometric investigations on Nabataean common ware pottery ............... 107
laïla nehMé. The installation of social groups in Petra ............................................................ 113
chRiStian auGé. Coin circulation in early Petra: a summary .................................................... 129
Michel Mouton & FRançoiS R enel. The early Petra monolithic funerary blocks at Rās Sulaymān
and Bāb as-Sīq ................................................................................................................... 135
thoMaS k abS. Bāb as-Siq. The necropolis of Ancient Gaia? .................................................... 163
lucY WadeSon. The development of funerary architecture at Petra: the case of the Façade
tombs ................................................................................................................................ 167
k aRin petRovSZkY. The infrastructure of the tomb precincts of Petra: preliminary results of the
tacheometrical survey in selected areas . ............................................................................. 189
lauRent tholbecq & caRoline duRand. A late second-century BC Nabataean occupation at
Jabal Numayr: the earliest phase of the “Obodas Chapel” sanctuary ................................... 205
lauRent GoRGeRat & RobeRt WenninG. The International Aṣlaḥ Project (2010-2012):
its contribution to “Early Petra” . . ...................................................................................... 223
MaRco dehneR. Continuity or change in use? Banqueting rooms in the so-called Soldier tomb
complex in Petra ................................................................................................................. 237
Stephan G. SchMid. Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it ................... 251
Will M. k ennedY. The hills have eyes: GIS-based studies on a possible watchtower on Umm
al-Biyara ........................................................................................................................... 271
lauRent tholbecq. The hinterland of Petra (Jordan) and the Jabal Shara during the Nabataean,
Roman and Byzantine periods ............................................................................................ 295

3
bRian beckeRS & bRiGitta Schütt. The chronology of ancient agricultural terraces in the
environs of Petra ................................................................................................................ 313
paula kouki. The intensiication of Nabataean agriculture in the Petra region ......................... 323
RobeRt WenninG. North Arabian deities and the deities of Petra: an approach to the origins of the
Nabataeans? ...................................................................................................................... 335
RobeRt WenninG. Nabataean niches and “Early Petra” ............................................................ 343
veit vaelSke. Isis in Petra. Chronological and topographical aspects ....................................... 351

