The Nabataeans succeeded in establishing a powerful kingdom in the northwest of the Arabian Peninsula, the south of the Levant and Sinai. This kingdom reached the peak of its glory during the period between the first century BC and the first century AD. Among the civilizational manifestations in which the Nabataeans excelled were the Nabataean rock-cut tombs, whether in their capital Petra in the present-day Kingdom of Jordan, or in their second most important city, Hegra (Arabic Al-Hijr) or “Mada'in Saleh” in the present-day Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [1].

The Nabataean rock-cut tombs, especially at the site of Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” are distinguished by the presence of a number of non-Nabataean architectural elements and units that the Nabataeans transferred from other neighbouring civilizations, preceding or contemporary with their civilization [2].

The Nabataeans were influenced by the Greek architecture from which they transferred some of the distinctive elements such as the pediment, the triglyphs and metopes, the capitals of the columns, and the head of Medusa, which was believed to turn enemies into stone. From the Romans, the Nabateans were influenced by the idea of arches, although they were few in the facades of tombs. They also transferred the Roman engaged columns, as well as some imperial symbols expressing power such as eagles. From the Persian, the Nabataeans transferred some floral designs, such as stylized lotus flowers, and carvings of animals, which often display the elegance and detail characteristic of Persian art. From the Assyrian civilization, the Nabataean architecture was influenced by the idea of the crowsteps that adorned the tops of the facades of tombs, which expressed the connection between the realms of earth and heaven [3]. As for the Egyptian civilization, the Nabataeans transferred some decorative architectural elements and units, including the shape of the Sphinx, the winged figures, but the most prominent of all is the decorative unit of the Egyptian cornice, which this paper discusses in detail.

In 1907-09, Fathers Antonin Jaussen and Raphaël Savignac, the French Catholic priests and archaeologists, were the first to conduct detailed documentation at Hegra. Their work focused on recording Nabataean inscriptions, mapping the site, and describing its tombs. Their publication, Mission Archéologique en Arabie, remains a foundational reference for studying Hegra and its inscriptions. They did not carry out formal excavations but laid the groundwork for future archaeological research. During their initial survey of Hegra, they assigned numbers to the tombs for identification purposes in their work, their numbering became the basis for subsequent studies. As the tombs of Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” are distributed in groups in a series of widely spread locations. Jaussen and Savignac distinguished the groups by Latin letters, then the tombs within each group are distinguished by numbers [4]. The less systematic numbering system of Jaussen and Savignac continued to be used till the mid-20th century, when a new numbering system was developed by the Saudi-French Archaeological Project, particularly through the work of the Institut Géographique National (IGN) of France, leading to the formalization of the IGN numbering system for the tombs in Hegra, this system relies on sequential numbering of all tombs without using Latin letters [5].

In his comprehensive article in 1976, Negev examines the architectural styles, inscriptions, and cultural influences evident in the necropolis. He identifies a blend of Assyrian, Phoenician, Egyptian, and Hellenistic elements in the tomb façades, reflecting the Nabateans' interactions with neighbouring civilizations. The article also delves into the social hierarchy of the period, inferred from the size and ornamentation of the tombs, and discusses the significance of various decorative motifs and inscriptions [6].

In 1990, McKenzie provided comparative insights into Nabataean architecture focused mainly on Petra with references to Hegra’s tombs. McKenzie explored the evolution of Nabataean architectural style, highlighting how external influences (Greek, Roman, Egyptian) were adapted to fit local traditions. The discussion on Hegra emphasizes the simpler, more conservative design of its tombs compared to Petra, yet acknowledges their unique regional variations, such as their prominent inscriptions and crowstep motifs [3].

Al-Ghabban (2005) examined the cultural blending evident in the tombs of Hegra. He argues that the tombs represent a synthesis of Nabataean, Roman, Hellenistic, and local Arabian traditions. He delved into specific architectural features, such as Corinthian capitals, triangular pediments, and the use of inscriptions, demonstrating how the Nabataeans adapted foreign styles while maintaining their identity [2].

In 2008, the site was inscribed as the Saudi Arabia’s first UNESCO World Heritage Site. The official UNESCO report provided an overview of the site’s significance. It focuses on the tombs' architectural and cultural features, emphasizing their role as a reflection of the Nabataean Kingdom's cultural exchange with other civilizations. The report also detailed the preservation efforts undertaken to maintain the site [7].

