Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV (Jerash Papers, 9) 9782503596662, 2503596665

Citation preview

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics

JERASH PAPERS General Editors Achim Lichtenberger, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Rubina Raja, Aarhus Universitet

This book has been printed in full colour thanks to the generous support of the

VOLUME 9.1

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV volume i

Architecture and Building Ceramics Edited by

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

© 2022, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2022/0095/190 ISBN: 978-2-503-59666-2 (2-volume set) e-ISBN: 978-2-503-59113-1 DOI: 10.1484/​M.JP-EB.5.121293 ISSN: 2736-7134 e-ISSN: 2736-7142 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper

Contents List of Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 1. Contextualizing Finds from Complex Urban Archaeo­logical Situations: Methodo­logical Considerations on the Architectural Elements, Building Materials, and Mosaics from the Northwest Quarter (2011–2016)

ACHIM LICHTENBERGER and RUBINA RAJA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

PATRIC-ALEXANDER KREUZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3. Byzantine Interior Decorational Elements from the Northwest Quarter

ACHIM LICHTENBERGER and RUBINA RAJA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4. A Monumental Architectural Limestone Block with Altar Icono­graphy

ACHIM LICHTENBERGER and RUBINA RAJA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

PHILIP EBELING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter

PHILIP EBELING and GRY H. BARFOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

7. ‘Misfired’ Ceramic tegulae from the Northwest Quarter

GRY H. BARFOD, PHILIP EBELING, and CHARLES E. LESHER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

About the Authors

List of Illustrations

1. Contextualizing Finds from Complex Urban Archaeo­logical Situations — Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja Figure 1.1.

Map of Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 1.2.

Plan of the Northwest Quarter survey area with all excavated trenches marked.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Patric-Alexander Kreuz Figure 2.1.

Trench S: column with stucco spiral fluting (detail excavation photo­graph). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 2.2.

Trench S: pilaster base (detail excavation photo­graph).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3. Byzantine Interior Decorational Elements from the Northwest Quarter — Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja Figure 3.1.

Fragment of marble sigma table, front side ( J16-Uc-60-42).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 3.2.

Fragment of marble sigma table, backside ( J16-Uc-60-42).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 3.3.

Fragment of limestone chancel screen, front side ( J16-Vf-25-46).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 3.4.

Fragment of limestone chancel screen, backside ( J16-Vf-25-46).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 3.5.

Fragment of limestone chancel screen, bottom ( J16-Vf-25-46).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 3.6.

Fragment of decorated marble relief in champlevé technique, front side ( J16-Wg-107-3x). . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 3.7.

Fragment of decorated marble relief in champlevé technique, backside ( J16-Wg-107-3x). . . . . . . . . . 63

4. A Monumental Architectural Limestone Block with Altar Icono­graphy — Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja Figure 4.1.

Plan of the Northwest Quarter with trench B marked on plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 4.2.

Trench B before excavation — with the top course of the north–south running wall visible. . . . . . . . 66

Figure 4.3.

Trench B at the end of excavation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 4.4.

The monumental limestone block after removal from trench B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

viii

List of Illustrations

Figure 4.5.

Drawing of the monumental block. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 4.6.

Drawing of the top part of the architectural block.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 4.7.

Reconstruction of the entire block with photo of the lower part of the block.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure 4.8.

Hypothetical reconstruction of the original location of the monumental architectural block.. . . . . . 69

Figure 4.9.

Horned altar from Jerash.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure 4.10. Horned altar with stylized bowl visible between the horns from Jerash.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Figure 4.11. Alternative reconstruction of original location.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Figure 4.12. Entrance to the Artemision in Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter — Philip Ebeling Figure 5.1.

Plan of the Northwest Quarter with excavated Trenches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 5.2.

Reconstruction of metro­logy by bottom surface scoring of cat. no. 210 ( J16-Xi-10-15).. . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 5.3.

Examples of flange shapes of roof tiles from the Northwest Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 5.4.

Close-ups of break surfaces of flanges and a drawing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Figure 5.5.

Close-ups of break surfaces of cat. no. 96 and cat. no. 166.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 5.6.

Close-up of the interior flange surface of cat. no. 54.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Figure 5.7.

Close-up of bottom surface with palm branch pattern of cat. no. 196.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 5.8.

Close-up of bottom surface with palm branch pattern of cat. no. 188.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 5.9.

Photo of the top surface with wash of cat. no. 73.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 5.10. Photo of the northern and eastern interior surfaces of ‘Cistern 2’ adjacent to St Theodore. . . . . . . . . 91 6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter — Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod Figure 6.1.

Microphoto of sample no. 20 ( J16-Vh-31-1).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Figure 6.2.

Microphoto of sample no. 13 ( J16-Sd-13-33).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Figure 6.3.

Microphoto of sample no. 15 ( J16-Tb-35-21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Figure 6.4.

Compilation of eight micro­photos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Figure 6.5.

CaO and Fe2O3 of ceramic building material plotted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Figure 6.6.

Fe2O3 and TiO2 of vessel pottery and ceramic building material plotted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Figure 6.7.

CaO and Fe2O3 of all tested ceramic material (vessels and building ceramics) from Jerash compared.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

Figure 6.8.

Microphoto of sample no. 13 ( J16-Sc-13-33).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Figure 6.A1. Body fragment with parts of badly damaged flange of a tegula ( J16-Xc-11-32). .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

List of Illustrations

ix

Figure 6.A2. Lower right corner fragment of a spouted tegula ( J16-Xc-11-4). .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Figure 6.A3. Location of tested areas on the tegula top surface.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Figure 6.A4. Close-up of tested areas of red paint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Figure 6.A5. Close-up of tested areas of black paint.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .186 Table 6.1.

Sample- and ID numbers, typo­logy, period of production, and type of analysis applied to Jerash building ceramic samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Table 6.2a. pXRF results (without Ni and Mg).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Table 6.2b. pXRF calibration standards.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Table 6.3.

Quantification by micrite and argillaceous inclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

Table 6.4.

Quantification of quartz inclusions by ImageJ and manual calculation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Table 6.5. 

ICP-MS results of sherds analysed at the DBM Bochum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Table 6.6.

Previously published chemical groupings for ‘local clay’-based Jerash ceramics.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Table 6.A1. Composition of USGS GSD-1G glass standard by micro-XRF in this study compared to recommended composition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Table 6.A2. Results of the micro-XRF analyses on the top surface of J16-Xc-11-32.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 7. ‘Misfired’ Ceramic tegulae from the Northwest Quarter — Gry H. Barfod, Philip Ebeling, and Charles E. Lesher Figure 7.1.

Photos of samples in this study.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Figure 7.2.

Overview pictures showing fabrics and μ-XRF analysis areas.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Figure 7.3.

Examples of lightly crushed material from melted and non-melted part of Te2 under light microscope.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Figure 7.4.

Close-up image from Bruker μ-XRF of partially melted part of tegula sample Te2.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Figure 7.5.

Variation diagram of CaO (wt%) versus TiO2 (wt%) for the misfired tegulae, cooking ware, and pottery from this study compared to other clay-fired material from the Northwest Quarter. . . 198

Table 7.1.

Overview of colour, composition, and type of fired ceramic material from Gerasa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Table 7.2.

Major and minor elemental data for the Gerasa ceramics obtained by micro-XRF in weight percent (wt%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

1. Contextualizing Finds from Complex Urban Archaeol ­ ogical Situations: Methodol ­ ogical Considerations on the Architectural Elements, Building Materials, and Mosaics from the Northwest Quarter (2011–2016) Achim Lichtenberger Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/​Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. [email protected]

Rubina Raja Centre for Urban Network Evolutions/​Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark. [email protected]

Contextualizing Fill Layers and in-situ Contexts in the Northwest Quarter of Gerasa Gerasa’s archaeo­logy is abundant and complex as more than a century of archaeo­logical research of the site has shown over again. 1 Since 2011, the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project has undertaken archaeo­logical research in the highest area within the walled city.2 The surface and geophysical surveys (2011) and subsequent excavation campaigns (2012–2016) yielded vast amounts of finds, most of which were found in pre-modern fill layers dating to different periods. 3 Across twenty-four trenches excavated over five campaigns, only relatively few objects stem from in-situ contexts, i.e. contexts in which the objects were left in primary use.4 It is clear that most archaeo­logical contexts in 1  Kraeling 1938; Zayadine 1986; Parapetti 1989; Barnes and others 2006; Blanke, Lorien, and Rattenborg 2010; Blanke 2016; 2018; Rattenborg and Blanke 2017; Walmsley 2011; 2018; RassonSeigne, Seigne, and Tholbecq 2018; Rasson-Seigne and Seigne 2020. For chrono­logical overviews and further literature, see also Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a; 2018c; 2019a; 2020d. 2  See figshare for a full list of the publications from the project: . 3  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; 2014; 2015; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b); Lichten­ berger and Raja 2012; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013; 2014; 2015. 4  For the more than 600,000 ceramic sherds, see for example Romanowska, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2021; Romanowska and others 2021.

the Northwest Quarter held finds from different periods and more often than not were part of later layers/​contexts in which these material groups had been used as deliberate fill material either in connection with destructions of earlier complexes or in connection with reuse of earlier complexes or reorganization of later complexes.5 These mixed contexts prevailing in the excavations point to the conclusion that the area had been intensely used and reused over several centuries.6 In earlier publications, we have tackled some of the evidence from fill layer contexts, which illuminate earlier Roman-period activity in the Northwest Quarter.7 However, in this volume the evidence is presented in its entirety for material groups relating directly to architectural decoration, including architectural elements, wall paintings, mosa5  Lichtenberger and Raja 2020c; 2020g; 2021. Also see Aliquot 2008; Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a; 2018b; 2019a; 2019b; 2019c; 2020d; 2020f. 6   We have presented our findings in elaborate preliminary reports submitted to the Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan every year after the campaigns: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; 2014; 2015; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b); Lichtenberger and Raja 2012; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013; 2014; 2015. 7  Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b; 2020d; 2020e; 2020f; 2020h. Also see the full project biblio­g raphy for further publications concerning the Roman-period finds: .

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume  i: Architecture and Building Ceramics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 1–10 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126436

2

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Figure 1.1. Map of Gerasa (after Lichtenberger, Raja, and Stott 2019).

1. Contextualizing Finds from Complex Urban Archaeo­logical Situations

MAP OF GERASA LEGEND 1 Extramural arch (‘Hadrian’s Arch’) 2 Church of Bishop Marianos 3 Hippodrome 4 Sanctuary of Zeus Olympios 5 South Gate 6 Water Gate 7 City walls 8 Shops and structures along the South Gate street 9 South Theatre 10 South-East Gate (blocked) 11 Procopius Church 12 ‘Oval Piazza’ 13 Roman house or church 14 ‘Camp Hill’ (location of modern museum) 15 Byzantine villa 16 Agora (‘Macellum’) 17 Area of the House of the Blues 18 South Bridge 19 Possible South-West Aqueduct 20 East Baths 21 Mortuary Church

22 Late Antique and Early Islamic structures 23 South Tetrapylon 24 Church of Sts Peter and Paul 25 Side street (‘South Decumanus’) 26 Mosque 27 Main Street (‘cardo’) 28 Early Islamic domestic quarter 29 Cathedral complex 30 ‘Temple C’ 31 Church of St Theodore and Fountain Court 32 Nymphaion 33 Buildings west of the Wadi 34 Small Eastern Baths 35 Chapel of Elia, Mary, and Soreg 36 South-West Gate 37 Churches of Sts George, John, Cosmas, and Damian 38 Approximate location of ‘House of the Poets and Muses’ 39 Ecclesiastic complexes and Baths of Placcus 40 Propylaea Church 41 Church of Bishop Genesius 42 Ottoman House

ics, and building ceramics. The majority of finds were found in fill layers and reuse contexts of various nature. Exceptions are in-situ architecture such as walls, floors, and mosaics e.g. of the sixth century ad in the so-called Mosaic Hall of the Electi Iustiniani and the finds stemming directly from the earthquake-destroyed contexts.8 Since we within the framework of the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project have taken a full quantification approach, meaning that we have registered and documented all finds from the excavation, we have also decided to publish each find group as comprehensively as possible. This is done despite the fact that a high number of typo­logically and chrono­logically undiagnostic objects are presented — for example in the case of the wall paintings as well as the building ceramic material. Nonetheless, we have found this important, since it is only possible to gain a better insight into the complex history of the area through such an approach. 8 

See Wootton (in this volume). As well as Lichtenberger and Raja 2018d; Haensch, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2016.

3

43 West Baths 44 Large rock-cut cistern 45 Sanctuary of Artemis 46 North Theatre 47 Spring (Ain Karawan) 48 Synagogue/Church of the Electi Iustiniani 49 Church of Bishop Isaiah 50 Side street (‘North Decumanus’) 51 North Tetrapylon 52 Hall of the Electi Iustiniani 53 Umayyad houses 54 Middle Islamic hamlet (and large courtyard) 55 Church of the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs 56 Large open area (‘forum’) and basilica 57 Roman edifice and cistern 58 Middle Islamic structures 59 Circassian house 60 North-West Aqueduct 61 Early modern water channel 62 North Gate 63 Chrysorrhoas/Wadi Jerash

Furthermore, this approach also contributes most broadly to the general knowledge of the archaeo­logy and history of the region in general. The lack of publications of such material from other earlier or ongoing excavations means that it is difficult to gain sufficient understanding of for example regional and interregional networks of production and exchange.9 Because of the large amount of material, the final publi­c ations volume iv has been divided into two. Volume i includes the architectural elements dispersed across three contributions as well as building ceramics, also dispersed across three contributions. Volume ii includes the publication of the wall paintings across two contributions, as well as the mosaics also across two contributions.10 Both volumes also cover the results of 9  I.e. Bes and others 2020. However, also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2020e. 10  It should be noted that parts of the glass tesserae have been included in the final publications volume iii in the substantial chapter on the glass finds from the excavation by Jackson-Tal 2021. Also see Boschetti and others 2021.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

4

Figure 1.2. Plan of the Northwest Quarter survey area with all excavated trenches marked. Unless otherwise indicated, all images in this volume are reproduced courtesy of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project.

archaeometric analyses, which have been undertaken in connection with the materials. Together these volumes present the most extensive publication of finds connected to the archaeo­logy of buildings in Gerasa, since the publication edited by C. H. Kraeling from 1938.11 However, two big differences — apart from the general advances made in archaeo­logical methodo­logies since then — from the 1938 publication are that the excavations in the Northwest Quarter were undertaken across twenty-four fairly small trenches and were limited to an area that covered only about four hectares, and that they focused on understanding the settlement history of the Northwest Quarter across all periods (Figs 1.1 and 1.2), contextualizing the development within the broader narrative of Gerasa/​Jerash’s archaeo­logy and history.12 11  12  

Kraeling 1938. Also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2020a for an approach

While each contribution in the present volumes presents the finds in the most comprehensive manner, they do not discuss these within the context of the respective strati­g raphy or across material groups in much detail. Therefore in this introductory contribution we aim to disentangle a number of specific and more general issues, which should be brought to the forefront concerning the strati­g raphic contexts. Issues include: the often heavily disturbed strati­g raphies, the nature of the fragmented material, reuse and recycling of older material, as well as the impact of natural catastrophes on the archaeo­ which testified to the approach applied in the project as well as Brugh­mans and others (2021). Also see Brughmans and others (2021) for a call for the implementation of new research agendas in general based on the approach applied with the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project during its lifetime (2011–2017). Also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b; 2020e; 2020f as well as the preliminary reports from the project (referenced in n. 6).

1. Contextualizing Finds from Complex Urban Archaeo­logical Situations logy in general.13 The aspects covered here might not be relevant in all our encountered archaeo­logical contexts, but they are important in the context of Gerasa, due to the multi-period phases of the site and the continuous use and reuse of structures and elements from structures. Furthermore, from a methodo­logical perspective it is crucial to bring these issues to the forefront and to make available the archaeo­logical evidence that we have gained from these excavations to other scholars in order to allow them to conduct comparative or further studies of the material. Apart from trenches K, P, and V on the so-called East Terrace as well as trench U on the South Slope, which held a set of houses stemming from the Early Islamic period and destroyed by the violent ad 749 earthquake, all trenches held strati­g raphies which were often disturbed by reuse and reorganization.14 Massive fill layers, which had been produced in connection with either closure of destroyed complexes or with intense reorganization of spaces were found in trenches A, S, N, J, F, X, L, O, and B. The trenches on the north slope of the Northwest Quarter, H, G, R, I, and M, had all been filled in over time, partly due to erosion, while trenches C, D, and E belonged to middle Islamic contexts, on top of earlier structures.15 The fill layers in trenches B, J, and N are of a special nature, since they held enormous amounts of fragmented ceramics from the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, and the character of the fill layers opens questions about the way in which such material could be used for reorganization projects and about who in fact administered such material for broader use. The same goes for the fill layers in trenches F, L, O, and X — but to a much lesser degree than the three former trenches. Trenches A and S also present a special case, since the fill layers in these trenches, which both belonged to a well-constructed cistern, had been filled in intentionally and in one go, partly comprising building materials from the building which had been standing on top of and next to the cistern. Trench H held an inverted strati­graphy, which had accumulated over time, as material had slipped down the hill towards the north. The same was the case for trenches G and R, which held almost no archaeo­logical material. Trench I, comprising 13  For our strati­graphic observations presented until now, see the extensive preliminary reports (referenced in n. 6). 14  Lichtenberger and others 2016; Lichtenberger and Raja 2017. Also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2019a; 2019b. 15  See Lichtenberger and Raja 2020b for a description of the excavation and the trenches and their chrono­logies.

5

a rock-cut cave with a built structure in front, had been in use in the middle Islamic period, and trench M was a re-excavation of an earlier excavation done during the Jerash International Project in the 1980s.16 Only little of the material originally dates to the periods in which it strati­g raphically was found. Numerous of the objects were not encountered in locations directly related to their primary uses, but in contexts into which they were brought for secondary usages. We here apply primary use as a definition for objects in situ in their first phase of usage. Secondary use we define as objects from contexts, in which these were either originally used as spolia or were deposited as fill material. In a location such as Gerasa, where the settlement over time underwent profound changes, this methodo­logical separation between (1) primary use (original use) and (2) secondary use, including the subcategories of (2a) spolia and (2b) fills, is relevant to better understand the ways in which these material groups were used and circulated over centuries. Secondary could also imply several further phases of usage, since at a site such as Gerasa reorganizations of spaces and materials took place on many occasions over time. (1) Primary Use and (2a) Spolia Collapsed material in primary use phases is clear in the ad  749 earthquake-destroyed trenches K, P, V, and U.  Much of the material deposited in these trenches stems from the latest phase of use, the Umayyad period, and can be assigned to primary uses.17 However, it is also clear that several spolia had been integrated into these Umayyad structures. Noticeably, also roof tiles fall into this category. The roof tiles from the earthquakedestroyed levels did not belong to tiled roofs of the Umayyad houses, but had been collected from older buildings that most likely had fallen out of use. The roof tiles found in these early Islamic secondary contexts usually date to the Byzantine or Early Islamic periods, suggesting that they had not been out of their primary contexts for a long time but only fairly recently had entered recycling usage-patterns. In a few cases, much older spolia were found in reuse situations, as for example the architectural elements J15-Pe-72-1 and J16-Ud-1-25 dated to the Roman and Late Roman periods on stylistic grounds.

16  17 

Clark and Bowsher 1986. Lichtenberger and others 2016; Lichtenberger and Raja 2017.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

6 (2b) Fills and (2a) Spolia Intentional fill layers, which in antiquity were deposited in structures or outside them to level these in connection with reorganization of spaces, we categorize as secondary use. The materials that were brought in to be part of these fills could originally stem from areas close by or farther away. In trenches A and S, a large amount of material was found in the fill layers. Originally, this material most likely did not belong to the cistern structure itself but to another structure or building — probably of the same date — that stood on top of the cistern. Among the material were numerous fragments of architectural decoration and sculptural fragments as well, but also wall decoration (some of which could have belonged to category (1), namely the primary use phase of the cistern). It is methodo­logically nearly impossible to discern (2a) spolia among the fill material in trenches A and S, but it seems unlikely that noteworthy amounts of spolia were used in the fill layers, since the material from trenches A and S is chrono­logically overall homogenous, dating to the Roman period. Only the roof tiles were most likely (2a) spolia that ended up in a (2b) fill, since there are no indications for an originally tiled roof anywhere in this area. There are, however, other significant find situations, such as trench B, in which large amounts of a (2b) secondary fill consisting almost exclusively of fragmented pottery was excavated in a room that in its last phase of use had housed an oil press. In the oil press, a large worked stone, which had earlier belonged to an architectural complex, had been integrated as a spolia.18 The same kind of dense ceramic fill situation (2b) was found in trench J excavated over two campaigns. The dense ceramic fill layers in trenches B and J point to the conclusion that the use of ceramics in fill layers must have been organized, since the amounts are large, and we have to envision that such ceramics or fragments of them might in fact have been stored somewhere and could be used for such purposes as filling in large structures that needed to be levelled for spatial reorganization projects — which could have taken place for a variety of reasons.

The Contexts and Distribution of the Materials The Architectural Elements as a Case Study A systematic overview of distributions across all trenches of material groups will be undertaken in the final publication volume on the strati­g raphy of the excavation, 18 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a.

but here we highlight the architectural elements found across trenches as a case study pertaining to our outline above. This is done, since the architectural elements can be fairly easily systematized according to those groups, and since the final strati­graphic evaluation is needed in order to entirely understand the contexts of the other groups. In the contribution by P.-A. Kreuz, eighty-two architectural elements all stemming from secondary contexts are included. Nineteen are bases, twenty are capitals, two stem from cornices/​entablatures, fifteen are column drums, fifteen fragments of mouldings, and eleven are miscellaneous fragments. The column drums cannot be dated by typo­logy and are therefore left undated in the catalogue by Kreuz. However, there is otherwise a clear tendency of most elements dating to the Roman period, with one piece potentially dating as early as between the first century bc and first century ad. In total, there are thirty-nine elements which are firmly dated to the Roman period and five to the Late Roman period as well as eight elements from the Byzantine period. The rest remain undated (primarily column drums). The distribution across trenches of the elements is listed in the contribution by Kreuz as following: trenches with one architectural element: B (cat. no. 60), F (cat. no. 62), H (cat. no. 18), O (cat. no. 75), Q (cat. no. 40), T (cat. no. 80), and X (cat. no. 14). Trenches with two architectural elements: W (cat. nos 76 and 79). Trenches with three architectural elements: J (cat. nos 8, 71, 74) and N (cat. nos 36, 37, 77). Trenches with four architectural elements: C (cat. nos 3, 5, 6, 61), D (cat. nos 7, 10, 24, 25), K (cat. nos 26, 34, 63, 64), and U (cat. nos 45, 46, 57, 66). Trenches with five architectural elements: P (cat. nos 1, 65, 72, 73, 78) and with six: A (cat. nos 17, 20, 21, 42, 43, 44). Twenty-seven architectural elements belonged to trench V.19 Some were also found in trench S.20 None were found in trenches E, G, I, L, and R. Trench M was a sondage in an area that already had been partly excavated in the 1980s. The elements are not included here, since the area was partly — unsystemati19 

Kreuz (in this volume), cat. nos 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 67, 68, 69, and 70. 20  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), for trench S. See the contribution by Kreuz (in this volume) for the elements observed in trench S, which include four architectural elements. Further architectural elements from trench S include a fragment of an Ionic capital (cat. no. 32), a loculus block made of marble for a reliquary (cat. no. 81), and two limestone blocks with a partially preserved connecting iron clamp (cat. no. 82).

1. Contextualizing Finds from Complex Urban Archaeo­logical Situations cally — archaeo­logically investigated already, and since it had not been published in its entirety then, we cannot evaluate the archaeo­logical situation satisfactorily. The dominance of Roman-period architectural elements found in the Northwest Quarter excavations is remarkable, since strati­graphically speaking, the Roman period is underrepresented in this area. Roman-period constructions are mainly related to water supply infrastructure.21 Therefore, it is one hypothesis that most of the Roman-period spolia did not originate from Roman structures in the Northwest Quarter but might have been moved there from other areas of the ancient city. Another possibility is that the development and reorganization of the Northwest Quarter was so intense that most traces of the periods before the Late Roman period have disappeared through demolition undertaken in antiquity. A third possibility is that we have not excavated in the places where Roman in-situ structures still are present. Overall, Roman structures were found in trenches A and S (the monumental cistern on top of the hill) and in trench F (the rock-cut cistern of Roman date on the south slope). It is clear that the early Islamic domestic structures in trenches K, P, V, and U hold by far the most reused earlier architectural elements, followed by the fill layers in trenches A and S. While it might not be surprising that Roman and Byzantine architectural elements were reused in the Umayyad period, it is the first time that such reuse in domestic contexts has been systematically documented in Jerash. The documentation shows that reuse was intense and deliberate and that the construction materials, the spolia, were available in the Early Islamic period and used widely in these domestic contexts. It is particularly interesting to note that the house that was undergoing restoration, partly excavated in trenches P and V, incorporated by far the most elements, a total of thirty-two architectural elements in some sort of reusage phases — both as building materials but also for decorative purposes. The Wall Paintings, Building Ceramics, and Mosaic Materials As is evident, the excavations yielded numerous fragments of painted wall decorations dating to a variety of periods. These were found in fairly fragmented states, not surprisingly, since due to their compositions and depositional situations they had deteriorated and been 21  

Lichtenberger and others 2015; Lichtenberger and Raja 2016; Stott and others 2018.

7

destroyed. Most wall paintings were found in fill layers in trenches N, W, J, and not least trenches A and S. In all these dense fill layers, the fragments had been used as fill material and must have come from building complexes that had been destroyed and had gone out of use. In the case of trenches A and S, the numerous fragments most likely stemmed from the building which had stood on top of the cistern. In the staircase leading down into the cistern — the part revealed in trench S — in-situ wall paintings were found in several layers, which provide solid comparative material to several of the fragments found in the fill layers in trench S. The numerous fragments from trenches N, W, and J seem to have been of Roman date, but cannot be connected directly to any specific complex. In the early Islamic houses in trenches K, P, and V further fragments belonging to these phases of the houses were found, underlining the continuation of the painted wall decoration tradition into the Early Islamic period. The ex-situ mosaic material found in the excavations belonged to fill layers as well, and in the case of trenches N, W, J, as well as A and S these finds went hand in hand with the finds of wall painting fragments. The mosaic material in the fill layers was not as abundant as the wall painting material, which might point to the conclusion that mosaic stones, the tesserae, were targeted for reuse and recycling to a much higher degree than wall paintings, which at most would have served in lime slack burning situations. The systematic overview given of the building ceramics underlines that reuse of roof tiles was exercised in antiquity and the Early Islamic period, but that this kind of material was not reused in its original usage contexts, as roof tiles, but was incorporated into building materials in other ways. This first and foremost underlines the fact that the private houses excavated in trenches K, P, V, and U did not have tiled roofs, but had flat stamped roofs. It is clear from the short summaries of these categories of material that they do not give us the same possibility for systematic study and comparison as the architectural elements. Although reuse and recycling of these materials also took place, we cannot trace this if the material had been recycling through remelting or lime-slacking processes, and the pure nature of the material did not invite to the same systematic reuse as that of the architectural element. Nonetheless, the reuse and recycling processes of these categories are important to consider since they, as in the case with the early Islamic houses, inform us about the change in roofing traditions, underlining that building techniques changed significantly over time.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

8

Conclusion: The Significance of Full Quantification and Detailed Documentation of Find Situations Above we have described the various kinds of reuse present in the archaeo­logical contexts we have encountered in the Northwest Quarter. We have outlined the main situations and underlined the importance of distinguishing between various kinds of reuse in order to better begin to understand the nature of the various archaeo­logical contexts but also about the general settlement history of the area and depositional processes. On the one hand, the full quantification approach taken within the project from its outset has facilitated such analysis. On the other hand, the analysis of specialists presenting the various material groups in their fullest extent regarding dating on the basis of style and sometimes material composition has added to the holistic overview which we now have been able to gain. In recent publications, we have shown in which ways the full quantification of for example the ceramic material from the excavations has changed the picture of how we must view Gerasa’s long tradition for producing and using its own pottery. 22 While the pottery of course is a very different material group than architecture and building ceramics, the full quantification approach when combined with a context analysis can certainly be applied with good results to a range of other material groups as we hope to have shown here.

Acknowledgements The project directors thank the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (Amman and Jerash) for supporting our research since 2011. We would also like to thank the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project’s team members for their dedicated work. The work of the Project was in various constellations between 2011 and 2020 supported by the Carlsberg Foundation, the Danish National Research Foundation under the grant DNRF119 — Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Deutscher Palästina-Verein, the EliteForsk initiative of the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, and H. P. Hjerl Hansens Mindefondet for Dansk Palæstinaforskning. A large thank you goes to Mie Egelund Lind and Dr Eva Mortensen (both at the Centre for Urban Network Evolutions, Aarhus) for the professional editing of the manuscript. Thanks also go to Lianna Hecht (Münster) for reworking figures. At Brepols, we thank Rosie Bonté for the professional handling of the publication process, Tim Barnwell for copyediting, and Martine MaguireWeltecke for the layout of the book. Furthermore we are grateful to the Carlsberg Foundation for support to print these volumes in colour. Aarhus and Münster, March 2022

22 

Romanowska, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2021; Romanowska and others 2021.

Works Cited Aliquot, J. 2008. ‘Sanctuaries and Villages on Mt Hermon during the Roman Period’, in T. Kaizer (ed.), The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (Leiden: Brill), pp. 73–96. Barnes, H. and others. 2006. ‘From “Guard House” to Congregational Mosque: Recent Discoveries on the Urban History of Islamic Jarash’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan, 50: 285–314. Bes, P. and others. 2020. ‘Ceramics in Cities in Context: An Overview of Published Roman Imperial to Umayyad Pottery in the Southern Levant’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, Jerash Papers, 5 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 55–118. Blanke, L. 2016. ‘Late Antique Jarash Project’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 120: 643–45. —— 2018. ‘Abbasid Jerash Reconsidered: Suburban Life in Jerash’s Southwest District over the Longue Durée’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 39–48. Blanke, L., D. Lorien, and R. Rattenborg. 2010. ‘Changing Cityscapes in Central Jarash: Between Late Antiquity and the Abbasid Period’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 54: 311–27. Boschetti, C. and others. 2021. ‘Loose Glass Tesserae and Lost Decorations: Chrono­logy and Production of Mosaics from Gerasa’s Northwest Quarter’, Archaeometry . Brughmans, T. and others. 2021. ‘Urbanization and Riverine Hinterlands: A Proposal for an Integrative High-Definition and MultiScalar Approach to Understanding Ancient Cities and their Dynamic Natural Resources’, Journal of Urban Archaeo­logy, 4: 33–59 .

1. Contextualizing Finds from Complex Urban Archaeo­logical Situations

9

Clark, V. A. and J. M. C. Bowsher. 1986. ‘A Note on Soundings in the Northwestern Quarter of Jerash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project: 1981–1983, i (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 343–49. Haensch, R., A.  Lichtenberger, and R.  Raja. 2016. ‘Christen, Juden und Soldaten im Gerasa des 6. Jhr.  Neue archäo­logisch-epi­ graphische Befunden’, Chiron, 46: 177–204. Jackson-Tal, R. E. 2021. ‘The Glass Finds from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Glass, Lamps, and Jerash Bowls: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, iii, Jerash Papers, 8 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 13–49. Kalaitzoglou, G., A.  Lichtenberger, and R.  Raja. 2013. ‘Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 57–79. —— 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jarash North-West Quarter Project 2013. Preliminary Field Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 11–37. —— 2015. ‘Preliminary Report of the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 11–43. Kalaitzoglou, G. and others (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. —— (forthcoming b). ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 61. Kraeling, C.  H. (ed.). 1938. Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). Lichtenberger, A. and others. 2015. ‘Radiocarbon Analysis of Mortar from Roman and Byzantine Water Management Installations in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash, Jordan’, Journal of Archaeo­logical Science: Reports, 2: 114–27. Lichtenberger, A. and others. 2016. ‘A Newly Excavated Private House in Jerash: Reconsidering Aspects of Continuity and Change in Material Culture from Late Antiquity to the Early Islamic Period’, Antiquité Tardive, 24: 317–59. Lichtenberger, A. and others. 2021. ‘Scaling up and Zooming in: Global History and High-Definition Archaeo­logy Perspectives on the Longue Durée of Urban–Environmental Relations in Gerasa ( Jerash, Jordan)’, Journal of Global History, 16 . Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja. 2012. ‘Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Danish-German Northwest Quarter Project 2011’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 56: 231–40. —— 2015a. ‘An Architectural Block with Altar-Icono­graphy from the North-West Quarter of Jerash’, Levant, 47: 112–30. —— 2015b. ‘New Archaeo­logical Research in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash and its Implications for the Urban Development of Roman Gerasa’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 119: 483–500. —— 2016. ‘Living with and on the River-Side: The Example of Roman Antiochia-on-the-Chrysorrhoas-Formerly-Called-Gerasa’, in J. Kuhlmann Madsen, N. O. Andersen, and I. Thuesen (eds), Water of Life: Festschrift for Peder Mortensen, Proceedings of the Danish Institute in Damascus, 11 (Copenhagen: Orbis), pp. 98–117. —— 2017. ‘Mosaicists at Work: The Organisation of Mosaic Production in the Early Islamic Jerash’, Antiquity, 91.358: 998–1010. —— (eds). 2018a. Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols). —— 2018b. ‘Middle Islamic Jerash through the Lens of the Longue Durée’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 5–36. —— (eds). 2018c. The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols). —— 2018d. ‘From Synagogue to Church: The Appropriation of the Synagogue in Gerasa/​Jerash under Justinian’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 61: 85–98. —— (eds). 2019a. Byzantine and Umayyad Periods in Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols). —— 2019b. ‘Defining Borders: The Umayyad-Abbasid Transition and the Earthquake of ad 749 in Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 265–86. —— 2019c. ‘Introduction: The Conundrum of Chrono­logies of the Byzantine and Umayyad Periods in Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R.  Raja (eds), Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 1–6. —— 2020a. ‘Antioch on the Chrysorrhoas – Formerly Called Gerasa. Perspectives on Bio­graphies of a Place’, Journal of Urban Archaeo­logy, 2: 151–72. —— 2020b. ‘A New Perspective on Gerasa/​Jerash through the Findings of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Environmental Studies, Remote Sensing, and Modelling: Final Publications from the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, i, Jerash Papers, 6 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 1–44.

10

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

—— (eds). 2020c. Environmental Studies, Remote Sensing, and Modelling: Final Publications from the Danish-German Northwest Quarter Project I, Jerash Papers, 6 (Turnhout: Brepols). —— (eds). 2020d. Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, Jerash Papers, 5 (Turnhout: Brepols). —— 2020e. ‘Invisible Pasts, Urban Fates, and the Central Role of Ceramics: Gerasa in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, Jerash Papers, 5 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 1–5. —— 2020f. ‘Late Hellenistic and Roman Antiochia on the Chrysorrhoas, also Called Gerasa: A  Reappreciation of the Urban Development in the Light of the Findings of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project (2011–17)’, in A. Lichten­ berger and R.  Raja (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, Jerash Papers, 5 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 7–54. —— (eds). 2020g. Metal Finds and Coins: Final Publications from the Danish-German Northwest Quarter Project II, Jerash Papers, 7 (Turnhout: Brepols). —— 2020h. ‘Roman City Coins of Gerasa: Contextualizing Currency and Circulation from the Hellenistic to the Late Roman Period’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 369–81. —— (eds) 2021. Glass, Lamps, and Jerash Bowls: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, iii, Jerash Papers, 8 (Brepols: Turnhout). Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2013. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan, 57: 9–56. —— 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2013. Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 39–103. —— 2015. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 45–131. Parapetti, R. (ed.). 1989. Jerash Archaeo­logical Project: 1984–1988 (Paris: Geuthner). Rasson-Seigne, A.-M. and J. Seigne. 2020. ‘La céramique importée à Jerash pendant l’époque romaine (fin ier siècle avant J.-C. – fin iiie siècle après J.-C.): l’apport des fouilles du sanctuaire de Zeus’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, Jerash Papers, 5 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 129–44. Rasson-Seigne, A.-M., J. Seigne, and L. Tholbecq. 2018. ‘Une occupation d’époque médiévale dans la sanctuaire de Zeus ( Jérash, Jordanie)’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 65–96. Rattenborg, R. and L. Blanke. 2017. ‘Jarash in the Islamic Ages (c. 700–1200 ce): A Critical Review’, Levant, 49: 1–21. Romanowska, I., A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja. 2021. ‘Trends in Ceramic Assemblages from the Northwest Quarter of Gerasa/​ Jerash, Jordan’, Journal of Archaeo­logical Science: Reports . Romanowska, I. and others. 2021. ‘A Study of the Centuries-Long Reliance on Local Ceramics in Jerash through Full Quantification and Simulation’, Journal for Archaeo­logical Method and Theory . Stott, D. and others. 2018. ‘Mapping an Ancient City with a Century of Remotely Sensed Data’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115.24: E5450–58 . Walmsley, A. 2011. ‘Trends in the Urban History of Eastern Palaestina Secunda during the Late Antique–Early Islamic Transition’, in A. Borrut and others (eds), Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides: peuplement et dynamiques spatiales; actes du colloque ‘Continuités de l’occupation entre les périodes byzantine et abbasside au Proche-Orient, viie-ixe siècles,’ Paris, 18–20 octobre 2007 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 271–84. —— 2018. ‘Urbanism at Islamic Jerash: New Readings from Archaeo­logy and History’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 241–56. Zayadine, F. (ed.). 1986. Jerash Archaeo­logical Project: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan).

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash Patric-Alexander Kreuz Institut für Altertumskunde, Abt. Klassische Archäo­logie/​Urban Archaeo­logy, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel. [email protected]

Introduction This contribution presents the architectural stone elements (decorated, worked with plain mouldings, elements of colonnaded orders) documented during the 2011–2016 campaigns in the Northwest Quarter.1 Kept in the depot of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities in Jerash or lying still in the field in the Northwest Quarter, they have all been photo­graphed, and for most of them drawings exist. It was possible for me to study nearly all of them, except for those pieces used as spolia in later contexts and left in situ before the trenches were back-filled at the end of the field campaigns.2 Architectural decoration is a surprisingly neglected field among the studies on ancient Gerasa. Some aspects of the ornamentation of individual buildings are mentioned e.g. in Carl  H. Kraeling’s still fundamental study on Gerasa,3 but are e.g. not included into Roberto Parapetti’s survey and documentation of the city’s main colonnade.4 And although the main colon1  I am indebted to Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja for the opportunity to study the pieces of architectural decoration. In addition, I wish to thank all the members of the Danish-German team who have recorded, drawn, and photo­graphed the pieces during the campaigns and those who have helped me during my visits from Amman in 2017 to make this study possible, above all Robert Dylka, Philip Ebeling, and Line Egelund. 2  Some architectural elements mentioned have been brought to my attention only after the conclusion of the manu­script and are therefore not among the pieces included in the catalogue. Besides some of the frequent, often unspecified column drums reused as building material especially during the Umayyad period (see below), this applies in particular to the important find of a column drum lined with stucco found in trench S (see below; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench S, ev. 73). 3  Kraeling 1938. 4  Parapetti 1984.

nade’s capitals and their stylistic analysis resulting in a complex building history from the early second to the third centuries ad figure prominently in the study of Marianne Tabaczek,5 they are published without illustrations. Only recently, studies focus on aspects of architectural decoration, either of individual complexes or within regional perspectives.6 An important exception is Mohammad Nasser’s ‘The Architectural Elements and Decoration at Gerasa ( Jerash) during the Roman Period (Typo­logical and Comparative Studies)’ with its focus on the monumental orders of prominent Romanperiod architectural complexes.7 Yet the scope of his study is limited — not only by its focus on the Roman Imperial period. Consisting of a descriptive analysis of the decorative apparatus of capitals and entablatures, it only addresses the most obvious elements of ornamental effort, neglecting e.g. column bases. The focus of the present study is a different one. Discussed are the finds of the six years of fieldwork undertaken by the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project in an urban area lacking evidence for Hellenistic and Roman-period monumental public architecture, and instead characterized by a long history of construction, destruction, demolition, rebuilding, and reuse of older structures and building material from the (Late) Roman to the Middle Islamic period. All decorative elements included in this study were formerly part of older architecture from the city, i.e. their last contexts of reuse (and discovery) in the Northwest Quarter mark only a final stage of their local ‘itineraries’. 5 

Tabaczek 2001. E.g. March 2004; Peleg-Barkat 2011; Seigne 2014. 7  Nasser 2004. 6 

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume  i: Architecture and Building Ceramics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 11–60 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126437

12

Types The catalogue with its eighty-two entries comprises various architectural elements, among them larger sized elements of more monumental architectural arrangements, smaller elements of secondary installations or elements of ‘architectural furniture’, complete pieces, as well as fragments of different size. They include nineteen bases, twenty capitals and fragments of capitals, fifteen column drums, two elements of entablature (one cornice, one fragment of an architrave), fifteen mouldings, and eleven miscellaneous pieces. In their majority, they represent the standard types and forms of Roman and late Roman architectural decoration like Attic-Ionic bases or Ionic and Corinthian capitals. However, several of the pieces widen the range of architectural decoration usually addressed in studies of Gerasene architecture. The general nature of the decorated architectural elements is a heterogeneous one, as might be expected from a city with a millennium-long history of building initiatives, architectural embellishment, as well as constant reuse of older architectural structures and building materials within the cityscape. Yet despite all varieties in material, quality of workmanship, and types, the local decorative elements fit into the general picture and modi of the ‘globalized’ Roman- and Byzantine-period architectural decoration of the region, applying an ornamental vocabulary following for the most part standard models. Occasional pieces of high quality like the marble Corinthianizing capital (cat. no.  39) or the Ionic cyma (cat. no. 59) stand in contrast to a large number of elements exhibiting a rather schematic, sometimes imprecise or even reduced workmanship of their ornaments. In addition, the preservation of most elements is not very good. The majority are broken or preserved only in smaller fragments, especially Ionic or Corinthian capitals are often very fragmented. The surface of most elements is weathered and worn. Completely lacking are e.g. complete Corinthian capitals or frieze blocks, with only one architrave and cornice block documented. Bases (cat. nos 1–19) Of the nineteen bases — column-, pilaster-, or antabases — three are simple torus bases (cat. nos 1, 2, and 3), while sixteen follow the Attic Ionic type with its standard sequence of tori, scotia, and fillets. The bases are often worked with the lower part of the column. Only around half of the bases comprise a plinth (cat. nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10). The plinths, or rather pedestals,

Patric-Alexander Kreuz of two bases are octagonal (cat. nos 6 and 10). Unique among the finds is the simple torus base cat. no. 1 with its high pedestal of several superimposed mouldings and a pulvinated middle zone. The dimensions of the bases vary. The preserved diameters of their upper bearing surface (corresponding to the lower diameters of the supported column and therefore indicating the size of the former architectural arrangement) range from 13.5  cm to reconstructed 82 cm. Two main groups can be identified: bases with a diameter of 13.5 to 28 cm (cat. nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 14) that can be connected to miniature or small-scale architectural installations like e.g. the framing of niches, and bases with a diameter of 43 to 53 cm (cat. nos 4, 7(?), 9, 10, 16, and 18) that may have belonged to secondary colonnaded arrangements. Only three bases are of a larger diameter (cat. no. 12: 61 cm; cat. no. 17: W: 70 cm; cat. no. 8: reconstructed 82 cm). The proportions of the mouldings of the bases vary too. They include surprisingly shallow, squat, rounded, nearly angular or steep versions of tori and scotiae. Yet with only some exceptions, most of the versions fit into the overall range of the bases known from the local monumental architecture of the Roman period (second/​third centuries ad). This also applies to some bases whose upper part of the rounded lower torus is sunken towards the centre of the base, like the two bases with an octagonal plinth cat. nos 6 and 10, or cat. no. 1 with its pedestal of several superimposed mouldings. These forms find — although of different size — their formal parallels among some of the most prominent architectures in Jerash.8 Several bases show rectangular vertical recesses cut into the base and its mouldings (cat. nos 2, 4, 9, 10, 16; several with two recesses, on opposite sides). Their mostly rough execution and the sometimes even differing size indicate a reuse or adaption of the bases involving their preparation for the insertion of a railing or screen.9 8  Bases with a slightly sunken lower torus e.g. in the Temple of Zeus or in front of the Church of St John the Baptist; bases of different dimensions with octagonal plinths and/​or pulvinated element are known from many different Roman and Byzantine period contexts, e.g. the South Decumanus, the Church of Sts Peter and Paul, the Atrium of the Church of St Theodore, the Cathedral Propylon, the so-called Synagogue Church, now Church of the Electi Iustiniani (square and octagonal plinths). Pulvinated blocks lie also at the Forum complex in the area to the north of the North Decumanus (here as a framing element) and, reused, for a gutter in front of the basin of the Nymphaeum. 9  The same might be assumed for cat. no. 6 with its preparation for a setting on a stepped structure.

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash Capitals (cat. nos 20–39) The twenty capitals and fragments of capitals comprise column capitals, anta capitals, and one capital crowning a pilaster of a wall decoration (revetment). They include three Doric — or rather ‘Tuscan’ — pieces (cat. nos 20–22), one with a sequence of mouldings comparable to crown mouldings known e.g. from local temple podia or theatre scenae (cat. no.  23), nine Ionic (cat. nos 24–32), five Corinthian (cat. nos 33–37), and two ‘Corinthianizing’10 capitals (cat. nos 38–39). Several of the Ionic and all Corinthian pieces are known only from small fragments, like single volutes or parts of the eggand-dart of an echinus of Ionic capitals or angle volutes and parts of acanthus leaves of Corinthian capitals. Their former capitals must have been massively reworked (i.e. hackled) or shattered during later periods. Several pieces are worked with the upper part of their supporting column, pilaster, or anta (cat. nos 22, 24, 28, and 29). For the remaining pieces, their fragmented state of preservation makes a reconstruction of their former dimensions or of the upper diameter of the columns supporting them impossible. Yet the dimensions of individual decorative elements give at least a hint about former sizes. And here we recognize a pattern known also from the bases (or column drums, see below): several capitals of small scale, several medium-range pieces, and only isolated ones of larger size. Preserved diameters of the columns are twice 58 cm (cat. nos 21 and 24), 45 cm (cat. no. 29), and 18 cm (cat. no. 38). The diameter of the volutes of the Ionic capitals cat. nos 26, 27, and 28 ranges between 21 and 23 cm, over 25 cm can be established for the volute of the Ionic capital cat. no. 31. An even larger size of the Ionic capital cat. no. 25 and the cyma of a probable capital cat. no. 59 is indicated by the dimensions of the preserved egg-and-dart. As to the Corinthian capitals, the diameter of the angle volute of cat no. 36 (approx. 15 cm) and especially the dimensions of the fragmented acanthus leaf cat. no. 33 (preserved width 26.5 cm) point to larger-size pieces. The other fragments belong to capitals of more modest dimensions. The decorative apparatus of the capitals follows regional and local standard solutions. Cat. nos 20 and 21 have been classified as Doric capitals due to their slightly

10   The term ‘Corinthianizing’ is used here rather broadly for capitals displaying the main signature motifs of Corinthian capitals, namely acanthus leaves, without following the standardized Corinthian icono­graphy of e.g. two rows of alternating leaves.

13

rounded echinus-like moulding,11 but lack e.g. annuli. Both cat. nos 22 and 23 stand out with their sequence of plain mouldings, cat. no. 23 with an additional zigzag motif carved into the front.12 The better preserved Ionic pieces exhibit decorative elements in rather plain standard versions. If e.g. the abacus sides are decorated at all, this is with simple concave mouldings. The space between the coils of the volutes is flat and rather bevelled (cat. nos 24, 26, 29, and 32) or just roughly deepened (cat. no. 30). Only fragment cat. no. 31 is characterized by deep rounded concave spirals. If preserved completely, the echinus of the Ionic capitals comprises an egg-and-dart motif with three eggs (cat. nos 24, 28, 29) and framed by an angle palmette of three reduced upward leaves (cat. nos 24, 28, 29). The pulvini are either plain or decorated with a badly preserved or very reduced acanthus(?) leaf motif. Preserved balteus designs are the three parallel rings of cat. no. 24 or the deep rectangular recess of cat. no. 29, both common among local Ionic capitals.13 Even poorer is the preservation of the Corinthian capitals. No complete example is preserved. The mostly small fragments — in their majority from the voluteor abacus-angle of modest-sized capitals — exhibit again a standard range of decorative details common for Corinthian capitals from Jerash and other sites of the region, like acanthus leaves with pointed lobes and elongated eyelets supporting the volute, vertically structured or plain volute fronts, and plain abaci, sometimes 11  

However, similar designs are also known for bases from Byzantine contexts, cf. the bases of a colonnade attributed to the second storey balustrade of the Petra Church: Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001, 185 fig. 42.71 (yet of smaller diameter than cat. nos 20 and 21). 12  Such a zigzag motif finds a parallel among the finds from the Northwest Quarter, albeit on smaller scale, in the fragment cat. no. 69. Similar zigzag patterns were also documented as an ornament for horizontal bands by Arthur Segal for capitals and entablature blocks in Byzantine Shivta (Negev Desert), and here in two versions: a stepped version and a carved version, clearly a reduced solution of the more elaborate stepped ornament. Cf. Segal 1988, 98 (cat. IV-3), 99 (cat. IV-4), 218 (no. 2(30)), 219 (no. 3(31)), on the motif, see Segal 1988, 151. 13   Three balteus rings characterize e.g. the capitals of the colonnades of the Oval Piazza or the North Decumanus as well as several spolia or dislocated pieces all over the city area (due to their number presumably from street colonnades), e.g. in the Cathedral or the Fountain Court. Vertical recesses cut into the sides of the capitals can be found with capitals e.g. in the Church of St George, in the courtyard of the Triple-Church complex, the Atrium of the Church of St Theodore, the so-called Synagogue Church (now Church of the Electi Iustiniani), or the Church of Bishop Isaiah.

14 subdivided by reduced horizontal mouldings, but never ornamented. Thanks to its size and rather high-quality workmanship, only the fragment of the acanthus leaf cat. no. 33 can be related to a more monumental, yet not positively identifiable local architecture of the later Antonine period.14 The two ‘Corinthianizing’ capitals follow the decorative pattern of the ‘Vierblattkapitell’15 (cat. no. 38) and ‘Blattkranzkapitell’ (cat. no. 39) types. Both testify to rich ornamental architectural arrangements on a smaller scale and may be connected to the decoration of interior spaces (cat. no. 39) or installations (cat. no. 38). In addition, the high-quality workmanship of the imported marble capital cat. no. 39 underlines the persistence of decorative ambition in Byzantine Jerash beyond the omnipresent use of spolia. The workmanship of most capitals is rather modest. With only isolated exceptions, the treatment of their decorative apparatus lacks finesse and detail, and some are rather clumsily executed (e.g. cat. no. 25 with its unequal length of the darts). Due to their state of preservation with mostly worn, weathered, and/​or broken ornamental details, but also their often rather simple workmanship, the chrono­logy of the capitals is difficult to determine. Some of the pieces were modified in a later period for reuse: the circular channel cut into the surface of cat. no. 20 (reuse as element of a press?), the wide flat recess in the abacus of the Corinthianizing capital cat. no. 38 or, maybe, the vertical recess cut into cat. no. 20 (for a railing or screen?) testify to different modes of reuse. Entablature (cat. nos 40 and 41) Only two elements of entablatures have been recorded during the field campaigns: the fragments of an architrave (cat. no. 40) and a block of a decorated cornice (cat. no. 41). The architrave with an overall height of 44.5 cm and its three plain fasciae surmounted by undecorated mouldings must have belonged to a rather modest architecture.16 The same holds true for the cornice block with 14  A (slightly later?) comparison for a similar treatment of the acanthus leaves can be found in the Corinthian capitals reused for the colonnades in the Church of St Theodore, datable ‘not later than the beginning of the third century’: Kraeling 1938, 223 pl. 43 b (Crowfoot). 15   For the late antique/​Byzantine ‘Vierblattkapitelle ohne Hüllblätter’, i.e. capitals with just one row of four acanthus leaves embracing the calathus, whose bended top leaflets support the volutes, one plain central upper leaf, and lacking caules or calyx, see Kautzsch 1936, 11–16 with pls 2.14 and 17.239. 16  The surface preparation of the lower and back sides speaks

Patric-Alexander Kreuz its height of only 38 cm. It is the only architectural member with mouldings decorated found in the area of the Northwest Quarter. Its decorative apparatus and workmanship find local (and regional)17 parallels among the decorative motifs and arrangements of other limestone architectural decorations of the second century ad and here, considering their style, of the Antonine period. Local examples are e.g. the ornamental wall and niche decorations of exedra and adjacent rooms of the socalled northern hall of the local Great Eastern Baths,18 a piece lying in the field to the north of the South Theatre, or several blocks of a decorated entablature placed along the North Decumanus near the North Theatre and Forum. The latter ones exhibit the same sequence and typo­logy of the individual ornaments (yet are far better preserved). Therefore, an attribution to this decorative complex located not too distant from the Northwest Quarter might be suggested. Column Drums (cat. nos 42–56) All fifteen drums or fragments of columns are — as the column portions worked with bases or capitals — unfluted.19 Rectangular and in some cases round dowel holes of different size, some rather shallow, are documented in the upper and/​or lower bearing surface of several drums, others lack such holes. The sector of a circle cut into the lower side of cat. no. 52 is a rather uncommon (later?) preparation of unclear purpose, and the bevelled edge and round dowel of cat. no. 45 might even indicate a different function of the stone drum.20 Rectangular cavities in the side of some drums (cat. nos 43, 53, and 54) indicate former railings inserted into the colonnades. The dimensions documented for the column drums show again a wide range of heights (58 to 134 cm) and diameters. As to the latter, two groups can be discerned: against an identification as a fragment of a fascia-decorated doorframe. 17  Like the second-/​third-century elements of a former exedraarchitecture (a nymphaeum?) in Madaba: Piccirillo 1989, 60–61 fig. 18  The decoration of the architectural elements recorded during the French-Jordanian research in the Great Eastern Baths since 2016 has been studied in the MA thesis of Khaled Hresa, School of Architecture and Built Environment, German Jordanian Uni­ver­ sity Amman (submitted spring 2020). On the Jordanian-FrenchGerman excavations, see Lepaon, Turshan, and Weber 2018. 19  An exception is the column drum from trench S (mentioned above, n. 2) with a spiral fluting applied in stucco on an unfluted shaft. 20  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b).

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash a rather heterogeneous group of four column drums of smaller diameters (cat. no. 45: 26.5 cm; cat. no. 46: 33.5 cm; cat. no. 47: 41 cm; cat. no. 48: 53 cm) and a homogeneous group of six column drums, whose lower diameters range from 58 to 62 cm and upper diameters from 57 to 59 cm. While the first group includes pieces that must have belonged to small-scale architectural arrangements, the second group may have belonged to more monumental, albeit smaller architectures. The width of the column drums of this second group seems to follow a conspicuous ‘two feet’ measurement, with slight deviations depending on their former position in tapered column shafts. This in turn indicates a certain standardization applied and might, hypothetically, be connected to architectures comprising longer stretches of colonnades. Mouldings (cat. nos 57–71) The fifteen mouldings form an unsurprisingly heterogeneous group. Their former use might have been that of top or base mouldings articulating architectural features like podia or aediculae, the crowning or accentuating of decorative wall revetments or their zoning (e.g. between dado and main zone),21 or the framing of marble-clad statue bases. While the larger mouldings made from limestone (e.g. cat. nos 58, 59, 61, 69, and especially 65 and 68) may be connected to — unknown — architectural features or larger installations, the smaller mouldings (cat. nos 57, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, and 71), and among them especially those made of marble (cat. nos 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 70, the largest group of marble pieces from the area), may be related to interior decorations, installations, wall revetments, or to statue bases. However, their former decorative context cannot be established anymore. Cat. no. 69 might be a fragment of a pilaster base, the character of cat. no. 71 remains puzzling, and cat. nos 58 and 59 might be fragments of the egg-and-darts of Ionic capitals. With the exception of the latter two pieces, cat. no. 71, cat. no. 57 with its meander motif, and cat. no. 69 with its plain engraved zigzag motif, all mouldings are undecorated.

21  See also the two out of context finds of metal pins to attach revetment plates found during the excavations in the Northwest Quarter: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015, 51 (C. Eger), 100–02 no. 91–94 with fig. p. 97. For the different techniques of wall revetment, see Bitterer 2013.

15

The number, type, sequence, and proportions of the individual mouldings of the fifteen pieces differ considerably, as does the quality of their workmanship (with the precisely carved marble pieces of generally higher quality). Each must have belonged to a different — and unknown — architectural installation or decorative context. Sometimes holes or cavities for small dowels or clamps to attach them to connecting pieces are preserved, exhibiting different solutions: cat. nos 62 and 63, both imported marble pieces yet with different mouldings, each feature a small triangular cramp hole, cat. no. 66 a small flat dowel hole, cat. no. 68 a broken out dowel hole, and cat. no. 70 a small circular drill hole. Miscellanea (cat. nos 72–82) The eleven miscellanea pieces comprise small fragments of marble and limestone panels with flat and undecorated concentric frame mouldings (cat. nos 74, 75, 76, 77, with 75 made of limestone), a large limestone slab with a shallow undecorated moulding (cat. no. 78, of a revetment?), the fragment of a rounded slab with only one side smoothed (cat. no. 80), a fragment with two small convex volutes (cat. no. 79, of a decorative miniature pilaster capital?), two limestone blocks with remains of their connecting clamp (cat. no. 82), a marble block reused as a loculus for a reliquary (cat. no. 81) and, being the most remarkable pieces, an ornamented door console block (cat. no. 72) and the fragment of an unfinished workpiece of a screen slab (or window?)22 with a decoration of interlaced bands in openwork lattice (cat. no. 73). The four fragments of framed panels (cat. nos 74, 75, 76, and 77) form a small and on first sight homogeneous group. Three of the four fragments still have a corner part of their concentric frame mouldings preserved and are united by a facetted inner moulding (cat. nos 74, 75, and 76). Yet the proportions and design of the mouldings differ, as does the finish of the backsides of the fragments: cat. no. 76 has a polished backside whereas the one of cat. no. 75, the only one made of limestone, is not smoothed. The backside of cat. no. 74 is left rather rough and cat. no. 77 has a smoothed one with claw chisel traces. The fragments therefore must each have formed part of a different decorative context or installation. One possible function of the panels cat. nos 74, 75, 76, and 22  A lattice window made of limestone from Horvat ‘Eleq shows remains of a similar pattern of bands: Peleg-Barkat and Tepper 2016, 186–88 no. 7.

16 77 might have been that of screen panels, like e.g. the chancel screens known as installations from Byzantine churches all over the region. Neither the thickness of the slabs nor the differing finish of their backsides would contradict such an interpretation.23 Yet with their narrow framing bands, the thin panels cat. no. 74, 76, and 77 might as well have been decorative panels of wall revetments, even if their backsides — not even the rough one of cat. 74 — exhibit no traces of mortar from such a former fixture.

Dimensions and Material The heterogeneity of the stone elements on many levels (materials, types, and ornamental detail) also manifests in their size. The group comprises larger architectural elements (e.g. column drums, bases, and capitals), elements of medium- and small-scale architectural arrangements and installations, as well as elements of interior decoration (e.g. fragments of wall revetment panels). However, even the larger decorated elements refer, ultimately, to medium-sized colonnaded arrangements: column diameters of the mentioned more or less two feet range are known e.g. from the portico of the ‘Souq Romain’ close to the South Gate, the columns of the Macellum’s exedrae, or the lower storey of the North Theatre’s scenae frons.24 They come neither in size nor in dimensions close to the range of sizes and dimensions of the ‘real’ monumental architectures such as the colonnades of the major local temples or the central part of the Cardo Maximus.25 23  The only 3–3.5 cm thick marble fragments (cat. nos 74, 76, and 77) seem too thin in contrast to the limestone fragment cat. no. 75 (6.5 cm) and a usual thickness of such screens of 5 to 10 cm. Yet e.g. the marble screen panels from the apses and the bema of the Petra Church are only 3.5 to 4 cm thick: Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001, 194–96. And on the assumption of always finished backsides Gideon Foerster (1989, 1820) states ‘there are also slabs which are only roughly worked on the back’ and ‘It should be mentioned here that this slab, as well as some others at Horvat Susiya, is only roughly worked on the back, which indicates that they were not meant to be seen from this side; this does not follow the usual pattern of Christian screens or even some of the screens from synagogues which are carved at least to some extent on their backs.’ 24  Seigne 1986, 47 fig. 6 pl. 6 (‘Souq Romain’; 56 cm); Olávarri 1986, 480 nos E 133, E 135, E 140, E 141 (Macellum; E 133 and 135: 59–62 cm (‘sommoscapo’), E 140 and 141: 57–61 cm); Clark and others 1986, 206 (North Theatre; 60  cm; diameter of the columns of the second storey: 52 cm). 25   Column diameters are mentioned only for some local monumental complexes, and these clearly exceed those known from the Northwest Quarter: 142 cm for the Artemis Propylon (Kraeling

Patric-Alexander Kreuz We may imagine instead upper storeys of porticos, less prominent stretches of colonnaded streets, peristyle or courtyard architectures, ornamental facades of monumental buildings, or embellished portal situations as former contexts. Other elements are even of much smaller 1938, 129), 148–50 cm for the columns of the temple itself (Kraeling 1938, 135), and as much as 89–90 cm for the portico surrounding the temple courtyard (Kraeling 1938, 132). Others include an average of 85 cm even for the North Gate’s columns (Kraeling 1938, 120–21), 80 cm for the so-called ‘Temple C’ (Kraeling 1938, 414), or 76 cm for the columns of the Cardo colonnade in front of the Macellum (Olávarri 1986, 480 nos E 58–62 and 68). In the same way, a reconstruction of the former height of the columns whose drums or bases were found in the Northwest Quarter by using the ratio lower shaft diameter/​shaft length should refer only to local paradigms and spectra. Although publications rarely address explicitly the length of column shafts and usually mention only the height of the column (i.e. incl. capital and base?), the known dimensions again indicate a certain range in proportions (beyond Vitruvius’s strict ratio of 1:8 1/​ 2 explicitly for the porticus post scaenam and non-religious building types: Vitr., De arch. v.9.3–4). For the remarkably squat columns of the North Gate a ratio of 1:7 1/​5 is mentioned (Kraeling 1938, 120–21), for the portico of the Artemis sanctuary a ratio close to 1:8 1/​2 can be established (D: 89/​90 cm × H: 7.56 cm: Kraeling 1938, 132), and for the columns of the temple itself approx. 1:8.8 (D: 150 cm × H: altogether up to 13.25 m: Kraeling 1938, 135). Applying tentatively (and just for illustration!) a 1:8 to 1:9 ratio for the some of the colonnade elements found in the Northwest Quarter leads equally to a wide range of shaft lengths. The upper base diameter of cat. no. 10 (43 cm) results in 3.44/​3.87 m, the 53 cm of cat. no. 16 in 4.24/​4.77 m, and the 61 cm of cat. no.12 in 4.88/​ 5.49 m. The 41 cm diameter of the column drum cat. no. 47 results in 3.28/​3.69 m, the 53 cm of cat. no. 48 in 4.24/​4.77 m, and the 58 to 62 cm lower diameters of the six column drums cat. nos 51–56 in 4.64/​5.22 to 4.96/​5.58 m. A similar range is indicated by the (upper) diameter inferred from the Ionic capitals cat. no. 29 (D: 45 cm, shaft at least 3.60/​4.05 m) and cat nos 21 and 24 (58 cm, shaft at least 4.64/​5.22 m). Such shaft dimensions may be related to the dimensions of local colonnaded architectures like the 6 m high Ionic colonnade of the North Decumanus (Clark and others 1986, 206), the average 6 m of the columns of the South Decumanus, or some stretches of the Cardo’s colonnade with its varying height (5.1 m for the columns of the northern colonnade, 5.7 m for those north of the Artemision, 6.3 near the Tetrakionion, or 6.2 south of the Nymphaeum) (Tabaczek 2001, 165). Yet the heterogeneity of the elements from the Northwest Quarter also recalls the observation by Clark and others (1986, 385–86) that, in the context of the North Cardo, ‘Column bases vary in diameter up to 14 cm, and lengths of lower, middle and upper drum vary considerably more. Capitals vary in both diameter and height by up to 15  cm. Each column therefore, and consequently each of its component parts of pedestal, base, drums, and capital, is unique, there being no standard sizes for these parts as there are for heights of the complete columns. It would appear therefore, that each column is individually “custom built”’. We clearly have to take deviation into consideration. Only the estimated former diameter of 82 cm of the base cat. no. 8 refers to a more monumental colonnaded arrangement (6.56/​7.38 m).

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

17

Figure 2.1. Trench S: column with stucco spiral fluting (detail excavation photo­graph).

dimensions:26 the small torus bases (cat. nos 1 and 3), the Attic-Ionic bases (cat. nos 5, 6 (on octagonal plinth), and 14), as well as the Corinthianizing capital (cat. no. 38), and probably the moulding decorated with a meander (cat. no.  57) testify to colonnaded arrangements that may be imagined as a feature within the context of more monumental architectural settings, like e.g. the framing of niches. They remind us of a decorative range rarely addressed for ancient Gerasa, yet clearly a common and important part of the local architectural experience. The stone material used for larger as well as smaller decorated architectures and installations was the local and regional limestone in its varieties.27 Imported marble was used only rarely and is represented by only eleven pieces.28 These can all be related to decorative elements or installations of interior spaces like e.g. revetment pan26 

The dimensions of several architectural elements are clearly below the range outlined for the larger elements above. Upper base diameters like e.g. 13.5 cm (1.08/​1.22; cat. no. 14), 17 cm (1.36/​ 1.53; cat. no. 5), 21 cm (1.68/​1.89; cat. no. 1), or 28 cm (2.24/​ 2.52; cat. no. 2), the lower diameter of the Corinthianizing capital cat. no. 38 (18 cm; 1.44/​1.62) or the diameter of column drum cat. no. 46 (33.5 cm; 2.68/​3.01 m) attest to such smaller arrangements. 27  On the quarries of the local stone material, see Hamarneh and Abu-Jaber 2013; on the evidence for quarrying in the Northwest Quarter, i.e. within the city area, see Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 148–49. 28  Cat. nos 60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 70 (mouldings), 74, 76, 77 (panel fragments), 39 (pilaster capital), and 81 (loculus block).

els or mouldings, but not to elements of larger architectural monuments, which are built from limestone throughout Jerash.29 The marble used is of white colour, sometimes with a light, sometimes darker greyish haze (e.g. cat. nos 62, 74, 76, or 81). Not represented among the finds are pieces made from the various prestigious coloured marbles such as Giallo Antico or Pavonazzetto. The Ionic capital cat. no. 29 reminds us that the stone material used was only the partial — and not always visible — truth of the local architectural aesthetic. On the surface of the column drum immediately below the astragalus of the better preserved side of the capital, a minor trace of a stucco layer with thin white coating is still preserved. This trace as well as the claw chisel marks covering the whole surface of the column indicate an — 29  The marble block reused for the loculus cat. no. 81 poses a challenge for this generalization. Its lower side bears traces of a roughened, formerly embossed surface with a drafted margin along two edges, i.e. the former block must have formed part of the (ashlar) masonry of a marble architecture. Yet until now, no architecture using marble ashlar is known from Jerash, either as a building or as spolia or fragments of spolia. Instead, and in contrast e.g. to the Decapolis city of Gadara/​Umm Qais, local limestone was used even for the most prestigious building initiatives. This in turn means that, if we accept the lack of a local marble architecture, the loculus block, or at least the marble, must have been brought from elsewhere in the region. It is even more appealing, yet completely hypothetical, to imagine the block being part of a set of liturgical furniture produced (incl. the reuse of the marble block) e.g. in Asia Minor and only then brought to Jerash to furnish a church.

18 unfluted — stucco coating of the column,30 and possibly also of the rather roughly worked decorative motifs of the capital itself (although the stucco meets the lower ledge of the crowning capital without continuation beyond it). Cat. no. 29 may therefore serve as a reference point for architectures exhibiting a well-preserved surface covered with claw chisel marks. In such cases, a thin stucco layer might be assumed. A column drum from the Roman period found in trench S confirms this local use of stucco for limestone columns and demonstrates its potential in terms of local decorative variety: the preserved stucco part shows that the column was decorated with spiral flutes (Fig. 2.1). What ornamental richness we lost with such former decorative stucco coatings of architectural elements, also in the sphere of monumental architecture, is impressively demonstrated by the Roman basilica of another Decapolis city, namely that of Hippos with its well-preserved capitals and columns with vertically and spirally fluted column shafts. That the use of stucco was indeed common in Jerash too, and even for carefully worked limestone blocks, is also underlined by several blocks lying in the Northwest Quarter with traces or even larger patches of a fine stucco coating, sometimes still with preserved surface.31 Finally, the formerly omnipresent use of colour to enrich the decorative aesthetic and the experience of the local architecture is indicated by the largesized acanthus leaf cat. no. 33. The XRF-analysis of its surface detected traces of ochre of a former colouring of the leaf ’s surface.32

Chrono­logy Establishing a date for most of the pieces from the Northwest Quarter is complicated due to our lacking knowledge about their original architectural context. With only their final context of reuse or area of relocation known to us, the terminus ante quem for most pieces defines more or less the entire span of the Roman imperial and Byzantine centuries of the city. Turning instead towards icono­graphic or stylistic features of the decoration for a dating meets as a major obstacle the often bad 30  The layer is too thin to suggest a stucco fluting of the column, even of flat, filled flutes. 31  For example among the finds from the filling of one of the cisterns excavated by the Danish-German team: Lichtenberger and Raja 2017, 120. 32  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2015, pl. p. 61 (‘Palmette J13-0-5’).

Patric-Alexander Kreuz state of preservation of the pieces and their decorative details. To make matters worse, most architectural elements exhibit just plain ornamental motifs or mouldings left undecorated. Column bases, the fragment of an architrave, let alone column drums, are at best — if at all — only roughly or very generally datable.33 The same holds true e.g. for the small fragments, respectively pieces of marble or limestone mouldings. For some Ionic capitals, however, a date of the second/​third century ad can be assumed, i.e. the period of construction of the North Cardo colonnades, a potential and nearby major local ‘source’ for the spoliation of architectural elements of the Ionic order. In contrast, Ionic pieces like cat. nos 24 and 25 or cat. nos 28 and 29 exhibit interpretations and executions of the canonical apparatus that indicate — even considering a reduced workmanship and bad surface preservation — a later, late Roman date. These interpretations and executions include a low, nearly suppressed canalis, a shallow relief of the echinus’s Ionic cyma, and the prominence of its darts. They clearly differ from the ornamental forms known from the major local second-century monuments and are instead known from late capitals in the wider region.34 A later date may also be hypothesized for some of the volute fragments of Corinthian capitals like e.g. cat. nos 34, 35, 36, and perhaps 37. The reduced articulation of their angle volute scrolls stands in contrast to the scrolls accentuated by drill channels and the deeply undercut volutes even of the smaller Corinthian capitals e.g. from the South Decumanus colonnades or the North Decumanus colonnade close to the West Baths and rather finds a parallel in the late Corinthianizing capital cat. no. 38. In the case of the column bases of mostly Attic-Ionic type, the dimensions, but also specific shape and contour of individual mouldings as well as their relative

33  This holds also true for the decorative motif of the spiral fluting of the column from trench S. Spiral flutes are known in firstcentury ad Italy from public architectures (e.g. the mid-first-century Porta Borsari) as well as private settings (like the pre-79 courtyard portico of the Villa San Marco in Stabiae, in stucco), and are a popular and omnipresent motif in the late first-/​second-century monumentalized cityscapes of the Roman East (e.g. the basilica in Hippos mentioned above or the famous colonnade in Apameia). The first-century date of the building from trench S proposed by the excavators (Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench S) would therefore indicate an early regional application of this type of decoration, yet one might also consider a later refurbishment of an already existing but formerly plainer colonnaded arrangement. 34  See for example ‘Type 1’ of Taxel 2018, 95 fig. 2.1.

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash proportions to each other, might provide hints for their chrono­logy. However, the dated monuments of Romanperiod Jerash confront us with a wide range of solutions that defy the establishment of a coherent or even precise local chrono­logical sequence. Noticeable details like the expanded tori with slightly sunk upper sides are known e.g. from the courtyard peristyle of the second-century ad Sanctuary of Artemis 35 as well as from Byzantine architectures in the region.36 Scotiae of a rather angular profile can be found in local second-/​third-century architectural contexts together with more rounded ones. Still, manifestations like the wide expanding and flat tori of the base on octagonal plinth cat. no. 10 may tentatively be dated to the Byzantine period. That the wellestablished torus and Attic-Ionic-type mouldings for bases were popular well into this late period is obvious not only from their ubiquitous reuse in the numerous local church buildings, but also from them being chosen e.g. for templon posts in the Church of Bishop Isaiah. Besides these rather common types of architectural elements characteristic for architectural initiatives during the heyday of the local cityscape’s large-scale monumentalization of the second and third centuries ad and for some later versions of these types, some of the pieces found in the Northwest Quarter deserve special attention. The door console cat. no. 72 is characterized by its volute with convex spiral that overlaps the cyma frame and by a delicately carved vine leaf occupying the space below the volute. The workmanship indicates decorative ambition on a high level, yet the rendering of the decorative motifs finds no close analogy among the decorated architectural elements in Gerasa with their typical Roman-period icono­g raphies and stylistic features. Instead, the treatment of the individual motifs, like the leaves’ gently curved surface, sharp contour, and accentuated veins might rather be compared to the rendering of the leaves e.g. on the fragment of a decorated door frame from Jerusalem, dated by O. Peleg-Barkat to the late Second Temple/​Herodian period (i.e. the late first century bc/​early first century ad),37 the leaves of the tympanon decoration of the cave of Jehoshaphat, again in Jerusalem and dated to the late first century bc,38 or even the vine leaves from the Tiberian-date decora-

tion of the temple of Bel in Palmyra.39 In addition, the console’s volute’s overlapping of the cyma may, with its playful approach to ornamental framings, be compared to some capitals from Herodian palaces with their angle volutes overlapping the cavetto of the abacus.40 Considering the treatment of these motifs, the console is, within the context of the local decorative ambience, closer in style and motifs to the late Hellenistic Naos41 than to the characteristic standard apparatus of secondand third-century ad door consoles with its angle-palmettes or volutes supported by acanthus leaves known also from Jerash.42 With these traits, the console from the Northwest Quarter can be regarded as a remarkable early decorated architectural element originating from an unfortunately unknown early local architecture. A  rather early date (first century ad?) might also be assumed for the — admittedly weathered — fragment of the Ionic cyma cat. no. 59, probably part of an Ionic capital. The nuanced treatment of the ornamental details stands in contrast to the rather reduced and schematic modelling of these motifs common among the numerous local Ionic capitals of the later centuries ad. Finally, a late date can be established for the marble pilaster ‘Blattkranzkapitell’ cat. no.  39. The preserved parts of the right half of an acanthus leaf and of a leaf in its full width exhibit a specific rendering of the acanthus. It is characterized by triangular eyelets, midribs of the side leaflets carved into the leaflet’s surface, a nuanced rendering of the leaves that are, at the same time, not modelled or gently curved but rise vertically from the relief ground, and the inclined and connected points of the lobes forming symmetric ‘negative shapes’ like lozenges and trapezoidal shapes. These features distinguish the acanthus clearly from the acanthus icono­ graphies of the Imperial period and their stylistic treatment. The ‘negative shapes’, large triangular eyelets, but also the nuanced relief of the leaves’ surface, at the same time lacking drilling channels structuring them, instead find analogies among late Roman/​Byzantine Corinthian capitals found in the Levant and adjacent regions.43

39 

35 

Parapetti and others 1986, pl. 10.2. Byzantine marble base Fischer and Taxel 2007, fig. 18.1. 37  Peleg-Barkat 2013, 208–09 fig. 8.2 no. 8. See also e.g. the decorated doorframe from the Herodium: Netzer 2006, pl. 37.16. 38  Peleg-Barkat 2012, fig. 5. 36 

19

Dentzer-Feydy 1989, 466–67 fig. 154. Peleg-Barkat 2017, 10–11 fig. 1.14. 41  Eristov and others 2003, fig. 3. 42  One such console with ‘standard’ decorative apparatus lies in the Atrium courtyard of the Church of St Theodore. 43  For example, Kautzsch 1936, 35 pl. 8 no. 112 (from Egypt), 102 pl. 19 no. 294 (from Jerusalem). 40 

20

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

Contexts and Functions The architectural elements can, especially due to their heterogeneity, contribute to a better understanding of local architectural variety. Additional information may be provided by the contexts of their original architectural setting as well as by the contexts in which they were found. Yet these contexts pose several challenges resulting also from the post-Roman development of the Northwest Quarter itself: we are confronted with decorated architectural elements reworked and/​or reused as building material, relocated, dispersed, and scattered over a large area. The Trenches and their Character Large parts of the Northwest Quarter experienced repeated restructuring involving fillings, levelling, destruction, and intensive reuse during the later periods of the city, when domestic complexes of the Early Islamic period, most of them with phases not earlier than the seventh century, were erected here.44 As one consequence of such activities in this area of the city, the find spots of the eighty-two pieces in the catalogue include almost all trenches Figure 2.2. Trench S: pilaster base (detail excavation photo­graph). in the Northwest Quarter: one piece The recorded contexts of the architectural eleeach was found in the trenches B (cat. no. 60), F (cat. ments within these different trenches are dated mostly no. 62), H (cat. no. 18), O (cat. no. 75), Q (cat. no. 40), to the Late Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad or even T (cat. no. 80), and X (cat. no. 14); two in trench W later periods: trench B with its late Roman oil press in (cat. nos 76 and 79); three in J (cat. nos 8, 71, 72) and a later filled up room is characterized by late Roman, N (cat. nos 36, 37, 77); four in C (cat. nos 3, 5, 6, 61), D Byzantine, and Umayyad pottery.47 Trenches F, O, and (cat. nos 7, 10, 24, 25), K (cat. nos 26, 34, 63, 64), and X are connected to a large rock-cut cistern constructed U (cat. nos 45, 46, 57, 66). Larger groups comprise five during the Trajanic-Hadrianic period that fell out of pieces from trench P (cat. nos 1, 65, 72, 73, 78) and six from trench A (cat. nos 17, 20, 21, 42, 43, 44). By far the most pieces (twenty-seven) were documented in trench three architectural elements can be identified from the excavation V.45 An unspecified number of architectural elements are photo­g raphs: besides the already mentioned column drum with also mentioned for trench S (Figs 2.1–2.2).46 In contrast, stucco fluting (Fig. 2.1) an Attic-Ionic(?) pilaster base (Fig. 2.2, none are documented for the trenches E, G, I, L, and R. 44  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 147, 154–56, 160; Lichten­ berger and Raja 2019, 52–53, 68. 45  Cat. nos 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 67, 68, 69, and 70. 46  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench S. At least

in the trench profile), and another column drum (undecorated). Additional finds from trench S are the fragment of an Ionic capital (cat. no.  32), the loculus block made of marble for a reliquary (cat. no. 81), and two limestone blocks with a partially preserved connecting iron clamp (cat. no. 82). 47  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 12–13 with plan in Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 64 fig. 9; Lichtenberger and Raja 2020, trench B.

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash use in the Byzantine period, was then used as a location for buildings, and finally back-filled during the Early Islamic period.48 Trenches J, N, and W are characterized by the underground complex with an oil press refilled during the fifth and again the seventh centuries ad as well as the sixth-century Mosaic Hall related to the socalled Synagogue Church (now Church of the Electi Iustiniani).49 Trenches K, P, and V revealed domestic architecture of the Early Islamic period — again without older architectural structures (but altogether thirty-six pieces found on the surface area or as part of excavated structures, twenty-seven from trench V alone),50 as did trench U.  Dated to the Middle Islamic period are, in contrast, the structures of a large house with courtyard from trenches C, D, and T, yet with older, Byzantineand Early Islamic-period structures partially reused.51 The lack of older, i.e. Roman-period predecessors of these buildings shows that the architectural elements recorded from these trenches must have been reused for the late constructions and were brought from other areas of the city for this purpose. Only trenches A and especially S revealed structures of an architectural complex comprising an underground cistern and a large building dated to the Roman period (first century ad).52 After its destruction during the Late Roman period, the cistern was filled up among others with the debris of the building, i.e. it can be identified as the former context of the architectural elements found in the fill. The reuse of architectural elements brought from other areas of the city for later construction is also evident from the spectrum of pieces from each of the trenches (with the exception of trench S). They each form groups that are heterogeneous in types, dimen48 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2020, trenches F, L, O, X. See also Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 22–29 fig. 11 (trench F); Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 64 figs 20–21 (trench O). 49  Lichtenberger and Raja 2020, trenches J, N, and W.  See also Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 19–26 fig. 32; Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 57–59 figs  7–9 (trench J) and Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 62–64 fig. 17–9 (trench N). 50  Lichtenberger and Raja 2020, trenches K, P, and V as well as U. See also Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 12, 27–31 figs 10 and 12; Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 60–61 figs 12–16 (trench K) and Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 64–66 figs 22–24 (trench P). 51   Lichtenberger and Raja 2020, trenches C, D, E, and T; Lichten­b erger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 13–15 with plan in Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 69 fig. 15 (trench C); Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 13–17 fig. 2 (trench D). 52  Lichtenberger and Raja 2020, trenches A and S.

21

sions, and preservation. Of the trenches with at least four documented pieces, trench A was the context of three column drums, two Doric capitals(?), and one anta capital, trench C of a torus base, a miniature Attic-Ionic base, one small Attic-Ionic base on octagonal plinth, and one limestone moulding. Trench D comprised one large Attic-Ionic base on an octagonal plinth, one Attic-Ionic base, one Ionic capital, and a fragment of an Ionic capital with a similarly reduced echinus, trench K one fragment of an Ionic capital, one of a Corinthian capital, one marble moulding, one limestone moulding. The five pieces of trench P include a torus base on ornamental pedestal, a limestone moulding, the early door console, the fragment of a screen(?) with openwork decoration, and a large panel fragment. And from trench U are documented two column drums of different diameter, one small limestone moulding with meander motif, and one marble moulding. Lacking coherence is also apparent from the dimensions, proportions of single mouldings, material, and chrono­logy of the twenty-seven pieces from trench V, comprising one torus base, four Attic-Ionic bases, two anta capitals with plain mouldings, three fragments of Ionic capitals, the small Corinthianizing capital of late Roman date, the fragment of the Corinthianizing marble pilaster capital of Byzantine date, ten column drums (six of them with a diameter of 58–62 cm, one 41 cm, one 53 cm), and five mouldings with different profiles (two marble, two limestone, one Ionic cyma (fragment of a capital?)). Only the more or less two-foot-diameter of the column drums used as spolia for the colonnaded architectural installations uncovered in this trench might indicate a formerly shared, yet unknown original architectural context. Original Architectural Contexts The decorated elements are therefore, as far as can be ascertained, individual pieces that originate from the respective architectural units of several buildings. It is not possible to establish groups of several pieces that can be related securely to an already known building (or topo­ graphically still unknown architecture) in the city area of Jerash. Only in the case of trench S, some architectural elements found in the fill of the underground cistern — the column drum with spiral fluting, a pilaster base, and another column drum (Figs 127–28; see above) — can be connected to the large complex of probably domestic character and first-century date erected partly on top of the cistern. However, its late Roman destruction as well as incomplete excavation forbid any identification

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

22 or reconstruction of their former setting. Besides this exception, only some column drums and bases as well as fragments of Ionic capitals may tentatively be ascribed to already known architectures, e.g. to the colonnades of a North Decumanus (close to the Northwest Quarter?) or the northern part of the Cardo.53 Furthermore, the cornice cat. no. 41 might with some probability belong to the architecture extant in the decorated elements placed at the North Decumanus (see above) and possibly embedded in one of the complexes here, i.e. again in rather close distance to the Northwest Quarter. The overwhelming majority of the elements originate from the respective decorative contexts of a variety of other architecture. However, their attribution to one of the known local architectures is complicated or even prevented by the lack of documentation and publication of the decorative apparatus not only of the major monuments,54 but also of architectures below their level of monumentality such as the colonnaded courtyards or exedrae of bigger complexes like thermal buildings. The same holds true for minor installations or interior decorations of the buildings. In general, lacking photo­graphs, drawings, and specifications of measurements of the ‘decorative household’ of the known architectures limits comparisons and possible attributions. Our knowledge of the local Roman-Byzantine decoscape is still insufficient for a detailed analysis — all the more considering the enormous lacunae in our topo­graphical knowledge: a major part even of the architectural complexes along the Cardo Maximus is not excavated.55 A small group of pieces, several made of marble, may be related to ‘liturgical furniture’, i.e. installations inside churches like altars (and here the type of a framed mensa 53 

For example, the capitals with flat spiral, three eggs, reduced angle palmettes, plain pulvini, and three vertical balteus rings, or the colonnade’s elements of comparable dimensions from trench V, although these exhibit slight differences: the column bases cat. nos 11 and 13 are 28 cm high and exhibit comparable Attic-Ionic mouldings, but differ in their individual proportions or the contour of their scotia. 54  This holds true even for the most prominent monuments of the city like the Cardo colonnade, which lacks an adequate documentation e.g. of the excavations of authorities and later expeditions: Parapetti 1984, 69. Yet Parapetti’s published description of the colonnades of Cardo Maximus and both decumani again provides no measurements of bases, capitals, or the upper and lower diameters of columns. 55  Parapetti 1984 on the heterogeneity of the Cardo’s colonnade indicating various, yet unexcavated architectural complexes fronted by clearly distinguishable units of columns of different length and intercolumnia.

supported by four separate legs), reliquaries, tables, or the characteristic screens of posts and decorated slabs separating the holy from the main hall and aisles. The small capital cat. no. 38 with its recess cut into the upper side of the abacus was obviously modified, probably to carry a horizontal beam. Such a modification — not common or even necessary to support an architrave — might hypothetically be explained with a function as a capital for high colonnettes serving as posts carrying a lintel of a ‘high’ chancel screen with a framed passageway.56 The small marble block with deep rectangular cavity (cat. no. 81) finds local and regional parallels among the loculi embedded into the floor under the altar containing reliquaries.57 The marble moulding cat. no. 63 might be connected with a rectangular marble tabletop decorated with a raised border (of a mensa).58 The stone panel with interlaced bands in openwork cat. no.  73 finds its parallels among screens from other churches,59 a function that may be hypothesized also for the framed marble and limestone slabs of cat. nos 74, 75, 76, and 77 (see above). Spoliation An identification of the original context of most of the architectural elements found in the Northwest Quarter — or even their contextualization within a specific former architectural setting — is not possible. Instead, two ways of reuse for later built structures can be identified as common: either as building material, often broken to pieces, embedded in the masonry of the later structures 56  These ‘high’ chancel screens are mostly a later phenomenon, but are confirmed also for the Church of Bishop Isaiah in Jerash (ad 559) as well as other churches in Jordan: Michel 2001, 52–53 cat. 62 fig. 248 (Isaiah). A reuse of older capitals for such a construction is hypothesized also for the basilica on Mt Nebo: Acconci 1998, 500. 57  Comparable stone blocks of marble or limestone with often rectangular, but also round or cross-shaped cavities for reliquaries are a common feature of the Byzantine churches in the region since the later sixth century. Placed in or on the floor between the legs of the four-legged altars (sometimes even as a later addition), they were found in situ or can be assumed due to a gap left in the mosaic floor after removing them. On reliquaries, loculi, and connected installations in Jordan, see Michel 1999; Michel 2001, 72–78 (with table 3), 208 (no. 69: Hayyan al-Mushrif, Basilika), 249 (no. 88b: Jerash, Church of St George), 359 (no. 131: Ayun Musa, Church of the Deacon Thomas). 58   See, for example, the offertory table found in the Petra Church with a comparable moulding : Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001, 200 fig. 21. On altars and tables as liturgical furniture in the Byzantine churches of Jordan, see Michel 2001, 66–68. 59  Michel 2001, 52 with examples.

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash (e.g. cat. no. 18)60 or as spolia according to their original functionality as elements of an architectural order. The marble loculus cat. no. 81 indicates another reuse: here, a former block of a marble ashlar masonry was cut into smaller pieces, with one of them reworked to serve a new and different purpose.61 Several pieces out of context show evidence of later reworking or preparation for a reuse as building material.62 Mortar traces on some elements indicate such a reuse, too (bases cat. nos 5, 6, and 14). Other elements are partially reworked, e.g. the base cat. no.  15, the moulding cat. no. 61, the panels cat. nos 74 (edge cut) and, perhaps, 75 (surface reworked), or the capital cat. no. 21 with its circular channel carved into the upper side. Others were used to create working installations.63 Later additions indicating a functional reuse are instead — at least in some cases — the vertical recesses cut through the mouldings of bases (e.g. bases cat. nos 4, 9, 16) and, rarely, capitals, or, exceptionally, the abacus (cat. no. 38). Such recesses in bases and capitals are a common modification ubiquitous in local architectural contexts characterized by the use of spolia.64 In the case of 60   Reused

column drums are frequently mentioned in the preliminary reports, e.g. a channel consisting of four carved column drums in a domestic context of late Byzantine/​early Umayyad date (Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), trench O, ev.  74), a column base as a table support(?) and a wall-like structure with a drum embedded (Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), trench P, ev. 74 and 61), or a short upright standing column in trench W (Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench W). Especially column drums embedded into the masonry of Umayyad-period walls have been observed more than just once: ‘it seems as if it was a common feature in Umayyad times to integrate column drums into the masonry’: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b) for trenches U and V. Other examples of architectural elements reused as building material include the (unspecified) elements laid together with other stones as a row of unclear function into a new floor of the courtyard of an Umayyad-period building (Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a) for trench P, ev. 79). 61  But see above, n. 29 on the problem of a reuse of marble architecture in Jerash. 62  A special case of such a reuse is represented by the two blocks connected by an iron clamp (cat. no. 82). The arrangement of the two partially reworked blocks, their only rough joint, and the mismatch of clamp and shape of the mortise might suggest them being reused (and/​or ‘re-clamped’). 63  Three short drums in front of a wall, one of them laying horizontally, two standing upright, have been interpreted as installation of a working space (Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b) for trench U, ev. 13). 64   E.g. in the portico hall fronting the three churches of St George, St John the Baptist, and Sts Cosmas and Damianus, the Church of Sts Peter and Paul, the Church of Bishop Genesius, the

23

the bases cat. nos 4 and 9 the recesses and last functional context as spolia might even indicate a second reuse: a first one that involved cutting the recesses, followed by the second one, the final use for the construction of columns supporting a ceiling. A functional reuse according to the original functionality can be confirmed for the architectural elements from the Umayyad-period house with inner courtyard and entrance portico (trenches K, P, V): the erection of the colonnaded entrance architecture included the reuse of bases and drums for the two columns cat. nos 12 (base), 53 and 54 (drums), and 13 (base), 55 and 56 (drums), with a later extension to the west by another, third column (cat. nos 11 and 51).65 The three bases show different proportions of their mouldings, and while cat. no. 12 carries no dowel hole, the associated drum cat. no. 53 does. The elements most likely originate from different architectures or at least columns. Further spolia were used in the same domestic complex for the erection of two columns to support a wooden ceiling, composed from base cat. no. 9 and the drums cat. nos 47 and 48 (from different columns), and base cat. no. 4 with the drums cat. nos 49 and 50 (here, a comparable diameter might indicate one former column).66 Another late, i.e. Byzantine-Umayyad, reuse of differing bases and column drums for a colonnaded arrangement has also been documented in trench M, an older sounding by Vincent A. Clark and Julian Bowsher partially re-excavated by the Danish-German team (not included in the catalogue).67

Church of Bishop Isaiah, the so-called Synagogue Church (now Church of the Electi Iustiniani), the Cathedral (bases), or the atrium courtyard of the Church of St Theodore. 65  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V, ev. 36 and 43. 66  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V, ev. 78 and 82. 67   Clark and Bowsher (1986, 343–45) mention columns ‘apparently in situ’ (p. 343) or ‘in situ’ (p. 345) in this sounding labelled by them ‘area E’. They suggest tentatively the south side of the North Decumanus as the original context of the columns. The re-excavation by the Danish-German team (‘trench M’) in 2014 allowed for a detailed study of the ‘colonnaded architectural facade from the Byzantine-Umayyad period’ comprising two columns, both with bases, and a newly discovered third base in situ of a third column (bases similar, yet not identical, and two of them reworked), all spolia, placed on stylobates and set against a wall: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 37–42 (esp. 39–40) fig. 15–16 (with measurements of the column drums and bases); Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 154–55 fig. 10.24; Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 55–57 figs 5–6.

