# A multifaceted death: Funerary portraiture in Roman Jordan

Bilal Annan

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Bilal Annan. A multifaceted death: Funerary portraiture in Roman Jordan. Studies in the history and archaeology of Jordan, XIV, Department of Antiquities, pp.415-445, 2022. hal-04087490

HAL Id: hal-04087490

https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-04087490

Submitted on 3 May 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Bilal Annan
Université Paris 1
bilalannan@gmail.com

Bilal Annan

# A Multifaceted Death: Funerary Portraiture in Roman Jordan

## Introduction

The study of funerary portraiture in Classical antiquity has garnered long-overdue scholarly interest in recent years. This endeavour allows us, perhaps to a degree hardly attainable in other art historical and archaeological fields, to engage with the intimacies of ancient lived experiences. It also allows us to delve into the personal aspirations and modes of self-advertisement of the inhabitants of the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean, since, by definition, a funerary portrait was the image through which the deceased hoped to be remembered, at least nominally, for all eternity.

Despite a number of studies devoted to funerary portraiture in Palestine (Skupińska-Løvset 1983), northern Syria (Wagner 1976; Blömer 2014), southern Syria (Sartre-Fauriat 2001a), and Palmyra (Kropp and Raja 2014), the archaeological and art historical exploration of this phenomenon,

to the extent of its full expression in the broader Roman Near East (and particularly in *Provincia Arabia*), had been, until recently, somewhat wanting in comparison to abundant and ever-increasing studies devoted to its manifold manifestations in Rome (Zanker 1975; Kleiner 1977; Walker 1985; Kockel 1993; Feraudi-Gruénais 2001), the Italian peninsula (Frenz 1985; Pflug 1989), the Western provinces (Braemer 1959; Faust 1998; Hope 2001; Carroll 2006), and in the Eastern Mediterranean, be it mainland and insular Greece (von Moock 1998; Lagogianni-Georgakarakou 1998), Asia Minor (Fıratlı 1964; Pfuhl and Möbius 1977/1979; Cremer 1991; 1992; Lochman 2003), Cyprus (Pogiatzi 2003), and Egypt (Parlasca 1966; Abdalla 1992; Corcoran 1995; Borg 1996; Riggs 2002; 2005). The dense and essential overview that K. Parlasca (1982) gave of funerary portraiture in the Hellenistic and Roman Near East did not, in this respect, sufficiently
address portraits hailing from the province of Arabia or from the Decapolis.

This disinterest may be partially explained, on one hand, by the difficulties associated with access to the relevant material due to its geographical dispersion and the political turmoil that has characterised the region for several decades. On the other hand, there is a long-standing belief, still partially held among members of the scientific community, that a potent "aniconic" tradition defined the cultural and religious practices of the inhabitants of the geographical realms of southern Syria and northern Arabia and shaped their artistic sensitivities.<fnref n="1" /> This relative dearth of published scholarship was admirably remedied, at least concerning Roman Arabia, by two major studies: A. Barbet and C. Vibert-Guigue's (1988/1994) monograph on the painting techniques and decorative patterns in the *necropoleis* of Abila-Quwayliba and T.M. Weber's (2002) exhaustive monograph on Gadara-Umm Qays, which comprised a detailed study of funerary portraits documented in the Decapolis, including a precious number of portraits kept in Jordanian private collections. These studies, nonetheless, only marginally addressed the sociological and anthropological *raison d'être* of funerary portraiture, or only engaged with this phenomenon through the prism of civic and regional dynamics, as their set purposes were, respectively, the study of tomb painting from a predominantly technical and stylistic perspective (including an investigation of the frescoes' architectural setting), and a reappraisal of Gadara's history and that of its surroundings through

the diligent recording of its archaeological and architectural remains (including the sculptural environment of its sacred, public, and funerary spaces). Finally, a symposium held in Copenhagen in 2017 strove, among other aims, to explore and characterise the blossoming of funerary portraiture in Roman Greater Syria, one simultaneously shaped by a confluence of regional and supra-regional cultural interactions, and rooted in a centuries-old indigenous visual culture (Blömer and Raja 2019; Lichtenberger and Raja 2019). Hence, an evaluation of funerary portraiture in Roman Jordan, akin to that given by A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja, is called for. Ideally, such a study would (1) take into account the typological variety of these *monumenta* (stelai, busts, sarcophagi, statues, tomb façades and doors, and painted frescoes), (2) strive to delineate the social values that patrons sought to promote and the behavioural norms and ideals upon which such an iconography was built, and (3) re-evaluate these portraits in their archaeological context in order to shed light on funerary portraiture as a "lived experience", one that derives from and is constitutive of a religious and social mentality. This contribution aims to offer a general outline for such a project.

## A Fitting Remembrance: Typological Variety within Funerary Portraiture

As elsewhere in the Near East, and in the broader empire, funerary portraits in Roman Jordan were displayed on an impressive variety of media. The choice of the commemorative monument (Gk. *mnēmeīon*), and particularly that of the portrait, was evidently determined by a combination of factors, such as the patron's personal taste and financial means, the varying access to material (marble, limestone, basalt, sandstone, etc.) and talent (sculptors and painters, and their more or less specialised workshops), and the architectural setting into which the funerary

<footnote n="1">¹ On aniconism in Nabataean culture, see Patrich 1990, with the reservations of Parlasca 1993; McKenzie 2004: 560. For the broader Near East, see Gaifman 2008; Nunn 2008. As a cultural phenomenon, aniconism seems to have been most prevalent in the cultic, rather than the private, sphere of representation, with the notable exception of the *nefesh* symbols, which will not be discussed here.</footnote>
artefact was integrated. These different
factors coalesced to produce a miscellaneous
archaeological record of funerary portrai-
ture in Jordan, since one encounters these
images on tomb façades, sarcophagi,
frescoes, and in the form of busts and even
statues. Naturally, some tombs would have
exhibited a combination of these artistic
forms (for instance, a sarcophagus bearing
a bust, set in an *arcosolium* whose outer
panels were decorated with additional
painted busts; see also Lichtenberger and
Raja 2019: 143 n. 60, 147), which may
illustrate the breadth of the typological and
iconographic spectrum available for patrons
to choose from. No evidence of funerary
portraits that can be unquestionably dated
to the Hellenistic period seems to have
survived in the North Arabian realm, which
is not to say that Hellenistic tombs in Jordan
were devoid of sculptural ornaments:
excavations conducted in the *necropoleis* of
Gadara and its surroundings have brought

to light statues of sphinxes, lions, and other
feline creatures which were meant to protect
the tomb from violation and desecration
(Weber 2002: 188, 413–4 nr. pl. 28 pl. 46.D,
427, nr. pl 54 pl. 59.A–E), an apotropaic
custom that would be perpetuated in Petra
(and elsewhere in Jordan) until the Late
Nabataean period—for instance, the “Lion
Triclinium”, aptly named on account of
the two lions protecting its entrance (BD
452;<fnref n="2" /> McKenzie 1990: 158–9 pl. 135)—and
beyond (e.g., in the vicinity of Gerasa the
incised figure of a sphinx was noted on a
tomb door: Lichtenberger and Raja 2019:
139–40).

Tomb Façades

The earliest funerary portraits to have
survived in Jordan are still, for the most

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>1. Obelisk Tomb (BD 35), detail. Petra, AD 40–70 (© B. Annan).</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="2">² BD refers to the standard classification of Petraean tombs that follows the numbering in Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

2. The Urn Tomb (BD 772), detail. Petra, third quarter of the 1st c. AD (© B. Annan.2013: Beil. 1).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

3. The Silk Tomb (BD 770), detail. Petra, first half of the 1st c. AD (© B. Annan).
part, on display on the rock-cut façades of
the Nabataean capital of Petra, where six
such images, heavily eroded, defaced or
destroyed, are known, ranging from the late
1st c. BC to the late 1st c. AD. The first five
are: (1) the Obelisk Tomb (FIG. 1; BD 35;
Wadeson 2012 with earlier bibliography),
where a draped figure is carved in a *naiskos*
amid four monumental obelisks; (2) the Urn
Tomb (FIG. 2; BD 772; McKenzie 1990:
144–7 pl. 91–7) where a slab bears the image
of the owner of the tomb, perhaps a (yet to be
identified) king (Wenning 2003: 135),<fnref n="3" /> (3)
the Silk Tomb (FIG. 3; BD 770; McKenzie
1990: 168–9 pl. 157d, 158e), on the façade
of which are carved two heavily eroded
reliefs, which may be interpreted as the

Dioscuri—owing to the apparently mounted
horseman on the left, and the eroded horse
figure inserted between the male figure
and the edge of the frame to the right—or
alternatively, as officers of the Nabataean
cavalry; (4) the so-called “Turkmaniyyeh”
Tomb (FIG. 4; BD 633; McKenzie 1990:
167–8 pl. 159a–b), where two busts are set
in a rather small niche above a long (and
well-studied) Nabataean epitaph (Conklin
2004 with earlier bibliography); (5) the
misnamed “Tomb of the Roman Soldier”
(FIG. 5; BD 239; McKenzie 1990: 147–8
pl. 98–103)—misnamed since, in all prob-
ability, it predates the incorporation of
the Nabataean kingdom into the Roman
Empire—adorned on its lower order,
between each pair of supports, with a *loculus*
slab bearing a relief, the central one showing
a male figure in military garb (no doubt a
high-ranking officer in the Nabataean army,