4
 Foucault and the Nabataeans
or what space has to do with it
Michel Foucault (1926–1984) irst developed
his theory on heterotopia in a radio show aired
on December 7, 1966.1 But it took a long time
to fulil his dream, as expressed in the radio
show, of a real science that deals with these
“other spaces”, heterotopology. It was mainly in
(modern) architectural studies that the concept
of heterotopia irst found a wide echo (see, for
example, amongst many others, Dehaene 2008),
followed by the social sciences (for example
Willke 2003). With the arrival of a new space, the
“cyberspace”, such ideas provided a new input
into research related to “other spaces” in general
(amongst many others, see Löw 2001; Schroer
2006). And yet, it took even longer for the theory
of “other spaces” to become irmly established
in archaeology even though it had considerable
inluence on the “spatial turn” in various cultural
sciences, including archaeology.2 It is to the credit
of Sarah Cormack to have demonstrated how
closely Foucault’s heterotopia its the installation
and functioning of ancient funerary architecture,
particularly in the case of some installations in
Asia Minor dating to the Roman imperial period
(Cormack 2004: passim, especially 46–47. 107.
122).
Basically, and in a very simpliied way,
heterotopiai, “other spaces”, are often but not
1. Actually, he had already used the term heterotopia in his
book “Les mots et les choses” (Paris 1966), but in a different
way that is not dealt with here. For the complicated history of
research related to the term and its use in modern architecture,
sociology and philosophy, see Defert 2005: 69–92.
2. For a short and comprehensive overview, see Ewald 2008:
624–625.
Stephan G. Schmid
necessarily, architectonically deined spaces to
which only speciic people or groups of people
are allowed access. Foucault used psychiatric
hospitals, prisons, brothels and, last but not
least, cemeteries to illustrate these principles
(Foucault 2005: passim, especially 12–14). He
pointed out that some heterotopiai clearly have
an antique origin and in particular, he mentioned
the garden as an example, referring to ancient
Persian gardens and their well-deined layout and
restricted accessibility (Foucault 2005: 15). Most
importantly, heterotopiai are closed spaces, where
only restricted and well-deined people or groups
of people are granted access, no matter whether
deliberately or against their will, as is usually
the case with prisons… Therefore, these “other
spaces” always have mechanisms for opening and
closing the space and rituals for passing in and out
of them (Foucault 2005: 18–22).
Ancient Nabataean society still presents many
enigmatic aspects and open questions to the modern
researcher. This is largely due to the absence of
eloquent written sources, which is especially stri-
king in the case of Nabataean funerary practices
and architecture. On the one hand the rock-carved
tomb façades in Petra and Hegra / Medaïn Saleh
can be considered the most eye-catching and
attractive remaining manifestation of Nabataean
culture, while on the other hand the absence of
clear written sources related to their functioning is
a serious problem when trying to understand and
interpret them.3 Therefore, archaeology becomes
3. Actually, the situation is even worse, since the only explicit
source, the geographer Strabo, implies that the Nabataeans
did not value the body of the dead and even buried their
251
Stephan G. Schmid
a tool of major importance in trying to answer
some of these questions. The archaeological
exploration of Nabataean tombs and funerary
complexes can reveal elements to explain their
functioning (cf. below), and they can also be
compared to funerary compounds in areas where
the functioning of such installations is better
understood. This is the goal of a current doctoral
thesis at Humboldt University in Berlin (for the
moment see Petrovszky in press). Equally, one can
develop theoretical elements regarding the use and
functioning of such built spaces; this is the aim of
the present contribution, using some of Foucault’s
principles on characteristic deined spaces of the
Nabataeans, starting with funerary complexes and
expanding to other areas of Nabataean society.
nabataean FuneRaRY coMplexeS
aS heterotopiai
In recent years it has become clear that most
Nabataean tomb façades, at least in Petra, are in
fact part of more developed funerary complexes,
which combine the rock-cut tomb façades with
other structures, usually built in stone, or in some
cases also rock hewn (Schmid 2012a; 2009; 2007).
The most important of these additional structures
is the banqueting hall (triclinium), often an integral
part of the funerary complexes. Another common
feature is an interior courtyard, large or small, with
columns (peristyle) or without, that allows for a
better organisation of the space. This also implies
restricted access since the funerary complexes are
closed to the outside by a wall, clearly deining
the space behind the wall as being apart. For the
time being, the best example for such a developed
Nabataean funerary complex is that of the Soldier
Tomb in the Wadi Farasa East in Petra (ig. 1).4
This tomb, with its richly decorated façade, as well
as the dining hall are cut into the rock, while the
central courtyard and a huge, two-storied entrance
building are built of stone. The whole complex
is constructed across the Wadi Farasa East and,
therefore, creates heterotopiai in a double sense:
it is clear that the complex of the Soldier Tomb
itself is a heterotopia, with access restricted to a
kings next to dung heaps (Strabo, Geographia 4, 26); for a
discussion of the passage, see Hackl et al. 2006: 615–617.
4. One has to insist on the fact that the complex of the Soldier
Tomb really is only the tip of the iceberg, as has been pointed
out by Schmid 2009; cf. also the contribution by Petrovszky in
this volume. It can now deinitely be considered as a fact that
such complexes were much more the rule than the exception,
at least for the façade tombs.
252
clearly deined group (cf. below). Only those who
were granted access to the entrance building and
the peristyle courtyard could see the tomb façade
and participate at the various activities taking
place inside the complex. Further, the fact that this
complex literally blocks access to the upper parts
of the Wadi Farasa East, including the path to Jabal
Madbah with the sacriicial high place, creates a
second and quite extensive heterotopia. Although
this knowledge explains quite well some speciic
aspects of spatial organisation and architecture of
the complex and its surroundings, it also creates
a series of new problems and questions, the main
one being, of course, who where the people who
had access to such complexes and the areas deined
by them.
It becomes clear from the analysis of inner spaces
of both tombs and triclinia in Petra that the
groups who used them were organised according
to speciic hierarchies (for this aspect and the
following, see Schmid 2012a: 191–194; 2009:
162–163). In many tombs there is a central burial,
often marked by a bigger niche or a speciic
frame, which can most probably be considered
the burial of the initiator or founder of the group
(see also Wadeson 2012a: 204–205; 2012b: 107,
110). A similar speciic marking of a central
place can be seen in quite a few banqueting halls.
Again, the complex of the Soldier Tomb offers
clear examples for both the marking of a central
burial and of a central banqueting place. It seems
clear, therefore, that the groups using Nabataean
funerary complexes were referring to a “central”
founder around whom the group was constituted.
The group apparently had similar interests and
purposes and it must have been organised in some
hierarchic way, as indicated by the highlighting of
the central burial and banqueting place.
Of course, such structural principles can be found
within the organisation of funerary spaces in other
societies in the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean area
and beyond. Such is the case, for example, with the
funerary precincts of the Roman middle classes as
displayed within the necropolis at Isola Sacra near
Ostia (Baldassarre 2002: passim, especially 13–
14). Here too, speciic groups, families or groups
of freemen and others use funerary monuments in
a very similar way to that just suggested for the
Nabataeans. The same observation was made for
tombs and burial complexes at Pompeii,5 and one
5. Hope 1997: especially 88: “The founder is at the centre of
a group; his remains lie at the heart of a communal structure.
 Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it
Fig. 1. Petra, general plan of the Soldier Tomb complex (J. Falkenberg).
can conclude that comparable organisations and
use of space existed in other areas of the ancient
world (see for example, Braune 2008; Stehmeier
2006).
In terms of the subject of this volume, the
“early” Nabataean presence in Petra, it is
especially interesting to observe that this kind of
heterotopical organisation of funerary complexes
probably already existed at a rather earlier period;
this, at least, is the conclusion drawn from the
eponymous inscription in the Aṣlaḥ triclinium,
pointing to a very similar organisation of a
funerary and banqueting complex shortly after
Yet those who surround him may not represent his ideal or
constitute the group that he had originally envisaged.”
100 BC.6 And it must have remained a prominent
feature throughout the existence of the Nabataean
kingdom, as demonstrated by their relatively
large number, including installations such as the
Soldier Tomb complex that was built fairly late,
i.e. in the third quarter of the 1st century AD (on
the chronology, see Schmid 2009: 151–152).
6. At least if one accepts that the inscription is dated around
96 BC. The three seasons of archaeological exploration of the
Aṣlaḥ complex, as part of the German-French “Early Petra”
project, did not provide a deinite answer to this question
since there was no clear archaeological indication for such
an early date; nevertheless, epigraphists still prefer to date
the inscription to shortly after 100 BC; cf. the contribution
by Gorgerat & Wenning in this volume; see also Wenning &
Gorgerat 2012; Gorgerat & Wenning 2012.
253
Stephan G. Schmid
As a preliminary conclusion we may, therefore,
state that, as a form of spatial organisation and
functionality, the heterotopia was very important
to the Nabataean upper classes, at least for their
funerary complexes.
otheR heterotopiai in nabataean
SocietY and aRchitectuRe
Interestingly, a very similar heterotopical organi-
sation of space can be observed in other types
of Nabataean functional architecture, which are
briely discussed here.
Such is, for instance, the case with sanctuaries,
although the best example, the sanctuary of
Khirbet et-Tannur (ig. 2) obtains its inal form
at a very late date, towards the end or possibly
even after the Nabataean kingdom.7 The overall
plan is very similar to the one discussed above for
Nabataean funerary complexes, with a courtyard
as the central element, distributing visitors to
the different functional spaces and allowing a
perfect mise-en-scène of the main building, i.e.
the temple proper.8 Most importantly, here too, the
heterotopia is separated from the outer world by a
substantial wall with a single entrance. And here
again, the second function of the complex – the
primary one being the cultic activities related to
the altar – is feasting, as is clearly demonstrated
by the presence of triclinia. It is dificult to state
something concrete about a possible hierarchy
within the group or groups that were using the
sanctuary. Maybe the fact that there is a single
banqueting hall outside the temenos wall of the
sanctuary could indicate that some people, who
were allowed to approach the sanctuary in general
terms, were not actually allowed to penetrate the
inner part, at least in phase 3 when that additional
banqueting hall was added.
A similar spatial organisation can perhaps be
presumed for the Nabataean sanctuary of Suhr in
modern southern Syria, although in this case too,
7. Judith McKenzie (Oxford) is currently inalising a new
publication on Khirbet et-Tannur, following the detailed
analysis of Nelson Glueck’s archives at the Harvard Semitic
Museum. This inal publication will give decisive new
insights into the reconstruction, dating and functioning of
the sanctuary. For the time being, one can refer to McKenzie
2012; McKenzie, Gibson & Reyes 2002; McKenzie, Reyes
& Gibson 2002.
8. This is, of course, a very similar situation to the funerary
complexes: like the tomb façades, the temple itself was almost
not visible from the outside. Only those allowed to penetrate
into the courtyard could see it fully.
254
the chronology is far from clear and, therefore, the
Nabataean origin of the speciic use of the space(s)
is uncertain (Wenning 1987: 27–28).
The next type of speciic Nabataean architectural
form with strong heterotopical elements consists
of architectural spaces that can best be described
as “tribal gathering” places. Although they have
a cultic component, these spaces are not temples
or sanctuaries stricto sensu, but places where a
speciic group venerates an ancestor as heros ktistes
and/or deiied members of the ruling dynasty.
The best example of such a complex is the so-called
Obodas Chapel opposite Jabal Nmeir in Petra (see
Tholbecq & Durand in this volume; Tholbecq
2012 and 2011; Tholbecq et al. 2008; Tholbecq
& Durand 2005). Thanks to recent archaeological
investigation and the inscription that has long been
known, a rather concise picture of the functioning
of such a tribal gathering place can be drawn. Very
important for our purpose is the fact that the access
to the complex was granted exclusively through a
small rock corridor, a kind of constructed Siq in
the words of the excavator, L. Tholbecq (2012:
172), that could be locked with a door. Another
important element is the continuous use of the
place by apparently the same – evolving – group
of people, a Nabataean sub-tribe or clan according
to the inscription. The earliest archaeological
remains date the beginning of these activities
into the later 2nd or very early 1st century BC, and,
therefore, at an early date comparable to the irst
use of the Aṣlaḥ triclinium (if we accept the early
dating of the inscription there; cf. supra).
On a smaller scale in terms of potential groups
of users, we can observe similar concepts of how
to organise and use speciic spaces, for example,
within the residences of the Nabataean upper
class, at least in Petra. The best example for this
category of architecture is deinitely the huge
Nabataean mansion of az-Zantur, Ez Zantur IV
(ig. 3) in the terminology of the Swiss excavators
(Kolb 2012; 2007). Access to the building was
through a main door, prominently featured in the
middle of a façade richly adorned with sculpted
tondi. Once the visitor passed through the door, he
was still rather far from the speciic spaces where
visitors would be led and eventually received by
the owner. From a kind of waiting and selection
area (no 28 on ig. 3), visitors had to pass along a
narrow corridor with several turns (no 25 on ig. 3)
before reaching the interior courtyard (no 19 on
ig. 3) that inally led into the main reception and
 Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it

Fig. 2. Khirbet et-Tannur, overall plan of the sanctuary (J. S. McKenzie; courtesy J. S. McKenzie).

banqueting halls (no 6 and 17 on ig. 3). As Kolb
was able to show, the architectural combination of
rooms 6, 7 and 17 on ig. 3 is clearly based on a
prototype that is irst observed within the palatial
architecture of the Macedonian kings which was
used for banqueting (Kolb 2012: 235; 2007: 167–
168). Since the mansion on the southern plateau
of az-Zantur was undoubtedly the residence of
a top member of Nabataean society, more than
one combination of reception halls exists, but
the principal elements remain basically the same,
clearly indicating the heterotopical mise-en-scène
and use of space. Those who were allowed to
access the house and the reception area must have
belonged to designated groups of people.
All the categories we have reviewed clearly show
some very characteristic common features. One is
the central courtyard that plays an important role
in the spatial organisation of houses, sanctuaries,
tribal gathering places and funerary complexes.
When positioning the courtyard in the inner part of