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

24 However, these contexts might be just the contexts of a late, final reuse of pieces already dismantled and reused before. Such ‘itineraries’ or circulations of individual pieces with several stations within a changing local architectural landscape over the centuries have to be assumed, yet remain unknown to us. Other pieces might, in contrast, have been brought in a systematic fashion from rather distant locations within the city area. This rarely discussed aspect of the widespread local use and distribution of spolia from older monumental architecture has recently been addressed and specified by Chrystelle March for decorative elements reused in several Byzantine-period buildings and taken from one building of origin, the second-century ad Temple of Zeus, and by Jacques Seigne for elements again from one building, the Naos on the lower terrace of the Sanctuary of Zeus, and reused for the embellishment of one Byzantine building, the Baths of Placcus.68 Chrystelle March was able to trace the reuse of individual architectural elements from the Temple of Zeus in the Churches of St Theodore, St John the Baptist, Sts Peter and Paul, and the Cathedral, i.e. for several Byzantine-period buildings erected in several areas of the city from the late fifth to the mid-sixth centuries ad. According to March, the spolia in the churches originate from different parts of the temple that accordingly must have been dismantled at different times: elements from the crowning of the temple’s podium were reused in the Church of St Theodore (ad 494–496), architectural members from the main facade in the Church of St John the Baptist (ad 531), and two niches of the cella walls in the Church of Sts Peter and Paul (traditionally dated c. ad 540, but according to March dated to the late sixth/​early seventh centuries ad).69 Only some of the architectural elements of the temple identified by her were reused in these churches in a decorative or architectural function corresponding to their former function.70 In contrast, the Baths of Placcus (mid-fifth to late sixth centuries ad) attest a more focused, systematic dismantling and reuse. According to Jacques Seigne, the orders of the rather distant Naos of the lower terrace of the Sanctuary of Zeus (in its final phase) were reused for three main entrances and passageways of the bath building. Dimensions and decorative apparatus of columns, Corinthian capitals, architraves, and decorative bases indicate that the Naos’s colonnade was dismantled and 68 

March 2004; Seigne 2014. March 2004, 148–49, 170. 70  March 2004, 171. 69 

reused completely and in a planned way (two systems of setting marks even indicate a re-erection of the columns in their original composition). Therefore, the Naos, or specifically its colonnade, must have been standing until the fifth century ad. Both case studies demonstrate the crucial importance of well-documented architectural complexes and their decorative elements for a better understanding of the historical depth and dynamics of urban topo­ graphies beyond ‘dissected’ monumental complexes. Furthermore, they underline the importance and value of an analysis of their decorative apparatus. The architectural elements found in the Northwest Quarter might contribute to such an understanding by adding to the known spectrum of the local decorative variety in several ways. Originating from manifold, yet mostly unknown former public, domestic, and religious contexts and reused as spolia or building material in later times, the elements found include pieces of a remarkable variety in sizes (indicated e.g. by column diameters). These may be related not only to smaller public structures, i.e. architectures below the level of the iconic monumental architectures or embedded within these, but above all — and rarely addressed for Jerash — also to small-scale (colonnaded) arrangements enriching monumental architectural settings or forming part of lavish interior decorations. Deriving from over half a millennium of local building activity, the architectural elements of local limestone as well as the imported marble pieces testify to a local dominance of the decorative modi and aesthetics established with the monumental architectures of the Roman period. However, they also indicate local developments (or reductions?), e.g. of the Corinthian or Ionic. Yet the local range of decorative forms was clearly a wider one. Pieces like the early console, the late Corinthianizing marble pilaster capital, the unfinished workpiece with lattice work, the column with its (stuccoed) spiral fluting, but also the use of the zigzag motif, all underline the local decorative heterogeneity. As such, they widen our scope beyond the decorative standard solutions so common for the local second-/​ third-century monumentalized cityscape, which is still dominant in our perception of the urban aesthetic of ancient Jerash.

Catalogue of Architectural Elements

1

The catalogue is organized according to type of architectural element (bases 1–19, capitals 20–39, entablature/​cornice 40–41, column drums 42–56, mouldings 57–71, miscellaneous 72–82), year of excavation/​find, find number. The following abbreviations have been used throughout the catalogue: L = length; H = height; W = width; Th = thickness; D = diameter. Depth has not been abbreviated. All illustrations and photos in the catalogue are from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project. The numbers in blue boxes

beside each image are figure numbers.

Bases 1.Torus base on ornamental pedestal. J15-Pd-52-1 (Figs 1–2)

2

2.Torus base. J17-01 (Fig. 3) Plain torus base with flat torus (H: 3 cm) on large plinth; two recesses of different width opposite each other (for a railing or screen?) indicate a reuse of the base. Find spot: Field, area of trench V and P. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: W:  38.5  cm; D bearing: 28  cm; H plinth: 11 cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered and very worn. Date: —

Torus base (torus with sunken-in top) with apophyge of an unfluted column, plinth supported by a square pedestal composed of several superimposed mouldings (from top downwards): ‘abacus’, cyma reversa, cushion, cyma reversa, plinth; upper bearing of the base and lower side of pedestal without dowel holes; surface with traces of claw chisel. Find spot: Trench P; surface. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 53.5  cm; W dado: 34.5 cm; D upper bearing: 21 cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered and worn, in parts chipped; lower part broken. Date: Roman period.

3

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

26

4

6

5

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

27

Find spot: Trench V; in situ, reused together with cat. nos 49 and 50 for the construction of a column supporting a ceiling; the fitting diameter of the drums suggests that they might originally have belonged to the same column or architectural unit before being reused. Present location: Field. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 42.5 cm; D approx.: 43 cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered, edges and parts of shaft and base broken and worn. Date: Roman period. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V, ev. 82. 7

3.Torus base. J12-Cbd-35-1 (Fig. 4) Small torus base with plinth, apophyge, and lower part of an unfluted column. Find spot: Trench  C. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 12.5  cm; W:  13.5  cm. State of preservation: Fragmented; edges partially broken; surface worn and weathered. Date: —

5.Column base. J12-Cb-1-139 (Fig. 8) Small Attic-Ionic column base; lower side roughly hollowed out (later reuse); no dowel hole in upper bearing; surface with traces of mortar/​plaster from a later reuse. Find spot: Trench  C. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 13.2 cm; W: 20 cm; D upper bearing: 17 cm; H lower torus: 2.5 cm. State of preservation: Especially lower part worn and broken; weathered. Date: Roman period.

4.Column base. J16-Vc-82c (Figs 5–7)

6.Column base on octagonal plinth. J12-Cb-35-32 (Figs 9–10)

Lower drum of an unfluted column with a plain torus base (from top downwards: edged apophyge, fillet, torus, circular plinth); plinth with low recesses of unclear function carved into the central part of two sides (for a reuse?); other sides not documented.

Small Attic-Ionic base on a high, pedestal-like octagonal plinth; a rectangular recess worked on one side into its lower part indicates a former setting on a stepped structure; the surface of the plinth shows chisel traces, the base a smoothed surface; in places remains of a former 9

8

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

28

coating, but e.g. between upper fillet and torus traces of mortar filling the gap between both (from a later reuse); upper side with rounded dowel hole and pour channel. Find spot: Trench C. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 26.5 cm; W: 29.5 cm; D upper bearing: 23  cm. State of preservation: Surface broken and slightly worn. Date: Roman period. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 51 no. 167, fig. on p. 50 no. 167 (‘not datable’).

10

7.Fragment of a column base. J13-Da-10-28 (Fig. 11) Fragment of a column base with preserved parts of (from top downwards) cyma recta (?), fillet, round plinth; cyma with traces of claw chisel. 11

Find spot: Trench D. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Dolomitic limestone. Measurements: H: 9 cm; W: 21 cm; Th: 9.8 cm. State of preservation: Fragment. Date: Roman period.

8.Fragment of a column base. J15-Jh-97-12 (Fig. 12)

12

Fragment of lower torus and lower part of the scotia of an Attic-Ionic base without plinth (lower side roughly finished); scotia with traces of claw chisel. Find spot: Trench J. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 15 cm; W: 38 cm; Th: 17 cm; D (est.): 82  cm. State of preservation: Fragment. Date: Roman period.

9.Column base. J16-Vc-78c (Figs 13–15) Lower drum of an unfluted column with Attic-Ionic base (apophyge, torus, fillet, scotia, presumably lower torus, and plinth); vertical recess cut into the base (later reuse). Find spot: Trench V; in situ, reused together with cat. nos 47 and 48 for the construction of a column supporting a ceiling (according to recess the base must have been reused already before). Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  66.5  cm; D: 47  cm. State of preservation: Surface slightly worn and weathered; lower part of the base worked off (torus and plinth). Date: Roman period. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V, ev. 78.

13

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash 14

29 16

17

10.Column base on octagonal plinth. J11-D-01 (Figs 16–17) Undecorated high octagonal plinth surmounted by a squat Attic-Ionic base with plain mouldings (lower torus with sunken-in top, prominent step-shaped fillet, steep, cavetto-like scotia, fillet, upper torus of reduced height); a 12.3 cm wide rectangular vertical recess cuts into plinth, lower torus, and fillet for the insertion of a railing or screen (a corresponding recess can be assumed for the broken opposite side); no dowel hole in the upper bearing surface.

15

Find spot: Survey campaign, sector D.  Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H plinth: 13 cm; H base: 14.5 cm; W plinth: 59 cm; D upper bearing: 43 cm. State of preservation: Partly broken; surface weathered and chipped. Date: Byzantine period?

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

30

12.Column base. J16-Vh-36 (Figs 20–21)

18

Attic-Ionic base with apophyge; no plinth; upper bearing without dowel hole.

19

20

Find spot: Trench V; reused as spolium with cat. nos 53 and 54 for the construction of the Umayyad-period entrance portico. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  36  cm; D lower torus: 87  cm, column: 61  cm. State of preservation: In parts broken, edges chipped; surface weathered and worn. Date: Roman period. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V.

13.Column base. J16-Vi-43 (Figs 22–23) 21

Attic-Ionic base with apophyge; no plinth. Find spot: Trench V; reused as spolium with cat. nos 55 and 56 for the construction of the Umayyad-period entrance portico. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  28. State of preservation: In parts broken, surface weathered and worn. Date: Roman period.

22

References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V. 23

11.Column base. J16-Vh-34 (Figs 18–19) Attic-Ionic base without plinth; scotia with traces of claw chisel, surface of tori and fillets smoothed. Find spot: Trench  V; reused as spolium with cat. no.  51 for an extension of the Umayyad-period entrance hall. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  28  cm. State of preservation: Well preserved, surface weathered. Date: Roman period. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V.

24

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

14.Column base. J16-Xa-2-232 (Fig. 24) Small Attic-Ionic column base (from top downwards: apophyge, fillet, torus, prominent fillet, scotia; lower part of the scotia, lower torus, and plinth broken); no dowel hole in upper side; surface with traces of mortar from a later reuse.

31

25

Find spot: Trench X. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Dolomitic limestone. Measurements: H: 18 cm; W: 20 cm; D column: 13.5 cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered and partially worn; lower part broken, upper part missing. Date: Roman period. 26

15.Fragment of a column base. J17-02 Fragment of an Attic-Ionic column base; preserved are the upper part of the scotia, fillet, upper torus, and apophyge; lower part seems to have been roughly worked off for a later reuse. Find spot: Field; Northwest Quarter. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  19  cm; H Torus: 6.7 cm. State of preservation: Fragment; edges chipped, surface weathered. Date: Roman period.

16.Column base. J17-03 (Figs 25–26) Attic-Ionic base with lower part of an unfluted column; no plinth; upper bearing of the column with rectangular dowel hole; a vertical rectangular recess in the side of the column cuts into the upper torus and may have served to fix a screen or railing (for a reuse?).

27

Find spot: Field; Northwest Quarter. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 50 cm; lower D: 73 cm, D column: 53 cm. State of preservation: In parts broken; surface worn and weathered. Date: Roman period.

17.Anta base. J11-A-37 (Fig. 27)

18.Anta base. J13-Hb-7 (Fig. 28)

Attic-Ionic anta base without plinth; profile on three sides characterized by a rather low and shallow scotia framed by prominent fillets; upper bearing with small dowel hole (2 × 1.5 cm).

Lower part of unfluted anta with Attic-Ionic base (undecorated astragal, torus (slightly pointed), fillet, rather shallow scotia, fillet, torus, no plinth).

Find spot: Survey campaign, sector A; in situ in post-antique reuse? Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 50 cm; W: 76 cm; Th:  62  cm. State of preservation: Surface badly weathered; edges broken and worn. Date: Roman period.

Find spot: Trench H; reused as spolium for the construction of a wall. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 46 cm; W: 49. State of preservation: Surface weathered; lower parts of the base moulding damaged. Date: Roman period.

28

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

32

29

19.Fragment of a pilaster/​anta base. J15-04 (Figs 29–30) Fragment of an Attic-Ionic pilaster/​anta base preserving upper parts of the scotia, fillet, upper torus, and apophyge; surface of mouldings smoothed.

30

Find spot: Surface find, in relation to trench K. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  29.5  cm; W:  30  cm; Th:  30.5  cm. State of preservation: Lower part broken; surface slightly weathered. Date: Roman period.

Capitals 20.Doric capital(?). J11-A-50 (Figs 31–32) Capital(?) with high, slightly convex echinus and remains of an abacus(?); worked from one block with upper part of an unfluted column; no anuli; a wide vertical recess on one side indicates a later modification for a railing or screen (a corresponding one can be assumed for the opposite side). Find spot: Survey campaign, sector A.  Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: — State of preservation: Surface very worn; partially broken, edges chipped. Date: —

31

32

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash 33

33

21.Doric capital(?). J11-A-61 (Fig. 33) Plain capital(?) with high, slightly convex echinus; bearing with shallow, roughly circular channel cut into the surface (reuse, for a press?). Find spot: Survey campaign, sector A.  Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone.

Measurements: D column approx.: 58 cm. State of preservation: Bad; edges chipped and broken; surface badly weathered and worn. Date: —

35 34

22.Anta capital. J16-Vc-21-1 (Figs 34–35) One half of an anta capital with upper end of pillar; precise, sharp-edged mouldings (from top downwards: abacus, fillet, cavetto (H: 3.8 cm), ovolo (H: 2.6 cm), astragal (H: 1.5 cm); all undecorated); smoothed surface with traces of claw chisel; surface of the upper bearing worked out anathyrosislike; no dowel or clamp holes. Find spot: Trench  V. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  20  cm; L: 47  cm; W:  31  cm. State of preservation: Right half of the block missing; upper edges and upper mouldings of the longer side broken; surface well preserved, only one side slightly weathered. Date: Roman period.

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

34

23. Anta/​pilaster capital. J16-Vhi-14-1 (Figs 36–37) L-shaped block with mouldings of an anta/​pilaster capital(?) (from top downwards: abacus with zigzag-motif, fillet, cavetto, ovolo, fillet) and upper end of anta pillar; no dowel holes. Find spot: Trench  V, surface. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 20 cm; W: 39 cm; L: 78.5 cm. State of preservation: Right side broken; surface of the mouldings badly weathered. Date: Roman period. 36

24.Ionic capital. J11-D-02 and J12-C-1-D02B (Figs 38–39) Ionic column capital with upper end of unfluted column; standard apparatus of Ionic capitals with plain volutes and very low echinus; individual ornaments (angle palmettes; echinus with egg-and-dart; bead-and-reel below the echinus; abacus with plain cyma reversa surmounted by fillet) are shallow, executed rather summarily and lack finesse; the plain and conical pulvini are held together by three rings instead of a balteus, a solution that can often be seen in Gerasa.

37

Find spot: Survey campaign, sector C.  Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 33.6 cm; W: 78 cm; Th: 62 cm; D column: 58 cm. State of preservation: One of the main sides completely broken off, one of the lateral sides partially broken; left volute largely missing; surface weathered. Date: Late Roman period. 38

References: Lichtenberger and Raja 2012, 233 fig. 5; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 51 no. 166, fig. on p. 50 no. 166 (with references and late dating to the fourth century ad); Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 57 n. 4, 69. 39

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

25.Fragment of an Ionic capital. J13-Dbd-8-1 (Fig. 40) Fragment of the echinus of a large column capital; preserved are two complete elements of the astragal’s beadand-reel and the egg-and-dart; the individual elements (egg-and-dart, bead-and-reel) are shallow, reduced, and executed rather summarily, the darts are of unequal length and up to 2.5 cm longer than the eggs. Find spot: Trench  D. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  17.1  cm; W:  24.5  cm; Th:  9  cm. State of preservation: Worn and weathered; traces of fire on part of the surface? Date: Late Roman period.

35

40

41

42

References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 91 no. 147, fig. on p. 82 no. 147 with references.

26.Fragment of an Ionic capital. J14-K-2-4 (Figs 41–42) Fragment of volute and pulvinus of an Ionic capital; shallow volute framed by a simple fillet; surface of the pulvinus with claw chisel traces, lobes of the decorating leaf flat and only outlined. Find spot: Trench  K. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  22.5  cm; W:  15.5  cm. State of preservation: Fragment; surface weathered and slightly worn. Date: Roman period.

27.Fragment of an Ionic capital. ( J15-02) Left volute of an Ionic capital with part of the pulvinus. Find spot: Surface find, in relation to trench K. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 22 cm; W: 22 cm; Th: 18 cm. State of preservation: Fragment; surface worn and weathered; volute rim chipped. Date: Roman period.

28.Fragment of an Ionic capital. J15-0-5 (Figs 43–44) Ionic capital with standard decorative apparatus (angle palmette, echinus with egg-and-dart, astragal with beadand-reel) and upper end of the unfluted column shaft.

43

Find spot: Surface find, in relation to trench K. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 36 cm; W: 52 cm; Th: 27 cm. State of preservation: Back half of the capital and left volute missing; surface very worn and badly weathered, ornamental details barely distinguishable. Date: Late Roman period. 44

36 46

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

47

48

45

29.Fragment of an Ionic capital. J16-Va-5 (Figs 45–48)

30.Fragment of an Ionic capital. J16-Vcd-1-12 (Figs 49–50)

Ionic capital with standard decorative apparatus (angle palmettes, echinus with egg-and-dart, astragal with bead-and-reel) and upper end of the column shaft; the ornamental details are rather roughly worked, the pulvini undecorated and not precisely horizontally aligned; vertical rectangular recess (W: 6.7 cm) in place of the balteus, below it deep rectangular recess in upper end of the column; the surface of the better preserved side is covered with claw chisel traces; isolated traces of stucco with thin layer of white coating testify to a former stucco coating of the column, yet its thickness prohibits a coating with flutes.

Preserved is the central part of a plain volute with a part of the pulvinus; surface of the pulvinus with claw chisel traces; the lobes of the decorating acanthus leaf are only roughly outlined. Find spot: Trench  V, surface. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  13.6  cm; W: 9.8 cm; Th: 13 cm. State of preservation: Fragment; surface weathered. Date: —

Find spot: Trench  V. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  54  cm; W:  56  cm; Th:  60  cm; D column: 45  cm. State of preservation: One side heavily worn and badly weathered; the surface of the other in a better state of preservation. Date: Late Roman period. 49

50

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

37

52 51

31.Fragment of an Ionic capital. J16-Vi-55-7 (Figs 51–52) Volute with adjacent parts of the pulvinus; deep concave canalis and plain eye; pulvinus with traces of the leaflets of an acanthus leaf.

53 54

Find spot: Trench V. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 18 cm; W: 25 cm; Th: 20 cm. State of preservation: Fragment of a volute; surface of the volute slightly worn, of the pulvinus badly worn and weathered; edges chipped. Date: Roman period.

32.Fragment of an Ionic capital. J16-Sk-105-3 (Figs 53–54) Fragment of a volute of an Ionic capital; preserved are the plain volute eye and parts of the volute scroll framed by a simple fillet. Find spot: Trench S. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 11.5 cm; L: 20.5 cm; W: 10 cm. State of preservation: Fragment, broken on all sides except for the volute face; a crack runs through the outer scroll; surface weathered and chipped. Date: Roman period.

55

33.Fragment of a Corinthian capital. J13-0-5 (Fig. 55) Upper part of an acanthus leaf of the folia ima of a large Corinthian capital; sharp-edged lobes; narrow, elongated, and slightly angled eyelets; separation of the leaflets by means of a drill; asymmetries in the arrangement of the leaf, e.g. the position of the eyelets. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  30.5  cm; W: 26.5 cm; T: 14 cm. State of preservation: Fragment; broken on all sides; surface well preserved. Date: Roman period (Antonine period).

56

34.Fragment of a Corinthian capital. J14-K-2-3 (Figs 56–57) Fragment of a small Corinthian capital (volute-/​abacus-angle with traces of the leaf supporting the volute); the execution of the details is summary: the volute is rendered rather roughly and not undercut, the acanthus leaf structured by short drill channels; surface with claw chisel traces. Find spot: Trench K. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 16.5 cm; W: 15 cm; Th: 13 cm. State of preservation: Fragment, weathered and worn. Date: (Late?) Roman period.

57

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

38

60 58

59

61

35.Fragment of a Corinthian capital. J14-0-1 (Figs 58–59)

36.Fragment of a Corinthian capital. J15-Nh-3-23 (Figs 60–61)

Fragment of a Corinthian capital (volute-/​abacus-angle with remains of the leaf supporting the volute); execution only summary: the volute is plain, unframed, and not undercut; volute and abacus are not separated; abacus with plain horizontal groove and fillet.

Volute angle of a Corinthian capital with plain, unframed volute; only one side of the volute with parts of lobes and one eyelet of the supporting acanthus leaf are preserved; the diameter of the volute (13.5 cm) points to a large capital.

Find spot: Surface find; Northwest Quarter. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  20  cm; W:  11  cm. State of preservation: Surface worn and weathered. Date: (Late?) Roman period.

Find spot: Trench  N. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  16  cm; W:  13.5  cm. State of preservation: Fragment; weathered and worn. Date: (Late?) Roman period.

37.Fragment of a Corinthian capital. J15-Nm-76-1 (Figs 62–63) Volute angle of a Corinthian capital with plain, unframed, undercut volute (front carved), upper part of the supporting acanthus leaf with well-preserved remains of its lobes; minor remains of the surmounting abacus on the upper side of the volute. Find spot: Trench  N. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  15.5  cm; W:  11  cm; Th:  9.5  cm. State of preservation: Fragment; weathered. Date: (Late?) Roman period.

62

63

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

39

38. Corinthianizing capital/​‘ Vierblattkapitell’. J16-Vi-49-8x (Figs 64–65) Small Corinthianizing capital with reduced decorative apparatus, consisting of four acanthus leaves supporting plain volutes that rise from a central, yet subordinated uncarved leaf; the acanthus leaves are sharp-edged, some lobes slightly undercut, leaflets separated by drilled grooves; the lower points of the side leaflets connect to those of the neighbouring leaf; no helices; the calathus with its nearly funnel-like shape is clearly visible above the central leaf; the abacus carries a central abacus ornament (flower[?] without stem); the capital features a wide, flat recess (W: 12.5–13 cm, depth: 2 cm) cut into the upper side of the abacus (a secondary modification for reuse, to carry a horizontal beam?); no dowel hole in the underside of the capital.

64

Find spot: Trench V, reuse. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 27.5 cm; W Abacus: 32.5 cm; lower D: 18 cm. State of preservation: Complete, only one abacus/​volute angle and parts of the abacus front missing; surface of the decorative details in parts worn and weathered. Date: Late Roman period.

65

References: Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 160–61 fig. 10.40.

39.Corinthianizing pilaster capital/​leaf capital (‘Blattkranzkapitell’). J16-Vdf-73-14 (Figs 66–67) Fragment of a Corinthianizing pilaster capital (a revetment slab); preserved are to the left the right half of an acanthus leaf1 and to its right an acanthus leaf shown in its full width; no traces of a second row of leaves/​folia secunda; lobes and leaflets of the leaves are spread fan-like and characterized by large triangular eyelets (each with small tips projecting from the lower side as remnants of the drilling), and midribs of the side leaflets not rendered as elevated ribs, but — in contrast to the central one — carved into the leaflet’s surface; the inclined points of lobes and leaflets of both leaves are connected to the corresponding ones of the neighbouring leaf and form discrete, geometricized symmetric ‘negative shapes’ (e.g. bell- or wing-like shapes); the nuanced rendering of the leaflets and details like the small wavy leaf (or flower?) reaching from above over the upper end of the central rib testify to the high quality of the workmanship; the backside of the slab is carefully smoothed.

66

Find spot: Trench  V. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Marble (white-greyish). Measurements: H: 17 cm; W: 24.5 cm; Th: 4.5 cm. State of preservation: Fragment; broken on three sides; surface well preserved, no weathering. Date: Late Roman/​Byzantine period. 67

References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 118 pl. 21.118 (fifth/​sixth century). 1  The slightly curved left edge of the slab corresponds to the central vein of the leaf. Since it is the original edge the half acanthus leaf on the left is intentional (discussion with P. Weitmann).

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

40

68

69

Entablature 40.Fragment of architrave. J15-Q-2-1a (Figs 68–69) Architrave with three plain fasciae, surmounted by an astragal, cyma recta, and fillet (all undecorated); fasciae not separated by an additional astragal. Find spot: Trench Q; surface. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 44.5 cm; W: c. 72.5 cm; Th: 37 cm; H/​Depth middle fascia: 12/​1 cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered and cracked; broken in three parts; backside broken; in 2017 only the right of the three fragments documented in 2015 was found again in the field. Date: Roman period.

41.Horizontal cornice. J15-03 (Figs 70–71) Cornice block with rich ornamentation (from top downwards): sima with anthemion/​acanthus motif, astragal with bead-and-reel, corona with badly damaged ornamentation (short flutes?), rectangular modillions supported by acanthus leaves and framed by a reduced eggand-tongue motif, between the modillions a five-petalled rosette (no coffer), lesbian cyma (stirrup-framed leaf-and-dart), dentils (W: 4 cm), ovolo with egg-andtongue; no dowel holes in the sides; immediately to the left of the left modillion with its framing egg-and-tongue motif a part in higher relief interrupts the ornamentation (only here, the sima decoration above as well as the lesbian cyma below this zone continue), yet this part is damaged and ‘unreadable’. Find spot: Surface find, in relation to trench K. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 38 cm; W: 43 cm; L: 71.5 cm. State of preservation: Edges broken; surface worn and weathered; details of ornaments chipped and in parts barely identifiable. Date: Roman period (later second century ad).

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

41

70

71

Column Drums

72

42.Column drum. J11-A-51

43. Column drum. J11-A-62 (Fig. 72)

Drum of an unfluted column; broken out dowel hole in the centre.

Drum of an unfluted column; rectangular cavity cut roughly into the side of the shaft.

Find spot: Survey campaign, sector A; buried in the surface soil, only upper side visible and documented. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: — State of preservation: Surface badly worn and weathered; edges broken. Date: —

Find spot: Survey campaign, sector A.  Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: — State of preservation: Very worn and badly weathered, edges broken. Date: —

42

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

74

73

44.Column drum. J11-A-64 (Fig. 73) Drum of an unfluted column; shallow dowel holes in upper and lower side. Find spot: Survey campaign, sector A. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: — State of preservation: Very worn and badly weathered; upper edges broken. Date: —

45.Column drum(?). J16-Uc-39 (Fig. 74) Slim column drum with smooth surface, top with slightly bevelled edge; no tool-marks; round dowel hole in upper side (D: 7 cm). However, the unusual bevelled edge and round(!) dowel hole might in fact, together with contextual information, indicate a function not as a column, but as a stone roller typical for the maintenance of flat roofs.

75

Find spot: Trench U; in situ context of reuse. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: > 61.5 cm; D: 26.5 cm. State of preservation: Good. Date: — References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b).

46.Column drum. J16-Ud-48 (Figs 75–76) Drum of an unfluted column; dowel holes in upper and lower side (upper side: 6 × 6 cm, lower side remarkably large and deep: 9 × 7 cm). Find spot: Trench U. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 58 cm; D: 33.5 cm. State of preservation: Surface worn and badly weathered; edges in parts broken. Date: —

76

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

43

47.Column drum. J16-Vc-78a (Figs 13–14)

50.Column drum. J16-Vc-82b (Figs 5–6)

Drum of an unfluted column; no dowel hole in upper side.

Drum of an unfluted column.

Find spot: Trench V; in situ, reused together with cat. nos 9 and 48 for the construction of a column supporting a ceiling. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 68 cm; D: 41 cm. State of preservation: Surface slightly worn and weathered. Date: — References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V, ev. 78.

48.Column drum. J16-Vc-78b (Figs 13–14) Drum of an unfluted column (reworked/​cut from a larger drum?). Find spot: Trench V; in situ, reused together with cat. nos 9 and 47 for the construction of a column supporting a ceiling. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  37  cm; upper D: (in situ) 53  cm, lower D: (in situ) 50.5  cm. State of preservation: Surface slightly worn and weathered. Date: — References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V, ev. 78.

49.Column drum. J16-Vc-82a (Figs 5–6) Drum of an unfluted column. Find spot: Trench V; in situ, reused together with cat. nos 4 and 50 for the construction of a column supporting a ceiling; the fitting diameter of the drums suggests that they might originally have belonged to the same column/​architectural unit before being reused. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 61 cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered; edges and parts of the shaft broken and worn. Date: —

Find spot: Trench V; in situ, reused together with cat. nos 4 and 49 for the construction of a column supporting a ceiling; the fitting diameter of the drums suggests that they might originally have belonged to the same column/​architectural unit before being reused. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 89 cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered; edges and parts of the shaft broken and worn. Date: — References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V, ev. 82.

51.Column drum. J16-Vh-8a Unfluted column drum; rectangular, broken out dowel hole in upper side. Find spot: Trench V; reused as spolium with cat. no. 11 for an extension of the Umayyad-period entrance hall. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  > 86  cm; D: 61  cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered; upper side badly worn; edges chipped and broken. Date: — References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V.

52.Column drum. J16-Vh-8b (Figs 77–78) Unfluted column drum; sector of a circle of shorter radius cut several centimetres into lower side; no dowel holes in upper or lower bearing. Find spot: Trench  V. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 74.5 cm; lower D: 61 cm, upper D: 59 cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered; edges slightly chipped. Date: —

References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V, ev. 82.

77

78

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

44

53.Column drum. J16-Vh-9a Unfluted column drum; upper and lower side with anathyrosis (circular surface smoothed with clay chisel); rectangular shallow dowel holes in upper and lower sides. Find spot: Trench V; reused as spolium with cat. nos 12 and 54 for the construction of the Umayyad-period entrance portico. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  124  cm; lower D: 58  cm, upper D: 57  cm. State of preservation: Surface well preserved, only slightly weathered; edges chipped. Date: — References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V.

54.Column drum. J16-Vh-9b (Fig. 79) Unfluted column drum; large rounded cavity in the side (for a railing?); no dowel holes. Find spot: Trench V; reused as spolium with cat. nos 12 and 53 for the construction of the Umayyad-period entrance portico. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  75  cm; lower D: 59  cm, upper D: 58  cm. State of preservation: Surface weathered and partially worn. Date: — References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V.

80

55.Column drum J16-Vi-10a (Fig. 80) Unfluted column drum; upper side with rectangular dowel hole (lower side buried). Find spot: Trench V; reused as spolium with cat. nos 13 and 56 for the construction of the Umayyad-period entrance portico. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 134 cm; lower D: 62 cm upper D: 59 cm. State of preservation: Surface of upper (exposed) part weathered and worn, of lower (buried) part only slightly weathered; vertical crack on one side. Date: — References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V.

56.Column drum. J16-Vi-10b Unfluted column drum; small rectangular dowel holes in upper and lower side.

79

Find spot: Trench V; reused as spolium with cat. nos 13 and 55 for the construction of the Umayyad-period entrance portico. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 81 cm; lower D: 58.5 cm, upper D: 58 cm. State of preser ­vation: Surface slightly weathered; edges partially chipped. Date: — References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), trench V.

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

45

82

81

Mouldings 57.Fragment of a small geison(?). J16-Ud-56-20 (Figs 81–82) Fragment of a small geison drip with curved undercut(?); front decorated with plain meander (meander rims separated only by a shallow gouge). Find spot: Trench  U. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 5.7 cm; W: 11 cm; Th: 6.2 cm. State of preservation: Fragment; lateral sides and upper edge broken; surface weathered. Date: —

58.Fragment of an Ionic cyma(?). J14-02 (Fig. 83) Fragment of a cyma with egg-and-dart (identification according to the excavation’s registration sheet, by Nicole Pieper). Find spot: Surface find. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  5.2  cm; W:  11.1  cm; Th: 7.1. State of preservation: Surface badly damaged, almost no original surface preserved. Date: —

83

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

46 84

85

59.Fragment of an Ionic cyma (of a capital?). J16-Vi-1-53 (Figs 84–85) Fragment of an egg-and-dart (part of an egg, left frame, dart-head, right frame of a missing egg ); sharp-edged frames and dart; the slightly asymmetric volume and curve of the egg indicates an echinus fragment of a capital of accordingly considerable size. Find spot: Trench  V, surface. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  13.3  cm; W:  15.2  cm. State of preservation: Fragment, broken on all sides; surface weathered. Date: First century ad?

60. Moulding. J12-B-2-478 (Figs 86–87) Moulding of a marble wall revetment: sequence of superimposed convex and concave mouldings (combination of three superimposed shallow cymatiae); upper edge with 2 cm deep and 7 mm wide vertical drill (a later addition disregarding the upper mouldings); lower and back sides carefully smoothed with a — today damaged — slightly protruding back edge. Find spot: Trench B. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Marble. Measurements: H: 6.3 cm; W: 12.3 cm; Th: 6 cm. State of preservation: Fragment; surface weathered; edges broken. Date: — 87

86

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

47

89

88

61. Moulding. J12-C-1-122 (Figs 88–89)

62. Moulding. J13-Fd-40-32 (Figs 90–91)

Base moulding composed of 5  cm high plinth, surmounted by 3 cm low ovolo, fillet and cyma recta (all plain); lateral and lower sides smoothed, left backside partially left rough; right part of the front with plinth-, ovolo-, and lower part of cyma-mouldings worked off (for a reuse?).

Moulding of a marble revetment; sequence of superimposed undecorated mouldings (from top: fillet, ovolo, cavetto); preserved lateral side with small triangular cavity for a dowel/​clamp.

Find spot: Trench  C. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  14.7  cm; W:  42.5  cm; Th: 14 cm. State of preservation: Upper edges broken; surface worn and weathered. Date: Roman period.

Find spot: Trench  F. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Marble. Measurements: H:  6.5  cm; W:  13  cm; Th: 5.9 cm. State of preservation: Fragment; smoothed surface well preserved; upper and lower edge in parts chipped. Date: Roman period.

90

91

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

48

92

64.Fragment of a moulding. J14-Kg-3N 93

63. Moulding. J14-Kc-3-134 (Figs 92–93) Cavetto-like rounded moulding with a fillet; backside smoothed; left lateral side with small triangular cavity for a ​clamp; the small width with both lateral sides smoothed and the lacking mitre suggest a connecting or repair piece of a moulding (of a wall revetment) or possibly a marble tabletop (of a mensa). Find spot: Trench  K. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Marble. Measurements: H:  6  cm; W:  11.5  cm; L: 7.5 cm. State of preservation: Well preserved (incl. both lateral sides). Date: Byzantine period.

Fragment of a moulding with preserved parts of a fillet surmounted by a cavetto (or lower part of a cyma?); cavetto and lower side of the fragment with traces of claw chisel; cavetto with slightly diagonal drill/​fastening hole through the moulding (later addition?). Find spot: Trench  K. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 9 cm; W: 11.5 cm; Th: 9.5 cm. State of preservation: Fragment, broken on all sides; surface slightly worn. Date: —

65.Base moulding. J15-Pa-21-2 (Figs 94–95) Base moulding of a building/​architectural installation, comprising fillet and cyma recta; fillet discontinued approx. 18 cm before the right edge; no clamp/​dowel holes in the preserved part. Find spot: Trench  P. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 26 cm; W: 50 cm; Th: 29.5 cm. State of preservation: Surface worn and badly weathered; edges chipped; parts of backside and upper right part broken; one side preserved with chisel-marks, the other side broken. Date: Roman period.

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

49

 95

94

66.Fragment of a moulding (wall revetment?). J16-Ud-1-25 (Figs 96–97) Fragment of a marble moulding with undecorated cyma reversa surmounting a plain front; right lateral side with rectangular dowel hole (7 × 2 mm, depth: 2.5 cm); surface of the front polished; lower side smoothed. Find spot: Trench  U. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Marble. Measurements: H: 15 cm; W: 12 cm; Th: 6 cm. State of preservation: Fragment, broken on upper and right side; upper right edge missing. Date: Roman period. 96

97

50

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

98

67. Moulding. J16-Vb-1-1 (Fig. 98) Moulding of a marble wall revetment (ovolo, cavetto); backside smoothed, with a slightly elevated horizontal rim; the mitred right edge (45 degree angle) makes the piece a corner piece.

99

Find spot: Trench  V, surface. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter? Material: Marble. Measurements: H:  6.7  cm; W:  18.3  cm; Th:  7.2  cm. State of preservation: Surface well preserved; upper edge in parts chipped. Date: Roman period.

68. Moulding. J16-Vc-21-2 (Figs 99–100) Block with plain moulding (steep cyma, astragal); lower(?) side with broken dowel hole; back part of the block hollowed out. Find spot: Trench  V, surface. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 27 cm; W: 43 cm; L: 51.5 cm. State of preservation: Edges broken; surface worn and weathered. Date: —

100

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

101

51

102

69.Fragment of a moulding. J16-Vi-1-51 (Figs 101–02)

70. Moulding. J16-Vi-55-8 (Figs 103–04)

Fragment of a moulding with projecting band (plinth?) decorated with a plain zigzag motif carved into the front, cavetto, and ovolo; surface with traces of claw chisel.

Moulding of a marble revetment (torus, fillet, cyma recta, fillet); broken narrow side with dowel hole (D: 8  mm); backside smoothed with slightly elevated horizontal rim.

Find spot: Trench  V, surface. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  18.3  cm; W:  13.7  cm; Th:  10.5  cm. State of preservation: Broken on all sides. Date: —

103

Find spot: Trench V. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Marble. Measurements: H:  7  cm; W:  27.5  cm; Th:  10.5  cm. State of preservation: Upper edge and lateral sides broken; surface slightly weathered. Date: Roman period.

104

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

52

71.Fragment of a moulding(?). J14-Jd-35-68 (Figs 105–06) Fragment of a moulding(?) with a drilled zigzag- or egglike decoration.

105

Find spot: Trench  J. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: L: 6.5 cm; H: 3.5 cm. State of preservation: Small fragment, broken on all sides, front slightly weathered. Date: —

106

Miscellanea 107

108

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

53

72. Door console. J15-Pe-72-1 (Figs 107–10)

109

Door console block; front side framed by a moulding(?) and a central vertical band decorated with a pattern/ motif in elevated relief of overlapping leaf-like motifs (perhaps, even if the preservation allows no confirmation, feathers?); right lateral side of the console smoothed and undecorated; left lateral side framed by a cyma and dominated by a volute with convex spiral that overlaps the upper frame and proceeds as moulding of this side’s framing(?); the diagonal frame (again a cyma, yet with its moulding towards the outer side) continues towards its lower, missing end in a gentle curve; the free space below the volute is occupied by a delicately carved vine leaf; traces of plaster on the outer moulding (from a reuse?). Find spot: Trench P. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  45  cm; W: 21 cm; L: 52 cm. State of preservation: Lower end missing; upper side (front) in large parts broken and badly worn; surface of the lateral decoration very well preserved, only minor parts missing. Date: Late first century bc/first century ad. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 146 pl. 23.146 (‘Late Roman–Early Islamic’).

73. Fragment of a slab with openwork. J15-Pc-16-1 (Figs 111–14) Fragment of a slab with broken remains of decoration of three interlaced bands in openwork/ lattice; both surfaces of the fragment show different stages of smoothing: side (a) (Figs 113–14) presents an only roughly prepared, approx. 25 cm high lower part below the upper zone with its decoration, yet here the bands are articulated as being interlaced, to the right of them an unclear rounded motif is outlined in relief; the lower part of side (b) instead is partially smoothed and shows traces of a claw chisel (marked on Fig. 112), yet this side of the interlaced bands is flat and unarticulated; in remarkable contrast, a part of the left edge of this side shows a section of a carefully smoothed area with a shallow cyma moulding that

110

112

111

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

54

113

114

finds its — still undressed and slightly elevated — continuation in the area worked with claw chisel to the right; the different stages of preparation on both sides and especially on side (b) make the fragment an unfinished workpiece. Find spot: Trench  P. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  35  cm; W:  33.8  cm; Th: 8.5 cm. State of preservation: Broken on all sides; two fragments; surface weathered and partially worn. Date: Byzantine period.

74.Corner fragment of a marble panel. J15-Jl-32-11 (Figs 115–16) Corner fragment of a thin marble panel; surface with flat outer frame, shallow and slightly concave channel (W: 2 cm), flat concentric inner frame (W: 1 cm), faceted moulding; only roughly smoothed back; one edge of the fragment was cut with a saw, i.e. prepared for a later reuse in a different context (a pavement?). Find spot: Trench  J. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Marble. Measurements: H: 10.7 cm; L: 16.5 cm; Th: 3.5 cm. State of preservation: Upper, left, and right edges broken, lower edge horizontally cut (from a later reuse; edge weathered). Date: Byzantine period.

116

115

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

55

75.Panel fragment. J15-Ob-16-1 (Figs 117–18) Corner fragment of a limestone slab with a subdivided concentric flat outer frame and faceted inner frame; surface with claw chisel traces; the thickness suggests a fragment of a (limestone) screen, yet with backside that has not been smoothed; the chisel traces on the surface of the outer frame might indicate an unfinished state before it was broken (or a later reuse?). Find spot: Trench O. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 14.4 cm; W: 13.5 cm; Th: 6.5 cm. State of preservation: Corner fragment; surface slightly weathered. Date: Byzantine period.

76.Fragment of a marble panel. J16-Wf-109-1 (Fig. 119) 117

Corner fragment of a thin marble slab, decorated with concentric flat outer frame, flat half round, and faceted inner moulding; backside smoothed and polished. Find spot: Trench  W. Present location: Local depot, Depart­ment of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Marble. Measurements: H:  24  cm; W:  21.5  cm; Th:  3.5  cm. State of preservation: Fragment, broken on two sides; surface weathered. Date: Byzantine period.

77.Fragment of a marble panel. J15-Nm-76-3 (Fig. 120) Fragment of a thin marble slab with two plain parallel flat mouldings/​b and separated by shallow concave channels; claw chisel traces on the backside. Find spot: Trench  N. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Marble. Measurements: H: 10.5 cm; W: 19 cm; Th: 3 cm. State of preservation: Fragment, broken on all sides. Date: —

119

118

120

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

56

121

123

124 122

78.Panel fragment. J15-Pe-42-2+3 (Figs 121–22) Fragment of a large limestone slab with plain shallow cavetto moulding and fillet; surface covered with claw chisel traces. Find spot: Trench  P. Present location: Field; Northwest Quarter. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 59 cm; W: 102 cm; Th: 10.5 cm. State of preservation: Broken in two pieces; three edges broken; surface weathered. Date: Roman period.

79.Volute fragment. J16-Wi-1-47-7 (Figs 123–24) Fragment of a small volute motif (two oppositely arranged plain volutes with slightly convex spiral and remains of the filling elements in the spaces between the scrolls). Find spot: Trench  W. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H:  6.5  cm; W:  11.1  cm; Th: 3.7 cm. State of preservation: Fragment. Date: —

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

57

80.Fragment of a round slab. J16-Tc-41-1 (Figs 125–26)

126

Fragment of a round slab with plain moulding (slightly convex upper moulding, torus (cyma recta?); one side smoothed, the other one only roughly finished (as result of a reworking?). Find spot: Trench  T. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone. Measurements: H: 5.5 cm; W: 16.5 cm; L: 22 cm; D approx.: 43 cm. State of preservation: Fragment; surface weathered and slightly worn. Date: —

125

128

129

130

127

81. Loculus block for reliquary. J16-Sh-63-1 (Figs 127–32)

131

132

The sides of the small block of white marble surprise with several types of finishing and preparations of different character: a smoothed upper side with carefully cut, yet not exactly centred rectangular cavity (L: 17 cm; W: 12.5 cm; depth: 11 cm); the right side smoothed with four circular cavities (D: 3 cm; depth: 1 cm) arranged at a distance of approx. 17.5 cm from each other in a — again not centred — square; the formerly smoothed left side with traces of roughening; the lower side with a roughened, formerly embossed surface with a 1.5 cm wide drafted margin preserved along two edges; and two smoothed narrow sides.

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

58

135 133

134

The differing preparation of the sides prove multiple reuses of a formerly larger marble block: drafted margin along only two of the four edges and embossed surface indicate that the block was cut from a larger block that must have formed part of the (ashlar) masonry of a marble architecture of monumental aesthetic (of the Roman period?). It is difficult to imagine its connection with and the function of the four circular cavities in the adjacent right side as well as of the roughening of the former smooth surface of the left side. Both might therefore be connected to further reuse. The deep and carefully cut rectangular cavity in the smoothed upper side instead finds close parallels among the loculus blocks inserted in the floor under the altar of Byzantine churches (in Jerash and beyond) to contain reliquaries, indicating a last (and final?) reuse of the block before its ultimate deposition in a filling in trench S. Find spot: Eastern area of Trench  S. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: White marble. Measurements: H: 30.5 cm; L: 33.5 cm; W: 28 cm. State of preservation: Complete, only three of the upper corners broken; surface slightly patinated. Date: Roman and Byzantine periods.

82.Two blocks with remains of connecting clamp. J16-Sk-105-5 and J16-Sk-105-5A (Figs 133–36) Two limestone blocks of slightly different dimensions; rather rough workmanship of all sides (especially the opposing outer sides) except for the upper surface with finer preparation and possible traces of an anathyrosis(?); upper side of both blocks with corresponding halves of a carefully cut mortise for a double T-clamp with deeper crossbars (width of the crossbars 8–8.5 cm; depth:  2–2.5  cm); both blocks were formerly connected by an iron clamp (the only find of a clamp from the Northwest Quarter), parts and corroded residue of which are still preserved in the mortise of block B; according to these remains, the clamp consisted of two small iron rods ending in rounded hooks. Its use in a mortise designed for a double T-clamp with deeper crossbars might indicate a reuse of the blocks or their ‘re-clamping’. This hypothesis is also supported by the arrangement of the blocks connected by the clamp: they appear partially and roughly reworked, their joint is not really closed, and the lateral sides of the blocks do not align properly. Find spot: Trench  S. Present location: Local depot, Department of Antiquities of Jordan, Jerash. Material: Limestone (blocks); iron (clamp). Measurements: Block A: H:  26  cm; W:  43  cm; L: 30.5  cm; Block B: H:  27.5  cm; W:  44  cm; L: 28  cm. State of preservation: Damaged by demolition; clamp preserved in two corroded fragments. Date: Roman period? 136

2. Architectural Elements from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

59

Works Cited Acconci, A. 1998. ‘Elements of the Liturgical Furniture’, in M.  Piccirillo and E.  Alliata (eds), Mount Nebo: New Archaeo­logical Excavations 1967–1997, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, collectio maior, 27 ( Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum), pp. 468–542. Bitterer, T. 2013. ‘Marmorverkleidung stadtrömischer Architektur: Öffentliche Bauten aus dem 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis 7. Jahrhundert n. Chr.’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Munich) [accessed 26 February 2021]. Clark, V. A. and J. Bowsher. 1986. ‘A Note on Soundings in the Northwestern Quarter of Jerash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­ logical Project, 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 343–49. Clark, V. A. and others. 1986. ‘The Jerash North Theater: Architecture and Archaeo­logy 1982–1983’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 205–302. Dentzer-Feydy, J. 1989. ‘Le décor architectural en Syrie aux époques hellénistique et romaine’, in J.-M. Dentzer and W. Orthmann (eds), Archéo­logie et histoire de la Syrie, ii: La Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam (Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag), pp. 457–76. Eristov, H. and others. 2003. ‘Le “naos hellénistique” du sanctuaire de Zeus olympien à Jerash ( Jordanie): études préliminaires de restitution’, in M. Sartre (ed.), La Syrie hellénistique, Topoi. Orient-Occident. Supplément, 4 (Paris: De Boccard), pp. 269–98. Fischer, M. and I. Taxel. 2007. ‘Ancient Yavneh: Its History and Archaeo­logy’, Tel Aviv, 34: 204–84. Foerster, G. 1989. ‘Decorated Marble Chancel Screens in Sixth-Century Synagogues in Palestine and their Relation to Christian Art and Architecture’, in N. Duval (ed.), Actes du XIe congrès international d’archéo­logie chrétienne: Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble, Genève, Aoste, 21–28 septembre 1986 (Rome: École française de Rome), pp. 1809–20. Hamarneh, C. and N. Abu-Jaber. 2013. ‘Documentation and Protection of the Quarries of Gerasa’, Levant, 45: 57–68. Kalaitzoglou, G., A.  Lichtenberger, and R.  Raja. 2013. ‘Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 57–79. —— 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Field Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 11–37. —— 2015. ‘Preliminary Report on the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 11–43. Kalaitzoglou, G. and others (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report on the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. —— (forthcoming b). ‘Preliminary Report on the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. Kanellopoulos, C. and R. Schick. 2001. ‘Marble Furnishings of the Apses and the Bema’, in Z. B. Fiema (ed.), The Petra Church, ACOR Publications, 3 (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research), pp. 193–214. Kautzsch, R. 1936. Kapitellstudien: Beiträge zu einer Geschichte des spätantiken Kapitells im Osten vom vierten bis ins siebente Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter). Kraeling, C. H. 1938. Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). Lepaon, T., N. Turshan, and T. M. Weber-Karyotakis. 2018. ‘The “Great Eastern Baths” of Jerash/​Gerasa: Balance of Knowledge and Ongoing Research’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 131–42. Lichtenberger, A. and R.  Raja. 2012. ‘Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2011’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 56: 231–39. —— (eds). 2017. Gerasa/​Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AU). —— 2018. ‘A View of Gerasa/​Jerash from its Urban Periphery: The Northwest Quarter and its Significance for the Understanding of the Urban Development of Gerasa from the Roman to the Early Islamic Period’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 143–66. —— 2019. ‘The Danish-German Jerash North-West Quarter Project: Results from 2014–2015 Seasons’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 13: 51–71. —— 2020. ‘A New Perspective on Gerasa/​Jerash through the Findings of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Environmental Studies, Remote Sensing, and Modelling: Final Publications from the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, i, Jerash Papers, 6 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 1–44. Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2013. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 9–56. —— 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 39–103.

60

Patric-Alexander Kreuz

Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2015. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 45–131. March, C. 2004. ‘La réutilisation des éléments d’architecture du temple haut du sanctuaire de Zeus à Gerasa à la période byzantine’, Syria, 81: 147–75. Michel, A. 1999. ‘Le culte des reliques dans les églises byzantines de Jordanie’, Hortus artium medi­evalum, 5: 31–40. —— 2001. Les églises d’époques byzantine et umayyade de Jordanie (provinces d’Arabie et de Palestine) ve-viiie siècle: typo­logie architecturale et aménagements liturgiques (avec catalogue des monuments), Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité tardive, 2 (Turnhout: Brepols). Nasser, M. 2004. The Architectural Elements and Decoration of Gerasa ( Jerash) during the Roman Period (Typo­logical and Comparative Studies) (Berlin: Mensch und Buch). Netzer, E. 2006. The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Olávarri, E. 1986. ‘Excavaciones en el Edificio Publico Romano’, in F.  Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 461–92. Parapetti, R. 1984. ‘Architectural and Urban Space in Roman Gerasa’, Mesopotamia, 18: 37–84. Parapetti, R. and others. 1986. ‘The Italian Activity within the Jerash Project 1982–83’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 167–203. Peleg-Barkat, O. 2011. ‘The Introduction of Classical Architectural Decoration into Cities of the Decapolis: Hippos, Gadara, Gerasa and Scythopolis’, Aram, 23: 425–45. —— 2012. ‘The Relative Chrono­logy of Tomb Façades in Early Roman Jerusalem and Power Displays by the Elite’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 25: 403–18. —— 2013. ‘The Architectural Fragments’, in D. Ben Ami (ed.), Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv’ati Parking Lot), i, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 52 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 205–12. —— 2017. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968−1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports Volume, v: Herodian Architectural Decoration and King Herod’s Royal Portico, Qedem Mono­graphs, 57 ( Jerusalem: The Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem). Peleg-Barkat, O. and Y. Tepper. 2016. ‘Hellenistic and Roman Stone Furniture and Architectural Decoration from Horvat ‘Eleq at Ramat HaNadiv’, in J. Patrich, O. Peleg-Barkat, and E. Ben-Yosef (eds), Arise, Walk through the Land: Studies in the Archaeo­logy and History of the Land of Israel in the Memory of Yizhar Hirschfeld on the Tenth Anniversary of his Demise [Hebrew section] ( Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society). Piccirillo, M. 1989. Chiese e mosaici di Madaba, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, collectio maior, 34 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). Segal, A. 1988. Architectural Decoration in Byzantine Shivta, Negev Desert, Israel, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 420 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports). Seigne, J. 1986. ‘Recherche sur le sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 29–105. —— 2014. ‘Des portiques du naos de Zeus Olympien aux entrées des thermes de l’évêque Placcus: emprunts et recyclages d’éléments architecturaux à Gérasa’, Topoi, 19: 595–627. Tabaczek, M. 2001. ‘Zwischen Stoa und Suq: Die Säulenstraßen im Vorderen Orient in römischer Zeit unter besonderer Berück­ sichtigung von Palmyra’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Co­logne) [accessed 26 January 2021]. Taxel, I. 2018. ‘Late Antique Ionic Column Capitals in the Countryside of Central Palestine between Provincial Trends and Classical Traditions’, Studies in Late Antiquity, 2: 84–125.

3. Byzantine Interior Decorational Elements from the Northwest Quarter Achim Lichtenberger Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/​Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. [email protected]

Rubina Raja Centre for Urban Network Evolutions/​Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark. [email protected]

T

hree decorational fragments stemming from interior elements of Byzantine-period buildings were excavated during the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project.1 The objects are a fragment of a marble sigma table (cat. no. 1 ( J16-Uc-60-42)) (Figs 3.1–3.2), a fragment of a limestone chancel screen (cat. no.  2 ( J16-Vf-25-46)) (Figs  3.3–3.5), and a fragment of a decorated marble relief in champlevé technique (cat. no. 3 ( J16-Wg-107-3x)) (Figs 3.6–3.7). The fragmented objects were excavated during the 2016 campaign, in trenches U, V, and W respectively.  They were found in secondary contexts connected to the earthquake destruction of ad 749. The fragments seem to have been in use in early Islamic contexts, but most likely not in their entirety, since the destruction layers did not reveal further fragments and none of the fragments could be pieced together into whole objects.2

Further fragments of interior decoration are discussed in the contribution by Kreuz in this volume. Some were executed in marble, others in limestone.3 Their fragmented state is a reflection of the intense use and reuse of complexes and their interior materials in the Northwest Quarter. These processes of reuse continuously took place from the Late Roman period until the middle of the eighth century ad when the earthquake struck. The types of elements that the fragments belonged to are all common ones, which were used extensively throughout the Byzantine and in the Early Islamic period.4 Due to the secondary find contexts, it is not possible to conclude to which buildings the fragments originally belonged or even whether they had belonged to buildings that once stood in the Northwest Quarter. However, judging from the typo­logy of the objects, they most likely belonged to religious buildings, namely churches.5 3 

1 

The fragments are all published in Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming), cat. nos 117 ( J16-Uc-60-42), 119 ( J16-Vf-25-46), and 120 ( J16-Wg-107-3x). Furthermore, information on the nature of trenches from which the fragments stem can be found in Lichtenberger and Raja (2020) as well as in Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming ). Also see Kreuz in this volume for three further potential fragments of marble chancel screens: cat. nos 74 ( J15Jl-32-11), 76 ( J16-Wf-109-1), and 77 ( J15-Nm-76-3). The authors would like to thank Dieter Korol (Münster) for valuable advice on the objects. 2  See Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming) on the contexts of the pieces. Also see Lichtenberger and Raja 2019a; 2019b for the impact of the earthquake in the Northwest Quarter.

See Abu-Jaber, al-Saad, and Smadi 2009 for limestone quarries around Gerasa. 4  See Ritter 2012 and 2017 for champlevé reliefs in the Early Islamic period. See Flood 2001 on Islamic reuse of sixth-century tables. 5  See Burdajewicz 2020 for a treatment of some decoration in the southern Levant, specifically table 1 for the Cathedral complex in Gerasa. Although she does not speak about champlevé reliefs in particular there is an emphasis on the wall decoration in marble. Also see Kraeling 1938, 201–25 for the Cathedral complex as well as Michel 2001, 229–33. Furthermore, throughout the chapter on the churches in Kraeling 1938 there are mentions of holes for wall revetments in various churches, but no images are given of any potential fragments from those excavations.

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume  i: Architecture and Building Ceramics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 61–64 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126438

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

62 The chancel screen fragment, the fragmented champlevé technique relief, as well as the sigma table could also stem from use in a synagogue building.6 Champlevé technique was also applied extensively in the Early Islamic period, and sigma tables are also known to have been used in the Early Islamic period.7

Catalogue

Figure 3.1. Fragment of marble sigma table, front side ( J16-Uc-60-42).

Figure 3.2. Fragment of marble sigma table, backside ( J16-Uc-60-42).

1. J16-Uc-60-42 (Figs 3.1–3.2)

Fragment of sigma table White marble Max. L.: 31.4 cm; Max. W.: 20.4 cm; T.: 1.5 cm

6   See Habas 2000 and Foerster 1989. For champlevé relief decoration in synagogues, see Rautman 2020 — also for further references. In the Northwest Quarter, the late antique synagogue was located not very far from the place where the fragment was found. However, the synagogue was converted into a church in the sixth century and the fragment could also have come from this building or one not even located in the Northwest Quarter. See Lichtenberger and Raja 2018; Haensch, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2016. 7  Habas 2009. Rautman (forthcoming) is including a catalogue of twenty-two examples of sigma tables from Sardis. Some of which show parallels to the fragment found in the Northwest Quarter (personal communication M. Rautman).

The fragment belongs to a small scalloped marble sigma table with semicircular cavities and a rectangular niche on the lower side. The backside is well smoothed and has a profile suggesting that the table was of a portable type. The type is of Chalkias type B (Chalkia 1991, 34–42). Similar fragments were found at Mt Nebo and in Jerash. The closest comparison for the arrangement of the cavities is a limestone sigma table from Herodium (Piccirillo and Israeli 2000, 74). Other parallels for scalloped examples include three tables from Sardis (personal communication M. Rautman). References: Cat. no. 117 and pl. 21.117 in Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming); Saller 1941, pl. 126; Chalkia 1991; Piccirillo and Israeli 2000, 74. Date: Byzantine.

3. Byzantine Interior Decorational Elements from the Northwest Quarter

63

Figure 3.3. Fragment of limestone chancel screen, front side ( J16-Vf-25-46).

Figure 3.6. Fragment of decorated marble relief in champlevé technique, front side ( J16-Wg-107-3x). Figure 3.4. Fragment of limestone chancel screen, backside ( J16-Vf-25-46).

Figure 3.5. Fragment of limestone chancel screen, bottom ( J16-Vf-25-46). Figure 3.7. Fragment of decorated marble relief in champlevé technique, backside ( J16-Wg-107-3x).

2. J16-Vf-25-46 (Figs 3.3–3.5)

3. J16-Wg-107-3x (Figs 3.6–3.7)

Fragment of chancel screen Limestone

Fragment of decorated marble relief in champlevé technique

Max. L.: 17.5 cm; Max. W.: 17.4 cm; H.: 6.6 cm; T.: 1.9+2.8+1.7 cm

White-greyish marble Max. H.: 15.2 cm; Max. W.: 14.3 cm; T.: 1.2 cm

Fragment of the external part of an originally closed, rectangular chancel screen with a decor representing concentric frames. At the side, the fragment has a tongue for inserting it into the furrow of a chancel post. The backside is roughly worked and also decorated with concentric frames.

Fragment of a marble slab in champlevé technique, showing parts of two acanthus leaves, the left one possibly only a half leaf. The backside is smooth. This could be a fragment of a revetment maybe belonging to a small pilaster capital. However, it could also be that the fragment in its reuse phase had been reworked and therefore originally would have stemmed from a larger element. Two plaques in champlevé technique were found previously in Jerash, none of which have been published yet (Boyd 2007, 300). This kind of architectural decoration is typical (but not exclusive) for churches, and it was also used in synagogues in the Umayyad period (Ritter 2017, 145–63).

References: Cat. no. 119 and pl. 21.119 in Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming). Also see Kreuz in this volume: cat. nos 74 ( J15-Jl-32-11), 76 ( J16-Wf-109-1), and 77 ( J15-Nm-76-3) for potential further fragments of chancel screens from the Northwest Quarter. Date: Byzantine.

References: Cat. no. 120 and pl. 21.120 in Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming); Boyd 2007, esp. 250. Date: Fifth/​sixth century ad.

64

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Works Cited Abu-Jaber, N., Z. al-Saad, and N.  Smadi. 2009. ‘The Quarryscapes of Gerasa ( Jarash), Jordan’, in N.  Abu-Jaber and others (eds), QuarryScapes: Ancient Stone Quarry Landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean, Geo­logical Survey of Norway Special Publication, 12 (Trondheim: Geo­logical Survey of Norway), pp. 67–75. Boyd, S. 2007. ‘The Champlevé Revetments’, in A.  H.  S. Megaw (ed.), Kourion: Excavations in the Episcopal Precinct (Harvard: Harvard Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 235–320. Burdajewicz, J. 2020. ‘Wall Paintings, Wall Mosaics, and Marble Wall Revetments in Early Christian Churches of the Southern Levant’, in K. Jakubiak, A. Łajtar, and M. Burdajewicz (eds), Ex Oriente Lux: Studies in Honour of Jolanta Mlynarczyk (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego), pp. 345–62. Chalkia, E. 1991. Le mense paleocristiane: tipo­logia e funzioni delle mense secondarie nel culto paleocristiano (Città del Vaticano: Pontificio istituto di archeo­logia cristiana). Flood, F. B. 2001. ‘The Medi­eval Trophy as an Art Historical Trope: Coptic and Byzantine “Altars” in Islamic Contexts’, Muqarnas, 18: 41–72. Foerster, G. 1989. ‘Decorated Marble Chancel Screens in Sixth-Century Synagogues in Palestine and their Relation to Christian Art and Architecture’, in N. Duval (ed.), Actes du XIe congrès d’archéo­logie chrétiennes: Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble, Genève, Aoste (21-28 septembre 1986) (Rome: École française de Rome), ii, pp. 1809–20. Habas, L. 2000. ‘The “Bema” and Chancel Screen in Synagogues and their Origin’, in L. I. Levine and Z. Weiss (eds), From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, Supplementary Series, 40 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 111–30. —— 2009. ‘The Art of Imported Marble Chancel Screens and its Influence on Local Production in the Churches of the Provinces of Palaestina and Arabia: A  Case Study’, in H.  Oniz (ed.), SOMA 2008: Proceedings of the XII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeo­logy, Eastern Mediterranean Uni­ver­sity, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 5–8 March 2008, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1909 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports), pp. 100–08. Haensch, R., A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja. 2016. ‘Christen, Juden und Soldaten im Gerasa des 6. Jahrhunderts’, Chiron, 46: 177–204. Kalaitzoglou, G. and others (forthcoming). ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. Kraeling, C. H. (ed.). 1938. Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research). Lichtenberger, A. and R.  Raja. 2018. ‘From Synagogue to Church: The Appropriation of the Synagogue of Gerasa/​Jerash under Justinian’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 61: 85–100. —— 2019a. ‘Defining Borders: The Umayyad-Abbasid Transition and the Earthquake of ad 749 in Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 265–86. —— 2019b. ‘Introduction: The Conundrum of Chrono­logies of the Byzantine and Umayyad Periods in Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R.  Raja (eds), Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 1–6. —— 2020. ‘A New Perspective on Gerasa/​Jerash through the Findings of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project: The Final Publications of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project (2011–2016)’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Environmental Studies, Remote Sensing, and Modelling in Jerash: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, i, Jerash Papers, 6 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 1–44. Michel, A. 2001. Les églises d’époque byzantine et umayyade de la Jordanie, ve/​viiie siècle: typo­logie architecturale et aménagements liturgiques, Bibliothèque de l’antiquité tardive, 2 (Turnhout: Brepols). Piccirillo, M. and Y. Israeli. 2000. ‘The Architecture and Liturgy of the Early Church’, in Y. Israeli and D. Mevorah (eds), Cradle of Christianity ( Jerusalem: Israel Museum), pp. 47–113. Rautman, M. 2020. ‘The Color-Inlaid “Champlevé” Reliefs of the Synagogue of Sardis’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 383: 97–113. —— (forthcoming). ‘Trays and Tables’, in S. Seager, The Synagogue at Sardis, Archaeo­logical Exploration of Sardis (Cambridge, MA: Archaeo­logical Exploration of Sardis). Ritter, M. 2012. ‘Umayyadisches Ornament und christliche Motive: Marmorrelieffriese (Champlevé) im Palast von Ḫirbat al-Minya’, in L. Korn and A. Heidenreich (eds), Beiträge zur islamischen Kunst und Archäo­logie, iii (Wiesbaden: Reichert), pp. 113–37. —— 2017. Der umayyadische Palast des 8. Jahrhunderts in Hirbat al-Minya am See von Tiberias (Wiesbaden: Reichert). Saller, S. J. 1941. The Memorial of Moses on Mount Nebo ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Press).

4. A Monumental Architectural Limestone Block with Altar Iconog ­ raphy Achim Lichtenberger Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/​Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. [email protected]

Rubina Raja Centre for Urban Network Evolutions/​Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark. [email protected]

The Find Situation of the Monumental Architectural Limestone Block with Altar Icono­graphy In 2012, trench B located in the northern part of the Northwest Quarter was excavated. An illicit excavation of modern date had already exposed the top part of a large whitish limestone block, which carried altar icono­graphy representing a bowl and horns in this area (Fig. 4.1).1 Furthermore, the top course of a north–south running wall was also visible (Fig. 4.2). The wall turned out to be the back wall of a late Roman/​Byzantine oil press that was in use until the Byzantine period based on the ceramic finds in the trench.2 A later middle Islamic phase, belonging to the period after the area fell out of use as an oil press, was also documented in the area. 3 Almost the entire press part was excavated including the oil basins, the press bed, and weights (Fig. 4.3). The press bed was framed by two ‘press towers’, which consisted of monumental reused blocks. The press type is attested in Gerasa in other locations and is a common type in the region.4

1 

The monumental architectural block has previously been published in the following publications: Kalaitzoglou, Lichten­ berger, and Raja 2013, 63 (trench situation), 75–77 (catalogue text); Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a; 2015c; 2018a. The present contribution is based on these earlier publications. The current text is a compressed, slightly modified, and updated version. Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a is available open access and remains the most extensive publication of the block. 2  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013. 3  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013. Also see con­ tributions in: Lichtenberger and Raja 2016; 2018b. 4  Brun 2004, 14 (lever press type A3).

The easternmost ‘press tower’ was made from an architectural block that carried altar icono­g raphy (Figs 4.4 and 4.5). Another block found during the excavation within the fill of trench B turned out to be the original rounded top part of the large block (Fig. 4.6). The height of the entire architectural element was originally approximately 2.70 m (Fig. 4.7).

Description of the Monumental Architectural Block The block is a monumental rectangular worked block of the local soft whitish limestone ( J12-Bcd-19). It measures 1.95 m in height and 0.89–0.90 m in width from the lower part to the upper part and is 0.55 m deep. The top part of the block was broken off, and the lower part had been reworked for secondary use in the oil press. The reworking of the block for fitting it into the oil press can be traced on the front below the pilaster columns. Here, a deep square hole and a depression run horizontally from the hole to the left side of the block. The front side up until the pilasters curves concavely due to the secondary use of the block as a tower in the oil press. On the backside of the block, approximately one third below the top, there is a horizontal furrow approximately 4–5 cm broad and 3 cm deep running across the block. This mark stems from a failed attempt to saw the block into two parts, most likely in the late antique period.5 The right short side is damaged on both upper corners, and the corner horns are partly broken away.

5 

We know of water-powered sawmills in Gerasa: Seigne 2002.

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume  i: Architecture and Building Ceramics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 65–74 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126439

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

66

Figure 4.1. Plan of the Northwest Quarter with trench B marked on plan.

Figure 4.2. Trench B before excavation — with the top course of the north–south running wall visible.

Figure 4.3. Trench B at the end of excavation.

4. A Monumental Architectural Limestone Block with Altar Icono­graphy

67

The block is worked on all sides. The lower part of two slightly off-axis columns/​pilasters is preserved on the upper front part of the block. The pilasters are located slightly further to the right on the block than to the left. The pilasters are standing on a carved protruding base, running horizontally across the front of the entire block and continuing on the right short side of the block. Between the pilaster columns there is a deep narrow niche measuring approximately 23 cm (W), 41 cm (H), and 18 cm (D). Directly under the protruding basis, a centrally located square posthole stemming from secondary use in the oil press is visible. The stone curves concavely under the protruding basis as a result of its use in the oil press. Each upper corner of the left short side is decorated with a horn curving slightly outwards. A deep relief showing a stylized basin or bowl is located on the left short side. Due to the proportion (0.55 m) of this short side, the bowl appears artificially slender. The horns and the bowl are placed on the carved protruding baseline, which runs horizontally across the entire short side. Below the Figure 4.4. The monumental limestone block after baseline, the stone is worked, howremoval from trench B. ever, without decorative features. The right short side is roughly smoothed and is worked with an anathyrosis. On the upper part of the backside there is a roughly worked horizontally running step. As the step does not cut and damage the horns, it remains unclear whether it relates to the original use or the secondary reuse in the oil press. The backside is roughly worked. The block’s top is worn and weathered. The bottom of the block is partly damaged, but has been worked to create a straight surface. The top part of the monumental block made of the same local soft whitish limestone carries a niche ( J12-Bd2-1x). It measures 0.71 m (H), 0.89 m (W), and 0.69  m (D). The block is damaged on all sides and the surface is badly weathered. The upper part of the front side is damaged. In the centre, the curved part of a rounded niche is visible. The capitals of pilasters flanking the niche on each side are also preserved. Inside the niche, a protruding cornice is visible. The left side of the block is damaged and worn. On this side, a rectangular niche is carved. The right side, which is Figure 4.5. Drawing of the monumental block.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

68

Figure 4.6. Drawing of the top part of the architectural block.

Figure 4.7. Reconstruction of the entire block with photo of the lower part of the block.

curving, is damaged and worn. The backside, which is also curving, is damaged and worn as well. The top of the block is curving towards the backside, but is also damaged and worn. The bottom of the block shows heavy signs of having been broken off. Due to the weathering of the two blocks, the two pieces cannot be joined at their fractures. There is no doubt, however, that the parts originally belonged together. This is obvious through the corresponding measurements and the exact correspondence of the pilasters and the niche. It should be noted that the upper part of the front side of the block projects slightly further out than the lower part, but this projection begins already on the lower block and continues on to the upper part of the block. A reconstruction of the possible original context of the block suggests that the broad front side and the left short side were meant to be seen, while the right short side with the anathyrosis was integrated into a built structure, most likely a wall (Fig. 4.8). The broad backside of the block might also have been

4. A Monumental Architectural Limestone Block with Altar Icono­graphy

Figure 4.8. Hypothetical reconstruction of the original location of the monumental architectural block.

integrated into a wall. At least in its present state there is no evidence that it was meant to be seen in its original context. Since the architectural block is not very deep and thus could only have constituted one face in a wall, the integration into a wall is a likely original scenario. This suggestion is supported by the fact that the left horn on the left short side, which is flat, does not project out as the right horn, which formed the corner, does. The broad front side is on the bottom part constructed like an altar with horns at the sides. On top of the horned altar element, however, a niche with an arched gable is positioned. Looking at the left short side, the impression of an altar is further supported not only by the recurring horns but also by the fire bowl or basin on top. Although this bowl or basin is stylized and slender, it is clear that it imitates altar icono­graphy. Such altar icono­graphy is attested on numerous horned altars with fire bowls or basins on top found in Gerasa (Figs 4.9 and 4.10).6 The horns in particular are a motif that is found often on Roman-period altars in Gerasa and seems to have been very popular in the city in comparison to other cities in the region.7 However, as well as on the broad front side as on the short side, the upper part of the block introduces another element, namely the rectangular niche, which does not belong to or imitate the 6 

Hiort 2013. Lichtenberger and Raja 2013; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013. 7 

69

Figure 4.9. Horned altar from Jerash.

Figure 4.10. Horned altar with stylized bowl visible between the horns from Jerash.

upper part of an altar. Thus, it is clear that although the object looked like an altar, it is, however, an architectural block that only draws heavily on altar icono­graphy. The interpretation that the block did not in itself function as an altar is also supported by the large dimensions and the slim proportions of the object. The fire bowl or basin was clearly not functional as it is cut in relief and simply constituted the base for the rectangular niche located on top of it.

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

70

Figure 4.11. Alternative reconstruction of original location.

Following the assumption that the block functioned as an architectural element that was integrated into a built structure, there are two possibilities for its location in the original context. It could either stem from the left corner of a building, or it could have formed the right side of a framing of a thoroughfare (doorway) or niche (Figs 4.8 and 4.11). Both reconstructions would have demanded at least one similar piece as pendant in order to symmetrically either frame the opening or the other corner of the building. Comparanda show that the block most likely stemmed from a framing of a thoroughfare (doorway), since no buildings in which such an element formed the outer corner are known (Fig. 4.8).8

The Icono­graphic Elements and their Relationship to Sacred Architecture The monumental architectural block holds two sets of icono­graphic elements to be considered: namely that of the reduced altar icono­graphy (the horns and the basin or bowl) and the niche.9 The reduced altar icono­graphy 8 

In Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a, we presented the relevant comparanda. 9  The elements were also considered in our 2015 publication (Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a): altar icono­g raphy (121–25) and the niche motif (125–27) also for full list of references.

is one which finds little and remote comparanda. The niche motif is much more widely found, in sacred as well as in non-sacred contexts. Examples of motifs, where altar icono­g raphy was reduced to an architectural decorative element or abstracted motif are found in sanctuaries in the wider region, in particular what is today modern Lebanon and Syria. Two examples are found at Burj Baqirah and at close-by Khirbet el-Hatib in the Limestone Massif.10 There, altar reliefs frame the lintels of the entrances to the sanctuaries. They underline the sacred space, which one was about to enter through their presence. These comparisons, however, should be seen in the perspective that they are in fact actual representations of altars in relief. Furthermore, at Burj Baqirah, Zeus Bomos (Zeus Altar) was venerated and therefore it was more than fitting to depict altars on the entrance lintels. There was a direct connection between cult and icono­ graphic symbols used. We do not have information about the cult celebrated at Khirbet el-Hatib. At Sfire in northern Lebanon, another example of altar depictions framing a doorway is found.11 Two altars on either side of the front wall framed the entrance to the sanctu10 

For Burj Baqirah, see Steinsapir 2005, 50–51. For Khirbet elHatib, see Kreuz 1999, 24–25, pls 43–44. Also see a possible altar on the entrance to the sanctuary at Harab Sams: Tate 1992, 119, fig. 173. 11  Steinsapir 2005, 134–35.

4. A Monumental Architectural Limestone Block with Altar Icono­graphy

71

Figure 4.12. Entrance to the Artemision in Gerasa.

ary. No temple was, however, located in the temenos of the sanctuary. The main focus of the cult was simply a monumental altar, a so-called monument à colonnettes, which stood in a different tradition than the GraecoRoman.12 Very likely, just as in the case of the examples from the Limestone Massif, we here see a direct correlation between the depiction of an altar on the front of the sanctuary and the nature of the cult. Niches in architecture were a widely used decorative element in ancient architecture, both sacred and nonsacred. Niches located on the front of architecturally framed entrances or passageways are well attested in the sacred architecture of the southern Levant.13 An obvious local example is the entrance on the main street of Gerasa

to the Antonine-period Artemision (Fig. 4.12).14 Other examples are known from places such as the sanctuary at Baetocaece (Hösn Soleiman) 15 or Sfire in modern Lebanon.16 The altar elements (horns and bowl) were, as mentioned above, common on Roman-period altars in Gerasa. The monumental architectural block combines the almost abstract altar icono­graphy (horns and bowl) with the niche motif that was widely used in ancient architecture. This combination makes the monumental block exceptional in its, on the one hand, eclectic and visual reduction of a well-known and often used local motif and, on the other hand, by complying with a much-used architectural decorative feature as the niche motif was. 14 

12 

Kropp 2013, 333–34. See Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a for a full overview of the comparative material collected, 125–27 in particular. 13 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2015a, 125–26. Freyberger 2004; Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938, 104, figs 1–3, pls 48–49. 16   Aliquot 2009, 237–42; Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938, 20–34, pls 12–18. 15 

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

72

A Hitherto Unknown Roman Sacred Space in Gerasa? Based on the comparanda, we suggest that the large block discovered in trench B was part of a monumental archway entrance to an unknown Roman-period sacred space in Gerasa. Because of its eclectic composition and the material used, the local whitish soft limestone, we suggest that it belonged to a pre-Hadrianic sacred building. This, however, remains a hypothesis. The original location of the architectural complex to which the block belonged remains unknown. However, such a large block might not have been brought from far to be reused in an oil press at a later stage. While we cannot say for sure where the monumental block originally came from, we can say with a high degree of certainty that it stemmed from a sacred space in Gerasa, most likely dating to the Roman period judging from the fact that the horned altar motif seems to have flourished in the Roman period in the city.17

Catalogue Catalogue Text18 Inv. nos J12-Bcd-19 and J12-Bd-2-1x. A large architectural element, broken in two parts (described in the following as the lower part and the upper part). The lower part was found reused in an oil press discovered in trench B. The upper part was broken off and found in the fill in the trench onsite in Jerash.

1. J12-Bcd-19 (Figs 4.4–4.5)

Lower part of monumental rectangular worked limestone block Soft whitish limestone H: 1.95 m; W: lower part: 0.89 m, upper part: 0.90 m; D: 0.55 m State of Preservation: The block is damaged in several places and the top part broken off. The front top left, right corners, as well as the front bottom left and right corners are damaged. The rightmost part of the backside is also damaged. On the front side of the block below the pilaster columns there is a deep square hole (secondarily made). A  depression runs horizontally from the hole to the left side of the block. This reworking stems from the secondary use of the block in the oil press. The broad front side until where the pilasters begin is curving concavely. The curving is due to the same secondary use of the block as a pier in an oil press. On the backside approximately one third below the top there is a horizontal running furrow approximately 4–5 cm broad and 3 cm deep, which runs across the entire block. The right short side is damaged on both upper corners and the corner horns are partly broken off. The lower corners are also damaged. The left short side is damaged on all corners. Description: The block is worked on all sides. Front side: On the upper front side of the block, the lower parts of two slightly off-central axis pilaster columns are visible. These are standing on a carved protruding basis, which runs horizontally across the front of the entire block and continues on the right short side of the block. Between the pilaster columns

17  Hiort 2013. In connection with trench A, see Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b for intentional cooking pot deposits, which underline a ritual closure of the building in trenches A/​S potentially alluding to a sacred nature of the destroyed building.

18   The catalogue text was first published in: Kalaitzoglou, Lichten­berger, and Raja 2013, 75–77 (description). The description has only been slightly modified here.

4. A Monumental Architectural Limestone Block with Altar Icono­graphy there is a narrow deeply carved niche (23 cm wide, 41 cm high, 18 cm deep). Directly under the protruding basis, a centrally placed deep square posthole is visible. The stone curves slightly concavely approximately 2/​3 under the protruding basis. Left short side: The upper corners of the left short side each have a horn-shaped element curving slightly outwards. Centrally, a deep relief showing a stylized basin or bowl is located. Due to the narrow side, the bowl appears slender in its proportions. These elements are placed on the carved protruding basis running horizontally across the entire short side. Below the basis, the stone is worked but without any decorative features. Right short side: The right short side is roughly smoothed along all four edges, but without any decorative features. In the central field, an anathyrosis is visible. It is rectangular in shape and is finely cut. Backside: On the upper part of the backside there is a roughly worked horizontally running step on the top part of the backside. As the step does not cut and damage the horns, it remains unclear whether it relates to the original use or the secondary reuse in the oil press. Approximately a third below the top there is a horizontal furrow, which cuts all along the backside of the monumental block. This is a sawing trace, most likely stemming from an attempt to saw the block into two in Late Antiquity. The rest of the backside is roughly worked. Top: The top of the block is heavily damaged. Bottom: The bottom of the block is partly damaged, but has been worked to a straight surface.

73

2. J12-Bd-2-1x (Fig. 4.6)

Upper part of monumental stone with niche Soft whitish limestone H: 0.71 m; W: 0.89 m; D: 0.69 m State of Preservation: The block is heavily damaged on all sides. The surface is badly weathered. Front side: The upper part of the front side is damaged. Centrally in the lower part, the curved part of a rounded niche is visible. The capitals of columns flanking the niche on each side are also visible. Inside the niche, a protruding cornice is visible. Left side: The left side is also damaged and worn; a rectangular niche is visible. Right side: The right side, which is curving, is damaged and worn. The backside: The backside, which is curving, is damaged and worn. Top: The top of the block is curving towards the backside, but is also damaged and worn. Bottom: The bottom of the block shows heavy signs of having been broken off. Summary The parts belong together and the original height of the entire block would have been approximately 2.70 m. An accurate dating of the block is not possible. It can be assumed that it stems from between the Hellenistic to Roman periods. Judging from the material (whitish soft limestone) it may be suggested that the element did not belong to one of the post-Hadrianic monumental buildings within the city centre, for which the harder reddish limestone was preferred. The icono­graphy of the block — the horns and basin on the right side and the horns and the niche on the front — alludes to altar icono­g raphy and uses elements known from Roman-period altars in Gerasa. However, the shape of the block indicates that it was not an altar but was part of an architectural framework, probably flanking a doorway or gate to a sacred building. It most likely had a counter piece. In its original state, the long side with the niche was the front-view and the left side with the stylized basin/​bowl and a rectangular niche on top was aligned with the passageway. The right side with the anathyrosis was probably connected with a wall. It is possible that the entrance was covered by an arch or a lintel, but this remains a hypothesis.

74

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

Works Cited Aliquot, J. 2009. La vie religieuse au Liban sous l’empire romain, Bibliothèque archéo­logique et historique, 189 (Beirut: Presses de l’Ifpo). Brun, J.-P. 2004. Archéo­logie du vin et de l’huile de la préhistoire à l’époque hellénistique (Paris: Errance). Freyberger, K. S. 2004. ‘Das Heiligtum in Hössn Soleiman (Baitokaike): Religion und Handel im syrischen Küstengebirge in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit’, Damaszener Mitteilungen, 14: 13–40. Hiort, D.  M.  D. 2013. ‘The Roman Horned Altar: An Analysis, Discussion and Contextualization of the Material from Jerash’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity). Kalaitzoglou, G., A.  Lichtenberger, and R.  Raja. 2013. ‘Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 57–79. Krencker, D. M. and W. Zschietzschmann. 1938. Römische Tempel in Syrien (Leipzig: De Gruyter). Kreuz, P.-A. 1999. ‘Kaiserzeitliche Heiligtümer im nordsyrischen Kalksteinmassiv’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Co­logne). Kropp, A. 2013. Images and Monuments of Near Eastern Dynasts, 100 bc – ad 100 (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press). Lichtenberger, A. and R.  Raja. 2013. ‘Schicht für Schicht in die Vergangenheit’, Welt und Umwelt der Bibel: Archäo­logie, Kunst, Geschichte, 67.1: 62–63. —— 2015a. ‘An Architectural Block with Altar-Icono­graphy from the North-West Quarter of Jerash’, Levant, 47: 112–30. —— 2015b. ‘Intentional Cooking Pot Deposits in Late Roman Jerash (Northwest Quarter)’, Syria: archéo­logie, art et histoire, 92: 309–28. —— 2015c. ‘New Archaeo­logical Research in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash and its Implications for the Urban Development of Roman Gerasa’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 119: 483–500. —— 2016. ‘Ğeraš in the Middle Islamic Period: Connecting Texts and Archaeo­logy through New Evidence from the Northwest Quarter’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 132: 63–81. —— 2018a. ‘A View of Gerasa/​Jerash from its Urban Periphery: The Northwest Quarter and its Significance for the Understanding of the Urban Development of Gerasa from the Roman to the Early Islamic Period’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 143–66. —— (eds). 2018b. Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century – 15th Century): Archaeo­logy and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, Jerash Papers, 3 (Turnhout: Brepols). Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2013. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan, 57: 9–56. Seigne, J. 2002. ‘A Sixth Century Water-Powered Sawmill at Jerash’, The Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 46: 205–13. Steinsapir, A.  I. 2005. Rural Sanctuaries in Roman Syria: The Creation of a Sacred Landscape, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 1431 (Oxford: British Archaeo­logical Reports). Tate, G. 1992. Les campagnes de la Syrie du nord du iie au viie siècle (Paris: Geuthner).

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter Philip Ebeling Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/​Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. [email protected]

Introduction Ceramic building material was introduced to the southern Levant under King Herod, during the first century bc,1 but its wide adoption for public and private architecture took place only in the late second century ad and was probably connected to the renovation of southern Levantine cities in the style of Graeco-Roman poleis.2 Only then did local production of ceramic building material such as roof tiles begin.3 The spread of Roman-style bathing culture and later, in the Byzantine period, the building of churches, carried ceramic building material even into remote desert areas.4 During the Early Islamic period, the use of ceramic building materials, etc. seems to have declined,5 but the reuse of ceramic building material continued, even up into the Ayyubid/​ Mamluk (Middle Islamic) period.6 1  The Roman-style bathhouse in the first Herodian Palace of Jericho (room 15) had a tiled roof (Pritchard 1951, 11). All roof tiles published from earlier (Hellenistic or Iron Age) deposits throughout the southern Levant are single, isolated finds and must rather be intrusions of later material into older strata. 2  For private buildings: Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovets 2013, 166; Hirschfeld 2004, 12. For the only public building of the early second century ad with roof tiles, see Crowfoot 1933, 69. For the grant of polis-state and the refurbishment of civic infrastructure connected to it, see: Ecker 2016, 187, 192–94. 3  In the first and early second centuries ad, only the tenth and sixth Roman legions produced ceramic building material, but the extent of the use of their products in public or private architecture cannot yet be determined. 4   For a comprehensive study and list of military building ceramics, see: Adler 2011, 319–20; Geva 2003, 412–13. Roman military bathhouses in the desert: Reeves and Harvey 2016. For Byzantine-period ceramic building material in arid areas, see: Magen 2015, 377–95; Tsaferis 1985, 13. 5   Some monumental structures continued to use ceramic building material: Damgaard 2011 for the Congregational Mosque of Jerash. Sack 1996, 39–40, 64–67, pl.  29e for the mosque of Resafa, Syria. Perlich 2016, 85–95 for Qasr al-Mshatta. 6  Kletter and Stern 2006, 201.

During the excavation campaigns of the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, an abundance of ceramic building material came to light, including roof tiles (tegulae and imbrices), tubuli (box flue tiles), pila units (hypocaust bricks), lateres (floor or wall tiles), and a few miscellaneous ceramic building materials, likely industrial objects. In total, 323 were kept for further study, and they will be presented here. None of the 323 fragments stem from a context of primary use, e.g. a sealed roof debris, a preserved tiled floor, etc., but from secondary contexts of reuse or refuse. Four major contexts yielded a high amount of ceramic building material and provided a date for their deposition: the monumental Hilltop Cistern (c. 18 × 12 m), composed of trenches A and S (see Fig. 5.1), was likely filled up with debris on a single occasion, rather than in stages. This event was accompanied by a magical/​cultic ritual: cooking pots, filled with bones, ashes, glass, and other materials, were deliberately placed in stone circles inside the fill and closed by brick fragments.7 This indicates a certain significance of the closing of the cistern and the unidentified structure to which it once belonged. 14C dates of charcoal remains from within the cistern fill were calibrated to the end of the third to the beginning to mid-fourth centuries ad.8 The datable finds (pottery, glass, coins, etc.) can corroborate a date in the early to mid-fourth century ad.9 The cave fillings (trenches J and N, see Fig. 5.1) are two infills of a karst cave. The cave was a space for olive pressing in its latest stage of use, but was fully abandoned during the sixth century ad. In trench J, a stairway was found, leading into the cave from its north side. The stairway was intentionally filled up, mainly 7 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2015. Philippsen and Olsen 2020. 9  Pottery: Möller (forthcoming ); glass: Jackson-Tal (2021), 13–21; coins: Schulze and Schulze 2020, 131–33, 162–64. 8 

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume  i: Architecture and Building Ceramics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 75–170 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126440

Philip Ebeling

76

Figure 5.1. Plan of the Northwest Quarter with excavated Trenches.

with material of the third to fourth centuries ad,10 next to a small amount of pottery from the fifth century ad.11 The pottery and other finds, that were found in the fill of the stairway are almost identical in date with the finds from the cistern.12 The infill on the southern side, found in trench N, needs to be connected with the building of a hall. The hall can be precisely dated to the first half of the sixth century by an inscription in its mosaic.13 The finds from within the fill in trench N also mostly date to the sixth century ad and confirm the date of the mosaic floor in the hall.14 The collection of ceramic building material from these three contexts are of the same nature: 10 

Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 47. Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); Möller (forth­ coming). 12  Pottery: Möller (forthcoming); glass: Jackson-Tal (2021), 13–21. 13  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 156. 14  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); Möller (forthcoming). 11 

types and forms show much variety, tegulae are the main component, but appear together with imbrices and other ceramic building material; additionally, the number of tegulae and imbrices is not very high compared to the amount of pottery. There is one special roof tile type present in each of these infills, but fully absent within the other two (next to regular roof tiles that cannot be further categorized). However, it should not be concluded that these three infills each had a common origin (e.g. a single structure, purposefully destroyed). The roof tiles likely came from the surroundings, were already refuse, and unintentionally filled into the cistern and the cave as discarded material. Trenches K, P, and V (see Fig. 5.1) exposed dwellings that were destroyed during the devastating earthquake of ad 749 and were left undisturbed thereafter.15 Many tegulae were found in the dwellings, 15  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 27; Lichten­ berger and Raja 2018, 158–61; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 48.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter next to a small number of pila units and tubuli, but imbrices were completely absent. No tiled roof can be reconstructed for the houses. Many tegula fragments from the dwellings show intentionally reworked breaks. Therefore, the ceramic building material within this context represents, at least partly, an intentional collection, and it should be considered as being found in a state of reuse, rather than refuse.16 All known special types of tegulae encountered in the three older infills (the Hilltop Cistern (Trenches A and S), the northern cave entrance (Trench J) of the fourth century ad) reappear in the earthquake debris of the houses. Additionally, two more types were found. Some fragments of ceramic building material from the Northwest Quarter were found overfired with vitrified surfaces and large vesicles, partly erupted. They appeared in all of the four above-mentioned, sealed contexts and beyond. Over- or misfired products of clay are usually interpreted as production waste from an industrial site nearby. In the case of the Northwest Quarter, they can also be connected with the reuse of discarded building ceramics in oven- or kiln-structures.17

Types of Building Ceramics Roof Tiles Tegulae All of the pantiles (cat. nos 1–225) found belong to the Roman or ‘Hybrid’ roofing system. Therefore, all the roof tiles are addressed as tegulae and imbrices. The metro­ logy of the tegulae can only partially be reconstructed. Two tegulae preserve a complete profile in width (cat. nos 7 and 211). Both of these were c. 38–40 cm wide. Neither of the two are tapering.18 No tegula is preserved with a full length. One specimen (cat. no. 210), however, is scored on its bottom surface, preserved from the corners to the middle and allowing both length and width 16  For the reuse of ceramic building material, especially roof tiles in this context and others, see: Ebeling 2020; Avshalom-Gorni 2009, 24, fig. 2.23: 7 and 8; Kehrberg 2016, 411–22; Taxel 2018, 112. 17  See n. 15 and Barfod, Ebeling, and Lesher (in this volume). 18  For more on the metro­logy of roof tiles from Jerash, see: Clark 1986, pl. 14.28 (for the length: right side (43 × 47 cm); for the width: left side (37 × 45 cm)); Fisher 1931, 146–47 (40 × 49.5 cm). For complete tegulae from other locations, see: Aharoni 1962, fig. 2; Alliata 1987, 225; Bagatti and Milik 1958, 140; Damgaard 2011, 196; Hamari 2017, 91–92; Meyers, Meyers, and Strange 1990, fig. 29; Schneider 1950, fig. 15.

