Petra did not vanish in 106 CE
Petra is often described as if it disappeared when Rome took over. The record is different. The Nabataean kingdom ended in 106 CE, but the city remained inhabited for centuries, changed in character, and only slowly shrank. Its history after the kings is one of adaptation: a Nabataean capital became a provincial Roman city, then a Christian one.
The annexation
The last Nabataean king, Rabbel II, died in 106 CE. In the same year the Roman emperor Trajan incorporated his kingdom into the Roman Empire as the province of Arabia. The governor of neighbouring Syria, usually named as Cornelius Palma, is associated with the operation. Ancient sources are brief, and historians disagree on whether there was fighting. Many modern scholars think the takeover was largely peaceful, since the kingdom had been a Roman client state for generations, but the evidence is thin and the question is not settled. Roman coins from the period celebrate the acquisition of Arabia.
The new province’s capital was Bosra (Bostra), in what is now southern Syria, not Petra. A Roman legion was based there. Some historians suggest Rabbel II had already moved his own court northwards, but this is debated. Roman expansion in the East at this time was driven in part by a wish to control trade and frontier roads, and Petra’s value to Rome lay as much in its position as in its buildings.
Petra as a Roman city
Under Roman rule Petra continued to function and in some ways flourished. Between about 111 and 114 CE, the Via Nova Traiana was constructed, a road running from Bosra south through the province to the Red Sea. It improved Roman road travel in the region and tied Petra into a new network of administration and supply, though it did not pass through the city centre itself.
In 130 CE the emperor Hadrian visited, and the city is known to have taken the name Hadriane in his honour. Inscriptions and coins from the 2nd and 3rd centuries call Petra a metropolis, and in the early 3rd century it probably received the status of a Roman colony. The colonnaded street was paved and lined with columns in the Roman manner, a gateway marked the sacred area, and the Nabataean theatre was altered. These are signs of a city that Rome valued. Other cities in the region show similar patterns of Roman monumental building, and the Gerasa colonnaded street is a well-preserved example.
Nabataean traditions carried on. Local culture, religion and language did not vanish overnight, and Nabataean-style tombs continued to be used for some time. Documents from the Judean Desert, such as the archive of a woman named Babatha from the 2nd century CE, show how people of the former Nabataean lands dealt with Roman officials and with Roman civil law, using Greek and local languages.
Why the city declined
Several factors worked together, and they are best seen as a slow shift rather than a single cause.
- Trade routes changed. Roman control of Egypt and the Red Sea encouraged sea trade, which used the monsoon trade winds and did not need the old overland incense routes. Palmyra also grew as a caravan city, notably in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and its short-lived Zenobia revolt in the 270s showed how far its power reached.
- Political change. Without a royal court, much of the wealth and patronage that had produced the great monuments disappeared.
- Environmental and economic pressures. Water systems needed constant upkeep, and the region was exposed to earthquakes.
None of these was sudden. Archaeology shows reduced building and smaller households over time, not an abandoned city.
The earthquake of 363 CE
On 18 and 19 May 363 CE, a powerful earthquake affected a wide region of the eastern Mediterranean, including Palestine and Arabia. Ancient writers reported damage in many cities. At Petra, excavators have found collapsed columns, damaged buildings and layers of debris that are often linked with this earthquake, and the Great Temple and other structures seem to have been badly affected. Yet the picture is complicated. Another earthquake in 551 CE is also known, dating of some collapses remains debated, and not all damage can be assigned to a single event.
What the evidence does suggest is that after the 4th century parts of the city were not fully rebuilt. The water system was less well maintained, and some structures were reused or turned to other purposes.
A Byzantine afterlife
Petra did not disappear in the Byzantine period. It was a Christian city with a bishop, and churches were built, including the one with mosaics and papyrus scrolls found in the 20th century. Some rock-cut tombs were converted for other uses, and some monuments gained crosses or new inscriptions.
After the Arab conquest of the 7th century, the city was progressively less important. By the Middle Ages Petra was a small settlement, and in the 12th century Crusaders built a small fort in the area, though they did not make the city a centre. Local people continued to live in and around the ruins, which is why the idea that Petra was entirely abandoned and unknown is misleading. How it re-entered European awareness in the early 19th century is a separate story.