the identity of the nabataean 'painted house' complex at baidha, north-west petra

© Palestine Exploration Fund 2010 doi: 10.1179/003103210X12581223412784

Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 142, 1 (2010), 31–42

1 Address correspondence to Saad Twaissi, Assistant Professor, Department of Archaeology, P.O. Box 20, al-Hussein Bin Talal University, Maan, Jordan ([email protected]).

THE IDENTITY OF THE NABATAEAN ‘PAINTED HOUSE’ COMPLEX AT BAIDHA, NORTH-WEST PETRA

Saad Twaissi1, Fawzi Abudanh and Qais Twaissi

An attempt is made to shed light on the identity of the Nabataean ‘Painted House’ from an understanding of its plan, the content of the painting and the function of the associated features, mainly the water installa-tions. This study reveals new mythological figures unnoticed by previous scholars. These include additional cupids and, most importantly, Isis. The water installations of the monument, its functions and meaning, the content of the painting combined with comparative studies of Mediterranean and Near Eastern evidence all suggest that this monument was an Isiac (Isis) sanctuary devoted to her as a goddess of improved quality of life, good crops, good herds, and love.

Key words: Baidha, Isis, Nabatean art, Nabataean religion

1. introduction

The so-called ‘Painted House’ monument (Br. 849) (Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904, 414) is located at Siq el-Barid in Baidha, about 7 km north-west of Petra within an area accommodating many triclinia carved on both sides of the Siq and also very rich in water facilities and water control systems. It is one of the most famous Nabataean monuments in the Petra region and for very long time it remained the only known monument to contain Nabataean mural painting.

The monument was photographed for the first time by Père Abel in 1906 and thence-forth was subjected to many studies. These studies, however, focused mainly on the contents of the painting of the vaulted ceiling and the identification of the mythological figures, but less attention was given to its source of inspiration. Despite this, the whole monument complex and its associated features, as well as the identity of the monument, has received very little attention.

Abel (1906) recognized three figures but without identifying them. Dalman (1908) identified Orpheus and two Erotes. Robinson (1930) noticed two mythological figures which he has identified as Eros and Orpheus. G. and A. Horsfield (1938, 21–24) noticed two mythological figures including Erotes and Pan. Moreover they identified the monument as a house of a rich merchant and dated it to 40–30 bc. Glueck (1956) identified mythological figures including three Erotes and Pan, and identified the monument as a mortuary chapel dated to late first or early second century ad. Fawzi Zayadine has dated the monument to the first half of the first century bc (Zayadine 1987, 141–142). More recently, J. McKenzie dated it on cross-cultural basis to the first half of the first century AD (McKenzie 2005, 152). Most of these studies were based on the photographs taken by Abel in 1906. Nelson Glueck, for example, had never entered the monument ‘because of the hordes of fleas which infested it’ (1956, 14).

Contrary to previous research, this study attempts to demonstrate the question of the identity of this monument. Our approach in this study is to understand the whole context of the monument and the associated features in its immediate surroundings which are directly connected with it. It will be argued that the so-called Nabataean painted house is one part of a larger monumental complex.

32 palestine exploration quarterly, 142, 1 , 2010

2. the complex of the ’painted house’

The monument is carved in the southern side of the Siq el-Barid, in an area very rich with water facilities and water control systems. It is situated about 7 m high above ground level (Fig. 1). The ‘Painted House’ consists of a biclinium with a recess covered by a vaulted ceiling. This vault is decorated with the well-known Nabataean mural painting (Figs. 2 and 3a and

Fig. 1. An view over the monument of the ‘Painted House’.

Fig. 2. The biclinium of the ‘Painted House’.

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/003103210X12581223412784&iName=master.img-000.jpg&w=215&h=161


33the nabataean ‘painted house’ complex at baidha

b). There is evidence to suggest that this recess was also a triclinium, but was furnished with movable benches, most probably wooden ones. This suggestion is based on the fact that the lower 80 cm of the walls of this recess protrudes by about 1.5 cm and remained undecorated. In the inside-walls of the recess there are four niches, one in each side-wall and two in the wall facing the door. The wall containing the recess is decorated in a masonry style representing yellow ashlars, with the joint between them painted red (Fig. 3a).