77

Figure 5.2. Reconstruction of metro­logy by bottom surface scoring of cat. no. 210 ( J16-Xi-10-15).

to be reconstructed, given that the two bands meet in the middle of the surface (Fig. 5.2). The meeting of the two bands takes place c. 20 cm from the flange, which makes for a c. 40 cm width in total. The two bands meet at c.  22.5  cm distance to the preserved rim. Thus, the length of the tegula must be c. 45 cm.19 Most of the tegulae found show strong signs of hand forming, like finger imprints or other irregularities, and artificially rounded tegula corners, ledges caused by smoothing clay on surfaces, or simply an irregular outline. In many of them chaff is found in varying quantities.20 Exterior and interior marks — like rough bottom corner zones or flange forming variants, implied by the structure of internal clay matrices — are partly contradictory or ambiguous for an understanding of the manufacturing process. Therefore, a discussion of the entire manufacturing process of roof tiles will be left out.21 In general, the intensive reworking by hand done to the tegulae of the Northwest Quarter obscures many features. Nevertheless, the catalogue 19  For comparable measurements, see: Clark 1986, pl. 14.28 (for the length: right side (43 × 47 cm); for the width: left side (37 × 45 cm)). 20  Extensively discussed in Ebeling and Barfod (in this volume). 21   For a thorough study of roof tile manufacture and the possible causes of various marks, see Warry 2006.

Philip Ebeling

78

Figure 5.3. Examples of flange shapes of roof tiles from the Northwest Quarter.

Figure 5.4. Close-ups of break surfaces of flanges and a drawing. From left to right: cat. no. 172, drawing of cat. no. 172, cat. no. 162, and cat. no. 169.

records evidence of tegula-external and -internal marks of manufacture for future study. Flanges The tegulae flanges are roughly classified as horn-shaped, square-shaped, crescent-shaped, triangle-shaped, diamond-shaped, cone-shaped, and sail-shaped (Fig. 5.3). These categories were defined by the material of the Northwest Quarter itself. The particular assignments of some flanges to those categories of shape remain ambiguous, as many flanges do not fit exclusively into one category. Additionally, none of the categories for shape makes for a reasonable grouping of flanges: the two tegulae with a complete profile show that two or three shapes fit a particular flange section of the same object. The well-preserved examples (cat. nos 7 and 211) are especially strongly hand-formed. Many of the listed pieces bear just a small part of a flange, and one must suspect the complete flange to have had two or more different shapes. Some flange shapes seem to be more common than others, as the sail-shaped flange is present in only three examples (cat. nos 80, 81, and 115). The bodies of the three pantiles with a sail-shaped flange are of similar thickness (0.7–0.9 mm) and therefore, possibly, make for a group. However, on a strati­graphic basis,

nothing towards a grouping of flange shapes can be concluded. The horn-shape is dominant in fifty-eight examples, while the others are as follows: the cone-shape with thirty-seven fragments, the square-shape with twentytwo fragments, and the crescent-shape with eighteen fragments, five fragments are of diamond-shape, and four fragments of triangle-shape. Since there is no intact tegula, it was possible to inspect the breaks and the various marks inside all the fragments. Often, the observed break did not yield enough or only contradictory information for making a conclusive interpretation for the production process of the tegula. In these cases, the flange shaping technique remains unidentified and is documented as such in the catalogue. The main technique for shaping the flange is a simple folding (Fig. 5.4): within the break, the texture of the clay shows traces running from the corner, in which top side and flange interior meet, to the corner where flange exterior and the bottom side meet. These lines of various marks (inclusions, texture, cavities, air pockets, or others) are usually clearly visible and appear agglomerated along a folding line in the clay matrix. Marks in the tegula’s body are always horizontal and, in the flange, either vertical or curving. Another shaping technique is the less common merging of two separately formed parts. Body and flange are

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

Figure 5.5. Close-ups of break surfaces of (from left to right): cat. no. 96 and cat. no. 166.

separately formed and merged together in a following step. The flange can be set on top of the preformed tegula body (cat. nos 93, 102, 139, 143, and 144), or grafted onto its sides (cat. nos 146 and 166; Fig. 5.5). In the first case, some examples show marks which can be loosely connected with this way of flange shaping, like a strongly protruding ridge on their flange exterior at the height of the top surface (cat. nos 93 and 102). Numbers 143, 144, and 146 show a small cleft at the connection between flange and preformed body. The cleft supports the evidence that a separately formed flange was grafted onto the tegula body’s side. Loops and swirls within the structure of the flange are rare. Only ten examples show an internal loop/​swirl or ‘Y’ upside down (cat. nos 18, 51, 70, 76, 96, 116, 132, and 207 with a loop and cat. nos 117 and 182 with an internal ‘Y’). Possible causes for this structure remain hypothetical. Five examples show a double-folding (cat. nos 69, 77, 125, 138, and 149). A flange is double-folded if it shows a roughly vertical mark or cleavage in the flange middle and a short horizontal one from the bottom end of the vertical lines or cleavages to the top surface. It was first folded up, and half of it was then folded down towards the interior and merged with the body. Despite these observations, the overall flange shape and the shaping technique do not seem to be connected. Tegulae with Ridges Small ridges on the top surface, running straight from flange to flange, parallel to the upper rim, are shared by sixteen tegulae (cat. nos 2, 4, 10, 36, 43, 73, 74, 92, 97, 100, 131, 138, 153, 181, 193, and 204). No ridged tegula found in the Northwest Quarter was fired in a reducing atmosphere, and all of the ridges are triangular and peaked in cross-section. Ridges can be connected with the flange or smeared down shortly before it. All ridges were set close to a rim. They are set either around 5.5 or

79

6.3 cm beneath a rim. Other ridged tegulae, like number 193 or number 204, show a deepened channel along the side directed towards the open top surface. In some cases, as on number 131, the channel is located on the side directed to the upper end of the pantile. Two tegulae show a ridge running against the flange in a slightly diagonal way (cat. nos 131 and 4), but in light of the two complete tegulae profiles nos 7 and 211 that are widening their upper openings slightly, a tapering form for numbers 131 and 4 is rejected. Of the sixteen tegulae with ridges found in the Northwest Quarter, five stem from the Hilltop Cistern fill. None was found in the two Cave Fillings, and only two came from the Umayyad destruction layer. The other fragments were retrieved from mixed contexts. Their state of refuse within the Hilltop Cistern suggests a deposition for some time in the ground or in a state of reuse prior to being deposited. For these (cat. nos 2, 73, 74, 92, and 97), a production date towards the middle of the third century ad or even earlier can be estimated. Ridged tegulae appear to be a predominantly Roman phenomenon in the southern Levant, but seemed to become increasingly unpopular during subsequent periods.22 Spouted tegulae Seventeen tegulae (cat. nos 5, 8, 15, 19, 23, 27, 63, 68, 85, 104, 114, 160, 177, 179, 196, 200, and 215) were found that show a special adjustment to the lower end of their flanges. The way these adjustments were executed can be reconstructed: a small part is cut out of the rectangular clay body and flange. This cut-out is done to a corner of a tegula. Then a small, hand-formed flange is set manually around the cuts. The two flanges are then smeared together by hand. An intensive surface treatment around 22 

Roman primary use: Adan-Bayewitz 1982, fig. 4.2; Alcock and others 2010, fig. 8; Balouka 2013, fig. 6.6.7; Dar 1993, pl. 8.1–3; Karz Reid 2005, fig.  32; Schick 1889, 182–83; Smithline 1997, fig. 5.3; Stern and Getzov 2006, figs 11 and 16. Byzantine primary use: Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon 1924, fig. 146 c. Byzantine or early Islamic primary use: Schuler 2008, fig. 70. Secondary use: Avner 2015, fig.  8.3; Bagatti 1969, 114, 132–34, fig.  79.18–19; Bahat 1974, pl. 30a; Berry 1988, 182d, e, and g; Calderon 2010, fig. 2.26; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929, pl. 13.24; Hamari 2017, fig. 6.2–3; Hammond 1965, pl. 39; Kaptijn 2009, fig. 4.154; Leonard Jr. 1987, pl. 60.1 (bottom middle); Macalister and Duncan 1926, fig. 170 (second left); Mader 1957, pl.  60. 110; Mazar 2011, fig.  2.10; Melkawi, ‘Amr, and Whitcomb 1994, fig.  11.l; Di Segni 2011, fig. 12.1; Vriezen 1995, 31; fig. 8; 1994, fig. 10.1.8–9; WekslerBdolah 2016, figs  18.4. For more on the ridged tegulae of the Northwest Quarter, see Ebeling 2020, 303–08.

Philip Ebeling

80 the flange exterior of the cut-out thoroughly merges the flange with the body. It also gives a very uneven and hand-formed nature to this area of the fragment. The finished product is a pantile, with an adjustment that curves convexly towards the interior of the roof tile and narrows the opening significantly. All preserved fragments with this adjustment belong to a left or a right lateral side of a pantile. It can safely be assumed that this reworking was done to both lateral sides of a tile’s opening. Proof of that, however, has not yet been found. The spaces cut out of the tegulae can come in various sizes and forms and are not standardized (cat. no. 23 shows a very long (6.8 cm) but not very deep (2.6 cm) spout, and cat. no. 27 is only 6 cm long but also 6 cm deep). The execution of surface treatment likewise varies strongly (compare cat. nos 23, 104, and 196). The fragments with this adjustment are interpreted as a late variant of a spouted or eaves tile. The narrowing of the opening is, therefore, believed to be the lower end of a tegula. Its function of the adjustments is reconstructed as a means to collect the stream of water, to control or simply gather it. Some spouted tegulae were fired in a reducing atmosphere (cat. nos 8, 63, 96, 114, 200, and 215) and others in an oxidizing atmosphere (cat. nos 15, 19, 23, 27, 68, 85, 104, 175, 179, and 196). The specimens from the northern Cave Filling in trench J were all fired in an oxidizing kiln. Those roof tiles were placed as the lowermost row of tegulae on a roof, which makes them replace a proper sima. Spouts do not appear in the fill of the Hilltop Cistern, and as such they are considered to be later in date than the ridged roof tiles. Comparative evidence for spouted roof tiles is sparse and does not provide further chrono­logical evidence.23 Tegulae with Elevated Bands In total, nine fragments show an elevated band on their top surfaces. These bands are situated close to (cat. nos 101 and 111) or at the rim of the tegula (cat. nos 7, 37, 57, 88, 140, 141, 148, and 165). Some were fired in a reducing atmosphere (cat. nos 37 and 148) and others in an oxidizing atmosphere (cat. nos 7, 57, 88, 101, 111, 140, 141, and 165). Shapes, sizes, and execution can vary strongly in detail. Number 101 shows an elevated band (close to its rim) that is neither very high nor regularly 23 

Barnes and others 2006, fig. 17.4; Walmsley (2002, fig. 24B (bottom left)) document a well-preserved fragment from underneath the Congregational Mosque of Jerash. The description of a roof tile found in Madaba in Saller (1967, 61–62) fits a spout, but also, e.g., a skylight. For more on the spouted roof tiles from Jerash, see Ebeling (2020).

executed. It stands out with its rough appearance, as well. Numbers 37, 88, 140, and 141 appear to be more regular. The surface of the band of number 140 is 6.7 cm wide and shows linear impressions, and is also slightly ledged. It is similar to number 101, but more regular in appearance. The elevated band of number 101 (c. 2.5 cm wide) is located 1.2 cm beneath the rim. It is just 0.4 mm higher than the top surface. Number 111 is not well preserved, but its band (c. 3.5 cm wide and only 0.3 mm high) is located 3.2 cm beneath the rim. Also, it is separated from the flange by a thin channel. Number 37 shows a very narrow band-like elevation, which is separated from the flange by a small gap. The elevated surface is just 3.2 cm wide and appears well executed from a horizontal perspective. Seen from a vertical position it appears slightly and irregularly corrugating. In the break of the band on number 141, folding marks are clearly visible. It is the only fragment of the collection of tegulae with elevated bands, which gives a conclusive insight into its forming process. Elevated bands appear chrono­logically first in the southern Cave Filling (cat. no. 37). They are, therefore, carefully dated to the Late Roman period, despite the limited number of comparative examples.24 Shovel-type tegulae (tegulae with Three Flanges) Another type of tegula is represented by the five tegulae fragments numbers 30, 50, 60, 61, and 62. These fragments stem from tegulae with three flanges, designated here as shovel-type tegulae. No tegulae of this kind are preserved with all three flanges intact. Still, they can be reconstructed with certainty. All fragments show a flange running against the regular lateral flange at the upper end. This evidence makes clear that the regular two flanges were connected by a third one, instead of a rim or an elevated band (see section Tegulae with Elevated Bands above). The third flange is in all but one case smaller, flatter, and broader. All shovel-type tegulae found were fired in a reduction kiln. The only identifiable forming technique for short and long side flanges is the folding (cat. no. 60: both long side flange and short side flange, and long side flange only of cat. no. 30). No other internal marks were detected. Most short side flanges have a flat and wide — rather than high — shape in common. One distinctive profile variant can be distinguished, which is 24  Bagatti and Milik 1958, fig. 32.30 (complete example); Barkai and Zweig 2006, fig. 39; Clermont-Ganneau 1899, 323 (middle right); Corbo 1982, photo 24.7–9; Crowfoot and Fitzgerald 1929, pl. 12.9; Germer-Durant 1906, no. 8; Macalister and Duncan 1926, fig. 98; Mazar 2007, fig. 13.5.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter demonstrated by the short side flanges of numbers 60 and 61: its interior is steeply formed, while its exterior side is sloping gently down and curves around to the bottom surface. Number 61 shows only a single flange that resembles the short side flange of number 60, but is in fact executed more accurately. Additionally, number 61 shows a decorative pattern: three parallel-running, finger-drawn wavy bands. This motif on shovel-type tegulae finds local parallels from the Northwest Quarter, and other places in Jerash on shovel-type tegulae, with even intact examples from the earthquake destruction of ad 749. They were discovered in the Church of the Bishop Isaiah and the Congregational Mosque.25 Hence, the inclusion of number 61 into the list of shovel-type tegulae. Other short side flange profiles are present in the early Islamic dwelling: the short side flange of number 30 slopes down onto the top surfaces, but its exterior is steep. Short side flange and long side flange are equal in height. It resembles the distinctive variant (cat. nos 60 and 61) with its short side flange outline, but mirrorinverted; thus, its exterior is steep, while the top surface directed side slopes down gently. The short side flange of number 62 is square-shaped with rounded corners, and the one of number 50 is just a continuation of the lateral flange which is not highly elevated. Shovel-type tegulae were only discovered in Umayyad contexts in the Northwest Quarter. This type of roof tile spread in the late seventh century ad around the southern Levant and beyond, but was possibly already earlier in limited use on some structures.26 Tegulae with a Perpendicular Channel in the Middle of their Top Surfaces Five tegulae showing a channel from one to the other flange on their top surfaces have been retrieved (cat. nos 42, 45, 53, 66, and 209). Although the top surface channel is not a morpho­logical feature, they are still included in this section for two fragments (cat. nos 42 and 45) that are almost identical. These two lead to the assumption that the top surface channel is more than 25 

Clark 1986, 317, pl. 14.28; Damgaard 2011, fig. 4. Byzantine to Early Islamic-period contexts of primary use from the southern Levant: Bagatti 1969, 134, fig. 79.20; Dauphin and Edelstein 1984, fig. 2, C-72/​44, 47; Meyers, Meyers, and Strange 1990, photo 16, fig. 29. From outside the southern Levant: Bass and van Doorninck 1982, fig.  5.5 PT4; Konrad 2001, pl.  80.3, 5–7; Gogräfe 2016, pl. 29e. Early Islamic reuse: Daviau 2010, fig. 6.4.5. Potential Roman imperial-period primary use: Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon 1923, fig. 146a. 26 

81

just decoration, and that those perpendicular channels on top surfaces make for another pantile type — perhaps even a specific series. The best preserved one (cat. no. 45) shows a finger-drawn and irregular running channel on the top surface c. 9.9 cm beneath the rim. The channel is not exactly parallel to the rim but slightly curving. A second channel is running directly next to the rim. Very similar is number 42: the channel, which runs against the flange, is situated c. 9 cm beneath the rim and c. 7.8 cm from the second channel, which runs in the same direction. This second channel itself is c. 2.9 cm close to the rim. Additionally, both fragments (numbers 42 and 45) are diagonally scored on their bottom surfaces. Numbers 42 and 45 are likely to be from the same workshop. The context in which they were found is roughly dated to the Late Byzantine or Early Umayyad period based on the pottery. Number 53 is the least well preserved of the group. Its finger-drawn top surface channel is situated c. 4.7 cm beneath the rim. Number 66 is badly damaged: its tool-drawn channel sits c.  4.7  cm beneath the rim. Even though numbers 53 and 66 show the same distance from channel to rim, the latter one is so badly damaged and weathered that further connections remain hypothetical. One fragment is only loosely associated with this group: fragment number 209 is missing the flange. Following the channel at the rim is a sequence of three more irregular impressions or channels at a distance of 3.5, 6, and 8.5 cm beneath the rim. The second channel is the deepest. All the channels have a regular outline and appear tool made. There is no comparative evidence available. Others Of the following two types, only one fragment each survived. The wedge-shaped attachment to the interior of the flange end on number 44 is 11.5 cm long, 5 cm high, and stretches out for 8  cm onto the top side. A  small lip or flange is situated at its top surface. This feature is intact but the flange is broken in many places. There are no comparisons available for number 44. The technique used to form the fragment or features of it cannot be identified. Assuming the preserved fragment represents a lower tegula end of a right side and the same insertion had been placed on the lower left tegula end, the run-off of the roof would be gathered to the middle of the object. This makes its function similar to a spout. Assuming the wedge-shaped feature was inserted at the upper end, no further function can be proposed here. Number 119 shows a very fine execution and an elevated surface

Philip Ebeling

82

Figure 5.6. Close-up of the interior flange surface of cat. no. 54.

extending the tegula’s size over the limits of the flange. The entire construction is 9.5 cm long and extends the object’s size about 6.6 cm in length. This type of tile is unique so far. Its function remains unknown. Marks of Surface Treatment Marks of surface treatment do occur on almost all roof tiles from the Northwest Quarter (Fig. 5.6). This term designates fine, continuous lines stretching prominently on top surfaces, flange sides, and rims. They are only occasionally found on bottom sides (e.g. cat. nos 22, 34, 39, 47, 52, 62, and 131). Marks of surface treatment usually run the length of the object along the flange. There are only a few exceptions (cat. nos 36 and 119). They change directions close to other features: at a rim (e.g. on cat. no. 174) or a ridge (e.g. on cat. no. 181), one finds them parallel to it. In some cases, as on the two specimens showing a complete profile (cat. nos 7 and 211) and other well enough preserved fragments (e.g. cat. nos 142 and 224), these lines are curved or run straight but diagonally (e.g. cat. nos 55 and 199) the closer they come to the middle of the top surface. On bottom sides, they always run perpendicular to the flange, against the long sides. Marks of surface treatment can occur in a zoned manner, as seen on top side of number 55. All marks of surface treatment look similar to each other, which allows us to assume a similar cause. On the top surfaces, they are likely connected to the smoothing process. Maybe a tool like a wet brush was used. The direction of movement for the smoothing would follow the features, but curve in several directions in featureless areas. Especially at the flange, these marks are very regular and straight. No flange fragment is preserved showing a careless treatment or a change in the direction of movement. This

indicates a very careful execution for the smoothing process of the flanges. Marks of surface treatment likewise occur on other roof tiles in the southern Levant.27 Palm Branch Pattern Thirty-nine fragments show a certain pattern of marks, nicknamed ‘palm branch pattern’, on their bottom sides (cat. nos 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 18, 23, 28, 30, 31, 43, 45, 58, 77, 92, 104, 115, 118, 121, 122, 128, 129, 145, 151, 155, 169, 171, 175, 184, 188, 196, 197, 198, 199, 202, 203, and 211). The pattern consists of linear impressions in regular intervals, running parallel to each other but diagonally or perpendicular to the lateral side. Under the flange, these linear impressions are stopped by another zone of linear impressions running lengthwise. The patterns are always similar, but when comparing all of them in detail, they are not identical.28 In fact, the pattern can widely vary in its details. This variation is mainly caused by two different factors: one version is the result of an underlying (wooden) surface, like a table on which the objects were formed, or a mould (cat. nos 18, 58, 104, 118, 143, 169, 128, 196, and 198). In this case, thin and very short impressed marks are set close to each other and accompanied by small ledges or protrusions in irregular shapes, outlines, and intervals. None of these marks appears in distinct zones. The marks of the latter ones occur more densely packed. In certain areas, they even change direction slightly (Fig. 5.7).

27  

Aharoni 1962, pl.  2.1; Al-Daire 2001, pl.  30A (far left, second from bottom); Piccirillo 1997, photos 30–31; Vriezen 1994, 256–57; Weksler-Bdolah 2016, figs 13.16, 18.4. 28  The bottom surface of a fragment from Jebel Harun, close to Petra, shows a similar pattern: Hamari 2008, figs 1.3, 2.1.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

Figure 5.7. Close-up of bottom surface with palm branch pattern of cat. no. 196.

The other version of this pattern differs strongly from the first one described: thin lines, very similar to marks of surface treatment, run in diagonal zones. They stop at bands underneath the flange, in which the marks of surface treatment are running lengthwise. In some cases, this band is without any marks and not zoned off by ledges or the like. This version of the pattern is found on numbers 77, 15, 30, 188, and 199 (Fig. 5.8). The similarity of the marks of surface treatment and the ledged zones suggests they were caused by a movement over the surface and not by a mould. The movement has been done with a brush, some other tool, or just by hand. In some cases, one can identify whether the diagonal marks have been smeared over by the lateral marks (cat. nos 30, 188, and 199) or vice versa (cat. no. 15). In the case of number 18, a pattern caused by a wooden underlay or a mould was laterally smeared over by hand. It is the only fragment that combines the two possible causes of the palm branch pattern. For the remaining fragments showing such a pattern, no suggestion towards their cause can be made. Wash Surface colouring is a frequent exterior mark, mostly done to roof tiles. It is rare on other ceramic building material. In total, forty-nine tegulae have been preserved showing a washed surface. On most fragments, the wash

83

Figure 5.8. Close-up of bottom surface with palm branch pattern of cat. no. 188.

Figure 5.9. Photo of the top surface with wash of cat. no. 73.

is beige (Fig. 5.9). Only number 133 shows a brown and number 94 a white wash. Numbers 25, 29, 37, 44, 189, 200, 210, and 225 show a lighter version of the regular beige wash. Coloured tegulae with a wash were found in all four major contexts. The wash itself is a very thin and rather rough layer on mostly top surfaces and flanges. It is never visible in break surfaces and, therefore, is an intentional surface colouring, not just sinter. It is calcareous and rough. A micro-XRF study was conducted on the surface of tegula fragment no. 217. The results suggest that the wash consists of the local raw clay, refined with water for better dispersion and lime or chalk for a colour. 29 29 

Appendix to Ebeling and Barfod (in this volume).

84 The surface smoothing of tegulae is not fine enough to close all pores and does not entirely even out the surface, but leaves slight protrusions, impressions, and chaff marks. In all of these marks, the wash is usually visible. A beige or brown wash on tegulae is known from other roof tile assemblages in the southern Levant, such as Petra and Madaba.30 Bottom Surface Scoring Thirty-three roof tiles have been preserved showing finger-drawn channels on their bottom surfaces (cat. nos 1, 15, 32, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 56, 59, 78, 106, 108, 114, 146, 151, 154, 175, 179, 182, 188, 189, 197, 203, 205, 207, 210, 212, 215, 217, and 218). As there is no other feature or mark (like ridges or horn-shaped flange) connecting the objects in this assemblage, scoring was a choice left up to producers from Roman to early Islamic times. The majority of fragments (twentyseven fragments) are diagonally scored, from one corner to the other forming an ‘X’ on the tegula’s underside (Fig. 5.2). Some fragments only preserve lateral scoring (cat. nos 41, 146, 207, 215, and 217). The channels come in pairs on seven fragments (cat. nos 32, 42, 56, 59, 179, 189, and 218) and triplets on eight fragments (cat. nos 1, 38, 40, 45, 114, 154, 197, and 229). For the remaining fragments, the number of finger-drawn channels cannot be estimated due to their state of preservation. Two fragments show both diagonal and lateral scoring (cat. no. 188 diagonal by a pair of channels and lateral by a single channel. Cat. no. 210 diagonal and lateral scoring both come in triplets). The roof tiles found in Jerash could have been scored for a better fit or grip onto an adhesive substance, like mortar or adobe, in which they were set. Scoring is not widely documented for roof tiles in the southern Levant. The only comparative pieces were found in Jerash in destruction contexts of the earthquake of ad 749.31 Inscriptions and Inscribed Letters Of the thirty-seven inscriptions, twenty-three can be found on tegulae. On pantiles inscribed letters can only be found on top surfaces (cat. nos  3, 16, 22, 32, 33, 38, 40, 46, 65, 108, 109, 120, 123, 126, 127, 135, 137, 30  Beige: Hamari 2008, 378–79 (Petra); Michel 1998, no. 27 (Madaba). Brown: ‘Amr and al-Momani 1999, fig. 15.22 (Petra); Hamari 2017, 91 (Petra). 31  Fisher 1931, 146; Walmsley 2002, 63.

Philip Ebeling 156, 188, 199, 206, 208, and 223). In total, seven fragments were found depicting letters that can be identified with certainty. The majority of all letters preserved could represent either Greek or Latin script. As most inscriptions of Jerash in general and many other sites in the southern Levant are Greek, the letters on the tegulae from the Northwest Quarter are also read as Greek. More than two letters on one roof tile are rare in the Northwest Quarter. Almost all of them are drawn with a tool or other object — either a stilus or a simple stick, because in cut-section, the form of the inscriptions appears mostly triangular. Some inscriptions show ledges of clay and are written in lines which take turns, sharp curves, and are irregular in size and depth (e.g. cat. nos 22, 38, 108, 126, and 206). It seems that they have been written with something flexible, for instance a simple twig. Only three inscriptions were written with a finger (cat. nos 16, 65, and 199). The preserved letters can be found on the following catalogue numbers below. Number 3: three lines forming two letters, of which one could be a ‘P’. Number 16: ‘[…] PNI’. Number 22: ‘C’ and ‘E’, ‘Θ’ or ‘Φ’. Number 32: two straight and two curved lines form either a decorative, repetitive pattern or letters. Number 33: one straight line. Number 38: a single ‘X’. Number 40: ‘A’, ‘Δ’, or ‘Λ’. Number 65: one straight tool-drawn line, accompanied by two fingerdrawn lines forming ‘A’, ‘Δ’, or ‘Λ’. Number 108: two lines preserved: one curving, one straight. Number 109: only one curving line preserved. Number 120: ‘Θ’, ‘Φ’, or ‘O’. Number 123: two curved lines. Number 126: ‘ΦXK/​ΦΛK’. Number 127: ‘Δ’. Number 135: unidentified. Number 137: one straight line. Number 156: one curved line. Number 188: one line, turning in a sharp angle. Number 199: ‘XP/​X H’. Number 206: ‘PIOY/​ I’. Number 208: decorative, repetitive pattern or two curved lines (‘Ͻ Ͻ’). Number 223: four lines of which one is curved and the others are straight. Two of the straight ones and the curved line are finger-drawn. The last straight line is drawn by a tool. Apart from the single letters, only the letters on number 199 can be either inscription or tally mark/​numeral. All other letter combinations are not written in an order for numerical values. Hence, they must represent names, words, or abstract codes. Two fragments (cat. nos 32 and 208) show lines which can represent a decorative pattern or writing. They are unfortunately too badly preserved to provide enough ground for a reasonable assumption. The overfired fragment number 46 shows an impressed line that can be an inscription or a swollen chaff impression. Greek letters inscribed on tegulae are a widespread

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter phenomenon and can be found all over the southern Levant, in places such as Gadara or Um al-Rasas.32 Symbols and Decorative Patterns From the Northwest Quarter, six tegulae with decorative patterns have been preserved (cat. nos 21, 31, 61, 123, 142, and 211). The six pieces make for three groups: three wavy lines running down from the upper to the lower end of the roof tile (cat. nos  31, 61 and 142), ‘garlands’ (cat. nos 123 and 211), and zigzag lines (cat. no.  21). The three wavy lines running down from the upper to the lower end of the tegula were placed in the middle of the tile. All of them were casually drawn by finger and have a higher wave frequency at their start. The wave frequency becomes less intense the closer the decoration comes to the lower end. This decoration is typical for Umayyad-period shovel-type tegulae from Jerash.33 The ‘garlands’ on number 123 are only preserved in fragments. This decoration is not entirely ruled out as an inscription (ω). Number 211 shows full ‘garlands’, which resemble the pattern on number 123. Seen complete, this pattern is rather more decorative in nature than an inscription. Number 211 shows this ‘garland’ with two bows or what looks like a ‘UU’-pattern. The two bows are framed by curving lines on each side, forming just half of a ‘U’ (or half a ‘garland’). These two ‘U’s stretch over two fragments of the tegula. On the fragment to the left of it, one can see the start of what was probably a third ‘U’. This third ‘U’ suggests an abstract pattern, rather than a double ‘U’, an ‘ω’, or an ‘M’ turned upside down with rounded arches. On both fragments, the pattern is finger drawn. The third pattern is certainly only decorative. Number 21 shows a simple zigzag pattern, framed by two lines. All lines are finger drawn. This pattern is far too time-consuming and complicated to be interpreted as e.g. a workshop’s mark. Every line of the zigzag pattern is drawn stroke by stroke and not continuously. Hence, the interpretation of something that was supposed to be seen by everyone, and not a simple mark with importance only for those involved in the production and selling of the object. There is no published comparative material available from the southern Levant. 32  Alliata 1992, fig. 5.9; Dijkstra 2015, pl. 13.4; Piccirillo 2002, 547–48; Walmsley 2002, 24B (bottom left). 33  Clark 1986, pl. 14.28 (on the right); Walmsley and others 2008, 133. For other, similar waved bands, see: Bass and van Doorninck 1982, fig. 5.4. PT15; fig. 5.6. PT15; Saller and Bagatti 1949, 37.

85

Two other fragments from the Northwest Quarter (cat. nos 32 and 232) show lines which could be a decorative pattern or scripture. However, they are unfortunately not well enough preserved to make for more reasonable assumptions. Paint During the excavation campaign in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash, two painted roof tile fragments have been found in trench X.  Numbers 215 and 217 stem from an Umayyad-period infill at the southern cistern, with pottery from various periods. Both fragments show the same colours and method of painting, but the fragments do not fit together. It is still assumed that they originate from the same tegula. The colour was applied to the tile’s smoothed top surface after firing. The red and black coloured fields and stripes do not form any identifiable motif or pattern, but were intentionally applied, implying purpose and reason. On number 217, the stripes run against and parallel to the broken-off flange and are partly connected; they seem to have been painted respective to one another, as no line is painted over another one. Number 215 does not preserve the ancient paint as clearly as number 217. The colours on number 217 were analysed by micro-XRF. The red pigments are likely ochre-based and the black pigments are coal-based.34 There are no parallels in the wider region for paint applied like this to roof tiles. Imbrices Imbrices, or cover tiles, are an essential part of any roofing system. An imbrex is an elongated, narrow, sometimes tapering piece of pottery that covers two tegula flanges. It can be curved or gabled in cut-section. An imbrex lies with its rim on the top surfaces of two adjacent tegulae, while its frontal flange covers the back (dorsal flange) of the imbrex following beneath. It is affixed onto the tegulae by mortar, smeared into the cavity underneath it. Thirty-one imbrices have been kept and studied in total (cat. nos 226–56). Only three imbrices (cat. nos 226, 227, and 229) are preserved well enough to demonstrate or reconstruct a complete profile from rim to rim. The diameter of all three is 13 cm. More than half is preserved of numbers 237, 253, and 34  For the study, see Appendix to Ebeling and Barfod (in this volume). For more on pigments, colours, and paint found in Jerash, see Barfod (in press).

Philip Ebeling

86 256. Reconstructed, they had a diameter of approximately 19–20 cm. Imbrices are not produced on a potter’s wheel, but modelled by hand, which makes for some irregularities in their overall symmetry. Therefore, no reconstruction of measurements here is exact, and further reconstructions are thus avoided. In total, there are eleven imbrices showing flanges of which none can be identified as a dorsal one, but seven are certainly frontal flanges (cat. nos 226, 227, 229, 233, 239, 243, and 249). Six pieces are preserved with flange and rim, fourteen pieces are rim pieces only, and five are body pieces. Most of the imbrices are about 1 cm thick. There were more red-fired imbrices (cat. nos 227, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, and 253) than grey-fired ones (cat. nos 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 239, 246, 248, 254, 255, and 256). All three imbrices from the Hilltop Cistern are fired reddish with a reddish-brown core (cat. nos 235, 237, and 238). Grey-fired imbrices appear chrono­logically first in the Northwest Quarter in the Cave Fillings of trench N (cat. nos 230, 231, 232, and 233). Surface and core demonstrate the same hues in all cases. No imbrex uses high quantities of chaff. Curved/​Laconian imbrices Imbrices can come in two different major types: they can be curved or gabled. The majority of imbrices from the Northwest Quarter are curved (thirty pieces) and thus of the Laconian type, as are the majority of imbrices in the southern Levant. Some fragments show a frontal flange. This frontal flange is slightly modified to form a funnellike opening (cat. nos 226, 227, 229, 233, 239, and 249). A  unique piece is number 234: it shows a lateral rim decorated in irregular intervals with curved impressions, giving the rim a waved outline from a horizontal perspective. This detail is casually rather than precisely executed. The treatment of the lateral rim, however, is interpreted as a decoration. Decorations are intended to be seen, so this one imbrex was likely situated on a building in a prominent position, in which its lateral rim would be visible. Ridge cover tiles, covering the highest point of a roof are seen from their longer sides. This special kind of roof tile tends to have a wider diameter than regular cover tiles, even if their basic forms are the same. However, its assumed diameter of 18 cm does not make for any specific interpretation. The suggestion of an identification as a ridge tile remains based on the lateral decoration only, but neither is there evidence for the use of ridge-tiles nor a parallel for such a decoration in the region.

Gabled/​Corinthian imbrices Only a single fragment of a gabled imbrex has been found (cat. no.  243). Its context of retrieval comes without chrono­logical implications. It is the only testimony for a Corinthian tiled roof in Jerash so far. Corinthian-style imbrices are rare in the region, but seem to be a mostly Roman imperial phenomenon.35 The piece is a fragment of a frontal flange. The flange received a small screen. On the screen, many finger impressions and smearing reveal it to be hand formed. Exterior Marks Not many exterior marks can be listed for the imbrices. All top surfaces are smoothed. In some cases, marks of surface treatment appear in zones (e.g. cat. nos 226, 227, 230, 231, and 237). Many imbrices reveal blank top surfaces (e.g. cat. nos 235, 236, and 239). In one case (cat. no. 252) a finger or tool was used to draw shallow channels in regular intervals lengthwise onto the surface.36 The bottom sides are in all examples rough and did not receive additional treatment: very fine pores and protrusions, none of which are wider or deeper/​higher than 1 mm, cover the surface. Number 242 got a brown wash for its top surface. Chaff marks on its exterior surface are left without wash, which gives a small glimpse into its production process. Another fragment (cat. no. 237) was marked with letters, written by a finger: ‘PX’. Decorated fragments, as seen on the imbrices of the Church of Bishop Isaiah,37 the Congregational Mosque,38 or other places39 were not recovered from the Northwest Quarter.

Other Ceramic Building Material Tubuli In the Northwest Quarter, no bath or heating system has been unearthed, but twenty tubuli and one tubulus-like object were retrieved (cat. nos 257–76). Most of these fragments preserve a rim, a corner, and parts 35  Kanellopoulos 1994, figs 29–30; Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon 1924, figs 96 and 146; Smithline 1997, fig. 5.3; Stern and Getzov 2006, fig. 17. See Vriezen 1995, fig. 7 for Byzantine-period contexts of reuse. 36  Vriezen 1995, fig. 4. 37  Clark 1986, pl. 15.29. 38  Barnes and others 2006, fig. 17.3; Walmsley 2005, 49. 39  Bet Alpha (Sukenik 1932, figs 9–10); Gadara (Vriezen 1995, fig. 4).

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter of the pottery wall. Four more are wall-corner pieces, without a rim, and one tubulus-like object is almost complete (cat. no. 270). Five examples show outlets in their walls (cat. nos 257, 259, 264, 266, and 268). The types and amount of these fragments do not suggest a common place of origin, e.g. a bath, close by. None of the fragments can be identified as stemming from the upper or lower part of a finished box flue tile. Most of the tubulus fragments are casually executed: surfaces were left rough, folds were not smoothed and irregularities in height, width, and other levels remained. Their rough nature can be explained by their invisibility inside walls. Their rather casual production, however, makes production marks identifiable, which in turn provides the opportunity to reconstruct the manufacturing process. The tubulus was formed from one or more sheets of clay, whose sides were merged where they met (‘slabformed’).40 On some examples, a seam is still visible on the exterior or interior (cat. nos 259, 263, 274, and 276) identified as a corner in which the folded sides of the clay sheet met and were merged.41 In a following step, the rims were formed by folding down a portion of the sheet of clay into the rectangular box. In a third step, all or just one corner (the corner in which the sides of the box meet and are merged) was enhanced by an extra portion of wet clay, being loosely smeared into the interior and dispersed by two or three fingers up and down. Preserving all four corners, number 270 was enhanced by such an extra portion of clay in only one corner, confirming the slab-forming technique. In some cases, a gap is left between wall and clay smudge (see cat. nos 259, 271, 272, and 275). In a last step, the exterior corners would be smoothed and outlets cut into the walls. The irregularly sized and outlined outlets and the thick but irregular ledges around the cut openings on the interior of the tubuli suggest a casual cutting by hand with a tool like a knife (cat. nos 257, 266, 259, 264, and 273). On their interior, one can still observe the trails of thicker inclusions being moved by the cutting tool (cat. nos 266 and 273). Only two fragments (cat. nos 257 and 259) preserve more than 7  cm of exterior wall. Fragment number 257 preserves two outlets, one on each side of the corner. A single tubulus has been treated with special care: number 263 was subject to an overall surface smoothing. Furthermore, the tubulus rim is folded down 40 

Reeves and Harvey 2016, 470. some Byzantine-period tubuli from Gadara, it was suggested that they were folded from four separate sheets into a box (Vriezen 1995, fig. 9). 41   For

87

in such a way that no seam is visible on the interior surface. The rim itself is brought into shape and remains without parallel: it is not rounded, but swelling continuously and regularly to the boxes’ interior until it is abruptly flattened on top with a very sharp break. Only three specimens (cat. nos 265, 266, and 270) show an abundant use of chaff in their breaks. All tubulus fragments were fired red, apart from three (cat. nos 257, 258, and 267), which were fired grey. Number 270 could be reconstructed almost entirely. It was retrieved from the earthquake destruction layer in the west room of the building excavated in trench U. This find location suggests it was inserted into the ceiling or the wall of the building, before it collapsed. It is called ‘tubulus-like’ as its shape is elongated and narrow with in- and outlets on top and bottom but without additional outlets in the sides. It was formed in the same way as proper tubuli were formed. The object’s overall length is almost 30 cm, and the internal space is 9 cm wide from wall to wall. The missing outlets in the walls limited possible airflow between the two big openings at top and bottom. This object stands out in the total find assemblage of the Northwest Quarter. It might have functioned as a simple smoke outlet or ceiling light. Number 260 shows a unique feature: a metal stick, likely of iron, is sticking within the corner top. Around the stick, a ring of clay surplus is pushed up. Another fragment (cat. no. 274) shows a metal strip or stick corroded horizontally to the rim’s top surface. Despite tubuli being a well-known and abundant group of artefacts, many are not published in detail.42 Pila Units ‘Cake-tiles’ or pila units are flat and thick, often round, units of fired clay, supposed to be piled up to form a column, that would be called a ‘pila’. Pilae do not necessarily need to be comprised of round units. In many cases, pilae are built of regular floor tiles or of stone, or they are replaced by arches.43 Whereas floor tiles and stone can be used for many different building purposes, including pilae, round ‘cake-tiles’ are in every case originally pro42   Reeves and Harvey 2016, fig.  9; Weksler-Bdolah 2016, fig.  24.20; Batz and Sharukh 2012, 6–7, fig.  6; Mazar 2011, fig. 4.1.1–4; Vriezen 1995, fig. 9; Nielsen, Andersen, and HolmNielsen 1993, Taf. 33: 291–93; Davidson-Weinberg 1988, fig.  8.15.149; pl.  8.10.149–51; Holm-Nielsen, Nielsen, and Andersen 1986, pl. 39.1 (still in wall); Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon 1924, fig. 106 and fig. 4.1.1–4. 43  Mazar 2011, 122.

Philip Ebeling

88 duced to be piled up as pilae in a hypocaustic heating system and not used for other purposes in primary-use. Despite their rough, ‘brick’-like appearance and nature, as well as their abundance at many sites throughout the Mediterranean and far beyond, they are highly specialized objects of a strong Italic tradition. Of the twenty pila units preserved (cat. nos 277–96) three are intact (cat. nos 277, 287, and 296), and two are body fragments (cat. nos 279 and 291) that cannot safely be identified as either fragments of pila units or later fragments.44 The rest are in various states of preservation. Top and bottom sides cannot be identified, as pila units can be stacked with either side up. Therefore, inscriptions do not necessarily make a top surface. No metro­logy can be reconstructed for the units, since none of them have identical measurements.45 The extensive use of mortar in architecture since late Roman times makes certain standards and requirements to some building ceramics seemingly obsolete, as already discussed for the tegulae above (see section on Tegulae above). It is likely that the pila units for one hypocaust were of relative uniformity, compared to the units for another construction. In any case, the assemblage from the Northwest Quarter suggests that all twenty excavated pila units originated from twenty different locations. The production process for pila units is difficult to identify. Despite their round shape, they are not wheel-made. Inside the break, the texture is mostly horizontal. Just at the sides of convexly/​c oncavely shaped specimen, the texture runs differently, but does not provide additional insights into their manufacturing process. The two intact pila units (cat. nos 277 and 287) show zoned marks of surface treatment on one of their surfaces, while number 296 is full of chaff and ground impressions. The side surface or rim fragments (visible on cat. nos 277, 281, 283, 289, 292, 293, 295, and 44  These two fragments appear in the catalogue only once, listed between the pila units, but are discussed two times in text (as pila units and lateres). 45   For example: numbers 283, 290, and 285 have the same diameter of 22  cm. Number 290 is with just 3.9  cm the second flattest, while number 285 is 5 cm thick and number 283 5.9 cm. The other way around, we face the same difficulties: numbers 285 and 288 have the same thickness of 5 cm, but their diameters are all very different from each other (no. 285 with 22 cm and no. 288 with 20.4 cm). The average diameter for pila units in Jerash seems to be between 21 and 22 cm (six specimens), and the average thickness is between 5 and 6 cm (eight specimens). Number 282 has the widest diameter (24  cm); number 277 has the smallest (19.3  cm). The thickest pila unit is number 287 (6.8 cm) and the thinnest is number 295 (3.2 cm). See also Batz and Sharukh 2012, 18; Berry 1988, 248; Mazar 2011, fig. 2.77.

296) show vertical marks, running from one flat surface to the other one, but without reaching it. These marks are probably connected with the production of the pila units. Five examples, four from the destruction level in the early Islamic houses, show a strong use of chaff (cat. nos 280, 283, 290, and 291). All pila units were fired in an oxidizing atmosphere, but number 289 demonstrates a dark grey core under its red surface. Pila units cannot yet be dated by typo­logy or other such methods. Letters and Letter-Like Marks The only exterior marks encountered on pila units from the Northwest Quarter are inscriptions.46 In total, seven pila units preserve letters, all thought to be Greek. Number 279: stilus-drawn ‘N’. The three lines are not connected. Number 281: finger-drawn, straight lines abruptly curving. Number 284: two straight fingerdrawn lines, not connected. Number 285: finger-drawn ‘N’. All three lines are connected. Number 289: a waved line, similar to a Latin ‘S’. Number 290: one finger-drawn line. Number 291: two stilus-drawn lines. Maybe part of an/​a Α/​Δ/​Λ/​V. The two lines are not connected. Lateres Lateres or floor tiles are not always found paving floors. They were produced for many purposes such as fundaments under floors, piling up to pilae, covering walls, or forming them. Of the total of twenty-two fragments preserved (cat. nos 279, 291, 297–316), four give a complete profile (cat. nos 297, 302, 312, and 308) of which two are intact (cat. nos  312 and 302). The two intact ones are of different measurements, but still in the size range of bessales. Number 302 is, however, rectangular, rather than square.47 Number 308 might have been a lydion, but remains incomplete. Thirteen fragments preserve rims, of which eight are corner pieces. Two were cut into stoppers (cat. nos  303 and 309), two remain not clearly identified as either later fragments or fragments of pila units (cat. nos 279 and 291, see also section on Pila Units above), and a last one is called a laterlike object (cat. no. 314). In this small collection, four 46  For other pila units with inscriptions on them: Barnes and others 2009, fig. 17.1–2; Piccirillo 1997, 391 foto 32; Walmsley 2002, fig. 24B. 47  Number 302: 19.3 × 17 × 3.4; number 305: 17.7 × 13.5 × 2.6. For the definition of bessales and more tiles, see Broadribb 1987, 34–41.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter different forms of rims are present: unshaped rims (cat. nos 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, 304, 305, 308, 311, 313, and 315), shaped rims in connection with a channel running along the later’s top surface (cat. nos 306, 307, 310, and 314), stepped rims (cat. no. 316) and a finger-drawn frame along two sides (cat. no. 312). The latter three variants show hand- or tool-made alterations to the shape or surface of the objects, whose visibility must have been intended. They must have been produced as floor or wall tiles. The objects with an unshaped rim could have been serving in a foundation or wall, even though they all display one smoothed surface. The production of lateres usually involves moulds or templates. Within the assemblage of the Northwest Quarter, evidence for such a production can be found as bottom corner zones and ledged bottom corners on numbers 297, 298, 301, 305, 306, 312, 313, 314, and 315. Chaff is present in high amounts in ten fragments (cat. nos 279, 291, 296, 297, 298, 300, 302, 303, 305, 306, and 309). By that, half of all lateres preserved were heavily tempered with chaff.48 All lateres found were fired in an oxidizing atmosphere. Exterior Marks Top surfaces did receive smoothing (well preserved on cat. nos 302, 305, 307, 309, 313, 315, and 316). Two bottom surfaces show a hand-made palm branch pattern (cat. nos 301 and 316).49 Next to the palm branch pattern, diagonal bottom surface scoring can be found on numbers 303, 304, 311, 314, and 316; probably for the same reason as under tegulae (see section Bottom Surface Scoring). On lateres, scoring has been done with two fingers, except in the case of number 304, where three fingers were used.50 Some fragments show Greek letters.51 Number 302: ‘KE’ written with a tool. The lines of the ‘K’ are written in separate strokes, the ‘E’ is comprised of just two tool-drawn lines. Both letters take the full space of the top surface. Number 304: stilus-drawn ‘K’. Number 308: four separately stilus-drawn, very thin lines. The letter or letters might represent a Semitic

48 

Reeves and Harvey 2016, 467–71. This pattern is found on the lateres of other productions as well, see Reeves and Harvey 2016, 466, fig. 11. 50  For scored lateres, see Bagatti 1985, foto 6; Piccirillo 2002, fig. 2a; Reeves and Harvey 2012, figs 7, 11. 51  Numbers 279 and 291 cannot be identified with certainty as pila units or lateres, but they were already discussed as pila units. Their inscribed letters will not be repeated here. 49 

89

script, such as Arabic or Aramaic.52 Number 309: two stilus-drawn lines, running diagonally towards each other (Α/​Λ/​V/​Y ).53 Number 312: casual finger-drawn letter, taking the full space of the top surface, which can be read as a ‘Φ’ or a ‘Ϙ’ with one arm turned to the right side. One exterior mark, heavily altering the shape of the object, lacks a conclusive interpretation: the top surface of number 314 was furrowed with deep strokes by a tool, running in a roughly diagonal direction away from the corner towards the middle of the top surface. The strokes are deep enough to almost pierce through the entire body (5  cm thick) damaging the object seriously and making it dysfunctional. Even though the object could hardly have functioned as a proper later, it was fired in a kiln and received a beige wash (visible inside the strokes as well) prior to firing. The damaged piece must still have been regarded as good enough for some sort of use, other than paving a floor or wall. Its bottom surface is scored. Miscellaneous Objects Over the course of the excavation, several fragments of objects have been found which are labelled as unclassified or miscellaneous (cat. nos 317–23). These seven objects, certainly not belonging to vessels, can be grouped into two basic categories: five objects with some kind of coating, fired at a low temperature and belonging to some kind of ‘installation’, and two further, unrelated pieces. The first category of objects is rather homogenous, but the objects are not identical (cat. nos 317, 318, 321–23). All of these fragments are flat and do not curve. One side of them was fired more intensely than the other one. Small, thin chaff marks cover their surfaces. Their top is formed into a hand-made furrow, channel, or abutment, of which one wall is higher than the other one, the function of which can only be hypothesized. Some of these fragments of an ‘installation’ preserve traces of black coating. All these pieces are very similar, but none is identical. Number 309 for instance demonstrates a well-preserved black, crisp coating whereas number 317 has none, but preserves a similar furrow on top. Another piece (number 322) shows a feature which might be a variant of the furrow and the typical coating. Its furrow is reduced to some kind of abutment. The furrow of number 323 appears to be formed with more care and might have been created by the use of a tool which 52 

Møller Larsen (in press). For more letters and letter-like marks on lateres, see Reeves and Harvey 2016, fig. 11. 53 

Philip Ebeling

90 it was formed around. The coating on these fragments is similar on all of them: it is a thin and fragile crust of an ashy-black to anthracite colour and of brittle texture. Whether this crust has been intentionally applied to the objects, or is the by-product of an uncontrolled firing, or the residue of another substance touching the surface, cannot be determined. All objects are made of a material which seems to be fired mud rather than purposefully and controlled fired clay. This mud was mixed with plenty of other organic temper. Another miscellaneous object, loosely labelled ‘building ceramic’ was found in the Cave Fillings. Number 319 is 2.7 cm thick and formed part of a vent structure. 54 Its breaks are old and weathered on all sides. Both surfaces seem to have received smoothing, and they look the same. No surface can be identified as a top, bottom, interior, or exterior. It is not over- or monolaterally fired, and there is no core visible in the breaks. The surface was punched through by a tool at least five times, of which one hole remains complete. It was pierced through from one side to the other, as can be seen from the small rings of clay surplus around the holes. The object number 320 is roughly shaped like a handle, but is not curved. The straight, elongated object is flat on one side and curved on the other sides. The flat surface, with slightly ledged edges, shows a surface that has not been shaped by a tool or by hand. The other surfaces are strongly weathered. In its break, the object shows an ashy, black core. Its use or function can only be hypothesized.

Primary Use The tegulae and imbrices of the Northwest Quarter of Jerash comprise a cross-section through all the different roof tile types of Jerash spanning hundreds of years of habitation and building. Several observations about these objects bear implications for roofs and their construction in ancient Jerash and, therefore, have relevance for their primary use. Of the seven different tegula types, only the ridged tiles represent a well-known tiling system. The transversal ridges were originally developed to fit into a notch in the tegula’s bottom surface, overlapping from the row above.55 However, the ridges on pan54 

See the objects retrieved from south of the temple platform from a metal smelting kiln in Brenk 2015, 406, fig. 28.12. For a similar-looking object from a non-industrial context, see Saller 1972, fig. 3 (right middle). 55  Åkerström 1966, 5 (Assos), 12 (Larisa), pl. 52.2 (Samos); Gräber 1881, 17 (Sicily); Ramage 1978, 35, fig. 124.

tiles from the Northwest Quarter and other places must have had a different purpose, as no bottom surface notch was found in Jerash or elsewhere in the wider region. Additionally, the continuation of a flange beyond the limits of the ridge makes a stacking mechanism likewise impossible. The design of the ‘shovel’-type tegulae or those with an elevated band leads to the same conclusion. The lack of tapering shape within the assemblage of the Northwest Quarter as well as in all of Jerash suggests that the method of stacking pantiles was never used in the city. Considering the bottom surface scoring on thirty-two pantile fragments from the Northwest Quarter alone emphasizes the likeliness of use of other methods of construction, such as mortar and other adhesive substances to fix a tegula to the roof ’s boarding. Apart from tiling systems, the assemblage can give insights into ancient polychromy of roofs. The two fragments, numbers 215 and 217 were painted on their top surfaces after firing, with a pattern or motif of sorts.56 This pattern or motif cannot be identified anymore. Therefore, painting was intentional and not just accidental. No further evidence for paint on roof tiles is preserved, but it is not impossible that some roofs were decorated with paint.57 With the available evidence, a play of colours with other methods on roofs can be suggested, too. Pantiles from the Hilltop Cistern i.e. showed a wellpreserved beige wash. Such a wash, however, was missing on the cover tiles from the same evidence. Despite the small number of roof tiles from the Hilltop Cistern, they tentatively invite for a reconstruction of a polychrome roof, created by a surface of beige washed pantiles, cut into fields by lines of red-fired and unwashed imbrices. Comparable evidence, however, is limited and thus calls for some caution concerning the interpretation of the evidence in Jerash.58 Unfortunately, other types of ceramic building material (tubuli, pila units, lateres) are not preserved in great enough numbers compared to roof tiles for further interpretation. However, the result of a comparison of the distribution of pantile colours and those of other building ceramics (excluding imbrices) may add to the evidence of polychrome roofs. The ratio for pantiles is roughly 2:3 red to brown and 1:3 grey to black (exclud56  For additional information, see Ebeling and Barfod (in this volume). 57  The roofs of some buildings of sixth-century bc Sardis, Asia Minor, were painted in a pattern of rhomboids (Ramage 1978, figs 9–10 and 124). 58  Broadribb 1987, 137 for a small collection of cases.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

91

Figure 5.10. Photo of the northern and eastern interior surfaces of ‘Cistern 2’ adjacent to St Theodore.

ing mis- or overfired fragments). Grey-fired fragments make only 5 per cent (three tubuli) of all other ceramic building material taken together. The overwhelming majority of tubuli, pila-units, and lateres were fired reddish to brown. One explanation for these different colour ratios could perhaps be found in local consumers’ tastes. As roof tiles were visible on roofs, they were prone to aspects of aesthetics and beauty and, thus, were available in grey and in reddish as a choice for customers. Other ceramic building material was continuously fired in one single way, as such objects were invisible in walls or floors. However, all possible interpretations are based on selected material from reuse and statistically not at all comparable. Thus, the relationship between colour and the different types of ceramic building material remains subject to hypotheses, rather than firm conclusions. The testimonies for roofs decorated by other means are sparse too. Only numbers 21 and 234 can be taken as evidence for that. Number 21, likely a roof tile body, demonstrates a carefully executed zigzag pattern on its top surface. Although no other decoration like that was found, it seems unlikely that such a decorated tile was alone on a roof. One should reconstruct at least one row of roof tiles with this decoration, presumably on a prominent building in a prominent position. The rim of the imbrex number 234 was formed manually into a wave-band by simple finger impressions. This decoration can only be seen on the crest of a roof. The approximate diameter of 18 cm does not seem to be wide enough to cover the roof ’s crest (also called ridge). Likewise, no crest tile has yet been identified in the wider region. Thus, a conclusive interpretation for the primary use of number 234 is missing as of yet.

Reuse Four stoppers (cat. nos  9, 127, 303, and 309) testify to a reuse fairly common for discarded pottery vessels,

but rarely published for ceramic building material. 59 Numbers 9 and 127 were cut out of tegulae and numbers 303 and 309 out of floor tiles. Another less common form of reuse is well documented by ceramic building material, exclusively tegulae,60 with smoothed breaks.61 These break surfaces appear to be even and with rounded edges or fully straightened, compared to others with uneven, irregular breaks, sometimes spiked, and with sharp edges. Some fragments with two or more break surfaces demonstrate both smoothed and unsmoothed breaks and allow for direct comparison. A  smoothed break surface can be the product of either cutting/​sawing or grinding/​filing. While sawing or cutting a roof tile implies the intention to rework the break surface, grinding or filing is a process that can happen as a side effect, e.g. in industrial contexts. Such a detailed identification may lead to wrong interpretations. Thus, those reworked breaks are referred to as ‘smoothed’ breaks. In all cases of reworking, ‘evened’, ‘regular’, and ‘smoothed’ applies to all aspects of the break surface. A great number of roof tiles were found in the early Islamic dwellings excavated in trenches K, P, and V. These private houses were destroyed during the earthquake of ad 749 and remained undisturbed. Especially in trenches P and V, the concentration of roof tiles was high, but they cannot be reconstructed as part of a tiled roof on the house, as the roof tile fragments were of many different types, sizes, fabrics, colours, and no fragments fitted together. Additionally, almost all of the break surfaces of the roof tiles from the early Islamic house appeared to be smoothed. Thus, the assemblage of roof tiles within the house must have been an intentional collection for a reuse. Smoothed breaks can occur

59 

Boas 2006, fig. 20.133. There is a single imbrex with smoothed breaks: number 245. 61  This context is discussed in detail in Ebeling 2020, 308–10. 60 

Philip Ebeling

92 in industrial contexts, in which they served as tools of sorts.62 However, the house did not yield any evidence for industrial activity. Instead, there were strong indicators that the house was undergoing renovation, such as a stone-built structure filled with plain, white mosaic tesserae and tesserae cutting equipment.63 As these latter two finds, the collection of roof tiles with smoothed breaks should be connected with the laying of the mosaic floor too. The way these roof tiles with smoothed breaks were applied within a mosaic floor can be exemplified by the so-called ‘Cistern 2’ in Jerash, adjacent to the narthex of St Theodore (Fig. 5.10).64 Here, roof tiles and maybe other ceramic building material were laid down, top side first, into a thick layer of mortar. The bottom sides, facing the cistern’s interior, were then covered with more layers of mortar. They were arranged, and likely even smoothed to fit next to each other, with the least possible space in between them, comparable to the way stone is cut into shapes to fit an opus sectile or mosaic floor. Ceramic building material, especially roof tiles, is known from other contexts as being reused in foundations of floors.65 Not all tegulae with smoothed breaks stem from the early Islamic dwelling. Objects like that stem from all kinds of contexts in the Northwest Quarter and are only in the case of the early Islamic house very numerous and so precisely relatable to a specific form of reuse. As stated above, smoothed breaks were documented exclusively on pantiles from the Northwest Quarter. The lack of other building ceramics in a state of reuse, rather than refuse, underlines the value of tegulae for ancient societies for reuse and, thus, helps to give an understanding of the amount of preserved pantiles compared to other forms of ceramic building material from the Northwest Quarter.

Avshalom-Gorni 2009, 24 fig. 2.23: 7, 8; Kehrberg 2016, 411–22; Taxel 2018, 112. 63  Lichtenberger and Raja 2017, 1003–05. 64  Excavated and first published by Fisher and McCown (1931, 14). 65  Daviau 2009, 131; Hamari 2017, 91–92; Taxel 2018, 113 fig. 5.8; Tsaferis 1982, pl. 32a.

Catalogue of Ceramic Building Materials The catalogue does not provide any additional numbering or organization of documentation. The ceramic building material is ordered alpha-numerically by ID number, starting with the year of excavation and followed by the letter given to the trench, the number of the evidence, and the number of the object. Measurements are all given in centimetres in the following order: Length (L.), Width (W.), Height (H.), Thickness (Th.), and Diameter (Diam.).66 Recurring abbreviations are int. for interior and ext. for exterior. The dates given refer to the objects’ date of manufacture and are for most entries only a rough estimation based on the objects’ typo­logy (if available) and the chrono­logical implications of their ceramic environment (e.g. tegulae without remarkable features) or strati­g raphic evidence. Other tiles, e.g. ridged tegulae, find enough parallels from contexts of primary use that the dates are relatively exact. All figures in the catalogue are courtesy of the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project.

Chrono­logy Hellenistic: 332–63 bc Roman: 63 bc–early fourth century ad Byzantine: early fourth century ad– late seventh century ad Umayyad/​Early Islamic: seventh century ad– mid-eighth century ad Mamluk: mid-thirteenth century ad–fifteenth century ad

62 

66 

Measurements are only given to the extent to which they were documented.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

93

Tegulae  3 

1 

3. J12-B-2-919 1. J12-Ab-10-2 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 4.5; W.: 6.5; Th.: 1.6; reddish colour. Bottom surface: diagonally scored. Top surface: channel parallel to flange. Flange: folded; rather square-shaped; channellike depression on flattened top; rough bottom corner zone. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: second–third centuries ad.

Tegula, body fragment. L.: 6.5; W.: 4.1; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: smoothed; tool-drawn inscription; damaged, weathered. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 4   2 

4. J12-B-15-3 Tegula, flange fragment with ridge.

2. J12-Af-19-36 Tegula, upper right corner fragment with ridge. L.: 10.7; W.: 16.7; Th.: 1.2; reddish colour. Smoothed breaks; weathered. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; chaff and ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment between ridge and rim parallel to both, running against flange; smoothed. Flange: folded; square-shaped; damaged; rough bottom corner zone. Rim: straight; rounded top corner; ledged bottom corner. Ridge: no connection with flange, peaked in cut section. Date: second–third centuries ad.

L.: 10.7; W.: 6.4; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment in direction of flange; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment along flange; channel along flange and ridge; smoothed. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather horn-shaped; ledge on ext.; damaged; weathered. Ridge: not connected to flange, peaked in cut section; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

94

 5 

 7 

5. J12-Cd-1-161 Tegula, lower left corner fragment with spout. L.: 21; T.: 2; H. (flange): 3; grey colour. Damaged, weathered. Large cavity in body causes slight deformation of top surface. Bottom surface: ground impressions; palm branch pattern. Top surface: slightly blown up by cavity; smoothed; channel along flange and spout; marks of surface treatment. Rim: uneven and hand-formed. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; horn-shaped; space cut out of body; spout-flange separately formed, set on top and merged by hand to other flange. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, no. 137.

7. J13-Dab-10-7+29 Tegula with elevated band, five fragments forming complete profile from flange to flange. L.: 40; W.: 43; Th.: 1.8; brown-greyish colour. Broken into five big fragments; clean breaks but not smoothed. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: slightly elevated band before rim with channel; marks of surface treatment; channels along flanges; smoothed; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; beige wash; marks of surface treatment; no rim-flange connection. Elevated band: broad; rounded ext. corners; channel before top surface; ledged bottom corner zone. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

8. J13-Dab-13-46  6 

6. J13-Dab-7-6 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 10; W.: 7; Th.: 1; greyish colour. Bottom surface: convex; marks of surface treatment; ground impressions. Top surface: concave; marks of surface treatment roughly parallel to the flange. Flange: folded; triangular-shaped; rough bottom corner zone, framed by small ledge. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Tegula, lower right corner fragment with spout. L.: 12.7; W.: 13.6; Th.: 2.1; greyish colour. Damaged, weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions; palm branch pattern; damaged; weathered. Top surface: chaff impressions. Flange: folded; damaged flange shape; space cut out of body; spout flange hand formed and merged by hand with flange; bottom corner ledged; damaged. Rim: straight; sharp top corner; damaged. Date: Byzantine.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

95

 11 

 8 

11. J13-Gf-30-1 Tegula, body fragment.

9. J13-Dab-13-72 Tegula fragment, cut into a stopper.

 9 

L.: 15; W.: 10; brown reddish colour. Smoothed breaks; covered in different sorts of mortar and plaster from both sides; top and bottom unidentified. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

L.: 9.2; Th.: 3.1; brown reddish colour. Damaged and weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: marks of surface treatment; ground and chaff impressions; smoothed. Other side: smoothed; weathered. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 12 

12. J13-Gf-30-3  10 

Tegula, flange fragment.

10. J13-Gd-7-3 Tegula, flange fragment with ridge.

L.: 12; W.: 8.1; Th.: 2; brown reddish colour, with whitish to greenish zones on surface. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks; slightly overfired. Bottom surface: weathered. Top surface: weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; bottom corner ledged; damaged; weathered. Ridge: rather peaked in cut section; lowered down to flange and connected by hand; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

L.: 18.3; W.: 11.7; Th. 1.3–1; grey colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: a few chaff and ground impressions; palm branch pattern. Top surface: damaged; channel along flange; smoothed; marks of surface treatment. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; horn-shaped; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, no. 121.

Philip Ebeling

96

 13 

 15 

13. J14-Jb-11-3 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 15.5; W.: 8.3; Th.: 1.1; blackish to grey colour. Mis- or overfired; damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: weathered. Top surface: channel alongside flange. Flange: folded; crescent-shaped; towards one smoothed break flange size is increasing. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

15. J14-Jc-32-107 Tegula, lower left flange fragment with spout. L.: 22; W.: 21.5; Th.: 1.8; brown reddish colour. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; diagonally scored; beige wash. Top surface: channel along flange; marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; start of spout preserved; ledged bottom corner zone; beige wash; marks of surface treatment. Date: fourth century ad.

 14 

 16 

14. J14-Jd-27-4 Tegula, flange fragment.

16. J14-Jd-32-174

L.: 15.3; W.: 7.6; Th.: 1.7; pink reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground impressions. Top surface: channel parallel to flange; beige wash. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; extra layer of clay smoothed onto body. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 18.8; W.: 21.5; Th.: 1.8; brownish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; finger-drawn inscription. Rim: straight; top corner partly ledged. Date: fourth century ad. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, no. 88 (old drawing).

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

97

 17 

 19 

17. J14-Jd-32-176 Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 15; W.: 12; Th.: 2; greenish colour. Overfired; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks with ledge, crossing each other, being diagonally placed towards rim; swollen chaff impression; fully vitrified; damaged. Top surface: no marks; vitrified stronger than bottom surface. Rim: molten; vitrified. Date: fourth century ad.  18 

19. J14-Jc-35-64 Tegula, lower left flange fragment with spout. L.: 13.3; W.: 6.3; Th.: 1.5; brown reddish colour. One break smoothed. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: folded; roughly horn-shaped; space cut out of body; spout-flange separately formed and set on top and merged by hand to other flange; rough bottom corner zone; beige wash. Date: fourth century ad.

20. J14-Jc-35-66 Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 19.5; W.: 22.8; Th.: 2.6; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; overfired; smoothed breaks; top and bottom unidentified. Convex side: deep, scratch-like marks on surface in many directions, but mainly parallel to long breaks. Concave side: deep, scratch-like marks on surface in the same direction as on convex side; blackened and damaged by fire. Date: fourth century ad.

 20 

18. J14-Jd-35-26 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 13.6; W.: 15.3; Th.: 2.2; pink reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground impression. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed; weathered. Flange: internal loop-structure; cone-shaped; ledge on int. and ext.; ledged bottom corner zone. Date: fourth century ad.

21. J14-Jd-35-78 Tegula, body fragment.

 21 

L.: 18; W.: 13.4; Th.: 1.8; brownish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: smoothed; finger-drawn zigzag decoration; chaff impressions. Date: fourth century ad.

Philip Ebeling

98  22 

 24 

22. J14-Jc-48-10 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 14.5; W.: 11.3; Th.: 1.7; reddish colour. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment running against longer sides; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment, parallel to longer sides; tool-drawn inscription; smoothed. Date: fourth century ad.

24. J14-Je-87-18 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 14.1; W.: 8.7; Th.: 1.6; blackish colour. Misfired (waster); broken. Bottom surface: swollen; details lost; large cavities. Top surface: swollen; details lost. Flange: swollen, details lost; broken. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF). Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 23 

 25 

23. J14-Jc-53-2 Tegula, lower left corner fragment with spout. L.: 20; W.: 12.3; Th.: 2.5; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed and untreated breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground and chaff impressions; damaged. Top surface: channel along flange; smoothed; weathered. Flange: shaping technique and shape unidentified; space cut out of body; spout flange hand shaped set on top and merged by hand to the other flange; rough bottom corner zone at spout only. Rim: uneven; hand shaped; rounded corners. Date: fourth century ad.

25. J14-Kc-3-21 Tegula, flange fragments. L.: 10; W.: 8; Th.: 1.6; brown greyish colour. Broken in two pieces; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed; light wash; crack in surface at joint between flange and body. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; bottom corner ledge. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF and microscope). Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

 26 

99

 28 

26. J14-Kc-3-136

28. J14-Kh-3-193

Tegula, flange and rim fragment.

Tegula, flange and rim fragment.

L.: 7.5; W.: 10.6; Th.: 1.9; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: damaged; weathered. Top surface: channels along flange and rim handmade; marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: folded; remodelled by hand close to rim; roughly horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment. Rim: straight; small ledge at bottom corner; small ledge at end of flange channel. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, no. 87.

L.: 9.9; W.: 8.2; Th.: 2; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed and untreated breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground impressions. Top surface: smoothed; chaff impressions; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; original shape unidentified (cone-shaped?); production ledge on straight ext.; rough bottom corner zone; curving towards top surface before break; damaged; weathered. Rim: curving, sharp top corner. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

 29   27 

27. J14-Ke-3-178 Tegula, lower right corner fragment with spout. L.: 15.8; W.: 8.8; Th.: 2.3; brown reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: chaff and ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed; chaff impressions. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; square-shape; spout shaping unidentified; spout flange separately formed and set on top; merged with flange by hand; entire spout remodelled by hand. Rim: hand modelled; not enough preserved. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

29. J14-Kg-3-293 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 14.5; W.: 9; Th.: 1.7; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks; top and bottom unidentified. One side: no marks; maybe smoothed, light wash. Other side: obscured by plaster. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

100

 31 

 30 

 32 

30. J14-Kef-3S-330 Tegula, upper left corner fragment with two flanges. L.: 13; W.: 7.5; Th.: 1.3; greyish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment running against short side flange and parallel to long side flange; chaff impressions. Long side Flange: folded; triangular-shaped; marks of surface treatment and wash; small finger imprints; sharp bottom corner. Short side Flange: shaping technique unidentified; flat and wide; sloping gently down being rounded at the top and no bottom corner zone on straight and even ext.; even and elaborate curving but sharp joint between long and short sided flange; marks of surface treatment on short sided flange parallel to it; chaff impressions. Date: sixth century ad–ad 749.

32. J15-Jl-5-11 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 15; W.: 10; Th.: 2; orange reddish colour. One smoothed break. Bottom surface: diagonally scored, crossing each other. Top surface: finger or stick-drawn decoration (pattern) or inscription. Date: Roman to Early Byzantine.

31. J14-Kh-3-495 Tegula, flange fragments. L.: 15.6; W.: 27.5; Th.: 2; greyish colour. Broken in two pieces; damaged; smoothed breaks; fabric thickness decreasing from flange towards middle and increasing again towards opposite flange. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; marks of surface treatment in many directions; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; in the middle decoration of three parallel fingerdrawn waved lines. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment on top; bottom corner ledge; damaged. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF). Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

33. J15-Jd-64-1 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 9.4; W.: 8.9; Th.: 2.3; reddish colour. One break smoothed. One side: no information. Other side: smoothed; tooldrawn inscription. Date: Roman to Late Byzantine.

 33 

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

101

34. J15-Nd-24-1 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 16; W.: 9.1; Th.: 1.9; greenish colour. Mis- or overfired; damaged. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment in direction of flange; damaged. Top surface: green vitrified surface; chaff impressions; damaged. Flange: folded; original shape unidentified; marks of surface treatment on ext. Date: Late Roman to Late Byzantine.

 34 

 37 

37. J15-Nb-57-42 Tegula, upper right corner fragment with elevated band.

 35 

35. J15-Nh-37-6 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 13; W.: 8.7; Th.: 1.5; reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment in direction of rim against flange; chaff and ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to the flange; smoothed; damaged. Flange: shaping technique not identified; rather horn-shaped; depression on ext.; damaged. Rim: rim top elevated; straight; flange lowered down to rim by hand. Date: Roman to Byzantine. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 122.

36. J15-Nh-37-8

L.: 16.1; W.: 18.6; Th.: 1.5; greyish colour. Broken in two pieces; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; diagonally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment on top of elevated band and top surface running against flange; moving towards the break, marks of surface treatment more curving until chaotic; smoothed; light wash. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; no connection to elevated band, but gap between them. Elevated band: broad; square-shaped; sharp int. and ext. corners; no connection to flange; channel in between; corner rounded; ledged bottom corner zone. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF). Date: fifth to sixth centuries ad. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 124.

 36 

Tegula, flange fragment with ridge. L.: 13.9; W.: 9.3; Th.: 1.7; reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment running against flange. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather hornshaped; marks of surface treatment; ext. modelled by hand; bottom corner ledged. Rim: rather straight; marks of surface treatment; top corner ledged; flange lowered down to rim by hand. Ridge: sharp top; no connection to flange; damaged. Date: Roman to Byzantine. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 123.

 38 

38. J15-Nb-57-84 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 13.5; W.: 12.2; Th.: 1.7; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: diagonally scored; damaged. Top surface: smoothed; stick-drawn inscription; chaff impressions; beige wash. Date: sixth century ad.

Philip Ebeling

102

 41   39 

39. J15-Nb-57-166

41. J15-Nl-74-5

Tegula, flange fragment.

Tegula, flange (broken off ) and rim fragment.

W.: 9; L.: 6.2; Th.: 1.7; reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: some small surface cracks; lime spots on surface, but not in core. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; channel along flange; marks of surface treatment; weathered. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF). Date: sixth century ad.

L.: 7.7; W.: 7.4; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: diagonally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: damaged; weathered. Flange: remains hand modelled and suggesting a rounded flange top; weathered. Rim: marks of surface treatment. Date: Late Byzantine.

 40 

 42 

40. J15-Nb-57-167 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 9.6; W.: 6.3; Th.: 1.2; greyish colour. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment; diagonally scored, crossing each other; ground impressions. Top surface: curving marks of surface treatment; smoothed; tooldrawn inscription; beige wash. Date: sixth century ad.

42. J15-Of-19-13 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 11.8; W.: 8.2; Th.: 1.5; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: diagonally scored; chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel along flange; two finger-drawn channels running against flange across top surface; chaff impressions; smoothed; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather cone-shaped; rounded bottom corner; damaged; weathered. Rim: straight; rounded top corner; damaged, weathered. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

 43 

103

 45 

43. J15-Og-57-27 Tegula, upper left flange and rim fragment with ridge. L.: 14.1; W.: 6.8; Th.: 2.1; brown reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; chaff and ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment along ridge and rim; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; hand modelled; weathered. Rim: straight; rounded top corner; bottom corner ledged; no rim-flange connection. Ridge: peaked in cut section; connected to flange; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

45. J15-Ob-112-8 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 14.6; W.: 12.8; Th.: 1.8; orange reddish colour. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; diagonal scoring, reaching the edge of object under the rim at c. 8 cm away from corner; ground and chaff impressions; damaged. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; channel along flange and rim; another channel running against flange, stopping before channel along flange, with 9.9 cm distance parallel to rim; smoothed. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone. Rim: curving to straight; by channel on top, ledged top corner; sharp bottom corner; flange lowered down, but at rim connection pressed away by finger imprint. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 44   46 

44. J15-Ob-108-11 Tegula, flange and rim fragment with unclassified feature. L.: 16.7; W.: 13.5; Th.: 2.5; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment running against flange; surface cracks; damaged. Top surface: elevated feature, being shaped triangular from a vertical perspective and sitting between rim and flange (L.: 11.5; W.: 8; H.: 5) with rounded corners; channel along flange and feature; marks of surface treatment on feature parallel to flange; smoothed; light wash; weathered; damaged. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; 90° angle on int. at feature; damaged, weathered. Rim: straight; rounded feature top corner; sharp bottom corner. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 112.

46. J15-Pc-15-3 Tegula, rim or body fragment. L.: 10; W.: 4.3; Th.: 3.5. Mis- or overfired; top and bottom unidentified; smoothed break or unidentified rim. One side: green vitrified; swollen. Other side: swollen chaff impression or inscription. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

104

 47 

49. J15-Pb-15-16 Tegula, flange fragment.

47. J15-Pb-15-14 Tegula, flange (broken off ) fragment. W.: 9.5; L.: 9.1; Th.: 2.8; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; diagonally scored; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment. Flange: broken off. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

 49 

L.: 8.4; W.: 8.1; Th.: 2; brown reddish colour. Damaged; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: ground impressions. Top surface: channel along flange; smoothed. Flange: folded; diamond-shaped; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 114.

 48 

 50 

50. J15-Pb-15-17 Tegula, upper right corner fragment with two flanges.

48. J15-Pb-15-15 Tegula, flange fragments. L.: 12.8; W.: 4.1; Th.: 1.6; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: some ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; not enough preserved. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; hornshaped; protruding ledge on flange int.; bottom corner ledge. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 113.

L.: 12.2; W.: 8.8; Th.: 2.9; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: rough. Top surface: finger-drawn channel along flanges; close to break another channel running parallel to narrow flange; circular hole at flange corner in surface of channel; smoothed; damaged; weathered. Narrow Flange: shaping technique unidentified; diamond-shaped; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Wide Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rounded from int. to top to ext.; rough bottom corner zone; damaged; weathered. Date: sixth century ad–ad 749.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

105

 53 

 51 

53. J15-Pc-16-7 Tegula, flange and rim fragment.

51. J15-Pa-15-26 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 11.4; W.: 13.3; Th.: 2.1; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed; channel along flange. Flange: internal loop-structure; cone-shaped; rounded on top; int. and ext. straight; marks of surface treatment. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 115.

L.: 14.7; W.: 9.9; Th.: 2.2; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: channel running towards flange placed 4.7 cm away from parallel rim; smoothed; chaff impressions. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather square-shaped; marks of surface treatment; bottom corner ledge; damaged; weathered. Rim: flange lowered down onto rim by hand; straight; no bottom corner zone, rounded top corner. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 116.

 54 

 52 

54. J15-Pc-16-8 Tegula, flange fragment.

52. J15-Pa-15-27 Tegula, flange and rim corner fragment. L.: 13.9; W.: 10.9; Th.: 1.5; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment running against flange; ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: channel running against flange next to rim; smoothed; weathered. Flange: folded; hand modelled; shape varies; mostly rounded without forming a bottom corner. Rim: hand modelled; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone with small ledge. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

L.: 14.1; W.: 6.3; Th.: 1; brown reddish colour. Two smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed. Flange: folded; hornshaped; bottom corner ledge; marks of surface treatment; rough zone on flange int. at top surface. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 117.

Philip Ebeling

106

 55 

 57 

57. J15-Pc-16-116 Tegula, rim fragment with elevated band

55. J15-Pc-16-73 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 12.5; W.: 13.9; Th.: 2.2; reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: very thick marks of smearing down clay surplus in regular movements against the flange. Top surface: three bands of mould-impressions or marks of surface treatment along flange, being disturbed by two bands of mould or marks of surface treatment running diagonally into and over the three former ones; weathered. Flange: folded; rather cone-shaped; ledge on int.; bottom corner varies. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

L.: 8.7; W.: 8.1; Th.: 1.9; reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: obscured by plaster. Top surface: elevated band slightly ledged at both sides; shallow groove along rim; smoothed; weathered. Rim: straight; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

 58   56 

56. J15-Pc-16-80 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 20.8; W.: 10.4; Th.: 1.8; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed break. Bottom surface: rough; marks of surface treatment; diagonally scored. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; bottom corner ledged; chaff impressions. Rim: hand shaped; ledge of clay surplus at bottom corner; flange lowered down to rim by hand. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 118.

58. J15-Pb-19-1 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 13.6; W.: 8.8; Th.: 1.5; beige reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: smoothed. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; marks of surface treatment; ledge on ext.; rough bottom corner zone. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF, microscope, and ICP-MS). Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

107

 59   61 

59 J15-Pbd-25-1 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 11.5; W.: 14.1; Th.: 1.5; reddish colour. Damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: diagonally scored. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; no bottom corner zone; damaged. Rim: hand modelled; no bottom corner zone; flange rim connection damaged. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 119.

61. J15-Pa-51-5 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 12.4; W.: 11; Th.: 1.5; greyish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; decoration of three waved finger-drawn channels. Flange: short side-flange; shaping technique unidentified; uncategorized shape (peaked top; straight and even slowly sloping down to be rounded at bottom; straight int.); marks of surface treatment. Date: sixth century ad–ad 749. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 121.

 60   62 

60. J15-Pa-51-1 Tegula, upper right corner fragment with two flanges. L.: 14.6; W.: 11.3; Th.: 1.2; greyish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: no production marks but perfectly smooth; chaff and ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment mostly parallel to flanges; two deep finger impressions in wide flange, at the connection to longer preserved flange. Long side Flange: folded; rather coneshaped; marks of surface treatment; bottom corner zone ledged. Short side Flange: folded; wide and short; connected to longer preserved flange by hand; ext. rounded by hand; rough bottom corner zone. Date: sixth century ad–ad 749. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 120.

62. J15-Pc-59-2 Tegula, upper left corner fragment with two flanges. L.: 8.5; W.: 11.2; Th.: 1.2; greyish colour. Partially smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment against short side flange; chaff impres­ sions. Top surface: not enough preserved; smooth. Long side Flange: shaping technique unidentified; not enough preserved; connected with wide flange by hand; rough bottom corner zone. Short side Flange: folded; flattened on top; int. and ext. straight; bottom corner rough and ledged. Date: sixth century ad–ad 749.

Philip Ebeling

108  65 

 63 

65. J15-Qd-11-28 Tegula, rim fragment.

63. J15-Qc-8-1 Tegula, lower right corner fragment with spout. L.: 14.2; W.: 6.5; Th.: 1.2; greyish colour. Weathered; smoothed break; perhaps overfired. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment along flange; ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: channel along flange; marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; beige wash; weathered. Flange: folded; rather diamond-shaped with straight int.; space cut out of body; spout flange formed separately and merged with flange by hand; beige wash; damaged; weathered. Rim: rounded tegula corner; broken off. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

L.: 8.9; W.: 9.1; reddish colour. Smoothed and untreated breaks; damaged; weathered. Blackened surface: marks of surface treatment; ground and chaff impressions; blackened by fire; damaged; weathered. Other surface: smoothed; tool- and finger-drawn inscription; chaff impressions. Date: Roman to Late Roman.  66 

66. J15-Qc-20-7 Tegula, flange and rim fragment.  64 

L.: 8.7; W.: 8.4; Th.: 2.4; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: damaged; weathered. Top surface: tool-made channel running against flange at 4.7 cm distance from and parallel to rim, next to a line of damage; chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; damaged; weathered. Rim: rounded tegula corner; broken off. Date: Late Byzantine.

64. J15-Qd-9-16 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 8.1; W.: 8.6; Th.: 1.6; yellowish colour. Weathered; damaged; overfired. Bottom surface: ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; damaged. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather horn-shaped; straight bottom corner zone. Date: Late Roman to Early Byzantine.

67. J16-S-0-1 Tegula, flange fragment.

 67 

L.: 5.7; W.: 2; Th.: 2.5; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; body not preserved. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; ext. ridge at height of top surface; marks of surface treatment. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

109

 70 

70. J16-Sc-13-30

 68 

Tegula, flange fragment.

68. J16-Sa-1-36 Tegula, lower right flange fragment with spout. L.: 7.2; W.: 6.1; Th.: 2.2; orange reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: some unidentifiable marks. Top surface: weathered; some marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; channel alongside flange. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; spout formed by hand; marks of surface treatment; some chaff impression; damage; rough bottom corner zone; int. and ext. rather straight; top rather flattened with rounded corners. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

L.: 9; W.: 3.5; Th.: 1.5; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: a single chaff impression. Top surface: not enough preserved. Flange: internal loopstructure; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; roug  bottom corner zone; small ledge at bottom corner. Date: second–third centuries ad.

 71 

69. J16-Sc-13-27 Tegula, flange fragment.

 69 

L.: 5.8; W.: 6.2; Th.: 1.9; reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; shallow channel alongside flange. Flange: doublefolded; rather square-shaped; linear horizontal depression on ext.; marks of surface treatment; smoothed bottom corner zone. Date: second–third centuries ad. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 96.

71. J16-Sc-13-31 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 15.2; W.: 15.9; Th.: 2.7; pink reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; ground impression. Top surface: smoothed; channel along flange; cracks in surface. Flange: folded; cone-shaped with rounded top; ledged bottom corner zone. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: second–third centuries ad. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 97.

 72 

72. J16-Sd-13-33 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 14.3; W.: 10.3; Th.: 2; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: shallow channel parallel to flange; marks of surface treatment parallel to flange. Flange: forming technique unidentified; roughly cone-shaped; hand modelled; damaged. Rim: marks of surface treatment; rounded bottom corner zone; rim-flange connection hand formed. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF, microscope and ICP-MS). Date: second–third centuries ad.

Philip Ebeling

110

 75 

 73 

75. J16-Sc-13-60

73. J16-Sd-13-34 Tegula, flange (broken off ) fragment with ridge. L.: 14.3; W.: 10.9; Th.: 2.3; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to ridge running against the flange; beige wash; surface crack. Flange: original shape not preserved; int. and top not preserved; rounded bottom corner zone; marks of surface treatment; ext. washed; damaged. Ridge: peaked in cut section; irregularly shaped from horizontal perspective; wash; damaged. Date: second–third centuries ad. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 98.

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 7.3; W.: 7.8; Th.: 1.5; reddish colour. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment; ground impressions. Top surface: channel alongside flange; smoothed; some marks of surface treatment. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; ledged bottom corner zone. Date: second–third centuries ad.

 76 

76. J16-Sc-13-61 Tegula, flange fragment.  74 

74. J16-Sd-13-35 Tegula, body fragment with ridge. L.: 7.6; W.: 5; Th.: 2.2; reddish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment; ground impression. Top surface: smoothed; marks of surface treatment parallel to ridge. Ridge: peaked in cut section; regular appearance. Date: second–third centuries ad.

L.: 7.4; W.: 5.3; Th.: 1.9; brown reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Flange: internal loop-structure; cone-shaped; rough bottom corner zone; marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Date: second–third centuries ad.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

111

 79 

 77 

79. J16-Sd-22-27 Tegula, flange and rim fragment.

77. J16-Scd-13-68+69 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 11.2; W.: 8.4; Th.: 1.3; pink reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; wash; ground impressions. Top surface: channel along flange; smoothed; marks of surface treatment; beige wash; damaged; weathered. Flange: double-folded; square-shaped; protruding, rough bottom corner zone; smoothed; wash. Date: second–third centuries ad. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 99.

L.: 7.1; W.: 6.8; Th.: 1.8; pink reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: some marks of surface treatment; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channellike impressions before rim; chaff impressions; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather square-shaped; rounded tegula corner; narrowing, lowering and curving down onto rim; marks of surface treatment; ledge on ext. Rim: rounded from top to bottom; some marks of surface treatment. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

 80 

78. J16-Sd-22-26 Tegula, flange fragment.

 78 

L.: 3.1; W.: 4.2; Th.: 1.6; reddish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: rough; laterally scored; damaged. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather hornshaped; marks of surface treatment; bottom corner ledged. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

80. J16-Sd-22-28 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 5; W.: 5.6; Th.: 0.8; reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; channel along flange; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; height raised or repair by an extra portion of clay set on top; sail-shaped; bottom corner zone rounded; marks of surface treatment. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

112

 83 

 81 

83. J16-Sf-22-130 Tegula, flange fragment.

81. J16-Sd-22-72 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 11.1; W.: 4.5; Th.: 0.7; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions; weathered. Top surface: weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; sail-shaped; damaged. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

L.: 12.3; W.: 8.5; Th.: 2; reddish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: obscured by plaster. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; chaff impression. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; sharp bottom corner; marks of surface treatment. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

 84 

 82 

84. J16-Sf-22-131 Tegula, flange fragment.

82. J16-Sd-22-90 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 4.7; W.: 3.4; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour. Damaged, weathered. Bottom surface: no marks; blackened. Top surface: channel along flange; marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; beige wash. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

L.: 11; W.: 10.3; Th.: 1.8; brown reddish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: chaff and ground impressions. Top surface: channel along flange; marks of surface treatment in direction of flange; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; coneshaped; zoned marks of surface treatment; chaff impression; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

113

 87 

87. J16-Sf-22-134

 85 

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 9.5; W.: 3.5; Th.: 1.3; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: weathered. Top surface: not enough preserved. Flange: folded; rather crescent-shaped; rough bottom corner zone; marks of surface treatment. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

85. J16-Sf-22-132 Tegula, lower left flange fragment with spout. L.: 9.7; W.: 9.4; Th.: 2.1; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; ground impression. Top surface: smoothed; beige wash. Flange: only spout preserved; spout formed separately and set on top of body; space cut out of body; hand modelled; beige wash; damaged. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

 88 

88. J16-Sg-22-154 Tegula, upper right corner fragment with elevated band.  86 

86. J16-Sf-22-133

L.: 15.8; W.: 11.2; Th.: 1.7; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ground impression; damaged; weathered. Top surface: elevated band; smoothed; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; rough bottom corner zone; damaged. Rim: rounded tegula corner; rest not preserved. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 9.4; W.: 7.2; Th.: 1.9; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: no marks. Top surface: smoothed; channel along flange. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather square-shaped; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

 89 

89. J16-Sb-23-13 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 8.2; W.: 8.5; Th.: 2; reddish brown. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impression. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impression; beige wash. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; marks of surface treatment; beige wash; damaged. Date: second–third centuries ad.