In 2010, Al-Ghabban presented a comprehensive catalogue accompanied an exhibition showcasing the archaeological heritage of Saudi Arabia, including recent discoveries from Hegra. It provided detailed descriptions and analyses of artifacts, inscriptions, and tombs, highlighting the region's historical significance and cultural interactions [8].

Tschanz (2012) published an overview book in which he discusses the cultural and artistic significance of the tombs, emphasizing their role as a reflection of Nabataean religious beliefs and their adaptation of foreign architectural influences. The work highlights how the tombs in Hegra are less monumental than those in Petra but still retain the hallmarks of Nabataean architectural style, with distinct Roman, Hellenistic, and local Arabian elements [9].

Al Amer and Al Ghanem (2017) published a book on the site in which they discussed the importance of the site and its Nabataean monuments. They concentrated on detailing the different Nabatean buildings including the rock-cut tombs, religious chapels, the different architectural elements. The book also includes a full translation of different types of inscriptions, Nabatean and others, found in the site [10].

Abouelata (2018) published a guidebook on the site including detailed description of some important tombs in addition to the other monuments and landmarks of the site such as the Ottoman fort and the Hijaz railway station buildings [11]. In 2022, Nehmé published a guidebook on the site explores various aspects of Nabataean culture, including their religion, language, funerary architecture, and carving techniques, providing a comprehensive understanding of their society [12]. Belmonte et al. (2024) presented an archaeoastronomical analysis of the Nabataean necropolis in Hegra, examining the orientation of 113 tombs. The study investigated the potential astronomical alignments and their implications for understanding Nabataean funerary rituals and cosmology [13].

Ancient Egyptian architecture was characterized by a number of architectural elements and decorative units that appeared as a result of the influence of the Egyptian environment on architecture and as a natural development of the use of plant elements in early Egyptian architecture. These elements and units were considered purely Egyptian components in origin and development without any foreign addition or influence. Rather, they found their way abroad to influence the architecture of contemporary and subsequent civilizations, both near and far. The Egyptian cornice unit is one of the most distinctive of these elements in Egyptian architecture, to the point that it is considered the only Egyptian architectural element that is always associated with the word “Egyptian”. In the architectural context, the term “cornice” is rarely mentioned without the word “Egyptian” being added to it to refer to this distinctive Egyptian architectural decorative unit.

Origin and Development of the Egyptian Cornice

The Egyptian cornice in its simple form (Fig. 1) is a unit that crowns the tops of the walls in ancient Egyptian architecture. Its bottom begins at the upper end of the wall in a straight manner to the point that it is considered an upper extension of the wall. Then it begins to curve forward and protrude outward at approximately half its height. This curvature and protrusion create a very graceful shape to the point that it can be likened to the protrusion and curvature of a human head in relation to its neck. The cornice ends at its top with a flat strip to return to being flat at its top as it began at its base [14].

Although there is consensus that the architecture built from plant elements was the origin from which the Egyptian cornice developed, the nature of that plant element was a matter of dispute. Some believe that palm fronds were the original element of the Egyptian cornice unit, as these fronds were used in building huts due to their known flexibility and hardness [15]. Another opinion opposes this assumption believing that if the frond is fixed upright, some of its tops bend inward and some outward, while most of it remains straight to varying degrees, thus, its tops lack the regular concave shape that characterizes the Egyptian cornice. It is therefore suggested that papyrus, sharp rush, or reed branches were the origin from which the Egyptian cornice decoration unit developed [16]. The first opinion is the most acceptable, as the palm fronds do not have a straight stem, moreover, if they are arranged according to their nature above palm trees, their inside are inward and outside are outward, they automatically bend outward. What is known about the ancient Egyptians’ strong tendency to arrange and organize makes the process of arranging the fronds in an organized manner with a unified direction a very easy matter [17].

The early walls, which are still built in the same way in the Egyptian countryside, were built using palm fronds that were trimmed by stripping them of their leaflets from most of the frond except for the top that retained its leaflets. Then the fronds were arranged next to each other in an upright position. To secure them, they were tied near their top, just below the part that retained its leaflets, with a rope or by using a frond fixed crosswise to represent a beam to which the vertical fronds were attached. The edges were also strengthened with a bundle of fronds or reeds to prevent the ends of the wall from breaking. To strengthen the wall, other fronds sticks were fixed diagonally in both directions and intersecting with the vertical fronds, then all of this was covered with a layer of mud up to the level of the beam. Thus, the upper part that retained its leaflets remained the visible part of the fronds that was left intentionally to prevent thieves from climbing this wall. Since the fronds do not stand straight, these frond tops were bent downwards in the outward direction of the wall, which is the bend that represents the initial idea of the Egyptian cornice [18].