Fig. 3a. The recess and the vaulted ceiling of the biclinium.

Fig. 3b. A reconstruction of the recess of the ‘Painted House’.




Much literature has been published concerning the content of the painting and its source of inspiration, and many attempts were made to determine the identity of this monument, mainly based on the content of the painting of the ceiling of the vaulted niche. Only about 30% of the original painting remains.

An overview on the area of the ‘Painted House’ indicates that this part of the monument complex was connected to the adjoining open air room by direct access through a staircase which seems to have fallen down in antiquity (Figs. 4 and 5). This room is now unroofed and open to the air, but there is evidence indicating that it was roofed, possibly with reeds supported by wooden posts, as suggested by the holes in its southern wall. Moreover, the staircase which leads up to this part of the monument, as well as the monument’s northern edge, appears to have been furnished with wooden posts. This is evident from a series of small holes that run along the left edge of the staircase and the northern edge of the room (Fig. 6).

Fig. 4. An overview on the whole complex of the ‘Painted House’.

Fig. 5. Ground plan of the complex of the ‘Painted House’.




This part (the ‘open air’ room) is very important for understanding what activities took place at this monument. It is furnished with three water containers. The first one is located at the same level as the roof and was fed by an upper water source, which could not be investigated, because it was inaccessible. After this container has been filled, water will run down, passing through a cultic niche holding a betyl consisting of a small rectangle carved in relief1 to fill the other containers through two different channels (see Fig. 7). The first container is positioned at the lower right corner of the southern wall, and the second one at the north-west part of the floor. The latter is rounded and surrounded with a tiny rounded bench (circilinium)2.

Moreover, the ‘Painted House’ is also connected with other water installations. One of them is shell-shaped (niche-basin) and located at its entrance (Figs. 4 and 8). This type of container is for small volumes, indicating that it was intended to keep water flowing over time, allowing us to suppose that such basins were designed for ritual rather than for storage purposes. This conclusion is also well indicated by the betyl and the cultic niche accommodating it, which may suggest that water had to pass through this niche for sacral purposes, mainly ritual purification.

To sum up, the small volume of water which could be held by the water facilities of the ‘Painted House’ and the cultic niche suggest that they were utilised for liturgical rites rather than for ordinary needs. Here one should keep in mind the idea that ritual purifica-tion is a rite to be practiced before entering a sacred or cultic place. From the plan (Figs. 5 and 8) it appears that the only place that has direct access from the ‘open air’ room is the ‘Painted House’. Therefore one can conclude that both features, the ‘open air’ room and the ‘Painted House’, are parts of one monument complex. Accordingly it would be plausible

Fig. 6. The wooden post holes of the open air room and the staircase leading to it, with a reconstruction.



Fig. 7. Cultic niche connected to a water channel.

Fig. 8. Water distribution system of the ‘Painted House’ monument.




to suggest that the sacred place of this monument is the ‘Painted House’ and that the adjacent ‘open air’ room was the part in which ritual purification was practiced.

At this stage of the research one would pose the following question: Was the ‘Painted House’ a temple-sanctuary? If yes, to which god–goddess was this temple-sanctuary was devoted? Before answering these questions the following should be taken into account: (1) Information on Nabataean rites and religious rituals is poor; (2) There is little evidence from excavated Nabataean temples regarding the use of water for purification in ritual practices; (3) Water containers, or more precisely small water containers, are characteristic features of Isiac sanctuaries in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds3.

This leads to another question: Was this monument, the Nabataean ‘Painted House’, a sanctuary to Isis?