Philip Ebeling

114

 90 

90. J16-Sb-23-14  92 

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 7.3; W.: 6.1; Th.: 2.1; reddish brown Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: some marks of surface treatment; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel along flange; damaged. Flange: folded; horn-shaped leaning outwards; bottom corner ledged; marks of surface treatment. Date: second–third centuries ad.

 91 

91. J16-Se-37-7 Tegula, flange fragment.

92. J16-Sh-56-5

L.: 14.2; W.: 9.8; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour. Partly damaged. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; chaff impression. Top surface: channel along flange; chaff impression. Flange: folded; rather hornshaped; bottom corner ledge; damaged. Date: Byzantine.

Tegula, rim fragment with ridge. L.: 15.6; W.: 10.5; Th.: 2.3; pink reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; beige wash; chaff and ground impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: smoothed; beige wash; marks of surface treatment; damaged; weathered. Rim: top and bottom corner sharp; beige wash; marks of surface treatment; damaged; weathered. Ridge: peaked in cut section; regular appearance; beige wash; damaged, weathered. Date: second–third centuries ad.

93. J16-Sh-56-6  93 

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 11.4; W.: 9.9; Th.: 1.7; reddish colour. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff and ground impression. Top surface: marks of surface treatment. Flange: separately formed and set on top; cone-shaped; ledge at height of top surface; ledged bottom corner zone. Date: second–third centuries ad.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

115

 97 

 94 

94. J16-Sh-56-7

97. J16-Sh-56-10

Tegula, flange fragment.

Tegula, rim fragment with ridge.

L.: 6.5; W.: 6.7; Th.: 2; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: some marks running towards flange; ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: channel along flange; smoothed; marks of surface treatment; white wash. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; rough bottom corner zone; on ext. marks of surface treatment. Date: second–third centuries ad.

L.: 12.5; W.: 9.6; Th.: 2.5; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground impressions. Top surface: smoothed; marks of surface treatment parallel to rim and ridge; beige wash. Rim: even and straight outline; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone; small and flattened ledge on top of rim; beige wash. Ridge: peaked in cut section; even appearance; beige wash. Date: second–third centuries ad.

98. J16-Sh-56-11 Tegula, flange fragment.  95 

95. J16-Sh-56-8 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 18.4; W.: 8; Th.: 2.7; brown reddish colour. One break smoothed. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment in direction of flange; chaff impressions; beige wash. Top surface: smoothed; marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; beige wash; damaged. Flange: folded; crescent-shaped; beige wash; rough bottom corner zone; chaff impressions. Date: second–third centuries ad.

 98 

99. J16-Sk-105-9 Tegula, body fragment.

96. J16-Sh-56-9 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 7.6; W.: 4.9; Th.: 2; orange reddish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: some ground impressions. Top surface: channel along flange; rest not preserved. Flange: internal loop-structure; cone-shaped; sharp bottom corner. Date: second–third centuries ad.

L.: 10.1; W.: 9.5; Th.: 1.2; brown reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: rough; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to the flange; channel along flange; smoothed. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; ledged bottom corner zone; marks of surface treatment. Date: second–third centuries ad.

 96 

L.: 8.5; W.: 9.5; Th.: 1.6; yellow to greenish colour Misfired; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. Chaff and ground impression on both sides; vitrified. Date: second–third centuries ad.  99 

Philip Ebeling

116

 102   100 

100. J16-Sk-105-10 Tegula, rim fragment with ridge. L.: 5.2; W.: 6.7; Th.: 2; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; breaks smoothed. Bottom surface: weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; curving, finger-drawn channel between ridge and rim. Rim: top corner ledged; bottom corner rounded. Ridge: peaked in cut section, marks of surface treatment. Date: second–third centuries ad.

102. J16-Tc-26-5 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 13.5; W.: 6.7; Th.: 3.1; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: damaged; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: separately formed and set on top of body; cone-shaped; body and flange smeared together on int.; ledge on ext. at height of body surface; damaged; weathered. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 101   103 

101. J16-Td-13-8 Tegula, upper left corner fragment with elevated band. L.: 7.8; W.: 10; Th.: 2.5; brown colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment running parallel to flange; chaff and ground impression. Top surface: elevated band running against the flange but 1.5 cm inwards from rim; finger-drawn channel along elevated band on its int.; smoothed; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather crescent-shaped; marks of surface treatment. Rim: rounded top corner; rough bottom corner zone; no connection to flange; tegula corner rounded. Date: Early Byzantine to Late Byzantine.

103. J16-Tc-26-6 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 11.6; W.: 7; Th.: 2; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: deep, channel-like impression under flange; ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: channel along flange; marks of surface treatment; smoothed; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

117

 106 

 104 

106. J16-Tc-41-8 Tegula, flange fragment.

104. J16-Tb-35-21+24 Tegula, lower right corner fragments with spout. L.: 19.4; W.: 15. 2; Th.: 1.3; brown reddish colour. Broken in two pieces; damaged; weathered; smoothed and untreated breaks. Bottom surface: ground impressions; palm branch pattern; marks of surface treatment. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; channel along flange; spout remodelled by hand; spout flange separately formed and merged with flange by hand; rough bottom corner zone; marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash; damaged. Rim: straight; ledge on top; rough bottom corner zone; flange lowering towards rim and forming outwards-turned curved ledge; merging with ledge on top of rim. Petrography: This object is between Groups 3 and 4 (XRF, microscope, ICP-MS). Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

105. J16-Tb-35-23 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 5.5; W.: 5; Th.: 1.3; greyish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment. Top surface: smoothed; marks of surface treatment. Flange: folded; square-shaped; wide, shallow depression under flange; marks of surface treatment; bottom corner zone ledged. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 13.7; W.: 12.4; Th.: 1.7; brown greyish colour. Damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; diagonally scored; damaged. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel along flange; smoothed. Flange: folded; rather square-shaped; linear depression on top; marks of surface treatment; beige wash. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 100.

 107 

107. J16-Ta-45-6  105 

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 7.2; W.: 5.6; Th.: 1.9; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: mark of surface treatment parallel to flange; damaged. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed; damaged. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; crescent-shaped with combed looking ext.; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

118

 111   108 

111. J16-Ud-1-44 Tegula, upper left corner fragment with elevated band.

108. J16-Tb-72-4 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 10.2; W.: 9.9; Th.: 1.3; brown greyish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: diagonal scoring, crossing each other; zone of marks stretching out being smeared over by scoring; ground impressions; smoothed. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; tool-drawn inscription; smoothed; beige wash. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 12.6; W.: 6.4; Th.: 1.6; reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; rough zone at rim and flange; chaff impressions; weathered. Top surface: elevated band at rim; channel along flange and at elevated band; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment. Rim: straight; rounded bottom corner; ledged top corner; no connection to flange by hand. Date: Byzantine.

 112 

109. J16-Tb-72-5 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 10.3; W.: 6.4; Th.: 2.2; reddish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: smoothed; chaff impressions; damaged. Top surface: smoothed; tool-drawn inscription; slight production marks; damaged. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 109 

112. J16-Ud-11-2 Tegula, flange fragment.

 110 

110. J16-Tb-72-6 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 11; W.: 8; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour, with some whitish zones on the surface. Partly overfired; damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: rough; marks of surface treatment. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; rough bottom corner zone; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 12.6; W.: 12; Th.: 1.4; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks, perhaps overfired. Bottom surface: ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel along flange; damaged; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; square-shaped; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

119

 114   113 

114. J16-Ud-11-4 113. J16-Ud-11-3 Tegula, flange and rim corner fragment. L.: 22; W.: 12.9; Th.: 2.1; brown to grey with reddish surface. Weathered; damaged. Bottom surface: ground impressions, marks of surface treatment in form of ledges from dispersion; rough zone under flange. Top surface: channels along flange and rim. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; rounded ext. corner; damaged. Rim: outline remodelled by hand; rounded top corner; bottom corner ledged; ascending upwards from channel to top; no connection between rim and flange. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Tegula, lower left corner fragment with a spout. L.: 19.5; W.: 19; Th.: 1.8; greyish colour. Damaged; overfired; one break smoothed. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; diagonally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment following the flange and rim; channel along flange; smoothed. Flange: folded; squareshaped; space cut out of body; spout flange connected to flange by hand. Rim: rounded top corner; rough bottom corner zone; hand formed. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

115. J16-Uc-23-14 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 13.8; W.: 9.8; Th.: 0.9; greyish colour with reddish surface. Weathered. Bottom surface: roughly convex; depression under flange, causing the objects corner to form a high ledge; palm branch pattern; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment similar to a palm branch pattern; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; roughly sail-shaped; in one break a grey core is visible, the other break is fired entirely red. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Umayyad.

 115 

Philip Ebeling

120

 118 

 116 

116. J16-Uc-25-3

118. J16-Ud-56-15

Tegula, flange fragments.

Tegula, flange fragment.

L.: 5.4; W.: 4.4; Th.: 1.3; brown reddish colour. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; rough zone under flange. Top surface: not enough preserved. Flange: internal loop-structure; crescent-shaped; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.  117 

L.: 4.9; W.: 9.2; Th.: 2; brown reddish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground impression. Top bottom: marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: folded; mostly cone-shaped (changing); at one side flange pushed towards int.; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 102.

 119 

117. J16-Uc-45-9 Tegula, flange fragments. L.: 10.3; W.: 9.3; Th.: 1.6, brown reddish colour. Damaged; smoothed and untreated breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; weathered. Flange: internal Y-structure; rather hornshaped; damaged; weathered. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 101.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

119. J16-Uc-60-2

121. J16-Vfg-1-76

Tegula, flange and rim fragment with elevated surface.

Tegula, flange and rim fragments.

L.: 14.8; W.: 13; Th.: 2.5; reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment running diagonally against the flange; ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: elevated surface (3 cm); marks of surface treatment running against the flange only faintly visible; elevated surface continuing c. 6 cm further than the flange. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; small narrow gap visible between flange and top surfaces; cone-shaped; bottom corner ledged. Rim: straight on both sides; rounded top corners; bottom corners ledged; no connection to flange. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 10.4; W.: 4.5; Th.: 2.5; orange reddish colour. Broken into two pieces; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; marks of surface treatment; damaged; weathered.  121  Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

121

 122 

122. J16-Vcd-20-1 Tegula, flange fragment.

 120 

120. J16-Vcd-1-10

L.: 18; W.: 12.7; Th.: 4.5; brown reddish colour. Damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground and chaff impressions; damaged along flange. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; rather crescent-shaped; marks of surface treatment; bottom corner zone damaged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.  123 

Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 10; W.: 9.8; Th.: 2.3; reddish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment against flange; chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; fingerdrawn channels along flange and rim; smoothed; remains of tool-drawn inscription; chaff impressions. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; unclassified shape; remodelled by hand; marks of surface treatment. Rim: straight; top corner ledged by channel; bottom corner damaged. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

123. J16-Vcd-20-3 Tegula, body fragments. L.: 10.5; Th.: 1.5; greyish colour. Broken into two pieces; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: weathered. Top surface: smoothed; stick-drawn inscription or decorative pattern. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

122

 126   124 

124. J16-Vab-23-3 Tegula, flange fragment.

126. J16-Vab-23-7

L.: 13.2; W.: 12.1; Th.: 1.8; greyish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; dragging marks under flange. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel along flange; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; roughly crescent-shaped; marks of surface treatment; beige wash. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Tegula, body fragments. L.: 12.4; W.: 9.8; Th.: 2.9; brown reddish. Damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff and ground impressions; blackened. Top surface: smoothed; remains of stick- or tool-drawn inscription; damaged; weathered. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 125 

 127 

125. J16-Vac-23-5

127. J16-Vb-23-15

Tegula, flange fragments. L.: 9.5; W.: 9.8; Th.: 2.1; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: chaff impression; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; weathered. Flange: double-folded; cone-shaped; ridge in exact height of body top surface; damaged; weathered. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.  128 

Tegula, body fragment, cut into stopper. L.: 8.8; Th.: 2.7; reddish colour. Smoothed breaks; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: marks of surface treatment; tool-drawn inscription. Other side: no marks. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

128. J16-Vb-23-17 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 8.5; W.: 12.6; Th.: 1.5; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground impressions; palm branch pattern; concavely bent upwards; finger imprints. Top surface: convex; marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: shaping technique unidentified but remodelled by hand; marks of surface treatment. Rim: straight; sharp corners; hand shaped. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

123

 129 

 131 

129. J16-Vd-25-26 131. J16-Vf-25-31

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 10; W.: 5.6; Th.: 2; reddish colour. One smoothed break. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; beige wash; damaged; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather coneshaped; on int. small tool-made impression; on ext. small ridge; marks of surface treatment; beige wash. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 130 

J16-Vf-25-31. Tegula, upper right corner fragment with ridge. L.: 8.6; W.: 5; Th.: 2.5; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: rough; marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment running against ridge and parallel to flange; channel with a small ledge between ridge and rim; smoothed; damaged; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; horn-shaped; bottom corner zone ledged; damaged; weathered. Rim: too damaged. Ridge: connected to flange, damaged. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

 132 

130. J16-Vd-25-27 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 9.7; W.: 5.4; Th.: 0.6; greyish colour. Bottom surface: mould marks or marks of surface treatment; fingerprints; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; small production mark on flange top; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

132. J16-Vf-25-32 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 7.1; W.: 4.6; Th.: 1.8; orange reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; beige wash. Bottom surface: rough. Top surface: beige wash; damaged; weathered. Flange: internal loop-structure; rather cone-shaped; ledge on ext. at height of top surface; rough bottom corner zone; beige wash; damaged, weathered. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

133. J16-Vf-25-33 Tegula, flange fragment.  133 

L.: 7.6; W.: 3.1; Th.: 1.2; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; brown wash. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: brown wash; not enough preserved. Flange: folded; square-shaped; marks of surface treatment; small ridge on int.; brown wash. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

124  134 

134. J16-Vi-26-11 Tegula, body fragment.

 137 

L.: 9.9; W.: 9.1; Th.: 1.3; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: many and very deep chaff impressions. Top surface: smoothed; marks of surface treatment; chaff impression. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

137. J16-Vi-26-14 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 8.5; W.: 7.2; Th.: 1.2; blackish to grey colour. Mis- or overfired; damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ground impression; damaged. Top surface: tooldrawn inscription. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF and microscope). Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 135 

135. J16-Vi-26-12 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 8.7; W.: 4.3; Th.: 1.6; blackish to grey colour. Mis- or overfired; damaged. Bottom surface: ground impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: tool-drawn inscription or decorative pattern. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.  138 

 136 

138. J16-Vi-26-15 Tegula, upper left flange fragment with ridge.

136. J16-Vi-26-13 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 11.2; W.: 6.7; Th.: 2.4; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; beige wash. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: folded; roughly horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; one chaff impression; beige wash; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 11.5; W.: 6.5; Th.: 2.4; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment running against flange; beige wash; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment along flange and against ridge; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: double-folded; cone-shape; ledge on height of top surface; beige wash; rough bottom corner zone. Ridge: connected to flange; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

125

 139   141 

139. J16-Vi-26-16

141. J16-Vi-26-29

Tegula, flange fragment.

Tegula, left upper flange fragment with elevated band.

L.: 10.6; W.: 6.6; Th.: 1.7; orange reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel along flange; damaged; weathered. Flange: separately formed and set on top on body; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF and microscope). Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 11.2; W.: 5.8; Th.: 0.8; orange reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to high flange; ground impressions. Top surface: not much preserved; marks of surface treatment. Flange: folded; square-shaped; rough bottom corner zone; marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Elevated band: folded; connected by hand to high flange int.; flattened on top; int. curving; straight and rounded corner on ext.; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Byzantine.

 142   140 

140. J16-Vi-26-19

142. J16-Vh-26-45

Tegula, rim fragment with elevated band.

Tegula, lower rim fragment.

L.: 12.3; W.: 8.3; Th.: 2; reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: elevated band framed by two tool-made channels; before break small part of regular surface preserved; chaff impressions; marks of surface treatment; in channel before rim marks of surface treatment and chaff impressions; small ledge at rim; in channel before elevated band same impressions and marks. Rim: curving outline; rounded on top corner; ledge on bottom corner; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine.

L.: 10.9; W.: 11.9; Th.: 1.5; grey colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment running towards rim; ground impressions. Top surface: curving marks of surface treatment; decoration of three waved finger-drawn channels running against the rim, partly disturbing the curving marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Rim: top corner rounded; straight; rough. Date: sixth century ad–ad 749.

Philip Ebeling

126

 143 

 145 

143. J16-Vh-26-46

145. J16-Vh-26-48

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 11.2; W.: 7.3; Th.: 1.5; greyish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel along flange; smoothed; beige wash; damaged. Flange: separately formed and set on top of body; horn-shaped; in channel along flange a cleft is visible; marks of surface treatment; beige wash. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF). Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 9; W.: 6.9; Th.: 1.4; orange reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: channel along flange; smoothed; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 144 

144. J16-Vh-26-47 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 7.8; W.: 6.5; Th.: 1.6; greyish colour. Smoothed breaks, damaged. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; damaged; smoothed; weathered. Flange: separately formed and set on top of body; crescent-shaped; cleft between flange and body on ext.; ledged bottom corner zone; marks of surface treatment. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 146 

146. J16-Vh-26-49 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 14.8; W.: 8.2; Th.: 1.7; greyish colour. One smoothed break. Bottom surface: ground impressions; laterally scored; weathered. Top surface: shallow and narrow channel alongside flange; marks of surface treatment; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: separately formed and set against body; triangular-shaped; cleavage over rough bottom corner zone; beige wash. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

127

 147 

 148 

147. J16-Vh-26-50

149. J16-Vh-26-58

Tegula, flange fragment.

Tegula, flange fragment.

L.: 7.9; W.: 6.5; Th.: 1.3; reddish colour. Weathered; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: surface treatment; ground marks. Top surface: surface treatment; chaff impressions. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; triangularshaped; marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions; beige wash. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 5.2; W.: 4.2; Th.: 1.8; greyish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: ground impression; damaged. Top surface: not preserved. Flange: double-folded; rather hornshaped; ledge on int.; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 150 

 149 

150. J16-Vh-31-2 148. J16-Vh-26-52 Tegula, upper rim fragment with elevated band. L.: 6.9; W.: 8.4; Th.: 1.2; greyish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to rim; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel in front of rim; smoothed; elevated band separately formed and set on top of body; cleavages on int. and ext.; marks of surface treatment. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 10.2; W.: 6.7; Th.: 1.1; reddish colour. Weathered; damaged. Bottom surface: ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: channel along flange; weathered. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; damaged; weathered. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

128

 153 

153. J16-Vac-53-11 Tegula, flange fragment with ridge.  151 

151. J16-Vh-31-4 Tegula, flange and rim fragment.

L.: 10.7; W.: 8.3; Th.: 1.8; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: damaged; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel along ridge; smoothed; beige wash; some chaff impressions. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; beige wash; marks of surface treatment; damaged; weathered. Ridge: peaked in cut section; not connected to flange; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

L.: 7.1; W.: 5.6; Th.: 1.2; greyish colour. Damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: rough; palm branch pattern; diagonally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; beige wash. Flange: folded; square-shaped; marks of surface treatment; beige wash; rough bottom corner zone; connected to rim by hand. Rim: thin, but rough bottom corner zone, separated by small ledge from rest of rim. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 154 

 152 

152. J16-Vac-53-10

154. J16-Vac-53-18

Tegula, flange fragment.

Tegula, rim fragment.

L.: 9; W.: 3.7; Th.: 1.5; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: no marks. Top surface: broken off. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; small internal cavity; cone-shaped; ridge on ext. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 9.7; W.: 6; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: diagonally scored, being stopped by a wide but shallow tool- or inset-made impression; marks of surface treatment; smoothed; damaged; weathered. Top surface: smoothed; damaged. Rim: rather rough; top and bottom corner sharp; damaged; weathered. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

129

155. J16-Vac-53-20 Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 11.3; W.: 9.5; Th.: 2; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: damaged; weathered. Rim: damaged; weathered. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 158 

 155 

156. J16-Vi-55-18 Tegula, body fragment.

 156 

L.: 9.3; W.: 12; Th.: 1.4; greyish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; remains of tool-drawn inscription. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

158. J16-Vac-61-71 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 8; W.: 6.9; Th.: 1.5; reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment in the direction of flange; ground impressions. Top surface: weathered. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; as thin as body; damaged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 159   157 

157. J16-Vi-60-25 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 5.2; W.: 4; Th.: 1.4; reddish colour. Weathered; damaged. Bottom surface: damaged; weathered; ground impressions. Top surface: not enough preserved. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather horn-shaped; rounded bottom corner zone. Date: unknown.

159. J16-Vac-64-20 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 8.2; W.: 8.4; Th.: 2.2; brown surface; pink-reddish core. Damaged. Bottom surface: some ground impression; damaged. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed; damaged. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

130

 160 

160. J16-Vdf-73-28 Tegula, lower left flange fragment with spout. L.: 10.9; W.: 6.2; Th.: 1.4; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment in direction of flange; ground impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; damaged; weathered. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; spout modelled by hand; spout flange formed separately and set on top; ledged bottom corner zone. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

 162 

162. J16-Vdf-73-30 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 4.4; Th.: c. 1.5–2; reddish colour. Damaged; no bottom or body preserved. Flange: folded; rather square-shaped; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 161 

161. J16-Vdf-73-29 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 5.9; W.: 6; Th.: 1.3; greyish colour. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment in the direction of flange; fingerprints; ground impression. Top surface: chaff impression; smoothed. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; crescent-shaped; part of flange in front of rim cut off. Rim: rough; hand modelled. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 163 

163. J16-Vc-84-10 Tegula, flange and rim corner fragment. L.: 26.5; W.: 17.9; Th.: 1.3; brown greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: rough; zone of marks along rim, stopping shortly before flange side; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: folded; mostly horn-shaped; 6 cm long depression from flange to rim; rough bottom corner zone. Rim: rough, rather straight; sharp bottom and top corner. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

131

 164 

 166 

164. J16-Vc-84-15 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 13.1; W.: 4.7; Th.: 1.3; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment; ground impressions; beige wash; damaged. Top surface: not enough preserved. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; beige wash; weathered; damaged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

166. J16-Vc-84-17 Tegula, flange and rim corner fragment. L.: 7.1; W.: 5.4; Th.: 1.7; mostly grey, but surface partly reddish. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: obscured by plaster. Top surface: channel parallel to flange but stopping before rim; tool-made channel parallel to rim. Flange: separately formed and set against body; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone. Rim: straight on ext.; rough bottom corner zone with ledge; sharp top corner; flange lowered down to rim by hand. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 165 

165. J16-Vc-84-16

 167 

Tegula, upper rim fragment with elevated band. L.: 12; W.: 19.7; Th.: 1.3; brown reddish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: rough; ground impressions. Top surface: elevated band at rim; rim being followed by an irregular channel with ledges on both its side; deep channel in front of elevated band with high ledge at elevated band; marks of surface treatment; channel and surface outlines irregular and uneven (hand formed?). Rim: rounded top corner; sharp bottom corner with rough zone; ledged by channel on elevated band; chaff impressions. Date: Byzantine.

167. J16-Vc-84-35 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 14.3; W.: 14.5; Th.: 2.1; reddish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: chaff and ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; channels along rim and flange, connected; chaff impressions. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather horn-shaped; rough bottom corner zone with finger imprints on ext. from lifting or setting; marks of surface treatment. Rim: top and bottom corner sharp; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone; flange lowered down to rim by hand. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

132  168 

168. J16-Vc-84-36

 170 

Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 15.2; W.: 8.3; Th.: 1.3; greyish colour. Thickening towards rim side; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: obscured by plaster; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to the rim. Rim: straight; ledged bottom and top corner; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

170. J16-Vc-84-38+39 Tegula, flange fragments. L.: 10; W.: 3; Th.: 1.6 and L.: 10.9; W.: 9.8; Th.: 1.4; mostly grey with reddish surface colour. Two pieces of the same object but not matching. Bottom surface: rough; marks of surface treatment; ground impressions. Top surface: smooth; channel along flange; marks of surface treatment. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 171   169 

171. J16-Vc-84-41 Tegula, flange fragment.

169. J16-Vc-84-37 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 4; W.: 5.3; Th.: 0.9; greyish colour. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground impressions. Top surface: channel along flange; marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: folded; rather square-shaped; ledge on straight int.; marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 7.5; W.: 7.6; Th.: 1.3; greyish colour. One smoothed break. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground impressions. Top surface: channel along flange; marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; beige wash. Flange: folded; crescent-shaped; beige wash. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

133  175 

 172 

172. J16-Vc-84-42

175. J16-Wa-5-3

Tegula, flange fragment.

Tegula, rim fragment.

L.: 9.3; W.: 7.8; Th.: 1.2; brown greyish colour. Smoothed break. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impres­ sions; marks of surface treatment in the direction of flange. Top surface: channel along flange; thin ledge between channel and top surface; marks of surface treatment. Flange: folded; crescentshaped; rough bottom corner zone; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 13; W.: 12.4; Th.: 2.1; reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; diagonally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: channel along rim; smoothed; chaff impressions. Rim: top corner ledge; bottom corner ledged; marks of surface treatment. Date: Late Roman to Late Byzantine.

 173 

173. J16-Weh-0-55 Tegula, flange and rim fragments. L.: 11; W.: 8; Th.: 2.6; greyish colour. Two matching pieces; misfired. Bottom surface: ground impressions; vitrified. Top surface: vitrified. Flange: folded; rather crescent-shaped; vitrified. Date: unknown.

 176 

176. J16-Wbd-6-31 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 9.9; W.: 6.7; Th.: 1.7; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: big eruption in tool-made channel along flange; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Flange: folded; crescent-shaped; chaff impressions; damaged. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

174. J16-Wa-2-10 Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 12.3; W.: 7.8; Th.: 0.6–1.9; brown greyish colour. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to rim. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to rim; channel along the rim; thickness decreasing from rim to break; smoothed. Rim: straight; top corner rounded; bottom corner ledged. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 174 

Philip Ebeling

134

 179 

 177 

177. J16-Wc-7-9

179. J16-Wc-20-9

Tegula, lower left corner fragment with spout.

Tegula, lower left corner fragment with spout.

L.: 8; W.: 10.6; Th.: 1; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground impressions. Top surface: weathered. Flange: folded; square-shaped; space cut out of body; spout flange hand formed, set on top and merged with flange; weathered. Rim: straight; both corners sharp. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

L.: 13.3; W.: 8.3; Th.: 2.3; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered breaks. Bottom surface: ground impressions; diagonally scored; spout with curved corner cut out of tegula. Top surface: channel along flange, stopping before spout; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; flange remodelled by hand; spout flange hand formed, set on top and merged with; remodelled by hand all over. Rim: straight; spout flange not long enough to reach rim; no rim-flange connection. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

 178 

 180 

178. J16-Wc-20-8 Tegula, flange fragments.

180. J16-Wc-23-8

L.: 9.3; W.: 6.1; Th.: 1.3; reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: folded; roughly horn-shaped; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Tegula, flange fragment.

181. J16-Wc-23-9 Tegula, rim fragment with ridge. L.: 12.7; W.: 8.1; Th.: 1.9; yellowish brown colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks, overfired. Bottom surface: mould marks or marks of surface treatment running against rim. Top surface: marks of surface treatment running parallel to rim and ridge; smoothed; weathered. Rim: straight; rounded top corner; sharp bottom corner; weathered. Ridge: sharp top; sloping down towards top surface; straight towards rim; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

L.: 9.4; W.: 6.1; Th.: 1.4; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed break. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed; beige wash. Flange: folded; crescent-shaped; marks of surface treatment; beige wash. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.  181 

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

135

 182 

 184 

184. J16-Wa-27-7 Tegula, flange fragment.

182. J16-Wc-23-10 Tegula, flange fragments. L.: 5.3; W.: 7.2; Th.: 1.3; brown reddish colour. One break smoothed. Bottom surface: ground impressions; diagonally scored; damaged. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed. Flange: internal Y-structure; horn-shaped but entirely straight on ext.; marks of surface treatment; bottom corner ledge. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 7.2; W.: 3.7; Th.: 0.7; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; chaff and ground impressions. Top surface: smoothed, one chaff impressions. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; roughly horn-shaped; bottom corner ledged; chaff impressions. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

 185 

185. J16-Wa-27-9  183 

183. J16-Wc-23-11 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 6.1; W.: 8; Th.: 1.8; brown reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: channel along flange; smoothed weathered. Flange: folded; rather diamond-shaped; weathered. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 7.1; W.: 5.8; Th.: 1.4; reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: weathered. Top surface: channels along flange and rim; ledge of flange channel cutting through rim channel. Flange: folded; horn-shaped, marks of surface treatment. Rim: straight; top corner ledge caused by channel; rough bottom corner zone. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF, microscope, ICP-MS). Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

186. J16-Wa-27-10 Tegula, flange fragment.  186 

L.: 6.5; W.: 8.9; Th.: 2; reddish colour. Damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ledged marks of surface treatment under and parallel to flange; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather horn-shaped; ridge on flange int. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

136

 189 

 187 

187. J16-Wab-27-37 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 8.8; W.: 5.8; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

189. J16-Wa-31-4 Tegula, flange and rim fragments. L.: 17; W.: 20; Th.: 1.9; reddish colour. Broken in two pieces; damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: diagonally scored; chaff and ground impressions. Top surface: channel along rim; marks of surface treatment; smoothed; light wash. Flange: folded; crescent-shaped; rough bottom corner zone; chaff impressions. Rim: top corner ledged; rough bottom corner zone; unidentified linear impression in channel and rim. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 190 

190. J16-Wa-31-9 Tegula, flange fragment.  188 

188. J16-Wbd-29-64 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 19; W.: 19; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour. Damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern, diagonally and laterally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: remains of tool-drawn inscription; smoothed. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

L.: 8.5; W.: 7.2; H. (flange): 3.3; Th.: 2.2; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: not observable. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

137

 191 

 193 

191. J16-Wa-31-10

193. J16-Wa-31-12

Tegula, flange fragment.

Tegula, upper right corner fragment with ridge.

L.: 9.5; W.: 7.8; H. (flange): 2.9; Th.: 2.3; reddish colour. Smoothed breaks; short flange. Bottom surface: ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; channel along flange. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; channel along flange; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 15.8; W.: 10.5; Th.: 1.7; reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: concave; rough; marks running against the flange; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: convex; channel along flange, rim and surface side of ridge; channels at rim and ridge drawn by finger; smoothed; weathered. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; ledge on ext. on height of top surface; bottom corner zone ledged; damaged. Rim: straight; sharp top and bottom corners; no connection to flange. Ridge: not connected to flange; peaked in cut section; curving on rim side; steep on surface side; damaged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 192 

192. J16-Wa-31-11  194 

Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 10.4; W.: 8.2; H. (flange): 2.9; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ground impression. Top surface: shallow channel along rim. Flange: folded; coneshaped; chaff impressions; rough bottom corner zone. Rim: sharp bottom and top corner. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

194. J16-Wd-44-7 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 6; W.: 5.2; Th.: 2; reddish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; cone-shaped; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

Philip Ebeling

138  195 

 197 

195. J16-Wd-44-9 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 10.7; W.: 4.3; Th.: 1.5; mostly greyish, with reddish surface. Damaged; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange. Flange: folded; horn-shaped but flattened on top; fine marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone. Rim: rounded; rough bottom corner zone; no connection to flange. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

 196 

197. J16-Wd-53-1 Tegula, flange and rim fragments. L.: 22.5; W.: 15; Th.: 2; reddish colour. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; diagonally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: tool-shaped, deep channel along rim but no channel along flange; some marks of surface treatment curving close to rim; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; rather hornshaped; marks of surface treatment; damaged bottom corner zone. Rim: marks of surface treatment; entire rim bent down towards bottom; rounded bottom corner; top corner ledged. Date: Roman.

 198 

196. J16-Wd-46-1 Tegula, lower left corner fragment with spout. L.: 10.4; W.: 8; Th.: 1.9; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: damaged; palm branch pattern; ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: small lime eruptions; marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: only spout preserved; hand modelled, set on top and merged with flange; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Rim: hand formed; flange lowering and curving down onto rim. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

198. J16-Wd-53-13 Tegula, flange fragments. L.: 13; W.: 9; Th.: 1; brown reddish colour. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground impressions. Top surface: channel along flange; some marks of surface treatment parallel to flange. Flange: folded; rather square-shaped; rough bottom corner zone. Rim: rounded tegula corner; no connection to flange. Date: Roman. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 103.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

139

 201 

201. J16-Xb-2-170 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 13.3; W.: 6.5; Th.: 1.2; greyish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: wide depression under flange; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: channel along flange; beige wash; smoothed. Flange: folded; rather diamond-shaped; marks of surface treatment. Date: unknown.

 199 

199. J16-Wgh-107-2 Tegula, flange and rim fragments. L.: 14.8; W.: 16.4; Th.: 2.5; mostly greyish, with reddish surface. Broken in two pieces; weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: finger-drawn inscription; marks of surface treatment mostly parallel to flange, but around inscription running diagonally from flange to rim and straight to rim; smoothed. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; rough bottom corner zone stretching from bottom surface up to the height of the top surface; marks of surface treatment. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

202. J16-Xf-2-241

200. J16-Xa-2-141

Tegula, body fragment.

Tegula, lower right corner fragment with spout. L.: 13; W.: 9.8; Th.: 3; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: channels along flange and rim; marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; smoothed; light wash. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; space cut out of body; rough bottom corner zone. Rim: straight; ledge on top of the rim slightly deformed by finger imprints; no connection to flange; some marks of surface treatment; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

 202 

L.: 20; W.: 16.5; Th.: 2; yellowish colour. Weathered; mis- or overfired. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; some chaff impressions. Top surface: smoothed; chaff impressions. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: unknown.

 200 

Philip Ebeling

140

 205   203 

205. J16-Xe-4-40 Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 10.2; W.: 8.6; Th.: 1.7; reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment paral­ lel to the rim; diagonally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: channel along rim; smoothed. Rim: from sharp top corner curving slightly to be straight at the bottom; sharp bottom corner. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

203. J16-Xh-2-264 Tegula, flange and rim fragment.

 206 

L.: 26; W.: 15.8; Th.: 2.6; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; two breaks smoothed. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; diagonally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: channels along flange and rim; marks of surface treatment; smoothed; weathered. Flange: folded; rather crescent-shaped; remodelled by hand; damaged; weathered. Rim: rounded; rather sloping down; sharp bottom corner. Date: unknown.

 204 

206. J16-Xf-7-36 Tegula, body fragment. L.: 11.3; W.: 7; Th.: 1.9; reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ground impressions; weathered. Top surface: smoothed; remains of tooldrawn inscription. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

204. J16-Xd-4-34

 207 

Tegula, rim and ridge fragment. L.: 10.2; W.: 8.9; Th.: 1.8; reddish colour. Damaged; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: channel under rim; marks of surface treatment; ground and chaff impressions; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to ridge and rim; body thickness increasing between ridge and rim; channel on surface side of ridge; chaff impressions. Rim: straight; rounded top corner; sharp bottom corner; marks of surface treatment. Ridge: peaked in cut section; marks of surface treatment; damaged. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

207. J16-Xg-7-45 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 8.3; W.: 5.6; Th.: 1.1; mostly greyish, with reddish zones in core and surface. Bottom surface: laterally scored; chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange. Flange: internal loop-structure; rather horn-shaped; marks of surface treatment; bottom corner zone ledged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

141

 208 

208. J16-Xg-7-46 Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 8.4; W.: 8.8; Th.: 2.6; mostly greyish, with reddish surface. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment running against rim. Top surface: stick-drawn decoration or inscription; channel along rim; chaff impressions. Rim: straight; sharp bottom corner; rounded top corner; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 209 

 210 

209. J16-Xg-7-56 Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 9.7; W.: 6.6; Th.: 2.2; reddish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: rough; trails of moved ground impressions; chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment running parallel to the rim; three channels parallel to the rim, all different in depth, width, and outline, but likely tool made; smoothed. Rim: rounded; top and bottom corner ledged. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

210. J16-Xi-10-15 Tegula, flange and rim fragments. L.: 23.5; W.: 28.5; Th.: 2.7; greyish colour. Broken in two pieces. Bottom surface: diagonally and laterally scored; rim-flange corner deformed by finger imprints; light wash; ground impressions. Top surface: smoothed; light wash; surface cracks. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; rough bottom corner zone; at rim-flange corner, body pushed towards inside. Rim: straight; sharp top and bottom corners; rough bottom corner zone; no connection to flange. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

142

 211 

211. J16-Xi-10-16 Tegula, complete profile from rim to rim. L.: 39.7; W.: 38; Th.: 1.5; greyish colour. Broken into six pieces; damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: rough; palm branch pattern on flange pieces E and F (right side); marks of surface treatment on other pieces (A–D) obscured; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: decorative pattern on top; channels along flanges and rim; small elevation from rim extending towards decoration, being in the exact middle of and parallel to both flanges; marks of surface treatment lengthwise but in various directions close to middle. Flange: folded; various flange forms; rough bottom corner zone; damaged. Rim: straight but sloping; top ledge caused by channel; bottom corner ledged; flanges lowering down and decreasing width on ext. towards rim; damaged. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF, microscope, ICP-MS). Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 213 

212. J16-Xh-10-17 Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 4.3; W.: 5.8; Th.: 2.1; reddish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: diagonally scored; smoothed. Top surface: channel along rim; smoothed; thickness decreasing from rim towards surface int. Rim: horn-shaped; top corner ledged by channel; rough bottom corner zone. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

213. J16-Xh-10-19 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 13; W.: 5.4; Th.: 1.6; greyish colour. Damaged. Bottom surface: ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange; beige wash. Flange: folded; rather horn-shaped; rough bottom corner zone under ridge; marks of surface treatment; beige wash. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 212 

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

143

 214 

 216 

214. J16-Xh-10-21 Tegula, flange and rim fragment. L.: 13.4; W.: 10.7; Th.: 1.3; blackish to grey, with a greenish surface. Broken in four pieces; overfired; damaged. Bottom surface: some ground impressions. Top surface: chaff impressions; vitrified. Flange: folded; horn-shaped; finger imprints. Rim: straight; top and bottom corner sharp; damaged. Date: unknown.

216. J16-Xc-11-31 Tegula, flange and rim fragments. L.: 16.3; W.: 17; Th.: 2.5; greyish colour. Broken in two pieces; one smoothed break. Bottom surface:overlying curved marks of surface treatment in irregular intervals running against flange being stopped by band of very rough dragging or smearing marks from rim to break; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange, but curving and in irregular intervals closer to break; smoothed. Flange: folded; horn-shaped, with 90° angle on int. and straight ext.; marks of surface treatment. Rim: straight; sharp top and bottom corners; marks of surface treatment; no connection to flange. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 215 

 217 

215. J16-Xc-11-4 Tegula, lower right corner fragment with spout. L.: 9; W.: 8.1; Th.: 1.2; brownish colour. Weathered; belongs to cat. no. 217, but not matching; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: laterally scored; ground impressions. Top surface: smoothed; beige wash; painted red and black lines, not continuously preserved, roughly parallel to the flange from break to break; chaff impressions. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; spout flange separately formed and set on top; marks of surface treatment; beige wash; weathered. Rim: ext. straight; rounded top corner; rough bottom corner zone; beige wash; flange rounded and lowered down onto rim. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

217. J16-Xc-11-32 Tegula, flange (broken off ) fragment. L.: 9.8; W.: 9.1 Th.: 1.3; brown greyish colour. Smoothed break; belongs to cat. no. 215 but not matching. Bottom surface: laterally scored; ground and chaff impressions Top surface: marks of surface treatment parallel to flange (broken off ); beige wash; red and brown stripes of paint in no identifiable motif. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

144

220. J16-Xh-23-2 Tegula, flange (broken off ) fragment. L.: 9.7; W.: 8.7; Th.: 1; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; smoothed break. Bottom surface: shallow depression running under flange; chaff and ground impressions. Top surface: channel along flange break; marks of surface treatment. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; original shape not preserved; damaged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 218 

218. J16-Xd-16-23

 220 

Tegula, body fragment. L.: 17.4; W.: 11.8; Th.: 2.3; reddish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: diagonal scoring overlapping ledged marks of surface treatment of irregular intervals; ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment slightly curving; chaff impressions. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.  221 

 219 

221. J16-Xh-37-3 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 7; W.: 3.5; Th.: 1; greyish colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: ground impressions. Top surface: broken off. Flange: folded; horn- to square-shaped; ledged bottom corner; strong ridges on int. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

219. J16-Xh-23-1

 222 

Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 12; W.: 9.2; Th.: 3.2; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: damaged; weathered. Flange: shaping technique unidentified; cone-shaped; damaged; weathered. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

222. J16-Xh-37-4 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 9.2; W.: 9; Th.: 1.8; brown reddish colour. Damaged; smoothed break. Bottom surface: rough; ground impressions. Top surface: mould or marks of surface treatment; smoothed; damaged. Flange: folded; horn- to square-shaped; rounded bottom corner zone. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter  223 

145

 225 

223. J16-Xc-37-5 Tegula, rim fragment. L.: 13.5; W.: 11; Th.: 2.4; brown reddish surface. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ledges in irregular intervals (remains of palm branch pattern?); ground impressions. Top surface: smoothed; tool-drawn inscription; channel along rim; chaff impressions. Rim: straight; rough bottom corner; ledged top due to channel. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

224. J16-Xh-37-6 (not illustrated) Tegula, body fragment. L.: 8.6; W.: 16.2; Th.: 1.5; reddish colour. Smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: ground impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment mostly curved; beige wash; chaff impressions. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

225. J16-Xh-37-7 Tegula, flange fragment. L.: 15.4; W.: 12.2; Th.: 1.7; reddish colour. Broken in two pieces; damaged. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; tool-made channel along flange; smoothed; light wash; chaff impressions. Flange: folded; crescent-shaped; rough bottom corner zone; light wash; damaged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

146

Imbrices 226. J12-Bc-42-28+29 (not illustrated) Two joining fragments of an imbrex rim and frontal flange. L.: 25.5; Th.: 0.8; H.: 4.6; Diam.: c. 13; grey colour. Curved outline; damaged, weathered. Bottom surface: rough; no marks; mortar close to rim. Top surface: well-preserved zoned marks of surface treatment; mortar close to rim. Rim: rounded; mortar. Flange: funnel-shaped opening; hand formed. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, no. 136.

 229 

229. J15-Ni-40-13 Imbrex, flange and complete profile from rim to rim.

 227 

L.: 17; Th.: 1; H.: 7.5; Diam.: 13; brown greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Flange: thickened; bent upwards; clay surplus smeared over from top to bottom corner; finger imprints. Rim: ledged top corner; rounded bottom corner. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 126.

227. J14-Igh-37-3 Imbrex, flange and complete profile from rim to rim.

 230 

L.: 8.3; W.: 12.7; Th.: 1; Diam.: 13; brown colour. Damaged, weathered. Bottom surface: rough; no marks. Top surface: smoothed; zoned marks of surface treatment; some mortar stains close to rims and flange. Rims: top and bottom corner sharp. Flange: funnel-shaped; hand formed. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.  228 

230. J15-Nb-57-68 Imbrex, flange and rim fragment.

228. J15-Nj-3-41 Imbrex, rim fragment. L.: 16.9; W.: 10.3; Th.: 1; greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Rim: rounded bottom corner; top corner ledged. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 15.8; W.: 10; Th.: 0.9; greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment; smoothed. Flange: bent upwards by hand, forming a screen; bottom and top ledged; ledges partly smeared together. Rim: bottom corner rounded; top corner ledged. Date: sixth century ad.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

147

 233 

 231 

233. J15-Nj-78-16 231. J15-Nb-57-70

Imbrex, flange fragments.

Imbrex, rim fragment.

L.: 10; W.: 8.2; Th.: 0.6; greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Flange: bent upwards by hand, forming a screen; finger imprints. Date: sixth century ad.

L.: 26.6; W.: 10.6; Th.: 0.9; greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment; smoothed; surface cracks. Rim: bottom corner rounded; top corner ledged. Date: sixth century ad.

 234   232 

234. J16-Sc-2-1 Imbrex, rim fragment.

232. J15-Nb-57-71 Imbrex, flange and rim fragment. L.: 16; W.: 8.4; Th.: 1; greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; chaff impressions; untreated. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; brush marks. Flange: slightly bent upwards by hand; finger imprints. Rim: bottom corner rounded; top corner ledged. Date: sixth century ad.

L.: 11.8; W.: 8.5 (Diam.: c. 18); Th.: 1.6; H.: 11; red colour. Curved outline. Damaged. Bottom surface: no marks. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Rim: irregular waved outline (hand formed); impressions of mostly curving outline in irregular intervals; rounded bottom corner; top corner sharp. Date: second–third centuries ad.

235. J16-Sc-13-28 Imbrex, body fragment.

 235 

L.: 3.7; W.: 7; Th.: 1.3; reddish colour. Curved outline. Damaged. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: smoothed; zoned marks of surface treatment. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: second–third centuries ad.

Philip Ebeling

148

 236   239 

239. J16-Ta-22-2 236. J16-Sd-22-29

Imbrex, flange fragment.

Imbrex, body fragment.

L.: 6.7; W.: 5.8; Th.: 0.9; greyish colour. Damaged; weathered; curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: smoothed. Flange: top corner bent up by hand; channel on screen; remains of a second channel at one break; surface full of finger impressions; bottom corner rounded. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 6.4; W.: 3.6; Th.: 1; reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: smoothed. Date: Roman to Late Roman.

 240 

 237 

240. J16-Tb-35-20 Imbrex, rim fragment.

237. J16-Sb-23-15 Imbrex, rim fragment. L.: 16.5; W.: 10 (Diam. c. 19); Th.: 1.2; pink reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment; finger-drawn inscription on top. Rim: sharp top corner; rounded bottom corner. Date: second–third centuries ad.

L.: 10.4; W.: 8; Th.: 1.5; H.: 11.3; brown reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Rim: top corner ledged, bottom corner rounded. Date: Byzantine.

 241 

 238 

238. J16-Sh-56-12

241. J16-Ta-45-16

Imbrex, body fragment.

Imbrex, rim fragment.

W.: 4.9; Th.: 1; brown reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Date: second–third centuries ad.

L.: 9.2; W.: 2.5; Th.: 1.1; H.: 7.5; reddish colour. Slightly overheated at rim; curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Rim: top corner ledge; rounded bottom corner. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

149  244 

 242 

242. J16-Tb-72-11 Imbrex, body fragment. L.: 13.4; W.: 7.8; Th.: 1.2; greyish colour, with reddish surface. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; ground impressions (sanded); untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions; brown wash.

244. J16-Wbd-6-17 Imbrex, flange and rim fragments. L.: 8.7; W.: 6.1; Th.: 1.1; H.: 9.5; reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Flange: thickened; slightly bent outwards; rounded bottom corners; ledged top corner. Rim: top corner ledge; bottom corner rounded. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.  245 

 243 

245. J16-Wbd-6-18 243. J16-Uc-45-10 Imbrex, flange fragment. L.: 10.7; W.: 8.7; Th.: 0.9; brown reddish colour. Gabled outline. Bottom surface: rough; sanded. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; weathered. Flange: vertical screen; depression on front; two parts of raised screen modelled and merged by hand. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 104.

Imbrex, rim fragment. L.: 19; W.: 4.5; Th.: 1.1; H.: 8; reddish colour. Curved outline; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: around rim rough and untreated; further inwards black coating on surface. Top surface: obscured by plaster. Rim: top corner ledged; bottom corner rounded. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

150

 248 

 246 

248. J16-Wa-27-12 246. J16-Wbd-6-34

Imbrex, rim fragment.

Imbrex, flange fragments. L.: 4.8; W.: 6.4; Th.: 0.7; greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: marks of surface treatment not zoned, running against flange being stopped by marks running parallel to flange; beige wash. Flange: bent upwards by hand to form a screen; ledged and deformed by hand. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 6; W.: 7.3; Th.: 1.2; H.: 8.1; greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Rim: rounded ext. and int. corner. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 249 

 247 

249. J16-Wbd-29-63 Imbrex, flange and rim fragment.

247. J16-Wc-23-7 Imbrex, flange and rim fragment. L.: 14.7; W.: 3.8; Th.: 1.3; H.: 7.3; reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Flange: straight; rounded corners; thickened. Rim: both corners rounded; rimflange connection rounded. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF). Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 11.1; W.: 4.9; Th.: 1.3; H.: 7.2; reddish colour. Curved outline; weathered. Bottom surface: rough; untreated; weathered. Top surface: regular zoned marks of surface treatment. Flange: bent upwards to form screen; depressed on screen’s front surface; both corners ledged; rim-flange connection without treatment. Rim: top corner ledge; bottom corner rounded. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

151

 250 

 252 

250. J16-Wd-40-11. 252. J16-Wd-46-2

Imbrex, rim fragment. L.: 6.3; Th.: 1; H.: 7.4; brown reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Rim: bottom and top corners sharp. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF, microscope). Date: Roman to Late Roman.

Imbrex, flange and rim fragments. L.: 12.2; Th.: 1.1; H.: 11.8; brown reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: finger- or tool-drawn channels running lengthwise against a broad band without marks at flange; chaff impressions. Flange: top corner ledge; bottom corner rounded. Rim: top corner ledge; bottom corner rounded. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

 253 

 251 

251. J16-Wd-44-6

253. J16-Xe-1-50

Imbrex, body fragment.

Imbrex, rim fragment.

L.: 7; W.: 9.5; Th.: 1.2; H.: 2.4; reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough, untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Date: Roman.

L.: 17.4; W.: 12.2 (Diam.: c. 19); Th.: 1.6; reddish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Rim: sharp top corner; rounded bottom corner. Date: unknown.

254. J16-Xc-11-3 Imbrex, rim fragment. L.: 9; W.: 9; Th.: 1.2; H.: 9.6; greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Rim: round bottom corner; top corner ledge. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF). Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 254 

Philip Ebeling

152  255 

Tubuli  257 

255. J16-Xh-23-3 Imbrex, rim fragment. L.: 7.2; W.: 6.4; Th.: 1.4; H.: 8.6; brown greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Rim: top corner ledged; bottom corner rounded. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

257. J13-Ha/​Ha1-13-39 Tubulus rim and corner fragment with outlets. W.: 11.1; Th. (rim): 2.5; (wall): 1.3; H.: 27.5; grey-fired. Walls: ext. even and straight; chaff impressions; rough. Int. uneven but straight; chaff impressions; rough. Int. extra smudge of clay, evenly dispersed by three fingers. Two cut outlets preserved in walls. Rim: separately formed and set against wall int.; rounded to the int. but flattened on top; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, no. 122.

 256 

256. J16-Xc-34-5 Imbrex, rim fragment. L.: 10.7; W.: 9.7 (Diam.: c. 19–20); Th.: 1.4; H.: 9.4; greyish colour. Curved outline. Bottom surface: rough; untreated. Top surface: zoned marks of surface treatment. Rim: rounded bottom corner; ledged top corner. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 258 

258. J14-Jc-32-51 Tubulus rim and corner fragment. L.: 10.1; Th.: 1.8; H.: 4.7; greyish colour. Smoothed breaks. Walls: ext. rough; int. smoothed. Corner: ext. smoothed; on int. extra smudge of clay evenly dispersed by three finger lines. Rim: folded down onto int.; flattened on top; curving on int.; marks of surface treatment. Date: fourth–fifth centuries ad.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

153

 259   261 

259. J14-Jc-67-23 Tubulus rim and corner fragment with an outlet. L.: 13.4; Th.: 1.1; H.: 7.2; red colour. Smoothed breaks. Walls: ext. smoothed; beige wash; on int. chaff impressions and finger imprints, cut outlet preserved to more than a quarter; int. and ext. of outlet ledged. Corner: two meeting walls merged, leaving small gap on ext.; on int. extra smudge of clay unevenly dispersed with three fingers; tiny gap between extra smudge and corner visible in break. Rim: folded down onto int.; flattened on top; curving inwards; not well merged with int. wall; horizontal marks of surface treatment on rim int. Date: fourth–fifth centuries ad.

261. J15-Nb-57-30 Tubulus rim and corner fragment. L.: 13.1; W.: 6.7; Th.: 1.7; H.: 5.8; red colour. Weathered. Walls: ext. rough; chaff impressions; weathered; on int. chaff impressions. Corner: ext. untreated; on int. extra smudge of clay unevenly dispersed with two fingers. Rim: folded down onto int.; flattened top, softly curving outwards on int.; marks of surface treatment on rim horizontal. Date: sixth century ad.

 262   260 

262. J16-Sc-13-29 260. J15-Nb-20-24

Tubulus rim and corner fragment.

Tubulus rim and corner fragment.

L.: 10.3; Th.: 1.2; H.: 5.4; grey-black colour. Over- but not misfired; weathered. Walls: ext. rough; chaff impressions; int. smoothed. Corner: ext. smoothed; marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions; on int. extra smudge of clay unevenly dispersed by three fingers; chaff impressions. Rim: folded down onto int.; flattened on top; rounded int.; not well merged with int. wall; some chaff impressions. Petrography: Pottery Group 3 (XRF). Date: second–third centuries ad. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 105.

L.: 10.4; W.: 12.1; Th.: 1.7; H.: 7.1; red colour. Damaged; weathered. Wall: ext.: smooth; chaff impressions; int. not enough preserved. Corner: smooth; no marks of surface treatment. Rim: folded down onto int.; slightly rounded top; rounded and protruding on int.; not well merged with int. wall; metal (iron) pushed into corner on top; around metal stick ring of clay surplus pushed out; horizontal marks of surface treatment and some chaff impressions on int. Date: sixth century ad. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 125.

Philip Ebeling

154

 263 

 265 

263. J16-Sc-13-59 Tubulus rim and corner fragment. L.: 11; Th.: 1.1; H.: 4.7; red colour. Walls: ext. smoothed but rough compared to the int.; some marks of surface treatment; chaff impressions. Corner: ext. smoothed; small gap of two walls being merged on ext.; one shallow finger impression under rim; no extra smudge of clay. Rim: folded down onto int.; flattened on top; straight on int.; smoothed. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 106. Date: second–third centuries ad.

 264 

265. J16-Sh-56-13 Tubulus rim and corner fragments. L.: 7.7; W.: 6.6; Th.: 1.1; red colour. Broken into three pieces; damaged; weathered. Walls: ext. rough; int. smoothed; chaff impressions. Corner: ext. smoothed; on int. extra smudge of clay unevenly dispersed into corner by three fingers. Rim: folded down onto int.; flattened on top; curving outwards on int.; not well merged with int. wall; marks of surface treating; chaff impressions. Date: second–third centuries ad.

264. J16-Sf-22-136 Tubulus wall corner fragment with an outlet. L.: 6.8; Th.: 0.9; H.: 3.3; red surface colour, grey core. Damaged; weathered. Walls: ext. rough; int.: not preserved; rounded outlet rim remaining close to corner with ledges from cutting. Corner: extra smudge of clay evenly dispersed by two fingers, well merged with the walls; smoothed surface. Date: Roman to Late Roman.

 266 

266. J16-Sh-56-15 Tubulus rim and corner fragment with an outlet. L.: 9.9; Th.: 1.2; H.: 16.9; red colour. Damaged; weathered. Wall: ext. rough; ground impressions; int. rough; cut air outlet on one side very close to corner. Corner: not differently treated than the walls on ext.; on int. extra smudge of clay unevenly dispersed with two fingers; weathered. Rim: folded down onto int.; rim flattened; curving outwards on int.; weathered. Date: second–third centuries ad.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

155

 267 

 269 

269. J16-Uc-23-18 Tubulus rim and corner fragment.

267. J16-Tb-35-22 Tubulus rim and corner fragment. W.: 6.5; Th.: 0.9–1.1; H.: 10; grey colour. Walls: ext. rough; chaff impressions; int. not preserved. Corner: ext. smoothed; on int. extra smudge of clay dispersed with three fingers; very well merged with the walls. Rim: folded down and smeared onto wall int.; flattened on top, rounded on int.; chaff impressions. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 8.7; Th.: 1.5; H.: 4.7; red colour. Walls: ext. rough; int. not preserved. Corner: ext. smoothed; damaged; int. not preserved. Rim: folded down onto int.; flattened on top; marks of surface treatment; concave on int. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF and microscope). Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 270 

 268 

270. J16-Uc-60-1 Tubulus-like object, almost complete.

268. J16-Ud-1-1 Tubulus wall corner fragment with an outlet. L.: 14.3; W.: 3.3; Th.: 1.2; H.: 8.5; red-orange colour. Weathered. Walls: ext. weathered; chaff and ground impressions on ext.; int. smoothed; chaff impressions; outlet cut from ext.; outlet ext. corner rounded but int. ledged. Corner: ext. smoothed; chaff impressions; on int. extra smudge of clay dispersed by three fingers. Date: unknown.

W.: 9; Th.: 0.7; H.: 28.5; red-orange colour. Broken in four big pieces and several more minor ones; complete profile; damaged; weathered. Walls: int. rough; chaff and ground impression; ext. rather smoothed; chaff impressions; weathered. Corners: ext. untreated; on int. three corners untreated but the fourth strengthened with extra smudge of clay being dispersed by three fingers. Rim: both folded down onto int.; not very well merged with wall int. but ledged; top flattened; int. rim protruding. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 107. Date: Early Islamic.

Philip Ebeling

156

 273   271 

273. J16-Wbd-29-83 Tubulus wall corner fragment.

271. J16-Vac-64-17 Tubulus wall corner fragment. L.: 12.2; Th.: 0.8; H.: 3.5; red-orange colour. Walls: ext. rough; int. smoothed; chaff impression. Corner: ext. smoothed; small ledge where two walls meet; extra smudge of clay dispersed by one finger leaving a thick ledge; gap between extra smudge of clay and corner of the two walls; two walls meeting each other; marks of surface treatment on int.; chaff impressions. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

L.: 8.3; Th.: 1.1; H.: 9.2; red-orange colour. Walls: ext. rough; int. smoothed; cut air outlet, ledged on int., close to corner. Corner: ext. smoothed; int.; extra smudge of clay dispersed by one finger, well merged with wall corner. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 274 

274. J16-Wik-54-16  272 

272. J16-Vdf-86-4 Tubulus rim and corner fragment. L.: 10; Th.: 1; H.: 7.8; red colour. Walls: ext. rough with chaff impressions; int. smoothed. Corner: ext. rough; on int. extra smudge of clay in corner dispersed by three fingers and smoothed together with walls and rim protrusion (gap in break). Rim: folded down; improved with extra clay portion on top (ledge); flattened on top; rounded protrusion on int.; smoothed down to walls and into corner by hand; chaff impressions; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Tubulus rim and corner fragment. L.: 7.2; W.: 7.5; Th.: 1; H.: 4.1; red-brown colour. Damaged. Walls: rough on ext.; int. not enough preserved; damaged. Corner: smoothed on ext.; gap between two walls merged; int. remains of the ends of the dispersion of extra smudge of clay by two fingers. Rim: folded down onto int.; folds being strengthened to wall by two finger-drawn channels horizontally; flattened on top; rounded on int.; chaff impressions; corroded metal traces, forming a diagonal line from one wall to the other on rim top. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

157

Pila Units 277. J13-Da-10-30 Pila unit.  275 

275. J16-Wik-54-17 Tubulus rim and corner fragment. L.: 2.4; W.: 10.3; Th.: 1.2; H.: 5.1; red-orange colour. Weathered. Walls: ext. and int. rough. Corner: ext. smoothed; on int. extra smudge of clay dispersed by three fingers; two walls being smeared together, leaving a small gap on the ext. and in break between them and the extra clay smudge. Rim: folded down; flattened on top; curving int.; three finger-drawn channels horizontally. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 277  Th.: 6; Diam.: 19.3; reddish colour. Intact; top and bottom not identical. Concave side: zoned marks of surface treatment; chaff and ground impressions. Convex side: chaff and ground impressions. Side surface: rounded corners; vertical marks running from concave to convex side, partly disturbed by ledge of clay surplus coming from convex side; many finger imprints. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 278 

 276 

278. J14-Kc-3-132 Pila unit. Th.: 5.2; Diam.: 21; red colour. Roughly a quarter; broken in two pieces; damaged; weathered; one break maybe smoothed; top or bottom unidentified. One side: chaff and ground impressions; damaged; weathered. Other side: ground impressions; too weathered. Side surface: one side thicker than other; chaff impressions; weathered. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

276. J16-Xh-10-18  279 

Tubulus rim and corner fragment. L.: 2.6; Th.: 3; H.: 6.6; red-brown colour. Walls: ext. rough; int. untreated. Corner: ext. smoothed; small ledge of two merged walls; on int. extra smudge of clay dispersed by three fingers. Rim: folded down on int.; flattened on top; curved on int.; well merged with walls. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

279. J14-Kef-3S-331 J14-Kef-3S-331. Pila unit or later body L.: 7.6; W.: 7.1; Th.: 5.5; red-brown colour. Damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: not well preserved; no marks. Other side: tool-drawn inscription; not well preserved. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

Philip Ebeling

158

 280   283 

283. J15-Pd-16-2x Pila unit.

280. J14-Ke-3-349

Th.: 5.9; Diam.: 22; brown colour. Two thirds preserved; weathered; damaged; top and bottom unidentified. Concave side: ground and chaff impressions. Convex side: ground and chaff impressions; weathered. Side surface: chaff impressions; vertical marks from concave side down to convex side disturbed by a rougher zone; many finger imprints; top and bottom corner untreated. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

Pila unit. L.: 12.5; W.: 13; Th.: 5.5; red colour. Roughly an eighth; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: smoothed; chaff impressions. Other side: rough; chaff impressions; weathered. Side surface: rough; chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

 284 

 281 

281. J14-Kg-3-556 Pila unit. Th. 4.6; Diam.: 20.5; red colour. Roughly a half; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. Surface A: a little rough; chaff impressions. Surface B: less rough; linear traces of surface treatment; fingerdrawn inscription on top; chaff impressions. Side surface: vertical marks running from Surface B to Surface A; corners mostly sharp with some finger imprints; one part of corner at one side quite high standing ledge of clay surplus not flattened; weathered. Date: Roman to Byzantine.  282 

282. J15-Ng-21-1 Pila unit.

284. J16-Sc-13-25 Pila unit. Th.: 6.6; Diam.: 19.8; red colour. Roughly half a piece; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: marks of surface treatment; chaff und ground impressions; finger-drawn inscription. Other side: some chaff impressions. Side surface: smoothed. Date: second–third centuries ad. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 108.

285. J16-Sk-105-6

Th.: 6.5; Diam.: 24; brownish colour. Roughly a half; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. Convex side: chaff impressions; weathered. Concave side: ground impressions; chaff impressions; weathered. Side surface: chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Date: Byzantine.

Pila unit. Th.: 5; Diam.: 22; brown-red colour. Damaged; top and bottom unidentified. One side: bevelled edge; marks of surface treatment curving; chaff impressions; fingerdrawn inscription. Other side: chaff and ground impressions; weathered. Side surface: top and bottom corner rounded; finger impressions. Date: Roman to Late Roman.  285 

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

159

 286 

286. J16-Tc-10-8 Pila unit. Th.: 4.1; Diam.: 20; red-brown surface, yellow-ochre core. Mis- or overfired; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified, both very even and smooth. Regular fired side: smooth; depression following the rim; chaff impression. Overfired side: no marks. Side surface: straight; top and bottom corner rounded; chaff impressions. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: Byzantine. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), no. 109.

 289 

289. J16-V-0-1 Pila unit. Th.: 6.8; Diam.: 21.1; red colour. Heavily weathered and damaged; top and bottom surface unidentified. Concave side: slightly concave shape; finger-drawn inscription; damaged; weathered. Convex side: convex shape; damaged; weathered. Side surface: very weathered; vertical marks from concave side running to convex side, disturbed rough and protruding corner zone. Date: Roman to Byzantine.  290 

 287 

287. J16-Uc-20-13 Pila unit. Th.: 5.2; Diam.: 21.8; brown colour. Intact; top and bottom unidentified; damaged. One side: chaff and ground impressions. Other side: some chaff impressions; zoned and linear marks of surface treatment. Side surface: rounded corners; finger imprints. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

288. J16-Uc-60-43 Pila unit.

 288 

290. J16-Vdf-25-47 Pila unit. Th.: 3.9; Diam.: 22; red-orange colour. Damage; weathered; smoothed breaks; top and bottom unidentified. One side: two finger-drawn lines; marks of surface treatment; damaged; weathered. Other side: damaged; weathered. Side surface: chaff impressions; rounded corner on one side; damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

Th.: 5; Diam.: 20.4; brown colour. Roughly a half; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: ground and chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Other side: chaff and ground impressions; damaged. Side surface: both corners rounded; finger imprints. Date: Byzantine. 291. J16-Vi-26-10

Later body or pila unit. Th.: 3.6; reddish-brown colour. Damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: rough; ground impressions; remains of tool-drawn inscription. Other side: less rough than one side, but still very rough; unidentified impressions or damages. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

 291 

Philip Ebeling

160

 294 

294. J16-Vac-53-8 Pila unit.  292 

292. J16-Vac-53-6 Pila unit. Th.: 4.8; L.: 20.3; red-orange colour. Roughly a half; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: convex; smoothed; damaged; weathered. Other side: concavely; rough; marks of surface treatment in different directions; chaff impressions. Side surface: vertical traces not reaching the concavely shaped side disturbed by rough corner zone; both corners rounded. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

L.: 13.5; Th.: 5.9; red-orange colour. Damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified; smoothed breaks; complete snail house in clay. One side: damaged; weathered. Other side: better preserved; marks of surface treatment; damaged; weathered. Side surface: damaged; weathered. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

 295 

295. J16-Vac-64-19 Pila unit.  293 

293. J16-Vac-53-7 Pila unit. L.: 18.2; Th.: 6.4; red colour. Roughly a quarter; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: convexly; damaged; weathered; ground impressions. Other side: concavely; some marks of surface treatment. Side surface: some vertical marks; damaged. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

L.: 10.1; Th.: 2.8–3.2; red-orange colour. Weathered; top and bottom unidentified. Convex side: convex; rough; some finger imprints; some ground and chaff impressions, weathered. Concave side: concave; marks of surface treatment in various directions, some curving with the object. Side surface: vertical marks from top to bottom being disturbed by big rounded and rough bottom corner ledge; sharp top corner ledge. Date: Roman to Byzantine.

296. J16-Xc-34-4 (not illustrated) Pila unit. Th.: 5.9; Diam.: 20; brown colour. Intact; damaged; weathered; top and bottom unidentified. Concave side: chaff and ground impressions; damaged; weathered. Convex side: chaff and ground impressions; damaged; weathered. Side surface: vertical marks running down from convex side, being stopped by a rough zone close to concave side; chaff and ground impressions; damaged; weathered. Date: Late Roman to Byzantine.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

161

Lateres

 297   299 

299. J12-Ae-19-25 Later, rim fragment.

297. J12-Af-16-10 Later, complete profile. L.: 21; W.: 11.5; Th.: 3; brown reddish colour. Weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: smoothed; chaff impressions; surface cracks. Other side: weathered; chaff impressions. Side surface: corners rather sharp, partly ledged on other side; chaff impressions; surface cracks. Date: second–third centuries ad.

L.: 15.4; Th.: 2.5; H.: 2.5; brown reddish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks; top and bottom unidentified. One side: marks of surface treatment; ground impressions. Other side: weathered, but very smooth. Side surface: straight; rounded corners; various finger impressions. Date: second–third centuries ad.

 300 

 298 

298. J12-Af-18-3 Later, corner fragment. L.: 12.5; W.: 11.5; Th.: 2.8; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: damaged and weathered; many large chaff cavities and impressions. Top surface: smooth; some large chaff cavities and impressions; marks of surface treatment. Side surface: corners rather sharp, partly ledged on other side; uneven; chaff impressions; surface cracks. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, no. 135 (placed on top of the cooking pot no. 98, see Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, no. 98). Date: second–third centuries ad.

300. J12-Ae-19-26 Later, corner fragment. L.: 15.4; Th.: 3; H.: 3; brown reddish colour. Weathered; top and bottom unidentified. One side: chaff impressions; weathered. Other side: chaff impressions; marks of surface treatment running towards longer preserved rim, but stopped by zone without marks. Side surface: straight; corners rather sharp, but many finger impressions. Date: second–third centuries ad.

Philip Ebeling

162

 304 

 301 

304. J13-Ha/​Ha1-13-37

301. J13-Db-19-3

Later, corner fragment.

Later, corner fragment.

L.: 17.4; W.: 19; Th.: 2.6–2.9; brown colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions; marks of surface treatment; diagonally scored. Top surface: smoothed; tool-drawn inscription. Side surface: damaged; straight and even. Date: Roman to Early Islamic. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, no. 119.

L.: 17; W.: 16.5; Th.: 2.6–3; brown colour. Weathered. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: finger-drawn channel around corner not in an accurate 90° angle; chaff and ground impressions. Side surface: straight; rounded top corner; bottom corner ledged. Date: Early Islamic.

 305 

 302 

302. J13-Ed-19-24 Later. L.: 17.7; Th.: 2.6; H.: 13.5; brown colour. Intact. Bottom surface: marks of surface treatment running against long sides; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment against long sides; smoothed; tool-drawn inscription. Side surface: straight; top corner sharp, bottom corner ledged; corners rounded. Date: Byzantine to Late Byzantine. References: Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, no. 120.

303. J13-Gd-7-8 Later fragment, cut into stopper.

 303 

L.: 13.8; W.: 10.5; Th.: 4; brown reddish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: rough; two parallel fingerdrawn channels running across surface; damaged; weathered. Top surface: damaged; weathered. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

305. J14-Jc-50-1 Later, corner fragment. L.: 15.2; W.: 10.2; Th.: 3; H.: 2.8; red pinkish colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: mould or marks of surface treatment (impression of a thick band of long stretched and deep impressions running parallel to longer preserved rim and several other thick and curving bands running against the former one); chaff and ground impressions; cracks in surface. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; chaff impressions. Side surface: top corner sharp and partly ledged; smoothed; chaff impressions. Date: fourth–fifth centuries ad.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

163

 308   306 

308. J15-Ob-108-10 Later, complete profile.

306. J14-Jc-53-4 Later, corner fragment. L.: 20.5; W.: 12.5; Th.: 5.2; light grey-greenish colour. Overfired; damaged; thickness of object increasing significantly towards one rim. Bottom surface: no marks. Top surface: channel along rims; chaff impressions. Side surface: rather straight; ledged bottom corner; top corner rather sharp. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: fourth–fifth centuries ad.

L.: 15.7; W.: 13.7; Th.: 4.8; pink brownish colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: smoothed; chaff and ground impressions; damaged; weathered. Top surface: rough; tool-drawn decoration or inscription; chaff and ground impressions; damaged; weathered. Side surface: damaged; weathered. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic. References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), no. 127; Møller Larsen (in press).

 307 

 309 

309. J15-Qc-31-12 Later fragment, cut into stopper.

307. J14-Jc-53-5 Later, rim fragment. L.: 20.8; W.: 18.5; Th.: 4.8; red brownish colour. Damaged; weathered; one break smoothed. Bottom surface: obscured by mortar. Top surface: smooth; channel running along rim; chaff impressions. Side surface: straight; top corner rounded; surface treatment marks; no bottom corner zone. Date: fourth–fifth centuries ad.

L.: 14.1; W.: 13; H.: 4.6; red colour. Damaged; weathered. Bottom surface: blackened by fire; damaged; weathered. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; smoothed; tool-drawn inscription. Date: Roman.

310. J16-Sc-13-32 Later, rim fragment.

 310 

L.: 13.6; Th.: 4–4.6; H.: 4.8; red brownish colour. Weathered; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: channel along rim; marks of surface treatment in direction of rim. Side surface: rounded top; convex ext.; marks of surface treatment. Date: second–third centuries ad.

Philip Ebeling

164  311 

 313 

311. J16-Tb-35-18 Later, corner fragment. L.: 12; W.: 10; Th.: 3.5; brown colour. Overfired on one side; damaged; weathered; smoothed breaks; top and bottom unidentified. One side: overfired; vitrified; swollen; blackened. Other side: diagonally scored with two fingers; chaff and ground impressions; weathered. Side surface: rough; rounded corners on both sides; damaged; weathered. Date: Early Islamic.

313. J16-Vh-31-3 Later, corner fragment. L.: 11.7; W.: 7.2; Th.: 3.2; H.: 3.5; orange-red colour. One smoothed break. Bottom surface: convexly shaped; chaff impression. Top surface: concavely shaped; smoothed; chaff impression. Side surface: bottom corner zone with vertical marks and small ledge; top corner rounded. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF and microscope). Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

 314 

 312 

312. J16-Vd-25-14 Later. L.: 19.3; W.: 17; Th.: 3.4; orange-red colour. Mostly intact. Bottom surface: convex; chaff impressions; marks of surface treatment in same direction as on concave side. Top surface: slightly concave; marks of surface treatment on two sides at rim, finger-drawn inscription, partly crossing one mark; chaff impressions. Side surface: marks of surface treatment; some marks running from convex to concave side; corner of convex side ledged. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

314. J16-Vac-53-12 Rim fragment of later-like object. L.: 11.5; W.: 10.3; brown colour. Damaged; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: ground and chaff impressions; diagonally scored by three fingers. Top surface: marks of surface treatment running parallel to the rim; channel along heightened rim; many deep tool-made lines crossing each other, partly deep enough to cause serious damaged to object; beige wash inside lines. Side surfaces: rounded on top; straight on ext.; rough bottom corner zone; marks of surface treatment. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

165

Miscellaneous Objects of Ceramic Building Material

 315   317 

315. J16-Vi-60-18 Later, rim fragment. L.: 16.3; W.: 10.1; Th.: 3.6; brown-grey colour. Weathered; damaged; one smoothed break. Bottom surface: rough; ground impressions. Top surface: smoothed; chaff impressions. Side surfaces: hand shaped; top corner rounded; bottom corner ledged; marks of surface treatment. Date: Byzantine to Early Islamic.

 316 

317. J15-Jc-6-3 Unidentified building ceramics with furrow. L.: 13.7; W.: 6; Th.: 2.5; H.: 6; orange-brown colour. Broken in two pieces; damaged; purpose and function unidentified; top and bottom or visible and not visible site unidentified. Slightly convex side: marks of surface treatment parallel to furrow; chaff impressions. Slightly concave side: more exposed to heat than slightly convex side; some marks of surface treatment parallel to furrow; weathered. Furrow: deep and smooth elaborately tool-made furrow forming two rims/​flanges on each side; ext. straight; int. rounded; slightly convex side furrow higher than slightly concave side rim/​flange. Date: Byzantine.

 318 

316. J16-Vi-60-26 Later, corner fragment. H.: 2.6; L.: 11.2; brown colour. Weathered; smoothed breaks. Bottom surface: palm branch pattern; diagonally scored by two fingers; ground and chaff impressions. Top surface: marks of surface treatment; tool-made channels forming steps towards top surface running parallel to rims; smoothed. Side surfaces: straight; sharp top and bottom corner. Date: Roman to Early Islamic.

318. J14-Jc-35-65 Unidentified building ceramics. L.: 10.8; Th.: 2; H.: 7; reddish colour. Damaged; top, bottom, int. and ext. unidentified; function and purpose unidentified. Coated side: some chaff impression; porous surface; black crust or coat on surface; damaged. Uncoated side: surface texture running diagonally towards rim; less porous surface. Rim/​Flange: curving outline, straight in profile; smoothed; sharp corner to coated side; rounded corner to uncoated side. Date: fourth–fifth centuries ad.

Philip Ebeling

166

 319 

319. J14-Jc-68-15. Unidentified building ceramics. L.: 8.5; W.: 6.3; Th.: 2.7; H.: 2.7; light brown colour. Overfired; broken on all sides; wide holes in regular intervals pierced through wet clay; top and bottom; int. and ext. unidentified; purpose and function unidentified. One side: smoothed; chaff impressions; damaged; weathered. Other side: elevated rings around the pierced holes; chaff impres­ sion; damaged; weathered. Petrography: Pottery Group 4 (XRF). Date: fourth–fifth centuries ad.  321 

 320 

321. J15-Pe-5-51 Unidentified building ceramics with furrow.

320. J15-Nh-37-7 Unidentified building ceramics. L.: 9.6; W.: 5; Th.: 3; red surface colour, grey core. Damaged; weathered; broken on two sides; elongated handle-like shape; top, bottom, left, and right sides unidentified. One wide side: rough; rounded edges; damaged; weathered. One narrow side: marks of surface treatment running along object at full length, deeper impressions crossing these lines; weathered. Other wide side: flat surface; marks of surface treatment running in line with the long sides against the breaks; both corners ledged strongly. Other narrow side: marks of surface treatment running along object at full length; deeper impressions crossing these lines; weathered. Date: unknown.

L.: 16; Th.: 1.1–1.5; H.: 9.5; red-orange colour. Damaged; function and purpose unidentified; furrow on top. Coated side: black crust or coat on surface; surface smooth; chaff impressions; object has been exposed to heat (clay much more red under black coat); under furrow small channel; damaged. Uncoated side: smooth; chaff impressions; damaged. Furrow: smooth on int.; ext. coated on heat exposed side; shape of furrow’s rim/​flange originally rounded; the entire furrow is not set in the top’s middle, but inclines to the uncoated side; shaping technique unidentified, due to the brittle texture of clay; damaged. Date: unknown.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

167

322. J16-Tb-35-19 Unidentified building ceramics with furrow.

 322 

L.: 15.2; W.: 2.3; Th.: 2.9; H.: 3.4; red-brown colour. Broken on three sides; one smoothed break; top, bottom, front, back, etc. unidentified; furrow on top. Coated side: black crust or coat on surface; full of thin chaff impressions of which the majority runs in the same direction as the furrow; black crust or coat partly fallen off. Uncoated side: thin chaff impressions running in the same direction as furrow; marks of surface treatment in various directions crossing each other. Furrow: protrusion with rounded top formed in middle between a lowered ridge and a high bosh; maybe tool formed, but remodelled by hand. Date: Early Islamic.

323. J16-Tb-72-7 Unidentified building ceramics with furrow.

 323 

L.: 5.7; W.: 5.3; Th.: 2.3–2.7; H.: 2.8; red-brown colour. Broken on three sides; top, bottom, front, back, etc. unidentified; furrow on top. Coated side: black crust or coat on surface; full of thin chaff impressions of which the majority runs in the same direction as the furrow; black crust or coat partly fallen off. Uncoated side: thin chaff impressions running in the same direction as furrow. Furrow: potentially matching with cat. no. 201; two raised rims, leaving a circular depression in the middle, matching the raised protrusion with rounded top of cat. no. 201; rim on coated side higher, matching into the bosh on its counterpart; same for the rim on uncoated side. Date: Late Byzantine to Early Islamic.

Works Cited Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1982. ‘The Ceramics from the Synagogue of Horvat ‘Ammudim and their Chrono­logical Implications’, Israel Exploration Journal, 32: 13–31. Adler, N. 2011. ‘Stamp Impressions of the Tenth Legion from the Temple Mount Excavations’, in E. Mazar (ed.), The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–78 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports, iv: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina, Qedem, 52 ( Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeo­logy, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 319–32. Åkerström, Å. 1966. Die architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska institutet i Athen, 4.11 (Lund: Gleerup). Aharoni, Y. 1962. Excavations at Ramat Rahel, Seasons 1959 and 1960 (Rome: Universitá degli studi di roma. Centro di studi semitici). Alcock, S. E. and others. 2010. ‘The Brown Uni­ver­sity Petra Archaeo­logical Project: Report on the 2009 Exploration Season in the “Upper Market”’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities, 54: 153–66. Al-Daire, M. 2001. Die fünfschiffige Basilika in Gadara – Umm Qais, Jordanien (Marburg: Tectum). Alliata, E. 1987. ‘Iscrizioni di Um er-Rasas. Nota sulla ceramica dello scavo’, Liber annuus, 37: 221–39. —— 1992. ‘Ceramica della chiesa dei Leoni’, Liber annuus, 42: 227–50. ‘Amr, K. and A. al-Momani. 1999. ‘The Discovery of Two Additional Pottery Kilns at az-Zurraba/​Wadi Musa’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 43: 175–94. Avner, R. 2015. ‘’En Ya’el (Nahal Refaim): Roman Villa’, Hadashot Arkheo­logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel, 127: 1–18 (in Hebrew, with an English summary on pp.  19–20) [accessed 18 December 2018]. Avshalom-Gorni, D. 2009. ‘The Pottery Workshops from Strata 6–9’, in N.  Getzov and others (eds), Horbat ‘Uza:  The 1991 Excavations, ii: The Late Periods, IAA Reports, 42 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 23–27. Bagatti, P. B. 1969. Excavations in Nazareth, i: From the Beginning till the Twelfth Century, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 17 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). —— 1985. ‘Nuova ceramica del Monte Nebo (Siyagha)’, Liber annuus, 35: 249–78.

168

Philip Ebeling

Bagatti, P. B. and J. T. Milik. 1958. Gli scavi del ‘Dominus Flevit’, i: La necropoli del periodo romano, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 13 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Press). Bahat, D. 1974. ‘A Roof Tile of the Legio VI Ferrata and Pottery Vessels from Horvat Hazon’, Israel Exploration Journal, 24: 160–69. Balouka, M. 2013. ‘Chapter 6: The Late Roman and Byzantine Pottery’, in D. Ben-Ami (ed.), Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Giv’ati Parking Lot), i, Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 52 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 151–66. Barkai, G. and Y. Zweig. 2006. ‘Project of Sifting the Dust from the Temple Mount’, in E. Baruch, Z. Greenhut, and A. Faust (eds), New Studies on Jerusalem, xi (Ramat-Gan: Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies Publications), pp. 213–37 (in Hebrew). Barnes, H. and others. 2006. ‘From “Guard House” to Congregational Mosque: Recent Discoveries on the Urban History of Islamic Jarash’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 50: 285–314. Bass, G. F. and F. H. van Doorninck Jr. 1982. Yassı Ada: A Seventh-Century Byzantine Shipwreck, i (College Station: Texas A&M Uni­ver­sity Press). Batz, S. and I. Sharukh. 2012. ‘A Roman Bathhouse and Two Byzantine Churches at Khirbet Zur’, in N. Camin and others (eds), Christians and Christianity, iv: Churches and Monasteries in Judea, Judea and Samaria Publications, 16 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 1–36. Ben-Ami, D. and Y. Tchekhanovets. 2013. ‘A Roman Mansion Found in the City of David’, Israel Exploration Journal, 63: 164–73. Berry, W. 1988. ‘The Minor Objects’, in G. Davidson-Weinberg (ed.), Excavations at Jalame: Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine (Columbia: Uni­ver­sity of Missouri Press), pp. 227–56. Boas, A. J. 2006. ‘The Medi­eval Ceramics from Khirbat Kakul’, ‘Atiqot, 54: 75–104. Brenk, B. 2015. ‘The Last Phases of the Cathedral Church of Jerash’, in M. Blömer, A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja (eds), Religious Identities in the Levant from Alexander to Muhammed: Continuity and Change, Contextualizing the Sacred, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 399–414. Broadribb, G. 1987. Roman Brick and Tile (Gloucester: Sutton). Calderon, R. 2010. ‘Pottery from the Late Byzantine Remains near Shiqmona’, ‘Atiqot, 63: 183–208. Clark, V. A. 1986. ‘The Church of Bishop Isaiah at Jerash’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, 1981–1983, i (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 303–40. Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1899. Archaeo­logical Researches in Palestine (London: Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund). Corbo, V. C. 1982. Il Santo Sepolcro di Gerusalemme, i: Aspetti archeo­logici dalle origini al periodo crociato, Studium Biblicum Francis­ canum, 29 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). Crowfoot, J. W. 1933. ‘Samaria Excavations: The Stadium’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 65.2: 62–73. Crowfoot, J. W. and G. M. Fitzgerald. 1929. Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley, Jerusalem 1927 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund). Damgaard, K. 2011. ‘Sheltering the Faithful: Visualising the Umayyad Mosque in Jerash’, ARAM Periodical, 23: 191–208. Dar, S. 1993. Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel: Ituraean Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 589 (Oxford: Tempus Reparatum). Dauphin, C. and G. Edelstein. 1984. L’Église Byzantine de Nahariya (Israel): étude archéo­logique (Thessaloniki: Kentro Byzantinon Erevnon). Daviau, M. 2010. Excavations at Tall Jawa, Jordan, iv: The Early Islamic House, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 11.4 (Leiden: Brill). Davidson-Weinberg, G. (ed.). 1988. Excavations at Jalame: Site of a Glass Factory in Late Roman Palestine (Columbia: Uni­ver­sity of Missouri Press). Dijkstra, J. 2015. ‘Roof-Tiles, tegulae and imbrices: A Statistical Survey’, in K. J. H. Vriezen and U. Wagner-Lux (eds), Gadara – Umm Qes, ii: The Twin Churches on the Roman-Byzantine Terrace and Excavation in the Streets (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 162–67. Di Segni, L. 2011. ‘An Inscribed Roof Tile from the Bakery’, in E. Mazar (ed.), The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by B. Mazar: Final Reports, iv: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina, Qedem, 25 ( Jerusalem: Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 235–36. Ebeling, P. 2020. ‘Roman-Period Roof Tiles from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeo­logy and History of a Decapolis City, Jerash Papers, 5 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 301–13. Ecker, A. 2016. ‘The Urbanization of Roman Iudaea/​Palaestina from the First Century bce to the Fourth Century ce’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem). Fisher, C. S. 1931. ‘The Campaign at Jerash in September and October 1931’, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 11: 131–69. Fisher, C.  S. and C.  C. McCown. 1931. ‘Jerash-Gerasa 1930: A  Preliminary Report of the First Two Campaigns of the Joint Expedition of Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research’, The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 11: 1–59. Germer-Durand, J. 1906. ‘Glanes épi­graphiques’, Échos d’Orient, 9.58: 130–33. Geva, H. 2003. ‘Stamp Impressions of the Legio X Fretensis’, in H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Naham Avigad, 1969–1982, ii: The Finds from Area A, W and X-2: Final Report ( Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeo­ logy, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem), pp. 405–22.

5. Ceramic Building Materials from the Northwest Quarter

169

Gogräfe, R. 2016. Isriye-Seriana (Itriya): Heiligtum, Siedlung und Militärstation in Zentralsyrien von der frühen römische Kaiserzeit bis in die mamlukische Epoche (Mainz: Von Zabern). Gräber, F. 1881. In W. Dörpfeld, F. Gräber, R. Borrman, and K. Siebold, Über die Verwendung von Terrakotten am Geison und Dache Griechischer Bauwerke, 41. Programm zum Winckelmannfeste der archäo­logischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin (Berlin: Reimer), pp. 14–22. Hamari, P. 2008. ‘Tiles and Bricks from the Jabal Harun Monastery’, in Z. T. Fiema and J. Frösén (eds), Petra: The Mountain of Aaron; The Finnish Archaeo­logical Project in Jordan, i: The Church and the Chapel (Helsinki: Societas scientiarum Fennica), pp. 377–91. —— 2017. ‘The Roofscapes of Petra: The Use of Ceramic Roof Tiles in a Nabataean-Roman Urban Context’, in P. Mills and U. Rajala (eds), Forms of Dwelling: 20 Years of Taskscapes in Archaeo­logy (Oxford: Oxbow), pp. 85–113. Hammond, P. 1965. The Excavation of the Main Theater at Petra, 1961–1962: Final Report (London: Quaritch). Hirschfeld, Y. 2004. Excavations at Tiberias, 1989–1994, IAA Reports, 22 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority). Holm-Nielsen, S., I. Nielsen, and F. G. Andersen. 1989. ‘The Excavation of Byzantine Baths in Umm Qeis’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities, 30: 220–32. Jackson-Tal, R. 2021. ‘The Glass Finds from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Glass, Lamps and Jerash Bowls: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, iii, Jerash Papers, 8 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 13–49. Kalaitzoglou, G., A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja. 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Field Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 11–38. Kalaitzoglou, G. and others (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. —— (forthcoming b).  ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Kanellopoulos, C. 1994. The Great Temple of Amman: The Architecture (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research). Kaptijn, E. 2009. Life on the Watershed: Reconstructing Subsistence in a Steppe Region Using Archaeo­logical Survey; A  Diachronic Perspective on Habitation in the Jordan Valley (Leiden: Sidestone). Karz Reid, S. 2005. The Small Temple: A Roman Imperial Cult Building in Petra, Jordan (Piscataway: Gorgias). Kehrberg, I. 2016. ‘Pottery and Glass Sherd-Tools from Roman and Byzantine Workshops at the Gerasa Hippodrome and Other Sites: A Reappraisal’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 12: 411–30. Kletter, R. and E. Stern. 2006. ‘A Mamluk-Period Site at Khirbat Burin in the Eastern Sharon’, ‘Atiqot, 51: 173–214. Konrad, M. 2001. Resafa, v: Der spätrömische Limes in Syrien: Archäo­logische Untersuchungen an den Grenzkastellen von Sura, Tetrapyrgium, Cholle und in Resafa (Mainz: Von Zabern). Leonard Jr., A. 1987. ‘The Jarash – Tell el-Husn Highway Survey’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 31: 343–90. Lichtenberger, A. and R.  Raja. 2015. ‘Intentional Cooking Pot Deposits in Late Roman Jerash (Northwest Quarter)’, Syria, 92: 309–27. —— 2017. ‘Mosaicists at Work: The Organisation of Mosaic Production in Early Islamic Jerash’, Antiquity, 91.358: 998–1010. —— 2018. ‘A View of Gerasa/​Jerash from its Urban Periphery: The Northwest Quarter and its Significance for the Understanding of the Urban Development of Gerasa from the Roman to the Early Islamic Period’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 143–66. Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2013. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 9–56. —— 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2013. Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 39–103. Macalister, R.  A.  S. and J.  G. Duncan. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem, Palestine Exploration Fund Annual, 4 (London: Harrison). Mader, E. 1957. Mambre: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im heiligen Bezirk Ramet el-Khalil in Südpalästina, 1926–1928 (Freiburg: Wewel). Magen, Y. 2015. Monastery of Martyrius, Christians and Christianity, 5, Judea and Samaria Publications, 17 ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority). Mazar, E. 2007. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports, iii: The Byzantine Period, Qedem, 46 ( Jerusalem: Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeo­logy). —— 2011. The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports, v: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina, Qedem, 52 ( Jerusalem: Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeo­logy). Melkawi, A., K. ‘Amr, and D. S. Whitcomb. 1994. ‘The Excavation of Two Seventh Century Pottery Kilns at Aqaba’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 38: 447–68. Meyers, E. M., C. L. Meyers, and J. F. Strange. 1990. Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue of Gush Halav, Meiron Excavation Project, 5 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).