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>4. The “Turkmaniyyeh” Tomb (BD 633), detail. Petra, mid-1st c. AD (© J. Norris).</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="3">³ Regarding the dating of the tomb—third quarter of the 1st c. AD—S.G. Schmid has tentatively identified the portrayed individual as the Nabataean king Malichus II (AD 40–70 AD; Schmid 2013: 766–7).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>5. The “Tomb of the Roman Soldier” (BD 239), detail. Petra, third quarter of the 1st c. AD (© J. Norris).</figcaption></figure>

if not a member of the royal dynasty), while the lateral ones perhaps depict, once again, the Dioscuri (Wenning 2003: 142), rather than, as has long been held, the sons of the tomb founder (this assumption was first formulated in Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: 158–60). All of these portraits, unfortunately headless, seem to have suffered intentional mutilation in consequence of a pervasive iconoclasm championed in the subsequent centuries by the Christian and Muslim inhabitants of the region, as J.S. McKenzie has recently argued (McKenzie *et al.* 2013: 270–1), and this disfiguration has rendered any identification of the figures reputedly elusive, and largely dependent on individual researchers’ subjec-

tive interpretations. In an unpublished study,<fnref n="4" /> and in an attempt to set the “portrait” theory on firmer ground, L. Wadeson sought to establish a correspondence between the number of figures depicted on the façade—marking the prominence of their display on these façades—and the architectural configuration inside the funerary chambers. She noted that all of the tombs featuring portraits share topographical and architectural characteristics: they are all situated either along major routes or overlook the city centre; most of them belong to large funerary complexes and have Classical temple-like façades pierced with *loculi*, along with large interiors (equipped with *arcosolia*, a rare occurrence at Petra) that would have hosted ritual activities. All of these elements point to the elevated status of the tomb owners within Nabataean society, a position that might have earned them the privilege of being depicted on the façades (Wadeson forthcoming). Such a scholarly effort is praiseworthy, and brings fresh insights to the debate. Nevertheless, in the absence of new epigraphic or archaeological evidence, the uncertainty surrounding the identity of the portrayed individuals is bound to linger.

The sixth Petraean tomb (FIG. 6; BD 66 with earlier bibliography) was for the most part destroyed by heavy rains around 1847, and its appearance would have vanished completely were it not for a drawing sketched by the French scholar Léon de Laborde on the occasion of his visit to Petra in 1827 (1830: 57 pl. 51). This drawing gives a general view of the entrance of the Sīq, and little detail of the tomb decoration can be discerned (see the illustration in Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: I 232 fig. 263).

<footnote n="4">⁴ I wish to warmly thank Lucy Wadeson for sending me her unpublished manuscript.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

6. Tomb of Arrianos (BD 66), detail. Petra, 1st c. BC-1st c. AD (after Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: I fig. 263).

From what I can gather, the relief, carved on an arched lintel above the doorway, showed some piece of furniture (an altar? or a table bearing offerings?) set at the centre of the scene—or alternatively, a defaced figure— and two seated figures in the corners, one slightly taller than the other, the figure to the right facing outwards, while the shorter one to the left seems to pivot towards the viewer. One may certainly regret that no early explorer discussed, if only in passing, the subject of the relief, focusing instead on the accompanying Greek funerary epigram incised on the tomb's façade, which identified its owner as having been one Arrianos, a native of Petra, who died of an unspecified illness at the age of twenty-seven (IGLS 21, Jordanie 4 nr. 55). The scene in the lintel aligns, in terms of its composition and epitaph, with a family portrait, which would then have the parents sitting on each side, and Arrianos in the centre.<fnref n="5" />

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

7. Façade of the “Tombeau aux bustes”. Abila, 2nd c. AD (© M. Fuller).

Outside Petra, surviving funerary portraits carved on tomb façades are strikingly rare, as I am aware of only two specimens. The first was recorded in Abila-Quwayliba, where a bust, adorning the entrance of the aptly named “Tombeau aux bustes” (FIG. 7; Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1988/1994: 59 fig. 41a), is shown under a sort of rudimentary pediment, flanked by small-scaled figures set in small niches, with their hands placed on their hips. The second relief, which has been somewhat overlooked in recent literature, can be admired on the façade of the Western tomb in the “Al-Kahf” funerary complex outside Amman (FIG. 8; Conder 1889: 122–4 pl. 16; Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: II 201–5 figs. 795–801), where a defaced bust, draped in a mantle and possibly holding a scroll in one hand, is carved in the tympanum, amid a dense network of intertwined floral motifs. A second bust may be distinguished on the wall of the vestibule formed by an arch, above the doorway. A niche set above the entrance to the hypogea, if contemporaneous with the tomb in its first phase, could have housed a statuette (or a

<footnote n="5">⁵ I am tempted to recognise two broken legs on the table, in which case de Laborde could have mistaken a statue base for a table—I have no doubt, however, that any interpretation here is highly hypothetical, if not fanciful.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

8. Façade of the Western tomb in the “Al-Kahf” necropolis. Philadelphia, 2nd c. AD (after Brünnow and von Domaszewski 1904: II fig. 801).

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

9. Marble head of a male figure. Philadelphia-Amman, first half of the 3rd c. AD (© B. Annan).

sitting statue). The iconographic program's visibility, and consequently, the impression it made on visitors and passers-by was certainly enhanced by the architectural conception of the tomb itself, which one

accessed through a deep excavated sunk court or *dromos*.

### Sarcophagi

Sarcophagi constitute a second category of monuments which often bore funerary portraits, whether carved in the round on lids or in relief on the short and long sides of coffins, following a trend that gained momentum from the reign of Trajan onwards (Wrede 1990; Pasquier 2016: 111). While the wealthiest patrons would have had their marble sarcophagi brought over great distances and, one can safely assume, at considerable cost from specialised workshops in Attica or Asia Minor,<fnref n="6" /> citizens of lesser means, who notwithstanding wished to emulate these affluent patrons, would commission native sculptors to carve sarcophagi in local limestone or basalt, some of which would, on occasion, feature portraits on their long or short sides. One may mention here a couple of basalt sarcophagi from the 2nd or 3rd c. AD. The first, from Kharga (FIG. 10; Weber 2002: pl. 117.C), has two busts in a recessed panel, male on the left and female on the right, each clad in a *chitōn* underneath a *himation*, and can be dated to the Severan period on account of the lady's coiffure arranged after that of Septimius Severus' wife Julia Domna. The second, from Irbid (FIG. 11; Lenzen and McQuitty 1988: 269 pl. XLVII, 1; Weber 1993: 70 n. 262; Weber 2002: pl. 117.D), features on its long side rectangular crudely draped busts on either side of a blank *clipeus*, characterised by small heads with ill-defined features atop elongated necks.

A number of these locally-produced

<footnote n="6">⁶ See, for instance, an Attic lid with a reclining couple in the Archaeological Museum of Umm Qays: Kintrup 2016: 294–5 nr. 263 pls. 63–4 with earlier bibliography; Lichtenberger and Raja 2019: 144–5. See also a male marble head, which could have belonged to a reclining figure on a sarcophagus lid in the Archaeological Museum of Amman: FIG. 9; Weber 2002: 510–1, nr. D 11 pl. 153.A–D with earlier bibliography.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>10. Basalt sarcophagus decorated with a pair of busts. Irbid, first half of the 3rd c. AD (© B. Annan).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>11. Basalt sarcophagus decorated with a pair of busts. Irbid, 2nd-3rd c. AD (© B. Annan).</figcaption></figure>

sarcophagi, nevertheless, bear testimony
to an admirable level of craftsmanship,
and denote an intention of verisimilitude,
as evidenced by a sarcophagus found
in Abila-Quwayliba (FIG. 12; Koch and

Sichtermann 1982: 575 n. 33 fig. 590; Barbet
and Vibert-Guigue 1988/1994: 115-6 figs.
32-36; Weber 1993: 70 pl. 12,1; 2002: pl.
117.A-B), on which a mature man, sporting
a *paludamentum* that covers his torso, is
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>12. Sarcophagus with bust and winged putti. Abila, Tomb Q4, AD 180-220 (© B. Annan).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>13. Gabled lid with a relief of a reclining figure. Basalt. Gadara, 3rd c. AD (after Hoffmann 2000: fig. 41).</figcaption></figure>

represented in bust-form between a couple of rosettes and a pair of torch-bearing winged *Erotes*. Another sarcophagus from Gadara-Umm Qays is noteworthy in that the deceased is represented reclining on a gabled lid (FIG. 13; Weber 1993: 78 n. 23; Hoffmann 2000: 227 fig. 41; Weber 2002: 450 nr. sk 2 pl. 83.D), after the “mixed kline-roof type” or “‘gemischten’ Typus” (Cambi 2016), a visual construction for which we may (despite it being sparsely attested in the

corpora of sarcophagi in the Imperial Near East) point to parallels in Nysa-Scythopolis (Baisan) and Ascalon (Asqalan) in Palestine (Mazor and Paran 2018) and Nebi Shīt in Lebanon (Fani 2005/2006).