255
Stephan G. Schmid
Fig.3. Petra, general plan of the Nabataean mansion Ez Zantur IV (B. Kolb & L. Gorgerat; after Kolb 2012: 234 ig. 5).
the structure, surrounding it by walls that protect
the building from the outside, the Nabataeans
created a closed, exclusive space, a heterotopia.
This must have been a voluntary decision, since it
would have been possible to have the courtyard in
front of the other structures and open towards the
outside, allowing a less selective access to various
parts of the building. Exactly the same evolution
with the same or at least similar consequences was
observed in the case of Greek houses (Lang 2010),
where the introduction of the inner courtyard
around 700 BC clearly relects important social
changes, mainly the ones leading from a more
open to a more selective and structured society and
eventually to the polis (Lang 2010: 244–252). In
this case, the family as the nucleus of the society
created a heterotopical type of house in order
to separate the public and private spaces. The
courtyard helped to introduce semi-public spaces,
especially the banqueting rooms, the andrones:
only those invited by the owner of the house were
256
able to access the andron, always situated in a
part of the house that was either horizontally or
vertically separated from the strictly private part,
hence, exactly the same organisational concept
as described above for the Nabataean house on
az- Zantur.
Banqueting halls are another common feature
of our structures, present in all the types of
Nabataean heterotopia presented above, i.e.
funerary complexes, sanctuaries, tribal gathering
places and private residences. In all cases, they are
accessible through the interior courtyard and in
all cases we are dealing with more than one such
structure, allowing further differentiations within
the group or groups using the structure.
A further common element is the access to the
structures: in all cases we can observe an almost
processional path or way leading to the heterotopia.
At the sanctuary of Khirbet at-Tannur this is
obvious through the function of the structure as a
non-urban sanctuary situated on a high mountain.
 Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it
No matter where the people using the Soldier
Tomb complex in the Wadi Farasa East in Petra
lived, they had to make use of a carefully arranged
path leading halfway up the Wadi Farasa East
before they reached the entrance to the complex.
Equally clear is the case of the Obodas Chapel,
located even further away at the periphery of the
agglomeration of the Nabataean capital. Last but
not least, the situation of the Nabataean mansion
on the southern plateau of az-Zantur, on one of
the most prominent hills of Petra, overlooking
the southern part of the city and its hinterland, is
very similar, visitors being led through a carefully
designed access path, including a passage between
a small shrine and the main entrance of the house.
These observations it the results obtained by
Dentzer and others regarding speciic elements
of Nabataean religious behaviour equally well
(Dentzer 2010: especially 193–196).
Based on the observations connected to funerary
complexes and tribal gathering places, it can be
supposed that there must have been a kind of
hierarchy in these meetings. It seems as if an
ancestral leader was the centre of the gathering
and we can deduce that there was also a living
leader at the centre of the activities (cf. above).
It is, therefore, only logical to presume a similar
position for the owners of the private residences,
such as the one on az-Zantur, when they were
receiving people in their feasting halls.
heterotopiai aS nuclei
oF nabataean SocietY
As becomes clear from the multitude of funeral
complexes and, to a lesser extent, of tribal gathering
places in Petra,9 the social organisation of (tribal)
groups around a leader must have provided a kind
of nucleus for Nabataean society, with the leader or
leaders gaining and maintaining his or their social
position – amongst other elements – by his or their
ancestry. If we extrapolate these results to the
overall organisation of the Nabataean community,
with the king at the top of the group(s), the picture
that arises is one of a rather competitive society,
where the leaders had to prove their capacities
constantly and to demonstrate their position
9. The smaller number of tribal gathering places compared to
funeral complexes can best be explained by the coincidences
of the state of research. Everything indicates that they must
have been quite numerous as well; cf. for instance Nehmé
in this volume; Dentzer 2010: 168–171, 196–207; Wenning
2011 and 2007.
towards their followers, probably during meetings
in the contexts described above. Thus, the
functioning of Nabataean society could be deined
as follows:
“Therefore, the result is the image of a social order
headed by a king who ruled thanks to his ancestry;
his de facto exercise of power was, however,
dependent on the approval of the powerful chiefs
of noble families; further, he often had to ward off
competitors from his own family.”
Since we know that the main activities during the
frequent gatherings, which we can deduce from
the spatial organisation and the architecture at
least according to the archaeological record, must
have been feasting and mainly drinking, we could
further state:
“At the same time, the symposium was also the
place of the social deinition of each philos,
because during the feast, all social relations within
the institution of the court concentrated in one
place. Because a person’s status within the court
society – the personal relationship (with the king)
as well as the relationship with the other members
of the court – was never static, but was subject to
constant review and change, the courtly symposium
in particular offered an opportunity to determine
the speciic social constellation of the court, to test
it or to change it. Participation in the symposion
was therefore a prerequisite for membership of the
court society. Nowhere else was the abolition of
the separation between public and private spheres
so obvious.”
The passages quoted above seem to be, with some
minor exceptions, almost perfect descriptions of
what we think could be how Nabataean society
functioned, at least in Petra. However, these
passages have nothing to do with the Nabataeans,
they are conclusions drawn by Völcker-Janssen
on the functioning of the Macedonian court under
Alexander the Great and his successors.10 This
10.. Völcker-Janssen 1993: 35: “Es ergibt sich demnach das
Bild einer gesellschaftlichen Ordnung, an deren Spitze ein
König stand, der Kraft seiner Abstammung regierte, dessen
faktische Herrschaftsausübung aber von der Zustimmung
mächtiger Adelsoberhäupter abhängig war und der sich
zudem häuig Konkurrenten aus der eigenen Familie erwehren
musste”; ibid. 78–79: “Zugleich war das Symposion aber
auch der Ort der gesellschaftlichen Deinition des einzelnen
Philos, denn während des Gelages konzentrierten sich alle
sozialen Beziehungen innerhalb der Institution des Hofes an
einem Ort. Da der eigene Status innerhalb der Hofgesellschaft
– das persönliche Verhältnis ebenso wie die Beziehung zu
den anderen Angehörigen der Hofgesellschaft – niemals
statisch, sondern einer ständigen Überprüfung und Wandlung
257
Stephan G. Schmid
is no coincidence, but results from comparable
situations: Macedonians as well as Nabataeans
were originally tribal societies and during their
progressive evolution towards monarchies, some
tribal elements remained, especially related to
social structures and ties, and were adapted to the
new way of life. The symposion especially, the
feasting and drinking between men, always had
an important function in creating and maintaining
social ties and alliances, particularly in changing
and evolving societies (Murray 1983; 1980: 49–
59; cf. Whitley 1991: 185; and now Fox 2012).11 It
is clear that the Nabataeans, a rather heterogeneous
group of different and various tribes and tribal
groups in a state of continuous change between
nomadic and sedentary life, depended heavily
on occasions such as the symposion to create and
maintain the functioning of their society, from the
rather small scale (family or clan), passing through
an intermediate size (tribe or tribal group) up to the
“state” in general, with the king at its top (see also
Dentzer 2010: passim; Wenning 2011; 2007).12
Such practices, deeply anchored within Nabataean
society, most probably also helped to maintain
ties abroad. If one looks at the ‘clubhouse’ of
the Poseidoniasts of Berytos at Delos, the spatial
organisation shows clear parallels with the various
structures described above (most recently Trümper
2002 with further bibliography). In general terms,
‘clubhouses’, in antiquity as well as nowadays, are
heterotopiai, since only “members” are allowed
access to the premises. In Greek and Roman
unterworfen war, bot besonders das höische Symposion
Anlass, die jeweilige soziale Konstellation am Hofe zu
bestimmen, zu erproben oder zu verändern. Die Teilnahme
am Gelage war daher Voraussetzung für die Zugehörigkeit
zur Hofgesellschaft. Nirgendwo sonst war die Aufhebung
der Trennung von öffentlicher und privater Sphäre so
offensichtlich”; in a wider context, see also Vössing 2004:
66–92; Nielsen 1998.
11.. Janet Morgan recently questioned the established
scholarly view of the typical Greek feasting halls, the
andrones that served as – at least indirect – prototypes for
Nabataean banqueting halls: Morgan 2011; nevertheless, in
her inal observations she states (Morgan 2011: 283): “Its
shape and position allow the individuals present to view the
other participants and, in so doing, the structure of the room
effectively creates a human circle, a group. The rooms are
concerned with the identity of groups (…)”.
12.. The importance of common feasting as a social act
within Nabataean society seems conirmed by the passage of
the geographer Strabo quoted below (note 16). Apparently,
the sympotic customs of the Nabataeans seemed worthy of
mention, indicating their importance.
258
antiquity, the central elements of such ‘clubhouses’
were the peristyle courtyards, i.e. the same feature
as found in the Nabataean heterotopiai, while the
main activity – besides common cultic practice
– was related to feasting (Ascough 2008–09;
Egelhaaf-Gaiser & Schäfer 2002). Therefore, we
can suppose that similar activities were going
on at places such as the sanctuary of Dushara in
the Roman port of Puteoli (Lacerenza 1988–89;
Steuernagel 1999: 162–164), aiming to create and
maintain social ties between the various Nabataean
travellers, traders and ambassadors abroad.
the end oF nabataean heterotopiai
If one follows the views expressed above, the
heterotopiai related to funerary complexes,
tribal gathering spaces, sanctuaries and private
residences, formed the core, the backbone of
Nabataean social structures and, therefore, of
the Nabataean society. In this respect it would
be interesting to know what happened to them
after the Roman annexation under Trajan in AD
106. Did the Romans understand the importance
of these gathering places? And if so, did they try
to intervene in some manner in order to exert
inluence?
It is quite dificult to give satisfactory answers to
such questions based on archaeological evidence
alone, but we can at least note some tendencies.
The complex of the Soldier Tomb in the Wadi Farasa
East was subject to some important changes at the
beginning of the 2nd century AD. Rooms 2, 4 and
5/6 (on ig. 1) underwent substantial modiications,
which resulted, amongst other things, in a change
in the water management system of the complex
and lash loods seem to have then become a
problem (Schmid 2008a; 2008b). The banqueting
hall, previously accessible from the courtyard
through one huge central doorway and two smaller
lateral doors, now became accessible only through
the main central door, the two lateral openings
being blocked by a substantial wall. Further, the
main doorway was now locked by double doors,
i.e. an interior and an exterior door. Whether
these changes resulted from the threat caused by
lash loods or whether they were related to a new
access policy cannot be decided. In another case
elsewhere, the second possibility seems more
likely: at the western tip of the Soldier Tomb
complex, on a rocky outcrop that was previously
used as a stibadium, i.e. an open-air banqueting
place, a small burial place was installed at the
very end of the 1st century AD and continued to
 Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it
be used in the early 2nd century AD (ig. 1), with
ifteen rock-cut pit graves, most of them used for
multiple burials (Schmid et al. 2008: 141–144).
This is all the more surprising since within the two
huge rock-cut rooms of the Soldier Tomb itself,
there was still abundant space available for more
burials. Moreover, the people buried within the
small pit grave necropolis apparently had a keen
interest in being buried as close to the Soldier
Tomb as possible. So, why was a former integral
part of the overall complex, the stibadium at the
western tip, destroyed instead of burying these
people inside the Soldier Tomb?
Although no inal answer is possible, one can at
least suppose that the members of this group were
not allowed (anymore) to bury their deceased
inside the tomb, forcing them to ind alternative
solutions. And we should also add the observation
that apparently no new rock-cut tomb façades and,
therefore, funeral complexes were constructed in
Petra after the Roman annexation, or at least there
is no archaeological evidence for this.
Rather clear evidence comes from the Obodas
Chapel. This tribal gathering place was destroyed
in the early 2nd century AD and never reused as such
(Tholbecq 2012: 185; Tholbecq in this volume).
As with many other observations of destruction in
and around Petra, several reasons can be proposed.
The oft-mentioned earthquake hypothesis seems
rather weak to the present author (cf. also Schmid
1997; Schmid 2000: 141–146). Earthquakes are
not selective in their destruction, so why should the
Obodas Chapel have been completely destroyed
but not the Soldier Tomb complex, which is only
a few hundred metres away and built in the same
way? Why does the so-called Great Temple show
no signs of destruction but only of architectural
alterations around AD 100 (see below), the Qasr
al-Bint no signs of any changes, while the roof
of the Temple of the Winged Lions burned and
collapsed? Without repeating previous arguments,
its seems preferable to propose alternative reasons
for the destruction of the Obodas Chapel, one
of them being the Roman annexation or events
related to it.
The large Nabataean mansion on az-Zantur shows
signs of alterations around AD 100. The most
notable is the construction of a typical Roman-
style thermal installation consisting of rooms
10, 40 and 52 (Kolb 2012: 241–242; 2007:168).
Whether this is pure coincidence or related to
events around the annexation of AD 106, possibly
to a new owner, is impossible to decide based on
the archaeological evidence. In any case, nothing
indicates that the reception and dining halls
discussed above went out of use.
The sanctuary of Khirbet at-Tannur (ig. 2) points
in a completely different direction. The huge
complex, with its banqueting halls and the richly
adorned façade, was not built before about AD
100 or even slightly later and continued to be in
use until the earthquake of AD 363 (cf. above).
The evidence briely presented seems to indicate
a rather disparate picture; no common elements to
explain the end of Nabataean heterotopiai seem
apparent. A rather audacious interpretation might,
however, state that there are signs indicating a
somewhat abrupt end to the most characteristic
heterotopical structures, namely the tribal
gathering places (Obodas Chapel) and the funeral
complexes (Soldier Tomb complex), at least within
Petra. The situation may be different outside Petra
(Khirbet at-Tannur) and in the more private sector
(az-Zantur).
A certain interventionism by the new Roman
administration would make perfect sense. The
Romans were well aware of such gathering places
for speciic social groups, since, as shown above,
they correspond perfectly to the architecture
and the functioning of “clubhouses” (for similar
arguments, see also Tholbecq in press). The various
associations that used such spaces were looked
on suspiciously by the Roman administration,
especially in the provinces, but also in Italy. And
in more than one situation the emperors and their
governors violently suppressed their activities out
of fear of political conspiracy. One of the better
known examples is the action taken by Aulus
Avilius Flaccus against associations in Alexandria
in Egypt during the reigns of Tiberius and
Caligula.13 Trajan, who was, we shall remember,
the emperor who inally conquered the Nabataean
kingdom and incorporated it into the Roman
empire, was particularly suspicious of associations,
as is indicated by the letters he exchanged with
Pliny the younger, then governor of Bithynia. At a
certain point, Pliny asks the emperor to be allowed
13.. Philo� In Flaccum 1� 4 (518): “Τὰς τε ἑταιρείας καὶ
συνόδους� αἳ ἀεὶ ἐπὶ προσφάσει θυσιῶν εἱστιῶντο τοῖς
πράγμασιν εμπαροινοῦσαι� διέλυε τοῖς ἀφηνιάζουσιν
ἐμβριθῶς καὶ εὐτόντος προσφερόμενος” (“The
associations and clubs that continually feasted under the
pretext of sacriices, in which drunkenness turned into political
intrigue, he dissolved strictly, energetic and wilfully”); for the
context, see Bilde 2006; Alston 1997.
259
Stephan G. Schmid