170

Philip Ebeling

Michel, A. 1998. ‘Trois campagnes de fouilles a Khirbat al-Mukhayyat’, Liber annuus, 48: 357–416. Möller, H. (forthcoming). The Pottery: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, Jerash Papers (Turnhout: Brepols). Møller Larsen, J. (in press). ‘Appendix on Two Possible Arabic Graffiti’, in G. Kalaitzoglou and others, ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Nielsen, I., F. G. Andersen, and S. Holm-Nielsen. 1993. Gadara – Umm Qes, iii: Die byzantinischen Thermen, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins, 17 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Perlich, B. 2016. ‘Bauausführung’, in J. Cramer and others (eds), Qasr al-Mshatta: Ein frühislamischer Palast in Jordanien und Berlin, Berliner Beiträge zur Bauforschung und Denkmalpflege, 16 (Petersberg: Imhof ), pp. 70–133. Philippsen, B. and J. Olsen. 2020. ‘Radiocarbon Dating and Bayesian Modelling’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Environmental Studies, Remote Sensing, and Modelling: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, i, Jerash Papers, 6 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 193–240. Piccirillo, M. 1997. ‘La Chiesa di San Paolo a Umm al-Rasas – Kastron Mefaa’, Liber annuus, 47: 375–94. —— 2002. ‘The Ecclesiastical Complex of Saint Paul at Umm ar-Rasas – Kastron Mefaa’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 46: 535–59. Pritchard, J. B. 1951. ‘The 1951 Campaigns at Herodian Jericho’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 123: 8–17. Ramage, A. 1978. Lydian Houses and Architectural Terracottas, Archaeo­logical Exploration of Sardis, 5 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ver­sity Press). Reeves, M. B. and C. A. Harvey. 2016. ‘The Nabataean, Roman and Byzantine Ceramic Building Materials at al-Humayma and Wadi Ramm’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 12: 443–75. Reisner, G. A., C. S. Fisher, and D. G. Lyon. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ ver­sity Press). Sack, D. 1996. Die große Moschee von Resafa – Rusafat Hišam (Mainz: Von Zabern). Saller, S. 1967. ‘Hellenistic to Arabic Remains at Nebo, Jordan’, Liber annuus, 17: 60–62. —— 1972. ‘The Byzantine Chapel Found at Bethlehem in 1962’, Liber annuus, 12: 153–68. Saller, S. and B. Bagatti. 1949. The Town of Nebo (Khirbet el-Mekhayyat), Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 7 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Press). Schick, C. 1889. ‘The Mount of Olives’, Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statement, 21.4: 174–84. Schneider, H. 1950. The Memorial of Moses on Mount Nebo, iii: The Pottery, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 1 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Press). Schuler, M. 2008. ‘North-East Church Complex (NEC)’, in A. Segal and others (eds), Hippos-Sussita: Ninth Season of Excavations ( June-July 2008) (Haifa: Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 40–49. Schulze, W. and I. Schulze. 2020. ‘The Coins of the Jerash Northwest Quarter Project and the Umayyad Money Circulation in Jund al-Urdunn’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Metal Finds and Coins: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, ii, Jerash Papers, 7 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 131–78. Smithline, H. 1997. ‘Burial Caves of the Roman and Byzantine Periods in Western Galilee’, ‘Atiqot, 33: 47–60 (in Hebrew). Stern, E. J. and N. Getzov. 2006. ‘Aspects of Phoenician Burial Customs in the Roman Period in Light of an Excavation near El-Kabri (Kabri)’, ‘Atiqot, 51: 91–123. Sukenik, E. L. 1932. The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha (London: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press). Taxel, I. 2018. Fragile Bio­graphy: The Life Cycle of Ceramics and Refuse Disposal Patterns in Late Antiquity and Early Medi­eval Palestine, Babesch Supplement Series, 35 (Leuven: Peeters). Tsaferis, V. 1982. ‘The Ancient Synagogue at Ma’oz Hayyim’, Israel Exploration Journal, 32: 215–44. —— 1985. ‘An Early Christian Church Complex at Magen’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 258: 1–15. Vriezen, K. J. H. 1994. Die Ausgrabungen unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan, Jerusalem (1970–1974) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). —— 1995. ‘A Preliminary Study of the Byzantine Roof Tiles (tegulae and imbrices) from Areas 1 and 3 in Umm Qeis ( Jordan)’, Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Techno­logy, Leiden Uni­ver­sity, 13: 26–39. Walmsley, A. 2002. ‘Searching for Islamic Jarash. A Report on the 2002 Field Season of the Danish-Jordanian Islamic Jarash Project’ [accessed 25 November 2020]. —— 2005. ‘The Danish-Jordanian Islamic Jarash-Project. Report 2005’ [accessed 25 November 2020]. Walmsley, A. and others. 2008. ‘A Mosque, Shops and Bath in Central Jarash: The 2007 Season of the Islamic Jarash Project’, Annuals of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 52: 109–38. Warry, P. 2006. Tegulae: Manufacture, Typo­logy and Use in Roman Britain, British Archaeo­logical Reports, British Series, 417 (Oxford: Archaeopress). Weksler-Bdolah, S. 2016. ‘A Villa and Pottery Kiln from the Late Roman – Early Byzantine Times in ‘En Ya’el (Nakhal Refa’im), Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 87: 71–119 (in Hebrew).

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter Philip Ebeling Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie / ​Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. [email protected]

Gry H. Barfod Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research (AGiR) Platform, Department of Geoscience / Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet), School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark. [email protected]

Introduction Ceramic building materials in the form of tiles or bricks are among the most abundant finds in archaeo­logical excavations around the Mediterranean and beyond. They often form the very core of urban infrastructure. Despite this, very few studies on this material exist. The five years of excavations led by the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project in the city of Jerash, northern Jordan, yielded numerous pieces of building ceramics. These include roof tiles (tegulae/​pantiles and imbrices/​cover tiles), lateres (bricks, floor, or wall tiles), tubuli (box-flue tiles), pila units (hypocaust bricks), and fragments of industrial installations. Some fragments were heavily overfired. Tegulae and imbrices are used on roofs to form a closed surface against rainwater. Tegulae/​ pantiles are set flange next to flange, following the slope of the roof. Imbrices/​cover tiles are then set so that one half-circular shaped or gabled imbrex covers two adjoining tegula flanges. The flange of a pantile and the cover tile are affixed by mortar or other adhesive substances. Lateres are originally floor tiles, but can also be found on walls or in rare cases even on ceilings. Small, squareshaped floor tiles, sometimes scored on their bottom surfaces, can be found used as bricks, and bricks can be found forming floors. The use of bricks and floor tiles in architecture was flexible. However, most fragments of lateres from the Northwest Quarter have an obvious top surface, which means the manufacturer took the effort to distinguish between a top and a bottom surface. As the top surfaces imply visibility, one can safely assume that all fragments with a top surface were produced as floor or wall tiles. Tubuli, box-flue tiles, are in the case of Jerash box-shaped, hollow, elongated pieces of fired

clay, with a wide opening on their tops and bottoms and a small, knife-cut opening at their left and right sides. These pieces of building ceramics were a central part of ancient heating systems and are frequently connected with bath structures, but can also appear in domestic buildings without evidence of water management. They are connected to the ceiling of an underground chamber (hypocaust), in which the hot air of a fire is collected. These tiles are stacked on top of each other, covering the full lengths and height of one or more walls of the room, supposed to be heated by the hypocaust. The hot air flows from the hypocaust through the tubuli and circulates in between them and, in that way, heats up the room. Pila units are connected to hypocaustic heating installations in the same way as tubuli. Pilae can be round or squareshaped, and they are used in hypocaust chambers to lift the floor of the room above. A square-shaped pila was constructed of square-shaped units, which are regular bricks, thus referred to as lateres. Round pilae, however, were constructed of round pila units, which were only produced in the southern Levant to be stacked on top of each other to form a pila in an underground heating system. Fragments of various industrial installations can be formed of clay and fired before or, slowly, during use. Their specific function is not always identifiable. Their attribution is usually connected to their find context in relation to evidence for industrial activity of sorts, but an actual identification and reconstruction is even then rarely possible, as it relates to a clear identification of function and purpose of the fragment within an installation.

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume i: Architecture and Building Ceramics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 171–189 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126441

Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod

172

Table 6.1. Sample- and ID numbers, typo­logy, period of production, and type of analysis applied to Jerash building ceramic samples (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project). No. Group 3/​ ML

Group 4/​ HL

ID-No.

Object type

Approx. production and period of use

pXRF

1

J16-Wa-27-9

tegula

Roman to Byzantine

×

2

J15-Nb-57-166

tegula

Byzantine

×

3

J14-Kh-3-495

tegula

Byzantine to Umayyad

×

4

J16-Sc-13-29

tubulus

Roman

×

5

J14-Kc-3-21

tegula

Byzantine to Umayyad

×

6

J16-Xc-11-3

imbrex

Byzantine to Umayyad

×

Thin-sectioned ICP-MS ×

×

×

7

J15-Nb-57-42

tegula

Byzantine

×

8

J16-Vh-26-46

tegula

Byzantine to Umayyad

×

9

J16-Vi-26-14

tegula

Roman to Umayyad

×

10

J16-Wd-40-11

imbrex

Roman to Byzantine

×

11

J14-Je-87-18

tegula

Roman to Byzantine

×

12

J16-Wc-23-7

imbrex

Roman to Byzantine

×

13

J16-Sd-13-33

tegula

Roman

×

×

×

14

J16-Xi-10-16

tegula

Byzantine to Umayyad

×

×

×

15

J16-Tc-10-8

pila unit

Roman to Byzantine

×

16

J16-Tb-35-21

tegula

Late Roman to Byzantine

×

×

×

17

J16-Sc-13-31

tegula

Roman

×

18

J16-Xc-11-32

tegula

Late Roman to Umayyad

×

19

J14-Jc-68-15

industrial

Roman to Byzantine

×

20

J16-Vh-31-3

later

Roman to Byzantine

×

21

J12-Ab-10-2

tegula

Roman

×

22

J14-Jc-53-4

later

Roman to Late Roman

×

23

J16-Vi-26-16

tegula

Roman to Byzantine

×

×

24

J15-Pb-19-1

tegula

Late Roman to Byzantine

×

×

25

J16-Xf-2-241

tegula

Roman to Byzantine

×

26

J16-Vac-53-18

tegula

Roman to Byzantine

×

27

J13-Dab-10-7

tegula

Byzantine to Umayyad

×

28

J14-Jd-27-4

tegula

Roman to Byzantine

×

29

J16-Uc-23-18

tubulus

Byzantine to Byzantine

×

30

J16-Sc-13-28

imbrex

Roman

×

This paper reports macroscopic, microscopic, and chemical analyses of the Jerash building ceramics and compares these to the pottery from Jerash.1 All fragments stem from contexts of secondary use (e.g. refuse material in fills or reuse as tools) rather than primary use (e.g. a roof fallen into the house; a wall with a partly 1  This analytical study was carried out thanks to the financial support of the German Palestine Foundation (Deutscher PalästinaVerein). We are indebted to and grateful for the continued effort and support of Dr Stephen Merkel, who executed most of the work and continued his support with great help and favours.

×

×

×

×

intact heating system; a fully preserved, intact terracotta tile floor, etc.). The fragments were firstly classified on the basis of their typo­logy. All pieces were broken into fragments. The fragmentary state of the material allowed for inspecting the breaks and ware type classification. Optical properties of all fragments of ceramic building material were studied using a magnifying lens and classified based on colour, size, number, and form of inclusions, as well as on texture and degree of firing. This yielded an unrealistically high number of fabric types, most of which were represented by a single object.

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter

173

Table 6.2a. pXRF results (without Ni and Mg). Group 3/​ML No. ID-No.

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO TiO2 K2O

Zr

Sr

Rb

Mn

Cr

V

Ba

Nb

Zn

Cu

72.2 16.5

4.6

4.0

1.2

1.5

520

200

40

-

120

70

470

30

50

30

1380 7390

2

J15-Nb-57-166 66.8 19.1

6.0

5.2

1.2

1.7

380

220

50

420

130

70

110

30

60

40

1180 1370

1

J16-Wa-27-9

Cl

P

3

J14-Kh-3-495

66.9 19.0

5.5

5.5

1.1

1.9

440

200

50

-

100

70

460

30

70

40

1300 1950

4

J16-Sc-13-29

69.1 16.2

5.5

6.7

1.2

1.3

490

190

40

-

110

80

320

30

60

40

1290 1610

5

J14-Kc-3-21

65.5 19.3

5.9

6.2

1.1

2.1

410

190

50

-

110

80

360

30

80

40

1070 1570

6

J16-Xc-11-3

65.9 17.4

5.3

7.8

1.0

2.6

310

170

50

-

110

70

340

20

60

30

950 2090

7

J15-Nb-57-42

64.0 18.3

5.5

8.5

1.0

2.7

310

190

50

-

120

70

370

30

60

30

1190 1860

8

J16-Vh-26-46

64.3 18.9

5.2

8.2

0.9

2.6

280

180

50

-

120

70

400

20

70

40

710 1890

9

J16-Vi-26-14

66.6 15.6

5.1

9.4

0.9

2.4

420

180

50

-

110

60

360

20

50

30

890 1480

10

J16-Wd-40-11

64.0 19.7

4.5

8.9

1.0

2.0

290

240

30

-

120

90

490

30

50

40

810 2160

11

J14-Je-87-18

62.4 16.1

7.1

10.6

0.8

2.9

260

130

60

170

100

60

250

-

70

70

1310 1890

12

J16-Wc-23-7

64.0 18.0

4.8

10.3

1.1

1.8

320

290

30

-

100

80

540

20

50

40

800 1830

13

J16-Sd-13-33

61.2 19.9

4.7

10.2

0.9

3.0

300

250

60

-

120

70

450

20

50

50

1130 2480

14

J16-Xi-10-16

61.7 20.1

4.8

10.3

0.9

2.2

280

320

40

-

110

80

570

20

50

40

980 2210

200

15

J16-Tc-10-8

62.0 18.5

4.9

11.8

0.8

1.9

260

50

-

110

70

330

20

60

50

3350 2110

16

J16-Tb-35-21

62.5 18.9

4.7

11.0

0.9

1.9

320 210 40 Group 4/​HL

-

100

70

450

20

50

40

1350 2460

No.

ID-No.

17

SiO 2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO TiO2 K2O

Zr

Sr

Rb

Mn

Cr

V

Ba

Nb

Zn

Cu

Cl

P

J16-Sc-13-31

58.2 22.1

4.8

12.1

0.8

2.0

290

220

40

-

110

80

320

20

60

40

970 2480

18

J16-Xc-11-32

59.6 19.9

4.2

13.1

0.9

2.3

300

270

50

-

100

70

460

20

50

30

1610 2330

19

J14-Jc-68-15

58.0 20.6

5.3

13.4

0.9

1.8

270

200

40

-

110

70

350

20

70

50

1090 2720

20

J16-Vh-31-3

55.2 21.6

5.2

14.9

0.9

2.2

230

300

50

140

100

70

250

20

70

50

1060 2280

21

J12-Ab-16-2

59.8 16.9

5.1

15.1

0.7

2.4

210

210

50

-

100

60

440

-

60

30

1090 2570

22

J14-Jk-53-4

56.3 19.7

5.2

16.4

0.9

1.5

250

280

-

-

100

80

470

-

50

40

1420 2070

23

J16-Vi-26-16

54.8 20.0

6.0

16.0

0.8

2.3

270

240

40

200

100

70

450

20

70

30

1170 2450

24

J15-Pb-19-1

55.5 21.4

5.5

14.5

1.0

2.1

300

220

50

-

120

70

590

20

70

40

1050 2710

25

J16-Xf-2-241

56.5 18.7

5.9

16.4

1.0

1.5

350

230

40

-

110

70

450

30

60

50

1670 2320

26

J16-Xac-53-18 54.5 19.4

5.4

16.9

0.7

3.2

200

160

40

-

100

60

380

-

50

40

830 2730

27

J13-Vab-10-7

54.6 18.8

6.5

17.6

1.0

1.5

320

200

50

-

100

80

510

30

70

40

3530 2470

28

J14-Jd-27-4

55.1 18.9

6.0

17.2

0.9

1.9

300

210

40

-

110

70

450

20

60

30

1030 2570

J16-Uc-23-188 50.9 20.7

6.6

19.1

0.8

1.9

230

280

50

210

110

80

510

20

70

50

1610 2740

5.2

20.2

0.7

2.2

170

230

30

-

110

70

640

-

60

40

930 2970

29 30

J16-Sc-13-28

51.4 20.2

Table 6.2b. pXRF calibration standards. (Std = reference Kanicky and Mermet 1999; * n=2; ** Kanicky and Mermet 1999) SiO2 Al2O2 Fe2O3 CaO TiO2 MnO K2O MgO Cl Cr

V

P

Ba Nb Zr

Sr Rb Pb Zn Cu Ni

Mean Tb*

6.3

21

9.0

0.2

1.1

0.1

5.6

-

0.1 156 139 1841 179 35 226 208 214.2 -

139 75

-

2 Std dev

1.0

1.4

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

-

0.0 12.7 3.3 74.8 45.1 0.7 11.2 4.8 11.5

-

3.3 14.7

-

Reproducibility

2%

7%

2%

0%

0%

0%

3%

-

0% 8% 2% 4% 25% 2% 5% 2% 5%

-

2% 20%

-

Known values TB** 60.2

20.6

7.3

0.3

1.0

0.1

4.1

2

n.g. 86 11.3 1023 822 18 190 169 190

8

99

Accuracy

1%

-23% 33%

10%

0%

-37%

-

-5%

52

42

- -86% -22% -77% 76% -93% -21% -23% -15% - -39% -56% -

Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod

174 Table 6.3. Quantification by micrite and argillaceous inclusion (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project). Arg. Inclusions vol. %

Micrite vol. % No. 1

0.4

0.666666667

2

0.6

0

3

0

0.6

No. 5

0.5

2

0

0.866666667

1.6

0.3

1.466666667

0.2

0

3

0.8

No. 10

0.2

0

2

0.8

2.3

3

1.9

1.5

No. 13

4.9

2

0.6

1.933333333

4.933333333

4.6

0.8

5.6

3.533333333

3.9

3

1.9

No. 14

0.7

0.6

2

1.2

2.2

3

0.4

1

No. 16

0.3

2

0.5

0

3

2.6

0

No. 20

6.3

2

4.9

2.6

3

2.8

0

No. 23

2.9

2

3.2

4.8

3

2.2

7.5

No. 24

0.9

2

1.9

4.2

3

2.1

2.6

No. 29

0.1

2

1.9

5.4

3

3.6

1.5

1.533333333

2.266666667

9.333333333

5.533333333

3.266666667

3.733333333

3.4

3.6

3.9

2.3

1.34

9.2

4.4

2.4

4.333333333

9.733333333

5.426666667

10.73333333

This alone, without any further investigation, would inevitably lead to the interpretation of heavy import of ceramic building material from many different places to Jerash. However, this unrealistically high number of fabric types is in sharp contrast to results of the Jerash pottery. Additionally, on the basis of visually determined fabric groups, only some objects within a single group found parallels within the regular vessel pottery. To clarify questions raised by the preliminary visual investigation, analyses by portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF),

detailed petro­graphic, and Inductively Coupled PlasmaMass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) were conducted on a selection of thirty, ten, and five objects, respectively.

Material Selection and Preparation The thirty fragments for chemical and petro­g raphic analysis in this study stem from all categories of building ceramics encountered in the Northwest Quarter (roof tiles, box-flue tiles, brick or floor/​wall tiles, pila units, and fragments of industrial installations). Table 6.1 provides an overview of the ceramic types, approximate production date (stretching from Roman to early Umayyad), and the type of analytical method applied to the fragments. The samples were chosen according to evidence and context, visually distinguished fabrics, type of ceramic building material, as well as degree of preservation and firing.2 Sampling was done using a diamondcoated tile saw blade to obtain flat surfaces for portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) analyses.

Analytical Methods All samples were analysed by pXRF (see Table 6.2a and b), followed by a selection of ten samples for petro­ graphic analysis (see Tables 6.3 and 6.4). Based on the macroscopic quantitative study of inclusions, five pieces were then chosen for major and trace elements by ICP mass spectrometry analysis (Table 6.5a and b). The work was carried out at the German Mining Museum (Deutsches Bergbau Museum) in Bochum, Germany. Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis (pXRF) For pXRF analyses, individual fragments were placed in a lead-coated chamber with a docking station to which a Thermo Fisher Scientific NITON™ XL3t Analyzer was attached. All fragments were analysed for 120 seconds in mineral mode using soils and shale standards as controls. Magnesium values in these standards could not be reproduced and are, therefore, excluded. Elemental compositions were normalized to 100 wt%. Standards and sample results are listed in Table 6.2a and b.

2  For a study on mis- and overfired pottery, including ceramic building material, from the Northwest Quarter, see: Barfod, Ebeling, and Lesher (in this volume).

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter

Figure 6.1. Microphoto of sample no. 20 ( J16-Vh-31-1). Encircled is a micrite (calcium carbonate) inclusion.

Figure 6.2. Microphoto of sample no. 13 ( J16-Sd-13-33). Encircled is a clay pellet.

Petro­graphy Ten thin sections were studied by reflected and transmitted polarized light microscopy using a Zeiss Axiophot microscope with the capability of ×25 to ×400 magnification and an attached digital camera operated by Olympus Stream Motion 1.9.1 software. Inclusion identifications and frequency estimations were done either on entire thin sections (in case of rare inclusion determination) or for three randomly selected areas (for more common features, such as quartz, argillaceous inclusions, and micrite). Micro­g raphs at ×50 magnification were taken with fixed settings of each area using polarized transmitted light, cross-polarized transmitted light, and reflected polarized light. Argillaceous inclusions and micrite were quantified manually on micro­g raphs taken in different settings (Figs 6.1–6.2; Table 6.3), while quartz inclusion quantification was done in micro­graphs taken with cross-polarized transmitted light (Fig. 6.3). Using ImageJ freeware software (with a brightness threshold of 150 of 255), the area was calculated in percentage and then doubled to account for dark extinct quartz grains. In order to calculate the frequency of quartz grain sizes, scale bars of 200µm, 100µm, 50µm, and 20µm on the cross-polarized micro­graphs were used to count and categorize the quartz grains by size (note that damaged or cut grains were counted as complete ones). The results were again doubled to account for extinct quartz grains. To estimate the grain volume from grain sizes, counted numbers from the micro­graphs were calculated and multiplied by the area (10µm diameter for grains between 5µm and 20µm, but for the rest, the lowest end was used as the hypothetical diameter, e.g. 50µm diameter for grains between 50–100µm, etc.). For calculating area percentages, the total areas of the different grain sizes were divided by the area of the micro­g raph. The result

175

Figure 6.3. Microphoto of sample no. 15 ( J16-Tb-35-21).

is equal to the volume percentage. Adding together the totals acquired by the two different quantification methods (using ImageJ and counting grain sizes manually) the results were nearly identical (see Table 6.4). Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) Major, minor, and trace element concentrations for five sherds were analysed by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) using Thermo Fisher Scientific Element XR™. Sample preparation included removal of contaminated surfaces by saw and crushing in steel implements and an agate ball mill. The digestions of silica-bearing samples were carried out with a μPREP-A™ microwave on 100  mg pulverized material in PTFE pressure vessels with a mixture of concentrated acids (6 ml HCl: 1.75 ml HF: 4.8 ml HNO3) for forty minutes at 250 °C. After dissolution, the samples were brought to the final dilution of 100 ml with ultrapure water. Different dilutions were prepared for major (1:100) and trace element (1:10 with 5 per cent HNO3 solution) analysis. Final analyses were done with a FAST SC-system, ST 5532 PFA μ-FLOW nebulizer, Peltiercooled PFA spray chamber, and 1.8 mm sapphire injector in triple detector mode at all three different mass resolutions (m/​∆m). Table 6.5a lists ten major and minor elements given as oxides weight percentages (wt%), and Table 6.5b lists twenty-two trace elements as parts per million (ppm).

Results and Local Contextualization In a pilot study on the chemistry of the Jerash ceramics, undertaken by Merkel and Prange on eighteen sherds, at least three groups of ceramics were identified. The largest

Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod

176

Table 6.4. Quantification of quartz inclusions by ImageJ and manual calculation (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project). ImageJ calculation

Manual calculation

Diameter

Quartz vol. %

5µm

20µm

20µm

50µm 100µm 200µm

4.5 12.7 13

520

66

30

10

4

40820

20724

58875

78500

125600

15.15138 13.9

2

7.1

216

88

36

10

4

16956

27632

70650

78500

125600

14.90949

3

7.4

216

72

26

4

4

16956

22608

51025

31400

125600

11.55962

400

52

14

2

2

31400

16328

27475

15700

62800

7.1762

No. 5

No. 24 3.3 6.1

6

50µm 100µm

200µm +

10µm

20µm

50µm

100µm

200µm

78.5µm² 314µm² 1962.5µm² 7850µm² 31400µm²

2

3.3

160

84

12

4

0

12560

26376

23550

31400

0

4.383419

3

2.5

248

48

20

6

2

19468

15072

39250

47100

62800

8.576255

No. 13 4.6 15.9 16

280

56

36

6

4

21980

17584

70650

47100

125600

13.2089

6.7

16.0

2

9.2

142

80

36

14

6

11147

25120

70650

109900

188400

18.91907

3

10.1

200

104

12

18

4

15700

32656

23550

141300

125600

15.81843

No. 16 11.4 25.0 25

312

68

18

12

8

24492

21352

35325

94200

251200

19.91597 22.0

2

10.6

216

80

10

14

8

16956

25120

19625

109900

251200

19.74005

3

15.5

168

152

40

14

10

13188

47728

78500

109900

314000

26.30051

176

40

16

4

4

13816

12560

31400

31400

125600

10.02762

No. 29 2.8 4.0

4

2

0.7

104

48

2

0

0

8164

15072

3925

0

0

1.268113

3

2.5

184

30

4

0

2

14444

9420

7850

0

62800

4.41274

No. 20

7 14.3 14

5.2

104

88

12

6

4

8164

27632

23550

47100

125600

10.83394 11.4

2

7.1

176

32

12

10

4

13816

10048

23550

78500

125600

11.74287

3

7.3

88

56

4

12

4

6908

17584

7850

94200

125600

11.77219

96

24

18

4

0

7536

7536

35325

31400

0

3.818999

No. 23 2.8 7.3

7

2

3.7

104

88

12

6

2

8164

27632

23550

47100

62800

7.901883

3

4.5

240

128

4

4

4

18840

40192

7850

31400

125600

10.45277

No. 1 12.2 22.8 23

7.4

616

224

88

20

0

48356

70336

172700

157000

0

2

11

376

200

96

18

2

29516

62800

188400

141300

62800

20.93486 20.2 22.63545

3

11

880

184

64

6

2

69080

57776

125600

47100

62800

16.91795

No. 10 11.1 19.6 20

184

108

24

28

2

14444

33912

47100

219800

62800

17.65096 17.4

2

8.2

272

68

40

18

2

21352

21352

78500

141300

62800

15.18803

3

10.1

400

64

40

20

4

31400

20096

78500

157000

125600

19.26359

No. 14 7.6 15.7 16

212

80

26

6

2

16642

25120

51025

47100

62800

9.463201 14.1

2

9.2

192

96

30

14

8

15072

30144

58875

109900

251200

21.71918

3

6.7

88

120

12

22

0

6908

37680

23550

172700

0

11.24442

group (fifteen sherds) was cautiously classified as local.3 The mineralogy of these ‘local’ sherds was dominated by silt to sand-sized quartz, calcium carbonate inclusions (micrite), iron oxides, and argillaceous inclusions in the form of clay pellets. The remaining (‘imported’) sherds stood out due to their significant amounts of muscovite 3 

Merkel and Prange (in press).

and chromite inclusions. Intentional tempering seemed unlikely, as the majority of inclusions were observed to be too finely grained (< 10µm). In a later study, 128 out of 162 additional sherds were classified as ‘local’, and these were further divided into four groups on the basis of lime and iron oxides.4 It was noted that these groups 4 

Merkel (forthcoming).

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter

177

Table 6.5a and b. ICP-MS results of sherds analysed at the DBM Bochum. The first table (6.5a) is presented in weight percentages and the second (6.5b) in parts per million (ppm). Group

Sample

Total

SiO2

Al2O3

Fe2O3

CaO

MgO

Na2O

K2O

TiO2

MnO

P2O5

3a

No. 1

93.7

69.0

17.7

4.62

3.45

1.29

0.76

1.44

1.47

0.065

0.19

3b

No. 13

96.1

61.5

16.2

4.89

10.71

1.51

0.68

3.01

1.08

0.069

0.35

3b

No. 14

96.8

60.8

17.7

5.15

10.82

1.68

0.65

1.86

1.10

0.094

0.16

3b

No. 16

97.1

59.8

17.3

5.35

10.92

2.26

0.67

2.21

1.19

0.086

0.22

4

No. 24

99.5

56.9

16.0

6.02

14.83

1.83

0.65

2.31

1.23

0.074

0.19

Group Sample

V

Cr Co Ni Zn Ga Rb

130 150 15 150 70

Sr

Y

Zr Nb Ba

La

Ce

Pr Nd Sm Eu Gd Tm Yb Lu

20

50 220 25 170 35 470 45

90

10

35

7

1.6

6

0.5 2.5 0.5

3a

No. 1

3b

No. 13 120 120 15

90

20

70 300 30 140 25 440 40

85

10

40

8

2.0

7

0.6 2.8 0.5

3b

No. 14 120 160 20 150 65

20

55 220 25 150 30 360 40

85

10

35

7

1.7

6

0.5 2.5 0.5

3b

No. 16 130 120 15

75

70

20

55 340 25 160 30 570 40

80

9

35

7

1.8

7

0.5 2.7 0.5

4

No. 24 130 130 20

85

80

20

55 230 25 170 30 420 35

75

9

30

6

1.6

6

0.5 2.6 0.5

75

Table 6.6. Previously published chemical groupings for ‘local clay’-based Jerash ceramics (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project). N

Fe2O3 — wt%

CaO — wt%

Low Lime/​Group 1

14 Merkel and Prange (in press), local

Ca. 4–6

1–2

High Iron/​Group 2

11 Merkel and Prange (in press), local

>7

1–5

Med. Lime/​Group 3*

37 Merkel and Prange (in press), local

11

Middle Is. Marl

5

Barfod and others 2019, local

7

13–22

Middle Is. Grog

6

Barfod and others 2019, local

6

25–42

Middle Is. Marble

1

Barfod and others 2019, local

5.53

36.7

*Medium Lime shortened in the following to ML, High Lime shortened in the following to HL.

tend to blend into each other, rather than show clear boundaries between each other. Additionally, there is no difference in the trace elemental compositions such as Sr, Rb, Cr, Zn, or Zr. Tempering can only be seen in a small number of pieces. The three dominant inclusion types remained quartz, micrite, and argillaceous inclusions as previously observed. In a study by Barfod and others from 2019 on the middle Islamic-period pottery, four groups were determined on the basis of their intentionally added temper or the lack thereof: Grog-tempered, Quartz-tempered, and Marble-tempered groups, plus the Marl clay group that lacks temper.5 The division was based on petro­graphy and micro-XRF analyses and identified only one import (the Quartz-tempered sherd). The typo­logy (vessel forms) matched the petro­g raphy and geochemistry in the sense that vessel types from the 5 

Barfod and others 2019.

Grog- and Marble-tempered groups consisted predominantly of jugs made of very high lime-based (>22wt%) clays (Table 6.6; Fig. 6.7). In contrast to this, vessels of the Marl clay group were predominantly bowls made of non-tempered clays that were comparable to the vessels in Merkel and Prange’s Group 4, which they also concluded to be without temper. Although inclusions in the form of ‘Marl’ were not identified by Merkel and Prange, and Barfod and others do not list any argillaceous inclusions, visual inspection of the petro­graphy photos from the two studies show that the ‘Marl’ in the middle Islamic pottery resembles the clay pellets in the Roman to early Islamic material. The building ceramics in this study showed very similar properties to the material studied by Merkel and Prange as well as Barfod and others. Several components match the previously defined local groups, including sand to silt-sized quartz and micrite inclusion,

Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod

178 a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Figure 6.4. Compilation of eight micro­ photos: a: no. 24; b: no. 14; c: no. 29; d: no. 29; e: no. 29; f: no. 29; g: no. 16; h: no. 1.

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter

Figure 6.5. CaO and Fe2O3 of ceramic building material plotted.

Figure 6.6. Fe2O3 and TiO2 of vessel pottery and ceramic building material plotted.

Figure 6.7. CaO and Fe2O3 of all tested ceramic material (vessels and building ceramics) from Jerash compared.

179

iron oxides, and argillaceous inclusions in the form of clay pellets. Quartz features prominently in all analysed samples with grain sizes from 5µm to 0.6 mm. It appears mostly as a natural inclusion in the raw material.6 Fine-grained calcium carbonate inclusions appear as well, though infrequently compared to the quartz (Figs 6.1 and 6.3). Some of the micrite inclusions can contain sand-sized quartz grains. Within the building ceramics, the micrite usually appears rounded, with some exceptions. In all cases, argillaceous inclusions are 50µm–200µm small, contain siltto sand-sized inclusions (e.g. of quartz), and are rounded (Figs  6.2, 6.4d, 6.4f ). Despite small differences, the argillaceous inclusions can be classified as clay pellets. Furthermore, all samples contained moderate amounts of iron oxide ranging between c. 4–6 per cent. In Figures 6.4a and 6.4c, Fe2O3 inclusions appear bright white whereas they appear red in Figure 6.4d, as can be seen by the big curved inclusion at the bottom of the photo­g raph (6.4c and 6.4d were both taken of sample no.  29, see Table 6.1). The large size of this particular inclusion, however, is exceptional. Ferromagnesian inclusions are otherwise sand- to silt-sized. Figures 6.4e and 6.4f (sample no. 29, see Table 6.1) show some foraminifera (microfossils), but as the ICP-MS and pXRF reveal, trace element-wise, this object does not show significant differences compared to the other tested building ceramics (compare Table 6.4, Table 6.5a, and Table 6.5b). Therefore, some clay strata must contain microfossils. Foraminifera can be seen as a white spiral (c.  50µm in diameter) in Figure 6.4e and as a dark one in Figure 6.4f. The results of the chemical testing are very similar to the pottery as well: all tested objects are ‘local’. The samples in this study contain Fe2O3 and CaO varying between 4.5–7.1 per cent and 4–20.2wt% (Table 6.2a, Fig. 6.5). Trace elements like Sr, Rb, 6  Due to the similar optical properties and finegrained nature, quartz and feldspar were quantified together as ‘quartz’.

Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod

180

Figure 6.8. Microphoto of sample no. 13 ( J16-Sc-13-33). Encircled are clay pellets.

Cr, Zn, or Zr correlate with CaO or Fe2O3 concentrations. A negative logarithmic relationship of TiO2 and CaO as well as an absence of correlation between TiO2 and Fe2O3 (Fig. 6.6) is similar for ceramic building and pottery materials. As seen in Figures 6.5–6.7, all the analysed ceramic building material fits into local Groups 3 and 4 (ML and HL). However, the division between these two groups is based on arbitrarily defined ranges of CaO and Fe2O3 concentrations. Figure 6.7 summarizes the geochemistry for all analysed clay-based material from Jerash compared to the ceramic building material. It is difficult to detect petro­g raphic differences between Group 3/​M L and Group 4/​H L and thus equally difficult to recognize these differences for the ceramic building material.7 The averages of micrite and argillaceous inclusions given for the pottery of Group 3/​ ML were 1–4 per cent and 10–30 per cent, respectively, combined with a very small amounts of quartz, whereas a significant amount of argillaceous inclusions were determined for the pottery Group 4.8 For the ceramic building material that falls within these groups, there are some samples that greatly exceed the highest and lowest averages of micrite and argillaceous inclusions found in the pottery of Group 3/​ML. Therefore, these two inclusion types are not suitable for an estimation by simple averages for the ceramic building material. However, we observe small differences in the content of quartz and argillaceous inclusions within the building ceramics that classify as Group 3/​ML and Group 4/​HL,

7 

Merkel (forthcoming); Möller (forthcoming). 8  Möller (forthcoming).

respectively, which supports this group division; the five samples belonging to Group 3/​ML contain more quartz (ranging from 12.7–22.8 per cent), but less micrite (0.6–4.9 per cent) and argillaceous inclusions (0.2–5.6 per cent), than the four samples belonging to Group 4/​ HL (quartz: 4–14.3 per cent, micrite: 3.2–9.3 per cent, argillaceous inclusions 4.3–10.7 per cent).9 Additionally, there are different optical properties of clay pellets in vessel ceramics for Groups 3 and 4 and ceramic building material of Groups 3/​ML and 4/​HL to further support the division into two groups.10 In Figures 6.4d and 6.4f, the petro­g raphy of sample no. 29 belonging to Group 4/​HL shows a large clay pellet (close to the upper edge of the image) of a darker colour with an internal composition that differs from its surroundings. Figure 6.8 shows the petro­g raphy of sample no. 13, which chemically belongs to Group 3/​M L. The argillaceous inclusion marked in the image is of the same colour as the matrix, but partly separated from it by a thin rim. Thus, the argillaceous inclusions of Group 3/​M L appear to be more consistent in colour and texture to the ceramic matrix, while those of Group 4/​H L deviate in colour and internal structures, as they are surrounded by a void, seemingly de-attached from their surroundings, due to more intense shrinking. These observations remain subjective though. The division in two groups is supported by the building ceramics although the differences remain vague. The extreme ends of both groups (the highest end of 4/​HL and the lowest end of 3/​ML) are easy to pinpoint, but the intermediate samples are not easily categorized and sometimes show features of both groups. Sample no.  16 belongs to Group 4/​H L according to pXRF data, but to Group 3/​ML as seen in the ICP-MS analysis (compare Tables 6.2a with 6.5). In both groups, this specimen is near the artificial boundary between both groups. These diffuse boundaries give a level of uncertainty and arbitrariness to the group designations. Fourteen pieces belong to Group 3/​M L and sixteen samples to Group 4/​H L. Hence, the ceramic building material is equally represented in the two groups. Apart from ceramic building material, Groups 3 and 4 (ML/​ HL) only contain common/​storage vessels, such as dolia, or grey ware basins. There is no identifiable petro­graphic pattern regarding typo­logy and chrono­logy of ceramic building material (roof tile, brick, etc.). Both clay types

9  Möller (forthcoming). Sample no. 16, belonging to Group 3/​ ML, is tempered and therefore excluded from this comparison. 10  Merkel (forthcoming).

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter must have been in use simultaneously and were used for vessels and all kinds of building ceramics alike.

Ceramic Petro­graphy Levigation and Temper Tempering (adding inclusions to the raw material) and levigating (removing certain inclusions) can alter the characteristics of the raw clay.11 The reasons for such alterations can be manifold (aesthetic, technical, etc.). Tempering has been identified for only a handful of Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and early Islamic pottery sherds but plays a major role for middle Islamic pottery from Jerash.12 Levigation is not easy to identify, but some differences in the micro­g raphs could potentially point towards missing levigation.13 A comparison between Figure 6.4 and petro­g raphy of pottery from Jerash14 shows mostly similarities. However, the ceramic building material contains more inclusions >200µm indicating that the clay used for pottery appears to be much better settled. Therefore, it can be assumed that the clay of the pottery was levigated to a higher degree. Less levigation for the ceramic building material might also explain the large range of optical properties, when studied with a magnifying glass. Alternatively, several clay pits with the same base clay, but with different natural inclusions, could have been exploited contemporaneously around Jerash. For the objects that appeared much ‘cleaner’ when compared to others, one can assume at least a rough levigation. The process of preparing the clay and manually removing bigger stones and pebbles — especially in the production of certain pottery products — may have varied from workshop to workshop. Organic Temper Besides the inorganic inclusions, the ceramic building material includes organic components, giving the clay a rather rough appearance and texture compared to the pottery. The organic inclusions themselves can be seen 11 

Quinn 2013, 156. Barfod and others 2019. For a discussion about the use of the term ‘temper’, see also Merkel (forthcoming). 13  Åkerström (1966, 201) states that ceramic building material has never been levigated, as levigated clay objects shrink too much during firing. 14  Merkel (forthcoming), fig. 8. These micro­g raphs were taken under the exact same circumstances as the micro­graphs of the thinsections of building ceramics. 12 

181

by impressions on top and bottom surfaces of finished products. Additionally, cavities or clefts and blackened rings around these, left within the clay body after the organics themselves were removed by the firing, are evidence of organic inclusions. As the inclusions are found in the objects’ interior, they must have been added intentionally and are, therefore, temper. Organic temper has probably been added for several reasons. The body of regular ceramic building material is thicker compared to the body of regular pottery vessels, which are rarely tempered with organic inclusions. One of the reasons can be seen in the preparation of the clay, before forming the building ceramics. The raw material for building ceramics was prepared with less compaction and pressure, which makes for a higher porosity.15 Higher porosity might have contributed to a lighter weight, but this came at a risk. Due to the lack of compaction in the clay, air pockets tend to be larger and more frequent in building ceramics. The higher frequency and the larger size of the air pockets increase the risk of misfiring, as humidity from deep within the clay body, trapped by the sheer size of the product, collects in the air pockets or other cavities. During the firing, the humidity in the air pockets creates steam that expands or even erupts explosively. This can cause cracks and bubbles on the surface or even break the object as well as other objects around it in the kiln. Adding organic temper connects the air pockets inside and, therefore, lowers the danger of a steam explosion. The organic temper also helps as an agent against excessive water loss before firing, as the chaff pieces sticking out of the clay bodies allows for a more controlled evaporation.16 A last important effect is a further reduction in weight to supplement the reduction caused by the higher porosity; especially roof tiles benefit from a lighter weight.17 In Roman and Byzantine times, roof tiles were often affixed to the roofs’ boarding by a layer of mortar, plaster, or just adobe. This added extra weight to the wooden roof planking of the pitched roof construction.18 In these periods, roof tiles also tend to shrink in size. A lighter roof tile takes away some of the stress put onto the roof construction.19 15 

See Figure 6.6 and Hampe and Winter 1965, 113 and 176. Johnston 1974, 89; Lippi and Pallecchi 2017, 5–6. 17  Skibo, Schiffer, and Reid 1989, 139–40; Stilborg 2001, 400 (both papers deal with pottery, not building ceramics). 18  For examples of mortar on roof tiles, see Alcock and others 2010, 159; Adan-Bayewitz 1982, 25; Landgraf 1980, 87; Saller 1941, 178; Sarantidis 2015, 116; Sukenik 1932, 14. 19  Adam 1994, figs 491–92; Rook 2013, 70–71. 16 

Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod

182 However, all the above-mentioned reasons for tempering were likely a secondary intention or welcomed side effects, as not just roof tiles but ceramic building material of all categories were tempered with organic matter. A lighter wall tile or box-flue tile has a logistic advantage in transportation, but since all ceramic building material is of local clay sources, the range of transportation must have been limited. The presence of organic temper in all kinds of building ceramics should be related to the workability of the clay.20 Its preparation includes more water, as the products needed to fit into moulds.21 Mould-forming cannot be proven for the building ceramics of Jerash — internal marks and patterns in breaks suggest both mould- and hand-forming — but the clay might still have been watered more than clay intended for vessels. Adding organic temper increases the workability (formability, stability,  etc.), which was previously lowered by excessive watering. No identification of the organic temper has been attempted yet. The material excavated in Jerash did not contain remains or impressions that were preserved well enough to allow for identification, but it seems likely that chaff from threshing or manure was added.22 Chaff is a common temper and documented in roof tiles from other sites.23 Inorganic Inclusions To identify inorganic temper, in contrast to natural inclusions within the raw clay, one can study the bimodal grain size distribution (see Table 6.4).24 The earlier studies on the Roman to early Islamic pottery only detected tempering in the form of quartz sand in a handful of vessels. One can carefully suggest that the tendency for tempering in the local production seems to be low during Roman, Byzantine, and early Islamic times. Out of the ten fragments of ceramic building material that were studied petro­g raphically, only a sin-

20 

Johnston 1974, 89; Lippi and Pallecchi 2017, 5–6; Skibo, Schiffer, and Reid 1989, 140. 21   Hampe and Winter 1965, 206 for technical details. For Roman-period building ceramics, made in moulds, see Di Segni 2011, fig. 12.1; Hamari 2017, fig. 6.3. 22   Hampe and Winter 1965, 113 and 176; Johnston 1974, 88–89. 23  Beth Alpha (Sukenik 1932, 14); Horvat Ammudim (AdanBayewitz 1982, 26); Jerusalem (Vriezen 1994, 259: ‘organische Magerungsbestandteile’ (organic components of temper)). 24  Quinn 2013, 161.

gle fragment was tempered with quartz sand (sample no. 16). Figure 6.4g demonstrates the quartz grain temper of sample no. 16 compared to non-tempered objects (Fig. 6.4a–h). The same evidence can be observed on Figure 6.3. We interpret sample no.  16 as tempered despite the fact that the total area of quartz grains in samples nos 16 and 1 is similar (22µm2 to 20.2µm2, see Table 6.4). Figure 6.4h demonstrates the significant difference of nos 1 and 16: the high amount of quartz grains in no. 16 is due to many big chunks of quartz (> 200µm), while the high amount of quartz in no.  1 is caused by many sand- and silt-sized grains (< 20µm), suggesting a natural accumulation in the latter case. Sample no.  16 stems from a mixed period layer, but shows a waterspout, a formed rim, carefully and wellexecuted smoothing, plus a beige wash. The temper, however, cannot be connected to the smoothing or the wash, as it is not found in a layer within the clay matrix but throughout the entire body of the tile. The study on the local middle Islamic pottery showed that temper later played a much more prominent role in Jerash since three of the four groups showed addition of intentional tempers of grog, quartz, and marble, respectively (see section 4).25 Such inorganic inclusions were neither identified for the local pottery from earlier periods, nor for the ceramic building material. Thus, this either reflects the arrival of ceramic techno­logy brought to Jerash by new settlers during middle Islamic times, or illustrates a general techno­logical development or changing habits over time.

Building Ceramics from Jerash in a Regional Perspective Analytical and technical studies of building ceramics using scientific methods are rare in general, including the southern Levant.26 Existing studies have mostly focused on smaller assemblages concentrating on imports with the aim to localize their mineralogical fingerprint. 27 D.  Barkan and others investigate brick-like ceramic objects by petro­g raphy and neutron activation from a 25 

Barfod and others 2019. and others 2013, 133–34; Ben-Shlomo 2006, 413–18; Cohen-Weinberger 2003, 199; 2016, 113; Glass 1980, 87; Shapiro 1997, 1–5; Tepper 2007, no. 70; Vriezen 1995, 26–39. 27  A study in preparation, conducted on a fair number of roof tiles from Horvat Kur in the Galilee, resulted in a preliminary identification of roof tiles imported from eastern Cilicia. See Bes and Braekmans (in preparation). 26   Barkan

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter Byzantine shipwreck on the shore of Tel Dor.28 The brief study concludes that the origin of those ‘bricks’ was in Egypt, probably Naukratis. D. Ben-Shlomo analysed an unspecified number of roof tiles (tegulae and imbrices) from Caesarea Maritima looking at petro­g raphy.29 The objects were chosen for petro­g raphic investigation because of their different, mainly micaceous, appearance. He places the provenance of the studied material in Asia Minor due to the mica. In 1997, A. Shapiro aimed to prove a common provenance of Roman imperial clay sarcophagi found in north-western Galilee and Cyprus by studying thin-sections under a polarizing microscope.30 Her study material includes roof tiles used as sarcophagi lids plus one stemming from a Byzantine building. Based on the presence of ultrabasic rock within this raw material, she placed their production in southern Cyprus or Asia Minor. The first petro­graphic study done on ceramic building material from the southern Levant was published by J. Glass in 1980 on a single Byzantineperiod tegula from Tel Keisan.31 Here, the micaceous clay body is interpreted as an unfired cement tile. Beside one para­graph of text, no additional documentation of this study was published. Other studies are less specific and remain more general: in 2017, A. Shapiro published a petro­g raphic analysis of ceramic building material of the legio VI ‘ferrata’ and legio II ‘traiana’ from Kfar ‘Othnay, which proved the objects to be made from local clay sources.32 A. Cohen-Weinberger published a report on a petro­ graphic analysis of four Byzantine bricks with Greek name stamps from Jerusalem in 2003. An origin of the raw clay in the Motza formation, local to Jerusalem, was initially assumed.33 This formation had previously been shown to make up the raw material for Bronze Age vessels.34 The results confirmed the presumed source of clay for the bricks and allowed for an interpretation of a local production. Recently, A. Cohen-Weinberger published the results of a study on ten objects (one is a roof tile), found in a late Roman to Byzantine kiln in ‘En Ya’el, Jerusalem. 35 The most characteristic component was

dolomite crystals. The same was the case for seven roof tiles analysed by D. Ben-Shlomo in 2012, of which six were stamped by the tenth legion ‘fretensis’ and one with a geometrical symbol, from Jerusalem.36 Dolomite crystals are the most distinctive inorganic component of the clay of the Motza formation.37 Therefore, all the ceramic building material from Jerusalem is local to it. The most detailed study conducted on pottery and building ceramics from Jerusalem (in this case exclusively from the Roman legionary kilns, stamped by the tenth legion ‘fretensis’) was published by A.  Cohen-Weinberger, D. Levi, and R. Be’eri in 2020.38 Their results are very similar to the evidence from Jerash, as all the ceramic building material belongs to one group (their Group C). Other objects of this group include mostly mortaria, dolia, and amphorae.39 Two of the subgroups (C1 and C2) demonstrate intentionally added quartz temper.40 In 1995, K. J. H. Vriezen published brief fabric descriptions of ceramic building material and potential clay sources from around Umm Qeis, ancient Gadara. Some fabrics can be related to local clay sources, while others are interpreted as imports. These ware types are reflected by certain groups of objects, too. His Groups 5 and 5.2 are characterized by mainly ‘rounded quartz temper’ and lime.41 The forms of objects of Groups 5 and 5.2 can also be found in Jerash. Rounded quartz and lime is one of the main characteristics of the raw materials of the local clay sources of ancient Gerasa. The studied material of Gadara Groups 5 and 5.2 could, therefore, possibly originate from Jerash. D. Braekmans and P. Bes (Kinneret Regional Project) conducted a petro­g raphic study on a selection of roof tile fragments from the late Roman roof of the synagogue of Horvat Kur in Galilee, since the macroscopically studied fabrics of 10.322 roof tile fragments, appeared to form at least two major groups: approximately 75.2 per cent are thought to be of local/​ regional production, while 20 per cent are thought to have been imported from eastern Cilicia and 4 more per cent imports from a third place.42 36 

28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35 

Barkan and others 2013, 133–34. Ben-Shlomo 2006, 413–18. Shapiro 1997, 1–5. Glass 1980, 87. Tepper 2007, 66, nos 70–71; Shapiro 2017. Cohen-Weinberger 2003, 199. Goren 1996. Cohen-Weinberger 2016, 113.

183

Ben-Shlomo 2012, 394. Cohen-Weinberger 2003, 199. 38  Cohen-Weinberger, Levi, and Be’eri 2020. 39  Cohen-Weinberger, Levi, and Be’eri 2020, compare tables 2–6. 40  Cohen-Weinberger, Levi, and Be’eri 2020, 50–51. 41  Whether the word ‘temper’ is used meaning ‘additive’ or ‘natural inclusion’ is not specified. Vriezen 1995, 30, table 1. See also n. 10. 42  P. Bes and D. Braekmans (in preparation). Thanks to the 37 

184 In Jerash, building ceramics and vessel ceramics shared the same local clays. The same was found in Jerusalem, where the clay of the Motza formation was exploited for vessel and building ceramics alike. Therefore, petro­ graphy of building ceramics can be compared with petro­ graphic studies on pottery, of which some will be highlighted in the following. A very detailed study of several wares from an Umayyad-period pottery workshop in Beth She’an/​Nysa-Scythopolis revealed some fragments of basins, cooking pots, and one lamp, which were all made of quartz-rich clays with quartz grain sizes up to ~200µm and some clay pellets.43 The objects of quartzrich clay were separated into two groups — Qz1 and 2 — which is reflected by the vessels’ typo­logy as well; vessels grouped into Qz1 consisted of grey ware basins, typically from Jerash, and Qz2 of cooking pots and a lamp. Thus, the vessels’ typo­logy and the inclusions in the raw material both point to Jerash.44 Another very detailed study, similar in method and research questions, was conducted on fifty-four jars from Hippos-Susita, ancient Antiochia ad Hippum. 45 These fifty-four objects, dating from the Hellenistic to the Byzantine period, were typo­logically very similar to each other but chemically very different. Four groups can be distinguished, of which Group 3’s main inclusion type is quartz. However, basaltoids and other volcanogenic inclusions are also present while clay pellets are absent. This excludes any relation to Jerash. All studied jars of Group 3 dated from Hellenistic to Roman times. Groups 1 and 2 of the studied jars from Hippos include a medium amount of microfossils, which make for a comparison to sample no. 29 of the present study of ceramic building material from Jerash. But in most other aspects the clay is not comparable. Groups 2 and 3 are thought to be ‘local’ to the Golan area or even Hippos itself, while Groups 1 and 4 are regional imports.

Conclusions For the many different visually distinguishable groups identified on the site, the present analytical study identified only local products: ceramic building material in ancient Gerasa can be divided into two distinctive but

personal communication with P. Bes, we were able to improve this paper by the information about their study. 43  Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2011, 219–22. 44  Cohen-Weinberger and Goren 2011, 223–24. 45  Michniewicz 2008, 110–42.

Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod similar groups, both of which contain an intermediate amount of iron oxides but varying CaO amount. Despite the challenges of identifying fixed boundaries between the groups by pXRF results, different characteristics can be seen in the amounts of quartz grains using ceramic petro­g raphy and quantitative analyses. The two groups show some similarities in their mineral compositions to the local pottery Groups 3 and 4. Intentional tempering by inorganic material is not common in the ceramic building material, whereas organic temper is. The building ceramics use the same clays as the local common ware and storage vessels, such as dolia and grey ware basins. However, unlike the pottery, the petro­graphy of the building ceramics does not correlate with typo­logy: there is no difference between the clays used for imbrices, box-flue tiles, floor tiles, etc. Nor does the petro­graphy reflect different production dates, which means the clay used for a Roman-period tegula is not different from the clay used for a Byzantine-period pila unit. A similar case is available in Jerusalem, where the clay resources of the Motza formation have been exploited at least from the Bronze Ages to the Byzantine period, also for ceramic building material. In Jerusalem, storage vessels and ceramic building material share the same clay sources during the Roman period. Among only a few other petro­graphic studies of ceramic building material, one was conducted with material found in Umm Qeis, ancient Gadara. Two non-local petro­g raphic groups were defined and these could originate from Jerash, as their main component is quartz. However, there might be more undefined petro­graphic groups, which contain quartz as a main component. Studies that list specific clay properties of ceramics in details are mostly available for vessels, but such studies on ancient ceramic building material are rare. Therefore, comparison with vessel ceramics seems not just possible but inevitable.

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter

Appendix

Paint on Roof Tiles of the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

185

Figure 6.A1. Body fragment with parts of badly damaged flange of a tegula ( J16-Xc-11-32). The object was washed in beige, and the top surface was painted with red and black paint after firing.

Introduction and Methods The object J16-Xc-11-32 46 is a fragment of a tegula (pantile), found in a layer with material that ranges in chrono­logy from the Late Byzantine to the Early Islamic period. The object’s well-preserved top surface shows a beige wash and is additionally painted with red and black colours (Fig. 6.A1). Another tegula fragment ( J16Xc-11-4),47 with less well-preserved wash and paint of the same colours, was found in the same layer. Though it does not match completely, it very likely belongs to the same pantile (Fig. 6.A2). In both cases, the paint was applied after firing judging by the state of preservation. No motif can be identified, but the paint is not thought to be applied accidently or in a phase of secondary use. The second piece ( J16-Xc-11-4) is a fragment of a lower right corner of a spouted tegula. The spout was formed by a cut-out at both lower lateral sides of the tegula and a hand-formed flange extension set around it. Such a spout redirected the flow of rainwater towards the centre of the roof tile. Spouted tegulae are rather infrequently found in the southern Levant and, therefore, are difficult to date. With the limited evidence and comparative material available, one can tentatively assign them to be Late Roman to Byzantine.48 Paint on roof tiles is equally infrequent.49 Based on the petro­g raphic analysis of J16-Xc-11-32, it belongs to the Group 4/​HL and must hence be of local production. A non-invasive study by micro-XRF was performed in three areas on the surface of J16-Xc-11-32 (Fig. 6.A3). The analyses were done at the AGiR (Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research), using a M4 Tornado Micro-XRF (Bruker Nano, Berlin, Germany) with a rhodium (Rh) tube and X-ray beam diameter of 20 μm. For the investigation of sample areas and eleSee also cat. no. 217 in Ebeling (in this volume). See also cat. no. 215 in Ebeling (in this volume). 48  See Ebeling (in this volume). 49   Some Byzantine-period roofs in Ashdod-Yam and Beth She’an made use of paint (seen by the author). One roof tile from the Georgian monastery of Umm Leisun (close to Jerusalem) showed three lines of red paint on its top surface (see Seligman and Gagoshidze 2015, fig. 19.2).

Figure 6.A2. Lower right corner fragment of a spouted tegula ( J16-Xc-11-4). The object was washed in beige, and the top surface was painted with red and black paint after firing.

46  47 

Figure 6.A3. Location of tested areas on the tegula top surface.

Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod

186

Table 6.A1. Composition of USGS GSD-1G glass standard by micro-XRF in this study compared to recommended composition (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project). GSD-1G

SiO2

TiO2

Al2O3

FeO

MnO

MgO

CaO

K2O

Recommended values

55.21

1.24

13.40

13.32

BDL

3.60

7.20

3.00

Measured**

53.20

1.34

13.68

14.07

BDL

2.74

7.30

2.84

2 std dev

0.39

0.02

0.18

0.05

-

0.04

0.16

0.05

Relative difference

3.6%

-8%

-2.1%

-5.6%

-

23.9%

-1.4%

5.3%

*

* Recommended values for GSD-1G from Jochum and others 2005 and Guillong and others 2005. ** Average of eight analyses during multiple analytical sessions. Table 6.A2. Results of the micro-XRF analyses on the top surface of J16-Xc-11-32 (Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project). background [norm. wt.%]

red pigment [norm. wt.%]

red pigment [norm. wt.%]

FeO

4.9

15.5

18.2

7.8

9.7

CaO

16.8

11.2

15.0

36.2

34.9

TiO2

1.4

2.0

1.1

1.4

1.1

SiO2

50.7

49.1

50.6

36.7

34.7

Al2O3

15.3

13.6

10.3

8.4

9.7

K2O

8.9

5.4

4.3

7.2

7.8

MgO

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.7

P2O5

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.8

0.6

MnO

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

Na2O

0.0

2.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

SrO

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.1

 

100

100

100

99

100

Compound

Figure 6.A4. Close-up of tested areas of red paint.

darkish pigment darkish pigment [norm. wt.%] [norm. wt.%]

Figure 6.A5. Close-up of tested areas of black paint.

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter mental distribution maps, x-ray tube settings were set at fluorescence radiation voltage of 50kV and current of 600 μA. The analysis was done in 20 mBar vacuum, without any filters. The software, supplied by Bruker along with the instrument, was used for the quantification and is reported as oxide weight percentages normalized to 100. Elements with atomic numbers (Z) below 11 cannot be detected, excluding significant elements such as e.g. carbon (C), which is a main constituent of the common contents of limestone and chalk (calcite) and especially high in the Group 4/​HL. Detection limits were estimated from repeated runs of glass standards, and they increase with decreasing atomic mass. For accuracy estimations, an analysis of glass standard GSD-1G is listed in Table 6.A1: this is in the order of 5 per cent for elements above 3 wt%, around 10 per cent for elements around 1 wt% (TiO2), and high for light elements such as MgO.

Results The spots analysed were the beige wash, onto which colour was applied post-firing (referred to as background in Table 6.A2), as well as the red and black paint. The beige wash’s main component is SiO2 combined with high contents of CaO and Al2O3. The content of CaO of the coloured surface is slightly higher than on the inside of the tile’s body (16.8 wt% on the surface versus 13.1 wt% on its inside).50 This could indicate that some chalk was mixed with the watered clay prior to application. As in the beige wash, the main components of the red colour are SiO2 (49.1–50.6) and to a lesser extent Al2O3 and CaO. The red and the background, therefore, do not differ much, with the exception of iron oxide (FeO), which is three times higher in the red paint relative to the background and the black. The black paint is very different from the wash and red paint. The SiO2 and Al2O3 amounts are considerably lower than in the red paint and the beige wash, while the black paint shows a very high amount of CaO. Potassium (K2O) is highest in the background (8.9 wt%), slightly lower in the black (7.2–7.8 wt%), and considerably lower in the red paint (4.3–5.4 wt%).

Interpretation The basis for the beige wash is regular local clay. It is probably tempered with chalk or gypsum, leading to the beige colour during firing. The beige wash is the most common found on roof tiles of ancient Gerasa.51 The red paint is rich in iron oxides, which most likely stem from ochre, although a red colour can also be achieved by other iron-based minerals such as pure hematite (Fe2O3). Both types have also been reported from pigments and paints on fragments of wall plaster from Jerash.52 Iron oxide (most commonly in the form of ochre) is the most common pigment used for reds (as well as for extracting iron). It was widely used throughout the Mediterranean and throughout times. The high CaO in the black paint is not directly connected to the colour. The pigment itself is probably carbon-based (coal), which is suggested by the absence of elevated manganese concentrations (pyrolusite MnO2) as well. Such low masses, however, cannot be detected by the micro-XRF. The addition of chalk (CaCO3) to the coal likely led to the high CaO in this pigment. Its addition may have been to obtain a better tone for the colour or to make it stick better. Summary and Conclusion The micro-XRF analysis conducted on the surface of the tegula J16-Xc-11-32 showed very distinct elemental components for each of the coloured areas. For the red paint, only the use of iron oxide compounds could be detected, whereas indications of more expensive red pigments such as cinnabar and red lead were absent. Likewise, the absence of elevated manganese concentrations (pyrolusite MnO2) in the black paints points to the use of soot, coal, or burned bone for the black paint. While the beige background and the red paint are claybased, the black is mixed on chalk. Studies conducted on coloured wall plaster fragments and pigments excavated in Jerash showed the same mineral compositions. As the manufacture of the tegula is local, all the necessary raw elements for the wash and colours applied to the tiles’ surface were likewise locally available.

51  50 

Compare Table 6.A2 with Table 6.2.

187

52 

Ebeling (in this volume). Barfod (in this volume).

188

Philip Ebeling and Gry H. Barfod

Works Cited Adam, J.-P. 1994. Roman Building: Materials and Techniques, trans. by A. Mathews (London: Batsford). Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1982. ‘The Ceramics from the Synagogue of Horvat ‘Ammudim and their Chrono­logical Implications’, Israel Exploration Journal, 32: 13–31. Åkerström, Å. 1966. Die architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens (Lund: Gleerup). Alcock, S. E. and others. 2010. ‘The Brown Uni­ver­sity Petra Archaeo­logical Project: Report on the 2009 Exploration Season in the “Upper Market”’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities, 54: 153–66. Barfod, G. and others. 2019. ‘Middle Islamic Pottery from Jerash. New Research on Ceramic Fabrics and Implications for Production Patterns of HMGP Pottery of Northern Jordan’, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäo­logie, 12: 140–76. Barkan, D. and others. 2013. ‘The “Dor 2006” Shipwreck: The Ceramic Material’, Tel Aviv, 40: 117–43. Ben-Shlomo, D. 2006. ‘Petro­graphic Analysis of Roman-Byzantine Roof Tiles: Preliminary Results’, in 34th International Symposium on Archaeometry: 3–7 May 2004, Zaragoza, Spain (Zaragoza: CSIC), pp. 413–18. —— 2012. ‘Petro­graphic Analysis of Stamped Roof Tiles from the Jewish Quarter’, in O. Gutfeld (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, v: The Cardo (Area X) and the Nea Church (Areas D and T): Final Report ( Jerusalem: Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 393–95. Bes, P. M. and D. Braekmans (in preparation). ‘Covering the Roof. A Macroscopic, Morpho­logical, and Petro­graphic Study of the Late Roman Roof Tiles from Horvat Kur, Galilee (Israel)’. Cohen-Weinberger, A. 2003. ‘Petro­graphic Analysis of Bricks from Area 6’, in E.  Mazar (ed.), The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by Benjamin Mazar: Final Reports, ii: The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods ( Jerusalem: Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeo­logy), p. 199. —— 2016. ‘Petro­graphy of Objects from the Kiln’, in S. Weksler-Bidolah, ‘A Villa and a Kiln of Late Roman – Early Byzantine Time in ‘En Ya’el, Nahal Refa’im, Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 87: 113 (in Hebrew). Cohen-Weinberger, A. and Y. Goren. 2011. ‘The Clay Sources of the Theater Pottery Workshop. A Petro­graphic Study’, in R. BarNathan and W. Atrash (eds), Beth She’an, ii: Baysan: The Theater Pottery Workshop ( Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority), pp. 215–28. Cohen-Weinberger, A., D. Levi, and R. Be’eri. 2020. ‘On the Raw Materials in the Ceramic Workshops of Jerusalem, before and after 70 c.e.’, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research, 383: 33–59. Di Segni, L. 2011. ‘An Inscribed Roof-Tile from the Bakery’, in E. Mazar (ed.), The Temple Mount Excavations in Jerusalem 1968–1978 Directed by B. Mazar: Final Reports, iv: The Tenth Legion in Aelia Capitolina, Qedem, 25 ( Jerusalem: Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem, Institute of Archaeo­logy), pp. 235–36. Glass, J. 1980. ‘Petro­logical Analysis of a Type A Tegula’, in J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert (eds), Tell Keisan (1971–1976): une cité phénicienne en Galilée, Orbis biblicus et orientalis series archaeo­logica, 1 (Paris: Gabalda), p. 87. Goren, Y. 1996. ‘The Southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age IV: The Petro­graphic Perspective’, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research, 303: 33–72. Guillong, M. and others. 2005. ‘Preliminary Characterisation of New Glass Reference Materials (GSA-1G, GSC-1G, GSD-1G and GSE-1G) by Laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry Using 193 nm, 213 nm and 266 nm Wave­lengths’, Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 29: 315–31. Hamari, P. 2017. ‘The Roofscapes of Petra: The Use of Ceramic Roof-Tiles in a Nabataean-Roman Urban Context’, in P. Mills and U. Rajala (eds), Forms of Dwelling: 20 Years of Taskscapes in Archaeo­logy (Oxford: Oxbow), pp. 85–113. Hampe, R. and A. Winter. 1965. Bei Töpfern und Zieglern in Süditalien, Sizilien und Griechenland (Mainz: Verlag des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums). Jochum, K. P. and others. 2005. ‘Chemical Characterisation of the USGS Reference Glasses GSA-1G, GSC-1G, GSD-1G, GSE-1G, BCR-2G, BHVO-2G and BIR-1G Using EPMA, ID-TIMS, ID-ICP-MS and LA-ICP-MS’,  Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 29: 285–302. Johnston, H. 1974. ‘The Biblical Potter’, The Biblical Archaeo­logist, 37.4: 86–106. Kanicky, V. and J. M. Mermet. 1999. ‘Use of a Single Calibration Graph for the Determination of Major Elements in Geo­logical Materials by Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry with Added Internal Standards’, Fresenius’ Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 363: 294–99. Landgraf, J. 1980. ‘Roof Tiles’, in J. Briend and J.-B. Humbert (eds), Tell Keisan (1971–1976): une cité phénicienne en Galilée, Orbis biblicus et orientalis series archaeo­logica, 1 (Fribourg: Èditions Universitaires), pp. 83–87. Lippi, M. M. and P. Pallecchi. 2017. ‘Organic Inclusions’, in A. Hunt (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Archaeo­logical Ceramic Analysis (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 565–82.

6. An Archaeo-Scientific Analysis of Building Ceramics from the Northwest Quarter

189

Merkel, S. (forthcoming). ‘Analytical and Technical Studies of Roman, Byzantine and Early Umayyad Ceramics from Jerash, Jordan’, in H.  Möller (ed.), The Pottery: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, Jerash Papers (Turnhout: Brepols). Merkel, S. and M. Prange (in press). ‘Archaeometric Analysis of Ceramic from Jerash’, in G. Kalaitzoglou and others (eds), ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. Möller, H. (forthcoming). The Pottery: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, Jerash Papers (Turnhout: Brepols). Michniewicz, J. 2008. ‘Petro­graphy and Chemistry of Hippos Jars’, in A.  Segal and others (eds), Hippos-Sussita: Ninth Season of Excavations ( June – July 2008) (Haifa: Zinman Institute), pp. 110–42. Quinn, S. P. 2013. Ceramic Petro­graphy: An Interpretation of Archaeo­logical Pottery and Related Artefacts in Thin Section (Oxford: Archaeopress). Rook, T. 2013. Roman Building Techniques (Stroud: Amberley). Saller, S. 1941. The Memorial of Moses on Mount Nebo ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Press). Sarantidis, K. 2015. ‘An Ancient Roofing System from Kastraki on Milesian Agathonisi’, in E. Laflı and S. Patacı (eds), Recent Studies on the Archaeo­logy of Anatolia, British Archaeo­logical Reports, International Series, 2750 (Oxford: Archaeopress), pp. 113–18. Seligman, J. and I. Gagoshidze. 2015. ‘A Georgian Monastery from the Byzantine Period at Khirbat Umm Leisun, Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot, 83: 145–79. Shapiro, A. 1997. ‘Petro­graphic Analysis of Roman Clay Sarcophagi from Northwestern Israel and Cyprus’, ‘Atiqot, 33: 1–5. —— 2017. ‘Petro­graphic Examination of Roof Tiles and Mortaria Bowls from Legio’, ‘Atiqot, 89: 41–47. Skibo, J. M., M. B. Schiffer, and K. C. Reid. 1989. ‘Organic-Tempered Pottery: An Experimental Study’, American Antiquity, 54: 122–46. Stilborg, O. 2001. ‘Temper for the Sake of Coherence: Analyses of Bone- and Chaff-Tempered Ceramics from Iron Age Scandinavia’, European Journal of Archaeo­logy, 4: 398–404. Sukenik, E. L. 1932. The Ancient Synagogue of Beth Alpha (London: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press). Tepper, Y. 2007. ‘The Roman Legionary Camp at Legio, Israel: Results of an Archaeo­logical Survey and Observations on the Roman Military Presence at the Site’, in A. S. Lewin and P. Pellegrini (eds), The Late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy (May 2007) (Oxford: Hadrian), pp. 57–71. Vriezen, K. J. H. 1994. Die Ausgrabungen unter der Erlöserkirche im Muristan, Jerusalem (1970–1974) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). —— 1995. ‘A Preliminary Study of the Byzantine Roof Tiles (Tegulae and Imbrices) from Areas 1 and 2 in Umm Qeis ( Jordan)’, Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Techno­logy, Uni­ver­sity of Leiden, 13: 26–39.

7. ‘Misfired’ Ceramic tegulae from the Northwest Quarter Gry H. Barfod Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research (AGiR) Platform, Department of Geoscience / Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet), School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark. [email protected]

Philip Ebeling Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie / ​Archäo­logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany. [email protected]

Charles E. Lesher Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research (AGiR) Platform, Department of Geoscience / Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet), School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark. [email protected]

Figure 7.1. Photos of samples in this study. Te1: J15-R-13-2. Tegula with sintered surface up showing the gradual effect from melting. Te2: J15-Qd-1-29. Tegula showing a prominent 6  cm large fracture below sintered surface. Te3: J15-Pc-15-3. Top surface of tegula that has significantly expanded throughout due to heating and melting. On the surface is an elongated depression of unknown origin. Te4: J16-Wbd-29-65. Successfully fired tegula with greyish-blue surface (see result section). CW1: J15-Oi-85-4. Cooking ware showing the protection of the pottery in the form of a refractory clay coating. Inserted picture shows details of the combed decoration pattern on outside surface of the cooking ware. Po1: J15-Pd-5-10. Pottery with interior Fe-rich dark-brown coating. Inserted picture shows in detail the even distribution of the coating.

Introduction and Sample Selection The composition and textures of ceramics that have been exposed to high temperatures due to house fires or kiln misfires can provide critical constraints on the nature of the fire and the fuel types, which may, ultimately, have important implications for better understanding the local techno­logical know-how and traditions. The targeted material in this study includes ceramics that have been exposed to unintentionally high heat. The selected samples had surfaces indicated to have been exposed to heat by either being partially melted, sintered, blackened, and/​or had large vesicles from gas produced during overheating. * We are grateful to Prof. Rubina Raja and Prof. Achim Lichten­berger for selecting the samples for this study, for the opportunity to study these finds, and for providing all stratigraphic information and context.

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume i: Architecture and Building Ceramics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 191–199 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126442

Gry H. Barfod, Philip Ebeling, and Charles E. Lesher

192

Table 7.1. Overview of colour, composition, and type of fired ceramic material from Gerasa. Find. ID.

Cat. no.

Typo­logy

Colours

Inclusions

Description

J15-R-13-2

Te1

Tegula rim

Beige to black

5% Qtz

Melted on top. Misfired

J15-Qd-11-29

Te2

Tegula

Beige to black

5% Qtz

Melted on top. Misfired

J15-Pc-15-3

Te3

Tegula

Black

5-10% Qtz

Melted throughout. Misfired

J16-Wbd-29-65

Te4

Tegula body

Beige

10% Qtz

Regular firing. Bluish surface

J15-Oi-85-4

CW1

Cooking ware

Dark beige to black

< 5% Qtz

Regular firing. Blackish on outer surface

J15-Pd-5-10

Po1

Pottery

Brown

15% Qtz

Regular firing. FeO-coated interior

Figure 7.2. Overview pictures showing fabrics and μ-XRF analysis areas (A–C). a and b) Misfired tegula Te1–2 showing the gradual change from the regular light-coloured ceramic body of the tile to a black partially melted top (red arrows). c) Black misfired tegula Te3 that has partially melted throughout indicating heating from several angles. Note that the gradual increase in round vesicle size increasing towards the top of the picture indicates that the heating exposure was highest from this side. d) Regular fired tegula Te4 with surface of blue-coloured coating (surface is not shown). e) Cooking ware CW1 with black-coloured part near and at the surface exposed to the fire. f ) Pottery Po1 with Fe-coated interior.

7. ‘Misfired’ Ceramic tegulae from the Northwest Quarter The goal of this study is to constrain their firing conditions by comparing the chemical compositions and changes in fabrics within these deformed areas versus unaffected areas from three partially melted tile (tegula) fragments and one cooking ware from the Northwest Quarter. The results for the partially melted fragments compared to successfully fired ceramics constrain differences in chemical and textural effects from unintentional versus intentional heating. The material comes from the 2015–2016 campaigns in the Northwest Quarter1 and includes fragments from three roof tiles (tegulae) with clearly vitrified surfaces (Te1–3), one blackened cooking ware (CW1), and two pieces of ceramics with coated surfaces (one more tegula Te4 and a pottery vessel Po1). Pictures of these samples are shown in Figure 7.1 and detailed descriptions provided below and summarized in Table 7.1. In the descriptions L refers to Length, W to Width, and T to Thickness, and, throughout the text, the term ‘fabrics’ refers to the ceramic bulk material and its characteristics with regards to colour as well as to the size, frequency, and shape of vesicles, cracks, inclusions, and/​or temper.

Te1. J15-R-13-2

Tegula rim

L.: 11.2 cm; W.: 5.2 cm; T.: 3.1 cm. The tegula (roof tile) rim fragment comes from a disturbed layer of post-Mamluk date within evidence 13 in trench R.2 The curved rim side is so intensively vitrified that tegula bottom and top cannot be distinguished. A slight depression on one side indicates the presence of a groove that presumably would have run roughly parallel to the unbroken rim surface (Fig. 7.1, Te1). The most intense vitrification is about 1 mm thick, greenish-black and smooth with a glass-like shine. Below is an about 1  cm thick zone of blackened, highly vesicular fabric (Fig.  7.2a, red arrow) that gradually transforms into beige ceramics texture. The thickness varies significantly, but with a maximum of only 3.1 cm, it is most likely a tegula (pantile) rim rather than a later (floor tile), or a pila unit (hypocaust brick). Due to the mixed context, specifics about its use/​reuse cannot be determined.

1  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b); Lichtenberger and Raja 2018; 2019. 2  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b); Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 66; 2018, 153–55.

193

Te2. J15-Qd-11-29

Tegula L.: 7.8 cm; W.: 6.5 cm; T.: 3.4 cm. Evidence 11 in trench Q located just east of the city wall is a disturbed fill context with a high abundance of late Byzantine to early Umayyad pottery fragments, whereas most other objects date to Roman times (second–third centuries ad).3 This tile fragment is broken at several angles with 5–6 cm horizontal fractures in the centre that appear to be remains of air pockets formed in response to heating (Fig. 7.1, Te2). The tegula bottom surface is recognizable due to several small chaff impressions and the vitrified surface thus corresponds to the top of the tile. Vitrification characteristics correspond to the observations for sample Te1 with a thin surface of greenish-black, smooth glassy melt, then a black, highly vesicular texture gradually changing into regular beige ceramics. The blackened zone reaches about 1–2 cm into the tile (Fig. 7.2b, red arrow).

Te3. J15-Pc-15-3

Tegula rim or body with smoothed break L.: 10 cm; W.: 4.3 cm; T.: 3.5 cm. This fragment was recovered from a destruction layer of domestic nature in trench P with a terminus ad quem of ad 749. Its use within the domestic setting is uncertain but was most likely as wall filling.4 One side is smooth representing a rim or, alternatively, a break smoothened due to secondary heat exposure. Despite the significant expansion due to vitrification, a depression preserved on one side could represent a chaff impression. A second shallow and straight impression is difficult to interpret since it does not continue throughout the fragment’s entire length (Fig. 7.1, Te3), and is unlikely to be a potter’s mark since these most often are placed away from the rim. The fragment is blackened throughout implying heating exposure from several angles, although higher frequency of vesicles towards the surface opposite the side with the chaff impression seems to imply higher temperature here (right side of Fig. 7.2c).

3  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 158–61; 2019, 64–66. 4  Ebeling (in this volume), cat. no. 46.

Gry H. Barfod, Philip Ebeling, and Charles E. Lesher

194

Te4. J16-Wbd-29-65

Tegula body H.: 5 cm; L.: 6.1 cm; T.: 1.8 cm. Evidence 29 within trench W is rich in material from the Byzantine to Umayyad periods.5 The tegula fragment was selected due to its unusual greyish-blue and glossy surface initially identified as glaze (Fig. 7.1, Te4). As is the case in the non-melted parts of samples Te1 and Te2, tegula Te4 has several 5–6 cm horizontal fractures in its centre (Fig. 7.2d). It classifies as a tegula body given the lack of a spherical form combined with its thickness of 1.8 cm; too thick for any vessel type, but too thin to be a wall or floor tile.

CW1. J15-Oi-85-4

Cooking ware (storage jar) body

L.: 8.6 cm; W.: 7 cm.; T.: 0.9 cm. The small infill that makes up evidence 85 in trench Q yielded only few objects, very few of which were diagnostic pottery fragments.6 The thick rounded pottery sherd chosen for this study is unusual due to a coating of brown chalk covering the blackened part of the sherd (Fig. 7.1, CW1; Fig. 7.2e). The exterior surface of the pot has a combed decoration pattern visible to one side where the crumbly coating has fallen off (inserted picture in Fig. 7.1, CW1). The interior surface shows faint wheel marks, partly smoothed by hand modelling, which may explain its lack of curvature.

Po1. J15-Pd-5-10

Storage basin base H.: 5.05  cm; L.: 8.8  cm; T.: 0.5–0.9  cm; Diam.: not measurable. The mixed and disturbed topsoil, covering the debris of the collapsed dwellings’ courtyard, yielded two fragments of a storage basin’s base and wall.7 The exterior is covered in blackened clays for protection against high heat, whereas the interior is coated by a smooth, matt, reddish-brown coat (Fig.  7.1, Po1). The connection

5  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 156; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). 6  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 64. 7  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); Lichtenberger and Raja 2018, 158–61; 2019, 64–66.

between base and wall shows traces of the addition of extra clays by hand to enhance stability (inserted picture in Fig. 7.1, Po1). The base is about 0.5 cm thick without any visible inclusion or fractures (Fig. 7.2f ).

Methods Light Microscopy Fractions from deformed samples Te1, Te2, and Te3 were crushed by hand in an agate mortar, submerged in immersion oil, and examined in transmitted and crosspolarized light using a Nikon Eclipse E600 POL microscope equipped with a Nikon digital camera and imaging software. Micro-X-Ray Fluorescence (μ-XRF) The samples were cut perpendicular to the heated surface to obtain exposures with minimal alteration (Fig.  7.2). These were analysed by micro-X-ray fluorescence (μ-XRF) to determine chemical composition and, for selected regions, construct 2D chemical maps to discern fabrics. In addition to the cut surfaces, analysis was performed directly on the surface of samples CW1 and Po1 to examine the coatings. All measurements were performed using a M4 Tornado μ-XRF (Bruker Nano, Berlin, Germany) under near-vacuum conditions (20  mbar). The μ-XRF is equipped with a rhodium (Rh) tube and a poly-capillary lens that focuses the x-ray beam to a diameter of 20 μm. Analytical settings were fluorescence radiation voltage of 50 kV and a current of 600 μA. Results are reported in Table 7.2. Detection limits, reproducibility, and accuracy were estimated from repeated runs of USGS glass standards GSD-1 and GSE-1. The accuracies are ~5 per cent for elements ≥ 3 wt% and 10 per cent for elements below 3 wt%, whereas detection limits for most elements are more than 0.1 wt%.8 For each sample, two or three areas (1.6 × 1.4 mm) marked A–C on Figure 7.2 were mapped for two cycles with a scan speed of 800 μm/​sec. The sample compositions in Table 7.1 represent averages and two standard deviations from three analyses of 0.5 × 0.5 mm areas within these maps.

8 

See Barfod and others (2019) for further details on standard reproducibility and detection limits.

7. ‘Misfired’ Ceramic tegulae from the Northwest Quarter

195

Table 7.2. Major and minor elemental data for the Gerasa ceramics obtained by micro-XRF in weight percent (wt%). CAT. NO.

FIND ID.

ANALYTICAL AREA*

SiO2

TiO2

Al2O3

Fe2O3

MnO

MgO

CaO

Na2O

K2O

Tegula group T1

J15-R-13-2

A — melt

54.2 (1.6)

1.4 (0.2) 16.5 (0.7)

7.9 (0.8)

0.1 (0.1)

0.8 (0.1)

15.6 (1.5)

nd

3.5 (0.5)

T1

J15-R-13-2

B — intermediate 51.9 (1.5)

1.4 (0.1) 16.6 (0.6)

9.0 (1.2)

0.1 (0.0)

1.2 (0.3)

17.3 (0.2)

nd

2.4 (0.2)

T1

J15-R-13-2

C — ceramics

1.5 (0.2) 16.5 (0.8)

8.1 (0.8)

0.1 (0.0)

1.4 (0.4)

19.1 (3.5)

nd

2.0 (0.3)

T2

J15-Qd-11-29

A — melt

58.1 (0.6) 1.3 (0.04) 14.6 (0.3)

6.6 (0.5)

0.1 (0.0)

1.1 (0.4)

14.7 (0.5)

nd

3.6 (0.4)

T2

J15-Qd-11-29

1.6 (0.5) 15.1 (0.9)

6.8 (0.2)

0.1 (0.0)

1.2 (0.3)

16.0 (1.0)

nd

2.6 (0.4)

T2

J15-Qd-11-29

C — ceramics

56.8 (0.6)

1.6 (0.4) 15.5 (0.3)

7.0 (0.1)

0.1 (0.0)

1.3 (0.4)

14.9 (0.1)

nd

2.8 (0.1)

T3

J15-Pc-15-3

A — melt

56.4 (3.0)

1.5 (0.2) 16.9 (0.9)

7.6 (0.8)

0.1 (0.0)

0.9 (1.0)

13.0 (1.3)

nd

3.4 (0.3)

T3

J15-Pc-15-3

B — melt

56.5 (2.4)

1.4 (0.2) 18.0 (0.9)

7.0 (0.4)

0.1 (0.0)

1.7 (0.3)

12.0 (1.2)

nd

3.2 (0.2)

T3

J15-Pc-15-3

C — melt

56.0 (1.7)

1.5 (0.1) 18.0 (1.2)

7.4 (1.1)

0.1 (0.1)

1.6 (0.5)

12.1 (1.2)

nd

3.3 (0.2)

T4

J16-Wbd-29-65

A — ceramics

47.5 (2.7)

1.3 (0.1) 17.8 (0.6)

9.6 (0.9)

0.1 (0.0)

0.5 (0.7)

21.3 (3.9)

nd

1.8 (0.3)

T4

J16-Wbd-29-65

B — ceramics

48.9 (2.1)

1.3 (0.1) 18.0 (1.2) 10.6 (0.9) 0.1 (0.0)

nd

19.6 (2.1)

nd

1.4 (0.3)

T4

J16-Wbd-29-65

Top coating

1.1 (0.1) 76.2 (6.1)

nd

0.8 (0.3)

51.2 (3.4)

B — intermediate 56.6 (0.7)

12.8 (3.9) 0.3 (0.2)

4.5 (1.3)

2.0 (1.4)

nd

Cooking ware CW1

J15-Oi-85-4

A — cooking pot 60.7 (0.7)

1.7 (0.2) 22.5 (0.4)

6.2 (0.6)

0.0 (0.0)

0.0 (0.0)

6.1 (0.5)

nd

2.8 (0.2)

CW1

J15-Oi-85-4

B — cooking pot 61.5 (1.1)

2.0 (0.4) 21.0 (1.4)

5.9 (0.1)

0.1 (0.0)

0.7 (0.2)

6.8 (0.7)

nd

2.1 (0.1)

Pottery with iron oxide coating Po1

J15-Pd-5-10

A — pottery

57.1 (1.0)

1.7 (0.1) 20.2 (0.2)

7.4 (0.3)

0.1 (0.0)

1.5 (0.6)

9.7 (1.5)

nd

2.3 (0.0)

Po1

J15-Pd-5-10

B — pottery

56.9 (0.5)

1.6 (0.1) 20.3 (0.5)

8.5 (1.3)

0.1 (0.0)

1.0 (0.3)

10.2 (1.2)

nd

2.2 (0.1)

Po1

J15-Pd-5-10

Interior coating

nd

1.2 (0.3)

1.9 (0.4)

nd

0.3 (0.1)

72.6 (3.5) 2.0 (0.2)

5.1 (1.1) 72.6 (2.3)

(#) = 2*std dev on 3 repeat analysis given on the trailing digits ; nd = not detected; * refers to A, B, & C marked in Fig. 7.2

Results Table 7.2 shows there is overall correlation between typo­logy and chemistry among the analysed ceramics. The four tegulae samples (Te1–4) have high CaO concentrations between 11–21  wt%, whereas the pottery (CW1 and Po1) samples are characterized by lower CaO between 6–10 wt%. The tegula sample Te1–3 has one or more sides that have been exposed to high enough temperatures to expand the original shape and fabrics. To look for signs of melting (in the form of glass), we lightly crushed small fractions of the blackened, vesicular fabrics and the beige ceramic fabrics in samples Te1–2. For Te3 the entire fabric is black and vesicular, so we only took one fraction from the centre of this sample. Examination of the crushed fractions by optical microscopy (transmitted and cross-polarized light) showed a

high abundance of glass within the black fabrics of samples Te1-3 indicative of melting. Figure 7.3 provides a comparison of black (melted) and beige (non-melted) parts of the tegulae for Te2. The material from the blackened regions consists of a few quartz grains interspersed with vesicular glass sherds (Fig. 7.3a) that are opaque under polarized light. In contrast, glass is absent in fractions from the beige parts in Te1 and Te2 where mixes of fine-grained brownish material with quartz grains dominate (Fig. 7.3b). In order to test the effect of the melting on fabrics and composition, we mapped three areas across each of the partially melted samples by μ-XRF (marked A–C in Fig. 7.2a–c) and two areas across of the samples that did not show signs of melting (marked A–B in Fig. 7.2d–f ). These maps shows

Gry H. Barfod, Philip Ebeling, and Charles E. Lesher

196

close to sintered surfaces of tegulae Te1–3. Figure 7.4 shows the distribution of K2O from 6 mm depth below the partially melted surface in sample Te2. From 6 to 1 mm depth, K2O is constant around 3 wt%, which is similar to concentrations observed in other tiles and pottery fired using local Gerasa clays (Table 7.1).9 However, within 1  mm of the surface, the K 2O concentration increases rapidly from 4 wt% to 6–8 wt% (see inserted picture in Fig. 7.4). This observation is consistent with surface contamination from burning of plant or wood fuel vapours 10 as also documented in archaeo­logical glass.11 In summary, with the exception of K, the tegulae and cooking pottery samples retained their chemical composition throughout despite being subjected to high temperature and melting.

Discussion

Figure 7.3. Examples of lightly crushed material from melted and nonmelted part of Te2 under light microscope. The material is submerged in immersion oil and studied under transmitted light (note both pictures are 10×). a) Glass sherds that are opaque under polarized light with black inclusions (char?). b) Soft fine-grained crushed ceramic fabrics. See text for details.

that none of the samples had temper added such as e.g. grog, but have a low abundance of 5–15 per cent quartz inclusions (Table 7.1). Fabrics of the melted parts were blackened with spherical vesicles ranging in diameter from a few µm to mm (Figs 7.2 and 7.4), whereas the non-melted parts of the tegulae have beige fabrics characterized by elongated cracks that could be the result of heat expansion between multiple clay layers during primary production (Fig. 7.2a–b, Te1–2 and Fig. 7.2d, Te4). Contrary to the tegula samples, the pottery samples CW1 and Po1 have dense, homogenous, and very fine-grained fabrics (Fig. 7.2e–f, CW1 and Po1). The analysed areas across the tegulae and pottery samples show no significant compositional change with the exception of potassium (K), which is strongly enriched

Gerasa’s status as a centre of pottery production from Hellenistic to early Islamic times is demonstrated by the more than 800,000 sherds recovered from the Northwest Quarter.12 The sheer number of sherds and the fact that only a handful show signs of misfiring attest to the level of knowledge and skills the local potters possessed. Their presence also attests to the local nature of tile production. The successfully fired cooking ware CW1 shows the effect from intentional heating as a blackened colour that extends about 1 mm into the pottery without any melting or chemical effects (Fig. 7.2e). A layer of refractory clays protected the pottery surface against direct exposure to the fire. This layer is crumbly and probably meant as a temporary protection layer (fireclays; see Fig. 7.1, CW1). Previous geochemical work on the pottery and tile13 as well as on middle Islamic (Mamluk) pottery14 allows for contextualization of the ceramics in this study. Figure 7.5 shows the overlap for the tegulae (Te1–4) as well as Po1 samples with the med-high CaO group (defined by Merkel (forthcoming ) for Roman to Islamic pot-

9 

Merkel (forthcoming ); Möller (forthcoming ); Merkel and Prange (in press); Ebeling and Barfod (in this volume). 10  E.g. Thy and others 2015. 11  E.g. Barfod and others 2018; Rehren and others 2010. 12  E.g. Raja and Lichtenberger 2017; Romanowska and others 2018. 13  Möller 2017; Merkel (forthcoming); Möller (forthcoming); Merkel and Prange (in press); Ebeling and Barfod (in this volume). 14  Barfod and others (2019).