Stelai

Image-bearing stelai seem to have derived from their archaic antecedents, i.e. plain stone slabs set vertically in the ground to signal the presence of a tomb as a consecrated
locus. Most stelai bore an epitaph in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, or North Arabian scripts, usually mentioning the name and immediate genealogy of the deceased and their age, or for the more elaborate ones, an epigram lamenting the loss of the relative and extolling his or her virtues and qualities. Portrait stelai would have been displayed upright within the funerary enclosure, yet very few, if any, of these documents, which would have been easily displaced by looters or upon the reuse of the tomb, were found in their original archaeological context. Worthy of mention are the limestone stele of Diodora, daughter of Herakleitos, from Pella-Tabaqat Fahl and dated to the 2nd or 3rd c. AD, whose decapitated bust shows a chitōn ornamented with clavi, on the surface of which are indicated, in peculiar fashion, round breasts with visible nipples above a tabula ansata on which is carved her brief epitaph (FIG. 14; Mittmann 1970: 179 nr. 15 pl. XVI fig. 31; Ibrahim 1988: 66; Weber 1993: 62–8 pl. 7.2; 2002: 484 nr. B 4 pl.

119.D) and the uninscribed basalt stele of an officer from Gadara-Umm Qays, dated to the 2nd c. AD (FIG. 15; Weber 1993: 63 n. 208 pl. 10:1; 2002: 446 nr. pl 101 pl. 60.D; Gharib et al. 2017: 228, 230 fig. 6), whose figure, interrupted above the knees, is set in a rectangular frame under a pediment adorned with a rosette: a cloak (sagum) fastened with a round brooch (fibula) on his right shoulder, and under which one can distinguish the belted pteryges, covers his torso.

### Busts

The bust is, by far, the most widespread and favoured form of funerary portraiture in the imperial Near East and

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>14. Basalt stele of Diodōra. Pella, 2<sup>nd</sup>–3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD (after Weber 2002: pl. 119.D).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>15. Basalt stele of a soldier or veteran. Gadara, 2<sup>nd</sup> c. AD (after Gharib et al. 2017: fig. 6).</figcaption></figure>
particularly in Roman Jordan, where I was
able to gather no less than 130 specimens.
Indeed, the bust form was, in many
respects, a most suitable image-bearer: (1)
its production did not require, *most often*, as
we will see, too specialised a training; (2)
it could be acquired for a *relatively* modest
cost; (3) its format could accommodate the
architectural setting of the tomb (whether
it was placed free-standing in or above the
burial niche: Lichtenberger and Raja 2019:
144); and (4) its appearance evoked, to
some extent, the full-figure statuary's three-
dimensionality, so that a bust must have
functioned, more often than not, as a stand-
in for a statue. Most of the busts found
in the necropoleis in Jordan are rather
rudimentary: the bust of Theodōros, from
Abila-Quwayliba, dated to the 2nd or 3rd c.
AD (FIG. 16; Weber 1993: 66 n. 231; 2002:
475–6, nr. A 33 pl. 111.A–B), is characterised
by an oval-shaped head with a flat face,

slanting eyebrows, closed eyelids, thin nose,
narrow lips and monstrously widened chin,
resting on a massive cylindrical neck and
a block-like torso lacking any indication of
anatomical features. One can hardly believe
that the author of such a portrait sought to
reproduce the appearance of a particular
individual, or to individualise the image
through physiognomic characteristics, yet
the patron must have judged it sufficiently
expressive as to have it stand in lieu of the
deceased, whose identity is given by the
brief epitaph carved on the torso: Θάρσει,
Θεόδωρε ("Be brave, Theodōros"). A second
bust—contemporaneous, uninscribed, and
of the same provenance (FIG. 17; Weber
2002: 475 nr. A 31 pl. 112.A–D)—features
an abstract bust with rather bloated forms,
deep-set eyes, and arms that are merely
delineated through shallow carving under
the armpits: the only hint at the deceased’s
gender is given by faintly incised breast

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>16. Limestone funerary bust of Theodōros. Abila, 2<sup>nd</sup>–3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD (after Weber 2002: pl. 111.A–B).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

17. Chalk female funerary bust. Abila, 2<sup>nd</sup>-3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD (after Weber 2002: pl. 112.A–D).

contours (which might have been added at a later stage of its existence). Such “crude” portraits are attested all over the Roman Empire, and strikingly similar items have been unearthed, for instance, in Baelo Claudia in Hispania (Jiménez Díez 2007) and in Kenchreai, the eastern port of Corinth (Rife et al. 2007: 162 fig. 14). One may pause here to ponder what “added value”, so to speak, in terms of prestige and symbolic performance, such generic portraits brought to the “commemorative equation”. Perhaps, in such cases, the mere inclusion of a portrait—independent of the likeness (in the sense of *eikōn*) it might have borne to its model, or of its “truthfulness”—was a statement in and of itself, a proclamation of status, of cultural sophistication, in other words, of *savoir-vivre* or rather, *savoir-mourir*. It also serves, from an art historical perspective, to illustrate how this “portrait habit” permeated a rather wide segment of society. The unflattering aspect of these crude portraits should not, however, obscure the fact that this phenomenon was essentially confined to the social circles of the most affluent citizens of the Decapolis, since these portraits were most often displayed in hypogea and monumental tombs, the very construction of which represented a substantial investment. Furthermore, the

bust form was sufficient—indeed, most effective—in its commemorative function, in that it reduced the deceased’s identity to two elementary components: the name (epitaph) and the face (image)—Lat. *nomen* and *vultus*; Gk. *onoma* and *prosōpon*— which were, for the Classical mind, the two ultimate seats of individuality (Frontisi-Ducroux 1995).

### Wall Painting

An additional mode of funerary self-representation allows us to gain a glimpse of a fleeting—indeed, long lost—reality, in which the ancient viewer’s senses must have revelled, which is that of a colourful antiquity. While in Sidon on the Phoenician coast, we know of some Late Hellenistic or Early Imperial painted stelai (Gubel 2002), no such documents have yet been found, to my knowledge, in Jordan where painted funerary portraits most often adorn walls on the edges of *loculi* and *arcosolia* within funerary enclosures. One particular archaeological site, Abila-Quwayliba, has provided us with a wealth of such documentation (Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1988/1994, *passim*).

Remarkable among those Abilene portraits is the bust, painted above a *loculus* in the eponymous tomb H3 (“tombeau du Vieil Homme”), of an elderly man shown
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>18. Framed portrait of an elderly figure. Abila, 2nd c. AD (© Cl. Vibert-Guigue).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>19. Portrait of an elderly lady in a wreath. Abila, first quarter of the 3rd c. AD (© M. Fuller).</figcaption></figure>

above an elaborate garland of flowers and beneath two festoons of red, yellow, and green floral motifs, and set in a floral frame against an ochre background (FIG. 18; Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1988/1994: I 42 nr. 13, 223–6 fig. 111). He is dressed in a white tunic into which is sewn a red *clavus*— no doubt some insignia of his social rank, one that is yet to be clarified—his white hair, moustache, and beard, his receding hairline, and wrinkled forehead attest to his old age. Another partially preserved painting, in the tomb H60, shows in a floral medallion a woman whose face, with its greying hair and sagging flesh, seems to exhibit features of old age (FIG. 19; Smith and Mare 1997: 313 figs. 11–2). Old age is a notable feature in a body of portraits, whether in the Near East or the wider Roman Empire, as it is a frequent subject of ridicule in Classical literature and was only reluctantly expressed in portraiture (Fuchs 2008, with earlier literature in n. 5), despite the wisdom and moral authority such traits would have conventionally conferred upon the depicted individual. Indeed, the ancient sitter often underwent rejuvenation in portraiture, yet the youth to which the portrait lays claim to is often belied by the advanced age mentioned in the epitaphs. In comparison,

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>20. Pair of painted portraits under loculi. Abila, 2nd c. AD (© A. Barbet).</figcaption></figure>

two (unpublished?) portraits painted on the edges of *loculi* in the tomb H4 (FIG. 20) undeniably depict a young man and a young woman, whose remains must have been deposited in the niches above. One wonders whether they were relatives, given their side-by-side depiction, and the slight resemblance to one another that can be detected in their portraits?

*Miscellanea*

In addition to the categories of funerary portraiture discussed above, one encounters a few documents that, though seeming
<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>21. Tomb door decorated with a bust on its lintel, detail. Irbid, 2nd c. AD (photo by Rami Tarawneh; CC BY-SA 3.0; commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archaeological_Museum,_University_of_Jordan_41.JPG).</figcaption></figure>

unica, may hint at a wider typological palette of funerary portraiture that would have been in use in antiquity. Furthermore, when considered in a regional perspective, we find that these monuments are not as isolated as it might appear prima facie.