Fig. 4. Petra, overall plan of the complex of the ‘Great Temple’

(Brown University Petra Archaeological Project; after Joukowsky 2012: 158 ig. 2).

260
 Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it

to create associations of iremen in order to ight

against the frequent ravaging ires (Epist. 10, 33).
The emperor’s answer is quite clear: “You may very
well have had the idea that it should be possible to
form a company of iremen at Nicomedia on the
model of those existing elsewhere, but we must
remember that it is societies like these which have
been responsible for the political disturbances in
your province, particularly in its towns. If people
assemble for a common purpose, whatever name
we give them and for whatever reason, they soon
turn into a political club”.14
In a general climate like the one evoked by
Trajan’s letter to Pliny, it would not be surprising
if the Roman administration would have tried to
regulate and control the Nabataean heterotopiai at
Petra in one way or another.

a RoYal banquetinG hall?

Before attempting a inal interpretation of these
observations, it is worth looking at another
structure showing rather clear evidence of
alterations around AD 100. The so-called Great or
South Temple, located at the western end of the
colonnaded street, just before the temenos of the
Qasr al-Bint (ig. 4), indeed underwent substantial
changes in the late 1st or early 2nd century AD
(Joukowsky 1998: 209–224 [E. L. Schluntz];
Joukowsky 2012: 161; 2007: 223–229). The most
prominent of these changes consists of a theatre-
like structure that was constructed in the central
part of the supposed temple, completely altering
the function(s) of the whole complex. These
massive interventions make it extremely dificult
to say anything about the previous aspect of the
building. While in the end the excavators prefer
to retain the traditional denomination as a temple,
other scholars have expressed doubts about this
interpretation (f. ex. Seigne 2000; Bedal 2003:
176–178; Kropp 2009 and most notably Schluntz
1999: passim, while Netzer 2003: 72–81 maintains
the temple hypothesis).
These arguments will not be detailed here, but in
general terms one has to ask why Rabbel II, at the
14.. Plinius minor, Epist. 10, 34: “Tibi
“ quidem secundum
exempla complurium in mentem venit posse collegium
fabrorum apud Nicomedenses constitui. Sed meminerimus
provinciam istam et praecipue eas civitates eius modi
factionibus esse vexatas. Quodcumque nomen ex quacumque
causa dederimus iis, qui in idem contracti fuerint, hetaeriae
eaque brevi ient” (after Loeb Classical Library, with an
English Translation by B. Radice, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1969).
Fig. 5. Petra, ‘Great Temple’. Plan of phase IV (Nabataean) building
with hypothetical interior columns (P. C. Zimmermann, B. A. Brown,
C. F. Cloke, M. C. Agnew & E. A. Power; after Joukowsky 2007: 223
ig. 5.10; modiications S. G. Schmid).
end of his reign, or the new Roman administration,
depending on the exact date of the theatron, would
undertake such dramatic measures in order to
deprive a temple of its proper functions, no matter
to what deity this presumed temple was initially
dedicated. Such behaviour remains extremely
dificult to explain and lacks convincing parallels.
A few additional elements regarding the
interpretation of the building before the
construction of the theatron are outlined here.
The irst concerns the interior space, i.e. the one
later occupied by the small theatre-like structure.
Several publications have proposed reconstructing
it as a hypaethral space (f. ex. Joukowsky 2012:
161 ig. 6). Since there is absolutely no evidence
as for the initial design of this space, we could
equally reconstruct it with regular columns
corresponding in their dimensions and positions to
the preserved external rows of columns (ig. 5).15
With an interior composed of a huge hypostyle
hall, we would have a very common expression
of Near Eastern royal representative architecture.
The best examples for such architectural features
15.. Netzer 2003: 77, 81 proposes a lat
lat roof of wooden beams
that would require a length of 17–18 m, which would be
quite surprising (although not impossible) in Petra; with the
solution of a hypostyle hall as hypothetically proposed here,
the rooing would, of course, have been much easier.

261
Stephan G. Schmid
are the hypostyle halls built for the representative
purposes of the Achaemenid kings in their royal
residences, with the Apadana of Persepolise irst
amongst them (see most recently, Huff 2010;
Gopnik 2010). Prototypes for the Achaemenid
halls can be found in Media (Hasanlu), Anatolia
and Arabia (Rumeilah, Muweilah), indicating
common functional needs leading to similar
architectural forms rather than a single invention
(Huff 2010; Gopnik 2010 with several additional
examples). One would like to explain the striking
similarity between the Achaemenid hypostyle halls
and the hypothetical reconstruction of the ‘Great
Temple’ in Petra in a similar way. This suggests
that we should search for common origins of
these architectural forms rather than for a direct
connection between them.
Obviously, the origin of the rectangular, sometimes
square hypostyle hall has to be looked for in
tent architecture. Traditional Bedouin tents are
constructed in exactly the same way, the columns
corresponding to the wooden beams supporting
the goat-hair textile strips. The basic tent has
three such rows of wooden beams, a central one,
one in the front and one in the back. According
to the wealth of the owners and the number of
people, animals and goods to be housed, this basic
element can be extended over as much length as
is necessary, creating huge hypostyle tents, which
include separated spaces for men, women, animals,
goods etc. (see Dalman 1939: 12–29; Faegre
1979: 9–59). Clearly, such tents already existed in
antiquity, beginning with examples from the Bible
(Dalman 1939: 29–41).
There is no need to explain that it makes perfect
sense to suppose that the formerly nomadic
Nabataeans conserved and transposed into their
new sedentary lifestyle some speciic behaviours,
such as the regular gathering of groups (tribal
groups, families, kinsmen, clans etc.), in order to
create, deine and maintain social ties. No surprise
either that they preserved speciic architectural
forms for these purposes, simply transforming
them into a durable version, i.e. built of stone.
It is, therefore, quite likely that the ‘Great Temple’
in its initial shape as a hypostyle hall corresponds
with the “huge hall” in which, according to
Strabo, the Nabataean king used to hold many
symposia.16
16.. Strabo, Geogr. 16, 4, 26: “They [the Nabataeans] prepare
common meals together in groups of thirteen persons; and
they have two girl-singers for each banquet. The king holds
262
Still within the general frame of a working
hypothesis it is possible to push the interpretation
of the ‘Great Temple’ complex slightly further.
Despite the fact that, from the later 6th century BC
onwards, the Achaemenid kings started building
their reception halls and palaces in stone, they
maintained temporary structures, i.e. tents, serving
the same purposes (on the Achaemenid court and
its customs in general, see Brosius 2007). This
was especially useful for the manifold travels
the great king had to undertake, be it in order
to visit distant provinces or to lead his armies.
We know from the written sources that most of
the royal court travelled with the king on such
occasions; we are, therefore, talking about huge
and luxurious tents. The tents of the Persian kings
and especially the lavish decoration and luxurious
interior became notorious amongst the Greeks,
for instance when, in 479 BC, they conquered the
royal tent of Xerxes I that he had left to his general
Mardonios.17 According to Herodotus (9, 80ff.),
the royal tent was wrought with silver and gold,
while klinai made of gold and silver were in it as
well as a kitchen with several cooks and bakers
specialised in the preparation of luxurious meals.
Hence, the tent clearly featured banqueting as one
of its main functions. The Athenians celebrated
their victory over the Persians, amongst others,
by building the so-called Odeion of Pericles at
the foot of the acropolis, immediately next to the
theatre of Dionysus. According to several ancient
texts (Plut., Perikles 13, 5; Vitr., De arch. 5, 9, 1;
Paus. 1, 20, 3–4), this building was an exact copy
of the tent of the Persian king. As far as excavations
were able to reveal its remains, it was an almost
square building measuring 68.5 x 62.4 metres
and with 9 x 10 columns and, therefore, a rather
perfect copy of the reception halls in Persepolis,
Susa and Pasargadae.18
many drinking-bouts in a huge hall, but no-one drinks more
than eleven cupfuls, each time using a different golden
cup”; cf. Hackl, Jenni & Schneider 2003: 615–617. This
hypothesis has already been established by Schluntz 1999
and Seigne 2000: 514–515 and was essentially followed by
Bedal 2003 and Kropp 2009, although these authors prefer to
call the building a reception- or throne-hall; however, as the