7. ‘Misfired’ Ceramic tegulae from the Northwest Quarter tery sherds)15 and the Mamluk marl type pottery,16 whereas the cooking ware CW1 is similar to the low-CaO pottery type. The implication that the material in this study comes from local clay sources excludes unusual chemical compositions as the reason for the partial melting. Instead, melting must have occurred due to unintentionally high temperatures making the tegulae useless for their original purpose as building material. The most pronounced effects of the high temperature exposure include melting, swelling, black colour, and spherical vesicles (decreasing in size away from the highest temperature exposure). Surprisingly, compositional effects appear to be negligible, at least on the 10s of micron scale allowed for by the μ-XRF analyses (except at the sintered surface, see below). To understand the conditions that led to the melting, it is critical to consider the role of potassium and sodium given that slightly elevated concentrations of these elements significantly lower the melting temperature of ceramics. While Na2O concentrations are very low in all samples (Table 7.2), there is little doubt that the K 2O contents up to 8 wt% near and at the sintered tegula surfaces functioned as a flux allowing for melting to begin at temperatures well below 1000 °C (Fig. 7.4).17 The fast drop in K2O concentrations below the sintered surfaces to 3 wt% indicates that temperatures must have been significantly higher to allow for melting here or that K-rich vapour was introduced along cracks in the porous fabrics lowering the local melting point of the surrounding ceramics.18 Two observations support the latter interpretation. Firstly, the large fractures present in the regularly fired tegula (e.g. Te4) as well as in the non-deformed parts of tegulae Te1 and Te2 make for excellent pathways and, secondly, the diffuse lower boundaries of the melting zones in sample Te1 and, in particular, Te2 suggest intrusion along these pathways (see in particular outlined melt zone in Fig. 7.2b where it appears that K 15 

Merkel (forthcoming); Möller (forthcoming). Barfod and others (2019). 17  E.g. Tran and others 1999; Shelby 2005; Thy and others 2015. 18  E.g. McCaffrey and others 2019. 16 

197

Figure 7.4. Close-up image from Bruker μ-XRF of partially melted part of tegula sample Te2 showing relatively constant K2O concentrations around 3 wt% (numbers in white boxes) in a profile from 6 to 1 mm below the surface that was exposed to the highest temperatures. The blue box marks the location of detailed, inserted elemental map of K distribution (strong purple = highest concentration). Inserted map shows highly elevated K concentrations very near and at the melted surface corresponding to significant contamination from fuel vapours. From about 6–8 wt% K2O at the surface, there is a rapid decrease to about 4 wt% at 1 mm depth. The K2O concentrations of 2–3 wt% observed from about 1 mm depth correspond to what would be expected in typical tiles and ceramics fired using local Gerasa clays (Table 7.2; Merkel (forthcoming); Ebeling and Barfod (this volume).

vapours led to melting from the top and along pathways from the left side of the tile). K-rich vapours to enable flux melting presumably originate from burning of biomass such as plant or wood during house fires or in a furnace environment. Houses in Gerasa were constructed from the local limestone held together by mortar and although wood and straw were present in these structures, there would provide only limited access to organic material during a house fire. Also, the large circular vesicles in melted samples most likely formed during clay decomposition and release of CO2 during breakdown of chalk to lime. This explanation requires that melting occurred during the primary firing of the tiles. The char-like material in the glass sherds (lower left in Fig. 7.3a) indicates that melting occurred under reduced conditions. Overall, the combination of clay decomposition, reducing firing conditions, and a high proportion of biofuels indicate a furnace environment and, thus, a misfiring leading to partial melting of the tiles. If this was the case, Te2 would have then been lying upside down in the furnace during firing since the melted surface corresponds to the top side of the tile.

198

Gry H. Barfod, Philip Ebeling, and Charles E. Lesher

Figure 7.5. Variation diagram of CaO (wt%) versus TiO2 (wt%) for the misfired tegulae, cooking ware, and pottery (see symbols in legend) from this study compared to other clay-fired material from the Northwest Quarter; Grog tempered and Marl groups from middle Islamic times (red fields; Barfod and others 2019) and very low CaO, Low CaO, and med-high CaO groups from Roman, Byzantine, and early Islamic pottery (blue fields; Merkel (forthcoming); Ebeling and Barfod (this volume).

Conclusion and Future Work

Acknowledgements

Studies of partially melted tegula samples from Gerasa show these to be of local origin and belonging to the ‘Med-high CaO’ group. A surprising observation is the similarity in chemical compositions of non-melted and melted parts of the samples. The only exception to this is the concentration of potassium, which increases rapidly closely to and at sintered surfaces (from 3 to 8 wt% K2O). This phenomenon is well known to be caused by fuel vapour contamination produced from burning biomass (most likely wood). Textural and colour differences of the melted portions of tegulae are significant and include blackened and glassy fabrics as well as an increase in vesicle sizes towards the heated surfaces. Given the presence of char and the abundant spherical vesicles associated with glassy regions, we conclude that melting occurred under reducing conditions and at temperatures sufficient to extensively melt the tile. Melting likely began at temperatures below 1000 °C at the sintered tegula surfaces due to the addition of potassium from fuel vapour, but must have exceeded 1000 °C to explain the more extensive melting deeper into the tile. We propose that melting in the deeper parts of the tiles was furthermore facilitated by K-bearing vapours following cracks, thus leading to localized lowering of the melting temperatures of the surrounding ceramics. The extensive melting led to vesiculation during breakdown of clays and partial melting during tegula firing.

All analyses were performed at Aarhus Geochemical and Isotope Research (AGiR) Platform. Discussions with Peter Thy, Rubina Raja, and Achim Lichtenberger significantly improved this manu­script. The project was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation; the Danish National Research Foundation under Grant DNRF119 — Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet); the Danish National Research Foundation under Grant 26–123/​8 (Niels Bohr Professorship in Geoscience), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; Deutscher Palästina-Verein; the EliteForsk initiative of the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science; and H.  P. Hjerl Hansens Mindefondet for Dansk Palæstinaforskning.

7. ‘Misfired’ Ceramic tegulae from the Northwest Quarter

199

Works Cited Barfod, G. H. and others. 2018. ‘Geochemistry of Byzantine and Early Islamic Glass from Jerash, Jordan: Typo­logy, Recycling, and Provenance’, Geoarchaeo­logy, 33: 623–40. Barfod, G. H. and others. 2019. ‘Middle Islamic Pottery from Jerash: Ceramic Fabrics and the Implications for Production Patterns of HMGP Pottery in Northern Jordan’, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäo­logie, 12: 140–67. Kalaitzoglou, G. and others (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. —— (forthcoming b). ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 61. Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja. 2018. ‘A View of Gerasa/​Jerash from its Urban Periphery: The Northwest Quarter and its Significance for the Understanding of the Urban Development of Gerasa from the Roman to the Early Islamic Period’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 143–66. —— 2019. ‘The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project: Results from the 2014–2015 Seasons’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 13: 51–71. McCaffrey, Z. and others. 2019. ‘Air and Steam Gasification of Almond Biomass’, Frontiers in Energy Research, 7: 84. Merkel, S. (forthcoming). ‘Analytical and Technical Studies of Roman, Byzantine and Early Umayyad Ceramics from Jerash, Jordan’, in H.  Möller (ed.), The Pottery: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, Jerash Papers (Turnhout: Brepols). Merkel, S. and M. Prange (in press). ‘Archaeometric Analysis of Ceramic from Jerash’, in G. Kalaitzoglou and others (eds), ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. Möller, H. 2017. ‘Ceramics in Context: Interpreting Life through Pottery’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Gerasa/​Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AU), pp. 59–66. —— (forthcoming). The Pottery: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, Jerash Papers (Turn­ hout: Brepols). Raja, R. and A. Lichtenberger. 2017. ‘Ceramics from the Northern Quarter in Jerash: Narratives and Numbers’. Abstract from the conference: Cilician Wine, African Plates, Italian Cooking, UrbNet, Aarhus, Denmark, 12 October 2017. Rehren, T. and others. 2010. ‘Glass Supply and Circulation in Early Byzantine Southern Jordan’, in J. Drauschke and D. Keller (eds), Glas in Byzanz: Produktion, Verwendung, Analysen: Internationaler Workshop der Byzantinischen Archäo­logie Mainz, 17.-18. Januar 2008, RGZM-Tagungen, 8 (Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums), pp. 65–81. Romanowska, I. and others. 2018. ‘Urban Networks Seen through Ceramics: Formal Modelling Approaches to Pottery Distribution in Jerash’, in R. Raja and S. M. Sindbæk (eds), Urban Network Evolutions: Towards a High-Definition Archaeo­logy (Aarhus: Aarhus Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 131–37. Shelby, J. E. 2005. Introduction to Glass Science and Techno­logy (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press). Thy, P. and others. 2015. ‘Anthropogenic Origin of Siliceous Scoria Droplets from Pleistocene and Holocene Archaeo­logical Sites in Northern Syria’, Journal of Archaeo­logical Science, 54: 193–209. Tran, H., M. Gonsko, and X. Mao. 1999. ‘Effect of Composition on the First Melting Temperature of Fireside Deposits in Recovery Boilers’, Tappi Journal, 82.9: 93–100.

About the Authors Gry Hoffmann Barfod — Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research (AGiR) Platform, Department of Geoscience/​Centre for Urban Network Evolutions, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark Gry Hoffmann Barfod is a member of the academic staff at the Department of Geoscience, Aarhus Uni­ver­ sity, and affiliated with the Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet). Her work uses trace metals and isotopes to determine the nature of geo­logical events and processes, to constrain the provenance of archaeo­ logical artifacts, and trace essential and toxic metals in bio­logical materials.

Philip Ebeling — Classical and Christian Archaeo­ logy, Uni­ver­sity of Münster/​Archaeo­logical Museum, Germany Philip Ebeling is a PhD Student in Classical and Christian Archaeo­logy of the Uni­ver­sity of Münster. He was a Student Assistant in the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project from 2013–2016, during which he was able to study the ceramic building material. He currently holds the position of Research Assistant in the German-Israeli Excavation Project on Tell Iztabba in Beth She’an, Israel directed by Achim Lichtenberger and Oren Tal.  Besides ceramic building material, Philip Ebeling’s research interests include funerary culture, archaeo-scientific methods, southern Syria, the Hellenistic period, underwater archaeo­logy, as well as Hellenization/​Romanization processes.

Patric-Alexander Kreuz — Institut für Klassische Altertumskunde, Abteilung Klassische Archäo­logie, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Germany Patric-Alexander Kreuz is Professor of Classical Archaeo­logy/​Urban Archaeo­logy at Kiel Uni­ver­sity. After his PhD in Classical Archaeo­logy at Co­logne Uni­ver­sity and a research position at Freie Universität Berlin in 2004–2005, he taught and conducted research at Ruhr-Uni­ver­sity Bochum from 2005 to 2016. In 2016–2018 he held the position of a DAAD-Lecturer for Archaeo­log y at the Faculty of Archaeo­log y & Tourism at the Uni­ver­sity of Jordan, Amman. He became habilitated in 2017/​18 at Bochum Uni­ver­sity with a thesis on the diversity of the cityscapes of Roman northern Italy. Since 2018, he has been member of the Subcluster ‘UrbanROOTS’ of the Uni­ver­sity of Kiel’s Cluster of Excellence ‘ROOTS. Social, Environmental, and Cultural Connectivity in Past Societies’. His research interests include architecture and urbanism of Graeco-Roman antiquity, regional urban cultures and lifestyles, and the archaeo­logy of contact zones of classical antiquity.

Charles  E. Lesher — Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research (AGiR) Platform, Department of Geoscience/​C entre for Urban Network Evolutions, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark Charles E. Lesher is Professor of Earth System Petro­ logy in the Department of Geoscience at Aarhus Uni­ ver­sity. He teaches and conducts research on the thermodynamic, kinetic, and chemical properties of materials at extreme conditions related to the earth’s interior and material science. He applies his expertise in theoretical, experimental, and analytical methods to problems in the archaeo­logical, bio­logical, agricultural, nuclear, and environmental sciences.

Achim Lichtenberger — Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/​A rchäo­ logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany Achim Lichtenberger (Dr  phil 2001, Uni­ver­sity of Tübingen) is a Professor of Classical Archaeo­logy and Director of the Archaeo­logical Museum at Münster Uni­v er­sity. Together with Professor Rubina Raja (Aarhus Uni­ver­sity), he co-directs the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project. His research interests are the Hellenistic to late antique Near East, numismatics, ruler representation in antiquity, Mediterranean studies, and ancient religion.

Rubina Raja — Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet)/​Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark Rubina Raja is Professor of Classical Archaeo­logy at Aarhus Uni­ver­sity and Centre Director of the Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions. Since 2011, she has codirected the ‘Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project’ together with Professor Achim Lichtenberger (Münster Uni­ver­sity), and since 2017, she has codirected the Danish-Italian excavations of Caesar’s Forum in Rome together with Jan Kindberg Jacobsen and Claudio Parisi. Her research interests include the Mediterranean from the Hellenistic to the medi­e val periods, high-definition archaeo­logy, the intersection between archaeo­logy and natural sciences, icono­graphy, and portrait studies as well as history of religion in the Roman world.

Jerash Papers All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field.

Titles in Series The Archaeology and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, ed. by Achim Lichten­berger and Rubina Raja (2018) Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century–15th Century): Archaeology and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2018) Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2019) Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeology and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2020) Environmental Studies, Remote Sensing, and Modelling: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project I, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2020) Metal Finds and Coins: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project II, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2020) Glass, Lamps, and Jerash Bowls: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project III, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2021)

In Preparation David Donald Boyer, Water Management in Gerasa and its Hinterland: From the Roman to ad 750

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics

JERASH PAPERS General Editors Achim Lichtenberger, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Rubina Raja, Aarhus Universitet

This book has been printed in full colour thanks to the generous support of the

VOLUME 9.2

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV volume ii

Wall Paintings and Mosaics Edited by

Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

© 2022, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2022/0095/190 ISBN: 978-2-503-59666-2 (2-volume set) e-ISBN: 978-2-503-59113-1 DOI: 10.1484/​M.JP-EB.5.121293 ISSN: 2736-7134 e-ISSN: 2736-7142 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper

Contents List of Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash: Roman to Middle Islamic Periods

KRISTINE DAMGAARD THOMSEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

9. The Colour Palette of the Northwest Quarter: Geochemical Evidence from Pigments Used on Roman and Early Islamic Wall Decorations

GRY H. BARFOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

WILLIAM T. WOOTTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397

11. Mosaic Glass Tesserae from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

CRISTINA BOSCHETTI and WILLIAM T. WOOTTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

About the Authors

List of Illustrations 8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash: Roman to Middle Islamic Periods — Kristine Damgaard Thomsen Figure 8.1.

Map of Jordan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Figure 8.2.

Map of the Northwest Quarter trenches.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Figure 8.3.

Photo from trench S, ev. J16-Sk-75, showing how the wall paintings had fallen off the wall.. . . . . . . 205

Figure 8.4.

a) Fragments from context J16-Sb-22-1 (Late Hellenistic – Early Roman). b) Fragments from context J15-Pa-35 (Umayyad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Figure 8.5.

a) Fragments from context J15-Pb-54-1 (Umayyad). b) Fragments from context J15-Pb-54-1 (Umayyad).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

Figure 8.6.

a) Fragments from context J15-Pb-54-1 (Umayyad). b) Fragments from context J15-Pd-16-138 (Umayyad). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

9. The Colour Palette of the Northwest Quarter: Geochemical Evidence from Pigments Used on Roman and Early Islamic Wall Decorations — Gry H. Barfod Figure 9.1.

Plan of the Gerasa Northwest Quarter with excavated trenches 2012–2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

Figure 9.2.

Video image from μ-XRF of red ochre pigment of plaster wall P15.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392

Figure 9.3.

Video image from μ-XRF of sample P17.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392

Figure 9.4.

Line-scan by μ-XRF across pigments on wall plaster P12 showing the distribution of Fe. . . . . . . . . . 393

Table 9.1.

Overview of colours, composition, and types of pigments used for wall paintings in Jerash. . . . . . . 388

Table 9.2.

Summary of sample information and major element compositions (in wt. %) of Jerash pigments determined by micro-XRF.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash — William T. Wootton Figure 10.1. Plan of the Northwest Quarter with excavated trenches with mosaic fragments marked and the city wall highlighted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 Figure 10.2. Mosaic fragments from trench S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 Figure 10.3. Reconstruction of the surviving decoration on the mosaic from trench S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399 Figure 10.4. Views of the surface, bedding, and base of the largest mosaic fragment from trench S.. . . . . . . . . . . . 400 Figure 10.5. Unusual tesserae from trenches O and X. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 Figure 10.6. Pile of elongated tesserae from trench O.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402

viii

List of Illustrations

Figure 10.7. Debris from tessera processing trench O.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 Figure 10.8. Fragment with flat upper surface and the debris from tessera processing in its bedding from trench O. Views of surface and base.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 Figure 10.9. Fragment with flat upper surface and the debris from tessera processing in its bedding from trench O. Views of surface and base.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 Figure 10.10. Fragment with surface of elongated tesserae from trench O.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 Figure 10.11. Plan of the so-called ‘Mosaic Hall’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 Figure 10.12. Photogrammetric survey of the mosaics in trenches N and W.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 Figure 10.13. Detail of the inscription of the ad-576 mosaic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406 Figure 10.14. Two details of the seam running between the two phases of mosaic on the western side of the Mosaic Hall.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 Figure 10.15. Detail of the decoration from the adjusting border to geo­metric field of the ad-576 mosaic.. . . . . . 408 Figure 10.16. Detail of the inscription of the ad-591 mosaic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 Figure 10.17. Detail of decoration from adjusting border to geometric field of the ad-591 mosaic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 Figure 10.18. Plan of the so-called ‘House of the Tesserae’, trenches P and V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 Figure 10.19. Mosaic fragments from trenches P and V.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 Figure 10.20. Tesserae from trench P.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 Figure 10.21. ‘Trough’ with tesserae in the so-called ‘House of the Tesserae’, trench P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 Figure 10.22. Northern section of the ‘trough’ with tesserae in the so-called ‘House of the Tesserae’.. . . . . . . . . . . . 416 Figure 10.23. Some of the tesserae found in the trough, including cubes and triangles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 Figure 10.24. Fragment from trench P. Views of the surface, base and from the side.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 Figure 10.25. Fragments with debris from tessera processing in the bedding from trench V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 Table 10.1. Relative densities of the tesserae (per dm2) between the trenches of the Northwest Quarter.. . . . . . 401 11. Mosaic Glass Tesserae from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Cristina Boschetti and William T. Wootton Figure 11.1. The gilded tessera ( J14-Kc-3-467): view from front, back, and side.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 Figure 11.2. The selection of tesserae analysed at IRAMAT-CEB and representing the colour palette of tesserae from the Northwest Quarter.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Table 11.1. List of the tesserae excavated in the Northwest Quarter and analysed by LA-ICP-MS at IRAMAT-CEB, CNRS Orléans.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428–29

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash: Roman to Middle Islamic Periods Kristine Damgaard Thomsen Introduction During the excavations of the Northwest Quarter in Jerash, many fragments of wall paintings were found. They belonged to several different buildings dating from the Roman to the Middle Islamic period. In this paper, the wall paintings from the Northwest Quarter will be presented. But first, we will take a look at ancient wall paintings from Jordan in general. Wall painting was a much-used decorative medium in the Roman-period Near East. Especially the paintings from Herod the Great’s palaces have received attention and provided much information for the discussion about how wall decoration appeared and developed in Roman Judaea. Structures such as palaces, houses, and bath complexes could be decorated with wall paintings, stucco ornaments, and floor mosaics, producing a scheme of elaborate interior decoration. The history and development of the decorative categories as well as the appearance of motifs and techniques illuminate both cultural and regional connections.1 The wall decorations and paintings discovered at ancient sites in Jordan (Fig. 8.1) are manifold, and there seem to be substantial differences across the country, from north to south and east to west. The style in the Nabataean south Jordan is entirely different from the style in other places of Jordan, as has been demonstrated by Claude Vibert-Guigue.2 An extensive survey of the wall paintings and decorations of Jordan establish that there were four main style zones which should be kept in mind when studying new material since these style zones are distinctively different. *  This work was supported by the Danish National Research Foundation under the grant DNRF119 — Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet); the Carlsberg Foundation; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; Deutscher Palästina-Verein; and H. P. Hjerl Hansens Mindefondet for Dansk Palæstinaforskning. 1  Rozenberg 2014; Moormann 2014. 2  Vibert-Guigue 2011.

Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet), Aarhus Uni­ver­sity. Denmark. [email protected]

Figure 8.1. Map of Jordan (© Wikimedia Commons).

The oldest wall paintings and decorations are found in the south of Jordan, in Petra. It seems that stucco art and an architectural masonry style were favoured until some point in the first century bc when figures started appearing on the decorated walls and facades.3 The wall paintings of the Umayyad residences in the east of Jordan, the east-style zone, all date later, and the style is quite different with ornate humans, animals, floral motifs, and bright colours to fill the gaps in-between the 3 

Vibert-Guigue 2011, 337; Alpass 2013.

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume  ii: Wall Paintings and Mosaics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 201–386 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126443

202 figures. Towards the northern part of Jordan the centralstyle zone is prominent. This is best illustrated by the area around Amman, where a few examples with ornamental stucco mouldings and painted so-called Masonry Style imitations are known.4 Gerasa and the other Decapolis cities belong to the last zone, the north-style zone. The necropoleis of the Decapolis are well known for their painted tombs, and in the sacred spaces we see painted portraits and figures, floral and ornamental representations. In general, the sacred spaces comprise the majority of the wall paintings published from this area. Some of the better-known examples from the Decapolis cities include grave no. 3 from the necropolis in Abila. It shows an elaborate decoration with painted architectural features, figurative scenes with humans and animals, geometric patterns, painted portraits of the dead, as well as inscriptions.5 However, the technique of stucco is almost absent in the tombs, and where it is present, it is confined to decorating the blocks closing off the loculi.6 Likewise, in Beit Râs (ancient Capitolias) there are painted humans, deities, and animals in a grave, and in Gadara, elaborate stucco was found.7 In addition to the examples from Beit Râs and Abila, it is key to look at Pella and Gadara. In Pella, fifth-century ad wall paintings were discovered while excavating the East Church. The paintings are done in red and yellow colours in geometric patterns and without figures of humans or animals.8 There are similar examples of the same type of red- and yellow-painted walls without figures from Gadara. There, the large amounts of fragments are found in Room D in a house dated to the Roman period. Also, the style of choice is dominated by geometric and circular patterns and imitations of other stone types (such as marble).9 4 

Will and Larché 1991. Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1994. 6  There is one exception in Gadara, where a wide stucco shell is preserved in a tomb. For more about this, see Karasneh 1991. 7  Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1994 for the Abila excavations. Zayadine 1986b for Capitolias, and Karasneh 1991 for Gadara. In 2018, another second-century ad tomb was found in Beit Râs, revealing elaborate and colourful animals, humans, gods, and both Aramaic and Greek lettering. It is still unpublished, but for a short introduction, see [accessed 17 April 2020]. 8  Watson 2002, 68. 9  Kerner 2002, 128–29. See also Burdajewicz 2017; 2020 for excellent studies on wall decorations from a church in Hippos-Sussita and wall decorations from early Christian churches in the Levant. 5 

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen From Gerasa only little material pertaining to painted wall plaster from the sanctuaries and sacred spaces have been published.10 Wall paintings were not mentioned by Carl  H. Kraeling, which presumably testifies to the fragmented state of the finds. Surely, they must have come across painted plaster during the Kraeling excavations, yet they focused on the more substantial findings from the city. The earliest example of painted wall plaster in Gerasa stems from the Temple of Zeus, where a Hellenistic naos with wall decorations was found.11 The decorations consisted of stucco and painted plaster without figural representations. Around the time of the First Jewish Revolt (ad 66–70), the decoration was dismantled, and while it was still attached to the blocks it was reused in the foundation of a second sanctuary.12 Fluted stucco pilasters divided the interior wall, and in the gaps were a narrow plinth, orthostats, and blocks imitating coloured marble. Above this, a panel with vegetal motifs and a stucco cornice were depicted. The top zone was different. It had stucco relief ashlars in isodomic courses, along with at least two gridpattern motifs consisting of octagons or lozenges underlined by a line of eggs and red lines.13 The decoration was similar to the Masonry Style found in the Herodian palaces, which also corresponds with a late Hellenistic date. From Gerasa another example was found in a grave context: a hypogeum with preserved paintings. The hypogeum was found close by ‘Hadrian’s Arch’ during modern roadwork in the 1950s and was decorated with Greek inscriptions and floral and architectural motifs. There were also alabaster imitations, and everything was done in red, yellow, and green colours reminiscent of other graves in the Decapolis cities.14 The wall paintings from the Zeus Sanctuary and the hypogeum are the only published examples from Gerasa so far, and one of the only published examples of wall See Vibert-Guigue 2011, 340 for a tomb excavated in Amman at Jebel Joffeh with biblical references and inscriptions in Greek, and depictions of a holy person seated near a frieze of birds discovered in a church in Umm al-Raşāş. Moreover, see Vibert-Guigue 1998 and Piccirillo 1993 for a Roman tomb near Salt that was reused as a chapel in the necropolis with a painting depicting a holy horseman. 10  Schumacher 1902; Kehrberg 2004; Seigne and others 1986. The decorations from the Zeus Sanctuary have been published in shorter publications, and publications on other decorated building materials from Gerasa have not appeared. 11  Eristov and others 2002; 2003. 12  Eristov and others 2002. 13  Eristov and others 2003; Seigne 2002a, 13–14. 14  Eristov and Vibert-Guigue 2013.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

203

Figure 8.2. Map of the Northwest Quarter trenches. Unless otherwise indicated, all images in this volume are reproduced courtesy of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project.

paintings from monumental architecture in this region.15 More material is found in and published from necropoleis in the Decapolis, and more than thirty tombs with paintings are known, usually painted with figures and inscriptions. They do, however, mainly date from the second and third centuries ad. The Chrono­logy of the Northwest Quarter The earliest buildings excavated in the Northwest Quarter of Gerasa until now stem from the highest point of the area where trenches A and S were excavated (Fig. 8.2). A large cistern was discovered in trenches A and S under the otherwise completely flat field. The cistern was intentionally back-filled with materials from a monumental complex, which stood on top of the cistern. 15 

Eristov and Vibert-Guigue 2013.

From cooking pot deposits in the fill and radiocarbon dates, we know that the destruction of the monumental complex and back-filling of the cistern took place in the later third or fourth century ad.16 A radiocarbon date from the wall plaster of the cistern suggests that it was constructed during the first century ad.17 On the south slope of the Northwest Quarter, another cistern was excavated. It was excavated over several campaigns due to its size (the size of the cistern) as well as later rebuildings of the cistern and structures on 16 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b. Both the upper and lower cisterns could be related to the so-called North-West Aqueduct, see Boyer 2016. For more about the cisterns, see Lichtenberger and others 2015. Radiocarbon dates from trench S were done at Aarhus AMS Centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity (Denmark). See also Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). 17 

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

204 top of the cistern (trench F). The earliest phase of the cistern, the construction, was found in trench F and was dated by radiocarbon to the second century ad (phase 1).18 During the third to sixth centuries some repairs were made (phase 2a). It was used as a water reservoir until the fifth/​sixth century ad (phase 2b), and after this, it was turned into a residential area (phase 3). The residential area, however, did not last long. It was already back-filled in the sixth/​seventh century ad, and the former cistern was completely covered with fill (phase 4).19 Trench L was laid out also on the south slope where the so-called South Street meets the west side of the south slope cistern. The street was flanked by buildings and was one of the main communication streets on the southern hillside. There is evidence of several building phases as well as repairs and alterations of the street layout, and the oldest structure here is the cistern from the Roman period. The main building activities took place in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods. Also, from the Roman period were the city walls and the areas around (trench Q). The area excavated in trench Q saw several building phases as well as modern disturbances. To investigate the area north of the southern cistern (trench F), trench O was laid out along the north-western edge of the cistern. The earliest phase in trench O was a thick mortar covering the natural bedrock, and on top of this were several phases of Byzantine habitation connected to phases 2–4 of the cistern. This area was covered and levelled in Umayyad times. The Roman mortar floor was further investigated in trench X next to trench O and was interpreted as having a functional connection to the large cistern. A sediment basin connected to the cistern was built in the Roman period, and parts of the basin were later dismantled together with the foundation of the Byzantine houses. Also, in the south end of the Northwest Quarter, another structure was found through several excavation campaigns. The first trench (trench N) was laid out in 2015, where parts of a bigger building were found. Trench W was laid out in 2016, and together these trenches revealed the Mosaic Hall (18.49 × 10.47 m), named after the well-preserved mosaic floors in the hall and called Hall of the Electi Iustiniani. Also, a Romanperiod cave complex situated immediately north of the Mosaic Hall (trenches J and N) was found. The original 18  A thorough and detailed study of radiocarbon dating of mortar from trench F can be found in Lichtenberger and others 2015. 19  Lichtenberger and others 2015.

layout was dated to the Byzantine period, and the building went out of use in Umayyad times.20 The Umayyad period is well represented by two domestic houses found in trenches K, P, and V. Both houses are situated on the so-called East Terrace but are not connected. The buildings were extended several times, but the ad 749 earthquake ultimately terminated the use. Another Umayyad-dated building was found in trench U in the western part of the south slope. The trench was laid out over a building north of the socalled South Street, where the residential area along the street was already explored through trenches L and O (these dating to the Byzantine period). The building in trench U was connected to a long wall, which was part of a larger building complex. The trench-U building also went through several building phases, which are all dated exclusively to the Umayyad period.21 On the north-west corner of the so-called Ionic Building, several trenches were laid out to investigate this courtyard house (trenches C, D, and T). The courtyard house was constructed in middle Islamic times above the ruins of a Byzantine-period complex that also was in use in the Early Islamic period. The Byzantine complex was a large rectangular structure. This area was partly destroyed by illicit excavations, which meant that younger phases were removed. Trench T was laid out to gain more information about the later middle Islamic phases.22 Trenches H, G, and R are described together in this contribution since they are placed in the outskirts of the northern part of the Northwest Quarter. They have all suffered heavy erosion, and only little material has been found. They all date in the Byzantine to the Umayyad period.

Analysis of the Wall Decorations General Observations The analysis of the material is based on the catalogue of the fragments from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project excavations. It is a selection of what was collected during the excavations. Much more was found during the campaigns, but after reviewing the 20  All the trenches have been carefully described and analysed after each excavation campaign. For the published reports, see Lichtenberger and Raja 2012; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; 2014; 2016; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; 2015. 21  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). 22  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash pieces, the corpus now consists of a total of more than 5000 fragments of which around 1100 fragments are included in this catalogue. This means that a little more than 20 per cent of the total amount of the excavated fragments has been selected as a representative corpus for this study, and they have been catalogued, described, and photo­graphed. Some of the evidences are large and contained more than 800 fragments, and in these situations, all have been counted and separated, but only a representative selection has been described in further detail. In the case of the Northwest Quarter in Jerash, it appears that the favoured style included geometrical and round patterns in the main colours of blue,23 red, orange, green, yellow, and purple/​brownish. There are only a few examples of an actual figure or graffiti (inscription). Unfortunately, we do not have a continuous section of wall paintings, and only a few pieces were found in situ, which means that most of the fragments are found in secondary fill and soil deposits. The collected fragments fall into different categories such as painted plaster, unpainted plaster, and mortar. The unpainted plaster can be complex to work with since it does not leave us any clue about whether it came from a floor, walls, or a ceiling. The largest group in the catalogue is the painted plaster, which most of the analysis is built upon. The plaster ranges in general from porous and fragile to dense and compact depending on the state of preservation. Generally, the material found in the deep fill layers, which dominate the Northwest Quarter, is usually poorly preserved. The colours survived, but the plaster is often soft and porous. The same applies to the mortar, which can also be extremely soft and fragile. The poor preservation may also be caused by the actual structure of the mortar. The sand- and lime-based mortars and plasters are more fragile than the hardened hydraulic mortar. A large group of samples has undergone pigment analysis as well as mortar and plaster composition analysis.24 The results from those analyses have so far shown that the red and yellow pigments are iron-based (ochre), and the dark (black) pigments are most likely coal.25 As 23   Blue is one of the rarer colours used in the Northwest Quarter. In many cases the colour is probably Egyptian blue, which was a synthetic material made from quartz, calcium carbonate, and a copper compound. It could have been imported from Egypt, but the raw materials are in fact also available in Israel suggesting a more regional production, see Foerster 1995, 30–31 and Rozenberg 2003. 24   This has been possible thanks to the AGIR (Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research) Platform at Geoscience, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity (Denmark), and Stirling Uni­ver­sity (Scotland). 25  Analysis was done on a Bruker micro-XRF at AGIR.

205

Figure 8.3. Photo from trench S, ev. J16-Sk-75, showing how the wall paintings had fallen off the wall.

for the mortar, examinations have been carried out on the hydraulic mortar from the Roman cistern (trenches A and S). It has become clear that the main part of the mortar is from the local limestone. The mortar contained a large amount of crushed ceramics instead of volcanic ash, which would have been used to make the mortar hydraulic.26 The fragments often consist of several horizons showing both the upper layer of plaster as well as the underlying layers of coarser plaster and mortar. In the following, an exploration and assessment of the many mortar and plaster fragments will be undertaken. The analysis is based on the catalogue, which is divided by context, and the analysis is divided by area or architecture. The Upper Roman Cistern (Trenches A and S) One of the constructions excavated in the Northwest Quarter was a Roman cistern on top of the hill. Trenches A and S were laid out next to each other to discover what type of structures were placed on the hill-top plateau. Trench A was excavated in 2012 and trench S in 2016. The structure turned out to be a cistern measuring 14.2 × 7.2 m. The cistern was found in good condition. However, the building above had been destroyed and used as filling in the cistern when closing it. Several elaborately painted layers of plaster were found layered on top of each other, indicating that the painted wall plaster was dumped from a nearby construction (this belongs to ev. J16-Sk-75, which is not included in the catalogue) (Fig. 8.3). 26  Several important studies have been done on the Roman hydraulic mortar, establishing that the hydraulic quality came from pozzolana, volcanic ash from the Bay of Naples. See the work done by the ROMACONS project, Oleson and others 2004.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

206 The cistern has pilasters and several chambers spanned with arches. The cistern was accessible from a staircase, which led to a door giving access to the cistern.27 It is clear that this structure was deliberately closed off during the Late Roman period (ad 250–400), which can be determined by dating the backfill that contained pottery mainly of Roman to late Roman date. Late Roman coins were also found, and by considering these finds, it seems clear that the cistern was filled and closed in the Late Roman period. Radiocarbon dates support the archaeo­logical finds by determining that the cistern was gradually filled with the contemporaneous and redeposited older material dating to ad 300–400.28 The building above the cistern must have been a prominent one, especially in light of all the painted wall plaster and stucco found in the fill layer of the cistern. The function of this building above the cistern has still not been determined. Most of the plaster and mortar material comes from the contexts of J16-Sb-8, J16-Sb-22,29 J16-Sb-23, J16-Sc-13, J16-Scd-13, J16-Sd-22, and J16-Sg-22. The soil layer of J16-Sb-8 is the same as the soil layer of J16-Sc-13 and J16-Scd-13. It is a loose and brownish soil fill, which also includes large amounts of pottery, coins, and lamps. This fill layer also covers the north wall (ev. 20), a dividing wall (ev. 61), the cistern floor (ev. 62), the staircase (ev. 74), and pilasters (ev. 77), and it was mixed with larger construction stones as well as some of the architectural elements from the cistern design.30 Ceramics and late Roman lamps date the backfill of ev. 13 mainly to the Roman/​Late Roman period. The material from J16-Sb-22, J16-Sd-22, and J16-Sg-22 are from the same disturbed layer as well, which was covering the late Roman fill and an Islamic burial. The layer of ev. 22 covered the entire area around the cistern and contained a late Roman Amphora 1 as well as fragments from a Grey Ware basin from the Umayyad period, so it must have been deposited later than the cistern. Ev. 22 also covered ev. 23, which was a layer of soil containing ash. It was situated around a small fire. In connection with this open fireplace, a fourth-century ad coin was found, but whether the fire should be dated to the 27 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). Analysis done by Aarhus AMS Centre, Department for Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus Uni­v er­sity (Denmark). See Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). 29  This context is large, and it should be mentioned that the ceramics from this context are worn and highly fragmented, as is the plaster. Most material is dated to the (Late) Roman period. 30  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S. 28  

same period is more uncertain.31 From these layers there is an enormous amount of material, which amounts to about 32 per cent of all of the registered fragments in the catalogue. This is also the context where we find large amounts of painted plaster in the fill indicating that the building above must have had some elaborate decorations. Most of the material from trench S comes from a secondary deposit (the cistern fill layers) although it still represents a deliberate deposition. Type 1 Stucco: Architectural Elements Some of the stucco fragments are damaged (see J16-Sk-105-2, cat. no.  370s, J16-Sf-22-127, cat. nos 348s–349s, J16-Scd-13-135 cat. no. 248s), but it is still possible to see that the stucco was scalloped. These pieces of stucco are all characterized by having similar textures with one layer of plaster with a medium number of inclusions. Some of the other examples (see J16-Sa-8-7, cat nos 42s–43s, and J16-Sb-54-1, cat. nos 140s–143s) only show one groove, which could be due to their fragmented state and that the rest of the scalloped profile has broken off ( J12-Af-13, cat. nos 20a–22a). Several pieces display distinct architectural features (see J16-Sc-13-48, cat. nos 189s–190s, and J16-Scd-13-107, cat. no. 248s). The fragments cat. nos 189s and 248s are likely imitating the architectural features guttae and regula. The fragment cat. no. 190s appears to be from the same sequence. There are no guttae, but there is a protruding edge with two holes in it. What these holes were for is not determined, but they could indicate that something had been fastened to the stucco, or they were meant to attach the stucco to the wall. Another decorative ornament in stucco comes from J16-Scd-13-107 (cat. no. 247s). It is spiral-shaped and from the same evidence as the stucco fragments with holes (cat. nos 189s, 190s, and 248s). Only cat. nos 189s and 190s have two underlying plaster horizons: the upper layer is a whitish plaster with a few inclusions and the lower layer is a coarser plaster with large amounts of inclusions. Cat. no. 248s only has one layer of plaster which is coarser. The circular ornament, cat. no. 247s, is from the same context as the architectural stucco fixtures, but where it fits is more uncertain. It could be part of a larger ornamental row of circular ornaments, but since this is the only example, it is difficult to determine. The plaster from the circular ornament is whitish with a large amount of inclusions. None of the stucco pieces or fixtures is painted. 31 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

207

Figure 8.4. a) Fragments from context J16-Sb-22-1 (Late Hellenistic – Early Roman). b) Fragments from context J15-Pa-35 (Umayyad).

a

Type 2 Stucco: Masonry Style Another highly represented group, especially in J16-Sb-22, consists of plaster fragments with sharp edges on the surfaces. They are found in two variations here: one variation has a sharp edge with a red line around — there are both straight lines as well as corner pieces (see cat. no. 64s). The other variation has a plain surface with a small ridge in the middle of the fragment (see cat. no. 65s). The Masonry Style shape gives the wall plaster an extra dimension. The fragments all share the same type of plaster, and the construction seems similar as well. The plaster fragments only have (or have preserved) one underlying horizon, which is a dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. It appears that all these fragments come from the same wall sequence (for a comparative example, see Fig. 8.4).32 There are a few examples of moulded plaster with one soft curve or groove (cat. no. 294s). This could have been used as a way of finishing the plastered wall at either the bottom or the top of the wall. This fragment was most likely placed at the bottom of the wall, creating a smooth and soft finish from wall to floor. Another example of moulded plaster needs to be highlighted: first, the shape is a soft curve, so the fragments of this type do not have the same sharp edge as the Masonry Style fragments. Second, they are painted with at least two different colours. Most of them have a light pale green on one side and either a pinkish monochrome colour or a pinkish background colour with a darker circular pattern on top, perhaps imitating marble (see cat. nos 127s and 208s). They were part of a more intricate wall decoration, but where 32  For more stucco examples, see J12-Af-13, cat. nos 20a–22a, J16-Sc-12-1, cat. nos 165s–179s, J16-Sb-22-12, cat. nos 96s–110s, J16-Sb-22-1, cat. nos 61s–86s, J16-Sb-23-11, cat. nos 114s–131s, J16-Sd-22-40, cat. nos 255s–278s, and J16-Sg-13-89, cat. no. 350.

b

they go on the wall is perhaps more difficult to determine. They could also have been part of a larger and more complicated stucco decoration, giving the room more impact. But today we only have small and broken-off parts preserved. The pieces must have been attached to something since they have fractured surfaces on all sides. Painted Plaster The colour scheme of trenches A and S are dominated by red, green, and pink colours, which appear in both lighter and darker versions. Most of the fragments are painted in monochrome colours indicating large surface areas painted in one single colour (see J12-Abf-22, cat. nos 1a–4a, and J16-Sb-23-11, cat. nos 124s–125s). It is not possible to say how big these surface areas were since we do not know how big the building or rooms were. The material is also so fragmented and damaged that it is not possible to reconstruct more than small sequences. The green colour usually occurs in combination with other colours such as red, pink, or white, and is often painted in parallel bands (with a few exceptions, see cat. no. 117s).33 There is a group of smaller fragments deco33   See

also J12-Ae-16, cat. nos  5a–9a, J12-Ae-19-2, cat.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

208 rated with a green background and one thin horizontal band across (see cat. nos  130s, 218s, 231s–232s, and 241s). They all have the same type of plaster composition of only one horizon (one layer), which is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. One fragment is slightly bigger and shows a green band, then white, then green changing into a more bluish colour, and then a red band (see cat. no. 29s). The green in combination with red and pinkish colours (see cat. nos 115s and 258s) can be seen on the moulded pieces of painted plaster mentioned above. On a few examples, the green appears in a circular pattern or as the background colour with a white circular pattern on top (cat. nos 117s and 169s). These fragments suggest that a panel on the wall would have been decorated with a different pattern. Presumably not human or animal figures, but more likely circular and floral motifs or marbling effect were depicted. To support this, there are also fragments in other colours showing these circular and floral imitations, where the background is pale or light red, and the pattern on top is a dark red/​brownish colour (see cat. nos 319s and 346s, and cat. nos 233s–242s). There are quite a lot of fragments with a light red background with a darker pattern (or maybe more like a smudge) on top.34 These designs most likely resemble a marbling effect or an imitation of a different stone type. A large amount of the fragments are painted with thin parallel bands in yellow, white, green, purple, and red colours. Restoring the original appearance of this wall decoration is not possible, but the decoration on the fragments certainly points towards panels painted with thin bands. There are a few fragments with miscellaneous decoration. The one with the most figurative decoration has a greenish background through which a reddish colour shows, and on top there is a darker wavy pattern (cat. no. 320s). The reddish colour underneath could have been added in order to give the walls the correct expression: having a dark red colour under a pale green wash nos  17a–19a, J12-Af-16, cat. nos  20a–22a, J-16-Sa-2-23, cat. nos 29s–33s and J16-Scd-13-84, cat. nos 224s–232s. 34  For more examples of painted plaster, see J16-Sb-8-11, cat. nos 49s–53s, J16-Sb-22-30, cat. nos 111s–113s, J16-Sb-26-2, cat. nos 132s–134s, J16-Sb-27-5, cat. nos 135s–137s, J16-Sc-2-13, cat. nos 144s–164s, J16-Sc-13-47, cat. nos 183s–188s, J16-Sd-22-62, cat. nos 300s–318s, J16-Se-21-24, cat. no. 326s, J16-Se-22-74, cat. nos 327s–330s, J16-Se-35-5, cat. nos 333s–334s, J16-Se-37-15, cat. nos 340s–343, J16-Sf-22-125, cat. nos 345s–347s, J16-Sg-22-156, cat. nos 362s–366s, and J16-Sg-22-166, cat. no. 367s, J16-Sd-13-38, cat. nos 250s–251s, and J16-Sd-13-78, cat. nos 252s–254s.

gives a different type of effect than putting pale green on a white wall. This points towards mixing of colours, or it is a matter of covering up an older decoration or colour. The pattern on top could be a figurative motif, but we do not have any other fragments from the same sequence. This fragment was found with another fragment (cat. no. 321s),35 which is painted with a bright yellow, bright red, and almost black colour. Perhaps it is the corner of a painted panel. It is painted like the corner of a square, but again no other fragments can be connected to this one (Fig. 8.4). Another fragment with a wavy pattern is cat. no. 351s, which is also a single fragment.36 It is painted with a green background, and here there is no reddish background colour showing through the green paint. On top of the green is a circular and wavy pattern in purple colour. It could perhaps be from the same sequence as cat. no. 361s, but that is only speculation based on the greenish colour and the wavy pattern.37 A different fragment which also seems to display something figurative is cat. no. 371s.38 It has a light brown background colour. On top is a pale green and white pattern in soft triangular shapes (perhaps floral). The regular plain plaster without colour or any special features is also represented in trenches A and S. It comes in different variations, where some are porous and fragile, and some are dense with a white wash on top. Determining where the plain plaster is coming from is impossible since it is from the fill layers (see J12-Ae-19-1, J16-Sb-22-8, J16-Sc-13-3, J16-Sa-8-5, J16-Sc-15-3, J16Scd-13-104, and J16-Sd-22-41).39 However, fragments from J16-Sb-22-8 can reveal a little more than just plain plaster. The fragments have several horizons, showing the plastering process of the walls. Under the surface horizon, which is a thin and fine layer of plaster, is either a coarser plaster or a layer of mortar confirming the construction technique known from Vitruvius and Pliny the Elder.40 Fragment cat. no. 243s has a larger pottery 35 

Both cat. nos 320s and 321s stem from ev. J16-Sd-22-82. See ev. J16-Sg-13-119. 37  See ev. J16-Sg-22-142, cat. nos 352s–361s. 38  See ev. J16-Sk-105-16. 39  For more examples of unpainted plaster, see also J16-Sa-17-3, cat. nos 44s–48, J16-Sb-8-12, cat. nos 54s–60s, J16-Sb-27-8, cat. no.  139s, J16-Sc-73-1, cat. nos  198s–199s, J16-Scd-13-73, cat. no. 202s and 222s, J16-Scd-13-74, cat. no. 223s, J16-Sd-22-85, cat. no. 322s, J16-Sd-29-5, cat. no. 323s, J16-Se-35-4, cat. no. 331s, J16Se-37-6, cat. no. 335s, J16-Se-37-14, cat. nos 336s–339s, and J16Se-37-22, cat. no. 344s. 40  For mortar examples, see J16-Sc-13-24, cat. no. 182s. 36 

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash fragment embedded in the plaster, and we know that all types of excess material could be used in the mix with the coarser plaster, smeared on the blocks of stone. A few fragments also show remnants of chisel-marks (see J16-Sh-50-10, cat. no. 368s). Evaluation By now, we can begin to see the building above the cistern with brightly coloured and decorated walls. Only very few pieces were preserved in situ. The painted wall plaster in situ appears to have slipped down from a wall above and was sitting in at least five layers. Here we can see that the green colour is used as circular patterns with parallel purple bands framing a figurative panel. It is also clear that the dark red, almost purple colour is quite dominant with swirls of green and yellow paint on top. Animals or humans are not present in the in-situ pieces. Since the style seems to vary, we might argue that the different types of painted wall plaster came from different rooms. One room could be decorated with the cassette-shaped plaster, similar to plaster found at the palace of Masada.41 Looking at Masonry Style designs and examples from elsewhere in the region it is possible to find walls decorated with both the cassette blocks and blocks imitating a different stone type. Towards the ceiling is a protruding fluted profile painted with one colour on the underside of the profile and a different colour on the upper side of the profile going straight into a plain panel in dark red and finishing towards the ceiling with an architectural element. In the case of the Roman cistern, we do find all these elements. However, we also find fragments pointing towards floral and circular motifs as well as the fragments with the wavy patterns at the top. A tentative guess would be that the wall paintings from the cistern are in the intersection of several mural styles pointing towards the Pompeian tradition as well as the styles from the Herodian palaces.42 The painters working in the Northwest Quarter chose an eclectic style known also from the non-figurative murals in the Western and Northern Palaces at Masada as well as from the naos of the Zeus Sanctuary in Gerasa. The closing and back-filling of the cistern are dated to the Late Roman period, but the wall paintings found here should be dated much earlier. By comparing the material 41 

edge.

See Rozenberg 2014 for a similar style of plaster with a sharp

42   See

Eristov and others 2003; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

209

from trenches A and S to other regional sites, the wall paintings in these trenches are, according to their formal arrangement and style, close to decoration dating from the middle of the first century bc to the first century ad. It remains open whether this is also the date of the decoration in trenches A and S or whether it is only a terminus post quem and the style remained in use for a longer time. The Roman Cistern on the South Slope (Trenches F, L, O, and X) There were several elements to investigate on the south slope of the Northwest Quarter from trenches F, L, O, and X.43 Trench F was laid out to investigate the large rectangular cistern.44 Trench L was placed to excavate the intersection where the South Street meets the west side of the cistern, and trenches O and X were situated along the north-western edge of the cistern to investigate the western and eastern part of the so-called East House.45 The cistern itself, as well as a continuation of a built water channel, enabled a link between the strati­ graphy in trench O (and later the strati­graphy in trench X) and the main building phases in trench L. Moreover, it is possible to establish a connection with the structures unearthed in trench F based on a retaining wall in trench O, which continued inside the cistern parallel to the northern border, supporting an intentional fill similar to the one found in 2013 further east.46 43  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench X. The majority of the samples retrieved from trench F have gone into a mortar study focusing on dating the cistern, and therefore, there are no samples from trench F in this study. 44  Lichtenberger and others 2015, 114–27. In this study, mortar samples (approx. twenty-five samples) were taken from trench F in order to date the different phases of the cistern. The samples were analysed macroscopically and with a stereo microscope, and colour, grain-size, aggregate composition, hardness, and degree of weathering were noted. From the strati­g raphy and excavations along with the mortar analyses, it is evident that the lifespan of the cistern can be divided into several phases, which is also mentioned in the introduction: one phase dates to the second/​third century ad, when the cistern was used as a water reservoir; the next phase is characterized by repairs of the cistern; later there is a phase in which the cistern was used for habitation; and the last phase belongs to the sixth/​seventh century ad, which was the end of the habitation period in the now former cistern. The dates established contribute considerably to a better understanding of the continued use of this large cistern and the chrono­logy of the south slope. 45  The East House was discovered during the excavation of trench O in 2015 and was a Byzantine building. 46  For more detailed descriptions, see excavation reports about

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

210 Trench L Trench L was also laid out on the south slope where the South Street meets the west side of the large cistern. The South Street was one of the main communication axes on the southern hillside, and along its course from the city walls in the west to the western limit of the cistern, the street was flanked by buildings. This means that there is a complex strati­g raphic situation with several phases of building activity, repairs, and alterations of the street layout. Of the mortar and plaster samples from trench L, fifty fragments have been included in the catalogue — out of these, eighteen fragments are plain plaster, eight are plaster with mortar, two are stucco, and twenty-two are painted plaster. The fragments are generally badly preserved and appear with thick lime incrustations. The structure of the plain plaster consists of one or two horizons of coarse plaster with a medium number of inclusions and does not give any indications of whether it belonged to a wall or a floor.47 Several fragments come from ev. 21, which was a yellowish soil layer under the street and part of the upper cistern fill ( J14-Lb-21-3 and J14-Lb-21-24A). The fragments that consist of two horizons, where the upper is a plaster layer and the lower is a mortar layer, are represented in several different contexts. These fragments seem to be characterized by a dense layer of plaster with a more porous and grey mortar layer beneath. The mortar is generally crumbly with either medium amounts of inclusions or air pockets. This type of mortar is of lower quality, and the properties are different from the hydraulic mortar used for the water cisterns and reservoirs. The layer of mortar under the plaster is a normal construction technique of either a wall or a floor, where the first layers on top of the stones would have been mortar, and the outer layers plaster. On one of the plaster fragments (cat. no. 388l) are two incisions, one is horizontal, and the other is diagonal.48 This could be either string impressions for wall paintings to be applied or preparations for another layer of plaster to be applied on top. The two stucco fragments both have two horizons, where the upper is a fine, white plaster with few inclusions. The lower horizon is coarser with a medium numtrench F, L, O, and X. 47   For examples of unpainted plaster, see J14-Lb-46-8, cat. nos 379l–380l, J14-Lbd-51-4, cat. nos 381l–383l, J14-Lcd-39-20, cat. no. 385l, and J14-Le-30-18, cat. nos 386l–387l. 48  See ev. J14-Lf-9-6.

ber of inclusions and air pockets. Both show a curving profile with a few sharp edges on each side of the curving part. It appears that one stucco profile (cat. no. 409l) is coming from the top part of a wall and the other (cat. no. 410l) is the lower part of the wall.49 In the same fill layer as the plain plaster, several fragments of painted plaster were also found. The painted plaster fragments from J14-Li-86-2 (cat. nos 391l–408l) all vary in both colour and composition. Two of the fragments (cat. nos  391l–392l) are decorated with parallel bands in alternating thin and broad bands and colours of dark red/​purple, a lighter red, and a brighter red. Many of the fragments are painted in monochrome red or monochrome darker paint (the colour is not completely black, but very dark purple). The fragments all have the same structure, which is a two-horizon fragment where the upper horizon is a fine and dense plaster, and the lower horizon is a softer and more yellow plaster. The construction of the walls seems to have been done with identical materials and technique, indicating that the fragments come from the same sequence.50 There are no figures decorating the fragments, and it appears that the pattern scheme is similar to the wall paintings from the upper cistern (trenches A and S). Comparing the fragments with the painted plaster from the upper cistern (trenches A and S), we notice a certain similarity in patterns and colours. This indicates that the material found in trench L could belong to the same period. However, due to the small amount of painted plaster from the trench, the finds most likely had a different original placement. Furthermore, the cistern (trench F) was dated to the early second century ad, which is later than the date of the painted plaster. Trenches O and X Trench O was situated along the north-western edge of the lower Roman cistern, where it was possible to follow building sequences from the Roman period to Umayyad times when the area was finally covered and levelled. In this trench, the so-called East House was uncovered, revealing traces of a thick mortar lining on top of the bedrock from the Roman period. This area is generally characterized by several building phases, and it is difficult to separate these phases. What was built on top of the cistern must have been built after the cistern fell 49 

See ev. J14-Li-86-3. For more examples of painted plaster, see J14-Lbd-52-1, cat. no. 384l, and J14-Li-80-5, cat. nos 389l–390l. 50 

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash out of use. Only the East House is situated fully outside the cistern, and it also shows a slightly different orientation parallel to the northern cistern edge. During the Byzantine period, alterations took place in this house, which can be linked with a high wall in trench F and the westernmost part of trench L.51 During the excavations of 2016, trench X was opened to trace the eastern extension of the East House. The house had an elongated plan, and the inside of the house was divided into three compartments in different sizes.52 The area north of the former cistern was completely transformed in the Early Umayyad period. We do not find any destruction debris or gradual decay, but there appears to have been an intentional manipulation of the area by cutting down the walls and filling the spaces with soil. This filling contains pottery from Byzantine and Late Byzantine to Early Umayyad periods making it difficult to say anything more precise. The area next to the East House was also back-filled with layers of big stones with pottery dating to the Early Umayyad period.53 The mortar material from trench O is scarce, and only two fragments have been included in this catalogue since the rest were too porous to examine further. One of the included fragments is a compact and dense mortar fragment ( J15-Og-56-11, cat. no. 412o). The fragment is greyish and includes large amounts of burnt carbon, pebbles, and tesserae chippings. The fragment comes from a fill layer north of an east–west running wall and was dated to the Late Byzantine/​E arly Umayyad period. A  similar fragment was found in trench X, which is also a dense and greyish mortar fragment with large amounts of inclusions such as tesserae and tesserae chippings ( J16-Xc-4-1, cat. no. 415x). The other fragment from trench O included in the catalogue is stucco, which comes from a fill layer of stones and soil (ev. 64 and 65) ( J15-Oe-64-30, cat. no. 411o). The stucco fragment is porous and has a surface with a sharp squared edge and a curving feature.54 Across the curving feature are two chisel-marks showing the working process of the plastered surface, where another layer of plaster would be applied on top. A small number of stucco fragments from trench X have also been found: one fragment has parallel lines, and two others have two grooves (cat.

nos 418x–419x).55 The plaster of the two fragments with grooves is coarse and contains large amounts of inclusions. There also appears to have been a thin layer of reddish paint on the surface. A few fragments are painted, and among these are two monochrome green-painted fragments (cat. nos 416x–417x) and two monochrome red-painted plaster (cat. nos 413x and 420x).56 Most of these fragments derive from ev. 16, which is a fill layer of yellowish soil that also includes large amounts of pottery, two Jerash Lamps, tesserae, and tiles dating from the Byzantine period to the Early Umayyad period.57 Unfortunately, all of the fragments are poorly preserved, and it is not possible to conclude much about the potential decoration of the buildings in this area. Evaluation The material from the south slope buildings and areas surrounding the large cistern in trench F is scarce. When studying the mortar from trenches O and X, it is evident that both include tesserae chippings, pebbles, and burnt organic material. This indicates a coarse and roughly made mortar, where waste material was incorporated as a binder. It was common to use waste material, but this did affect the quality of the mortar. This type of mortar would mainly be suitable for covering walls or floors. The painted plaster from trench L was not well preserved, and nothing was found in situ. The fragments were decorated with parallel bands and different hues of red, and the decoration seems to be similar to the style found in the upper cistern (trenches A and S). Thus, the painted plaster fragments in trench L appears to date earlier than this cistern on the southern slope.58 This possibly indicates that this kind of wall decoration in Jerash was continued into the second century ad. The Mosaic Hall and the Caves (Trenches J, N, and W) Trench J was laid out in 2015 to find the southern entrance to a cave system as well as to clarify whether 55 

See ev. J16-Xh-10-2x. For unpainted plaster, see J16-Xl-2-271, cat. no. 421x. For more about cat. no. 413x, see ev. J16-Xb-2-64, cat. nos 413x–414x, and J16-Xd-16-41, cat. nos 416x–417x. 57  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench X. 58  For comparative material, see the para­g raph about trenches A and S as well as Eristov and others 2003; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014. 56 

51 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench O. Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench X. 53  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench O. 54  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a). 52 

211

212 an east–west running terrace was hidden under the terrain. As the entrance to the cave system was found, a hall with mosaic floors was discovered (trench N). In 2016, trench W was laid out to investigate the eastern end of the hall as well as the development in the western part of the hall. In its last building phase, the so-called Mosaic Hall (also called Hall of the Electi Iustiniani) measured approx. 18.49 × 10.47 m. The hall was situated next to the so-called Synagogue Church (now also known as the Synagogue/​Church of the Electi Iustiniani),59 and the two buildings were connected by a stairway in the older south wall of the hall leading into the small yard west of the Synagogue Church. The Mosaic Hall seems to have had three main building phases, which are determined by the two mosaic inscriptions mentioning dates. The phase before the construction of the Mosaic Hall is difficult to say much about since there are no finds except for a layer of mortar directly on the bedrock below the Mosaic Hall. The first main building phase is dated to before ad 576, where the layout of the hall is roughly rectangular but shorter.60 During the first phase, the hall measured 13.45 m on the south side and 12.48 m on the north side. The finds from this phase are mixed and span from the Roman period until the Umayyad period.61 The second phase is dated to before ad 591 when the second mosaic was laid, and at this point, the hall was extended with another 5 m in the western direction. This must have meant that the hall underwent a larger renewal with new walls and a new roof. The last building phase belongs to the Umayyad period, and again, the hall underwent changes. In the western end, a new wall was placed on top of the mosaic floor, creating a smaller room in which they installed a podium and a bench against the north wall. The end of the Mosaic Hall is attributed to the earthquake of ad 749. Looking at the mortar and plaster fragments from trenches N and W, the Mosaic Hall must be separated into ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the Mosaic Hall. Most of the collected fragments from trench N come from the context of Nd-57-180, and in this context, we find large amounts of elaborately painted fragments, which stem from the fill in the cave system. From inside the Mosaic Hall, no painted plaster fragments have been found. 59  An older synagogue that had been transformed into a church in ad 530/​31 at the latest. Kraeling 1938, 234–41, 323, 324, and 484 for the inscription with the date ad 530/​31. Most recently, see Dvorjetski 2005. 60  Haensch, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2016. 61  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench N.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen The biggest categories are the painted and unpainted plasters, but there are also small groups belonging to mortar and mortar with plaster, as well as painted stucco. The total amount of registered fragments from trench N is 933. The total amount of registered fragments from trench W is 77. The fragments from trench N fall into the following groups: unpainted plaster (182 fragments), red plaster (251 fragments), dark plaster (147 fragments), multicoloured plaster (205 fragments), green plaster (25 fragments), yellow plaster (34 fragments), blue/​ bluish plaster (5 fragments), stucco with red paint (18 fragments), stucco with blue paint (1 fragment), stucco with no decoration (15 fragments), and multicoloured stucco (7 fragments). Of these, 124 representative fragments were selected. Most of the fragments from trench N come from the same context ( J15-Nd-57-180), and the fragments are in general badly preserved and damaged around the edges, and also the paint is damaged. It is clear from the decoration that many of the fragments stem from the same sequences; however, it is not possible to put many of them together. Whereas most of the fragments from trench N were painted, most of the fragments from trench W were unpainted plaster. The context of J15-Nd-57-180 is connected to the same fill layer in J15-J-25 and is an almost 2 m thick fill layer consisting mainly of soil with small pieces of charcoal, partly well-preserved pottery sherds, and a few larger stones along with the many pieces of wall plaster and stucco profiles. From the pottery, the layer can be dated to the Byzantine period, with a few intrusions of Roman date. Charcoal samples from the bottom of the fill layer were 14C-dated to ad 340–535, charcoal samples from the middle part were dated to ad 411–543, and from the top, to ad 428–605.62 Mortar and Plaster from the Mosaic Hall (Trenches N and W) The mortar fragments from the Mosaic Hall vary in composition. There are both fragments, which are grey and soft with few or no inclusions ( J15-Nf-8-4, cat. nos  516n–519n, and J16-Wbd-6-28, cat. nos 523w–525w) and fragments with a medium number of inclusions ( J16-Wik-47-15, cat. nos  535w–537w). Common for all fragments is that they all have medium 62  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a). Radiocarbon dates were done at the Aarhus AMS Centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity (Denmark), see Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b).

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash or high amounts of charcoal embedded in them. Fragments from ev. J16-Wbd-6-28 have a pinkish hue in the otherwise white plaster. When producing mortar and plaster, it was common to mix in crushed ceramics to create a strong product. The crushed ceramics would be mixed in with the rest of the additives, and this would usually give a pinkish tint to the final product. From the same context two fragments also show several plaster and mortar layers sticking together ( J16-Wbd-6-28). The unpainted plaster is a uniform group that contains fragments, which vary from porous and fragile ( J16-Wc-23-5, cat. no.  527w, J15-Nf-8-4, cat. nos 516n–519n, and J16-Wik-54-12, cat. no. 538w) to dense ( J16-Wbd-29-75, cat. no. 526w, and J15-Nf-8-4). The composition of the unpainted plaster also changes from having few inclusions ( J15-Nh-22-11, cat. no. 520n) to having large amounts of inclusions ( J16Wcd-22-3, cat. no. 528w). A few fragments also have a straw-like structure suggesting that the plaster was added on top of an organic material, which has deteriorated since ( J16-Wcd-22-3, cat. no. 528w, and J15-Nf-8-4). Most of the fragments consist only of one horizon, which is the upper layer of plaster. The fragments, which consist of two horizons, include the upper plaster layer as well as a mortar or another plaster layer that is normally soft and porous ( J15-Nb-20-67, cat. no.  428n, and J16-Wd-44-13, cat. no.  533w). Most of the fragments have a smooth surface, while some display toolmarks ( J16-Wd-40-2, cat. nos 529w–531w). With the unpainted plaster, it is not possible to determine if the plaster came from walls, floors, or ceilings. It appears that even though the Mosaic Hall had a rather elaborate floor decoration, there was no decoration on the walls or ceilings. Here we only see plastered limestone with no patterns or paint on, however, while excavating the area outside the Mosaic Hall, in a cave system, the thick fill layer of ev. J15-Nd-57-180 revealed large amounts of brightly painted wall plaster and stucco (cat. nos 442n–514n). Painted and Unpainted Plaster from the Caves (Trenches J and N) There are three dominant groups within the painted plaster from the caves. The main group of the painted plaster belongs to the monochrome reddish colour, which ranges from a lighter red to a darker red or maroon colour. Another big group is called monochrome dark since the colour is quite difficult to determine. Here the colours change from a dark purple to almost completely

213

black (see cat. nos 513n–514n). The last big group is the multicoloured fragments. Within this group, the fragments all have several colours, and many of them are decorated with parallel bands. The reddish colour represents 26.9 per cent, the monochrome dark 15.7 per cent, and the multicoloured group constitutes 21.9 per cent.63 There are remarkably fewer fragments in colours of blue, yellow, and green, which suggests that these colours were used to add details. Of the fragments with parallel bands, the majority of the fragments display a combination of yellow, red, and dark bands alternating between thin and broad ( J15-Jc-7-9, cat. nos  476n, 479n, and 506n). Several fragments also have the combination of dark red, white, and green parallel bands (cat. nos  478n and 486n). A large part of the pieces also carry the combination of a maroon colour and pale/​whitish bands (cat. nos 476n and 481n). In the context of J15-Nd-57-180, there are also fragments with circular motifs, where one has an almost orange background colour with a dark red, circular pattern on top (cat. no. 482n), and another fragment has a pale background with a dark reddish, circular pattern on top (cat. no. 462n). Most of the aforementioned fragments seem to share the same type of plaster, which is usually dense and whitish with a few inclusions and air pockets. There are some examples where the lower horizon is visible, and this contains more inclusions and seems coarser than the upper layer. The fragments with bluish colours are among the rarer fragments. One fragment has parallel bands, where the background is painted purple/​bluish, and on top a pale/​whitish band is applied (cat. no. 501n). Two other quite small fragments are also of interest here. One is monochrome bright blue (cat. no. 498n), and another is almost metallic purple/​bluish (cat. no. 472n),64 which indicates that the wall paintings must have been colourful (cat. no. 498n). The blue colour is also represented in different nuances as seen on a fragment with parallel blue bands alternating between dark blue and light blue on top of a dark red/​reddish purple-coloured background (cat. no. 509n). Few fragments display figurative patterns. No humans or animals are represented. One piece has a completely neutral background with an orange/​red linear pattern on top indicating a figurative feature (cat. no. 477n). 63 

The fragments stem from trenches J and N. The metallic colour most likely stems from the combination of a dark reddish background with a bluish/​greenish paint on top. How­ ever, this could be a deliberate choice for creating a metallic effect. 64 

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

214 Two fragments display similar figurative patterns: one has a neutral background with a reddish broad band at the bottom of the fragment, and above this is a green figure which could be a clover or a leaf (cat. no. 504n). The other fragment also has a neutral background with a broad, reddish band at the bottom, and a green dot above this (cat. no. 485n).65 A few unpainted plaster fragments have been collected which show a dense and white plaster with a few inclusions (see J15-Jc-6-9, cat. nos  422j–423j, J15-Jl-40-2, cat. no. 427j, J15-Nd-24-3, cat. no. 441n, and J15-Nf-7-2, cat. no. 515n).66 Painted Stucco from the Caves (Trench N) From the J15-Nd-57-180 context, a large group of painted stucco profiles also appear. These fragments have up to four grooves, and most of them are painted with a reddish colour. Some of the fragments alternate between red and dark colours (cat. nos 453n and 492n–493n), and one fragment is monochrome dark (cat. no. 454n). The stucco profiles allude to a colourfully painted room where the walls were finished with elaborate profiles at the bottom and top of the walls. Some of the fragments seem to belong to the same sequence, but due to the preservation of the fragments, it is not possible to join them. The plaster composition of the stucco fragments is different from the plaster used elsewhere in the Northwest Quarter. There are still up to three horizons, but here the upper horizon is usually a coarse plaster with a medium number of inclusions. This is quite different from the plaster used for the walls in other contexts since the upper layer of plaster is normally fine with few inclusions. By using a coarser plaster, it gives the impression of cruder wall decoration, and it would also have been faster to produce since it would not have needed as much milling as the finer plaster. Evaluation By analysing the fragments from this area, it is possible to answer some questions about the production of mortar and plaster. From the unpainted plaster inside of the 65   For more examples of painted plaster, see J15-Jc-7-9, cat. no.  425j, J15-Jl-32-10, cat. no.  426j, J15-Nb-57-17, cat. nos  429n–433n, J15-Nb-57-48, cat. nos  434n–440n, and J15Ni-40-10, cat. no. 521n. 66   For examples of unpainted plaster, see J15-Jc-6-9, cat. nos 422j–423j, J15-Jl-40-2, cat. no. 427j, and J15-Nj-20-31, cat. no. 422n.

Mosaic Hall, we learn that crushed ceramics were mixed into the plaster, which seems to be a different recipe than what we see in other areas of the Northwest Quarter. The plaster otherwise varies in porosity and composition, and by now we can conclude that even though the Mosaic Hall had elaborate mosaic floors, there is no evidence that the building was also decorated on the walls inside. The added ceramics can be explained from various perspectives. The smaller ceramic fragments could be mixed in with other types of waste materials, which were commonly used when mixing plaster as well as mortar. It could also be a matter of creating a quick plaster mixture for faster production. From the caves, there is a vast amount of painted plaster. The material is found in a fill layer, which does not indicate the original position of this building. When comparing with other evidence from the Northwest Quarter, the material from the cave system is similar to the material from the upper cistern (trenches A and S) in colour combination, style and type of plaster, and stucco used. In the cistern, the style was characterized by red, yellow, dark, and multicoloured fragments, and these fragments date to the Roman period. Perhaps the material from the caves should be dated to this period as well. The style from this lost building in the cave system does not belong to the style we see in the later Umayyad houses, the so-called House of the Scroll and House of the Tesserae. In those houses, the colour choices as well as the patterns used are different. Similarities in the stucco fragments are also found. We learn that a coarser and less milled plaster was used in both the upper cistern and outside the Mosaic Hall. By not milling the limestone as finely, a less labour heavy and less costly coarser plaster was produced.67 There are only a few examples of fragments with figurative motifs, and these do have some compelling features such as the circular patterns and the green-painted clover or leaf. It is possible to imagine how elaborately this building outside the Mosaic Hall was decorated with panels of red, panels of parallel bands, and figurative spaces in between. The decorated walls were finished off with colourful stucco profiles completing the building. It was a nicely decorated building, which was destroyed and used as fill at some point before the Byzantine period. Under the Mosaic Hall itself, there is a foundation from an older building, and we know that the cave

67 

Boynton 1980; Oates 1998, 14–15.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash system, in which the large context of J15-Nd-57-180 was found, was closed off before building the Mosaic Hall. House of the Scroll (Trench K) Trench K was laid out to explore the Eastern Terrace immediately behind the Artemision. 68 Several closed contexts from the Umayyad period were excavated here since there were no later rebuildings at any point in this area. Up until the earthquake in ad 749, there seem to have been up to five phases of activity, where the first phase showed traces of a quarry. The second phase, dated to the Early Islamic period, is the construction of the house, which consisted of a large rectangular basement room divided into a north room and a south room. East of this was an open space with a water channel running from north to south. During the third activity phase, the building was extended to the east, and another room in the former courtyard was erected. The rebuilding of some of the rooms indicated the fourth activity phase, where the south room was split into two smaller rooms by a wall. A fireplace from the third activity phase was covered by a new floor, and a simple hearth was built on the new floor. During the fifth activity phase, there were only alterations done in the north room where a wall was built on the older floor creating a low pedestal. A new thin mortar floor was laid, but there are no traces of wall plaster in any of the rooms. Besides several metal objects, pottery, plaster, and stucco, the finds from the Umayyad house included a silver scroll amulet, a small coin hoard with Byzantine and Arab-Byzantine coins, and various pieces of jewellery.69 The fragments of painted wall plaster and stucco imply that the upper floor in this domestic house had decorated walls.70 Unpainted Plaster Most of the plaster from the Umayyad domestic house belongs to the group of unpainted plaster. The total amount of plaster and mortar collected and catalogued from trench K consists of 155 fragments, of which 112 fragments are unpainted. In general, most of the fragments (both painted and unpainted) come from ev. 3, 39, and 44. Most of the unpainted plaster has one horizon preserved. However, a large amount with two 68 

Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015. Barfod and others 2015; Lichtenberger and Raja 2017; 2015a; Lichtenberger and others 2016; Gordon and others 2016. 70  Lichtenberger and others 2016, 332. 69  

215

horizons is also preserved. In general, the fragments are badly preserved with thick lime incrustation. Of those with only one horizon, the plaster is usually characterized by being dense with a medium number of inclusions (see J14-Kb-3-44, cat. no. 545k, and J14-Kc-3-123, cat. no. 549k).71 Of the fragments with two horizons, the upper horizon is characterized by being a white and dense plaster with few inclusions. This suggests a finely milled plaster production. The lower horizon is a more greyish mortar, also with few inclusions (cat. no. 540k). From the context of J14-Ka-3-47, it is also possible to see tool-marks on the surface of the fragments, which is otherwise completely smooth. The fineness of the plaster and the underlying mortar varies (see J14-Ke-3-355, cat. no.  567k, and J14-Ke-415-2, cat. no. 577k). The upper horizon has more inclusions suggesting a different milling process than the lower mortar layer, which is of a finer structure. Compared to buildings from earlier phases (for instance, the upper Roman cistern, trenches A and S), the plaster and mortar used for the inside decoration of the buildings in the Northwest Quarter does not change much and is similar in structure and composition. Painted Plaster The painted wall plaster from the House of the Scroll falls into two main groups, where one is the monochrome painted fragments, and the other group is characterized by parallel bands. Most are decorated with parallel bands.

71  For more examples of unpainted plaster, see J14-Ka-3-47, cat. nos 539k–540k, J14-Ka-3-106, cat. no. 541k, J14-Kabc-3-32, cat. nos 543k–544k, J14-Kb-9-2, cat. nos 546k–547k, J14-Kc-3-57, cat. no.  548k, J14-Ke-3-244, cat. no.  560k, J14-Ke-3-286, cat. nos 564k–565k, J14-Ke-3-352, cat. no. 566k, J14-Ke-44s-11, cat. no. 573k, J14-Kef-3s-344, cat. nos 578k–580k, J14-Kef-3s-345, cat. no. 581k, J14-Kef-30-346, cat. nos 583k–584k, J14-Kef-45-2, cat. nos 585k–588k, J14-Kf-3-186, cat. nos 589k–591k, J14-Kf-3-270, cat. nos 592k–596k, J14-Kf-3-361, cat. no. 597k, J14-Kf-3-468, cat. no. 598k, J14-Kf-3-471, cat. no. 599k, J14-Kf-3-528, cat. no. 603k, J14-Kf-29-5, cat. nos  604k–606k, J14-Kf-44s-3, cat. no.  607k, J14-Kf-44s-5, cat. no.  608k, J14-Kf-47-2, cat. nos  609k–610k, J14-Kf-71-2, cat. no. 611k, J14-Kf-71-5, cat. nos 612k–613k, J14Kg-3N-416, cat. no.  617k, J14-Kg-3s-379, cat. nos  619k–623k, J14-Kg-39-11, cat. no. 631k, J14-Kg-74-2, cat. nos 651k–657k, J14Kh-3-282, cat. nos 660k–661k, J14-Kh-3-448, cat. nos 662k–663k, J14-Kh-3-501, cat. nos 664k–665k, J14-Kh-3-512, cat. no. 666k, and J14-Kh-3-551, cat. no. 667k.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

216 Of the monochrome painted fragments, the largest group consists of twenty monochrome red-painted fragments ( J14-Kd-3-76, cat. no. 550k, J14-Ke-3-219, cat. no.  559k, and J14-Kg-55-1, cat. no.  649k). Next is the monochrome, yellow-painted group with eight fragments ( J14-Ke-3-219, cat. nos  554k–558k, and J14-Kg-39-10, cat. no.  629k), then the monochrome dark-painted group with three fragments ( J14-Kf-3-472, cat. no.  600k–602k), and there is one monochrome green-painted fragment ( J14-Ke-3-175, cat. no. 551k). The monochrome painted fragments all differ between one or two horizons, and not many of them can be joined in the same sequence.72 Some of the fragments are decorated with parallel bands: one has a pale background and one thin, dark band on top (cat. no. 596k). Another is decorated with parallel bands in light green and dark paint on a pale background (cat. nos 596k and 575k for one single dark band on a pale background), and one fragment is decorated with one red band, one dark band, and another red band (cat. no. 562k and for more fragments with dark and red parallel bands, see context J14-Ke-73-3).73 The fragment seems to have been painted with a dark band on top of a red background (like J14-Kg-3s-458, cat. no. 624k). One fragment is decorated with mainly yellow paint with one dark band and one pale band (cat. no. 542k),74 and another is decorated with parallel bands in pale, dark/​b lack, and green (cat. no.  618k). 75 Not many of the fragments decorated with parallel bands seem to belong to the same sequence or wall decoration except for the ones in context J14-Ke-73-3. Stucco Approximately nineteen pieces from the house can be categorized as stucco profiles. Most of these fragments consist of porous and fragile plaster ( J14-Kg-39-12, cat. nos  632k–642k, and J14-Kgh-3-404, cat. nos 658k–659k) usually with two horizons. The upper horizon in general has one or two grooves and is made of a fine plaster with few inclusions. The lower horizon is a

72  For more examples of painted plaster, see J14-Ke-35-8, cat. nos 568k–572k, J14-Kg-3-237, cat. no. 614k, J14-Kg-3N-365, cat. no. 616k, and J14-Kg-3s-504, cat. no. 625k. 73  See ev. J14-Ke-3-258. 74  See ev. J14-Ka-3-540. 75  See ev. J14-Kg-3s-378.

coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets (cat. nos 615k, 634k, and 642k).76 Most of the contexts containing stucco have two or more stucco fragments. However, the preservation of the fragments is poor, they are porous, and do not join. Evaluation Generally, the fragments from the House of the Scroll (trench K) are badly preserved. The fragments have been separated into categories of unpainted plaster, painted plaster, and stucco. The largest group is unpainted plaster, where the fragments have been preserved with several horizons with inclusions ranging from few to medium amounts. Several fragments show tool-marks on the surface, perhaps from a chisel. The painted plaster was also separated into colours, and here the reddish colour was dominating. Several fragments are decorated with parallel bands, but it is not possible to connect the fragments. Stucco profiles are also present giving an image of a building with decorated walls finished with stucco profiles. The stucco is also porous but shows the same characteristics as earlier dated fragments. The fragments still have two horizons, where the upper is a fine plaster with few inclusions, and the lower is coarser with a medium number of inclusions. Compared to the number of objects from the building, it is quite remarkable that the assemblage of painted wall plaster does not consist of more fragments. Compared to the House of the Tesserae, which is also a Umayyad building, the evidence from trench K is quite poor. The painted wall decorations from trench K date to the Umayyad period, but the patterns and colour choices are still similar to the wall paintings of the earlier Romandated buildings. The patterns are repeated, and the transition from the Roman period to the Umayyad does not seem to reflect on the ways a house would be decorated inside. The changes in the material culture from the Byzantine period to the Umayyad period are often difficult to distinguish.77 This could also be an expression of a regional style and choice, where there would not be a clear distinction between Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad styles.

76  77 

For more examples of stucco, see J14-Kg-40-2. Avni 2014.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash House of the Tesserae (Trenches P and V) During the excavation campaigns of 2015 and 2016, the Umayyad complex on the East Terrace was explored. The building was founded in Umayyad times and was entered through a corridor and completed with a basement and at least one upper storey. In front of the main entrance, an entrance hall was built with stone pavement and two columns with Corinthian bases.78 This domestic house had rooms arranged around the courtyard and a rockcut cistern with pipes running from the roof and into a channel leading the water to the cistern.79 At a later point, during the second building phase, several repairs were made with a renewal of most of the stone pavement as well as a new wall. In the eastern room, a trough was installed, which served as storage for tesserae.80 During the third building phase, the portico was extended to create more space and alter the street layout west of the main entrance. During the last and fourth building phase, new simple soil floors were installed similar to floors encountered in trenches K and P.81 A substantial amount of stucco and painted and unpainted plaster have been found from this Umayyad house. Most was excavated in 2015 from trench P, but some also came from trench V. Trench V is characterized by having only a small amount of painted plaster, the majority of the material being unpainted plaster, stucco, and mortar fragments. Unpainted Plaster The unpainted plaster preserved from trenches P and V only comprise of a smaller group of approximately 71 fragments. From trench P there were 40 unpainted fragments and 86 painted fragments. From trench V there were 31 unpainted fragments and 35 painted fragments.82

78 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V. Lichtenberger and Raja 2017, 1001. 80  Lichtenberger and Raja 2017, 1005. The trough was filled with thousands of unused white tesserae. 81  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V; 2015, 35. 82  A lot of the material stem from ev. 16 and 54, which are two closely related soil layers. The layer of ev. 16 is a partly loose and partly compact yellowish secondary soil layer, which could be part of a destruction layer from the earthquake. Embedded in ev. 16 was ev. 54, and all the material from these layers date to the Umayyad period. 79 

217

The unpainted fragments are generally soft and not well preserved ( J15-Pc-15-4 and J15-Pa-16-101, cat. nos 679p–681p), which most likely is due to the conditions of the collapse layer in which the fragments were found. Most of the fragments only consist of one horizon, which is the upper layer of plaster, usually with a medium number of inclusions ( J16-Vb-13-1, cat. nos  904v–913v, and J15-Pc-15-14). From one context there are several fragments with two horizons ( J15-Pb-54-1, cat. nos 850p–876p), where the upper horizon is a dense plaster with few inclusions, and the lower horizon is a much coarser mortar, which is typically grey with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface of these fragments is smooth, yet with tool-marks.83 Again, the texture is fragile and crumbly. Some preserved fragments of unpainted plaster display a pattern pushed into the plaster while wet (see cat. nos 815v, 764p, 767p, 811v, 815v, and 802v).84 This pattern was made in preparation for new wall decoration. Similar discoveries from Qasr ‘Amra suggest that the marks and incisions were typical of ancient plaster underlay before the application of the second layer of plaster.85 The marks would have improved the attachment of the outer layer of plaster on which decoration was painted. On a small handful of fragments, it is also possible to see the marks in a different and more rounded shape ( J15-Pc-16-94, cat. no. 763p, J15-Pcd-13-2, cat. no.  765p, and J15-Pd-16-14, cat. nos  767p–768p), where the aforementioned were sharper and more regular. Under the plaster of cat. no. 767p, it is possible to see a large pottery fragment, suggesting that ceramics or waste material were added to the mortar or plaster mix.86

83  Tool-marks are also visible on fragments from for instance J15-Pb-16-91, cat. no. 718p and J16-Vi-60-21, cat. no. 826v. 84  See ev. J16-Vi-26-24. 85   Lichtenberger and Raja 2017, 1002–03; Vibert-Guigue and Bisheh 2007, pl. 7b. The same type of pattern is also found in Qasr al-Hallabat not far from Qasr ‘Amra. At Qasr al-Hallabat it is possible to see the full sequence of plasters. 86  For more examples of unpainted plaster, see J15-Pa-44-1, cat. nos 707p–708p, J15-Pa-100-1, cat. no. 711p, J15-Pc-15-4, cat. no. 759p, J15-Pd-16-140, cat. no. 782p, J16-Vac-53-5, cat. no. 783v, J16-Vac-53-43, cat. nos  784v–785v, J16-Vb-62-2, cat. no.  796v, J16-Vc-84-12, cat. no. 797v, J16-Vd-25-11, cat. nos 799v–800v, J16Vdf-73-6, cat. no. 802v, J16-Vdf-73-20, cat. no. 803v, J16-Vi-1-60, cat. no. 811v, J16-Vi-49-20, cat. nos 823v–824v, J16-Vi-60-11, cat. no. 825v, and J16-Vi-67-2, cat. no. 829v.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

218

a

Figure 8.5. a) Fragments from context J15-Pb-54-1 (Umayyad). b) Fragments from context J15-Pb-54-1 (Umayyad).

b

Painted Plaster The majority of painted wall plaster from the House of the Tesserae stems from trench P.87 The tendency of and preference for colour had changed, when compared to the style of the fragments found in trenches A, S, and N (the upper Roman cistern and the fill layer from the cave system). It is evident from the finds in these trenches that there was a preference for monochrome colours, such as red, dark, and yellow, and parallel bands in the same colour scheme. In the context of the House of the 87  Most of the fragments belong to ev. 16 and 54 as with the unpainted plaster, but also ev. 35 is well represented in the painted plaster group. Ev. 35 is contemporary with ev. 16 as well as covered by it.

Tesserae, there is a subtle change, where we do not see as many monochrome-painted fragments as earlier. 88 Instead, there are more multicoloured fragments in banded and circular patterns. One of the more distinctive colour combinations is the combination of bright yellow and red ( J15-Pa-35, cat. no. 694p, J15-Pa-16-86, and J15-Pb-54-1, cat. nos  732p–733p and 734p, see Figs 8.5–8.6). The red- and yellow-painted fragments in this group are decorated with parallel bands, and it appears that there has been a broad red panel with a yellow part next to it. On one fragment, it seems that the yellow paint is triangular (cat. no. 733p) (see Fig. 8.6), and in another fragment, another triangular pattern is visible (cat. no. 732p).89 From a different fragment, we learn a little more about the pattern on the walls since we can see one red horizontal band overlapping with a dark vertical band creating an almost perpendicular corner, which was painted monochrome yellow inside (cat. no. 690p). The perpendicular and triangular patterns are also found on two other fragments, however in a different colour combination (cat. nos 691p and 701p). These colours are paler (or more worn/​badly preserved), but the combination here is red and blue/​dark. On the first fragment, there are red, dark-painted parallel bands in various thicknesses, and above this, a thin diagonal band creates an acute angle (cat. no. 691p). On the other fragment, we see a perpendicular angle with a broad, red, 88  Distribution of the fragments from context of J15-Pb-54-1: fragments with no colour: 10; fragments with red colour: 22; fragments with graffiti/​inscriptions: 4; fragments with yellow colour: 16; fragment with multicolours: 32. For monochrome red, see ev. J16-Vg-69-9, cat. nos 805v–807v. 89  This fragment has a deep string impression making it difficult to determine how the pattern would have been on the wall.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

Figure 8.6. a) Fragments from context J15-Pb-54-1 (Umayyad). b) Fragments from context J15-Pd-16-138 (Umayyad).

219

a

b

horizontal band and a broad, dark/​b lue, horizontal band, and thinner, dark, vertical bands (cat. no. 701p).90 More parallel patterns are found in the combination of red and pale/​white. In general, there seems to be a lot of negative space (unpainted surfaces) in these contexts. The broad, dark, red bands are prominently held against the unpainted plaster, but it could indicate that there are larger unpainted areas framed with reddish painted bands, or opposite — red areas with an unpainted surface around ( J15-Pd-16-138, cat. nos  769p–781p, J15-Pb-16-128, cat. nos  719p–720p, J15-Pa-35, cat. no. 692p, and J15-Pb-54-1, cat. no. 743p). Few pieces appear completely without colour (cat. no.  748p), but some fragments have the unpainted background with a delicate reddish pattern on top. For instance, one fragment has an almost floral decoration with two or three red straws (cat. no. 721p), and two have the unpainted background with something that appears to be an inscription or graffiti on top (cat. nos 735p–736p). It is not possible to determine what the inscriptions mean, and it could be interpreted as both being Syriac or Arabic. It is most likely Arabic and could be translated into ‘creep along/​walk leisurely’ or ‘night journey/​hour of the latter part of the night’.91 90  Michèle Daviau 2010, 107 and 116–17; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P. 91   For a more thorough explanation of the inscription, see

A larger group is decorated with circular motifs, where we again see a negative space with decoration around. One decoration consists of red, grey, and yellow circles (cat. nos 739p–740p), and another of a grey circular pattern (cat. nos 755p–756p). Some fragments are also shown with a yellow background and a darker (grey or reddish) circular pattern on top (cat. no. 756p) or a more linear red pattern on top (cat. no. 758p). Here the colours and patterns are a bit more blurred and mixed, making it difficult to determine the overall decoration. At least two fragments display a string impression on the surface, which was most likely used as a guideline for where to paint (cat. nos 741p–742p).92 There are also what appear to be repairs of the wall paintings (see cat. no. 735p). At least one fragment has paint in one of the fractured surfaces of the fragment, indicating that this could have been a repair of the wall.93

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), with the appendix by Larsen. 92  Bloch 2011; Cruikshank Dodd 2004; Ettinghausen 1962; Schlumberger 1986. The string impressions are also seen on J13Da-10-31, cat. no. 863d. 93  For more examples of painted plaster, see J15-Pa-16-86, cat. nos 671p–672p, J15-Pa-35A, cat. nos 709p–710p, J15-Pa-55-12, cat. no. 716p, J15-Pd-16-13, cat. no. 766p, and J16-Vc-84-19, cat. no. 798v.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

220 Stucco Several larger pieces of stucco have been preserved, and they help to visualize how the inside of the house could also have been decorated ( J15-Pa-26-2, cat. nos 682p–688p). As mentioned earlier, the last building phase of the edifice meant a modification of the layout and based on the remains of stucco fragments found in the debris and the mosaic floors, painted and unpainted wall plaster was probably applied only to the ground-floor rooms.94 The stucco profiles clearly show up to three rounded grooves with sharp edges (cat. nos 687p–688p).95 A larger fragment could potentially be the lower part of a stucco profile (cat. no. 682p). The fragments all consist of the same type of crumbly and porous plaster. The plaster has two horizons, where the upper is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions, and the lower horizon is greyer with a higher number of inclusions.96 The same can be said about another stucco fragment, which is also porous and crumbly ( J15-Pa-16-30, cat. no. 670p). There are two horizons: the upper is dense and white with a medium number of inclusions, and the lower is greyer with a high number of inclusions. One fragment is a large piece of stucco shaped almost like an architectural feature ( J16-Vi-49-9, cat. no. 822v). It is shaped like a circle with a sharp edge, and it has two horizons. The upper horizon is a whitish and coarse plaster with a medium number of inclusions shaped as two circles. The lower horizon is a grey mortar, also with a medium number of inclusions. Miscellaneous One fragment certainly belongs to a floor and has a mortar and mosaic sequence intact ( J15-Pa-15-28, cat. no. 668p and J15-Pb-16-91, cat. no. 718p). The mortar is soft and porous with a few inclusions and specks of carbon. Tesserae are fastened in the mortar, and the eight tesserae are stuck together with a thick layer of lime.97 Something similar is seen on a plaster fragment, where the surface seems to have had tesserae stuck in it ( J16-Vd-25-17, cat. no. 801v). The texture of the plas94 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P. See also ev. J15-Pa-16-29. 96  For more examples of stucco, see J15-Pa-16-100 and J15Pc-15-33. 97   For more examples of mortar, see J15-Pa-102-2, J15Pb-16-91, J15-Pc-16-69, J16-Vgi-67-18, J16-Vi-26-5, J16-Vi-26-26, and J16-Vi-49. 95 

ter is porous with a few larger inclusions and medium amounts of air pockets. On one side (perhaps the surface), several squared impressions are visible with sizes matching the tesserae. However, a mosaic floor would not have been constructed in plaster, but in mortar for durability. Evaluation The house was decorated with stucco profiles and architectural stucco features. The walls were decorated with brightly coloured red and yellow paintings in geometric and circular patterns. In this house, there seemed to be much negative space on the walls. Some of these unpainted surfaces display small remnants of inscriptions, most likely in Arabic, and overall, this is a subtle change from the earlier buildings with the monochrome and vividly coloured walls. Again, in this house, we could be seeing a regional expression, where the changes from earlier phases are subtle, and the patterns and colours are repeated to some extent. Few fragments also testify to the actual production of both walls and floors with tesserae pieces stuck in the mortar, plaster with impressions that in size fit with tesserae, and wall plaster with string impressions showing the painters where to paint the walls. The Umayyad House (Trench U) Trench U was placed on the western part of the south slope. A house was excavated north of the South Street and was connected to a long wall. The house was situated on a terrace extending in an eastern direction from the large lower Roman cistern,98 and it measures about 13 m in length and is up to 6 m wide. There is at least a northern and a southern room with several phases represented in the construction. There seem to have been several building phases in this house, and the first phase belongs in the Early Umayyad period. The first building phase of the house consisted of at least two main rooms with mortar floors and windows. The second and third building phases are marked by an expansion of the house, where the floor level was also raised. During the fourth building phase, alterations took place, once again lifting the floor layers with fills, maintaining installations, and reinforcing the supporting walls of the house. Not much of the excavated material helps us differentiate the chrono­ logy of the building phases, but an Umayyad post-reform 98 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench U.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash fals was found, which has dated the fourth phase to the first half of the eighth century ad.99 The destruction of the house happened during the earthquake of ad 749.100 The material from trench U constitutes one of the smaller groups of plasters and mortars. There were registered 56 fragments from 12 contexts, and 39 of the fragments have been included in the catalogue. The majority of the fragments are unpainted plaster,101 except one fragment, which is monochrome green ( J16-Uc-45-15, cat. no. 849u). The layer of J16-Uc-45 is a compact and yellow fill layer, which also contained pottery of big and small sizes, basins, tesserae, tiles, and a marble slab. The one painted fragment does not give enough evidence for concluding anything regarding the house, and this is probably not the primary deposition. The other plaster fragments are plain and consist of only one horizon, which is dense with a few inclusions and medium amounts of air pockets. The surface was smoothened on all the fragments and appears to have small tool-marks (for tool-marks, see cat. nos  838u, 839u, and 841u).102 One preserved mortar fragment (cat. no.  830u) has a perpendicular indent, and the other side is completely smooth. The mortar fragment contains medium amounts of inclusions with many ceramic pieces meaning that this could be hydraulic mortar. In the southern room, a niche of stones and mortar was built next to a pilaster-like structure (ev. 33). In this niche, is a basin (ev. 43) related to the first building phase in the Early Umayyad period. The basin was lined with plaster and had a flat bottom and rounded sides. What the basin was for is unclear. However, the hydraulic mortar fragment of J16-Uc-19-9 (cat. no. 948u) could be from this structure. More generally, the excavation of the Umayyad house revealed several mortar floors and plastered walls. The mortar floors were badly damaged by the destruction of the walls and badly preserved. The same goes for the plastered walls. The plaster is badly preserved as well, and the surface of the fragments is soft and porous. As mentioned above, there is only one piece of painted plaster, but otherwise, it seems likely that this house was not decorated. an Umayyad post-reform Al-Walid  I (ad 705–717) fals of 20 Qïrät minted in Tabariya. See also Schulze and Schulze 2020. 100  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench U. 101  See ev. J16-Uc-23-7 and J16-Uc-41-2. 102  For more examples of unpainted plaster, see J16-Uc-20-17, J16-Uc-23-26, and J16-Uc-25-6.