3. the evidence of the paintings

The paintings of the ‘Painted House’ have been discussed thoroughly by many scholars, as mentioned above. However, in general, the painting depicts floral and mythological subjects of vine branches curved in spiral and intersected circles, with an abundance of green vine leaves, and ripe grapes clusters along with wild raspberry and field bindweed flowers. Within this lavish floral setting there are birds in various scenes, together with many mythological figures including one (Pan) playing his flute and an Eros drawing his bow. The painting was re-photographed and thoroughly studied by the authors in 2004. Subsequently, new figures were identified, including two Erotes, one holding a basket, and another engaging in collecting grapes (Figs. 9 and 10).

Most importantly, we were also able to identify a third figure (Fig. 11). This figure is badly eroded and only the head can be easily recognised. However the outline of the upper half of the body can be identified through the traces of painting on the surface. The figure has an anthropomorphic head with hair falling over shoulders, and dark hair falling over the forehead. This head is crowned by the sun-disk, and behind the right shoulder appears a sistrum-like object. The figure seems to carry in her/his right hand a long reed. It is known that solar disc, sistrum and reed are all attributes of Isis. It is worth mentioning here that the acroterion on the apex of the pediment of the Khazneh is decorated with horns and ears of wheat flanking a sun disc (Stewart 2003, 194–195; McKenzie 2005, 141; Zayadine 2005, 399)

Fig. 9. Cupid: a. holding a basket depicted on the side wall of the recess, b. reconstruction.




Fig. 10. Another cupid painted on the side wall.

Fig. 11. One of the newly identified figures, which most probably represent Isis.




indicating Isis as Demeter/Kore. Furthermore, one of the cupids of this painting (Fig. 12) appears to hold an ear of corn, which is one of the main attributes of Isis (Solms 1979; Spence 1996). Finally, the attributes of Isis make it reasonable to conclude that the figure represents Isis.

4. discussion

The cult of Isis was widespread in the ancient Mediterranean world, mainly from the Hellenistic period on. The ideology of classical Egypt had a tendency to universalise Isis as representing the throne and cosmic protection of the king (Frankfurter 1998, 101)4. However, the expansion of her cult under the Roman Empire was largely westward, to Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul and Britain (Price 2000, 298). In the classical Near East her cult has been found in many cities, for example in Antioch (Norris 1982), in Samaria-Sebaste (Magness 2001) as well as in Asia Minor (Magie 1953). It is well known that many of the Isiac sanctuaries found in the Hellenistic period were connected with water installations. The purpose of these installations is that ‘they served as places in which the Nile flood (symbolically) recurred and from which this sacred flood water could be drawn out for the needs of the cult’ (Wild 1981, 28). Furthermore, ‘with every heavy rain a symbolic “flood” must have taken place in the crypt. Water would have risen in the basin, which is, after all, not that large, and would have then overflowed onto the floor. Because the whole facility resembles an Egyptian Nilometer, the overflowing water must have been looked as Nile flood water’ (Wild 1981, 47). It should be also mentioned that all the Isis temples were associated with roofed staircases leading to a water source (Wild 1981, 47). At her shrine in Pompeii, south-east of the forum near the temple of Jupiter Milichius, for example, there is a subterranean reservoir for holy water, an initiation hall, a room for meeting and banqueting and a few lodgings for priests (Grant 1971, 96–98).

The veneration of Isis in the Petra region is very well attested in archaeological remains and epigraphy, as well as from textual evidence. Her cult was attested in many places in Petra. For example, it has been found at Sadd al-Mreriyyeh in Wadi as-Siyyagh, at Wadi ad-Dalwa on the way to Naqb ar-Ruba’i via Jabal Harun, Wadi abu ‘Uleqa and Wadi Waghit (Zayadine 2003, 64; Wenning and Merklein 2001; Nehme 2000, 163; Roche 1993, 217–218; Parr 1962, 21–23; 1990). At Sadd al-Mreriyyeh in Wadi as-Siyyagh, Isis was depicted in a relief representing her seated on a throne and draped in a long mantle and with the characteristic knot on her breast. Interestingly, this cultic place of Isis is associated

Fig. 12. Cupid holding an ear of corn.