An altar, for instance, from Philadelphia-Amman, is adorned with busts on its sides, one of them representing a Hermes *psycho-pompos*, hence favouring the monument's funerary purpose (Weber 2002: pl. 161.A-D). While this portrait-bearing altar finds no immediate parallel, to my knowledge, in Roman Jordan, one may point to substantial *corpora* of such documents in Rome (Boschung 1987), the Western provinces (Kleiner 1987), and even the Hauran (e.g., Abdul-Hak and Adul-Hak 1951: 65 nr. 26; Dentzer and Dentzer 1991: 126 nr. 5,39 pl. 8.265 nr. 5,40 pl. 8.602), the Ledja (al-Maqdissi 1984: 11 fig. 11), and Dmeir near Damascus (Weber 2006: 32 nr. 12 pl. 8 a-d, with earlier bibliography). Given the central importance of sacrificial rites in the pagan

mortuary rituals (whether Greek, Roman, or North Arabian), it is certainly not surprising to encounter such image-bearing altars upon which, in all probability, no such rites were performed.

A tomb door, found in Ham south of Irbid and currently on view in the garden of the archaeological museum of the University of Jordan (FIG. 21; Shraideh and Lenzen 1984: 299 pl. LVII; Weber 2002: 189 n. 1445; Annan 2019: 430-1 figs. 5-6), exhibits on its lintel the armless bust of a young man, carved in high relief, between two elaborate rosettes, while the door jambs are adorned with a crawling snake-which, as an apotropaic creature, protects the tomb and, given its chthonic nature, communicates with the Underworld-and a long torch-perhaps mirroring the one visitors must have carried into the hypogeum, but also an allusion, according to F. Cumont (1949: 48-50), to the "rebirth" of the deceased through the illumination of the abode of the dead. The youth, bare-breasted-and this very
nakedness holds heroic undertones—with his head turned frankly to the right, seems to emerge from the flat stone, and this vivid sculptural treatment must have struck with poignancy the passer-by. Similar depictions of the deceased, prominently featured on the door lintels of funerary complexes, have been documented in Tyre (Dunand 1965: 12 pl. VII.1) and in the Jewish necropolis of Besara-Beit Shearim in the Lower Galilee (Avigad 1976: 81–2 fig. 33 pl. XXVII.2 pl. XXIX.5).

Among all categories of images, free-standing sculpture was apparently, in the Imperial Near East, the form deemed least suitable for funerary portraiture, a matter that has not been, to my knowledge, properly addressed, and that still needs clarification. Are we to deduce from this scarcity that the form was too closely associated with official portraiture (i.e., that of emperors, governors, and high officials) and honorific practices (statues of benefactors)? Or did it perhaps resonate too inappropriately with cult statues (Gk. *agalmata*) for it to be tolerated in a funerary context without infringing on the sacred privilege owed to the gods? Or was it simply perceived as too presumptuous? Perhaps, alternatively, the architecture of the tombs itself did not provide the material conditions for the erection of statues within the funerary chambers. Rarity, however, does not equate vacuum, and some exceptions suggest that sculpture in the round was not an unknown phenomenon in the city of the dead. In the Jordanian realm, if we are to exclude niches carved in the façades, whose dimensions may suggest their having housed statues, I know of only two examples of funerary portraits in the round, both of which have been discussed by T.M. Weber. The first, carved in basalt, was found in Abila-Quwayliba and is now kept in the courtyard of the archaeological museum of Irbid (FIG. 22; Weber 2002: 190, 466 nr. A 3 pl. 99.B; Lichtenberger and Raja 2019: 141). The head, which might have

been worked separately, has not survived. The male figure, clad in a *chitōn* and draped in a *himation*, stands on his left leg, the right leg being slightly bent. The deceased's left arm, enveloped in the loop of his cloak, is bent across his chest, his left hand perhaps originally clenching the hem of his mantle, with the fabric marking several angular creases as it crosses the body and covers the slightly bent right arm, from which it hangs freely in long and thick folds, an attitude consistent with the so-called “arm-sling” or *Normaltypus* pose (on which, see below). The second statue, which was discovered in 1998 in the northern necropolis of Gadara-Umm Qays (Weber 2002: 190, 427–8 nr. pl 55 pl. 72.E), apparently adopts this same

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>22. Basalt male funerary statue. Abila, 2<sup>nd</sup>–3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD (© B. Annan).</figcaption></figure>
pose, despite a greater liberty taken in the
treatment of the draping of the cloak. Though
fragmentary (the head, the right arm, and
the feet along with the plinth are missing),
this sculpture is most interesting in that its
initial display, based on its *in situ* context,
may be recovered, and it is therefore likely
to provide evidence, if not for a cult of the
dead, then at least for commemorative rites
held around the portrait statue, the details
of which will be dealt with below.

Having briefly surveyed the typological
variety of funerary portraits in Roman
Jordan, an attempt will now be made to
extract from this corpus the social discourse
conveyed by the iconography, and to
delineate the values that patrons were keen
on promoting through this imagery.

Thus Have I Lived: Themes and Social
Values through the Lens of Funerary
Iconography

Delving into this corpus, one cannot fail
to notice an impressive recurrence across
media (whether the portraits were displayed
on frescoes, sarcophagi, stelai, or in the
round) and a remarkable persistence over
the centuries of a number of iconographic
schemes that were seemingly attached
to specific roles, genders, and social
configurations, thus forming a consistent
repertoire shared, as we will see, across the
Eastern Mediterranean and beyond.

Arm-Sling

The most common scheme for male
figures is that conventionally known as the
“arm-sling”, “bound-elbow” or *Normaltypus*
pose, which is first adopted in the portrait
statue of the Athenian orator Aischines in
the Early Hellenistic era (Fehr 1979: 16–24;
Lewerentz 1993: 18–57; Filges 2000: 101–8;
Masséglia 2015: 96–9), and which consists in
having one’s body enveloped in the *himation*,
with one arm brought over the chest and
draped in the loop of the mantle. A favoured
attitude in honorific statuary, meant to

embody the ideal citizen, one actively
involved in the public affairs of his *polis*,
yet that can demonstrate self-control (Gk.
*sōphrosynē*), the *Normaltypus* is abundantly
attested in funerary iconography, into which
it must have migrated not long after its
inception, since we encounter it repetitively
on Hellenistic stelai from Asia Minor (Pfuhl
and Möbius 1977/1979, *passim*) and Syria
(for instance in Sidon: Gubel 2002: 97–8
nr. 89 and in Antioch: Bel *et al.* 2012: 334–5
fig. 324). In Jordan, this scheme, illustrated
by the two funerary statues discussed
above, reverberated across the typological
spectrum, as we find it in an abbreviated
format on numerous busts (e.g., in Gadara,
FIG. 23; Weber 2002: 414–5 nr. pl 30–2 pl.
47), thus highlighting the patron’s intention
to encapsulate its honorific symbolism “at
low cost”, so to speak.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>23. Basalt funerary bust. Gadara, 2<sup>nd</sup>–3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD. (after Weber 2002: pl. 75.A).</figcaption></figure>

Women Draped in Death

While men were commonly placed
in the *Normaltypus* pose, no specific
scheme seems to have been associated
with portraits of women in Roman Arabia,
since, most often, they were represented
in bust form with their heads potentially
veiled (therefore rendering it difficult to
identify the famous Herculaneum Women
types, ubiquitous in statuary elsewhere).
Noteworthy is the absence in our corpus of some female attributes, such as the spindle and distaff which were widespread in northern Syria (Wagner 1976, *passim*) and Palmyra (Sadurska and Bounni 1994: 189; Cussini 2005: 37–8), and the absence of the depiction of mothers holding their children in their arms, such as can be found in southern Syria (Sartre-Fauriat 2001a: 265–6 fig. 355; Weber 2006: 30–1 nr. 9 pl. 6.a nr. 10 pl. 6.b, 40 nr. 19 pl. 14.b).<fnref n="7" /> However, other popular schemes do occur, such as the so-called “Penelope scheme”, which consists, for a female figure, of having the head slightly bent, with the cheek resting against her clenched fist (Settis 1975: 13–6; Balty 2000: 11–2). The gesture, which can be traced back, in its earliest manifestations, to 5th c. BC Greek Classical iconography, evidently alludes to the pensive and melancholic posture of Odysseus’ wife, and metaphorically, to her exemplary fidelity to her husband. In the Jordanian realm, it is

featured, in one of its variants, on a framed painted female portrait in the Abilene tomb Q13 (FIG. 24; Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1989/1994: I 183; II pl. 105b, VII.1). A female portrait bust, perhaps from Gadara (FIG. 25; Weber 2002: 440 pl. 67.E with earlier literature), holds a mirror against her breast, again a recurrent attribute of women in the Graeco-Roman world (Balensiefen 1990). Indicators of the depicted individual’s gender seem to have been widely understood to patrons and sculptors, as one frequently notices on otherwise abstract busts the inclusion of breast contours or jewellery and, for male figures, beards (Lichtenberger and Raja 2019: 146).