221

The Early and Middle Islamic Structures (Trenches C, D, and T) In 2012 and 2013, trenches C and D were laid out to investigate the south-western corner of the so-called Ionic Building, and in 2016, trench T was laid out in the north-western corner of this building.103 This large courtyard house showed signs of repairs from the Early and Middle Islamic periods and seemed to have originally been built in the Byzantine period. A cistern remained from the Byzantine period, but this had been excavated and back-filled already in middle Islamic times.104 The architecture, coins, and pottery suggest that the phases belonging to the Ayyubid-Mamluk periods are restricted to the area on top of the hill.105 For the construction of all the Ayyubid-Mamluk structures, earlier walls were reused. This means that the fill layers consist of a mix of Ayyubid-Mamluk material and earlier material from Late Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad periods. The middle Islamic phase consisted of three building complexes, which were not directly connected, yet they were closely related through their locations. The largest building was the Ionic Building. Several agglomerated rooms or one-room houses were situated north of this building.106 The area on which the Ionic Building was built has three activity phases. In the first phase, the area was used as a stone quarry (trench D was laid out here). During the second phase, two rooms were constructed — the north room and the south room. A mortar floor was detected in both the north and south room, and the floors in each room seem to be contemporary with each other (ev. 18). Some coins were found on top of the mortar floor dating from the mid-third century to the fifth century ad. There is, however, some discrepancy between the dates given by the coins and the pottery associated with the same context. Here the pottery points towards the Late Byzantine to the Early Umayyad period, which narrows down the date. The north and the south room were separated by a wall, and so the floors do not connect, however, they are contemporary. During the new constructions in the Ayyubid-Mamluk periods, a fill layer was laid on top of the floor and sealed with a layer of limestone

99   J16-Ud-51-1x :

103  These structures are also referred to as a hamlet in other articles and reports. 104  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench T. 105  Lichtenberger and Raja 2016. 106  Lichtenberger and Raja 2016.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

222 gravel and a clay floor.107 This total reconstruction of the area marks the third phase. Most of the unpainted and painted plaster fragments found in this area stem from J13-Da-10-31 (with some connecting with fragments from J13-Db-10-27)108 as well as from J16-Ta-22-18 and J16-Tb-21-3. Painted and Unpainted Plaster from the Roman to the Umayyad Period The material from J16-Ta-22-18 (cat. nos  885t–889t) and J16-Tb-21-3 (cat. nos 900t–935t) comes from mixed collapse layers, which contain material from the Roman to the Umayyad period. The fragments of unpainted plaster from contexts J16-Tb-21-2 (cat. nos 891t–899t) and J16-Tb-75-5 (cat. nos 939t–941t) are all similar in appearance and layers. Fragments from J16-Tb-21-2 all consist of one layer of plaster, which has a dense consistency and medium amounts of inclusions.109 All have smooth surfaces and are from the mixed layer of ev. 21. From J16-Tb-75-5 two of the fragments have two horizons, where the upper horizon is soft and crumbly plaster with a high number of inclusions. The lower horizon is a soft and yellow plaster with a few inclusions. Ev. 75 is also a mixed context dating from the Roman to the Umayyad period. Of the painted fragments from trench T, especially evidences J16-Ta-22-18 (cat. nos  885t–889t) and J16-Tb-21-3 (cat. nos 900t–935t) should be focused on. The majority of these fragments are painted in either a monochrome reddish colour, which ranges from lighter to darker red, or a monochrome yellow colour. Sixteen fragments with the monochrome reddish colour and six fragments with the monochrome yellowish colour are included. Furthermore, eleven fragments decorated with both red and yellow are included. Of the total sum of the fragments, there are eight fragments with two horizons, and these all seem to be the same type of white and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions in the upper horizon — the surface. The lower horizon is softer and more yellow and contains few inclusions and medium amounts of air pockets. All of these are painted monochrome red on the surface, and it is highly likely that these come from the same sequence. The rest of the fragments from J16-Tb-21-3 only consist of one layer 107 

Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013. Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013. 109  For more examples of unpainted plaster, see J16-Tb-20-19, J16-Tb-27-2, and J16-Tc-10-33. 108 

of plaster, which is also a sandy type of plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The plaster from the single-layered fragments is similar to the plaster of the fragments with two layers, and so, all fragments seem to have been connected to the same wall painting. From the context of J16-Ta-22-18 (cat. nos 885t–889t), three fragments are decorated with paint. One is monochrome red on the surface (cat. no. 885t), and the two others consist of a reddish background with a thin dark band painted on top (cat. nos 886t–887t). The unpainted plaster fragments consist of one horizon, which is a dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions, and the texture is sandy (cat. nos 1006t–1007t). The same type of plaster is used for the painted fragments, which also consist only of one horizon of sandy and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. Painted and Unpainted Plaster from the Ayyubid-Mamluk Period The unpainted plaster is badly preserved and porous ( J13-Da-10-9, cat. no. 854d). The plaster consists of two horizons: the upper horizon is a fine plaster with few inclusions, and the lower horizon is coarser with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets ( J13-Dab-13-44, cat. nos 865d–866d, J13-Dab-13-21, cat. no. 864d). Of the painted plaster, most of the group consists of multicoloured fragments with parallel bands. Only two fragments are painted monochrome red (cat. nos 855d–856d), and another fragment appears with a monochrome pinkish paint (cat. no. 860d). One fragment is painted in a monochrome light green colour (cat. no. 861d), and one fragment with a monochrome dark yellow/​orange colour (cat. no. 884d).110 The rest of the painted plaster fragments have decorations in alternating thin and broad parallel bands in different colours. The dominating colour here is green in combination with red, dark/​black, and yellow (see cat. nos 880d for green and red, 878d for green, dark/​black, and red, and 875d for green and yellow). Reddish and yellow parallel bands are also frequently used (cat. no. 872d), and several of the fragments seem to belong to the same sequence.111 From the context of J13-Da-10-13 cat. nos 885d–863d, several pieces also join with fragments from context J13-Dc-10-16, J13-Db-10-27, J13-Dcd-10-5, J13-Da-10-9, and J13-Dd-29-8.112 It is likely that these 110 

See ev. J13-Dd-23-3. See ev. J13-Dc-10-13. 112  See also J12-Cc-29. 111 

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash fragments all belong to the same building phase.113 The plaster is, in general, coarser in these contexts, and some of the fragments have string impressions perhaps used as guidelines for the paint (e.g. cat. no. 981d). Another peculiarity is the thick layers of paint, which give the impression of al secco painting technique.114 Evaluation Just as there were several building phases of this complex of structures, several wall painting phases were also detected. The first period was broadly dated to the Roman to the Umayyad period, where the painted fragments appear simple in pattern and colour composition. They all come from the same context in trench T and based on the analysis of the plaster and the decoration, they all seem to belong to the same sequence. The fragments are all in the same shade of red and yellow paint, and some with a thin dark band on top. The find context is in general mixed and has finds and pottery spanning from the Roman to the Umayyad period. The painted wall plaster from this area consists of a coarse plaster and a thick layer of paint, indicating that techniques had changed. The parallel bands on these fragments are a motif that can still be found in the AyyubidMamluk wall paintings, but wall paintings from the later Islamic periods would usually have more figurative or vegetal motifs. The style from trench D is much more similar to the earlier Northwest Quarter structures, and it is, therefore, more likely that the fragments from trench D are of secondary deposition. Several fragments from two different layers join, and therefore they must come from the same earlier building phase. The Area around the City Wall (Trench Q) Trench Q was excavated during the 2015 campaign in order to connect the city wall with the interior system of terrace walls. The date of the city wall is contested, and suggestions range from the first century ad to the Late Roman period.115 113 

Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013. 114  Al secco seems to have been used here instead of the al fresco technique, which has been used with the painted fragments from trenches A, S, and N. 115  Kraeling (1938, 41) was the first to argue a date in the first century ad. This date was questioned by Seigne and others (1986, 55–59) and Seigne (1992, 331), who argues for a date in the late third or early fourth century ad. Kehrberg and Manley (2001)

223

There appear to be seven building phases, and the first and second phases can be dated to the Roman period. Here the wall was built in sections from south to north in steep terrain, and both a pedestal and a water drain as well as a retaining wall were built in these phases. The later Byzantine period saw new floors in soil and mortar being laid out between the walls. During the fifth and sixth phases (in the Late Byzantine and Umayyad periods), larger alterations took place and new fill layers raised the walking surface, and several areas were backfilled again. During the Umayyad period, simple clay surfaces were created to even out the area. The last and seventh phase of the city wall is characterized by the collapse, where stones and the core fill of the wall fell on top of the Umayyad soil surface.116 Not much mortar and plaster were found in this area, and it falls into three groups: mortar, painted plaster, and unpainted plaster. There is, however, only one fragment of painted plaster and one fragment of unpainted plaster. The rest consists of mortar fragments, and here twelve fragments have been included in the catalogue. The mortar is similar throughout the different evidences. However, it does ranges from being dense to porous. The dense mortar is also characterized by being dark grey with a medium number of charcoal inclusions ( J15-Qa-29-19, cat. nos 943q–947q). The mortar attached to the stones seems to be more porous than the other kinds of mortar from this trench (see J15-Qc-30-1, cat. nos 948q–949q, and J15-Qd-25-3, cat. nos 950q–951q). The mortar is presumably used to even out a stony area, and the mortar is, therefore, more porous. A few fragments consist of unpainted plaster and mortar underneath (see J15-Qd-43-2, cat. no. 952q). The upper horizon is a porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions, and the lower horizon is the grey mortar, which is also porous with a few charcoal inclusions ( J15-Qd-52-4, cat. nos 953q–954q). The painted fragment is small and comes from a loose fill layer of Roman date ( J15-Qd-27-13, not in the catalogue). The plaster is dense and white with large amounts of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red paint. The unpainted plaster fragment is from the same sector but from a compact soil layer east of the pedestal ( J15-Qd-52-4, not in the catalogue), which is also of Roman date. The plaster is disputed this followed by Lichtenberger (2003, 193); Raja (2012, 142–44), and Lichtenberger and Raja (2015c). 116  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench Q.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

224 curving slightly, and it is dense and sandy in texture. It only consists of one horizon, which is a brownish white plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is otherwise smooth. The North Slope (Trenches H, G, and R) Trench H was part of the investigation of the North Slope, and there it was of special interest to figure out the function of the terrace, to look for retaining walls, to explore the building history, as well as to investigate the connection to trench G.117 Instead of finding retaining walls, a water supply and mortar surface were discovered. The material group from this area is small and only consists of six fragments of plaster with mortar ( J13-Ha-13-33, cat. no. 955h, and J13-Ha-19-4, cat. nos  957h–958h, 960h–961h). One fragment of only plaster is preserved ( J13-Ha-16-9, cat. no. 956h). In the group of plaster with mortar, the plaster is in general dense with a small to medium number of inclusions. The lower horizon, the mortar layer, is soft and grey with larger, but few, inclusions such as charcoal ( J13-Ha-13-33, cat. no. 955h). The fragment consisting only of plaster is dense and coarse with a medium number of large inclusions and air pockets ( J13-Ha-16-9, cat. no. 956h). Trench G was laid out in 2013 to investigate how the North Decumanus continued from the North Tetrapylon in a western direction to the supposed Northwest Gate. 118 The prolongation of the North Decumanus was not found, and this suggests that such a street never existed in this part of the city.119 The material from trench G is scarce and consists of unpainted plaster, unpainted plaster with mortar, and one painted plaster fragment. The majority belongs to the group of plaster and mortar stuck together. The texture of the plaster in this category is dense with few or almost no inclusions. The mortar is more porous and contains few to medium amounts of inclusions ( J13-Gd-12-129, 968g–971g, and J13-Gd-26-1, cat. nos 972g–976g).120 Ev. Gd-12 is a compact fill containing small stones, pottery, and charcoal, and it was probably an earth road foundation. The ev. Gd-26 is clay and

mortar, and for both evidences, it is not possible to say where the plaster and mortar are coming from. From ev.  Gf-30, two fragments appear: one fragment has a piece of tile stuck in the plaster, and the other fragment is painted plaster (see J13-Gf-30-1, cat. no. 979g, for fragment with tile, and J13-Gf-30-8, cat. no. 980g, for painted plaster. See also J13-Ga-24-1, cat. nos 962g–963g). Gf-30 is a secondary fill layer containing occupation waste. In 2015, trench R was laid out next to trench G to further investigate the strati­graphy and to geochemically analyse various soil layers.121 Some structures and features caused by human activity were detected, but finds from trench R are in general poor, also due to erosion events and accumulation processes. One fragment of painted plaster was collected ( J15-Rabc-8-3, cat. no. 981r). This fragment consisted of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The fragment is painted red with a blue band on top. However, it was found in an erosion layer, and it is therefore not possible to say anything about the original deposition.

The Archaeo­logical Contextualization: From the Herodian Legacy to the Early and Middle Islamic Architectural Decorations Our knowledge about the development of Hellenistic wall decorations in the Near East has grown with the explorations of the royal palaces in Jericho, houses in Jerusalem, and the fortress of Masada.122 The studies from these places show that the Hellenistic forms and techniques in painting spread all across this region in the second century bc. Later, Roman styles of interior decoration became part of monumental art in Palestine and other Roman provinces. The Herodian palaces display some of the most important examples of this trend, seen in Cypros, Herodium, Masada, and Jericho.123 These palaces and excavations have been published by Ehud Netzer and Rachel Laureys-Chachy, Virgilio Corbo, Gideon Foerster, and Silvia Rozenberg.124 From the palaces, built by Herod the Great during the first century bc, fresco fragments, decorated walls, plaster mouldings, 121 

117 

Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013. Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013. 119   A similar situation was encountered at the South Decumanus: Gawlikowski 1986, 109; Zayadine 1986a, 8. 120  For unpainted plaster fragments, see J13-Gd-4-5. 118 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a). Moormann 2014, 111; Rozenberg 2008, 283–424; Ben-Tor 2009; Hurvitz 1997; Marshak 2008. 123  Rozenberg 2014, 120. 124  Some of the more significant publications are: Corbo 1989; Foerster 1995; Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004; Rozenberg 2008. See also Netzer 2006 for an overview of Herod the Great. 122 

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash and mosaics were excavated illuminating the history and development of interior decoration.125 The Hellenistic influences are evident in interior walls displaying drafted patterns in the so-called Masonry Style, as seen in the Western Palace in Masada. Elsewhere, for instance in Herod’s Third Palace at Jericho, Hellenistic motifs were adapted to Roman compositions with alabaster-decorated pilasters that seem to be remnants from earlier wall paintings.126 Most Herodian examples are usually compared to Roman decorations, and some Herodian buildings were even redecorated in a more elaborate style, which was more closely related to those in Italy at the time.127 The main features are slabs, columns, cornices, and reliefs in stucco, painted to imitate the precious building material marble known also from the Second Pompeian Style paintings in Italy.128 The imitation of marble slabs in a more or less realistic form continues far beyond the Second Pompeian Style in Italy and seems to perpetuate traditions of the previous periods. From the Western Palace in Masada, mural decorations are attributed to the Masonry Style, and it appears that this place is decorated in a Hellenistic fashion rather than the First Pompeian Style. The patterns and paintings from the Western Palace are depicted with broad red and white orthostats alternating with narrow black ones. There are also decorations with painted lozenges and marble imitations creating an illusionistic effect.129 These wall paintings represent a blend of eastern Mediterranean traditions and a heavy Roman influence, which in itself is highly dependent on the same eastern Mediterranean traditions.130 This particular palace encompasses the complex situation of defining the style in this region. The architectural decoration from Masada is carved in a clear local style rooted in the Hellenistic tradition, and there are Corinthian capitals and other architectural features connected to the style from Nabataean sites.131 In the First Palace in Jericho, Orit Peleg-Barkat noticed that there was a mix of Roman and local Hellenistic/​Hasmonean traditions, and Rozenberg noticed the same in the wall decorations in the palaces 125 

Rozenberg 2014, 120. Rozenberg 2014, 120; Netzer and Laureys-Chachy 2004. 127  Rozenberg 2014, 120. 128  Moormann 2014, 111. Roman decorations are especially found in the residences of the king in Jericho, Masada, and Herodium. 129  Foerster 1997, 67–75. 130  Foerster 1997, 67–75. 131  Peleg-Barkat 2014, 141. 126 

225

in Jericho, Masada, and elsewhere.132 The buildings from the early periods of Herod’s reign were decorated in white moulded plaster according to Hellenistic Masonry Style, where later palaces and public buildings had their walls decorated in the Second Pompeian Style.133 In the Third Palace in Jericho, several rooms appear to be decorated in the Third Pompeian Style, yet in the private and non-representative rooms, the walls were decorated with imitations of alabaster, a Hellenistic trait. 134 Herod’s palace in Jerusalem was referred to as a parallel for the Augustan-period temple of Jerusalem in the impressive study by Theodor  A. Busink from 1970. 135 From the literary source Flavius Josephus, we learn that gold is a dominating decorative material in this temple. Busink suggests that the decoration of the temple in Jerusalem must have been made in the Hellenistic fashion, which Herod also displayed at both Masada and Jericho, and where ornamental bands and framings dominated the wall decorations.136 The entrance hall had decorations similar to the Second Pompeian Style with yellow as the dominating colour (the ‘gold’ from Josephus’s descriptions). According to Busink, the yellow could have been the main colour of the lower wall zone, and other colours, such as blue, could have been in the upper zone.137 Among some of the other wall decorations worth noting are fragments of paintings found under the Augustan layers of a temple in Sebaste, named after the first Roman emperor, yet following the Hellenistic tradition. After the Battle of Actium, Herod the Great rebuilt the older capital, Samaria, and renamed it Sebaste (Sebastos) in honour of the Roman emperor, Augustus.138 The excavations from Sebaste were extensively published by the Harvard excavations, by George Andrew Reisner, Clarence Stanley Fisher, and David Gordon Lyon, in 1924 followed by several publications by John W. Crowfoot and Fawzi Zayadine examining the architecture and evidence.139 The pieces found display painted representations of monochrome yellow 132 

Peleg-Barkat 2014, 150–51. Peleg-Barkat 2014, 151. 134  Rozenberg 2008, 333–67 and 459–64; Peleg-Barkat 2014, 151. 135  Busink 1970. 136 Jos., BI v.6.208, v.6.222–24, and v.4.210; Busink 1970, 1140–52. 137  Busink 1970, 1143–48. 138  Magness 2012, 182. 139  Reisner, Fisher, and Lyon 1924 on the Harvard excavations at Samaria. For the treatment and interpretation of the architecture 133 

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

226 and blue slabs separated by imitations of alabaster and breccia. These fragments do not allow for a reconstruction of the whole scheme, but we can visualize a black plinth and a red dado supporting orthostats that would have been followed by some tiers of horizontal slabs and cornices.140 Some of the more recent literature on this place is Rozenberg’s 2008 publication. She has been able to connect the production of the wall paintings to the visit of the Roman governor, Aulus Gabinius, in 57–55 bc.141 From Caesarea, fragments of wall plaster from the Temple of Augustus and Roma are, according to Rozenberg, similar to murals in the Temple of Jupiter in Pompeii, and most likely also to those in Sebaste as well as a recently discovered temple at Horvat Omrit.142 Here the wall paintings display parallel bands in colours of red, yellow, purple, green, black, blue, and white, and the architecture was dated to around 20 bc during Herod the Great’s rule.143 From the Kathleen  M. Kenyon excavations in Jerusalem, fragments of painted plaster were recently published. 144 Unfortunately, none of the fragments were found in primary contexts, and the pottery can only date them to the fills and layers in which they were found. However, they do serve a purpose here as a parallel to what is discovered in the Northwest Quarter in Gerasa. The motifs and choice of colours found in the Tyropoeon Valley during the Jerusalem excavations are identical with what we find in Gerasa, and the fragments were dated to the Roman period. In Gerasa, this type of painted wall decoration is found in a cistern, which was closed off in the Late Roman period. Comparing the material from Gerasa with the painted plaster from Jerusalem it appears that these should be dated to the same period.145 During the Umayyad Caliphate (ad  661–750), several buildings were constructed throughout the territory, and especially the so-called desert castles have spiked researchers’ interest. Perhaps the most famous one is Qasr ‘Amra located in the desert east of Amman. Here c. 350 m2 of Graecoand materials, see Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938; Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sulenik 1942; Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Crowfoot 1957; Zayadine 1966. 140  Moormann 2014, 111; Rozenberg 2008, 365–66, fig. 430. 141  Rozenberg 2008, 365–66. 142  Rozenberg 2008, 380. 143  Uvarov, Popov, and Rozenberg 2015, 775. 144  Prag 2017. 145  Prag 2017, 255.

Roman and Byzantine paintings are preserved in an Umayyad context with an icono­g raphic scheme spanning from depictions of workers and women to animals and floral motifs. 146 Qasr ‘Amra can be dated to the eighth century ad and functioned as a bath retreat. The frescoes are painted in bright blue, dark and light brown, yellow, and blue-green, spread across the walls, ceilings, and dome of the building complex. A large portion of the frescoes were dedicated to several themes such as hunting, dancing, drinking parties, and mytho­logical scenes.147 A stucco revival appears under the Umayyad Caliphate (with examples at Qasr al-Hallabat, Hammam as-Sarah, and al-Mafraq). The Umayyad bath houses provide an extensive number of painted wall decorations, which are often elaborate and rich in details.148 An important testament to the Umayyad style can be found in Jabal Says in the steppe region east of Damascus. It is a bigger residential area, and Jabal Says is probably most famous for a dated graffito from the pre-Islamic period written in Arabic language and script. The graffito contains the date ad 528, and other finds have indicated that an earlier Christian settlement was there before the early Islamic structures. Jabal Says fell under Islamic rule during the seventh century ad, and the site was abandoned contemporaneously with the general fall of Umayyad rule or as a direct result of the devastating earthquake in the mid-eighth century ad. The wall paintings from Jabal Says are done in al secco technique, and this means that the fragments are damaged since the pigments were applied to a dry plaster. The pigments do not correlate with the plaster in the same way as if the pigments had been applied to a wet surface (al fresco technique), and so they tend to be prone to damages. The colour scheme used in Jabal Says consists of red, yellow, brown, black, and white, and the patterns seem to be of ornate vegetal character.149 Other examples of Umayyad wall painting technique can be found in Khirbat al-Mafjar and Qasr alMschatta, where we also see elaborate and intricate wall decorations. These places all have in common that the imagery is full of details with animals, humans, and veg146 

Vibert-Guigue and Bisheh 2007; Ali 2017, 161. Ali 1997, 37. 148  See Bloch 2011, 120 for Jabal Says, which is an example of Umayyad residential buildings in the steppe region east of Damascus. These are typically located in the desert during the Umayyad period and are therefore also called Desert Castles. 149  Bloch 2011, 120–21, Taf. 58–61. 147 

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash etal motifs. The colours also vary from red and orange to brown, purple, blue, and green. The style is in great contrast to the Umayyad depictions found in the Northwest Quarter in Jerash, which have a simpler expression. Two houses from the Northwest Quarter can be firmly dated to the Umayyad period, and they seem to have a prominent position in the Northwest Quarter based on the objects found in the houses as well as the layout with several rooms and floors.150 The wall decorations found here are of high quality and well preserved, but they are more similar to the earlier style from the Northwest Quarter, which is dominated by parallel multicoloured bands in geometric patterns. A few fragments from the Umayyad houses show vegetal images, and there is also a small part of a graffito. While the habitation of the Northwest Quarter was scarce after the earthquake in the middle of the eighth century ad, more activity seems to appear during the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods. With the Mamluks, moderate prosperity based on the rural economy, especially a flourishing sugar industry in the Jordan Valley was seen. The widespread occurrence of brightly coloured glazed pottery in many of the Jordan sites attests to a population increase,151 which also seems to be the case in the Northwest Quarter in Gerasa. The Mamluks built on the technical and stylistic achievements of their Ayyubid predecessors to develop an individual style of their own. In the Mamluk style, there is great emphasis on geometrical patterns, calli­graphic inscriptions, enamelled glass, and metalwork. Many of the examples found are from religious architecture such as mosques and churches. One of the better preserved examples comes from the Church of St Phocas, near Amioun Libanon, which displays paintings from the twelfth century. Here the figures are identified by Greek inscriptions, and they depict saints, angels, and crosses all heavily ornamented and in various colours.152 Arab architectural decoration was generally focused on calli­g raphy and ornamentations, as for instance the Bevelled Style153 as well as other non-figurative ornamental styles.154 It does appear that during the Fatimid, Ayyubid, and Mamluk periods, figurative paintings are 150 

Gordon and others 2016. Walmsley 2001. 152  Cruikshank Dodd 1997–1998. 153   Term used to describe the distinctive relief decoration commonly used on stucco, wood, and other types of arts from the Islamic period. 154  Ettinghausen 1943. 151 

227

primarily known as miniature paintings.155 In the material from the Northwest Quarter, only a few fragments are found in middle Islamic contexts. However, these are again similar to earlier phases, and since we do not find any other painted plaster fragments dated to the Middle Islamic period, these could be a matter of residual finds or secondary deposition.

Technical Execution in Gerasa: Walls and Paintings Gerasa was mainly self-sufficient when it came to the large amounts of limestone needed to build the city. Initially, the stone quarries were located inside the city, which could be an economic decision in a growing city, as this meant lower time and labour costs for transportation of the stones. The earliest traces of activity from the Northwest Quarter show that the area was used as a stone quarry and only later reused for other architecture, suggesting that the stones were locally quarried at first. Later it became necessary to retrieve the limestone from the hinterland north of Gerasa,156 where the limestone ranged from soft and marly limestone to a much harder dolomitic limestone from the higher elevations. Several stone quarries overlooking the city from east, north, and west have been mapped.157 After extracting the stones and constructing the wall, the wall surface would be covered with mortar and plaster. In the case of the Northwest Quarter the mortar consisted of burnt and slaked limestone with inclusions of ceramics, organic material, and unburnt limestone. The mortar is easily recognized with its grey colour. The plaster in the Northwest Quarter also consisted of burnt and slaked limestone, but with few inclusions. The smearing of mortar and plaster on the walls are known from literary sources such as Vitruvius, who recommended several layers of more or less coarse mortar and plaster.158 One 155 

Ettinghausen 1942; 1962. Abu-Jaber, al-Saad, and Smadi 2009; Hamarneh and AbuJaber 2013, 60; Hamarneh 2010; Kolaiti and Mendoni 1992. For more about the mapping of the quarry sites, see Leonard 1987 and the Jarash Hinterland Survey (Kennedy 2008; Abu-Jaber, al-Saad, and Smadi 2009). 157  Hamarneh and Abu-Jaber 2013, 58. 158   Vitruvius (De arch. ii.5) recommended using seven successive layers of three different qualities: first, a rough layer, then three layers of mortar made with sand, and finally three layers of mortar made with powdered marble. Pliny the Elder (HN xxxv) only suggest five layers: three of mortar with sand and two layers of mortar made with marble or limestone. The first rendering was 156 

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

228 method of making a coarse mortar or plaster consisted of mixing in fragments of terracotta (or sometimes marble if available) for the first layers. This should reinforce the thick rendering and keep it solid while hardening, prevent the mortar from cracking, and improve the adhesion of the next layers. These first layers could sometimes be too smooth, and if this were the case, it was necessary to create either random lines or ordered patterns for the next layer to stick properly. The second layer applied would be of similar thickness or less and would consist of a finer mortar with sifted sand. Its surface was not treated with relief but was smoothened with a float, a rectangular tool, which could leave a herringbone pattern on the wet plaster, making it possible to apply a fine finishing coat.159 The last layer to be applied as a fine and almost pure lime could be as thin as 2 or 3 mm. If it were mortar, it would contain finely sifted sand, or this could be replaced with limestone, gypsum, or powdered marble. Depending on what type of wall it was, it could be left either bare or decorated with wall paintings.160 The walls in the Northwest Quarter in Jerash seem in general to follow this rule. However, the first thick layer of mortar — and not the second — covering the ashlar stones had a herringbone relief. Examples are from the Mosaic Hall (trench W) and the House of Tesserae (trenches P and V), where several fragments show a part of the herringbone pattern as well as a longer sequence of plasters and mortar. A detailed inspection of the upper surface provides information about the technique of the wall paintings. Here it is possible to disclose how the surface was prepared for painting, and how the painting was executed. Wall paintings were in general done with an al fresco technique, which meant that the pigments were applied to the plaster while it was still wet. While the plaster was drying, the pigments bonded with the plaster. On top of the upper layer of fine plaster, the paint would be applied, and if it were a case of al fresco, it was not necessary to add additional binding agents. If the fine plaster layer had already dried, the painting could be carried out in tempera — or mixed technique — and in this case, it is nearly impossible to identify the binding agents today.161 The majority of the painted plaster fragments from the Northwest Quarter appear to be done in made up by lime and unsifted sand in order to maintain a certain roughness, and so its thickness can vary considerably. 159  Adam 1994, 219. 160  Adam 1994, 219. 161  Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011, 16.

al fresco technique. However, fragments from the middle Islamic settlement (trenches C, D, and T) also have traces of al secco technique, where the pigments were painted on a dry plaster surface. Horizontal and vertical guiding lines could be pressed into the wet plaster (or incised with a sharp instrument) to have the decoration lined out before beginning painting. For geometric patterns and circles, compasses were used. If an area had to be particularly shiny, the plaster layers were smoothened as much as possible and made compact by pressing. Upper surfaces could be reworked with marble rollers or polished to obtain a reflective effect. Particularly light materials were employed in ceiling painting: instead of a heavy sand plaster applied on the surface, a lighter plaster containing much lime was used.162 The wall surfaces would, in general, be divided into three main horizontal zones: the lower socle zone, the main wall zone in the middle, and the upper wall zone at the top. The vertical areas would have architectonic elements such as columns or ornamental strips, and the fashion would change according to periods. In the coloured plaster backgrounds, wall paintings occasionally display depressions left by hard polishing tools, imprints made by snapping a cord against the rendering, and impressions made by fingerprints and fingernails (see example from the House of Tesserae, cat. no. 741p). The presence of these imprints suggests that this type of coloured background would have been painted onto a fresh rendering. Again, if we look to Vitruvius, he writes that colours applied on a damp rendering are permanent, unlike those applied on dry support.163 This seems to indicate that the artists used a painting technique on fresh lime renderings. There are other ancient painting techniques not used for the wall paintings in Gerasa: such as techniques that are water sensitive when applied on dry support and become water-resistant when applied on a damp rendering, as is the case with emulsified wax paint. When applied on dry support, this type of paint remains water sensitive for a long time unless it is varnished. However, if it is applied to fresh lime plaster, its soap content reacts with the lime and quickly transforms into insoluble calcium soap, making the paint water-resistant.164 This has been identified in Roman wall paintings from, among other places, 162 

Linn 2017; Zimmermann and Ladstätter 2011.

163 Vitr., De arch. iii and vii. 164  This reaction does not affect paint layers applied on the coloured background as they are isolated from the mortar by a waxpaint layer, remaining sensitive to wet and dry scrub.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Rome. Beeswax has also been identified in Thracian wall paintings, in Byzantine wall paintings from Deir el Suriam, and in Nabataean wall paintings from Petra. This suggests a large geo­ graphical and chrono­logical range of the wax technique in ancient murals.

Synthesis and Final Remarks This article offers an overview of the fragmentary mortar and plaster material from the Northwest Quarter, which covers more than one thousand years. The study of wall paintings in Jordan is still at its beginnings, and for a better understanding and embedding of the material into the artistic landscape, it is necessary to publish and present the material. Other places and periods, like the Roman imperial-period and Herodian wall paintings, are much better understood. Here we learn that the mural decoration was often in Masonry Style, where the walls were painted in single-coloured lozenges with marbling effects. A similar pattern is found in the Zeus Sanctuary in Gerasa, where it is also obvious that the main decoration of the naos consists of large areas in a monochrome colour with alternating panels depicting marbling effects, as well as the upper part of the wall, where Masonry Style fragments could belong. Both the Herodian palaces and the Zeus naos were dated to the late Hellenistic period around the last half of the first century bc, and it appears that the earliest material from the Northwest Quarter (trenches A, S, and N) could be dated to this period as well.165 Unfortunately, we can still only speculate about this date since the strati­graphy from the Northwest Quarter cannot support such a date on its own. We also need to consider a delay in the appearance of the style from the Herodian palaces. Due to the welldated contexts in the Northwest Quarter, we are able to say that the construction of the cistern in trench S was begun in the first century ad and closed off some time during the fourth century ad. However, it is not possible to identify when the wall decorations were made during this long period. The wall painting fragments found in the late Roman contexts in trenches A, S, and N have a characteristic colour combination of red, green, and yellow in parallel bands and circular motifs. There are also large amounts of Masonry Style fragments, which are similar 165   See also the publications from the Hippos-Sussita excavations close to the Sea of Galilee by Eisenberg (2018) for more painted plaster dated to the Roman period.

229

to the finds from the Zeus Sanctuary not far from the Northwest Quarter. These finds all come from thick fill layers from the top of the hill and further down the south slope, and they are all indications of a past which is no longer to be seen in the standing architecture. We can imagine painted orthostates in colours of red and yellow with alternating areas decorated with a marble pattern, and perhaps, the Masonry Style fragments belong to the upper parts of walls together with the architectural stucco. Until now, the only other known example of this type of decoration is from the Zeus Sanctuary. There painted decoration was applied on well-cut limestone blocks, which imitate marble blocks, and by adding the fragments from the Northwest Quarter, we can now add to the discussion of artistic expression and development in Gerasa.166 The finds from the hypogeum in Gerasa are also similar to the material found in the late Roman trenches (A, S, and N). The motifs are not identical, though the imitation of a different stone is present in both places, and the colour choices are similar. This suggests that we are perhaps dealing with a local style characteristic to Gerasa, but still with clear parallels to the Herodian Palaces. From the Umayyad period in the Northwest Quarter, two houses have shown two quite different expressions. The House of the Scroll (trench K) is almost completely stripped of any painted decoration. There are only a small number of painted fragments. They are still in the same colour shades as in earlier phases. From this house, there are also stucco profiles. The other Umayyad house, the House of the Tesserae (trenches P and V), is characterized by elaborate wall decorations with colours of red, yellow, and bluish in geometric patterns as well as large stucco profiles. Few fragments show circular motifs; however, they do not seem to be a marble imitation like the one we saw in the late Roman contexts. In the House of the Tesserae, there were also found fragments with an inscription indicating a change from the earlier periods. These fragments are also characterized by having unpainted space as well as string impressions and what could appear to be repairs of the paintings. The Umayyad period in Gerasa seems to continue and repeat some of the patterns and colours from earlier periods yet include new features such as inscriptions. 166   Foerster 1995, 1–79; Rozenberg 2008, 343–55, figs 375–413. The decoration from the Zeus Sanctuary appears to be in the fashion of the First Pompeian Style, which means that the painters followed the taste of the time, which is also similar to the murals in the royal palace of Masada.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

230 The fragments that were interpreted as middle Islamic (trenches C, D, and T) should most likely be understood as secondary deposits. Here the decoration consists of parallel bands in different colours similar to both the late Roman and the Umayyad colour schemes. It is still dominated by red, yellow, dark colours, blue, and green. The patterns seem to be repeated with the geometrical shapes, but the painting style has changed, and the thick layers of paint point towards the al secco technique. There are still no figures or inscriptions present or preserved, and the style is identical to the Roman fragments from the upper Roman cistern (trenches A and S) and the cave system (trenches J and N). The principal influence in interior decoration in the Near East seems to have come from the well-known Masonry Style widely used in the neighbouring areas, where they had a long tradition of wall painting and decoration.167 The Northwest Quarter wall paintings and decorations appear to be a nice example of the creativeness of provincial wall painting. While retaining the characteristics of the Masonry Style, but at the same time including artistic concepts from other styles, they managed to maintain some freedom of design and originality in the repertoire of decorative elements and their execution. What we see in the Northwest Quarter in Gerasa are presumably reflections of a regional style that was familiar, with expressions found in neighbouring regions, at the same time as it also transferred that knowledge into a style of its own.

167 

Berlin 1997, 2; Smith 1990, 126.

Catalogue of Plaster and Mortar Fragments The fragments of wall decoration from the Northwest Quarter excavations stem from complex strati­g raphies. The area has been subjected to several modifications and destructions through time. The majority of the contexts are secondary: this can be disturbances by human activity or natural forces after original deposition of the objects, and both human and natural disturbances occur in the Northwest Quarter. This situation has significance for the dating of the artefacts found in the different layers, and we cannot rely on only dating the context from a single material group. In the case of the wall decorations, the secondary depositions mean that the fragments found can both be older and younger than the rest of the materials found in the same layers. Therefore, the dating of the wall decorations must rely on comparable material found in other excavations, both from local and regional perspectives. The fragments presented in this catalogue are a representative spectrum of the plaster and mortar finds from the Northwest Quarter in Jerash stemming from the excavation campaigns from 2012 to 2016. Just as the analysis in the article text has been organized in chrono­ logical order, so has the catalogue. The earliest structures are treated first. For each new context in the catalogue, there will be a short description of the context along with a date for the context, references to publications where the material has already been discussed as well as to comparable material, and other comments. However, references and dates are not given for all the contexts: in general, the material is fragmented, and it is not always possible to determine the date or find relevant references for plain plaster fragments and mortar fragments. After this, each fragment of the given context is described. The description includes Size (H: height; W: width; and T: thickness), Texture and preservation (including number and thickness of horizons), Plaster colour, and Decoration. Horizons indicate the layers of plaster and mortar. All measurements are in centimetres.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

231

Chrono­logy Hellenistic: 332–63 bc Roman:  63 bc–ad 250 Late Roman: ad 250–400 Early Byzantine: ad 400–450 Byzantine: ad 450–550 Late Byzantine: ad 550–640 Umayyad: ad 640–749 Abbasid: ad 750–1000 Fatimid: Eleventh–twelfth centuries ad Ayyubid: Twelfth–thirteenth centuries ad Mamluk: Thirteenth–sixteenth centuries ad

The Roman Cistern (Trenches A and S) J12-Abf-22 Context: Rectangular room in trench A. The inside of the room shows one phase of plaster indicating that the room’s architectural design was of one single phase. Soil strati­g raphy consists of two main soil units:  modern backfill layers and ancient intentional fill layers (ev. 22). The layer Abf-22 also contains nails, pottery, and bones.

2a

1a

3a

4a

2a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 4.7; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint with a thin, white band across.

The fragment is dense with a completely smooth surface that is painted reddish with a thin, whitish band across. There are a minimal number of inclusions in the horizon and no air pockets.

Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence).

3a. Fragment of painted plaster

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 58; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

Size: H: 7.0; W: 7.2; T: 4.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 3.2. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish/​brownish paint.

1a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 11.2; W: 10.3; T: 3.4. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 2.3; (3) 0.2. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint.

The large fragment is crumbly and porous except for the upper horizon (1), which has a completely smooth surface that is painted monochrome reddish. There are a medium number of inclusions in the upper horizon (1) and no air pockets. The middle horizon (2) is coarser with more inclusions and more air pockets. The lower horizon (3) is a brownish layer of soil pressed against the plaster of the middle horizon.

The fragment is crumbly and porous. It consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is completely smooth with reddish/​brownish paint on the surface. The lower (2) is coarse with a medium number of inclusions and big air pockets.

4a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 7.1; T: 2.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 2.3. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Whitish; Decoration: Reddish/​brownish paint.

The fragment is crumbly and porous. It consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is completely smooth with reddish/​brownish paint on the surface. The lower (2) is coarse with a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets.

232

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

8a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 3.0; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green paint with remains of a reddish band.

6a 5a

10a 11a

J12-Ae-16 Context: Rectangular room in trench A. The inside of the room shows one phase of plaster indicating that the room’s architectural design was of one single phase. Soil strati­g raphy consists of two main soil units:  modern backfill layers and ancient intentional fill layers (ev. 16). The layer Ae-16 also contains pottery, tiles, and bones. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 58; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

5a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 5.2; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish/​brownish paint.

The fragment is dense with a single horizon preserved. The surface is smooth with reddish/​brownish paint, a medium number of inclusions, and no air pockets.

6a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 5.6; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish/​brownish paint.

The fragment is dense with a single horizon preserved. The surface is smooth with reddish/​brownish paint. A minimal number of inclusions and no air pockets.

7a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 4.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark/​blackish paint.

The fragment is dense with a single horizon preserved. The surface is smooth with dark/​blackish paint and a medium number of inclusions.

The fragment is dense with a single horizon preserved. The surface is smooth with green paint. On top of the green paint are remains of a reddish horizontal band. A medium number of inclusions.

9a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.6; W: 1.7; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish/​brownish paint.

The fragment is dense with a single horizon preserved. The surface is smooth with monochrome reddish/​ brownish paint. There are a few inclusions.

J12-Ae-19-1 Context: Rectangular room in trench A. The inside of the room shows one phase of plaster indicating that the room’s architectural design was of one single phase. Soil strati­g raphy consists of two main soil units:  modern backfill layers and ancient intentional fill layers (ev. 19). The layer Ae-19 also contains a miniature Doric capital and column, fragments of an incense burner, and bones. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 58; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 12; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

10a. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 5.5; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment has a smooth surface with a few chiselmarks. Only one horizon is preserved, and it is dense with a few inclusions.

11a. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.1; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment has a smooth surface with a few chiselmarks. Only one horizon is preserved, and it is dense with a few inclusions.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

233 17a

14a

15a

16a

12a. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.6; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment has a smooth surface with a few air pockets and a small number of inclusions. Only one horizon is preserved, and it is dense with a few inclusions.

13a. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 3.4; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment has a smooth surface with a few air pockets and a small number of inclusions. Only one horizon is preserved, and it is dense with a few inclusions.

14a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 3.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.7. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome paint in reddishbrown colour.

The fragment has a smooth surface, which is painted in monochrome reddish-brown colour. The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine layer of plaster with a few inclusions and a painted surface. The lower (2) is coarser with a medium number of inclusions.

15a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome paint in reddish-brown colour.

The fragment has a smooth surface, which is painted in monochrome reddish-brown colour. The fragment consists of one horizon with a medium number of inclusions with only smaller pebbles and no air pockets.

16a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.4; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome paint in reddish-brown colour.

The fragment has a smooth surface, which is painted in monochrome reddish-brown colour. The fragment consists of one horizon with a medium number of inclusions with only smaller pebbles and no air pockets.

J12-Ae-19-2 Context: Rectangular room in trench A. The inside of the room shows one phase of plaster indicating that the room’s architectural design was of one single phase. Soil strati­g raphy consists of two main soil units:  modern backfill layers and ancient intentional fill layers (ev. 19). The layer Ae-19 also contains a Doric capital and column, fragments of an incense burner, and bones. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 58; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 12; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

17a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 8.4; W: 7.9; T: 3.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 2.8. The texture is dense, but porous. Plaster colour: Whitish/​greyish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is completely smooth with red paint. The texture is finer with no inclusions compared to the lower (2), which is coarse. It has a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets.

18a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 6.9; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. The texture is dense, but porous. Plaster colour: Whitish/​greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is completely smooth on the surface. It has a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets.

234

20a

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

21a

22a

24a 23a

19a. Fragment of painted plaster

22a. Fragment of stucco

Size: H: 4.1; W: 5.4; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. The texture is dense, but porous. Plaster colour: Whitish/​greyish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 5.6; W: 2.6; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is completely smooth on the surface. It has a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets.

J12-Af-13 Context: Rectangular room in trench A. The inside of the room shows one phase of plaster indicating that the room’s architectural design was of one single phase. Soil strati­g raphy consists of two main soil units:  modern backfill layers and ancient intentional fill layers (ev. 13). The layer Af-13 also contains pottery (mainly cooking pots), coins, and bones. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 58; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013, 12; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008; 2014.

20a. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 6.9; W: 4.5; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The stucco fragment is porous and crumbles easily. There are two rounded impressions in the fragment. The fragment has many air pockets and a few inclusions.

21a. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 6.2; W: 4.6; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.1. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The stucco fragment is porous and crumbles easily. There is one rounded impression and a sharp corner in the fragment. The fragment has a high number of air pockets and a few inclusions.

The stucco fragment is very porous and crumbles easily. The fragment has one rounded impression, a high number of air pockets, and a few inclusions.

J12-Af-16 Context: Rectangular room in trench A. The inside of the room shows one phase of plaster indicating that the room’s architectural design was of one single phase. Soil strati­g raphy consists of two main soil units:  modern backfill layers and ancient intentional fill layers (ev. 16). The layer Af-16 also contains pottery, tiles, and bones. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 58; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

23a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.3; W: 6.7; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish/​ yellowish. Decoration: Figures/​letters in reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is smooth on the surface with figures/​letters in reddish paint. The fragment contains almost no air pockets and a few inclusions.

24a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 6.8; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish/​ yellowish. Decoration: Broad, horizontal band in dark bluish/​ blackish.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is smooth on the surface with a broad, horizontal band in a dark bluish/​blackish colour. Under the dark band, the fragment is broken, and it seems to be a protruding part that has been broken off. The fragment contains a few air pockets and a few inclusions.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

25a

235

30s

27a 28a

29s

31s

J16-Sa-2-23 25a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 3.9; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish/​ yellowish. Decoration: Monochrome paint in bluish/​blackish colour.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is smooth on the surface and painted in a dark bluish/​blackish colour. The fragment contains almost no air pockets and has only a few inclusions.

26a. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.2; W: 3.9; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is completely smooth on the surface. The fragment contains a few air pockets and a few inclusions.

27a. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 4.7; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.6. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is completely smooth on the surface with few inclusions and no air pockets. The lower (2) is coarser with a medium number of inclusions.

28a. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 4.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel dark and whitish bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon with a few air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with three horizontal painted bands: one broad, dark band, a thin, whitish band, and then a dark band below.

Context: The layer of ev. 2 is a yellowish soil fill covering the cistern fill of ev. 13. In this ev. there are also pottery, coins, and architectural features present. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

29s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 3.5; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel green, white, blue, and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands in green, white, green, blue, and red.

30s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 2.5; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel green, blue, and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands in green, blue, and red.

31s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 4.2; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel white and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands in white, red, white, and red.

236

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

35s

32s

34s 33s

36s

37s

32s. Fragment of painted plaster

34s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 2.5; W: 2.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel white and red bands.

Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.6; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense and the colour is damaged. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish, but in different shades of red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands, a broad, red band, and a thin, red band.

33s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 6.0; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and more yellowish plaster with a few larger inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

J16-Sa-8-5 Context: Ev. 8 consists of a loose, brown fill connected to ev. 11. It is covered by ev. 2, and ev. 8 is the same layer as ev. 13. Ev. 8 also contains pottery, a late Roman coin, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad, last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with different shades of red — some dark and some lighter.

35s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 2.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish background with darker irregular pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish background with an irregular darker pattern on top.

36s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.3; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

37s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.5; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

237

38s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 3.4; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.2. Dense and colour is damaged. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

41s 38s 43s

42s

39s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 5.3; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and colour is damaged. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

40s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 4.1; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

41s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.5; W: 2.1; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J16-Sa-8-7 Context: Ev. 8 consists of a loose, brown fill connected to ev. 11. It is covered by ev. 2, and ev. 8 is the same layer as ev. 13. Ev. 8 also contains pottery, a late Roman coin, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

42s. Fragment of unpainted stucco Size: H: 6.5; W: 7.4; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.6; (2) 1.3. Crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a crumbly and poorly preserved plaster. The fragment has two horizons:  the upper (1) is a finer plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is coarser with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a moulded groove.

43s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 3.2; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.6; (2) 0.2. Crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a white and crumbly plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. There is little surface, and this has pressing marks from tesserae.

J16-Sa-17-3 Context: Sa-17 consists of a soil fill covered by ev. 2. The layer also contains pottery and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S.

44s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.3; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

238

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J16-Sb-8-11 49s 48s

50s

51s

52s

53s

45s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.7; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

46s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 2.6; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

47s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.4; W: 1.8; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

48s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 1.7; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel dark bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with two parallel bands, one thin and one broad.

Context: Sb-8 consists of a loose, brown soil fill, which is covered by ev. 2. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, coins, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008; 2014.

49s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 5.2; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish background with a darker reddish pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

50s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 3.9; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish background with a darker reddish pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

51s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish background with a darker reddish pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

52s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red pattern on top.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish background with a darker reddish pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

239

54s (2) 54s (1)

53s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 2.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with thin, blue band on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background with a thin, blue band on top.

J16-Sb-8-12 Context: Sb-8 consists of a loose, brown soil fill, which is covered by ev. 2. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, coins, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

54s. Fragment of unpainted plaster with a piece of ceramics Size: H: 8.6; W: 5.9; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 1.4. Crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: one is a piece of ceramics (1), and the other is a white and crumbly plaster (2). The ceramic is stuck in the plaster and seems to have four grooves. The plaster has a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

55s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 3.5; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.0. Crumbly and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

56s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.2; W: 3.4; T: 2.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.5. Hard. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a hard and whitish plaster/​stone? There is no surface.

57s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 3.4; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

58s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 3.2; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and sandy plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

59s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.7; W: 1.7; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

60s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.6; W: 1.9; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

240

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen 61s

62s. Fragment of painted plaster

62s

Size: H: 5.0; W: 4.0; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddishcoloured band.

63s. Fragment of painted plaster 64s 63s

65s

J16-Sb-22-1 Context: Sb-22 consists of a loose and brown fill layer covered by ev. 21. Pottery, tesserae, coins, tiles, and architectural features are also found in the layer. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008; 2014.

61s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.4; W: 5.3; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as a corner (rectangular corner) and is otherwise smooth. Under the corner is a thin, reddish-coloured band to one side of the corner.

Size: H: 6.1; W: 9.2; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge with a red band on either side.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as a corner (rectangular corner) and is otherwise smooth. Thin, reddish-coloured bands frame the corner.

64s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.6; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge with a red band on either side.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as a corner (rectangular corner) and is otherwise smooth. Thin, reddish-coloured bands frame the corner.

65s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.7; W: 7.4; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.8; (2) 0.3. Porous and dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge with a red band on either side.

The fragment has two horizons:  the upper (1) consists of a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The plaster is coarse. The lower (2) is more porous and crumbles easily with a few inclusions. The surface is moulded with a protrusion in the middle of the fragment with reddish paint on either side.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

66s

67s

72s

68s

73s

66s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with a groove — in this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with one groove, which is painted red, and otherwise it is smooth.

67s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 2.2; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with a groove — in this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with one groove, which is painted red, and otherwise it is smooth.

68s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.6; W: 4.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Light reddish/​pinkish background with dark pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The plaster is coarse. The surface is smooth with a pinkish/​light reddish background with a dark red, irregular pattern on, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

69s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.9; T: 0.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish pattern.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The plaster is coarse. The surface is smooth with a dark reddish, irregular pattern on an orange/​dark yellow background, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

69s

70s

241

71s

70s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 2.9; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The plaster is coarse. The surface is smooth with monochrome reddish paint.

71s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.0; W: 6.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The plaster is coarse. The surface is smooth with monochrome dark paint.

72s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 5.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as a corner (rectangular corner) and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to one side of the corner is a thin, reddish-coloured band.

73s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 3.5; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as a corner (rectangular corner) and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to one side of the corner is a thin, reddish-coloured band.

242

74s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 2.9; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as a corner (rectangular corner) and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to one side of the corner is a thin, reddish-coloured band.

75s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.7; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddishcoloured band.

76s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.0; W: 4.1; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddishcoloured band.

77s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 3.2; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddishcoloured band.

78s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 4.1; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One hori­ zon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decora­tion: Moul­ded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddishcoloured band.

79s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 6.0; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddishcoloured band.

80s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 4.2; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddishcoloured band.

81s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 3.9; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddishcoloured band.

82s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 4.3; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface has a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddishcoloured band.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

83s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.5; W: 6.8; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded like a corner and smooth on both sides. One side is painted with a light reddish background with a darker red, irregular pattern on top. The other side is monochrome light green, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

84s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.6; T: 0.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pale red and dark red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a light reddish background with a darker red, irregular pattern on, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

85s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

86s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 2.4; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

243

J16-Sb-22-8 Context: Sb-22 consists of a loose and brown fill layer covered by ev.  21. In the layer, also pottery, tesserae, coins, tiles, and architectural features were found. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

87s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.6; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

88s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.6; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

89s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.5; W: 2.4; T: 0.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

90s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.5; W: 2.4; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

91s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.6; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.7; (3) 0.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

244 The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The middle (2) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (3) is a softer and more porous yellowish/​white plaster with a few inclusions, a medium number of air pockets, and a straw-like structure. The surface is smooth.

92s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 4.7; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon. The surface is smooth.

93s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon. The surface is smooth.

94s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 4.3; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J16-Sb-22-12 Context: Sb-22 consists of a loose and brown fill layer covered by ev.  21. In the layer, also pottery, tesserae, coins, tiles, and architectural features were found. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008; 2014.

96s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 6.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddish-coloured band.

97s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 6.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddish-coloured band.

95s. Fragment of unpainted plaster

98s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 2.9; W: 2.6; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 6.1; W: 5.3; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth. Under and parallel to the sharp edge is a thin, reddish-coloured band.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

100s

101s

102s

103s

104s

245

105s 106s

99s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 5.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth.

100s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 4.2; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth.

101s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 5.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth.

102s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.2; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth.

103s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.1; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth.

104s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 2.7; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and is otherwise smooth.

105s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 2.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge and otherwise smooth.

106s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.3; W: 5.1; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.0. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with a sharp edge going out as a panel and moulded as a corner. Above this, a band.

246

107s

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

108s

109s

107s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 3.2; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 1.2. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with incision.

The fragment consists of two horizons. The upper (1) is a fine and white layer of plaster. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as an up-going curve with one deep incision.

108s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 5.0; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 1.3. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with incision.

The fragment consists of two horizons. The upper (1) is a fine and white layer of plaster. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as an up-going curve with one deep incision.

109s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 4.3; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 1.5. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with incision.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white layer of plaster. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as an up-going curve with one deep incision.

110s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 4.6; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 1.6. Dense and thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with incision.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white layer of plaster. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as an up-going curve with one deep incision.

110s

111s

112s

113s

J16-Sb-22-30 Context: Sb-22 consists of a loose and brown fill layer covered by ev. 21. Pottery, tesserae, coins, tiles, and architectural features have also been found in the layer. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

111s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 3.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark band and white band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with parallel dark and white bands.

112s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 2.8; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Greenish band and white band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with parallel greenish and white bands.

113s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 2.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome yellowish.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

247

115s 114s

116s

118s 117s

J16-Sb-23-11 Context: Ev. Sb-23 is a layer with ashes around the fireplace of ev. 26 in the Roman cistern. Tesserae, pottery with pigments, tiles, and architectural features were also found. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

114s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.4; W: 6.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Fragment is moulded with a sharp edge (corner) and a thin, red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as a corner (rectangular corner) and otherwise smooth. Under the corner is a thin, reddish-coloured parallel band.

115s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 7.1; W: 4.7; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.0. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in multicolour, green, dark, pale, and red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and curves slightly in one end. The surface is decorated with parallel bands: one band with a pinkish background with a dark red irregular pattern on, a broad, green band, a thin, dark red/​purple band, a whitish band, and then a red band.

116s. Moulded plaster with paint Size: H: 4.3; W: 7.2; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Fragment is moulded with a sharp edge and a thin, red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with an edge and is otherwise smooth. Under the edge is a thin, reddish-coloured parallel band.

117s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.8; W: 3.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Circular pattern with a thin, green band and a red blob.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with one large circular, red blob, and around this a thin, green circular band and then a whitish, thin, circular band.

118s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.5; W: 6.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Fragment is moulded with a sharp edge (two corners) and a thin, red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with two corners (rectangular corners) and is otherwise smooth. On one side is a thin, reddish-coloured parallel band.

248

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

119s

120s

121s

122s

123s

119s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 3.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish background with a dark red, irregular pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

120s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 4.6; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Fragment is moulded with a sharp edge and a thin, red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with an edge and is otherwise smooth. Under the edge is a thin, reddish-coloured parallel band.

121s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 4.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red paint.

122s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.0; W: 6.3; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Light reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a light reddish band and a whitish band.

124s

125s

123s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.7; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellowish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with yellowish monochrome paint.

124s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 5.4; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with reddish monochrome paint.

125s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 6.3; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with reddish monochrome paint.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

249

130s 126s 127s

128s

129s

126s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 3.1; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with dark monochrome paint.

127s. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 5.3; W: 5.1; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and green paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and curving and painted with a reddish band, a pale/​whitish band, and then a green band.

128s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.3; W: 4.4; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish, pale, and blue paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pale/​whitish band, a broader, blue band, a thin, pale/​whitish band, and then a broad, reddish band. All bands are parallel.

129s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 2.9; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish, pale, and blue paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish background. On top, pale and light blue paint indicates circles.

131s

132s

130s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.3; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green and pale parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish back­ ground. On top, pale and light blue paint indicates circles.

131s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.4; W: 1.6; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome green.

J16-Sb-26-2 Context: The ev.  of Sb-26 consists of ashy soil and is most likely a fireplace. The layer also contains a few pottery fragments and is covered by ev. 23. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others 2016, on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

132s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 3.2; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome dark red.

250

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

136s

133s 134s

135s 137s

133s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.3; W: 1.7; T: 0.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.5. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome brown.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome brown.

134s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.4; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in red, dark/​black, and white.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands in red, dark/​black, and pale/​white.

J16-Sb-27-5 Context: The ev. of Sb-27 consists of a thin soil layer on top of a mortar floor (ev. 28). The layer also contains pottery fragments. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

135s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 3.5; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Mainly red, but with traces of darker paint on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a monochrome red background with traces of darker paint on top.

138s

136s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 3.8; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense, but the colour is badly damaged. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

137s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 2.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J16-Sb-27-8 Context: The ev. of Sb-75 consists of a thin soil layer on top of a mortar floor (ev. 28). The layer also contains pottery fragments. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Rozenberg 2008.

138s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.8; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense, with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark red paint.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

251

143s

140s

141s

142s

139s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 4.8; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9, (2) 0.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of larger inclusions. The lower (2) is a softer and grey mortar with no inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J16-Sb-54-1 Context: Roman cistern. The layer also contains painted plaster, pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features. Ev. Sb-54 was embedded in ev. 13. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Rozenberg 2008.

140s. Fragment of stucco profile Size: H: 4.0; W: 8.1; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: The plaster is moulded.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a porous and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a few air pockets. The fragment is moulded with a protruding curve, one groove, and the indication of another protruding curve.

141s. Fragment of stucco profile Size: H: 4.5; W: 6.4; T: 2.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.5. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: The plaster is moulded.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a porous and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a few air pockets. The fragment is moulded with a protruding curve, one groove, and the indication of another protruding curve.

144s (1)

144s (2)

142s. Fragment of stucco profile Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.5; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: The plaster is moulded.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a porous and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a few air pockets. The fragment is moulded with a protruding curve, one groove, and the indication of another protruding curve.

143s. Fragment of stucco profile Size: H: 5.3; W: 5.4; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.1. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: The plaster is moulded.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a porous and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a few air pockets. The fragment is moulded with one groove, a protruding curve, another groove, and then an indication of a second protruding curve.

J16-Sc-2-13 Context: The layer of ev. 2 is a yellowish soil fill covering the cistern fill of ev. 13. Pottery, coins, and architectural features are also present in this soil fill. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

144s. Fragment of pottery with plaster Size: H: 7.0; W: 10.0; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish/​light brown. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish/​light brown plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a large piece of pottery.

252

145s

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

146s

147s

148s

149s

149s. Fragment of painted plaster

150s

151s

152s

145s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 6.1; T: 2.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 1.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish/​light brown. Decoration: Monochrome light red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish/​light brown plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome light/​pale reddish.

146s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 4.2; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish/​light brown. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a light brown/​whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclu­sions. The surface is smooth and monochrome dark.

147s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and more yellowish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome dark red/​purple.

148s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 4.1; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense, poorly preserved, with a thick lime incrusta­ tion. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. There is a thick lime incrustation on the surface. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

Size: H: 5.3; W: 3.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, poorly preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in reddish, pale, and purple.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. Thick lime incrustation on the surface. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands of purple, pale/​white, and red.

150s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.1; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pattern in pinkish, red, and white.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red triangle, a pinkish band, and a white band.

151s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.7; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and lighter brown plaster with a few larger inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

152s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.5; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

154s

253

155s 156s

153s

157s

158s

157s. Fragment of painted plaster 159s

160s

161s

153s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.7. Dense with a thick incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red and dark.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and lighter brown plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red with thick incrustation.

154s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 5.1; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense with a thick incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red with thick incrustation.

155s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 3.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark red and red with two white dots.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and lighter brown plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a dark red band and a lighter red band with two white dots on.

156s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.6; W: 2.5; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

Size: H: 3.0; W: 3.2; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome pale red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome pale red.

158s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.4; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish band with one white dot and then a white band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

159s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 2.4; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: A reddish band and a white band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

160s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.7; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

161s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

254

162s

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

163s

164s 166s

167s

165s

162s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.7; T 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

163s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.5; W: 2.0; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

164s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.2; W: 1.8; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J16-Sc-12-1 Context: The ev. of Sc-12 is covered by ev. 15, which appears to be the last fill layer in the cistern. There were no diagnostic sherds, so the layer is not possible to date. Together with the plaster, only pottery of common ware and cooking ware was found. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S.

168s

165s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 8.2; W: 9.5; T: 4.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 4.6. The upper part is dense, and the lower part is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thin layer of whitish plaster with no inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and greyer plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is completely smooth and painted in a monochrome dark colour.

166s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted completely red.

167s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.8; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted completely red.

168s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 4.5; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish background with dark pattern on.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish background with a darker irregular pattern on, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

255

169s 174s 170s 171s

172s

173s

175s

176s

169s. Fragment of painted plaster

173s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 2.9; W: 2.2; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green background with whitish pattern on.

Size: H: 3.6; W: 3.8; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: White and red parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a green background with a pale/​whitish pattern on top:  one white dot and a curving band (indicating a circle).

170s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 2.1; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Alternating red and white bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with alternating red and white parallel bands: one broad, red band, one thin, white band, one red band, one white band, and one red band again.

171s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.2; W: 5.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moul­ ded plaster with sharp edge — under this, a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as a corner (rectangular corner) and otherwise smooth. Under the corner is a thin, reddish-coloured parallel band.

172s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 2.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green, white, and red parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a thin, green band, a broad, white band, a thin, green band, and a broad, red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a thin, red band, a broad, white band, and a broad, red band.

174s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.7; W: 2.1; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: White and red parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a thin, red band, a broad, white band, and a broad, red band.

175s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 3.3; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: White and red parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a white band, a broad, red band, a broad, white band, and a broad, red band.

176s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red and greenish band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red band and a greenish band.

256

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

177s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 2.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red and white bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a thin, white band, a thin, red band, a thin, white band, and a broad, red band. The backside has a thin, blue band.

178s. Fragment painted plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 3.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red and white.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background with two white dots on.

179s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 3.9; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish red and darker red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish red background with an irregular darker red pattern on, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

J16-Sc-13-3

177s

178s

179s

180s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 3.8; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.2. Crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. There is no surface.

181s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 5.2; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J16-Sc-13-24 Context:  Ev.  13 is a brown fill layer covered by ev.  2. The fill layer is large and includes pottery, coins, tiles, tesserae, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence).

Context: Ev. 13 is a brown fill layer covered by ev. 2. The fill layer is large and includes pottery, coins, tiles, and tesserae.

References:  Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S.

Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence).

182s. Fragment from a mortar floor

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

Size: H: 15.3; W: 12.6; T: 9.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 8.8. Dense. Mortar colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a piece of mortar floor. The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a smoothened layer of whitish plaster with high amount of large inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarse mortar with a high number of large inclusions. The mortar is greyish and has a smooth walking surface.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

183s

184s

185s

186s

257

187s 188s

J16-Sc-13-47 Context: Roman cistern. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features. Date: Late Roman (fourth century ad, dated by radiocarbon analysis). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

183s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.5; W: 7.4; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

184s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 4.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

185s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 3.5; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

186s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 3.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

187s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.8; W: 6.1; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel white, dark, and green bands.

The fragment consists of whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a broad white, a thin green, a thin dark, and a broad green band.

188s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 3.0; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red background with bluish band on top.

The fragment consists of whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a monochrome red background with a light bluish band on top.

258

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

189s

192s 191s

190s

J16-Sc-13-48

J16-Sc-15-3

Context: Roman cistern. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features.

Context: Ev. 15 is a fill layer covered by ev. 2. It is a small fill layer with only a few pottery fragments.

Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence).

Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence).

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

189s. Fragment of architectural stucco

191s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 13.0; W: 13.9; T: 8.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.8; (2) 6.3. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded stucco profile.

Size: H: 5.2; W: 7.2; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 1.5. Crumbly with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Brownish white. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and whitish plaster with a medium number of large inclusions. The surface is moulded with two grooves and two protruding profiles. Under the lowest groove are two guttae.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a brownish white and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a more yellow and soft plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

190s. Fragment of architectural stucco

192s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 10.1; W: 12.7; T: 4.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.2. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded stucco profile.

Size: H: 3.8; W: 4.0; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Crumbly with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous stucco profile with a medium number of larger inclusions. There are some larger inclusions of carbon. The surface is moulded as two grooves and two protruding profiles. There is one 0.4 × 0.4 cm hole.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

193s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 3.0; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.8. Crumbly with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

259

J16-Sc-73-1 Context:  The ev.  of Sc-73 consists of a column drum found inside the cistern fill. The plaster was attached to the column drum.

195s 198s

199s

200s

Date:  Roman (first–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Vriezen and Wagner-Lux 2015, pl. XI.8.

198s. Fragment of unpainted plaster (from a column)

194s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 2.9; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Crumbly with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

195s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.4; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Crumbly with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

196s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.5; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Crumbly with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

197s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 2.2; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Crumbly with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

Size: H: 1.5; W: 2.1; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.9. Crumbly and in bad condition. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with no inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is moulded with one soft groove.

199s. Fragment of unpainted plaster (from a column) Size: H: 1.9; W: 1.8; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.9. Crumbly and in bad condition. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with no inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is moulded with one soft groove.

J16-Scd-13-73 Context: Roman cistern. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

200s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.9; W: 10.9; T: 3.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.3; (2) 2.0. Soft and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish beige. Decoration: A broad rim painted reddish, then a black, thin band, and then a whitish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a white and soft plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is porous with a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red, thick band and above this a thin, black band.

260

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

204s 201s

205s 206s

203s

201s. Fragment of painted plaster

205s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 4.8; W: 6.0; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Soft and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish beige. Decoration: Painted completely dark-greyish on the surface.

Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.5; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster and painted in green and pinkish red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a soft and white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated monochrome dark.

202s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.4; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.0. Soft and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish beige. Decoration: No.

The fragment has no surface and is quite soft. The fragment contains a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets.

203s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.8; W: 8.3; T: 3.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster and painted in green and red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded as a corner, which is monochrome green on one side, then has a pale band, and then a reddish band on the other side.

204s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 3.2; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster and painted in green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded as a corner, which is monochrome green on one side and has a blank band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded as a corner, which is painted completely green on one side and has a blank band and traces of pinkish red paint.

206s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 5.0; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster and painted in green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded as a corner, which is painted completely green.

207s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 5.7; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster painted green and pinkish with dark red paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded as a corner, which is monochrome green. The other side is decorated with a pinkish-coloured background with dark red/​purple paint on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

207s

210s

261

211s

209s

208s

211s. Fragment of painted plaster

212s

213s

214s

208s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 7.8; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster painted in green and pinkish with dark red paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded as a corner, which is monochrome green. The other side is decorated with a pinkish-coloured background with dark red/​purple paint on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

209s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 4.3; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster painted in dark and pinkish with dark red paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded as a corner, which is monochrome dark. The other side is decorated with a pinkish-coloured background with dark red/​purple paint on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

210s. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 3.8; W: 6.8; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 2.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded stucco.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with no inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded with one protruding edge.

Size: H: 5.4; W: 5.7; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.3; (2) 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and blue paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a reddish background colour. On top of this, a light blue colour with a darker blue circular pattern on.

212s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.2; W: 6.4; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and blue paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish background with a broad, bluish band on top.

213s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.0; W: 3.7; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.2; (2) 0.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and blue paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands: one broad, red band and one broad, blue band.

214s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and pale paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and fine plaster with few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands: one broad, pale band on the red background, then one red, and then another pale band.

262

215s

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

216s

217s

218s

219s

220s

221s

215s. Fragment of painted plaster

219s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 3.8; W: 4.1; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark reddish and green paint.

Size: H: 3.5; W: 4.2; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome pinkish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a broad, dark reddish band and a broad, pale green band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a monochrome pinkish colour.

216s. Fragment of painted plaster

220s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 5.4; W: 4.1; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark reddish, green, and pale paint.

Size: H: 3.8; W: 4.2; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellowish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a broad, reddish band, then a thinner, green band, a broader, white band, and then another thin, green band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a yellow and soft plaster with air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome yellow paint.

217s. Fragment of painted plaster

221s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 3.2; W: 2.9; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark band.

Size: H: 3.1; W: 3.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a broad, dark band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red paint.

218s. Fragment of painted plaster

222s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.4; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green band.

Size: H: 3.5; W: 3.8; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a green band with a thinner, pale band above.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

224s

225s

J16-Scd-13-74 Context: Roman cistern. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features. Date: Late Roman (fourth century ad, dated by radiocarbon analysis). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

223s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.3; W: 7.5; T: 2.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.5. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of large inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated. The fragment seems worn with a thick lime incrustation.

J16-Scd-13-84 Context: Roman cistern. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

224s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 7.2; W: 7.3; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 2.0; (3) 0.4. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and whitish parallel bands.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and whitish plaster. It is dense and has a few inclusions. The middle (2) is a coarser whitish plaster with large air pockets and a medium number of inclusions. The lower (3) is a brownish compact soil, which

226s

263

227s

228s

is still attached to the plaster. The surface is smooth and painted with two broad, red parallel bands with a thin, white band in-between.

225s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 3.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish, white, and green parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is completely smooth and decorated with one green band, a broader, white band, and a broad, red band with one white, elongated circle on.

226s. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 4.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish, white, and green parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The fragment has a sharp edge creating a 90-degree angle (rectangular corner). The surfaces are smoothened, and one side is painted with a dark band and then a thin, pale band. The other side is painted with a reddish band.

227s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 3.7; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted completely monochrome red.

228s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 2.9; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted completely mono­chrome red.

264

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

230s

232s

229s

234s

233s 231s

229s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.2; W: 5.0; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellowish painted.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted completely monochrome yellow.

230s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 1.7; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark/​ dark blue painted.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted completely monochrome dark/​dark blue.

231s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 1.3; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green and pale parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with one broad, green parallel band, one white and thin band, and then one broad, green band.

232s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.5; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green and pale parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with one broad, green parallel band, one white and thin band, and then one broad, green band.

J16-Scd-13-98 Context:  Roman cistern. Together with the painted plaster, the layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

233s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 10.6; W: 10.9; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.6; (2) 1.0. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster with a large amount of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft yellowish mortar, which crumbles easily. The surface is smooth and curves slightly at the top. The surface is also painted in a monochrome dark colour.

234s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 6.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted mainly red with a dark band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted mainly reddish with dark paint at the bottom of the fragment.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

265

238s

235s 236s

239s

237s

235s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 2.9; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted mainly red with a dark band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted mainly reddish with a dark, thin band.

236s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 7.3; T: 2.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.7. Porous and coarse. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted mainly dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and coarse plaster with a high number of inclusions. One large piece of pottery is stuck in the middle of the plaster. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome dark.

237s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.1; W: 6.4; T: 3.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.1. Porous and coarse. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted with a dark pattern.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and coarse plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a dark painted pattern of stripes.

238s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 6.6; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.3. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and more crumbly plaster also with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome green.

241s 240s

242s

239s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 3.7; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted with one broad band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster. The surface is smooth and painted with one broad band in a dark/​dark blue colour.

240s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 4.4; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted with one thin band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster. The surface is smooth and painted with one thin band in a reddish colour.

241s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.3; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted with three parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster. The surface is smooth and painted with three parallel bands: one dark band, one thin, pale green band, and one darker green band.

242s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 4.7; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted with a pinkish background with dark pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster. The surface is smooth and painted with a pinkish background with a dark/​purple irregular pattern on, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

266

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

245s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.6; W: 6.4; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted whitish on the surface. 245s

243s

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted with a whitish layer on.

246s. Fragment of unpainted plaster 247s

J16-Scd-13-104 Context: Roman cistern. In addition to painted plaster, the layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

243s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 7.9; W: 6.5; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.7; (3) 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The middle (2) is a more loose and brownish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (3) is a large pottery fragment, which is stuck to the plaster. The surface is uneven and not decorated.

244s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.2; W: 7.1; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.2; (2) 1.0. Dense, but soft. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) was a more greyish-coloured mortar with large inclusions. The surface is uneven and not decorated.

Size: H: 7.7; W: 7.5; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.6; (2) 0.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish, dense, and coarse plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a brownish plaster/​ mortar with a medium number of air pockets. The surface is uneven and coarse.

J16-Scd-13-107 Context:  Roman cistern. In addition to the painted plaster, the layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

247s. Fragment of plaster volute Size: H: 6.6; W: 8.2; T: 3.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: The plaster is moulded into a circular shape (volute).

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a large amount of inclusions. The fragment is unpainted but moulded in a circular pattern appearing to be part of a volute (upper part of an Ionic column — the capital).

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

267

251s

249s 250s 248s

J16-Scd-13-135

J16-Sd-13-38

Context:  Roman cistern. In addition to the painted plaster, the layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, Roman lamps, and architectural features.

Context: Ev. 13 is a brown fill layer covered by ev. 2. The fill layer is large and includes architectural features, pottery, coins, tiles, and tesserae.

Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence).

Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence).

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008 and 2014.

248s. Fragment of stucco profile

250s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 12.3; W: 9.8; T: 5.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 5.9. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Appears to have been painted/​coated.

Size: H: 5.1; W: 3.9; T: 3.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.2. Dense, and the colours are poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted with dark and reddish paint.

The fragment consists of a large piece of stucco profile in a whitish and coarse plaster. The plaster has a high number of large inclusions. The surface is moulded with alternating grooves and protrusions. It appears to have had a coating/​painting on the surface — presumably in the same colour as the plaster. The surface also has a small 0.5 × 0.5 cm hole.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The fragment is moulded as an angle, and the surface is smooth. One side of the angle is painted monochrome dark, and the other side has a pinkish background with a reddish irregular pattern on top.

249s. Fragment of painted plaster

251s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 4.2; W: 6.4; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark band.

Size: H: 5.9; W: 3.6; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense, and the colours are poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and bluish paint.

The fragment consists of plaster, which is dense and whitish with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with one thin band in a dark paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with one broad, red band and a thinner, light blue band.

268

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

253s

252s

J16-Sd-22-40

254s

Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer consisting of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. In addition to the plaster, coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found.

255s 256s 257s

Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins).

Context: Ev. 13 is a brown fill layer covered by ev. 2. The fill layer is large and includes architectural features, pottery, coins, tiles, and tesserae.

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008; 2014.

Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence).

255s. Fragment of painted plaster

J16-Sd-13-78

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008; 2014.

252s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 5.3; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Porous, crumbly, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome light red.

The fragment is a whitish and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome light red.

253s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 3.2; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense, porous, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red with a thin, white band.

The fragment is a whitish and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a thin, white band across a reddish background.

254s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.7; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Dense, porous, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish.

The fragment is a whitish and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

Size: H: 4.6; W: 4.4; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and green parallel bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and softer plaster with a yellowish colour and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with one broad, red band and one broad, green band.

256s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 2.2; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish, green, and white parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of large inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a broad, white band, a thin, red band, and a thin, green band. There appears to be a red background under the white paint.

257s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.4; W: 6.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and green parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon with a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a broad, green band and a broad, red band.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

260s 258s

261s

262s

269

263s

259s

258s. Fragment of painted plaster moulded as a corner Size: H: 5.9; W: 5.6; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green and pinkish background with dark pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon with a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth, and the fragment is moulded as a corner (triangular piece), which is painted green on one side. On the other side the background is a pinkish red with a dark red pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

259s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 2.6; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and green parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon with a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a broad, green band and a red band. It appears that the background was red under the green band.

260s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 5.7; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster that crumbles easily. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome green.

261s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.6; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome green.

264s

265s

262s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 3.3; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome light red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome red.

263s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 3.5; T 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster that crumbles easily. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome dark red.

264s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 4.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster that crumbles easily. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome yellow.

265s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 3.4; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish/​light background with dark red/​purple pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish/​light red background with a dark red/​purple pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

270

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

269s. Fragment of moulded plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 5.2; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: The plaster is moulded as a corner of a panel.

268s

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The plaster is moulded as a corner from a protruding panel. The surface is smooth.

267s

270s. Fragment of moulded plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 4.1; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: The plaster is moulded with a sharp edge and a thin, red band under.

270s 271s

269s

272s 273s

266s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 3.3; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Whitish background with a red dot on.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish dot on a white background.

267s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.9; W: 7.1; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Whitish background with dark band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a coarse and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and larger air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a dark band on a white background.

268s. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 5.7; W: 6.0; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a coarse and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and larger air pockets. The surface is smooth and moulded with one groove and two protruding curves. There is a reddish band painted on the groove.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The plaster is moulded with a sharp edge and under this is a thin, reddish band. The surface is smooth.

271s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 3.1; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Bluish bands on reddish background.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background with two bluish bands on top.

272s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 3.4; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in red, white, and green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands in red, white, and green.

273s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 3.1; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in red and white.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a broad, red band and a white band.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

274s

275s

276s

277s

278s

271

279s

274s. Fragment of painted plaster

278s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.0; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with red pattern on top and a green band above.

Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.8; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.3; (2) 0.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish background with a darker reddish pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster. Above this, a green band on the pinkish background. The fragment curves slightly in one end.

275s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 3.4; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish background with a darker reddish pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

276s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 2.9; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish background with a darker reddish pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

277s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 2.8; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pinkish background with a darker reddish pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

280s

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome green.

J16-Sd-22-41 Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer consisting of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. In addition to the plaster, coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

279s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 3.8; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.3; (3) 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The middle (2) is a finer layer of plaster with only a few inclusions. The lower (3) is a greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusions including carbon. The surface is smooth with a white coating.

280s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 3.8; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with a white coating.

272

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

281s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 3.8; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusions including carbon. The surface is smooth with a white coating and a few chisel-marks.

282s

281s

284s

282s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.7; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.3; (2) 0.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: White with reddish dot.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a yellowish and soft plaster with a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with a white coating and traces of reddish paint on top.

283s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 3.3; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: White with reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a white background with reddish paint on top in a circular shape.

284s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.4; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow, white, and red parallel bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a fine and whitish plaster with a medium number of larger inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in three parallel bands: one broad, yellow, one white, and one thin, red band.

285s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 6.8; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and dense greyish plaster with a high number of small inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of large inclusions and air pockets. The surface is not decorated.

283s 286s

J16-Sd-22-48 Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer consisting of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. In addition to the plaster, coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008; 2014.

286s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 7.0; W: 7.7; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.5; (2) 0.6. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint with a dark pattern on.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster including a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a more soft and crumbly yellowish plaster. The surface is smooth and painted completely red with a dark pattern on.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

273

291s

288s 287s

289s

287s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.6; W: 5.3; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint with a dark pattern on.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster including a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted completely red with a dark pattern on.

288s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 3.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster including a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted completely red.

289s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.1; W: 7.4; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint with a light blue pattern on.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster including a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth, and the background is painted reddish with a light blue pattern on.

290s 294s

291s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 2.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster including a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a reddish paint.

292s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 5.7; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster including a high number of both smaller and bigger inclusions. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

293s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.3; W: 6.1; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster including a high number of both smaller and bigger inclusions. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

290s. Fragment of painted plaster

294s. Fragment of painted stucco

Size: H: 7.5; W: 7.9; T: 3.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 3.2. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

Size: H: 6.5; W: 11.8; T: 4.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 3.9; (2) 0.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Painted on one side in reddish paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster including a large amount of inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with bigger inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a reddish paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) consists of a dense plaster which is curving on one side and painted red on one sharp side. The lower (2) is a yellowish and soft plaster.

274

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

296s 295s

297s

298s

299s

298s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.2; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish with pale pattern on top.

300s

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted a reddish colour with a pale pattern on top.

299s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish with a darker pattern on top.

295s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.1; W: 8.8; T: 3.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 3.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green/​bluish.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a yellowish soft plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted in a monochrome green/​bluish colour.

296s. Fragment of painted plaster

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted a reddish colour with a dark pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

J16-Sd-22-62 Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer consisting of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. In addition to the plaster, coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found.

Size: H: 3.2; W: 5.4; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green/​ bluish pattern on a whitish background.

Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins).

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with a dark green/​bluish-coloured pattern.

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

297s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 3.8; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green background with a thin, dark band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish mortar/​plaster. The surface is smooth and painted a green colour with a thin, dark band on top.

300s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 7.2; W: 7.0; T: 3.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.0. Hard and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment is perpendicular in shape with a soft curve and consists of a thick layer of plaster with a smoothened surface. The plaster is compact with a few pebbles included. Part of the front is broken off.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

301s

275

305s

304s 302s

301s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One hori­ zon 1.2. Compact and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Black lines across the plaster. Under the black lines, a beige-coloured paint completely covering the surface.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a compact and whitish plaster with a few air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with black lines.

302s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 3.9; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Compact and well preserved. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The surface is completely smoothened except for one small hole (perhaps an air pocket). The fragment is painted completely monochrome reddish. No air pockets in the plaster itself and only a few small inclusions.

303s

306s

307s

305s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 6.4; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.8. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel red and green bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with one reddish band and one green band.

303s. Fragment of painted plaster

306s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 8.4; W: 7.2; T: 3.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.1. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel red, white, and green bands.

Size: H: 5.3; W: 4.3; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish band and greenish band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with one reddish band, one white band, and one broad, green band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and moulded as a curve. One side is pinkish coloured and the other greenish.

304s. Fragment of painted plaster

307s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 5.1; W: 3.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel red, white, and green bands.

Size: H: 4.3; W: 4.7; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish band and greenish band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with one reddish band, one white band, and one broad, green band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and moulded as a curve. One side is pinkish coloured and the other greenish.

276

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

309s

310s 308s

311s

312s

313s

314s

315s

308s. Fragment of painted plaster

312s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 2.8; W: 4.8; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red and white bands.

Size: H: 3.5; W: 4.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with dark paint on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and moulded as a curve. One side is reddish coloured and the other white.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background and darker paint on top.

309s. Fragment of painted plaster

313s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with dark paint on top.

Size: H: 3.4; W: 4.4; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with darker red on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background and darker paint on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background and darker red on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

310s. Fragment of painted plaster

314s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 2.3; W: 3.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with dark paint on top.

Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.0; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with darker red on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background and darker paint on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background and darker red on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

311s. Fragment of painted plaster

315s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 3.8; W: 2.6; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with dark paint on top.

Size: H: 2.8; W: 2.5; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with darker red on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background and darker paint on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background and darker red on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

277

318s

316s 317s

316s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.7; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with darker red on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background and darker red on top.

317s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 4.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome green.

318s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Compact, well preserved, with a thick lime incrusta­ tion. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

J16-Sd-22-63 Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer consisting of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. In addition to the plaster, coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

319s

320s

319s. Fragment of painted plaster. Size: H: 5.7; W: 6.4; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.5; (2) 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish/​pinkish background with darker pattern on top.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a brownish soil which is still stuck to the plaster. It is compact. The surface is smooth with a reddish/​pinkish background with a dark red pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

J16-Sd-22-82 Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer which consists of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. Coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found together with the plaster. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

320s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 11.8; W: 9.6; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark pattern on a greenish background.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitishcoloured plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a pale greenish background. On the pale background, there is a dark wavy pattern with a few red stripes.

278

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

321s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 8.1; W: 6.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pattern in green, blue, yellow, and red colours.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish-coloured plaster with a large amount of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a multicoloured pattern:  a yellow/​orange background, a dark blue pattern, and a pale green, red, and blue parallel pattern.

J16-Sd-22-85 Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer which consists of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. Coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found together with the plaster. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

322s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 4.7; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 1.1. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish and grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment has two horizons: the upper (1) is a dark grey plaster, which is porous with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a whitish plaster — also porous — with a medium number of inclusions.

J16-Sd-29-5 Context: The ev. of Sd-29 consists of a yellow-brown soil above the north wall of ev. 20. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, coins, architectural features, and tiles. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

323s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.4; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

324s

321s

325s

326s

The fragment has two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with no inclusions. The lower (2) is a slightly coarser plaster, also white and with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

324s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.5; W: 1.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of large inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

325s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.1; W: 1.2; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of large inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

J16-Se-21-24 Context: The ev. of Se-21 consists of a yellow-brown fill layer above the north wall of ev. 20. The layer also contains pottery, coins, and tiles. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

326s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 3.4; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment is a dense and whitish plaster with a med­ ium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

279

329s. Fragment of painted plaster

328s 327s

Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.5; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Crumbly with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red uneven pattern.

329s

330s

J16-Se-22-74 Context: The ev. of Se-22 consists of a loose and brown fill layer covered by ev. 21. Pottery, tesserae, coins, and tiles have also been found in the layer. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

327s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 5.5; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 1.5. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red uneven pattern.

The fragment has two horizons: the upper (1) is a finer and whiter plaster with no inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and more brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with a pinkish background and a dark red uneven pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

328s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.0; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with dark red uneven pattern.

The fragment has one horizon, which is a brownish white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with a pinkish background and a dark red uneven pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

The fragment has one horizon, which is a brownish white and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with a pinkish background and a dark red uneven pattern on top, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

330s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 2.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red uneven paint.

The fragment has one horizon, which is a brownish white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with reddish paint not fully monochrome.

J16-Se-35-4 Context: The ev. of Se-35 consists of a loose and grey soil, which is covered by ev. 22. The layer also contains pottery and tiles. Date:  Roman (first–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

331s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 4.1; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense but worn with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

332s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.8; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.0. Dense but worn with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is more yellow and porous with a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

280

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J16-Se-35-5 Context: The ev. of Se-35 consists of a loose and grey soil, which is covered by ev. 22. The layer also contains pottery and tiles. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

333s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 7.1; W: 9.7; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Brownish white. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a brownish white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red. The entire fragment has a thick lime incrustation.

334s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.8; W: 7.7; T: 3.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 2.4. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Brownish white. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a brownish white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red. The entire fragment has a thick lime incrustation.

J16-Se-37-6 Context: The ev. of Se-37 consists of a loose, brown soil in the eastern end of the cistern. The layer is covered by ev. 22 and contains tiles, pottery, and tesserae. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

333s

334s

335s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.5; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense, but poorly preserved with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and poorly preserved plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J16-Se-37-14 Context: The ev. of Se-37 consists of a brown soil, which is covered by ev. 22. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

336s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 5.3; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Porous and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

337s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.6; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Porous and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

341s. Fragment of painted plaster

341s 342s

340s

281

343s

338s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.9; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.0. Porous and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with a few air pockets and a strawlike structure. The surface is moulded with one groove and otherwise not decorated.

339s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 2.8; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Porous and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with a few air pockets and a strawlike structure. The surface is moulded with two grooves and otherwise not decorated.