examples of royal tents quoted here indicate, such structures
were probably multifunctional.
17.. For a brief overview and discussion with further
bibliography, see Schmid 2006: 82–83; Hesberg 1996:
86- 89.
18.. Schmid 2006: 82; Miller 1997: 218–242; contra
Deppmeyer 2007; cf. below note 19.
 Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it
Almost 150 years later, the tent – or rather tents –
of Darius III fell into the hands of Alexander the
Great after the battle of Issos. This time we learn
that, amongst other things, it contained baths and
a harem (Plut., Alex. 20, 6ff.).19 More importantly,
Alexander decided to make regular use of the
Persian royal tent for feasting, celebrating,
receiving and holding court, in short, it became
an important element of his own royal court
(Spawforth 2007: passim, especially 94-99;
Hesberg 1996: 86-89). Most interesting for our
purpose is the description of the careful mise-en-
scène of Alexander’s use of the royal tent. It is
worth quoting our two main sources, Phylarchus
and Polyaenus. Phylarchus says (apud Athen.,
Deipn. 141ff.): “In the centre of the pavilion was
placed a golden chair, sitting on which Alexander
held court with his bodyguard stationed closed on
all sides. Outside the tent the elephant division
was posted near in a circle with full equipment”.
The same situation is described by Polyaenus
(Strategemata 4, 3, 24): “In the middle of the
tent sat the golden throne, on which he sat to
give audiences. Bodyguards stood on each side
when the king heard cases. In a circle around the
tent stood the corps of elephants Alexander had
equipped”.
Therefore, Alexander the Great held court (and
received guests for drinking parties) in the royal
tent formerly belonging to the Achaemenid kings.
He sat in the middle of the tent on a golden throne,
his Macedonian and Persian companions carefully
positioned around him; around the tent were placed
the Indian elephants. If we try to imagine what
impression the ancient visitor to Petra must have
obtained when he was allowed to approach the
‘Great Temple’ complex in the city centre of the
Nabataean capital, the parallels with the scenery
described by the two texts is absolutely striking:
walking up the huge stairs and passing through the
propylon, the visitor penetrated the lower temenos
19.. The multifunctionality of Achaemenid royal tents would
equally it the close relationship with the stone-built examples
such as the Apadana; according to Huff 2010, such structures
also contained spaces for various purposes, including living
rooms of the royal family. Huff’s convincing arguments also
cast new light the relationship between the Achaemenid royal
tent and the Odeion of Pericles in Athens: Miller 1997: 235–
236 argued that the Odeion is based on stone-built Apadana
structures rather than on the tent, pointing out that the tent
should have contained multifunctional aspects while, in her
opinion, the Apadana did not. Since now we know that indeed
the Apadana did contain such features, the Odeion can indeed
be based on the tent.
with the triple porticoes on both sides, crowned
by the beautiful elephant-headed capitals (ig. 6)!
Since the main building was situated on the upper
terrace and towards the back of the whole complex,
it must have seemed to the visitor as if the elephants
were forming a circle around the main structure,
i.e. around the hypostyle hall where the Nabataean
king was receiving and holding banquets.
Despite the hypothetical reconstruction of the
‘Great Temple’ as a hypostyle hall, the overall
correspondence between the organisation and
decoration of the whole complex with the general
layout of Alexander’s use of the great king’s
tent seems too compelling to be due to mere
coincidence. According to the excavators, the
lower temenos with the elephant-headed capitals
belongs to the main building phase of the complex
dated to “between the irst century BCE and the
irst century CE” (Joukowsky 2007: 96–98)
or “to the last quarter of the irst century BCE”
(Joukowsky 1998: 209 [E. L. Schluntz]). Therefore,
the complex of the ‘Great Temple’ belongs to the
major building phase which resulted in a general
and overwhelming monumentalisation of the city
centre of Petra that started at the beginning of the
last quarter of the 1st century BC (Schmid 2012b:
138–140). This is the period when Herod the Great,
in Judaea, and the Nabataeans started to develop
similar building activities, probably proiting
from the availability of and input from architects
and craftsmen that were formerly employed by
the royal court at Alexandria and that now, after
Egypt’s conquest by Rome, were looking for a
new clientele.20
It must have been a source of real satisfaction
for the Nabataeans and, to a certain extent, a
provocation for former and new rivals, including
Rome, when the Nabataean kings built the ‘Great
Temple’ complex21. The Nabataeans’ irst entry into
history is related to the – unsuccessful – attempt
by the Antigonids to conquer them in 312/11 BC;
for almost all of the next three centuries they were
caught in continuous struggles with the Seleucids
and the Ptolemies. By 30 BC they had survived
20.. For these phenomena, see Lichtenberger 2012; Schmid
2009b; Kropp 2009, all with further bibliography.
21.. Especially since the Romans were well aware of the
symbolic meaning and value of Alexander the Great’s tent:
According to Pliny (Nat. Hist 34, 48), statues that initially
were used as tent poles for Alexander’s tent were standing in
front of both the temple of Mars Ultor and the Regia in Rome
(cf. Spawforth 2007: 94-95, 117).
263
Stephan G. Schmid
Fig. 6. Petra, ‘Great Temple’. Elephant-headed capital from the lower temenos (A. Voegelin; after Joukowsky 2012: 159 ig. 4b).
all of them; they could now pretend to be the
successors of Alexander and the Persian great
king and to transform one of the most prestigious
elements of royal representation from the
wealthiest empires, the royal tent surrounded by
the elephants, into a stone-built complex in their
lavishly decorated capital, itself the showcase of
their wealth and technical skills.
This programmatic statement must have been
clear to every visitor with the slightest education
and minimal historical knowledge. If the complex
of the ‘Great Temple’ is read and interpreted
in this way, it also becomes immediately clear
why it was transformed around AD 100. The
new administration had, of course, no interest
in such a statement. Furthermore, the likely use
of the complex as a royal reception and feasting
hall, a typical Nabataean heterotopia in order to
create social ties and strengthen the power of the
Nabataean king, was of no use to the Romans and
they replaced it by a bouleuterion-like structure. If
indeed the use of the new structure was that of a
bouleuterion (as proposed by Schluntz 1999: 131–
134; Seigne 2000: 513–514), we could see in the
transformation a kind of conirmation ex post for the
hypothesis expressed above about the initial use of
the complex: in the new building the counsellors of
the metropolis under Roman rule were debating in
typical Graeco-Roman architecture but in the same
place where the Nabataean kings had previously
held court and banquets in order to maintain social
ties and power.
In both cases the structure was a typical heterotopia.
During the Nabataean period selective access was
granted upon invitation, in the Roman era upon
election…
264
concluSionS
The analysis of a series of characteristic
architectural spaces very common in the
Nabataean world, such as funeral complexes, tribal
gathering places, sanctuaries and houses, shows
that Nabataean society made abundant use of
heterotopical spaces. Only well-deined members
of speciic groups were granted access to any single
heterotopia. One of the main activities common to
all these spaces was conviviality, that is hierarchic
organised feasting, mainly drinking. With these
elements and activities, Nabataean society deined
its social ties and structures. The same basic
system worked from a rather small scale (private
houses), through intermediate structures such as
tribal or clan heterotopiai (funerary complexes
and tribal gathering places) up to the top of the
Nabataean society (royal banqueting hall, attested
by Strabo). In their density and diversity, the
heterotopiai of Petra seem to be outstanding.
So far, multifunctional funeral complexes seem
limited to Petra, as are the rich houses such as the
mansion of az-Zantur, which are clearly distinct
from houses in other Nabataean towns (Kolb 2012:
243; Kolb 2007: 168–170). However, sanctuaries
and, more importantly, tribal gathering places are
reported from other places as well. Nevertheless,
Petra seems to have been the centre of these
activities. This can probably be underlined by the
fact that Petra must have been, if not the only, then
clearly the most important production centre for
the Nabataean table ware pottery, including the
painted drinking bowls that were abundantly used
on such banquets (cf. Schmid 2000).
 Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it