The Egyptian cornice was not the only decorative unit that developed from this primitive architecture, but rather another unit was developed and often associated with the cornice, which is the moulding, the cylindrical protrusion that surrounds the upper walls of temples, chapels, and doors. The moulding was decorated with opposing and oblique lines that represented straps which were originally bundles of plants that strengthened the walls and the upper horizontal beam to which the vertical palm fronds were attached [19].

These architectural elements were useful and necessary when architecture was built from plant sticks. When the Egyptians, through Imhotep, moved to stone architecture, these elements became traditional decorative units. The Egyptians’ adherence to these decorative units in stone architecture, despite their loss of functional value, can be interpreted by what they were accustomed to elegance and beauty of these elements and their consistency with the general lines of Egyptian architecture, as well as what these units symbolize in terms of significance. The Egyptians inherited these elements from one generation to the next, perhaps due to their habit of adhering to ancient traditions, moreover perhaps these elements acquired sanctity over time [17].

Perhaps the oldest example of the Egyptian cornice in stone architecture was at the top of the facade of the royal pavilion in the funerary complex of King Zoser, of the third Dynasty, at Saqqara (Fig. 2), where the cornice is distinguished by the straightness of its lines, perhaps due to it being the first experiment in shaping a cornice in stone [16-17]. Then this unit spread in Egyptian architecture, from the Old Kingdom onwards, in the pyramid temples, the tombs of the Old Kingdom, the columns, the pylons and gates [14] (Fig. 3). Its spread was not only limited to buildings, but it was used to decorate the tops of sarcophagi, coffins and chapels, as in the many pieces found in the tomb of Tutankhamun [20] (Fig. 4). The sarcophagus of Menkaure is one of the early examples in which the cornice unit moved from building facades to sarcophagi. Unfortunately, this sarcophagus sank in the Bay of Biscay off the Spanish coast while being transported by sea to England [21].

In the scenes depicting early niches (Fig. 5), the cornice is clearly visible, below which is the moulding and intersecting palm fronds. Therefore, the early models contained ribbons that imitated palm fronds. These ribbing was carved in a recessed manner in the body of the cornice in groups of three, each two groups were separated by an empty space or a divider of a darker or lighter colour than the colours of the ribbing, which was coloured green, blue, red, or all three colours together. These ribbing continued until the late periods of Egyptian civilisation. The cornices of the Eighteenth Dynasty were characterised by the decline of the ribbing that imitated palm fronds which replaced by intersecting lines that sometimes curved upwards and sometimes downwards. In the later periods, the ribbing and intersecting lines disappeared completely, and the cornices became simply abstract [18]. Sometimes the cornice was decorated in the middle with a winged sun disc, or crowned with a frieze of cobras [14] (Fig. 6).

Spread of the Egyptian Cornice outside Egypt

This decorative unit of the Egyptian cornice found its way outside Egypt, as its simple, abstract form was copied in the Levant, as in some of the tombs of Wadi al-Joz and Silwan in Palestine [22], and in panels from Tell el-Duweir (Lachish) [23]. There were also attempts in Assyria, but it seems that this unit was not destined to spread in Assyrian architecture [24]. It also extended to ancient Persia, where this Egyptian unit decorated the tops of doors and windows in the palaces of the city of Takht-e Jamshid (Persepolis), the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire [25]. It was also transferred to Greek and Roman architecture, especially in Doric temples [26]. It is worth noting that the Egyptian cornice unit spread in Europe in different eras and was even used to decorate the facades of modern buildings in Europe and America [27].