with a niche-basin very similar to that one at the entrance of the biclinium of the ‘painted house’. It has been suggested that this niche-basin served for ritual purification at that site (Nehme 2000, 163). A similar relief of Isis can be found in Wadi ad-Dalwa on the way to Naqb ar-Ruba’i via Jabal Harun. Another piece of evidence of Isis in Petra was uncovered at ez-Zantur represents an alabaster bust identified with her on the basis of her knot on her drapery between her breasts (McKenzie 2003, 171). Moreover, many terracotta figurines of mourning Isis have been found at Petra and its vicinity.5 Furthermore it has recently been suggested that the temple of the Winged Lions at Petra was dedicated to Isis (Hammond 2003, 224–226). It is even suggested that there was an earlier temple dedicated to Isis under the temple of the Winged Lions; this was on the basis of the Osiride votive statue found in this temple (Meza 1996, 175). Finally, it has been argued that Isis was also represented at Petra in form of a betyl, mainly as an eye-betyl with an emblem or jewel.6

Petra was listed as one of the most important centres of Isis cults in the papyrus from Oxyrhinchus in Upper Egypt (Zayadine 1991, 283; 301–306). The veneration of Isis must have been introduced to Petra in the first century bc at the very latest. This is because of the evidence for her cult in Petra, which came from her cultic site at Sidd el-Mreriyyh at Petra, where an inscription dated to 25 bc was found. The inscription reads:

This is the goddess Isis, which sons of PN made . . . on the fi rst of Iyyar (May) in the fi fth year. . .Obada7 the king (Healey 2001, 138; Merklein and Wenning 1998, 167–168; Milik and Starcky 1975, 120–124).

It is evident that the cult of Isis at Petra continued to prosper through the Roman period as appears from the Greek inscription found in the Siq in Petra, which refers to a priest of Isis at Petra during the Roman period (Milik and Starcky 1975, 123).

In addition, the general scene of the painting of the ‘Painted House’ reminds us of the Nilotic scenes which are always rich with birds and lavish flora (for some examples, see Merrony 1998, 466; Friedman 2005, 399–401). The best, and probably the earliest, evidence for the Nilotic motif in classical periods is the Nile mosaic at Palestrina in Italy (see Meyboom 1995 for detailed discussion on the content of this mosaic). What concerns us in this mosaic is that scene in the lower left corner of the mosaic, which represents Isis with her priests lying under a reed-vault spanning the river Nile. This reed-vault is lavishly inhabited with vines and mature bunches of grapes. It is interesting here to mention that the vaulted ceiling or roof is a characteristic feature in Isiac sanctuaries and chapels. For example, the kiosks8 typically had a low vaulted wooden roof (Trimble 2007, 23). Further-more, there are some Isiac paintings in Pompeian houses resembling that in the Nabataean ‘Painted House’ at Baidha. At Pompeii there are many private houses containing niches devoted to her cult. In the so-called House of Acceptus and Euhedia, for instance, there is a painting of Isis Fortuna standing with a wreath of leaves on her head, a lotus flower on her brow, and dark hair falling over her shoulders. She wears a yellow chiton and a blue mantle. In her left hand she carries a cornucopia and in her right a yellow rudder which rests upon a globe. The figure is bordered with large shrubs with red flowers and decorative fillets (Witt 1971, 83). Moreover, in the vaulted niche of the Bake House at Pompeii, Isis appears with cupids and Luna and above the niche there are bunches of grapes (Witt 1971, 83–84).9

Finally, it can be suggested that the biclinium, in which the vaulted niche of the Nabataean ‘Painted House’ is situated, may have served as a room for ritual banqueting. Isis-worship was sometimes associated with ritual banqueting; for example, at her temple in Pompeii there was a large room, the purpose of which was to accommodate her worshippers during the ritual banqueting held for her (Nappo 1998, see also Balch 2003 for discussion on the Isiac painting there).