On the one hand, the practice of hierarchic
organised and repeated feasting as a major social
practice clearly goes back to the pre-sedentary
form of Nabataean society; the comparably early
dates of the inscriptions from the Aslah-triclinium
and the Obodas Chapel point in this direction. On
the other hand, it seems as if these heterotopiai
and their social functions went out of use shortly
after the Roman annexation in AD 106. Given the
bad reputation of similar associative structures in
the Roman empire this is no surprise. Surprisingly
though, it seems that these practises continued
outside Petra, as best illustrated by the sanctuary
of Khirbet at-Tannur. To a certain extent this
could even conirm the importance of Petra as a
heterotopical centre of the Nabataeans: outside
Petra the restrictions apparently were less directly
observed.
Finally, the ‘Great Temple’ complex might have
been a speciic heterotopia, namely the huge
banqueting hall of the Nabataean king as attested
in written sources. A working hypothesis is
proposed to interpret this structure as a petriied
homage to the royal tents of the Achaemenid kings
and of Alexander the Great.
Stephan G. Schmid
Winckelmann-Institut
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Unter den Linden 6
10099 Berlin (Germany)
stephan.g.schmid@culture.hu-berlin.de

References

alSton R. 1997. Philo’s “In Flaccum”. Ethnicity and social space in Roman Alexandria, Greece and
Rome 44: 165–175.
aScouGh R. S. 2008–09. Forms of commensality in Greco-Roman associations, Classical World 102:
33–45.
baldaSSaRRe i. 2002. La necropolis dell’Isola Sacra, in D. Vaquerizo (ed.) Espacio y usos funerarios
en el Occidente Romano. Actas del Congresso Internacional celebrado en la Facultad de
Filosoia y Letras de la universidad de Córdoba (5–9 de junio, 2001), II, Cordoba, Seminario
de Arqueología, Universidad de Córdoba: 11–26.
bedal l.-a. 2003. The Petra Pool-Complex. A Hellenistic Paradeisos in the Nabataean Capital (Results
from the Petra “Lower Market” Survey and Excavations, 1998), Piscataway, Gorgias Press.
bilde p. 2006. The Jews in Alexandria in 38–41 CE, in I. Nielsen (ed.) Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft:
Kosmopolitische Zentren des antiken Mittelmeerraumes als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen
und Religionsgemeinschaften, Hephaistos 24, Augsburg, Camelion-Verlag: 257–267.
bRaune S. 2008. Convivium Funebre. Gestaltung und Funktion römischer Grabtriklinien als Räume für
sepulkrale Bankettfeiern, Hildesheim, Olms.
bRoSiuS M. 2007. New out of Old? Court and Court Ceremonies in Achaemenid Persia, in
A. J. S. Spawforth (ed.) The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press: 17–57.
coRMack S. 2004. The Space of Death in Roman Asia Minor, Vienna, Phoibos Verlag.
dalMan G. 1939. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, VI. Zeltleben, Vieh- und Milchwirtschaft, Jagd,
Fischfang, Gütersloh, „Der Rufer“ Evangelischer Verlag.
deFeRt d. 2005. Raum zum Hören, in M. Foucault, Die Heterotopien/ Les hétérotopies. Der utopische
Körper/ Le corps utopique. Zwei Radiovorträge. Zweisprachige Ausgabe, übersetzt von
Michael Bischoff. Mit einem Nachwort von Daniel Defert, Frankfurt/M, Suhrkamp: 67–92.
dehaene M. (ed.) 2008. Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society, London,
Routledge.