The Egyptian Cornice in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh”

Among the ancient civilizations that adopted this decorative unit was the Nabataean civilization, where the Egyptian Corniche unit decorated many of the facades of their tombs in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” (Fig. 7), the important archaeological site that was inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2008 [7]. This site was known to the Nabataeans as "Hegra", which is the same name known in Arabic sources as "Al-Hijr", while the name Mada'in Saleh is the one used by the local population and is the most commonly used to describe the site. Hegra "Mada'in Saleh" is the second most important city in the Nabataean Kingdom after the capital Petra, which is currently located in Jordan. Hegra "Mada'in Saleh” is located in the northwest of Saudi Arabia in the Arabian Peninsula, 20 km from the city of Al-Ula, about 400 km northwest of Medina, and about 500 km southeast of the Nabataean capital, Petra. The Hegra site covers an area exceeding 16 km2, contains more than 120 rock-cut tombs [1].

The tombs at the site of Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” are rock-cut tombs that carved into the smooth sandstone rocks that make up the site. Although this type of rock-cut tombs was common in the civilizations of the ancient Near East, the Nabataean tombs of the site are distinguished by the harmony of their facades and the presence of architectural decorative units with precise geometric shapes executed in a wonderful symmetrical form (Fig. 8). They are also distinguished by the dated Nabataean inscriptions. These inscriptions are an important source of much information about Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” in particular and the Nabataeans in general [28].

The facades of the tombs of Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” can be described in general as consisting of three decorative areas, starting with the lower area, in the middle of which is the entrance to the tomb, surrounded on both sides by a flat vertical facade protruding from the front wall in a slight protrusion, resting on a base and topped by a prominent Nabataean crown. This symmetry of these vertical facades is repeated - in almost the same way - on both sides of the facade. The central area of the facade is characterized by its horizontal symmetry, as it is divided horizontally into parallel flat parts, although they are unequal, by a group of cornices that gradually rise horizontally, one above the other, and their protrusion level increases from bottom to top until they end with the most prominent cornice in the facade, which is the Egyptian cornice. The upper area of the facade is decorated with crenelations or steps, which were executed in a similar artistic manner. Perhaps the crenelations decorative motif was transferred from Assyrian architectural decorations, despite the absence of direct historical connections between the Nabataeans and the Assyrians, or it was transferred from Achaemenid art that was prevalent in western Iran [29].

The Egyptian cornice unit has been used since the beginning of the construction of the tombs in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh”. There is no relationship between the appearance of this Egyptian decorative unit in most of the tombs of Mada'in Saleh, or its disappearance in some of them, and any historical significance for the appearance or disappearance of the Egyptian cornice.

Based on approximately 500 undated tombs in Petra, Domaszewski made an attempt to classify the Nabataean tombs according to the characteristics of their styles, considering the tombs with the simple style to be the oldest, while the tombs with the most elaborate decoration are the most recent. He concluded that there are six historical stages during which the architecture of the Nabataean tombs developed [30]. However, the dated tombs in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” proved the lack of credibility of this classification attempt, as there are elaborately decorated tombs that date back to earlier periods than their undecorated counterparts. For example, tomb IGN 22 (Fig. 9) - which contains the Egyptian cornice unit - comes in the fourth stage of historical development according to Domaszewski classification, but according to its inscription it dates back to the ninth year of the reign of King Aretas IV (c. 1 BC) therefore, it is the oldest dated tomb in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh”. In contrast, tomb IGN 89, which does not contain the Egyptian cornice decoration, comes in the early stages of Domaszewski classification but, according to its inscription, it is dated to the fourth year of King Rabbel II rule (c. 74 AD) therefore, it is one of the last dated tombs in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” [3]. There are also later tombs that include the Egyptian cornice decorative unit, such as tomb IGN 111 (Fig. 10), which is dated to the fifth year of King Rabbel II rule (c. 75 AD). Despite the logic of Domaszewski classification in Petra, it does not reflect the development that had already settled in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” where most styles of tombs were present. The style of the tomb was chosen by its owner according to the mood of each individual and perhaps according to the available capabilities, because the different styles were certainly not equal in their material costs. Therefore, the style of the tomb architecture does not follow any chronological order, but was merely a reflection of the social and economic background of the tomb owner [3, 28].

The Egyptian cornice unit in the facades of the tombs of Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” (Figs. 7-10) does not differ from its Egyptian origin except in a few details. In Hegra, it is composed of a somewhat regular quarter circle, while the cornice executed in Egyptian architecture is more concave, especially at the top. The cornice executed in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” is an intermediate stage between the concave Egyptian cornice, that crowns the gates of Egyptian temples, and the shallow Egyptian cornice that crowns the doors and windows of Darius's palace in Persepolis. Perhaps this is what confused Savignac about the origin from which the Nabataeans copied that cornice, which he called the Syrian cornice! Sometimes he supposed that the Persian origin is more likely, sometimes he proposed that the Nabataeans may have been inspired by Egyptian architecture and then added another decorative unit above the cornice, the crowsteps, borrowed from another place, at other times he suggested that the Greeks played a role in the existence of this decorative unit [4].

