DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32867#0355
PRE-ROMAN PERIOD
3 23
is to be gained by a comparative study of the architectural details. Only one of the
inscriptions has a definite date, and that falls between the two extremes, being of the
year 5 b.c. I his is, unfortunately, not a monument of architecture, being a simple
grave-stele 1 at Si‘; but it is ornamented with a broad molding which is a classic cyma
recta, and is surmounted by an ornamental disk that is distinctly Oriental in design,
while its inscription is in Nabataean characters. Of the other inscriptions, which may be
used as evidence, two were set up by two Nabataeans, grandfather and grandson;
another was inscribed upon the pedestal of a statue of Herod the Great. These inscrip-
tions are in Nabataean and in Greek. The oldest apparently is in Nabataean; it is
that of the first Maleichath, son of Ausu, and records the building of the temple. 2
They are not inscribed upon details which would give any certain clue to their date,
but were unquestionably upon the architrave of a colonnade which was partly classic
in design. The next later inscriptions are in Greek and Nabataean ; tliey were those
of a second Maleichath, the son of Mo'aieru, son of the first Maleichath, and record
the completion of the temple or additions to it. The latest of all the pre-Roman inscrip-
tions at Si‘—that of Agrippa II—is in Greek, though set up by Nabataeans, and
was inscribed upon details independent of the temple structure. Of all these inscrip-
tions, only one of those earlier than that of the reign of Agrippa II has any histori-
cal bearing; it is that upon the pedestal of the statue of Herod the Great. This
statue was in all probability set up during the lifetime of Herod, for the Nabataean
subjects would not have been likely to set up a statue in honor of this foreign prince,
whose rule had been forced upon them, after his death, especially during the period of
independence which followed, though it might have been set up by Herod’s grandson,
who restored the power of the Idumean dynasty in the Ilauran. But it is natural to
suppose that it was set up before the completion of the temple by the second Malei-
chath. This statue was made by one ‘Obaisath, and a statue of the younger Maleichath
was made by one Kaddu, the son of ‘Obaisath. If ‘Obaisath, the artist of the statue of
Herod, was identical with ‘Obaisath the father of Kaddu, the sculptor of the statue of
the second Maleichath, we have a foundation upon which to base our chronology. If
Kaddu and the younger Maleichath were contemporaries, then ‘Obaisath, his father,
was a generation younger than the first Maleichath, and probably made his statue of
Herod late in the lifetime of Maleichath the first, or after his death. In fact, it is equally
possible to make Herod contemporaneous with either the first or the second Malei-
chath, according as we look at the Kaddu inscription. But the inscriptions of Herod
and of the younger Maleichath are written in Greek, while those of Maleichath the elder
are written in Nabataean only, which, so far as the present material is concerned, seems
to indicate that they belong to the same period. The Nabataean stele which dates
from the year of Herod’s death belongs to the art period which precedes that of
Maleichath the younger. It is, of course, possible that the older style might have
'Part IV, Nab. insc. 2.
zPart IV, Nab. insc. 1.
3 23
is to be gained by a comparative study of the architectural details. Only one of the
inscriptions has a definite date, and that falls between the two extremes, being of the
year 5 b.c. I his is, unfortunately, not a monument of architecture, being a simple
grave-stele 1 at Si‘; but it is ornamented with a broad molding which is a classic cyma
recta, and is surmounted by an ornamental disk that is distinctly Oriental in design,
while its inscription is in Nabataean characters. Of the other inscriptions, which may be
used as evidence, two were set up by two Nabataeans, grandfather and grandson;
another was inscribed upon the pedestal of a statue of Herod the Great. These inscrip-
tions are in Nabataean and in Greek. The oldest apparently is in Nabataean; it is
that of the first Maleichath, son of Ausu, and records the building of the temple. 2
They are not inscribed upon details which would give any certain clue to their date,
but were unquestionably upon the architrave of a colonnade which was partly classic
in design. The next later inscriptions are in Greek and Nabataean ; tliey were those
of a second Maleichath, the son of Mo'aieru, son of the first Maleichath, and record
the completion of the temple or additions to it. The latest of all the pre-Roman inscrip-
tions at Si‘—that of Agrippa II—is in Greek, though set up by Nabataeans, and
was inscribed upon details independent of the temple structure. Of all these inscrip-
tions, only one of those earlier than that of the reign of Agrippa II has any histori-
cal bearing; it is that upon the pedestal of the statue of Herod the Great. This
statue was in all probability set up during the lifetime of Herod, for the Nabataean
subjects would not have been likely to set up a statue in honor of this foreign prince,
whose rule had been forced upon them, after his death, especially during the period of
independence which followed, though it might have been set up by Herod’s grandson,
who restored the power of the Idumean dynasty in the Ilauran. But it is natural to
suppose that it was set up before the completion of the temple by the second Malei-
chath. This statue was made by one ‘Obaisath, and a statue of the younger Maleichath
was made by one Kaddu, the son of ‘Obaisath. If ‘Obaisath, the artist of the statue of
Herod, was identical with ‘Obaisath the father of Kaddu, the sculptor of the statue of
the second Maleichath, we have a foundation upon which to base our chronology. If
Kaddu and the younger Maleichath were contemporaries, then ‘Obaisath, his father,
was a generation younger than the first Maleichath, and probably made his statue of
Herod late in the lifetime of Maleichath the first, or after his death. In fact, it is equally
possible to make Herod contemporaneous with either the first or the second Malei-
chath, according as we look at the Kaddu inscription. But the inscriptions of Herod
and of the younger Maleichath are written in Greek, while those of Maleichath the elder
are written in Nabataean only, which, so far as the present material is concerned, seems
to indicate that they belong to the same period. The Nabataean stele which dates
from the year of Herod’s death belongs to the art period which precedes that of
Maleichath the younger. It is, of course, possible that the older style might have
'Part IV, Nab. insc. 2.
zPart IV, Nab. insc. 1.