### Funerary Banquet

The banquet motif, whereby the portrayed is shown reclining on a couch, sometimes in the company of a relative or servants, is one of the most persistent and ubiquitous schemes in ancient art, as some of its earliest occurrences can be traced back to 7th c. BC Assyrian reliefs (Dentzer 1982: 56). From its eastern origins, it went on to diffuse throughout the

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>24. Painted portrait of a lady. Abila, first half of the 2nd c. AD (© A. Barbet).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>25. Basalt female bust shown holding a mirror. Gadara (?), 2nd –3rd c. AD (© B. Annan).</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Note, however, on a male bust in Gadara, the rare depiction of a child's face: Weber 1993: 82 n. 52 pl. 12:2; 2002: 443 nr. pl 93 pl. 79.A.</footnote>
visual culture of the entire Mediterranean
world over the following millennium, and
became a favoured mode of representation,
particularly in the funerary sphere (see
most recently: Draycott and Stamatopoulou
2016; for the Roman world: Dunbabin
2003). In Roman Arabia, some patrons
chose to depict themselves in this manner,
whether in the round on sarcophagus lids
(cf. the Attic sarcophagus in Gadara-Umm
Qays, mentioned above), or in frescoes, as
in an (unfinished?) fragmentary banquet
scene showing a mature man reclining on
a *klinē*, with a table (Lat. mensa tripes), a
thymiaterion, and a cantharus set in the
foreground (FIG. 26; Smith and Mare
1997: 313 fig. 13). No consensus has yet
been reached among scholars as to the
ancient viewers' reception of the banquet
scene motif, some interpreting it as an
allusion to the blessed afterlife that the
deceased were destined to enjoy in the
hereafter, while others favoured a worldly

and ‘retrospective’ reading—namely that
the scene either depicts the meals enjoyed
during the deceased’s lifetime, or those
in which relatives would partake during
commemorative ceremonies, perhaps in
company of the deceased, whose presence
was materialised via their image (Dunbabin
2003: 109). Whichever interpretation
one chooses to retain, the banquet scene
inevitably exuded prestige, leisure, and
opulence.

Poets Draped in Death?

A great number of images show the
deceased grasping a scroll (Lat. *volumen*) in
one hand,<fnref n="8" /> an attribute which, once again,
and in the absence of epigraphic testimonies
which may explain its significance, has

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>26. (Unfinished?) banquet scene painted in an arcosolium. Abila, 3rd c. AD (© M. Fuller).</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="8">⁸ For instance, in Roman Jordan, on exclusively male busts from Gadara-Umm Qays: Weber 2002: 415 nr. pl 33 pl. 58.E, 430–2 nr. pl 61 nr. pl 63, pl. 63.A–F, 439 nr. pl 83 pl. 76:C–D, 444 nr. pl 96 pl. 75:B and Gerasa-Jerash: Lifshitz 1963: 91 pl. 8 A.</footnote>
divided art historians over its interpretation, some seeing it in a reference to the deceased's will (*i.e.*, an explicit sign of the testator's accomplishment of his familial, social and religious duties), others as an allusion to the portrayed person's philosophical and literary inclinations. The first interpretation has recently received substantial arguments in a dense article by J.-Ch. Balty (2016) who connected the recurrence of this attribute in the exceptionally rich corpus of 3rd c. AD funerary stelai commemorating military personnel of the *legio II Parthica* (stationed in Apamea-Qal‘at al-Madhiq in Northern Syria) with the numerous epitaphs inscribed on these same stelai. Balty notes rather interestingly that the only specimens that do not feature this attribute do specify in the texts the portrayed individual's intestacy, thereby favouring an identification of the *volumen* with the testator's will.

The latter interpretation, which has long been held as the most likely, certainly has its own iconographic proponents when combined with other visual and epigraphic elements. Unique in this sense in Roman Jordan is a splendid (and unfortunately lost) elaborately framed relief from as-Şalt that was originally inserted into the back wall of a monumental tomb, above a sarcophagus facing the entrance. The relief shows a man, bare-chested with the exception of a *himation* draping the left side of the torso and on which run deep curvilinear folds, holding a scroll in his left hand (FIG. 27; Hadidi 1979: 131 pl. XLIX; Barakat 1980; Weber 1996: 517; 2002: 189–90). This styling, combined with the well-trimmed beard and the receding hairline (Zanker 1995: 224), is consistent with a particular type of representation, namely that of the learned man or *pepaideumenos*, following which one would liken oneself, through particulars of dress, hairstyle, posture, and attributes, to archetypal representations of philosophers (Borg 2004). This iconographic phenomenon spread across the

Empire in the course of the 2nd and 3rd c. AD, having received powerful impetus from the cultural movement known as the Second Sophistic (Anderson 1993). Another funerary bust, perhaps from Gadara-Umm Qays (FIG. 28; Weber 2002: 416–7 nr. pl 37 pl. 49.A–D), with its long beard and bald head, is similarly evocative of portraits of philosophers, and denotes its owner’s intent to advertise himself as such. Certainly one may expect to find in this cultural milieu a desire to portray oneself as a servant of the Muses, since the cities of the Decapolis were famous in antiquity for having produced eminent philosophers, sophists, poets, and orators (Graf 1992; Gatier 1993: 20–5; Sartre 2001: 294–9, 867–71), and several (male) individuals in nearby Hawrān are indeed praised in their epitaphs for their

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>27. Limestone relief of a bare-chested man. As-Salt, 2<sup>nd</sup>–3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD (© Th. M. Weber).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>28. Limestone bust of an elderly man in the guise of a philosopher. Gadara (?), 2<sup>nd</sup>-3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD (© B. Annan).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>29. Painted panel of a female figure holding a codex and a stylus. Abila, early 4th c. AD (?) (© A. Barbet).</figcaption></figure>
oratory skills, their intellectual abilities, and their philosophical leanings (Sartre-Fauriat 2001b: 209–10). Surely, the significance of the *volumen* as an attribute varied, and both readings (intestacy and learning), in addition to a few more, must have been valid depending on the context of representation, as had been eloquently pointed out by H.-I. Marrou (1938: 190–1; see also Borg 2004: 162–3; Balty 2016: 85–6).

Although the scroll, as a sign of a literate education (Gk. *paideia*), was, in Classical portraiture, predominantly the prerogative of men, it could on occasion be featured in female portraits (Bielman 2003). In Abila, a Late Antique fresco in the tomb Q1 shows the full figure of a young woman facing the viewer and writing with a *stylus* on an open *codex* (FIG. 29; Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1988/1994: I 78 pl. 13.a pl. I.1; Lichtenberger and Raja 2019: 145 fig. 9.17).<fnref n="9" /> Did such attributes, again, refer to her will, or were they an indication of her perfected *paideia*? If we consider the adjacent and opposite panels adorning the same tomb, and which were apparently devoted to different episodes or facets of this woman’s life,<fnref n="10" /> then we are tempted to support the second interpretation.

An inspection of the funerary corpus of Roman Jordan brings to light a number of phenomena that characterised these art forms: the recurrence—indeed, near hegemony—of these iconographic schemes reflect a visual reification of social and gender roles that must have necessarily

been at odds with lived realities, yet were nevertheless mirrored and complemented by the laudatory lexical repertoire of epitaphs: men were unfailingly portrayed as wise and prudent individuals, devoted fathers and model citizens, while women were praised for their beauty and modesty, and depicted as chaste and faithful wives or loving mothers (Sartre-Fauriat 2001b). Also notable is the absence, in the Jordanian and wider Near Eastern corpus of funerary portraiture, of any iconographic reference to the deceased’s crafts and professions, as if one was chiefly valued by his fellow citizens, in the Near Eastern societies of the Imperial period, for one’s moral conduct, public benefactions, and active involvement in one’s civic community (Rey-Coquais 2002: 263–4), in contrast to what can be observed in the Western provinces, where freedmen took pride in advertising their trades (Zimmer 1982).

## Lest you Forget Me: Echoes of Funerary Commemoration in the Archaeological Record

Finally, upon examining this material, the essential and increasingly central issue in current art historical approaches to ancient art must be addressed, namely the display context of portraits and the ways in which it shaped the ancient viewing experience. In a funerary context, our understanding of this display context (the recording of which having often been frustratingly omitted in early excavation reports) would also seek to reconstruct the commemorative rites that were performed around the portrait, a task rendered most delicate by the heavy looting that for centuries has afflicted tombs and *necropoleis* in the region. Nevertheless, by drawing upon Classical literary sources, archaeological and iconographic testimonies in neighbouring regions, and Jordan’s own documentary evidence, one may hope to achieve an understanding of these rites.