Arrival of the Egyptian Corniche to Hegra “Mada'in Saleh”

As for how this Egyptian decorative unit reached that region in the north of the Arabian Peninsula, this can be explained by one of two hypotheses:

The first hypothesis is that the Egyptian cornice unit reached Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” indirectly through an intermediary who was influenced by Egyptian architecture and copied some of its elements in his architectural structures, from this intermediary the Nabataeans transferred that decorative unit to their buildings. If this is the case, this mediator must meet four conditions: it preceded the Nabataean civilization in time or at least was a contemporary with the Nabatean; it was adjacent to the Nabatean kingdom; the elements of Egyptian architecture appeared in its buildings, and that there be historical evidence confirming the connection between this supposed intermediary and the Nabataeans. Despite the availability of the first three conditions in the Achaemenid Persian civilization, as well as in the Assyrian civilization - taking into consideration the limited spread of the Egyptian cornice unit in Assyrian architecture - the failure to verify the existence of the fourth condition negates the role of the intermediary in these two civilizations, especially the Assyrian.

Although the Greek civilization was not geographically close to the Nabateans, it may have been that intermediary, as it preceded the Nabataeans and even coexisted with them, the Greek architecture was influenced by some features of Egyptian architecture. The Greek contact with the Nabataeans for long periods had a great impact on the Nabataeans who learned from the Greek the organization of cities and the principles of administration, as well as they minted coins in the Greek manner [31]. The Nabataean king Obodas III described himself on a coin as a “god,” imitating the description of the Seleucids themselves as the gods “Dios” on their coins. King Aretas III was also called “the lover of Greece.” The Nabataeans even played the intermediary role in transferring Hellenic civilization to the southern Arabs [31]. It is not unlikely that some of the sculptors of the Nabataean tombs were of Greek origin, as evidenced by the Greek decorative elements in the facades of the tombs in Hegra, including the triglyphs, metopes, and the pediments [4]. In fact, many of the Nabataean statues and decorative elements were inspired by Greek art, which left its impact on the Nabataeans [32]. Despite this clear Greek influence on the Nabataeans, what weakens its intermediary role who transferred the Egyptian cornice to the Nabateans is the difference in the shape of the cornice in Greek architecture and in what remains of the Seleucid buildings, a significant difference from its shape in the Egyptian and Nabataean architecture, although the matter, despite that difference, remains not unlikely in light of the disappearance of most of the Seleucid monuments [33], which may have included the Egyptian cornice.

These four conditions almost apply to the southern region of the Levant, specifically in the Kingdom of Judah, as it is not far from Petra, the capital of the Nabataeans, and historically it preceded the Nabataeans in existence. Some of their buildings included the Egyptian Corniche unit, perhaps as a result of their being influenced by the Egyptian architecture in which they lived before leaving Egypt. Examples of this include the tombs of Absalom [34] and Zechariah [35] in Wadi al-Joz (Kidron Valley) in Jerusalem (Figs. 11-12), which date back to a period contemporary with the Nabataeans between the first century BC and the first century AD [36-37].

The relations of the Nabataeans with the Jews are historically proven and have fluctuated between distance and closeness. Sometimes wars break out between the two states and sometimes relations are improved to the point that Herod, King of the Jews, got married the daughter of Aretas IV, King of the Nabataeans [31]. The tomb inscriptions in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” also testify to the existence of a Jewish community there, as the text of one of the tombs mention that its owner named “Shubaytu son of ‘Ali’u” was Jewish [38]. It is noticeable from the man’s name and the name of his wife, “'amirat”, that they do not represent names foreign to the common Aramaic names or the names of the Nabataeans in particular, which means that the man was a citizen of the Nabataean Kingdom and was not a foreigner, stranger or immigrant. The construction of this tomb in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” indicates that the followers of the Jewish religion did not represent a racial or religious minority. This Jewish presence in the Nabataean Kingdom can be explained by the Jewish presence in the Arabian Peninsula in general and in Yathrib in particular [31].