5. conclusion

The study has shown that the monument of the Nabataean ‘Painted House’ is a part of a larger ritual complex, and was able to identify previously unknown mythological figures from the painting, including cupids and Isis. This complex shows many characteristic features of Isiac sanctuaries found in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds. These are the water installations, the vaulted recess, and the general contents of the painting. Good evidence for the connection of Isis with this monument is the Isis figure identified by the authors. In general, the water installations, the paintings of the house and its contents strongly suggest that this ‘Painted House’ was an Isis sanctuary devoted to her as a goddess of improved quality of life, good crops, good herds, and love.

acknowledgement

The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to Dr Mohammed Barakat Tarawneh for reproducing the fi gures of this paper.

notes

1 See Wenning (2001) for more details on the Nabataean betyls in Petra.

2 This term was introduced by Saad Twaissi to indicate the shape of this type of installation as it frequently appears in the Petra region.

3 See Wild (1981) for detailed discussion on the water practices in the worshipping of Isis in the ancient world.

4 The same ideology might be adopted by the Nabataean royal house. For example, on Nabataean coins queen Huldu, king Aretas VI’s wife, was depicted wearing Isis’s crown of the sun disc and horns (Parlasca 1998, 69–70).

5 Zayadine 1982; Parr 1990; el-Khouri 2002, 23–25. See also el-Khouri (2002) for recent discussion on Nabataean terracotta figurines for Isis figurines found in Petra.

6 See Wenning (2001, 83–84) for further discussion and McKenzie (2003, 171) for different types of representation of Isis in Petra.

7 Oboda III 30-9 BC.8 Peripheral chapels of Isis characterized by small

area consists of small hall, entrance porch and cult terrace (Trimble 2007, 20)

9 See McKenzie (2005, 89) for parallel examples of vine decoration on curved architrave or vault ceilings in second Pompeian style.

bibliography

Abel, F., 1906. ‘Lieux de Culte à Petra: le monument funeraire peint d’El-Bared’, Revue Biblique 3, 587–591.Balch, D., 2003. ‘The suffering of Isis/Io and Paul’s portrait of Christ crucified (Gal.3:1): Frescos in Pompeian and

Roman houses and in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii’, The Journal of Religion 83, No.1, 24–55.Brünnow, R. E., and von Domaszewski, A., 1904. Die Provincia Arabia. Vol.1 (Strassburg: K. J. Trübner).Dalman, G., 1908. Petra und seine Felsheiligtumer (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs)Frankfurter, D., 1998. Religion in Roman Egypt; Assimilation and Resistance. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press)Friedman, Z., 2005. ‘Boats depiction in the 8th century ce Nilotic Frame mosaic in the Church of St. Stephen,

Umm al-Rasas, Jordan’, LA 55, 395–417 and Pls. 51–56.Glueck, N., 1956. ‘A Nabataean mural painting’, BASOR 141, 13–23.Grant, M., 1971. Cities of Vesuvius: Pompeii and Herculaneum (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson)Hammond, P., 2003. ‘The Temple of the Winged Lions’, G. Markoe (ed.), Petra Rediscovered (New York: Harry N.

Abrams), 224–226.Healey, J., 2001. The Religion of the Nabataeans: A Conspectus. Religions in Graeco–Roman World, 136 (Boston:

Brill).Horsfield, G. and Horsfield, A., 1938. ‘Sela-Petra, the Rock of Edom and Nabatene’, QDAP, 7: 15–42.El-Khouri, L., 2002. The Nabataean Terracotta Figurines, BAR international Series S1034 (Oxford: Archaeopress).Magie, D., 1953. ‘Egyptian deities in Asia Minor in inscriptions and on coins’, American Journal of Archaeology 57.3,

163–187.Magness, J., 2001. ‘The cult of Isis Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman periods’, The Harvard

Theological Review 94.2, 157–177.Merrony, M., 1998. ‘The reconciliation of paganism and Christianity in the Early Byzantine mosaic pavements

of Arabia and Palestine’, LA 48, 441–482 and Pls. 21–30.Merklein, H., and Wenning, R., 1998. ‘Ein Verehrungsplatz der Isis in Petra neu untersucht’, ZDPV 114.2,

162–176.Meyboom, P., 1995. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, Early Evidence of Egyptian Religion in Italy (Leiden. New York.