Communities and individuals in the

<footnote n="9">⁹ For similar figures holding *codices* in the catacombs of SS. Peter and Marcellinus in Rome, see Roberts and Skeat 1983: pl. VI, and on a portrait medallion from Flavia Solva in the province of Noricum, see Dolenz 2001: 86 fig. 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ The first shows her holding two palm leaves, perhaps in reference to some victory in a contest; the second depicts her presenting the viewer with an open *volumen*; and on the third she holds two objects in her hands, either *paterae* or a *crotalum* (Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1988/1994: I 78–9; Skupińska-Løvset 2001).</footnote>
Greek and Roman worlds were very much concerned, if not obsessed, with perpetuating one's memory *post mortem*, and funerary portraiture was but one form through which this perpetuation could be achieved. Indeed, the portrait, as the deceased's double—his *imago*—must have triggered an emotional response in the viewer, but as the recipient and seat of the ancestor's memory, it was also owed posthumous honours, materialised through sacrificial rites, which is why Roman jurists defined the tomb as a *locus religiosus* or *locus sacer* (Laubry 2012). Commemorative rites and familial commensality, integral components of the funerary portrait's purpose, would take place on particular occasions, such as the deceased's birthday or the anniversary of his or her death, and on calendar days devoted to the dead. Traces of such ceremonies (such as tableware and cooking ware, lamps, stone benches, wells, ovens, adjoining gardens, etc.) are often recorded in funerary precincts.<fnref n="11" />

During the American excavations at Abila, headed by H. Mare, a terracotta incense burner which must have been used during sacrificial rituals was found in tomb H 59 (FIG. 30).<fnref n="12" /> Other items that belonged to the sphere of ritual activities are evoked in painting: *thymiateria* (e.g., in the 'Tombeau des Candélabres' at Abila: Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1989/1994: II pl. III.4), or torches (as on the tomb door from Ham discussed above). Visitors to the tomb would have also brought offerings to the dead. Such an offering scene is depicted, in my view, on a fresco painted on the back wall of an *arcosolium* in the luxurious tomb H 60 (FIG. 31; Smith and Mare 1997: 312 fig. 10).

This terracotta incense burner, Abila, 2<sup>nd</sup>-3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD (© M. Fuller).

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

30. Terracotta incense burner. Abila, 2<sup>nd</sup>-3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD (© M. Fuller).

painting shows two draped figures, their heads possibly girded with floral wreaths, standing between high candelabras and slightly turned towards each other: the male figure on the left presents the female figure, no doubt his relative, with a garland of flowers which he holds by both ends, while the woman extends her arm towards him, holding an indistinct object in her hand (a small bouquet of flowers?). The scene is strongly reminiscent of the *collocatio*, or lying-in-state, relief from the famous early 2<sup>nd</sup> c. AD Tomb of the Haterii that lay outside Rome, which shows a mourner standing over the dead woman (probably

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

31. Painted *arcosolium* showing two figures between candelabras. Abila, 3<sup>rd</sup> c. AD (© A. Barbet).

<footnote n="11">¹¹ For commemorative ceremonies in the Greek world, see Garland 2001: 104–20; in the Roman world, Scheid 2005: 161–88; in the Nabataean world: Perry 2016; Perry 2017, with earlier bibliography.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² I wish to thank Michael J. Fuller for bringing this find to my attention and for sending me photographs of the object.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>32. Pair of painted female mourners. Abila, 2nd–3rd c. AD (© A. Barbet).</figcaption></figure>

Hateria), about to place a similar garland on her bier (Trimble 2018: 335–6 fig. 12.8 with earlier bibliography). A lost Pompeian stucco relief that once adorned a mausoleum, sketched in the 19th century by J. Overbeck, is somewhat more explicit in that it represents a mourning woman placing *taeniae* on a child’s (?) skeleton seen lying on a pile of rubble (Overbeck 1884: 419 fig. 221). Another Abilene painted panel in tomb Q 14 (the so-called “Tombeau des Femmes Voilées”), represents, in a frame over a Corinthian capital, two female figures

wrapped in ochre brown mantles, whose faces are unfortunately disfigured (FIG. 32; Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1989/1994: I 182, 189; II pl. 97 pl. 106.a pl. VI.4). Their afflicted attitude, with their stiff pose and right arms bent over the chests, suggests that they are mourners rather than the deceased, and the fact that they were depicted alone, and not in a funeral procession (as on the Amiternum and Haterii reliefs: Flower 1996: 93–8 pl. 5–6; Bodel 1999), implies that they were relatives of the deceased rather than professional wailers hired to
conduct the lamentations (Lat. *Praeficae*: see Kudlien 1995).

One of the most eloquent documents attesting to rites involving the funerary portrait is provided by the aforementioned basalt statue from Gadara-Umm Qays, which was found lying before a rock-cut tomb. In the immediate vicinity of the recess into which the plinth of the statue was set, excavators found an altar and a circular cavity that a libation bowl would have fit into, and from which runs a narrow drain for liquid offerings (Weber 2002: 381 fig. 101; Lichtenberger and Raja 2019: 141). Benches were also carved in the rock around this installation to accommodate the bereaved. The statue, in its initial setting, conspicuously stood at the tomb entrance, and the tomb itself was located on a high promontory overlooking the Yarmūk Valley on one side, and the Sea of Galilee on the other: the scenery itself no doubt lent the whole monument prestige and majesty and, in this context, the statue must have been invested, in addition to its commemorative function, with a *quasi*-cultic quality.

## Conclusion

As it currently stands, the corpus of funerary portraiture I have assembled in Roman Jordan numbers 219 items. Out of this number, 95 hail from Abila and 62 from Gadara. As has been noted by T.M. Weber (1993: 69–70) and A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (2019: 139, 142), these two cities concentrate the main body of Roman-era funerary portraits in Jordan, while the citizens of Gerasa, for instance, seem to have favoured plain sarcophagi decorated with pelta shields (Lichtenberger and Raja 2019: 140). Certainly this discrepancy among Decapolitan cities in regards to funerary portraiture cannot be solely ascribed to the varying intensity of archaeological surveys and exploration, but must have reflected a marked preference among the inhabitants of these two cities

for funerary self-representation, and one may detect, upon closer inspection, idiosyncratic and *polis*-specific trends in this art form (Lichtenberger and Raja 2019: 147). Moreover, the recurrence of a finite number of iconographic schemes and attributes (*Normaltypus*, Penelope, *volumen*, etc.), which can be observed throughout the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean, allows us to appreciate the extent to which the Classical visual language (*koinē*) permeated Decapolitan aesthetics, and found vivid echoes within Nabataean culture.

The meticulous recording by excavators of funerary artefacts deposited in the tombs, and their systematic integration in art historical analysis, could further shed light on the manners in which the funerary portrait was incorporated into mortuary processes and commemorative practices. Furthermore, the architectural reconstruction of funerary complexes, such as that of the “Tomb of the Roman Soldier” achieved by the *International Wādī Farasa Project* (Schmid 2012 with earlier bibliography), may circumscribe the display context of these images, and narrow down the audience for which they were intended. Finally, the most recent and stupendous discovery of painted frescoes in the provisionally named “tombeau du Fondateur” in Capitolias-Bayt Rās (see Aliquot *et al*. in this volume), is a potent testimony to the fact that the Jordanian soil still withholds evidence that is bound to further our understanding of an art form that was essential to personal self-perpetuation, for as Cicero put it (*Philippics* 9.4.10), “the life of the dead is set in the memory of the living”.

## Bibliography

* Abdalla, A. 1992. *Graeco-Roman Funerary Stelae from Upper Egypt*. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

* Abdul-Hak, S., and A. Abdul-Hak. 1951. *Catalogue illustré du département des*
antiquités gréco-romaines au musée de Damas. Damascus: Direction Générale des Antiquités.

al-Maqdissi, M. 1984. "Compte rendu des travaux archéologiques dans le Ledja en 1984." *Berytus* 32:7-17.

Anderson, G. 1993. *The Second Sophistic*. A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire*. London: Routledge.

Annan, B. 2019. "Un paysage de visages. Les portraits funéraires au Proche-Orient romain: types, diffusion sociale et fonction rituelle." In *Porträt als Massenphänomen /Le portrait comme phénomène de masse*. Morphomata 40, edited by D. Boschung and Fr. Queyrel, 407-57. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.

Avigad, N. 1976. *Beth She'arim. Report on the Excavations during 1953-1958*. Vol. 3, Catacombs 12-23. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Balensiefen, L. 1990. *Die Bedeutung des Spiegelbildes als ikonographisches Motiv in der antiken Kunst*. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth.

Balty, J.-Ch. 2000. "Pénélope. Notes sur la diffusion d'un type iconographique." In *àγαθòς δαίμον. Mythes et Cultes: Études d'iconographie en l'honneur de Lilly Kahil*, edited by P. Linant de Bellefonds, 9-18. Athens: École Française d'Athènes.

———. 2016. "Le volumen ou 'Schriftrolle' des stèles et cippes militaires dans l'empire romain: à propos des inscriptions apaméennes de la legio II Parthica." *Syria* 93:83-95.

Barakat, A.Z. 1980. "Jordan's 'Underground' Museum." *The Biblical Archaeologist* 43:61.

Barbet, A., and C. Vibert-Guigue. 1988/1994. *Les peintures des nécropoles romaines d'Abila et du nord de la Jordanie*. Beirut and Paris: IFAPO and P. Geuthner.