Although opinions differ about the date of the Jewish presence in the Arabian Peninsula, the most accurate opinion says that the Jews fled to the Arabian Peninsula and began to settle there after Jerusalem was destroyed twice by the Romans (once in 70 AD and the other in 135 AD). Since this tomb is dated, according to its inscription, to the third year of the reign of the Nabataean king Malichus [38]. There were three Nabataean kings who bore this name, the first of whom ruled from 59 to 30 BC, while the second ruled from 40 to 70 AD [39], if the aforementioned king is one of them, then this is clear evidence of the Jewish presence in the Arabian Peninsula before the first destruction of Jerusalem. However, if the king in question is Malichus III, who is supposed to have ascended to the throne after 70 AD [39], then the date of the construction of this tomb would be only two years after the first destruction of Jerusalem and the Jews fled from it. Therefore, the existence of this tomb at that time does not reflect the speed of the Jews’ adaptation to this new society and the speed with which society accepted them, to the point that one of the Jews had the right to establish his tomb in the same places designated for the tombs of the old non-Jewish citizens, and also the right to indicate his religion on the walls of his tomb without arousing any kind of grudge or condemnation. Rather, it confirms that the issue of adaptation needs more time than that, which suggests the presence of the Jews in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” before that, perhaps this presence was one of the reasons that encouraged the Jews to migrate to the Arabian Peninsula after the first destruction of Jerusalem. There is also other evidence of the Jewish presence at the site, embodied by the Hebrew inscriptions and personal names that could also be Jewish. Likewise, the archive found in what was known as the Cave of Letters on the western side of the Dead Sea indicates the existence of close contact on the commercial and family levels between the Nabataeans and the Jews [28].

Life in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” community was not limited to a specific faction of the tribal elements in the Arabian Peninsula, but rather extended to a wide sector of diverse human factions. This is confirmed by two evidences: the first is the multiplicity of names of the gods mentioned in the inscriptions of tombs and memorials, where different mentioned gods were basically worshipped in various regions of the Arabian Peninsula. This means an ethnic presence that goes back to multiple origins in the Arabian Peninsula; moreover, the deities or beliefs mentioned in the Hegra inscriptions were not limited to what was of Arab origin. The second evidence is the multiplicity of origins of the personal names of the owners of the tombs, some of which are clearly Aramaic, some of which are Aramaic with Arab origins, some of which are clearly Arab, and some of which are very far from the Near East, as some of the names are Greek and others are Roman [40].

This diversity was reflected in the decorations of the facades of the tombs, which were distinguished by a unique style that has no parallel in any other civilization outside the Nabataean cities. Therefore, it can be called the Nabataean style, which is a style that possesses only a few Nabataean elements. Rather, its originality and uniqueness lie in the fact that the Nabataeans collected, in one place, architectural and decorative elements that are extremely diverse and have multiple sources [41]. Some of them were transferred as they were without modification, some of them were subjected to some modifications after they left their original homeland, and some of them were transformed greatly to the point that it becomes difficult to trace their origins [4].

The second hypothesis is that the Egyptian decorative cornice unit was transferred directly from Egypt to Hegra “Mada'in Saleh”. In this case, it should be searched in the history of Egypt and the Nabataeans for a common relationship through which this civilizational transfer could have occurred. Through the available historical information, two aspects of this direct relationship can be deduced:

The first was a peaceful aspect represented in the trade that the Nabataeans practiced with the Egyptians, as the Nabataeans sold tar to the Egyptians who used it in mummification. The Nabataeans made huge profits from this trade [31].

The other aspect was a war side represented in some raids and skirmishes that began when Ptolemy II destroyed the Nabataean fleet in a desire to impose his control over the Red Sea. As a result of the Nabataeans feeling that Ptolemy II threatened their commercial interests, they began to pirate the Ptolemaic ships going to or coming from Egypt and seize their contents. When they sensed the weakness of the Ptolemies’ power, their king, Aretas II, attacked the lands of the Levant and Egypt and seized many spoils [42]. When Julius Caesar besieged Alexandria, at the end of the Ptolemaic rule, the Nabataean king, Malichus I, provided him with a division of his army that helped in destroying the Ptolemaic fleet in Actium [31, 42]. Through these scattered raids, some Egyptian prisoners may have fallen into the hands of the Nabataeans, who were taken to the Nabataean cities, perhaps among them were builders, tomb cutter, sculptors, artisans, and others, where they worked among those who worked in carving tombs in the mountain rocks. Since the Egyptians were one of the nations who excelled and distinguished in carving rock-cut tombs, the Egyptian artisans added to the Nabatean tombs what they used to cut on the facades of their buildings in their original homeland. This assumption could be supported by what could be inferred from the inscriptions in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh”, which showed that many of its tomb owners had high military positions, including “the leader, the captain or the head of the garrison, the flag bearer,” which reflects the military importance of the city of Hegar, as it became an important military base at the end of the first century BC and most of the first century AD [38].