Koln: E. J. Brill).


McKenzie, J., 2003. ‘Carving in the desrt: the sculpture of Petra and Khirbiet et-Tannur’, G. Markoe (ed.), Petra Rediscovered (New York: Harry N. Abrams), 165–190.

McKenzie, J., 2005. The architecture of Petra (3rd ed.) (Oxbow Books: Oxford).Meza, A., 1996. ‘The Egyptian statuette in Petra and the Isis cult connection’, ADAJ 40, 167–176.Milik, J. T., and Starcky, J., 1975 ‘Inscriptions récemment découvertes à Pétra’, ADAJ 20, 111–130.Nappo, S., 1998. Pompeii: Guide to the Lost City (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson).Nehme, L., 2000. ‘The world of the Nabataeans’, in O. Binst (ed.), The Levant, History and Archaeology in the Eastern

Mediterranean (Köln: Konemann), 142–184.Norris, F., 1982. ‘Isis, Sarapis and Demeter in Antioch of Syria’, The Harvard Theological Review 75.2, 182–207.Parlasca, K., 1998. ‘Bemerkungen zum Isiskult in Petra’, Hubner, U.; Knauf, E. and Wenning, R. (eds),

Nach Petra und ins Konigreich der Nabataer (Bonner Biblische Beitrage188: Bodenheim), 64–70.Parr, P., 1962. ‘A Nabataean sanctuary near Petra: A preliminary notice’, ADAJ 6–7, 21–23.Parr. P., 1990. ‘A commentary on the terracotta figurines from the British Excavations at Petra 1958–64’, in

F. Zayadine (ed.), Petra and the Caravan Cities (Amman: Department of Antiquities), 77–86.Price, S., 2000. ‘Religion of Rome’, in J. Coulston and H. Dodge (eds.), Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal

City, (Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology), 290–305.Robinson, G., 1930. The Sarcophagus of an Ancient Civilization: Petra, Edom and the Edomites (New York: Macmillan).Roche, M., 1993. ‘Le Culte d’Isis et l’influence Egyptiene à Petra’. Syria 64, 217–222.Solms, F., 1979. Isis Among Greeks and Romans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Spence, L., 1996. The Illustrated Guide to Egyptian Mythology (London: Studio).Stewart, A., 2003. ‘The Khazneh’ in G. Markoe (ed.), Petra Rediscovered (New York: Abrams), 193–198.Trimble, J., 2007. ‘Pharaonic Egypt and the Ara Pacis in Augustan Rome’ (Working Papers in Classics, Princeton:

Stanford University).Wenning, R., 2001. ‘The Betyls of Petra’, BASOR 324, 79–95.Wenning, R., and Merklein, H., 2001. ‘The Isis from the Wadi as-Siyyagh: new researches’, SHAJ VII, 421–432.Wild, R., 1981. Water in the Cultic Worships of Isis and Serapis (Leiden: E. J. Brill)Witt, R., 1971. Isis in the Greaco–Roman World (London: Thames and Hudson)Zayadine, F., 1982. ‘Recent excavations at Petra’, ADAJ 26, 365–393.Zayadine, F., 1987. ‘Decorative stucco at Petra and other Hellenistic sites’, SHAJ III, 131–142.Zayadine, F., 1991. ‘L’Iconographie d’Isis à Petra. Petra’, Mélanges de l’École Francaise de Rome, Antiquité 103,

283–306.Zayadine, F., 2003. ‘Nabataean gods and their sanctuaries’, in G. Markoe (ed.), Petra Rediscovered (New York:

Abrams), 57–64. Zayadine, F., 2005. ‘Al-Khazna, the Treasury re-visited. A forgotten document of Leon de Laborde’ ADAJ 49,

395–401.

the identity of the nabataean 'painted house' complex at baidha, north-west petra

Documents