Bel, N. et al., eds. 2012. *L'Orient romain et byzantin au Louvre*. Paris: Musée du Louvre.

Bielman, A. 2003. "Une vertu en rouleau ou comment la sagesse vint aux Grecques." In *Les femmes antiques entre sphère privée et sphère publique*. ECHO 2, edited by R. Frei-Stolba, A. Bielman, and O. Bianchi, 77-107. Bern: Peter Lang.

Blömer, M. 2014. *Steindenkmäler römischer Zeit aus Nordsyrien. Identität und kulturelle Tradition in Kyrrhestike und Kommagene*. Bonn: Habelt.

Blömer, M., and R. Raja, eds. 2019. *Funerary Portraiture in Greater Roman Syria*. Turnhout: Brepols.

Bodel, J. 1999. "Death on Display: Looking at Roman Funerals." In *The Art of Ancient Spectacle*, edited by B. Bergmann and C. Kondoleon, 259-81. New Haven: National Gallery of Art.

Borg, B. 1996. *Mumienporträts. Chronologie und kultureller Kontext*. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

———. 2004. "Glamorous Intellectuals: Portraits of pepaideumenoi in the Second and Third Centuries AD." In *Paideia: The World of the Second Sophistic*, edited by B. Borg, 157-78. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Boschung, D. 1987. *Antike Grabaltäre aus den Nekropolen Roms*. Bern: Stämpfli.

Braemer, F. 1959. *Les stèles funéraires à personnages de Bordeaux, Ier-IIIe siècles. Contribution à l'histoire de l'art provincial sous l'Empire romain*. Paris: A. et J. Picard.

Brünnow, R.E., and A. von Domaszewski. 1904. *Die Provincia Arabia auf Grund zweier in den Jahren 1897 und 1898 unternommenen Reisen und der Berichte früherer Reisender beschrieben*. Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner.

Cambi, N. 2016. "Sarkophag-Deckel aus prokonnesischem Marmor im 'gemischten' Typus." In *Akten des Symposiums 'Römische Sarkophage', Marburg, 2.-8. Juli 2006*, edited by G. Koch, 89-94. Marburg: Eigenverlag des Archäologischen Seminars der
Philipps-Universität.

Carroll, M. 2006. *Spirits of the Dead: Roman Funerary Commemoration in Western Europe*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conder, C.R. 1889. *The Survey of Eastern Palestine. Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, Archaeology, etc. I.-The Adwân Country*. London: The Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund.

Conklin, B. W. 2004. "The Meaning of {PQDWN} in the Nabataean Inscription of Qabr at-Turkmān." *Journal of Semitic Studies* 49:59-70.

Corcoran, L.H. 1995. *Portrait Mummies from Roman Egypt (I–IV Centuries A.D.) with a Catalog of Portrait Mummies in Egyptian Museums*. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Cremer, M.-L. 1991. *Hellenistisch-römische Grabstelen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien*. 1. Mysien*. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

———. 1992. *Hellenistisch-römische Grabstelen im nordwestlichen Kleinasien*. 2. Bithynien*. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

Cumont, F. 1949. *Lux perpetua*. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

Cussini, E. 2005. "Beyond the Spindle: Investigating the Role of Palmyrene Women." In *A Journey to Palmyra. Collected Essays to Remember Delbert R. Hillers*, edited by E. Cussini, 26–43. Leiden: Brill.

de Laborde, L. 1830. *Voyage de l'Arabie Pétrée*. Paris: Giard.

Dentzer, J.-M. 1982. *Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IVe siècle avant J.-C*. Rome: École Française de Rome.

Dentzer, J.-M., and J. Dentzer-Feydy, eds. 1991. *Le Djebel al-Arab: histoire et patrimoine au musée de Suweidā*. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Dolenz, H. 2001. "Zweineue Grabdenkmäler

mit jugendlichen Portraitdarstellungen von der westlichen Umfahrungsstraße Virunums." *Rudolfinum* [2000]:85-92.

Draycott, C.M., and M. Stamatopoulou, eds. 2016. *Dining and Death: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the 'Funerary Banquet' in Ancient Art, Burial and Belief*. Leuven: Peeters.

Dunand, M. 1965. "Tombe peinte dans la campagne de Tyr." *BMusBeyr* 18:5-51, pl. I-XXV.

Dunbabin, K.M.D. 2003. *The Roman Banquet. Images of Conviviality*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fani, Z. 2005/2006. "Le sarcophage du Nébi Shit dans la région de l'Hermon." *Tempora* 16/17:81-98.

Faust, W. 1998. *Die Grabstelen des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts im Rheingebiet*. Bonn: Rheinland-Verlag.

Fehr, B. 1979. *Bewegungsweisen und Verhaltensideale. Physiognomische Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten der Bewegungsdarstellung an griechischen Statuen des 5. und 4. Jhs. v. Chr*. Bad Bramstedt: Moreland Editions.

Feraudi-Gruénais, F. 2001. *Die Innendekoration der kaiserzeitlichen Gräber Roms*. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.

Filges, A. 2000. "Himationträger, Palliaten und Togaten. Der männliche Mantel-Normaltypus und seine regionalen Varianten in Rundplastik und Relief." In *Munus: Festschrift für Hans Wiegartz*, edited by T. Mattern, 95-109. Munich: Scriptorium.

Fıratlı, N. 1964. *Les stèles funéraires de Byzance gréco-romaine, avec l'édition et l'index commenté des épitaphes par Louis Robert*. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.

Flower, H.I. 1996. *Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture*. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Frenz, H.G. 1985. *Römische Grabreliefs in Mittel- und Süditalien*. Rome: Bretschneider.

Frontisi-Ducroux, F. 1995. *Du masque au*
visage. Aspects de l'identité en Grèce ancienne. Paris: Flammarion.

Fuchs, M. 2008. "Petite vieille ou noble dame : portraits de femmes âgées sous l'Empire romain." In Langages et métaphores du corps dans le monde antique, edited by V. Dasen and J. Wilgaux, 73-89. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Gaifman, M. 2008. "The Aniconic Image of the Roman Near East." In *The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods*, edited by T. Kaizer, 37-72. Leiden: Brill.

Garland, R. 2001. *The Greek Way of Death*. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Gatier, P.-L. 1993. "À propos de la culture grecque à Gérasa." In *Arabia Antiqua. Hellenistic Centres around Arabia*, edited by A. Invernizzi and J.-F. Salles, 5-35. Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

Gharib, R., J. Aliquot, and T.M. Weber-Karyotakis. 2017. "Roman Antiquities from Al-Qunayyah, Jordan." ADAJ 58:225-33.

Graf, D.F. 1992. "Hellenisation and the Decapolis." ARAM 4:1-48.

Gubel, É., ed. 2002. *Art phénicien. La sculpture de tradition phénicienne*. Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux.

Hadidi, A. 1979. "A Roman Family Tomb at Es-Salt." ADAJ 23:129-37, pl. XLVII-LVIII.

Hoffmann, A. 2000. "Die Stadtmauern der hellenistisch-römischen Dekapolisstadt Gadara. Zusammenfassender Bericht über die seit 1991 durchgeführten Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen." AA 2000:175-233.

Hope, V.M. 2001. *Constructing identity. The Roman funerary monuments of Aquileia, Mainz and Nimes*. Oxford: J. and E. Hedges.

Ibrahim, M. 1988. *Museum of Jordanian Heritage. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology*. Irbid: Yarmouk University.

Jiménez Díez, A. 2007. "Culto a los ancestros en época romana: los cipos funerarios de las necrópolis de Baelo Claudia (Bolonia, Cádiz)." *Archivo Español de Arqueología* 80:75-106.

Kintrup, C. 2016. *Die attischen Sarkophage. Zweiter Faszikel: Amazonomachie – Schlacht – Epinausimachie (Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs IX.1.2)*. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

Kleiner, D.E.E. 1977. *Roman Group Portraiture: The Funerary Reliefs of the Late Republic and Early Empire*. New York: Garland Publishing.

———. 1987. *Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits*. Rome: Breitschneider.

Koch, G., and H. Sichtermann. 1982. *Römische Sarkophage*. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Kockel, V. 1993. *Porträtreliefs stadtrömischer Grabbauten. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und zum Verständnis des spätrepublikanisch-frühkaiserzeitlichen Privatporträts*. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Kropp, A., and R. Raja. 2014. "The Palmyra Portrait Project." *Syria* 91:393-408.

Kudlien, Fr. 1995. "Berufsmässige Klage-weiber in der Kaiserzeit." *Rheinisches Museum für Philologie* 138:177-87.

Lagogianni-Georgakarakou, M. 1998. *Die Grabdenkmäler mit Porträts aus Makedonien*. Athens: Akademie von Athen.

Laubry, N. 2012. "Des rites pour le faire, des mots pour le dire : désignations, conceptions et perceptions de l'espace funéraire à Rome (Ier siècle av. J.-C.-IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.)." In *Le sacré dans tous ses états. Catégories du vocabulaire religieux et sociétés, de l'Antiquité à nos jours*, edited by M. De Souza, A. Peters-Custot, and F.-X. Romanacce, 169-80. Saint-Étienne: Presses de l'Université de Saint-Étienne.