The inscriptions of Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” also confirmed the composition of the Nabataean society in that city, it was composed of various classes, as indicated by the diversity of their names and deities. Despite the absence of explicit Egyptian names in the inscriptions found, there are names that can be linked - without confirmation - to Egyptian origins, such as the name of the sculptor Hor son of Ahi [38], who carved a large tomb dated to the fortieth year of the reign of King Aretas IV. The presence of a person named Abd Isis in Petra [43] is strong evidence, if not of the existence of an Egyptian community or sect there, that at least indicates the extent to which the Nabataeans were influenced by Egyptian thought. This is confirmed by the discovery of parts of a statue of an Egyptian priest in the Temple of the Winged Lions in Petra [44]. In return to this Egyptian presence in the Nabataean cities, there was a Nabataean presence in Egypt; in addition to the ruins of their buildings and two temples in North Sinai [45], it appears that one of their communities resided in the North-eastern Delta, where they built a shrine for their god Dushara in Tell Al-Dafna [46].

This direct contact between the Nabataeans and the Egyptians, whether peaceful or warlike, was a strong factor in the Nabataeans being influenced by Egyptian civilization, whether by what they saw during their trade visits to Egypt or by what the Egyptians, whether residents or prisoners of raids, brought to the Nabataean cities.

This study suggests, through archaeological and historical evidences, that the Egyptian cornice decorative unit reached Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” through two paths together. The indirect path represented by the presence of an intermediary cultural, Jewish, Greek or even Persian, who was influenced by the Egyptian architecture and transferred it to Nabataean architecture. The direct path represented by the presence of direct connections between the Nabataeans and the Egyptians that led to the transfer of some the Egyptian architectural elements to the Nabataean architecture. Perhaps the presence of both paths together is what explains the widespread prevalence of this Egyptian unit in the facades of Nabataean tombs.

If this is the case, the question remains about the limited spread of other Egyptian architectural elements that limited only to the Egyptian Corniche unit, in the Nabataean tombs, especially in light of the presence of other decorative elements originated in different civilizations. Once again, the composition of the Nabataean society explains this diversity and the lack of dominance of one architectural or decorative style on the facades of the tombs of Hegra “Mada'in Saleh”. It is likely that the hands that worked in cutting and carving these tombs belonged to various origins, or at the very least they were Nabataean hands that were influenced by most of the neighbouring and connected civilizations and mixed all of that into a new style that has a harmony and symmetry that does not reflect the multiplicity of origins from which it was transferred. Perhaps this is what most distinguishes the facades of the Nabataean tombs.

Figure 1: The Egyptian Cornice Tops the Chapelle of Senusret I at Karnak (Photo by Author).

Figure 2: The first stone Egyptian cornice Zoser step pyramid complex at Saqqara (after [17]).

Figure 3: The Egyptian cornice tops the pylon of temple of Khonsu at Karnak (Photo by author).

Figure 4: The Egyptian cornice adorns the sarcophagus of Tutankhamun (after [20]).

Figure 5: Details of early Egyptian cornice (after [16]).

Figure6: The Egyptian cornice,with the winged son disc, tops the gate of temple of khonsu at karnak (photo by author).

Figure 7: The Egyptian cornice tops the facades of tombs in Hegra “Mada'in Saleh” (Photo by author).

Figure 8: Qasr al-Farid, the most characteristic tom in Hegra (Photo by author).

Figure 9: The Egyptian cornice tops the façade of tomb no. IGN 22 (photo by author).

 Figure 10: The Egyptian cornice tops the façade of tomb no. IGN 111 (photo by author).

 Figure 11: Tomb of Absalom in Wadi al-Joz (after: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avtomb.JPG).

Figure 12: Tomb of Zechariah in Wadi al-Joz (after: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zetomb.JPG).