265
Stephan G. Schmid

dentZeR J.-M. 2010. Espaces et communautés de culte dans le royaume nabatéen. Sanctuaires
rupestres et circulations rituelles à Pétra (Jordanie) et à Hégra (Arabie), in J. de La Genière,
A. Vauchez & J. Leclant (eds.), Les sanctuaires et leur rayonnement dans le monde
méditerranéen de l’antiquité a l’époque moderne. Actes du 20e colloque de la Villa Kérylos
à Beaulieu-sur-Mer les 9 et 10 octobre 2009, Paris, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-
Lettres: 161–212.
deppMeYeR k. 2007. Die Architektur hypostyler Gebäude am Beispiel des Odeion des Perikles in Athen,
Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 4: 18-32.
eGelhaaF-GaiSeR u. & SchäFeR a. (eds.) 2002. Religiöse Vereine in der römischen Antike.
Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.
eWald b. 2008. The tomb as heterotopia (Foucault’s “hétérotopies”): heroization, ritual and funerary
art in Roman Asia Minor, Journal of Roman Archaeology 21: 624–634 (= review of Cormack
2004).
FaeGRe t. 1979. Tents. Architecture of the Nomads, London, John Murray.
Foucault M. 2005. Die Heterotopien/ Les hétérotopies. Der utopische Körper/ Le corps utopique.
Zwei Radiovorträge. Zweisprachige Ausgabe, übersetzt von Michael Bischoff. Mit einem
Nachwort von Daniel Defert, Frankfurt/M, Suhrkamp.
Fox R. S. 2012. Feasting Practices and Changes in Greek Society from the Late Bronze Age to Early
Iron Age, BAR International Series 2345, Oxford, Archaeopress.
Gopnik h. 2010. Why columned halls ?, in J. Curtis & St. John Simpson (eds.) The World of Achaemenid
Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East, London, L.B. Tauris &
Co. Ltd.: 195–206.
GoRGeRat l. & WenninG R. 2012. Die Ausgrabungen des Aslah-Komplexes in Petra, in S. G. Schmid
(ed.) Petra – Wunder in der Wüste. Auf den Spuren von J. L. Burckhardt alias Scheich Ibrahim,
Basel, Schwabe: 248–251.
hackl u., Jenni h. & SchneideR c. 2003. Quellen zur Geschichte der Nabatäer. Textsammlung mit
Übersetzung und Kommentar, Freiburg Universitätsverlag.
heSbeRG h. v. 1996. Privatheit und Öffentlichkeit der frühhellenistischen Hofarchitektur, in
W. Hoepfner & G. Brands (eds.) Basileia. Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige.
Internationales Symposion in Berlin vom 16.12.1992 bis 20.12.1992, Mainz, Philipp von
Zabern: 84-96.
hope v. 1997. A roof over the dead: Communal tombs and family structures, in R. Laurence &
A. Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond,
Portsmouth, Journal of Roman Archaeology: 69–88.
huFF d. 2010. Überlegungen zu Funktion, Genese und Nachfolge des Apadana, in B. Jacobs & R.
Rollinger (eds.) Der Achämenidenhof/ The Achaemenid Court. Akten des 2. Internationalen
Kolloquiums zum Thema „Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer
Überliferungen“, Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.-25. Mai 2007, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz
Verlag: 311–374.
JoukoWSkY M. S. 1998. Petra Great Temple, I. Brown University Excavations 1993–1997, Providence
RI, E. A. Johnson Company.
JoukoWSkY M. S. 2007. Petra Great Temple, II. Archaeological Contexts of the Remains and Excavations.
Brown University Excavations in Jordan at the Petra Great Temple, 1993–2007, Providence,
Brown University Petra Exploration Fund.
kolb b. 2007. Nabataean private architecture, in K. D. Politis (ed.) The World of the Nabataeans.
Volume 2 of the International Conference The World of the Herods and the Nabataeans held
at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag: 145–172.
kolb b. 2012. Nabatäische Wohnarchitektur – Die Ausgrabungen der Universität Basel auf dem
Hügel ez-Zantur in Petra, in S. G. Schmid (ed.) Petra – Wunder in der Wüste. Auf den Spuren
von J. L. Burckhardt alias Scheich Ibrahim, Basel, Schwabe: 231–243.
kRopp a. J. M. 2009. Nabataean Petra. The royal palace and the Herod connection, Boreas 32: 43–59.
laceRenZa G. 1988–89. Il dio Dusares a Puteoli, Puteoli 12–13: 119–149.

266
 Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it

lanG F. 2010. Geschlossene Gesellschaften – Architektursoziologische Überlegungen zu antiken

griechischen Hofhaus, in P. Trebsche, N. Müller-Scheeßel & S. Reinhold (eds.) Der gebaute
Raum. Bausteine einer Architektursoziologie vormoderner Gesellschaften, Münster/ New
York/ Munich/ Berlin, Waxmann: 235–254.
lichtenbeRGeR a. 2012. Zum Vergleich: Die Bautätigkeit Herodes’ des Grossen, in S. G. Schmid (ed.)
Petra – Wunder in der Wüste. Auf den Spuren von J. L. Burckhardt alias Scheich Ibrahim,
Basel, Schwabe: 225–229.
löW M. 2001. Raumsoziologie, Frankfurt/M. Suhrkamp.
MckenZie J. S. 2012. Das Heiligtum von Khirbet et-Tannur und seine Skulpturen, in S. G. Schmid (ed.)
Petra – Wunder in der Wüste. Auf den Spuren von J. L. Burckhardt alias Scheich Ibrahim,
Basel, Schwabe: 176–181.
MckenZie J. S., GibSon S. & ReYeS a. t. 2002. Reconstruction of the Nabataean temple complex at
Khirbet et-Tannur, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 134: 44–83.
MckenZie J., ReYeS a. & GibSon S. 2002. Khirbat at-Tannur in the ASOR Nelson Glueck Archive
and the reconstruction of the temple, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 46:
451–476.
MilleR M. c. 1997. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC. A Study in Cultural Receptivity,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
MoRGan J. 2011. Drunken men and modern myths. Re-viewing the classical Andron, in S. D. Lambert
(ed.) Sociable Man. Essays on Ancient Greek Social Behaviour in Honour of Nick Fisher,
Swansea, The Classical Press of Wales: 267–290.
MuRRaY o. 1980. Early Greece, Sussex, The Harvester Press.
MuRRaY o. 1983. The symposion as social organisation, in R. Hägg (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of
the Eighth Century B.C. Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1 - 5 June, 1981, Stockholm, Paul Åström:
195–199.
nehMé l. & WadeSon l. (eds.) 2012. The Nabataeans in Focus: Current Archaeological Research
at Petra, Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42, Oxford,
Archaeopress.
netZeR e. 2003. Nabatäische Architektur, insbesondere Gräber und Tempel, Mayence, von Zabern.
nielSen i. 1998. Royal banquets. The development of royal banquets and banqueting halls from
Alexander to the tetrarchs, in I. Nielsen (ed.), Meals in a Social Context. Aspects of the
Communal Meal in the Hellenistic and Roman World, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press:
102– 133.
nielSen i. (ed.) 2006. Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft: Kosmopolitische Zentren des antiken Mittel-
meerraumes als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen und Religionsgemeinschaften, Hephaistos 24,
Augsburg, Camelion-Verlag.
petRovSZkY k. in press. The Nabataean Tomb Complexes in the Context of the Mediterranean Funerary
Architecture of Roman Age, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 11.
SchMid S. G. 1997. Nabataean ine ware pottery and the destructions of Petra in the late irst and early
second century A.D., in G. Bisheh, M. Zaghloul & I. Kehrberg (eds.) Studies in the History
and Archaeology of Jordan 6, Amman, Department of Antiquities of Jordan: 413–420.
SchMid S. G. 2000. Die Feinkeramik der Nabatäer. Typologie, Chronologie und kulturhistorische
Hintergründe, Petra. Ez Zantur, 2. Ergebnisse der schweizerisch-liechtensteinischen
Ausgrabungen, Mayence, von Zabern.
SchMid S. G. 2006. Boire pour Apollon. Céramique hellénistique et banquets dans le sanctuaire
d’Apollon Daphnéphoros, Eretria, Fouilles et recherches 16, Gollion, Infolio.
SchMid S. G. 2007. Nabataean funerary complexes. Their relationship with the luxury architecture of
the Hellenistic and Roman Mediterranean, in F. Al-Khraysheh (ed.) Studies in the History
and Archaeology of Jordan 9, Amman, Department of Antiquities: 205–219.
SchMid S. G. 2008a. Die Wasserversorgung des Wadi Farasa Ost in Petra, in C. Ohlig (ed.), Cura
aquarum in Jordanien, Norderstedt, Books on Demand: 95–117.
SchMid S. G. 2008b. L’eau à Pétra. L’exemple du Wadi Farasa est, Syria 85: 19–31.