Lenzen, C.J., and A.M. McQuitty. 1988. "The 1984 Survey of the Irbid/Beit Ras Region." ADAJ 32:265-74, pls. XLV-
XLVIII.

Lewerentz, A. 1993. *Stehende männliche Gewandstatuen im Hellenismus. Ein Beitrag zur Stilgeschichte und Ikonologie hellenistischer Plastik*. Hamburg: Kovac.

Lichtenberger, A., and R. Raja. 2019. “Portrait Habit and the Funerary Portraiture of the Decapolis.” In *Funerary Portraiture in Greater Roman Syria*, edited by M. Blömer and R. Raja, 133–50. Turnhout: Brepols.

Lifshitz, B. 1963. Weitere Beiträge zur palästinischen Epigraphik. ZDPV 79:90–7, pl. 6–8.

Lochman, T. 2003. *Studien zu kaiserzeitlichen Grab- und Votivreliefs aus Phrygien*. Basel: Basel Skulturenhalle.

Marrou, H.-I. 1938. *Μουσικὸς Ἀνήρ. Étude sur les scènes de la vie intellectuelle figurant sur les monuments funéraires romains*. Grenoble: Didier et Richard.

Masséglia, J. 2015. *Body Language in Hellenistic Art and Society*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mazor, G., and N.-S Paran. 2018. “A Rare Roman Sarcophagus from Ashkelon.” *Strata* 36:75–86.

McKenzie, J.S. 1990. *The Architecture of Petra*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 2004. “Temples, Tombs, and Other Recent Discoveries from the Rose Red.” *JRA* 17:559–68.

McKenzie, J.S. et al. 2013. *The Nabataean Temple at Khirbet et-Tannur, Jordan*. Vol. 1, *Architecture and Religion. Final Report on Nelson Glueck’s 1937 Excavation*. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Mittmann, S. 1970. *Beiträge zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes*. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Nunn, A. 2008. “Iconisme et aniconisme dans le culte des religions phénicienne et israélite.” *Transeuphratène* 35:165–96.

Overbeck, J. 1884. *Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthümern und Kunstwerken*. Leipzig:

Wilhelm Engelmann.

Parlasca, K. 1966. *Mumienporträts und verwandte Denkmäler*. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

———. 1982. *Syrische Grabreliefs hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. Fundgruppen und Probleme*. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

———. 1993. “Review of Patrich 1990.” *IEJ* 43:279–81.

Pasquier, A. 2016. “Sarcophages et klinai – À propos de la représentation du couple dans l’art grec.” *Anabases* 24:107–24.

Patrich, J. 1990. *The Formation of Nabatean Art. Prohibition of a Graven Image among the Nabateans*. Leiden: Brill.

Perry, M. 2016. “New Light on Nabataean Mortuary Rituals in Petra.” *SHAJ* 12:385–98.

———. 2017. “Sensing the Dead: Mortuary Ritual and Tomb Visitation at Nabataean Petra.” *Syria* 94:99–106.

Pflug, H. 1989. *Römische Porträtstelen in Oberitalien. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie, Typologie und Ikonographie*. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Pfuhl, E., and H. Möbius. 1977/1979. *Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs*. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Pogiatzi, E. 2003. *Die Grabreliefs auf Zypern von der archaischen bis zur römischen Zeit*. Mannheim: Bibliopolis.

Rey-Coquais, J.-P. 2002. “Noms de métiers dans les inscriptions de la Syrie antique.” *Cahiers du Centre Gustave-Glotz* 13:247–64.

Rife, J.L. et al. 2007. “Life and Death at a Port in Roman Greece. The Kenchreai Cemetery Project 2002–2006.” *Hesperia* 76:143–81.

Riggs, C. 2002. “Facing the Dead: Recent Research on the Funerary Art of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.” *AJA* 106:85–101.

———. 2005. *The Beautiful Burial in Roman Egypt: Art, Identity, and Funerary Religion*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, C.H., and T. Skeat. 1983. *The Birth of the Codex*. London: The British
Academy and Oxford University Press.

Sadurska, A., and A. Bounni. 1994. *Les sculptures funéraires de Palmyre*. Rome: Bretschneider.

Sartre, M. 2001. *D'Alexandre à Zénobie: histoire du Levant antique (IVe siècle av. J.-C.–IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.)*. Paris: Fayard.

Sartre-Fauriat, A. 2001a. *Des tombeaux et des morts: monuments funéraires, société et culture en Syrie du Sud du Ier s. av. J.-C. au VIIe s. ap. J.-C*. Vol. 1, Catalogue des monuments funéraires, des sarcophages et des bustes. Vol. 2, Synthèse. Paris: Institut Français d'Archéologie du Proche-Orient (IFAPO).

———. 2001b. "L'exaltation des morts dans les épitaphes du Hauran à l'époque impériale." In *Autour des Morts: Mémoire et Identité (Actes du Ve colloque international sur la sociabilité, Rouen 19-21 novembre 1998)*, edited by O. Dumoulin and F. Thelamon, 205-13. Rouen: Publications de l'Université de Rouen.

Scheid, J. 2005. *Quand faire, c'est croire. Les rites sacrificiels des Romains*. Paris: Flammarion.

Schmid, S.G. 2012. "Die dritte Dimension der Felsfassaden: nabatäische Grabkomplexe." In *Petra. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung 'Petra. Wunder in der Wüste. Auf den Spuren von J.L. Burckhardt alias Scheich Ibrahim' im Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig*, edited by S.G. Schmid and E. van der Meijden, 183-94. Basel: Schwabe.

———. 2013. "Early Nabataean Royal Portraiture." *SHAJ* 9:757-69.

Settis, S. 1975. "Immagini della meditazione, dell'incertezza e del pentimento nell'arte antica." *Prospettiva* 2:4-18.

Skupińska-Løvset, I. 1983. *Funerary Portraiture of Roman Palestine: An Analysis of the Production in its Culture-Historical Context*. Göteborg: Åström.

———. 2001. "Interpretacja wystroju grobowców północnojordańskich w

świetle symboliki okresu rzymskiego." *Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Archaeologica* 23:179-92.

Smith, R.W., and W.H. Mare. 1997. "A Roman Tomb at Abila of the Decapolis." *JRA* 10:307-14.

Trimble, J. 2018. "Figure and Ornament, Death and Transformation in the Tomb of the Haterii." In *Ornament and Figure in Graeco-Roman Art. Rethinking Visual Ontologies in Classical Antiquity*, edited by N. Dietrich and M. Squire, 327-52. Berlin: de Gruyter.

von Moock, D.W. 1998. *Die figürlichen Grabstelen Attikas in der Kaiserzeit. Studien zur Verbreitung, Chronologie, Typologie und Ikonographie*. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Wadeson, L. 2012. "The Obelisk Tomb at Petra and the Bāb al-Sīq Inscription: A Study of Text, Image and Architecture." In *From Ugarit to Nabataea. Studies in Honor of John F. Healey*, edited by G. Kiraz and Z. Al-Salameen, 207-34. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.

———. 2008. "Depicting the Dead: Sculpted Funerary Portraits at Petra." In *Nabataean and Roman Sculpture in Petra: Current Research and Perspectives*, edited by L. Tholbecq and L. Wadeson. Brussels: ULB Publications.

Wagner, J. 1976. *Seleukeia am Euphrat / Zeugma*. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Walker, S. 1985. *Memorials for the Roman Dead*. London: Trustees of the British Museum.

Weber, T.M. 1993. *Pella Decapolitana. Studien zur Geschichte, Architektur und Bildenden Kunst einer Hellenisierten Stadt des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes*. Wiesbaden: O. Harrowitz.

———. 1996. "Reiseziele in der antiken Welt." *AntW* 27:515-9.

———. 2002. *Gadara – Umm Qēs I. Gadara Decapolitana. Untersuchungen zur Topographie, Geschichte, Architektur und der Bildenden Kunst einer, Polis*
Hellenis' im Ostjordanland. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

———. 2006. *Sculptures from Roman Syria in the Syrian National Museum at Damascus. I. From Cities and Villages in Central and Southern Syria*. Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft.

Wenning, R. 2003. "The Rock-Cut Architecture of Petra." In *Petra Rediscovered. Lost City of the Nabataeans*, edited by G. Markoe, 132–43. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Art Museum.

Wrede, H. 1990. "Der Sarkophagdeckel eines Mädchens in Malibu und die

frühen Klinensarkophage Roms, Athens und Kleinasiens.” In *Roman Funerary Monuments in the J. Paul Getty Museum*. Vol. 1, edited by M. True and G. Koch, 15–46. Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Museum.

Zanker, P. 1975. "Grabreliefs römischer Freigelassener." *JdI* 90:267–315.

———. 1995. *The Mask of Socrates. The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity*. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Zimmer, G. 1982. *Römische Berufsdarstellungen*. Berlin: Mann.