1. Al-Ansary A and Abu Al Hassan H. The Civilization of Two cities: Al-Ula and Mada'in Salih. Riyadh: ?Dar Al-Qawafil. 2000.
2. Al-Ghabban A. The Nabataean Tombs of Hegra: A Cultural Synthesis. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy. 2005; 16: 121-145.
3. McKenzie J. The Architecture of Petra Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1990.
4. Jaussen A and Savignac R. Mission Archéologique en Arabie. Paris. 1909.
5. Supreme Commission fot Tourism. Al-Hijr Archaeological Site (Mâdain Sâlih): Nomination Document for the Inscription on UNESCO World Heritage List. Riyadh. 2007.
6. Negev A. The Nabatean Necropolis at Egra Revue Biblique. 1976; 83: 203-236.
7. Hegra Archaeological Site (al-Hijr/Mad? ? in ??li?).
8. Al-Ghabban A (ed). The Roads of Arabia: Archaeology and History of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Paris: Musée du Louvre. 2010.
9. Tschanz D. The Nabataeans: A Brief History of Petra and Madain Saleh. United Kingdom: Medina Publishing. 2012.
10. 
11. 
12. Nehmé L. Guide to Hegra: Archaeology in the Land of the Nabataeans of Arabia. Paris: Skira 2022.
13. Belmonte J, Antonio J, García G, Munirah A, Aparicio U, Antón R et al. Land- and Skyscapes of Hegra: An Archaeoastronomical Analysis of the Nabataean Necropoleis. Nexus Netw. 2024; 26: 275-305.
14. Arnold D. The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture. Princeton University Press. 2003.
15. Clarke S and Engelbach R. Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture. New York. 1990.
16. Badawy A. A History of Egyptian architecture I Cairo. 1954.
17. 
18. Petrie F. Egyptian Decorative Art. New York. 1895.
19. Petrie F. Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt. London. 1910.
20. Carter H. and Mace A. The Tomb of Tutankhamen. 3 vols. London. 1923, 1927, 1933.
21. Fakhry A. The Pyramids Chicago. 1970.
22. De Geus C. Towns in Ancient Israel and in the Southern Levant Leuven. 2003.
23. Petrie F. Tell el Hesy (Lachish) London.1891.
24. Mumford G. "Settlements-Distribution, Structure Architecture: Pharaonic" in: Lloyd A. (ed). A Companion to Ancient Egypt. Oxford. 2010; 1.
25. Badawy A. Architecture in Ancient Egypt and the Near East. Cambridge.1966.
26. Marquand A. Reminiscences of Egypt in Doric Architecture. The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts. 1890; 6: 47-58.
27. Curl J. The Egyptian Revival: Ancient Egypt as Inspiration for Design Motifs in the West. New York. 2005.
28. Healey J. The Nabataean Tomb Inscriptions of Mada'in Salih. Oxford.1993.
29. 
30. Brünnow R and von Domaszewski A. Die Provincia Arabia Strasburg. 1904; 1.
31. 
32. Patrich J. The Formation of Nabatean Art. Jerusalem.1990.
33. Butcher K. Roman Syria and the Near East. London. 2003.
34. Avigad N. Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley. Jerusalem.1954.
35. Barag D. 2000-2001 exploration of the Tombs of Benei Hezir and zechariah. Israel exploration journal. 2003; 53: 78-110.
36. Prag k. Decorative Architecture in Ammon Moab and Judah Levant. 1987; 19:121-7.
37. Hachlili R. Jewish Funerary Customs Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Leiden. 2005.
38. 
39. Kitchen K. Documentation for Ancient Arabia Part I: Chronological Framework and Historical Sources. Liverpool. 1994.
40. 
41. Mckenzie J. Keys from Egypt and the East: Observations on Nabataean Culture in the Light of Recent Discoveries. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 2001; 324: 97-112.
42. 
43. 
44. Meza A. An Egyptian Statuette in Petra. Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan/Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. 1993; 37: 427-31.
45. Gawlikowski M, Hawass Z. and Brock L. The Nabataean temple at Qasrawet In :(eds). Egyptology at the dawn of the twenty-first century: Volume 1: Archaeology. Cairo. 2003.
46. Jones R, Hammond P, Johnson D and Fiema Z. A second Nabataean inscription from Tell esh-Shuqafiya Egypt. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 1988; 269: 47-57.