267
Stephan G. Schmid

SchMid S. G. 2009a. Überlegungen zum Grundriss und zum Funktionieren nabatäischer Grabkomplexe
in Petra, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 125: 139–170.
SchMid S. G. 2009b. Nabataean royal propaganda. A response to Herod and Augustus ?, in
D. M. Jacobson & N. Kokkinos (eds.) Herod and Augustus. Papers held at the IJS Confe-
rence, 21st - 23rd June 2005, Leiden, Brill: 325–359.
SchMid S. G. 2012a. Die dritte Dimension der Felsfassaden: nabatäische Grabkomplexe in Petra, in
S. G. Schmid (ed.) Petra – Wunder in der Wüste. Auf den Spuren von J. L. Burckhardt alias
Scheich Ibrahim, Basel, Schwabe: 182–194.
SchMid S. G. 2012b. Petra als Hauptstadt der Nabatäer. Geschichte einer explosionsartigen Entwicklung,
in S. G. Schmid (ed.) Petra – Wunder in der Wüste. Auf den Spuren von J. L. Burckhardt alias
Scheich Ibrahim, Basel, Schwabe: 134–141.
SchMid S. G., aMouR a., baRMaSSe a., ducheSne S., huGuenot c. & WadeSon l. 2008. New insights
into Nabataean funerary practices, in J. Ma Cordoba, M. Molist, Ma Carmen Pérez, I. Rubio
& S. Martínez (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of
the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3–8 2006, Madrid, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid:
135–160.
SchluntZ e. l. 1999. From Royal to Public Assembly Space: The Transformation of the “Great Temple”
Complex at Petra, Jordan, PhD thesis, Providence RI, Brown University (through UMI).
SchRoeR M. 2006. Räume, Orte, Grenzen. Auf dem Weg zu einer Soziologie des Raumes, Frankfurt/M,
Suhrkamp.
SeiGne J. 2000. Review of Petra Great Temple, 1. Brown University excavations 1993 – 1997, Topoi
10: 507–516.
SpaWFoRth t. 2007. The Court of Alexander the Great between Europe and Asia, in A. J. S. Spawforth
(ed.) The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press: 82–120.
StehMeieR S. R. 2006. Gemeinschaft über den Tod hinaus. Grabtriklinien als Festplätze römisch-
kaiserzeitlicher collegia, in I. Nielsen (ed.) Zwischen Kult und Gesellschaft: Kosmopolitische
Zentren des antiken Mittelmeerraumes als Aktionsraum von Kultvereinen und
Religionsgemeinschaften, Hephaistos 24, Augsburg, Camelion-Verlag: 215–223.
SteueRnaGel d. 1999. Corporate identity. Über Vereins-, Stadt- und Staatskulte im kaiserzeitlichen
Puteoli, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Römische Abteilung 106:
149–187.
tholbecq l. 2011. Infrastructures et pratiques religieuses nabatéennes. Quelques données provenant
du sanctuaire tribal, de la “chapelle d‘Obodas” à Pétra, in V. Rondot, F. Alpi & F. Villeneuve
(eds.) La pioche et la plume. Autour du Soudan, du Liban et de la Jordanie. Hommages
archéologiques à Patrice Lenoble, Paris, PU Paris-Sorbonne: 31–44.
tholbecq l. 2012. Die ‘Obodas-Kapelle’, ein nabatäisches Stammesheiligtum, in S. G. Schmid (ed.)
Petra – Wunder in der Wüste. Auf den Spuren von J. L. Burckhardt alias Scheich Ibrahim,
Basel, Schwabe: 172–175.
tholbecq l. in press. Les sanctuaires des Nabatéens : approches historiques, typologiques et spatiales,
Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 11.
tholbecq l. & duRand c. 2005. A Nabataean rock-cut sanctuary in Petra. Preliminary reports on
three excavation seasons at the “Obodas Chapel”, Jabal Numayr (2002 - 2004), Annual of the
Department of Antiquities of Jordan 49: 299–311.
tholbecq l., duRand c. & bouchaud c. 2008. A Nabataean rock-cut sanctuary in Petra. Second
preliminary report on the “Obodas chapel” excavation project, Jabal Numayr (2005 - 2007),
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 52: 235–254.
tRüMpeR M. 2002. Das Sanktuarium des “Etablissement des Poseidoniastes de Bérytos” in Delos. Zur
Baugeschichte eines griechischen Vereinsheiligtums, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
126: 265–330.
völckeR-JanSSen W. 1993. Kunst und Gesellschaft an den Höfen Alexanders d. Gr. und seiner
Nachfolger, Munich, Tuduv.

268
 Foucault and the Nabataeans - or what space has to do with it

vöSSinG k. 2004. Mensa Regia. Das Bankett beim hellenistischen König und beim römischen Kaiser,
Munich/Leipzig, Saur.
WadeSon l. 2012a. Ein Blick hinter die nabatäischen Grabfassaden, in S. G. Schmid (ed.) Petra –
Wunder in der Wüste. Auf den Spuren von J. L. Burckhardt alias Scheich Ibrahim, Basel,
Schwabe: 202–206.
WadeSon l. 2012b. The funerary landscape of Petra: results from a new study, in L. Nehmé & L. Wadeson
(eds.) The Nabataeans in Focus: Current Archaeological Research at Petra,Supplement to
the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42, Oxford, Archaeopress: 99–126.
WenninG R. 1987. Die Nabatäer – Denkmäler und Geschichte. Eine Bestandesaufnahme des
archäologischen Befundes, Freiburg, Universitätsverlag / Göttingen, Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
WenninG R. 2007. Nabatäische Votivnischen, Clan-Heiligtümer, Tempel und Votive, in Ch. Frevel &
H. von Hesberg (eds.) Kult und Kommunikation. Medien in Heiligtümern der Antike,
Wiesbaden, Reichert: 247–277.
WenninG R. 2011. Tribale Frömmigkeit und royale Religionspolitik. Gottesverehrung der Nabatäer,
in A. Lykke & F. T. Schipper (eds.) Kult und Macht. Religion und Herrschaft im syro-
palästinensischen Raum. Studien zu ihrer Wechselbeziehung in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit,
Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck: 279–304.
WenninG R. in cooperation with Gorgerat L. 2012. The International Aslah Project, Petra: new research
and new questions, in L. Nehmé & L. Wadeson (eds.) The Nabataeans in Focus: Current
Archaeological Research at Petra, Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian
Studies 42, Oxford, Archaeopress: 127–145.
WhitleY J. 1991. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece. The Changing Face of a Pre-Literate Society,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Willke h. 2003. Heterotopia: Studien zur Krisis der Ordnung moderner Gesellschaften, Frankfurt / M,
Suhrkamp.

269