J16-Se-37-15 Context: The ev. of Se-37 consists of a brown soil, which is covered by ev. 35. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

340s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 8.1; W: 7.4; T: 2.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 1.5. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel dark end red bands.

The fragment has two horizons: the upper (1) is a finer and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of larger inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth with one white band, one broad, reddish band, one white band, and one bluish/​dark band.

Size: H: 4.6; W: 5.1; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.0. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment has two horizons: the upper (1) is a finer and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of larger inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome dark.

342s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.7; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons 1) 0.3; (2) 0.4. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment has two horizons: the upper (1) is a finer and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of larger inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome red.

343s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 1.7; W: 2.0; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.8. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment has two horizons: the upper (1) is a finer and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of larger inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome.

J16-Se-37-22 Context: The ev. of Se-37 consists of a loose, brown soil in the eastern end of the cistern. The layer is covered by ev. 22 and contains tiles, pottery, and tesserae. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

344s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 5.0; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 1.4. Crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a finer plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

282

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

348s 345s

346s

349s

347s

J16-Sf-22-125

J16-Sf-22-127

Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer which consists of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. Coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found together with the plaster.

Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer which consists of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. Coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found together with the plaster.

Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins).

Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins).

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

345s. Fragment of painted plaster

348s. Fragment of stucco

Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.5; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

Size: H: 5.1; W: 4.6; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Soft with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a whitish and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome dark.

The fragment is a whitish and soft plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with two grooves.

346s. Fragment of painted plaster

349s. Fragment of stucco

Size: H: 4.5; W: 4.4; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Irregular reddish circle pattern.

Size: H: 5.4; W: 5.0; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.4. Soft with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with a circular reddish pattern on a yellowish background, here interpreted as an imitation of marble or alabaster.

347s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.0; W: 3.7; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and badly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish parallel band.

The fragment is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with a red parallel band.

The fragment is a whitish and soft plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with two grooves.

J16-Sg-13-89 Context:  Roman cistern. Together with the painted plaster, the layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, and Roman lamps. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

283

J16-Sg-22-142 Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer which consists of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. Coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found together with the plaster.

351s

350s

Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). 353s 352s

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

352s. Fragment of painted plaster 354s

355s

350s. Fragment of decorated plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 4.9; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded plaster with sharp edge — under this a red band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded as a corner (rectangular corner) and otherwise smooth. Under the corner is a thin, reddish-coloured parallel band.

J16-Sg-13-119 Context:  Roman cistern. Together with the painted plaster, the layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, and Roman lamps. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

351s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 7.3; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish/​beige. Decoration: Green and dark red/​purple pattern.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a green background decorated with a dark red/​purple wavy pattern consisting of three stripes.

Size: H: 3.6; W: 4.4; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Reddish parallel band.

The fragment consists of a coarse white plaster, which is dense and has a medium number of larger inclusions. The surface is completely smooth with a reddish painted background. There are traces of bluish paint and a whitish parallel band above the red.

353s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 2.9; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Orange/​yellow parallel band.

The fragment consists of a coarse white plaster, which is dense and has a medium number of larger inclusions. The surface is completely smooth and decorated with a monochrome orange/​yellowish colour.

354s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 5.1; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Reddish paint

The fragment consists of a coarse white plaster, which is dense and has a medium number of larger inclusions. The surface is completely smooth and decorated with a monochrome reddish colour.

355s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 5.6; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 1.1. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Reddish and pinkish paint

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a little coarser with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a broad, reddish band and a pinkish band above.

284

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

358s 361s 356s

357s

359s

360s 362s

356s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 3.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.8. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Reddish and pinkish paint

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a little coarser with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a broad, reddish band and then a pinkish band above.

357s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.1; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Reddish and pale blue paint.

The fragment consists of a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish background. On top of this, two light/​pale bluish bands.

358s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.8; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Reddish and pale blue paint.

The fragment consists of a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish background. On top of this, two light/​pale bluish bands.

359s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 2.4; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Orange, dark red, and bluish parallel bands.

The fragment consists of a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with an orange/​dark yellow background. On top of this, one bluish band, one pale band, one thin, reddish band, and another thin, reddish band.

360s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.7; W: 4.6; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Red and blue paint.

The fragment consists of a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish band followed by a broad, bluish panel.

361s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 2.2; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Green and dark/​purple paint.

The fragment consists of a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a green background. On top of this, an irregular/​circular pattern in dark/​purple paint.

J16-Sg-22-156 Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer which consists of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. Coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found together with the plaster. Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). References: Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

362s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.9; W: 5.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark reddish, white, broad and dark, and white parallel bands.

The fragment has one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with parallel bands.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue 364s

285

J16-Sg-22-166 Context: Ev. 22 in trench S is a fill layer which consists of a loose and brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. Coins, metal, glass, bones, architectural features, and pottery were also found together with the plaster.

365s 363s

Date: Late Roman (third–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context and coins). 366s

367s

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014. 368s

363s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.7; W: 5.7; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark, dark reddish, blue with red background, and blue parallel bands.

The fragment has one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with parallel bands.

364s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 3.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in red and white.

The fragment has one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with parallel bands.

365s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 5.1; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pinkish background with darker red pattern on.

The fragment has one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. It is moulded as a corner with a smooth surface with parallel bands.

366s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 4.3; T 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands of dark red and pinkish.

The fragment has one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with parallel bands.

367s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Orange background with dark reddish pattern on.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster with a medium number of large inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster, which crumbles easily. The surface is smooth and painted with an orange-coloured background with a dark reddish irregular pattern on. The pattern consists of one parallel band and a triangular pattern in vertical direction.

J16-Sh-50-10 Context:  Layer of loose, brownish soil in the Roman third-century ad cistern. Found with pottery, tesserae, and tiles. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

368s. Plaster with chisel-marks Size: H: 8.1; W: 11.6; T 4.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.2. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a large piece of plaster in a whitish colour. It is moulded as a sharp corner. The surface is irregular due to the chisel-marks.

286

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J16-Sk-105-16 369s

Context: Ev. 105 in trench S is a fill layer which consists of a reddish-brownish soil. Trench S is a large Roman cistern, which can be dated to the Late Roman period. A fragment from a limestone column base, pottery, architectural features, and bones were also found together with the plaster.

370s

371s

372s

373s

Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008; 2014.

369s. Fragment of painted plaster

371s. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.0; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

Size: H: 5.2; W: 5.8; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green, pale, and orange/​yellowish pattern.

The fragment consists of a curving piece of plaster, which is whitish and dense. The surface is smooth and painted completely monochrome red.

J16-Sk-105-2 Context: The ev. of Sk-105 consists of a reddish-brown soil covered by topsoil ev. 101. This layer is equal to J12A-1. It also contains pottery, tiles, architectural features, and tesserae among other things. Date: Roman (form and style attested from first century ad; last phase of use is third/​fourth century ad, according to archaeo­logical evidence). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Gschwind and Hasan 2014, 126; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench S; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008.

370s. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.7; W: 7.8; T: 6.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 6.1. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one lump of plaster in a greyish white and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a high number of air pockets. Two grooves are marked.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in an orange/​yellow, green, and pale irregular pattern.

372s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.9; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish pattern.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a large amount of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in a reddish colour.

373s. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.1; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish pattern.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a large amount of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in a reddish colour.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

287

The South Slope (Trench L) J14-Lb-21-3 Context: Trench L was laid out to investigate the relationship between the large Roman water reservoir and the residential area to the west. Ev. 21 is a yellowish soil layer in the street under ev. 2.

374l

Date: Late Roman–Umayyad (fourth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context, pottery, and radiocarbon analysis).

375l

Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29. 377l

374l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 7.4; W: 7.8; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 1.4. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish/​light brownish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with many air pockets. The surface is smooth.

376l 378l

375l. Fragment of unpainted plaster

376l. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 7.2; W: 8.1; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.3. Very dense and compact. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 7.3; W: 9.1; T: 4.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.5. Dense and coarse. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish/​light brownish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with many air pockets. The surface is smooth.

J14-Lb-21-24A Context: Trench L was laid out to investigate the relationship between the large Roman water reservoir and the residential area to the west. Ev. 21 is a yellowish soil layer in the street under ev. 2. Date: Late Roman–Umayyad (fourth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context, pottery, and radiocarbon analysis). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29.

The fragment is a very coarse and greyish lump of plaster with a high number of larger inclusions. The surface is uneven.

377l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.4; W: 4.4; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.9; (2) 0.5. Dense and coarse. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a coarse and greyish lump of plaster with two horizons: the upper (1) has a high number of larger inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and porous mortar with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

378l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.7; W: 4.9; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.9. Dense and coarse. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a coarse and greyish lump of plaster with two horizons: the upper (1) has a high number of larger inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and porous mortar with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

288

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

384l

381l

383l 382l

J14-Lb-46-8 Context: Trench L was laid out to investigate the relationship between the large Roman water reservoir and the residential area to the west. The ev.  of Lb-46 is a backfill of stones west of the wall ev. 44. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29.

379l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 4.5; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a sandy and dense plaster in a greyish white colour with a high number of small inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a high number of large inclusions. The surface is smooth.

380l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 4.3; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.3. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a sandy and dense plaster in a greyish white colour with a high number of small inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J14-Lbd-51-4 Context: Mortar floor in a rock-cut shaft. Pottery, tiles, bricks, and terracotta were also found in the trench. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29.

381l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 3.3; T: 0.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.3. Dense and thin. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

382l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 3.5; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense and thin. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

383l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 2.4; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense and thin. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J14-Lbd-52-1 Context: Trench L was laid out to investigate the relationship between the large Roman water reservoir and the residential area west of it. The ev. of Lbd-52 was a brownish soil layer close to one of the supporting structures (or cistern structure). Date:  Roman–Byzantine (fourth–fifth centuries ad, dated by radiocarbon analysis). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29.

384l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 7.4; T: 3.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 2.1. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with a medium number of large inclusions. The surface was smooth and monochrome yellow.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

289

J14-Lcd-39-20 Context: Erosion layer of stones and soil. Pottery, tiles, and terracotta were also found in the trench. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (fifth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29.

385l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.3; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. Larger inclusions are sticking to the bottom of the fragment. The surface is smooth.

J14-Le-30-18 Context: Trench L was laid out to investigate the relationship between the large Roman water reservoir and the residential area west of it. The ev. of Le-30 was a yellowish soil fill corresponding with ev. 14 in the north room. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29.

386l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.0; W: 8.3; T: 3.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 3.3. Porous and very sandy. Plaster colour: Light beige/​whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a very thin and fine layer of plaster with no inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and sandier plaster with a medium number of inclusions, which is very sandy and porous. The surface is smooth.

387l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.4; W: 6.6; T: 2.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 2.3. Porous and very sandy. Plaster colour: Light beige/​whitish. Decoration: Wavy pattern in dark paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a very thin and fine layer of plaster with no inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and sandier plaster with a medium number of inclusions, which is very sandy and porous. The surface is smooth and decorated with a thin wavy band in dark paint.

385l

J14-Lf-9-6

388l

387l 389l

Context:  Soil fill in the street under a destruction or erosion layer (ev. 3). The material from trench L was in general worn and lime incrusted. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29.

388l. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 5.6; W: 3.7; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 1.3. The upper plaster is dense, the lower mortar is more porous and softer. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar, which is soft and porous with a few inclusions and carbon. There are two incisions on the surface (string impressions?).

J14-Li-80-5 Context: Trench L was laid out to investigate the relationship between the large Roman water reservoir and the residential area west of it. The ev. of Li-80 was a backfill to stabilize the street, which seems to have happened during the fifth building phase in the Byzantine period. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 28; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

389l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.4; W: 1.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which was a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

290

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

390l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 4.0; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in pale, yellow, and red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands:  one white, one broader, yellow, and one red.

390l 392l

391l

J14-Li-86-2 Context: Trench L was laid out to investigate the relationship between the large Roman water reservoir and the residential area west of it. The ev. of Li-86 also contains glass, and it was a soil fill. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

391l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 7.1; W: 6.9; T: 3.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 2.1; (2) 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in dark red/​purple, light red, and reddish.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands: one pale/​whitish band, one broader, dark red/​purple band, one thin, pale band, one broader, pinkish/​light red band, a thinner, pale band, a reddish band, and another pale band.

392l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.0; W: 7.1; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.6; (2) 0.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in dark red/​purple, light red, and reddish.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands: one pale/​whitish band, one broader, dark red/​purple band, one broader, pinkish/​light red band, a thinner, pale band, a reddish band, and another pale band.

393l 394l

395l

393l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 3.0; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in dark, light red, and reddish.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a dark band, a broader, pale band, and then a reddish band.

394l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 5.6; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and dark paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a very dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish background with a darker red pattern on top.

395l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 5.7; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.2; (2) 0.7. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and dark paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a very dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish background with a darker red pattern on top.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

291

396l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 3.1; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

396l

397l 398l

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

397l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.2; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

398l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.0; W: 5.4; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.3; (2) 0.6. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

399l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 6.7; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

400l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 4.5; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

400l 399l 404l

401l

401l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 5.3; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

402l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 4.8; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.9; (2) 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and more porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions and lager air pockets. The surface is smooth and otherwise undecorated.

403l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 5.3; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.6. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and more porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions and lager air pockets. The surface is smooth and otherwise undecorated.

404l. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.1; W: 2.7; T: 0.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.5. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and has one small groove.

292

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen 405l

406l

405l. Fragment of painted wall plaster

407l

Size: H: 17.7; W: 10.3; T: 3.3. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.7; (3) 1.0. Upper layers are dense, but the lower layers are porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and whitish plaster, which is dense with a few inclusions. The middle (2) is a coarser and very sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions, and it is very porous. The lower (3) is a whitish and crumbly plaster with larger air pockets. The structure of the plaster (3) is straw-like. The surface is smooth and seems to be decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

408l

409l

406l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 8.3; W: 11.6; T: 3.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and seems to be decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

J14-Li-86-3 Context: Trench L was laid out to investigate the relationship between the large Roman water reservoir and the residential area west of it. The ev. of Li-86 also contains glass, and it was a soil fill.

407l. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Size: H: 9.3; W: 8.7; T: 4.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.5; (2) 3.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a coarse and whitish plaster, but with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a softer and more yellowish plaster with a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and seems to be decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

408l. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 7.6; W: 9.6; T: 3.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.2; (2) 2.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and dark paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a coarse and whitish plaster, but with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a softer and more yellowish plaster with a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and seems to be decorated with reddish and dark paint.

409l. Fragment from a stucco profile Size: H: 12.8; W: 15.7; T: 4.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 4.0. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth, but moulded as a profile with one big groove, two smaller grooves, and three protruding profiles.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

293

J15-Og-56-11 Context: Fill north of the wall ev. 42, containing a high amount of pottery and Jerash Lamps. 411o

412o 410l

Date: Late Roman–Umayyad (fourth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench O.

412o. Fragment of mortar 413x

410l. Fragment from a stucco profile Size: H: 11.3; W: 10.2; T: 3.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 2.5. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth, but moulded as a profile with one big groove, two smaller grooves, and three protruding profiles.

The Byzantine East House (Trenches O and X) J15-Oe-64-30 Context: Fill layer of stones and soil (ev. 64 and ev. 65) in a room in a late Byzantine/​early Umayyad house. The material from this fill layer dates to the Late Byzantine and Early Umayyad period and contains bones, coins, glass, and pottery. Date: Late Byzantine–Umayyad (fifth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015, 28.

411o. Fragment of stucco profile Size: H: 9.8; W: 7.0; T: 4.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.9. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The stucco fragment consists of one horizon in a whitish colour. It is porous and crumbly. It has chisel-marks on the surface showing the working process, as well as a sculptured surface with a sharp squared edge and a curving feature.

Size: H: 5.8; W: 9.2; T: 4.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.1. Compact and dense. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a greyish and dense mortar piece with a high number of inclusions including carbon, pebbles, and tesserae chippings.

J16-Xb-2-64 Context: Ev. 2 consist of a yellow fill layer, which also contains pottery of various sizes and a high number of coins. Date:  Roman–Mamluk (fourth–thirteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References: Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench X; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

413x. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.1; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted completely red.

414x. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.8; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and undecorated.

294

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J16-Xc-4-1 416x

Context: The ev. of Xc-4 consists of a compact, grey soil layer containing a high amount of pottery. There are also tiles, tesserae, and coins found in this context. Date: Roman–Umayyad (fourth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench X.

417x 415x

415x. Fragment of mortar with tesserae chips Size: H: 9.7; W: 11.6; T: 6.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 6.7. Dense, but crumbly. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No

The fragment is a mortar piece in greyish colour, which is dense and still crumbly with a high number of both small and large inclusions. There are inclusions of tesserae and no surface.

J16-Xd-16-41 Context:  The ev.  of Xd-16 consists of a loose, yellow layer south of the threshold of ev. 49. The layer also contains tesserae and tiles. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (fifth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References: Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench X; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

416x. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 2.8; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Sandy and crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment is a sandy and crumbly whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is rounded/​curved, smooth, and monochrome green.

417x. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.7; W: 1.7; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Sandy and crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment is a sandy and crumbly whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome green.

418x

419x

J16-Xh-10-2x Context: The ev. of Xh-10 is a compact reddish soil layer west of a north–south running wall in trench X. In ev. 10 was also found pottery, tesserae, and tiles. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (fifth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench X.

418x. Fragment of painted stucco Size: H: 6.2; W: 7.3; T: 3.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish plaster/​ stucco moulded in two grooves indicating a third groove as well. The plaster is coarse with a high number of inclusions and appears to have a thin, reddish layer of paint on the surface.

419x. Fragment of painted stucco Size: H: 5.3; W: 5.7; T: 3.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.0. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish plaster/​ stucco moulded in one groove. The plaster is coarse with a high number of inclusions and appears to have a thin, reddish layer of paint on the surface.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

295

420x. Fragment of painted wall plaster. Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.2; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.5. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish painted.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and completely painted with a reddish colour.

J16-XI-2-271 Context: The ev. of Xl-2 consists of a yellow soil, which is covered by ev. 1. The layer also contains pottery and coins. Date:  Roman–Mamluk (fourth–thirteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench X.

421x. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 8.4; W: 8.2; T: 4.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 3.3. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: Brownish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a sandy and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarse plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth.

The Mosaic Hall (Trenches J, N, and W) J15-Jc-6-9 Context:  Mortar surface of east–west running street, which was covered by modern excavation backfill.

420x

425j

423j. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense with a thick incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense and whitish plaster with a thick lime incrustation on the surface and a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J15-Jc-7-9 Context: Part of the street mortar layer, which was covered by ev. 6. Date:  Byzantine (fifth–sixth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 11–37; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

425j. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 3.2; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Lower part is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish/​light brown. Decoration: Parallel red and white bands.

The fragment consists of light brown/​whitish and crumbly plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red parallel band and a white parallel band.

J15-Jl-32-10

Date:  Byzantine (fifth–sixth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Context: Soil fill, which covers most of the mortar floor of ev. 31.

Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 11–37.

Date:  Byzantine (fifth–sixth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

422j. Fragment of unpainted plaster

References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 11–37; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

Size: H: 2.5; W: 3.6; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense with a thick incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense and whitish plaster with a thick lime incrustation on the surface and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

296

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

426j. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 3.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense with well-preserved paint. The plaster is sandy. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red with pale blue circular pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The plaster is sandy. The surface is smooth and monochrome red with one circular blue pattern on.

429n 426j

J15-Jl-40-2

430n

Context: Soil fill between the mortar of ev. 31, ev. 37, and ev. 34. Date:  Roman (first–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 11–37.

427j. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 3.4; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a thick lime incrustation and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J15-Nb-20-67 Context: A fill layer of clayish soil and pottery north of the east–west running terrace wall. Date: Byzantine (seventh century ad, dated by archaeo­ logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench N.

428n. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.5; W: 7.8; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.3; (2) 1.3. Dense with a thick lime incrustation, but the lower part is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a crumblier and more yellow plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J15-Nb-57-17 Context:  Back-filled soil layer from the Mosaic Hall. Found in a 2 m thick fill layer (ev. 57) north of the wall (ev.  2) consisting mainly of reddish-brown soil with small pieces of charcoal, partly well-preserved pottery sherds, and a few larger stones. Date:  Byzantine (before ad  576, dated by archaeo­ logical context and inscription). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

429n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.9; W: 7.6; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.6. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and straw-like structure. The surface is smooth and monochrome red with an irregular pattern on top.

430n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

297

431n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 3.0; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

432n 431n 434n

432n. Fragment of painted wall plaster

433n

Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.7; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

433n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.7; W: 2.8; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

J15-Nb-57-48 Context:  The ev.  of 57 belongs to the first building phase, so before ad 576 (dated by a mosaic). Ev. 57 is a fill layer deposited directly on the foundation layer (ev. 80). The layer of ev. 57 was almost 2 m thick and consisted mainly of soil with small pieces of charcoal, pottery sherds, larger stones, wall plaster, and stucco profiles. Based on the pottery it is to be assumed that the filling activity can be dated to the Byzantine period. Date:  Byzantine (before ad  576, dated by archaeo­ logical context and inscription). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

434n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 4.4; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Surface of fragment is dense, but the lower part is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in dark and pale paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is dense, but

435n 436n

437n

the lower part is soft and porous. The surface is smooth and decorated with one broad, dark painted band, one pale band, and one dark again.

435n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 2.8; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Soft and porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in dark and pale paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is dense, but the lower part is soft and porous. The surface is smooth and decorated with one broad, dark painted band and one whitish/​pale band.

436n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 4.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

437n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.7; W: 3.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Soft and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and soft plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

298

438n

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

439n

440n

441n

442n

443n

438n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.6; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome green paint.

439n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.2; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish, yellowish, and pale paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a pale band on a reddish background. Then a yellow band and then a reddish band.

440n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 2.5; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Soft and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and soft plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

J15-Nd-24-3 Context:  Soil layer east of the younger north–south running wall in the Mosaic Hall. Date: Byzantine (seventh century ad, dated by archaeo­ logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench N.

441n. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 3.4; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a dense and white plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

J15-Nd-57-180 Context:  Trench N was laid out in the Mosaic Hall, which had various building phases. Ev.  57 belongs to the first building phase, so before ad 576 (dated by a mosaic). Ev. 57 is a fill layer deposited directly on the foundation layer (ev. 80). The layer of ev. 57 was almost 2 m thick and consisted mainly of soil with small pieces of charcoal, pottery sherds, larger stones, wall plaster, and stucco profiles. Based on the pottery it is to be assumed that the filling activity can be dated to the Byzantine period. Date:  Byzantine (before ad  576, dated by archaeo­ logical context and inscription). References:  Burdajewicz 2017; Eristov and Seigne 2003; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2008; 2014.

442n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 6.6; W: 4.9; T: 2.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.7. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment is moulded with two grooves, and a third one is indicated — the other side of the fragment is flat. The plaster is whitish and coarse with a medium number of inclusions. The fragment is covered with reddish paint.

443n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 5.0; W: 6.3; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.8. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment is moulded as one groove completely covered in reddish paint. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

299 445n

444n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 4.8; W: 4.3; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.6; (2) 1.3. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish/​dark paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is painted with a white background with dark/​reddish painted stripes on.

444n

445n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 5.6; W: 9.6; T: 3.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.6. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

447n

446n

The fragment is moulded as one groove completely covered in reddish paint. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions.

446n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 5.0; W: 7.9; T: 3.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.1. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment is moulded as one groove completely covered in reddish paint. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions.

447n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 5.0; W: 7.3; T: 3.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.0. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment is moulded as one groove completely covered in reddish paint. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions.

448n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 4.6; W: 4.6; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.9. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment is moulded as one groove completely covered in reddish paint. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions. There is also a piece of pottery incorporated into the plaster.

448n

450n

449n 451n

449n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 4.8; W: 4.5; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.8. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment is moulded as one groove completely covered in reddish paint. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions.

450n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 9.6; W: 7.4; T: 3.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.6. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment is moulded as three grooves completely covered in reddish paint. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions.

451n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 6.3; W: 9.4; T: 4.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.2. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish, yellow, and dark paint.

The fragment is moulded as one groove, and a second groove is indicated. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions. It is decorated with one reddish band, one yellowish band, and one dark band.

454n

300

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

452n

453n 455n

459n 456n

457n

458n

452n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 7.8; W: 7.1; T: 3.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.7. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment is moulded as three grooves completely covered in reddish paint. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions.

453n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 10.2; W: 8.8; T: 4.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.1. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and dark paint.

The fragment is moulded as four grooves, and a fifth is indicated. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions. It is decorated with reddish bands and a dark band.

454n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 12.8; W: 10.4; T: 4.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.3. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark paint.

The fragment is curving slightly, and it is painted completely dark (greenish). The plaster is whitish and coarse with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions.

456n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.7; W: 5.5; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense but worn. Plaster colour: Brownish/​beige. Decoration: Reddish, dark, and pale paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a beige/​ light brownish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with five parallel bands: one pale/​whitish band, one pinkish band, one dark grey band, one dark reddish band, and one reddish band.

457n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 4.9; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Blue and green paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a minimal number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a blue background colour and a green pattern on top.

458n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 4.6; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and bluish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a minimal number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in two parallel bands: one dark/​ bluish band and one broad, reddish band. There is one carbon inclusion in the surface.

455n. Fragment of painted stucco profile

459n. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 8.2; W: 12.0; T: 4.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.2. Porous and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and dark paint.

Size: H: 2.8; W: 5.4; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 2.3. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish, green, and bluish paint.

The fragment is moulded as two grooves, and a third is indicated. The plaster is whitish with a medium number of inclusions, herein several carbon inclusions. It is decorated with a reddish band and a dark band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine plaster with few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with two dark bands, part of a reddish band, and two green bands.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

460n

461n

464n 462n

301

465n

463n

460n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 3.4; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.2; (2) 0.4. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a medium coarse plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a brownish coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in a reddish triangular pattern.

461n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 3.6; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 1.1. Fragile and worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green and blue paint

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine plaster with few inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a green background with a bluish/​dark circular band on.

462n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 6.9; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red and blue paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in a reddish and bluish pattern on a white background.

463n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.5; W: 6.1; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 2.1. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red, green, and blue paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish fine plaster with few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a reddish band on a bluish background with a broad, green band.

467n 466n

464n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 5.8; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Blue and pale paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with two parallel bands: one broad, pale band and one thinner, blue band.

465n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 9.7; W: 7.3; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 2.2; (2) 0.2. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Beige. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a beige plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a sandy and brown plaster/​soil stuck to the upper (1). The surface is smooth and monochrome yellow.

466n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.0; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in a monochrome reddish colour.

467n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.9; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.6; (3) 0.2. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green paint.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The middle (2) consists of a greyish mortar with many carbon inclusions. The lower (3) consists of a piece of pottery stuck to the mortar. The surface is smooth and is completely monochrome green.

302

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

472n 468n

469n 470n

471n

468n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 2.6; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Green paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in a monochrome green colour.

469n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.2; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.7. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish fine plaster with almost no inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a mortar with a medium number of inclusions and a high number of carbon inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in a monochrome reddish colour.

470n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.0; W: 4.5; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.1. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a greyish mortar with a medium number of carbon inclusions. The surface is smooth and has no decoration.

471n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 8.7; W: 7.1; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.4; (2) 0.2. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Beige. Decoration: Dark paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) ranges from a thick layer to a thinner layer. It is a beige coarse plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a whitish plaster, but coarser than the upper horizon and with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth with a sharp edge in the middle of the fragment sloping on each side of the edge. The surface is painted with a broad, dark reddish parallel band.

474n 473n 475n

472n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 2.4; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark and green paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a green parallel band as well as a darker-coloured parallel band.

473n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 7.4; W: 5.5; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.1. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark and pale paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon which is a whitish and coarse plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with a pale band on a dark reddish background. Then another less pale band and then a dark reddish, broad parallel band.

474n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 5.4; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and dark paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and has a yellow-painted background with dark-painted patterns on top: one circular and one vertical stripe.

475n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.0; W: 4.1; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: One parallel band in dark paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and has a thin parallel band in dark paint.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

303

479n. Fragment of painted wall plaster

476n

Size: H: 4.7; W: 5.4; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.9. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

477n

478n

479n

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine whitish plaster, and the lower (2) is coarser with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with one dark parallel band, then a thin, reddish band, a broad, yellow band, and then a reddish band again.

480n

480n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 5.3; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands. 481n 482n

483n

476n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 4.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted in several parallel bands: one dark reddish band, one pale, thin band, one pale red and thin band, one broad, pale band, and one bluish-coloured band.

477n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.8. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish pattern.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thin layer of fine whitish plaster. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a reddish pattern: two stripes and one bigger blob.

478n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 2.8; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted in several parallel bands: one dark reddish band, one pale, thin band, and one broader, green band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted in several parallel bands:  one green band, one broad, pale band, and one broader, dark red/​purple band.

481n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 3.7; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions, carbon, and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and painted in several parallel bands: one pale band, one thin, dark band, one broad, pale band, and one broad, reddish band.

482n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 3.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.5. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark reddish pattern.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) consists of a yellowish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a whitish mortar with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with a reddish pattern of one stripe, one vertical stripe, and one diagonal stripe.

483n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.2; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a fine plaster with only a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with two parallel bands: one reddish band and one darker band.

304

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

484n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 2.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

484n

485n

486n

487n

488n

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with two parallel bands: one pale band and one dark band.

485n. Fragment of painted wall plaster

489n

490n

Size: H: 4.1; W: 3.0; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel band and a green pattern.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with one red parallel band and one green dot above in a whitish panel.

486n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.7; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with three parallel bands:  one green band, one pale band, and one red band.

487n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 1.5; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with three parallel bands: one red band, one pale band, and one pale reddish band.

488n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with one dark reddish parallel band and one green dot above.

489n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 2.9; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

491n

492n

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with three parallel bands:  one bluish band, one pale band, and one dark reddish band.

490n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 1.5; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with three parallel bands:  one bluish band, one thin, pale band, and one bluish band.

491n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 2.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but worn. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted with three parallel bands: one reddish band, one pinkish band, and one dark/​bluish band.

492n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 8.9; W: 10.1; T: 3.6. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 1.8; (2) 0.7; (3) 1.1. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish/​ greyish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a greyish and medium coarse plaster with a few inclusions. The middle (2) is a coarser and more white plaster with a medium number of inclusions, and the lower (3) is also a coarse plaster, but with larger air pockets. The surface is smooth but moulded with two grooves and two up-going curves. The surface is also painted with parallel bands in blue, red, and dark red colours.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

305

496n

494n

497n

495n

493n

493n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 9.5; W: 7.9; T: 3.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.8. Porous and coarse. Plaster colour: Whitish/​greyish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a coarse and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth but moulded with two grooves and two up-going curves. The surface is also painted with parallel bands in dark red, reddish, blue, and green colours.

494n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 3.4; W: 7.0; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.6. Porous and coarse. Plaster colour: Whitish/​greyish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a coarse and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth but moulded with two grooves and one up-going curve. The surface is also painted with parallel bands in dark red, blue, and green colours.

498n

499n

497n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 4.2; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.8. Porous. Plaster colour: Yellowish/​ greyish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish and porous mortar with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

498n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.3; W: 1.3; T: 0.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.5. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome blue.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome blue.

495n. Fragment of painted stucco profile

499n. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 5.1; W: 7.0; T: 3.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.1. Porous and coarse. Plaster colour: Whitish/​greyish. Decoration: Parallel bands.

Size: H: 4.3; W: 3.8; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in yellow, pale, and purple.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a coarse and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth but moulded with one groove and one up-going curve. The surface is also painted completely red.

496n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.5; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Yellowish/​whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and coarse plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands: a broad, yellow band, a thinner, pale band, a thin, yellow band, a pale band, and then a broader, purple band.

306

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

505n 504n

501n 500n

503n 502n

500n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.1; W: 4.4; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.1. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pattern in yellow, pale, and purple.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a yellowish background, which has an irregular pattern in purple on top. There is also a broad, lighter yellow band and a purple parallel band.

501n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 1.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in pale and purple.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with a dark purple band, a whitish band on the purple background, and then another dark purple band.

506n

507n

504n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.4; W: 5.1; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.0. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pattern in purple and green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a purple parallel band with a figure panel above showing a green figure (clover?).

505n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.0; W: 3.9; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pattern in purple.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a purple parallel band with a zigzag pattern above on an orange background.

502n. Fragment of painted wall plaster

506n. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.0; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pattern in purple and green.

Size: H: 6.6; W: 4.9; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in red, purple, and yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a triangular pattern in purple with one green dot.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands of red, purple, and dark yellow.

503n. Fragment of painted wall plaster

507n. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 8.4; W: 8.6; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.4. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pattern in purple, pinkish, yellow, and green.

Size: H: 4.6; W: 4.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Porous with fragile decoration. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in dark, pale, and yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a green background. On top of this, a broad, yellow band, a purple irregular pattern, and a pinkish pattern above this.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands: a broad, dark band, a thin, yellow band, another dark band, and then a pale/​white band.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

307

509n

508n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 3.8; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense, but the decoration is fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pattern of parallel dark and white bands with reddish stripes on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a dark background and one white parallel band. Two red stripes go across the dark paint.

510n

508n

513n

509n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 2.7; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Porous with fragile decoration. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands of dark blue, pale, and light blue.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a purple background. On top of this, first one bluish band, then a pale band, and then a light blue band.

510n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 5.5; W: 3.6; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded with two grooves and two upgoing curves. It is decorated with monochrome red.

511n. Fragment of painted stucco profile Size: H: 3.0; W: 3.8; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded with two grooves and two upgoing curves. It is decorated with monochrome green.

512n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 4.1; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome light blue.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome light blue.

511n

512n

515n

514n

513n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.4; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel purple and lighter purple bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with one broad, purple parallel band and then another lighter purple band above.

514n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 3.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark/​bluish.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a monochrome dark/​bluish colour.

J15-Nf-7-2 Context: Layer of greyish-brown soil south of the door of ev. 10. Date: Byzantine (seventh century ad, dated by archaeo­ logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench N.

515n. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 5.9; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense and dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white plaster with a medium number of air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few tool-marks.

308

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

519n. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.2; W: 1.9; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Fragile and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

516n

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a fragile and white plaster with no inclusions and a straw-like structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

518n 521n

J15-Nf-8-4 Context: Layer of reddish soil on the north and south side of the east–west orientated doorframe (ev. 10). Date: Byzantine (seventh century ad, dated by archaeo­ logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench N.

516n. Fragment of unpainted plaster. Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.2; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.2; (2) 0.1. Fragile and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a fragile and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and fragile mortar, and it is not possible to see whether there are any inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

517n. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 3.5; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.2. Fragile and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a fragile and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and fragile mortar, and it is not possible to see whether there are any inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

518n. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.6; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Fragile and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a fragile and white plaster with no inclusions and a straw-like structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J15-Nh-22-11 Context:  The layer of ev.  22 is a soil layer above the mosaic of ev. 9. Also pottery has been found in this layer. Date: Byzantine (seventh century ad, dated by archaeo­ logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench N.

520n. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.7; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Fragile and worn. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a fragile and white plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is uneven with no decoration.

J15-Ni-40-10 Context: Layer of yellowish and compact soil, which is the same as ev. 22. Pottery was also found in this context. Date: Byzantine (seventh century ad, dated by archaeo­ logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench N.

521n. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.0; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome pale reddish.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions including on piece of carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated in monochrome pale red. There is a thick lime incrustation on the surface.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

523w

522n

J15-Nj-20-31 Context: A fill layer of clayish soil and pottery north of the east–west running terrace wall. Date: Byzantine (seventh century ad, dated by archaeo­ logical context). Reference:  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), trench N.

522n. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 8.7; W: 11.5; T: 6.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 2.4; (2) 4.4. Crumbly and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a more reddish/​white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The structure (1) is straw-like and contains carbon. The lower (2) profile is more greyish with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon. The surface is smooth and moulded as a curve.

J16-Wbd-6-28 Context: The ev. of Wbd-6 consists of a loose, reddishbrown fill layer east of the east wall (ev. 3). The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae.

524w

309

525w

526w

524w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.5; W: 5.9; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Pinkish white and greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a pinkish white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

525w. Fragment of plaster with mortar Size: H: 5.2; W: 7.2; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 2.2. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Pinkish white and greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is pinkish white and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets.

J16-Wbd-29-75 Context: The ev. of Wbd-29 is a compact and brown layer containing bones and pottery east of the east wall (ev. 3). The layer also contains coins, tesserae, and tiles. Date: Byzantine (fifth–seventh centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Date: Byzantine (fifth–seventh centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench W.

Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench W.

526w. Fragment of unpainted plaster

523w. Fragment of plaster with mortar

Size: H: 3.7; W: 3.6; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 4.9; W: 5.8; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.8; (2) 1.0. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Pinkish white and greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is pinkish white and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is uneven, but smooth.

The fragment is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

310

527w

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

528w

529w

10.5.17 J16-Wc-23-5

530w

531w

J16-Wd-40-2

Context:  The ev.  of Wc-23 is part of a collapse layer inside the Mosaic Hall. The layer also consists of pottery, tiles, and tesserae.

Context: The ev. of Wd-40 is a yellow-brown soil east of the east wall (ev. 3). The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae.

Date: Byzantine (fifth–seventh centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Date: Byzantine (fifth–seventh centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench W.

Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench W.

527w. Fragment of unpainted plaster

529w. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 7.2; W: 11.3; T: 3.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.9. Soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 8.8; W: 7.7; T: 3.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.5. Soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a white and fragile plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

J16-Wcd-22-3 Context: The ev. of Wcd-22 is a soil collapse layer inside the Mosaic Hall. The layer only contains plaster, mortar, and tesserae. Date: Byzantine (fifth–seventh centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference:  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b) 2016, on trench W.

528w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 5.7; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.8. Light and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a light and whitish plaster with a high number of air pockets and one large carbon fragment. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

The fragment is soft and crumbles easily. The plaster is whitish with a high number of inclusions, both carbon and glass fragments. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks.

530w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.6; W: 6.8; T: 4.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.7. Soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is soft and crumbles easily. The plaster is whitish with a high number of inclusions of carbon. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

531w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.9; W: 5.2; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.4. Soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is soft and crumbles easily. The plaster is whitish with a high number of inclusions, both carbon and glass fragments. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

311

534w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 2.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is uneven and not decorated.

J16-Wik-47-15

533w 534w 532w

Context: The ev. of Wik-47 consists of a layer of brown soil under the top-soil. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date: Byzantine (fifth–seventh centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench W.

535w

J16-Wd-44-13 Context: The ev. of Wd-44 consists of a clayish, yellow fill layer containing a high number of small stones and mortar pieces. The layer also contains pottery and tiles. Date: Byzantine (fifth–seventh centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench W.

532w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 4.9; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

533w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 2.6; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.4. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a yellow and soft plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

535w. Fragment of mortar Size: H: 5.7; W: 7.4; T: 5.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 5.8. Dense, but crumbles easily. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a lump of mortar in a greyish colour, which crumbles easily with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon.

536w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 3.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a porous and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks.

537w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.5; W: 2.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a porous and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks.

312

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

541k 539k 540k

J16-Wik-54-12 Context: The ev. of Wik-54 consists of a layer of compact yellow soil on top of the mosaic floor (ev. 54). The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date: Byzantine (fifth–seventh centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench W.

538w. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.2; W: 7.6; T: 4.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.1. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster, but it crumbles easily. The plaster has a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. There are two surfaces, which are both smooth with chisel-marks.

542k

House of the Scroll (Trench K) J14-Ka-3-47 Context:  Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

539k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.4; W: 4.5; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Very dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a very dense and hard whitish plaster with a few larger inclusions. The surface is smooth.

540k. Fragment of plaster with mortar Size: H: 7.4; W: 7.0; T: 3.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 2.5. Dense. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a fine and whitish plaster with very few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with a medium number

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue of inclusions and some carbon inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

J14-Ka-3-106 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

541k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.4; W: 3.6; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.4. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks.

10.6.3 J14-Ka-3-540 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

542k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Crumbly with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Mainly yellow with one dark parallel band and one pale band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. It seems like sand is a large part of the plaster. The surface is smooth and decorated with a yellow background with one dark band and one pale band on top.

313

J14-Kabc-3-32 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

543k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 6.0; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 2.1. Some parts are extremely hard and compact, whereas others are fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a very compact and dense plaster, which is greyish white and seems quite heavy. The lower (2) is a more crumbly and fragile whitish plaster. The surface is smooth, yet uneven.

544k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 6.1; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.8. Some parts are extremely hard and compact, whereas others are fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a piece of hard and compact whitish plaster, and some areas seem more fragile than others. The surface is smooth, yet uneven.

J14-Kb-3-44 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

545k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 3.2; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth.

314

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

548k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.4; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.6. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

547k 546k

548k

J14-Kb-9-2 Context:  Earthquake horizon with a soil layer under ev. 3, a yellowish soil between collapsed stones of ev. 2. Embedded in ev. 9 were architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

546k. Fragment of unpainted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 2.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with very few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks.

547k. Fragment of unpainted wall plaster Size: H: 1.2; W: 1.3; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with very few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks.

J14-Kc-3-57 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and crumbly plaster with a straw-like structure and a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

J14-Kc-3-123 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

549k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 6.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J14-Kd-3-76 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

553k. Fragment of painted wall plaster

551k

552k

550k 553k

315

554k

550k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.0; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red with pale band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish coarse plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red and traces of a thin, pale band under.

J14-Ke-3-175 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Eristov and Seigne 2003; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014.

Size: H: 1.1; W: 1.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of larger inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

J14-Ke-3-219 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

554k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 4.0; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.2. Crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster, which is porous and fragile with a few inclusions and a straw-like structure. The lower (2) is a softer plaster with no inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks and decorated with a thin layer of monochrome yellowish paint.

551k. Fragment of painted wall plaster

555k. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.7; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.1. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome green.

Size: H: 3.4; W: 2.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellow plaster, but it is not possible to see more. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a fine and white plaster that is very porous and soft. The structure is straw-like, and it has a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks and decorated with monochrome yellowish paint.

552k. Fragment of painted wall plaster

556k. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome red.

Size: H: 2.5; W: 3.6; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a fine and white plaster that is porous and soft. The structure is straw-like, and it has a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks and decorated with monochrome yellowish paint.

316

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J14-Ke-3-244

559k

Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3.

560k

562k

Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). 561k

Reference:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

557k. Fragment of painted wall plaster

560k. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 3.1; W: 4.0; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

Size: H: 4.2; W: 4.3; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a fine and white plaster that is porous and soft. The structure is straw-like, and it has a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks and decorated with monochrome yellowish paint.

558k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.3; W: 2.3; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a fine and white plaster that is porous and soft. The structure is straw-like, and it has a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks and decorated with monochrome yellowish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with a few tool-marks.

J14-Ke-3-258 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Embedded in ev. 3 were also architectural fittings and several objects including, scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

559k. Fragment of painted wall plaster

561k. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 1.3; W: 2.1; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome red.

Size: H: 3.3; W: 4.7; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a fine and white plaster that is porous and soft. The structure is straw-like, and it has a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and white plaster with a thick lime incrustation and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

562k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 2.9; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Red and dark parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with one red parallel band, one dark parallel band, and another red parallel band. The dark band seems to be painted on top of a red background.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

317

J14-Ke-3-352

563k

567k 566k

563k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Painted red with a pale white circular pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and completely covered with red paint. On top is a pale white circular pattern.

J14-Ke-3-286 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

564k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.2; W: 3.1; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Compact and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and compact plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few tool-marks.

565k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.1; W: 1.8; T: 0.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.5. Compact and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and compact plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few tool-marks.

Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

566k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 3.6; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.6. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Brownish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a high number of inclusions. The plaster is very coarse and could be from a floor. There is a smoothened surface, which is very coarse.

J14-Ke-3-355 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

567k. Fragment of plaster with mortar Size: H: 2.5; W: 3.8; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.6. Very fragile. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a white and fine plaster with very few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with a few inclusions. The fragment is fragile. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

318

568k

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

569k 573k

570k

571k

572k

574k

575k

576k 577k

J14-Ke-35-8 Context:  Earthquake horizon. A  thin, brownish soil layer in the north room. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more.

579k 578k

Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

568k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.2; W: 1.6; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Dense, with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

569k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.0; W: 1.3; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense, with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

570k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.3; W: 2.0; T: 0.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.5. Dense, with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

571k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.1; W: 1.4; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense, with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

572k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.1; W: 1.6; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense, with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

J14-Ke-44s-11 Context: Earthquake horizon. A layer of loose, brownish soil in the south room. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

573k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 5.9; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Sandy and dense. Plaster colour: Light brown. Decoration: No.

The fragment is dense and sandy in a light brown/​sandy colour with a high number of inclusions, both small and large. The surface is smooth.

J14-Ke-73-3 Context: Earthquake context. Foundation layer in the north room. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

574k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.2; W: 1.1; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with large amounts of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

575k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.5; W: 2.3; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel dark and pale band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with large amounts of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with one dark parallel band and one pale parallel band.

576k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.0; W: 1.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark and red parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with one dark parallel band and one red parallel band.

319

J14-Ke-415-2 Context: Earthquake context. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

577k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.5; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.9. The upper plaster is dense, the lower mortar is soft and fragile. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and soft mortar with no inclusions. The fragment is worn. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

J14-Kef-3s-344 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

578k. Fragment of curved plaster Size: H: 6.9; W: 8.3; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7, (2) 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish and yellowish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclu­ sions. The lower (2) is a softer and more yellow plaster with a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The fragment is moulded with a curve.

579k. Fragment of unpainted wall plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 3.0; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense, but very dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and white plaster with a few inclusions and a medium num­ber of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

320

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen 585k

586k 587k

581k 589k

J14-Kef-30-346 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish fill in the north room, which is the same as ev. 14. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more.

588k 590k

580k. Fragment of unpainted wall plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.5; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense, but very dusty. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and white plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks.

J14-Kef-3s-345 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

581k. Plaster on a stone Size: H: 4.3; W: 6.6; T: 2.7. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.8; (3) 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The middle (2) is a more yellow and soft plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The lower (3) is the stone on which the different types of plaster are set on. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

582k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.8; W: 7.5; T: 4.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.1. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of an uneven piece of coarse plaster with a high number of inclusions, smaller pebbles, and pottery fragments as well as carbon inclusions.

583k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 6.7; T: 4.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.4. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of an uneven piece of coarse plaster with a high number of inclusions, smaller pebbles, and pottery fragments as well as carbon inclusions.

584k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 9.6; W: 7.8; T: 3.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.4. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of an uneven piece of coarse plaster with a high number of inclusions, smaller pebbles, and pottery fragments as well as carbon inclusions.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

J14-Kef-45-2

321

J14-Kf-3-186

Context: Earthquake context. Finds from the core of north–south running wall. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more.

Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3.

Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

585k. Fragment of unpainted plaster

589k. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 4.0; W: 6.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 4.6; W: 6.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense with a straw-like texture. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The plaster is porous and crumbles easily, it is whitish with a high number of air pockets and a few other inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

586k. Fragment of unpainted plaster and mortar Size: H: 8.1; W: 5.6; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.8. Porous. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and porous plaster, which crumbles easily and has a high number of air pockets and a few other inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish and soft mortar with medium inclusions and carbon. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a straw-like structure. There are a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

590k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 2.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense with a straw-like texture. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a straw-like structure. There are a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

587k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar

591k. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 4.9; W: 6.6; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 2.2; W: 1.8; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense with a straw-like texture. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The plaster is porous and crumbles easily, it is whitish with a high number of air pockets and a few other inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

588k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 3.5; W: 3.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.8. Porous. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a porous and whitish plaster with a high number of air pockets and a few other inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and greyish mortar with medium inclusions and carbon. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a straw-like structure. There are a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

322

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

595k 593k

592k

594k

596k

601k 600k 597k

599k 598k

J14-Kf-3-270 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

592k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 5.8; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

593k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 6.7; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

594k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 5.6; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

602k

595k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 4.4; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

596k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 3.9; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense with coarse, sandy texture. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The plaster is coarse and sandy. The surface is smooth and decorated with one broad, dark band, then a thin, unpainted band, and then a thin, dark band.

J14-Kf-3-361 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

597k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 4.2; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Very fragile. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and very fragile plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J14-Kf-3-468 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

598k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.0; W: 5.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.1. Dense with lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and white plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The lower (2) is the brown soil layer used as bedding for the plaster. The surface is smooth with a slight curve towards the bottom of the fragment. It is otherwise not decorated.

J14-Kf-3-471 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

599k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 5.7; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few large inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

323

J14-Kf-3-472 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

600k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 3.0; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with large amounts of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark red paint.

601k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.2; W: 1.2; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark red paint.

602k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.5; W: 1.6; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with large amounts of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark red paint.

J14-Kf-3-528 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

324

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

603k

604k

605k

606k

607k

603k. Fragment of unpainted plaster

606k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar

Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.8; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 3.1; W: 3.7; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.6. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a greyish white and dense plaster with a medium number of large inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J14-Kf-29-5 Context: Earthquake context. Mixed finds from cleaning the east and south profiles. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

604k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 5.3; W: 6.0; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.4. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, and the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions, a medium number of air pockets and chisel-marks on the smooth surface, and a straw-like structure. The lower (2) is a greyish and crumbly mortar with a few inclusions, with carbon inclusions.

605k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 6.1; W: 4.1; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.2. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions, a medium number of air pockets and chisel-marks on the smooth surface, and a straw-like structure. The lower (2) is a greyish and crumbly mortar with a few inclusions, with carbon inclusions.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions, a medium number of air pockets and chisel-marks on the smooth surface, and a straw-like structure. The lower (2) is a greyish and crumbly mortar with a few inclusions, with carbon inclusions.

10.6.33 J14-Kf-44s-3 Context: Earthquake context. A layer of loose, brownish soil in the south room. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

607k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 4.8; W: 6.4; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.1. Fragile. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and crumbly mortar with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with no decoration other than a few tool-marks.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

325

609k. Fragment of plaster with mortar Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.6; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 1.0. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: The plaster is white, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

609k

611k

J14-Kf-44s-5 Context: Earthquake context. A layer of loose, brownish soil in the south room. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

608k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 7.9; W: 8.9; T: 3.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.8; (2) 1.2. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar, which is crumbly and fragile. The surface is undecorated but moulded with two protruding curves.

J14-Kf-47-2 Context: Earthquake context. Hard and grey soil layer west of the doorway to the south room. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a crumbly and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and soft (porous) mortar with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with some tool-marks.

610k. Fragment of plaster with mortar Size: H: 1.3; W: 2.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.9. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: The plaster is white, and the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a crumbly and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and soft (porous) mortar with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with some tool-marks.

J14-Kf-71-2 Context: Earthquake horizon with a compressed, yellowish soil layer with mortar and residual clay inclusions. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

611k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 3.8; W: 3.6; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 1.0. Crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and crumbly plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The lower (2) is a soft and grey mortar. The surface is smooth with some toolmarks.

326

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

612k

617k

613k (1)

618k

613k (2)

619k

J14-Kf-71-5 Context: Earthquake horizon with a compressed, yellowish soil layer with mortar and residual clay inclusions. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

612k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 3.5; W: 5.1; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 1.0. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with charcoal inclusions. The surface is smooth and has tool-marks.

613k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.2. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with charcoal inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks and moulded as a corner.

614k

615k

620k

616k

621k

J14-Kg-3-237 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

614k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.3; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

J14-Kg-3-298 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

615k. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 3.1; W: 2.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is white and dense stucco with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and is moulded with two grooves.

J14-Kg-3N-365 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

616k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 4.7; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Traces of dark paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and slightly curving. The surface has traces of a dark paint.

J14-Kg-3N-416 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

617k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.6; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a few air pockets. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

327

J14-Kg-3s-378 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

618k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 3.4; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel dark, green, and pale bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and fragile plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands in light green, dark/​black, and pale.

J14-Kg-3s-379 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

619k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.1; W: 7.9; T: 6.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 6.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions.

620k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 7.8; W: 9.1; T: 4.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions.

621k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.8; W: 8.6; T: 4.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions.

328

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

624k

625k

626k

627k

628k

629k

J14-Kg-3s-504

632k

633k

622k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 5.3; T: 5.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 6.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions.

623k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.1; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions.

J14-Kg-3s-458 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3.

631k

Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

625k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 2.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Beige white. Decoration: Monochrome red with darker (blue?) pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a beige/​ whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red with a darker pattern on top.

J14-Kg-39-10

Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Context:  Earthquake context. Building complex dating to the Umayyad period with several building phases. Several objects, such as beads, iron objects, tesserae, pottery, and architectural fittings, were found in a clay and stone collapse, caused by the earthquake destructions. Ev. 39 is stucco profile fragments.

References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

624k. Fragment of painted wall plaster

References:  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 20; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 66; Ploug 1985, 164, fig. 32.

Size: H: 1.8; W: 1.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish/​beige. Decoration: Parallel red and dark band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with one dark band and one reddish band.

626k. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 2.8; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Dense, but the paint is badly damaged. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark painted.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark paint.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

329

627k. Fragment of painted plaster

631k. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 2.7; W: 3.7; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.4. Dense, but the paint is damaged. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark parallel bands.

Size: H: 5.0; W: 5.4; T: 3.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 2.7. Crumbly and soft. Plaster colour: Yellow and whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a softer and more yellow plaster. The surface is smooth and seems to have been decorated with dark parallel bands.

628k. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense, but the paint is damaged. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark parallel bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and seems to be decorated with dark parallel bands.

629k. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 3.1; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense, but the paint is damaged. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellowish painted.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome yellowish paint.

630k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.7; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J14-Kg-39-11 Context:  Earthquake context. Building complex dating to the Umayyad period with several building phases. Several objects, such as beads, iron objects, tesserae, pottery, and architectural fittings, were found in a clay and stone collapse, caused by the earthquake destructions. Ev. 39 consists of stucco profile fragments. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 20; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 66; Ploug 1985, 164, fig. 32.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a softer and more yellow plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J14-Kg-39-12 Context:  Earthquake context. Building complex dating to the Umayyad period with several building phases. Several objects, such as beads, iron objects, tesserae, pottery, and architectural fittings, were found in a clay and stone collapse, caused by the earthquake destructions. Ev. 39 is stucco profile fragments. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 20; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014, 66; Ploug 1985, 164, fig. 32.

632k. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 8.1; W: 4.9; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 1.4. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is very porous and consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) has a whitish colour and is sculptured. The lower (2) has a more yellowish colour and a medium number of air pockets. Both horizons contain a medium number of inclusions and the surface is smooth.

633k. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 4.4; W: 4.6; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.6. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is very porous and consists of one horizon. The fragment is moulded with one groove and contains a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

330

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

635k 636k

634k (1) 637k (2) 634k (2)

638k

637k (1) 642k (1)

641k (2) 639k (1)

639k (2)

641k (1) 640k

634k. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 3.1; W: 3.4; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 1.3. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is very porous and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is moulded with one groove and is otherwise smooth. The lower (2) consists of a coarser plaster, which contains a medium number of inclusions and a smooth surface.

635k. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 15.5; W: 11.2; T: 5.0. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 3.6; (3) 0.6. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is porous and consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is moulded with four grooves with five up-going curves and has a medium number of inclusions. The middle (2) consists of a coarser plaster, which contains a high number of inclusions and air pockets. The lower (3) is a yellow and soft mortar with air pockets, and it is more porous.

642k (2)

637k. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 3.4; W: 3.1; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 1.1. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is porous and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is moulded with one groove and is otherwise smooth. The lower (2) consists of a coarser plaster, which contains a medium number of inclusions and has a smooth surface. It has two protruding grooves.

638k. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 7.6; W: 10.2; T: 5.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 4.9. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is porous and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is moulded with one groove with a few inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a coarser plaster, which contains a high number of large inclusions and has a smooth surface. It has one protruding groove.

636k. Fragment of stucco

639k. Fragment of stucco

Size: H: 3.6; W: 3.5; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 2.0. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 5.2; W: 7.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 1.0. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is porous and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is moulded with one groove and is otherwise smooth. The lower (2) consists of a coarser plaster, which contains a medium number of inclusions and a smooth surface.

The fragment is porous and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is moulded with one groove and has a few inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a coarser plaster, which contains a medium number of inclusions. It has one protruding groove.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

331

640k. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 8.2; W: 7.2; T: 5.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 5.2. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is porous and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is moulded with one groove with a few inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a coarser plaster, which contains a high number of large inclusions. It has one protruding groove.

643k (1)

643k (2)

644k (1)

644k (2)

645k (1)

645k (2)

641k. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 6.2; W: 5.0; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.6; (3) 0.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is porous and consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is moulded with one groove and has a few inclusions. The middle (2) consists of a coarse plaster, which contains a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a more soft and yellow mortar with a few large inclusions and air pockets. It has one protruding groove.

643k. Fragment of unpainted stucco Size: H: 1.7; W: 3.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.8. Fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded with one soft groove.

642k. Fragment of stucco

644k. Fragment of unpainted stucco

Size: H: 4.2; W: 5.3; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.7; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.5. Fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is porous and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is moulded with one groove and has a few inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a coarser plaster, which contains a medium number of inclusions. It has one protruding groove.

J14-Kg-40-2 Context: Earthquake context. A broken grey-ware storage bin was found in the north-west corner of the south room. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded with one soft groove.

645k. Fragment of unpainted stucco Size: H: 1.9; W: 3.0; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.8. Fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded with one soft groove.

332

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

646k

647k

648k

649k

650k 651k 655k

652k

653k

654k

J14-Kg-55-1 Context: Earthquake context. Foundation fill under the mortar floor of ev. 38 in the north room. Architectural fittings and several objects were also found in the trench, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

646k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.6; W: 5.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: Mainly yellow with one white band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and greyish white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated mainly with yellow colour with one white band on top.

647k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 4.5; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.2. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: Monochrome yellow(?).

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) was a dense and greyish white plaster with large amounts of inclusions. The lower (2) is a softer and more yellow plaster (mortar?). The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome yellow(?).

656k

657k

648k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.6; W: 2.3; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: Mainly red with a dark pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and greyish white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated mainly with red colour with a dark pattern on top.

649k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.3; W: 2.1; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and greyish white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome red.

650k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 2.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense with well-preserved paint. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: Mainly red with pale pattern on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and greyish white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated mainly with red colour with a pale pattern/​parallel bands on top.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

J14-Kg-74-2 Context: Earthquake context. The ev. of Kg-74 is a foundation soil layer of the floor (ev. 38) in room N. Trench K was laid out over the Eastern Terrace in the west above the level of the Artemision. The trench revealed parts of the later Umayyad house from trenches P and V. Pottery was also found together with the wall plaster. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 17.

651k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 7.2; W: 6.6; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 1.2; (3) 0.2. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) was a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The middle (2) is a coarser whitish plaster with a medium number of larger inclusions. The lower (3) is a soft and yellowish plaster with air pockets. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks.

652k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.5; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 1.1; (3) 0.4. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The middle (2) is a coarser whitish plaster with a medium number of larger inclusions. The lower (3) is a soft and yellowish plaster with air pockets. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks.

653k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 4.9; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 1.2. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

333

654k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 6.2; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.5. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

655k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.7; W: 2.6; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

656k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

657k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.3; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in pale, black, and green.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and porous plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands:  one broad, pale/​white band, one thinner, black band, and a third green band.

J14-Kgh-3-404 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

334

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

658k 660k

665k 664k

658k. Fragment of stucco

661k. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 3.5; W: 2.6; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.6. Crumbly and straw-like structure. Plaster colour: White and greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and fine white plaster with no inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is moulded with two grooves.

659k. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 4.0; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Parallel dark band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a dark parallel band.

J14-Kh-3-282 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Embedded in ev. 3 were also architectural fittings and several objects including, scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

660k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.0; W: 4.8; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.8. Crumbly and straw-like structure. Plaster colour: White and greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and slightly crumbly plaster with a few larger inclusions. The structure is also very straw-like. The lower (2) is more greyish and like a mortar. There are a few inclusions, and it is fragile.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and slightly crumbly plaster with a few larger inclusions. The structure is also very straw-like. The lower (2) is more greyish and like a mortar. There are a few inclusions, and it is fragile.

J14-Kh-3-448 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

662k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 6.9; T: 4.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a poorly preserved, dense, and greyish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. There is no surface, and the fragment is not decorated.

663k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 3.8; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a poorly preserved, dense, and greyish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. There is no surface, and the fragment is not decorated.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

335

J14-Kh-3-512

666k

Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. 667k

J14-Kh-3-501 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

664k. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 3.2; W: 5.0; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.8. Crumbly. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish and crumbly plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish and soft mortar with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

665k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

666k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 4.3; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Very crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish beige. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish beige and crumbly plaster with large amounts of small inclusions. The surface is smooth with no decoration. There are a few tool-marks.

J14-Kh-3-551 Context: Earthquake horizon with yellowish soil under the collapsed stones of ev. 2. Architectural fittings and several objects, including scissors, a comb, jewellery, spindle whorls, and more were also embedded in ev. 3. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

667k. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 2.0; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Crumbly and very sandy. Plaster colour: Whitish, but with a reddish hue. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a sandy and whitish plaster containing large amounts of sand. There are a medium number of inclusions. There is no surface.

336

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

668p 670p (2) 670p (1)

673p

669p

671p

House of the Tesserae (Trenches P and V) J15-Pa-15-28 Context: Earthquake horizon. Layer of loose soil under the collapse of ev.  14. Big-sized context with pottery broken into medium-sized pieces. Date:  Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by radiocarbon analysis). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

668p. Mortar with mosaic attached Size: H: 7.2; W: 6.9; T: 4.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.6; (2) 2.8. Soft. Mortar colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is tesserae from mosaic floor (eight pieces sticking together) with a thick lime incrustation. The lower (2) is a soft, porous, and greyish mortar with a few inclusions and carbon.

J15-Pa-16-29 Context:  Earthquake horizon. Partly loose, yellowish soil like J15-K-3, which also contains pottery and a Jerash Lamp. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

672p

669p. Fragment of stucco/​plaster Size: H: 10.2; W: 11.1; T: 6.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 6.5. Soft and porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a large piece of moulded whitish and soft plaster/​stucco. There are a few inclusions and a high number of air pockets. The fragment is moulded with a sharp edge and a smooth surface.

J15-Pa-16-30 Context:  Earthquake horizon. Partly loose, yellowish soil like J15-K-3, which also contains pottery and a Jerash Lamp. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

670p. Fragment of stucco with mortar Size: H: 7.8; W: 12.5; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 2.2. Soft and porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a high number of inclusions and air pockets. The surface is moulded with one protruding curve — otherwise smooth.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

J15-Pa-16-86

337

J15-Pa-16-89

Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster.

Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster.

Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

671p. Fragment of painted wall plaster

674p. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 8.1; W: 7.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.5. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel bands in white, red, dark/​black, and orange.

Size: H: 8.9; W: 9.6; T: 3.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.3. Soft, crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Yellowish white. Decoration: Monochrome dark reddish.

The fragment is a piece of painted wall plaster, which has painted parallel bands on the surface: a pale/​whitish band, a reddish band, a dark/​black band, and an orange band. The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the painted smooth surface with a small number of inclusions. The lower (2) also has a small number of inclusions, but larger air pockets.

672p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 10.9; W: 12.8; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.9. Dense, but crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Orange paint.

The fragment is a piece of painted wall plaster, which is orange on the smooth surface. The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the painted smooth surface with a small number of inclusions. The lower (2) also has a small number of inclusions, but larger air pockets.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and soft plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome dark reddish paint.

J15-Pa-16-100 Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

675p. Fragment of unpainted stucco

673p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 12.7; W: 8.9; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.8. Dense, but crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment has a smooth surface. The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is the painted smooth surface with a small number of inclusions. The lower (2) also has a small number of inclusions, but larger air pockets.

Size: H: 4.9; W: 6.7; T: 3.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 2.4. Dense, but dusty and crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser, white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded with one big groove.

674p 675p

338

682p (1)

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen 682p (2)

676p

676p. Fragment of unpainted stucco

680p. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 3.7; W: 3.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.7. Dense, but dusty and crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 1.3; W: 2.7; T: 0.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.5. Thin and crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a fine and white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser, white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded with one big groove.

677p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 4.7; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and dense plaster with a high number of inclusions.

678p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 3.1; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and dense plaster with a high number of inclusions.

J15-Pa-16-101 Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

679p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.4; T: 0.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.6. Thin and crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a white and fragile piece of plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated. There are a few tool-marks.

The fragment consists of a white and fragile piece of plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated. There are a few tool-marks.

681p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.3; W: 1.8; T: 0.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.4. Thin and crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a white and fragile piece of plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated. There are a few tool-marks.

J15-Pa-26-2 Context: Earthquake horizon. Stucco fragments embedded in ev. 16 from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

682p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 21.3; W: 14.6; T: 6.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 5.5. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a crumbly and porous plaster with a high number of inclusions, and it has a more greyish colour. The surface is smooth and moulded with three grooves.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

339

683p (1) 684p (1)

686p (1) 684p (2) 683p (2) 686p (2)

685p (2)

685p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 9.2; W: 6.9; T: 4.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.9; (2) 2.8. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a crumbly and porous plaster with a high number of inclusions, and it has a more greyish colour. The surface is smooth and moulded with two protruding grooves.

685p (1) 687p (1)

687p (2)

686p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 13.2; W: 6.4; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.4. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

683p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 3.0; W: 2.7; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 1.0. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a crumbly and porous plaster with a high number of inclusions, and it has a more greyish colour. The surface is smooth and moulded with one groove.

684p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 4.5; W: 3.3; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.5. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a crumbly and porous plaster with a high number of inclusions, and it has a more greyish colour. The surface is smooth and moulded with one groove.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a crumbly and porous plaster with a high number of inclusions, and it has a more greyish colour. The surface is smooth and moulded with two protruding grooves.

687p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 15.4; W: 11.8; T: 6.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.7; (2) 5.0. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a crumbly and porous plaster with a high number of inclusions, and it has a more greyish colour. The surface is smooth and moulded with three protruding grooves.

340

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

688p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 9.9; W: 14.1; T: 5.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.7; (2) 3.8. Crumbly and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

688p (1)

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a crumbly and porous plaster with a high number of inclusions, and it has a more greyish colour. The surface is smooth and moulded with two grooves.

J15-Pa-35 Context:  Earthquake horizon. The wall plaster of J15-Pa-35 was found in front of the east–west running wall (ev.  2) in the Umayyad house. Ev.  35 is contemporary with ev.  16. Ev.  16 is a destruction layer from an Umayyad house in trench P.  The destruction layer also contains several architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, a low amount of pottery, and a metal strainer.

688p (2)

Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

690p 689p

689p. Fragment of painted wall plaster 692p

Size: H: 14.1; W: 12.6; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.1. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel multicoloured bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted in parallel bands in various sizes: an orange background with reddish colour on top, a thin, black band, a broader, whitish band, a reddish band, and then an orange-coloured band again.

691p

690p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 11.6; W: 8.4; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.4. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel multicoloured bands.

693p 694p

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted in parallel bands in various sizes: one reddish band, a dark/​black band, and an orange background. This pattern indicates a geometrical pattern.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

341

691p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 19.3; W: 14.1; T: 3.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 2.2. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel multicoloured bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is crude with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted in four parallel bands in a reddish/​blackish colour. There are two diagonal bands in the same reddish/​dark colour as well.

692p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 7.4; W: 9.9; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.6. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted with one broad band.

693p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.3; W: 10.3; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.4. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark painted.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted with a dark parallel band and a thinner, whitish band.

694p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.1; W: 5.7; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.0. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish and yellowish colour.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted in two parallel bands: one is yellowish, and one is reddish. Towards the bottom of the fragment is a whitish parallel band.

696p

695p 697p

695p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 7.7; W: 8.1; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.0. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish colour.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted with a broad, reddish band, which turns darker towards the middle of the fragment.

696p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.7; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.5. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish colour.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted with a broad, reddish band.

697p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 8.9; W: 8.7; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.1. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish colour.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted with a broad, reddish band, which is turning darker towards the middle of the fragment. On both sides of the reddish band are whitish bands.

342

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

701p

702p (1)

699p

698p

702p (2) 700p

703p

709p 705p 706p

698p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 8.4; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.9. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish colour.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted with a broad, reddish band, which is turning darker towards the middle of the fragment.

699p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 4.2; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Bluish parallel band.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted with a thin, bluish parallel band with whitish bands on each side.

700p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 5.8; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.5. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Blue and yellow parallel bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted with two broad parallel bands in blue/​dark and yellow.

701p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 23.6; W: 24.3; T: 4.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 3.5. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel reddish and dark/​bluish bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons with a smooth surface: the upper (1) is a plaster layer, which has a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of another plaster layer, which is coarser with a high number of air pockets. The surface is painted with two broad parallel bands in red and dark paint, a thin, pale parallel band, and then four bands in reddish and dark paint indicating a geometrical frame decoration.

702p. Fragment of unpainted stucco Size: H: 6.2; W: 7.2; T: 3.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 3.4. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarse and more yellowish/​ white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded as one curve.

703p. Fragment of unpainted stucco Size: H: 3.7; W: 4.6; T: 3.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 3.4. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarse and more yellowish/​ white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and moulded as one curve.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

343

704p. Fragment of unpainted stucco

707p. Large fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 5.1; W: 4.6; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.8. Crumbly and coarse. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 13.6; W: 17.3; T: 3.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 2.3. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarse and more yellowish/​ white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is not preserved.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The structure of (2) is straw-like. The surface is smooth.

705p. Fragment of unpainted stucco

708p. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.6; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 1.4; (3) 1.0. Crumbly and coarse. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 4.7; W: 7.7; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.2. The upper one is dense, and the lower one is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The middle (2) is a coarser and more yellowish/​white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The lower (3) is a coarse and white plaster with straw-like structure and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with traces of a curve.

706p. Fragment of unpainted stucco Size: H: 4.8; W: 4.7; T: 3.5. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 1.5; (3) 1.0. Crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and white plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The middle (2) is a coarse and more yellowish/​white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The lower (3) is a coarse and white plaster with a straw-like structure and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and moulded with one curve and one sharp edge.

J15-Pa-44-1 Context: Earthquake horizon. Fragments of white wall plaster with straws in its underlay in a partly loose, yellowish soil. In ev. 16 were also found pottery and a Jerash Lamp. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The structure of (2) is straw-like. The surface is smooth.

J15-Pa-35A Context:  Earthquake horizon. The wall plaster of J15-Pa-35 was found in front of the east–west running wall (ev.  2) in the Umayyad house. Ev.  35 is contemporary with ev.  16. Ev.  16 is a destruction layer from an Umayyad house in trench P.  The destruction layer also contains several architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, a low amount of pottery, and a metal strainer. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

709p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.5; W: 5.8; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.9; (3) 0.8. Fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Pale and dark reddish bands.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a smoothened and thin layer of whitish plaster with no inclusions. The middle (2) is a coarser and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (3) is coarse, white plaster with a straw-like structure and a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with one reddish parallel band, then a broad, white and pale red band, and then a dark red band.

344

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen 711p

712p 713p

710p

714p

715p

710p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 11.0; W: 11.2; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 1.0. The top is dense, but the lower part is fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red, dark, and yellow bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a coarse, dense, and white plaster with large amounts of inclusions. The lower (2) is a whitish plaster with a straw-like structure and a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel bands: a reddish band, an unpainted band, a thin, dark band, and a broad, yellow band.

J15-Pa-100-1 Context: Earthquake horizon. Parallel layer on top of stone fill in the Umayyad house. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

711p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 7.9; W: 5.3; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.9; (3) 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Brownish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a plaster slab with no decorations and no colour. The fragment is smooth and consists of three horizons. The upper (1) is a thin layer of plaster to smoothen the surface. The middle (2) is a coarse plaster with small pebbles in. The lower (3) is a plaster with many linear structures visible and no pebbles.

716p

712p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 9.4; W: 15.4; T: 3.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.4; (2) 1.7. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and whitish/​light brown plaster with a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a completely white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. There are straw impressions in the plaster of the lower (2). The surface is smooth and appears to have been decorated with monochrome dark paint.

713p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.3; W: 7.1; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.8. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and whitish/​light brown plaster with a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a completely white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. There are straw impressions in the plaster of the lower (2). The surface is smooth and appears to have been decorated with yellow paint.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

714p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.7; W: 8.7; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.9. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark, maybe yellow.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and whitish/​light brown plaster with a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a completely white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. There are straw impressions in the plaster of the lower (2). The surface is smooth and appears to have been decorated with monochrome dark paint with yellow applied on top.

715p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 22.3; W: 23.2; T: 5.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.2; (2) 4.0. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and whitish/​light brown plaster with a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a completely white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets. There are straw impressions in the plaster of the lower (2). The surface is smooth and appears to have been decorated with monochrome dark paint.

J15-Pa-55-12 Context: Earthquake horizon. Soil layer (ev. 55) from the inside of the second building phase of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains pottery, bones, metal, coins, and tesserae. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

716p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 9.9; W: 13.1; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 1.0; (3) 0.8. Dense, but crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Alternating parallel bands.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is the painted smooth plaster surface with a small number of inclusions. The middle (2) is also a plaster and has a small number of inclusions, but larger air pockets. The lower (3) is coarser with more air pockets. The lower (3) also has a whiter plaster. The surface is smooth with alternating pale, red, and black bands:  one broad, pale band, one thinner, black band, a pale band, a thin, red band, and then a broad, pale band.

345

J15-Pa-102-2 Context: Earthquake horizon. A stone fill between the east–west running two-faced north wall. Only very few pottery fragments were found here. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

717p. Fragment of mortar Size: H: 6.6; W: 7.1; T: 4.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.8. Crumbly, porous, and poorly preserved. Mortar colour: Greyish and whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a greyish and porous mortar with a medium number of inclusions and many carbon inclusions.

J15-Pb-16-91 Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

718p. Mortar and plaster fragment with tool impressions Size: H: 9.1; W: 8.1; T: 3.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.8. Porous and dusty.

Plaster colour: Brownish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thin layer of plaster, and the lower (2) is a coarse mortar-like fabric. There are tool impressions on the surface, which is otherwise smooth with no decorations or colours.

718p

346

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

720p

721p

722p

723p

719p

J15-Pb-16-128 Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

719p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 10.4; W: 12.4; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.1. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: One broad, reddish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted with a broad, reddish band indicating a frame/​g eometrical pattern.

720p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.6. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: One broad, reddish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions and one little carbon inclusion. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted with a broad, reddish band indicating a frame/​g eometrical pattern.

721p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 4.0; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish pattern.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is the plaster containing no inclusions except one carbon inclusion. The surface is smooth and painted with three stripes of reddish paint.

722p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.0; W: 5.9; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.9. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions and one little carbon inclusion. The surface is smooth with chiselmarks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted in a reddish monochrome paint.

723p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 3.6; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.9. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a medium number of inclusions and one little carbon inclusion. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted in a reddish monochrome paint.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

347

726p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 5.8; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.6. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Mainly yellow with brownish pattern and one thin, red band. 725p

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is smooth and painted mainly yellow with a brownish pattern and a thin, red band.

726p

727p. Fragment of painted wall plaster 727p

728p

729p

724p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 5.5; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.8. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a medium number of inclusions and one little carbon inclusion. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour.

725p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.1; W: 9.9; T: 3.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 3.3. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Mainly yellow with brownish pattern and one thin, red band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted mainly yellow with a brownish pattern and a thin, red band.

Size: H: 3.9; W: 5.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.6. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and brownish pattern.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted in a reddish colour with a brown pattern on.

728p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.6; W: 6.5; T: 2.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.6. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red and black pattern.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) appears to be a layer of a different type of plaster, which is coarser with a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with a reddish and blackish painted pattern.

729p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 3.6; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.7. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow background with four red stripes.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted with a yellow background with four red stripes on.

348

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

730p

731p

732p

733p

734p 735p

J15-Pb-54-1 736p 737p

738p

Context: Earthquake horizon. Destruction layer from the House of the Tesserae. Found in a destruction layer (ev. 16) from trench P (connected to trench K and V) with several architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, a low amount of pottery, and a metal strainer. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

739p 740p

References: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P and appendix by Larsen. For more about red graffiti on white walls in Umayyad contexts, see Daviau 2010, 107, 110, 112, 114, 116–17, figs 5.4 and 5.14.

730p. Fragment of painted wall plaster

732p. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 3.0; W: 4.3; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.2. The upper plaster is well preserved, but the lower mortar is porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow background with red-painted circles on.

Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.2. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Stripes of reddish, yellowish, and greyish paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding, which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted with a yellow background with red circles on.

731p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.2; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow background with red-painted circle.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is the plaster layer. This only has a few inclusions and is smooth on the surface. The surface is painted with a yellow background and a red circle.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with no inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of three reddish stripes, three yellowish stripes, and three greyish stripes in a zigzag pattern.

733p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 2.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.7. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Stripes of reddish, yellowish, and greyish paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with no inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of three reddish stripes, two yellowish stripes, and one greyish stripe in a zigzag pattern.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

734p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.9; W: 2.9; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.9. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellowish, greyish, and orange paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks as well as a large incision — presumably from string impressions used as guidelines for the paint. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of mainly yellow colour, with one stripe of greyish paint and one stripe of orange paint.

735p. Fragment of wall plaster with graffiti/​ inscription on Size: H: 5.9; W: 7.8; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.3. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red-painted graffiti/​inscription.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of red paint and looks to be a graffiti or an inscription. The fragment appears to have red paint on the breaking area of the fragment indicating repairs or repainting.

736p. Fragment of wall plaster with graffiti/​ inscription on Size: H: 2.6; W: 4.6; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.9. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red-painted graffiti/​inscription.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of red paint and looks to be a graffiti or an inscription.

737p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.3; W: 4.1; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.1. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellowish paint.

349

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks as well as a large incision — presumably from string impressions used as guidelines for the paint. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of monochrome yellow colour.

738p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.1; W: 4.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.7. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks as well as a large incision — presumably from string impressions used as guidelines for the paint. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of monochrome reddish paint.

739p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.2; W: 8.3; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 1.5. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellowish, greyish, and orange paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks as well as a large incision — presumably from string impressions used as guidelines for the paint. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of two reddish curving stripes (indicating circles) and two yellow/​grey curving stripes (also indicating circles).

740p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.6; W: 9.2; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.5. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellowish, greyish, and orange paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks as well as a large incision — presumably from string impressions used as guidelines for the paint. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of one reddish curving stripe (indicating circles), one yellow curving stripe, and one grey curving stripe (also indicating a circular shape).

350

741p

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

742p 747p

748p

749p

741p. Fragment of painted wall plaster

744p. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 3.0; W: 3.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.3. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and red paint.

Size: H: 6.1; W: 10.9; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.6. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks as well as a large incision — presumably from string impressions used as guidelines for the paint. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of a red and a yellow band.

742p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.3: W: 2.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.2. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and red paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the thick layer of painted plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks as well as a large incision — presumably from string impressions used as guidelines for the paint. The lower (2) is the mortar base in a greyish colour with a few inclusions of small pebbles and pottery. The paint on the surface consists of a red and a yellow band.

743p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.6; W: 6.4; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.6. The plaster is quite dense, but the mortar below is crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Part of reddish parallel band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser mortar, which is greyish white with a few inclusions including carbon. The surface is smooth with part of a reddish parallel band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser mortar, which is greyish white with a few inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and undecorated.

745p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.4; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.8. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser mortar, which is greyish white with a few inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

746p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 8.7; W: 7.1; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.5. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser mortar, which is greyish white with a few inclusions and air pockets including carbon. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

747p. Fragment of unpainted plaster

751p. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 4.7; W: 6.5; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.5. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 5.2; W: 5.6; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.6. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and red paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser mortar, which is greyish white with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets including carbon. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

748p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 7.7; W: 4.7; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.2. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarser mortar, which is greyish white with a few inclusions and air pockets including carbon. The surface is smooth, with chisel-marks and a parallel string mark.

749p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 11.4; W: 10.1; T: 3.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 2.4. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and red paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated with a yellow triangle with reddish paint around.

750p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.6; W: 7.4; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 2.0. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar is crumbly and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and red paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish parallel band and a yellow parallel band.

351

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish parallel band and a yellow parallel band.

752p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.3; W: 5.6; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.2. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and red paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish parallel band and a yellow parallel band.

753p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 2.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.7. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: White and red paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish parallel band and a white parallel band.

754p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 3.3; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.0. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow, grey, and red paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish parallel band and a yellow parallel band with an uneven grey pattern on.

352

755p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 5.7; T: 2.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 2.0. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow, red, and grey paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated with a yellow background with an uneven greyish and reddish pattern on.

756p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 5.6; T: 3.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 2.2. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and grey paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated with a yellow background with an uneven greyish pattern on.

757p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 8.6; W: 8.3; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.9. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow, red, white, and grey paint.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated with a grey parallel band, and above this are traces of a yellow band, then a white panel with a reddish pattern on top.

758p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 8.1; W: 6.9; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.8. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more grey and coarse mortar. It crumbles easily and contains a medium number of inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth and decorated monochrome red.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J15-Pc-15-4 Context: Earthquake horizon. Layer of loose soil under the collapse of ev.  14. Big-sized context with pottery broken into medium-sized pieces. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

759p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.3; W: 7.9; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. The fragment is compact and heavy. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a compact and greyish white plaster with a high number of inclusions. The fragment is quite heavy and coarse. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J15-Pc-15-33 Context: Earthquake horizon. Layer of loose soil under the collapse of ev.  14. Big-sized context with pottery broken into medium-sized pieces. Date:  Umayyad (mid-eighth century ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

760p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 7.2; W: 7.9; T: 4.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.3. Soft, poorly preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark red paint.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a soft and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and might be decorated with dark red paint. The surface is poorly preserved, and it has a thick lime incrustation.

761p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.5; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Soft, poorly preserved, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is whitish and soft stucco with a few inclusions. The surface is moulded with three grooves.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

J15-Pc-16-69 Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

762p. Fragment of mortar Size: H: 5.4; W: 6.2; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.9. Soft and crumbly. Mortar colour: Grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a soft and grey mortar with a few charcoal inclusions. The surface is smoothened, but still uneven.

J15-Pc-16-94 Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

763p. Fragment of plaster with pottery Size: H: 5.1; W: 7.4; T: 2.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 2.7; (2) 0.8. Porous. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the plaster surrounding the pottery. This plaster is white and porous with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is the pottery fragment embedded into the plaster. The surface is smooth.

764p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 7.3; T: 3.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.3. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a soft and white plaster with no inclusions. The surface is smoothened with tool impressions.

353

J15-Pcd-13-2 Context:  Earthquake horizon. Umayyad courtyard house in connection with trench K from the excavations in 2014. The stucco fragment stems from a soil layer inside the walls. These collapse layers would come from wall cores and wall linings. The soil also contains mortar, plaster, tesserae, metal, and glass. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

765p. Fragment of stucco Size: H: 8.7; W: 5.1; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.2. Dusty and porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The stucco fragment consists of one horizon in a whitish colour. It is porous and dusty. It has chisel-marks on the surface showing the working process.

J15-Pd-16-13 Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

766p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 4.9; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.2. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Dark pattern.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a softer and more yellow plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a dark pattern.

354

J15-Pd-16-14 Context: Earthquake horizon. Yellowish collapse layer (ev. 16) from the inside of the Umayyad house (also connected to trench K and trench V). The layer contains architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, and wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

767p. Fragment of plaster with pottery Size: H: 11.4; W: 9.7; T: 4.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.3. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a large piece of plaster with pieces of pottery sticking into the plaster.

768p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 10.8; W: 8.6; T: 3.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.7. Dense, but crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a large piece of plaster, which consists of one horizon in a whitish colour. It crumbles easily, and there are chisel-marks on the surface.

J15-Pd-16-138 Context: Earthquake horizon. Destruction layer from an Umayyad house. Found in a destruction layer (ev. 16) from trench P (connected to trench K and V) with several architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, a low amount of pottery, and a metal strainer. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

769p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 11.8; W: 9.7; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 1.3. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: One parallel reddish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the white plaster with only a few inclusions and a smooth surface. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar is crumbly, has big inclusions (small pebbles), a few carbon pieces, and a few air pockets. The surface is decorated with a broad, red band (indicating a frame) and chisel-marks.

770p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.1; W: 4.7; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 1.4. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: One parallel reddish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the white plaster with only a few inclusions and a smooth surface. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar is crumbly, has big inclusions (small pebbles), a few carbon pieces, and a few air pockets. The surface is decorated with a broad, red band (indicating a frame), and it has chisel-marks.

771p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.0; W: 4.7; T: 2.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.4. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: One parallel reddish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the white plaster with only a few inclusions and a smooth surface. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar is crumbly, has big inclusions (small pebbles), a few carbon pieces, and a few air pockets. The surface is decorated with a broad, red band (indicating a frame) and chisel-marks.

772p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 4.4; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.1. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: One parallel reddish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the white plaster with only a few inclusions and a smooth surface. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar is crumbly, has big inclusions (small pebbles), a few carbon pieces, and a few air pockets. The surface is decorated with a broad, red band (indicating a frame) and chisel-marks.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

773p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 2.4; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.2. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: One curving reddish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the white plaster with only a few inclusions and a smooth surface. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar is crumbly, has big inclusions (small pebbles), a few carbon pieces, and a few air pockets. The surface is decorated with a curving red band (indicating a circle) and chisel-marks.

774p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 7.2; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.6. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Mainly yellow, but with stripes of green and red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted mainly yellow, but with one stripe of red and two green stripes.

775p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.2; W: 7.9; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.6. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Mainly yellow, but with stripes of green and brownish.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with small chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted mainly yellow, but with one stripe of brown and two green stripes.

776p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 4.8; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.5. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: One reddish band and one yellowish.

355

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted in a reddish-coloured band and a yellowish band (indicating a frame).

777p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.3; W: 6.8; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.2. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow, green, red, and brown.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is painted mainly yellow with one green stripe and a brownish and red pattern.

778p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.7; W: 5.6; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.5. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red and brown.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface has a brownish pattern on a white background with a reddish dot.

779p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 4.9; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 1.6. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow and brown.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is mainly painted yellow (yellow background) with two brown dots.

356

780p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 5.0; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.8. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow, red, green, and brown.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The background is painted yellow with a brownish pattern with a green stripe and reddish paint on top.

781p. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 5.1; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.6. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower mortar crumbles easily. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Yellow.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a thick layer of plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks. The lower (2) consists of the mortar bedding which the plaster is set upon. This mortar has a medium number of inclusions (pebbles), a few air pockets, and a greyish colour. The surface is monochrome yellow.

J15-Pd-16-140 Context: Earthquake horizon. Destruction layer from the House of the Tesserae. Found in a destruction layer (ev. 16) from trench P with several architectural remains such as fragmented water pipes, a few tegulae, a low amount of pottery, and a metal strainer.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J16-Vac-53-5 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vac-53 consists of a yellow collapse layer, which is covered by ev. 1 and ev. 3. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, tesserae, and basalt. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

783v. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 10.1; W: 9.7; T: 7.1. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 0.1; (2) 1.1; (3) 5.9. Dense, but crumbly. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a fine plaster (lime) with no inclusions. The middle (2) is a coarser plaster, which seems sandy with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (3) is a grey mortar with large amounts of carbon. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J16-Vac-53-43 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vac-53 consists of a yellow collapse layer, which is covered by ev. 1 and ev. 3. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, tesserae, and basalt. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

784v. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench P.

Size: H: 2.8; W: 5.2; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Reddish brown. Decoration: No.

782p. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.9; W: 4.4; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 2.7. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The stucco is porous and fragile. No colours are preserved, but one parallel line is incised in the otherwise smooth piece. The piece consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a thin layer of top plaster and the lower (2) consists of crude bedding.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a sandy and reddish-brown plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a yellow and soft plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

785v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 3.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

J16-Vb-13-1 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. ff Vb-13 is the wall plaster still attached to the south face of the east– west running south wall of ev. 12. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

357

790v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 4.6; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

791v. Fragment of unpainted plaster 786v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.4; W: 7.2; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

Size: H: 4.2; W: 4.3; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

792v. Fragment of unpainted plaster 787v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.0; W: 5.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.3; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

793v. Fragment of unpainted plaster 788v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.2; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

Size: H: 1.8; W: 1.6; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

794v. Fragment of unpainted plaster 789v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 2.4; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

Size: H: 3.2; W: 1.4; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

358

795v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.6; W: 2.4; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Light brownish white/​beige white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and brownish white plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a linear structure. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

J16-Vb-62-2 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vb-62 consists of a dark brown soil inside the north-west chamber of the so-called arch room. The layer also contains tesserae and tiles. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

796v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.5; W: 4.9; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.6. Crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a soft and crumbly plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

J16-Vc-84-12 Context: The ev.  of Vc-84 is an intentional fill in the west room in the Umayyad house (trench V). Pottery, tesserae, and tiles were also found along with the plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

797v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.3; W: 7.8; T: 2.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.5; (2) 1.2. The plaster is worn and soft. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a whitish and soft plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a larger piece of pottery (late Roman Amphora I with dipinto) stuck to the plaster.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J16-Vc-84-19 Context:  Earthquake horizon. The ev.  of Vc-84 is an intentional fill in the west room in the Umayyad house (trench V). Pottery, tesserae, and tiles were also found along with the plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

798v. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 9.5; W: 9.9; T: 3.4. Texture and preservations: One horizon 3.4. Dense and coarse. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish paint on the surface.

The fragment is a large piece of plaster, which consists of one horizon. It is a whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions, both larger and smaller inclusions. The surface is crude and uneven, and it has traces of reddish paint.

J16-Vd-25-11 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vd-25 consists of a yellow-brown collapse layer in the arch room of the Umayyad House. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, tesserae, and mosaics. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

799v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 3.5; T: 1.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.7. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and soft plaster with a few inclusions (a few carbon inclusions).

800v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.1; W: 2.4; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and soft plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

J16-Vd-25-17 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vd-25 consists of a yellow-brown soil in the arch room. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, and mosaics. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

801v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 8.1; W: 8.3; T: 4.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.4. Porous. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a whitish and porous plaster with a few larger inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface seems to have been fitted to tesserae, indicated by mosaic marks.

J16-Vdf-73-6 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vdf-73 consists of a brown collapse layer in the northern part of the arch room. The layer also contains, among other things, pottery, tesserae, marble, and tiles. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by radiocarbon analysis). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

802v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 4.6; T: 1.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.9. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a soft and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is not completely smooth and has a triangular indent (perhaps a herringbone pattern?).

J16-Vdf-73-20 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vdf-73 consists of a brown collapse layer in the northern part of the arch room. The layer also contains, among other things, pottery, tesserae, marble, and tiles. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by radiocarbon analysis). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

359

803v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 5.9; T: 3.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.9; (2) 2.0. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a porous and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. It is also crumbly. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusion and carbon. The surface is uneven with indents.

J16-Vg-69-9 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vg-69 consists of a yellow soil between the stone collapses of ev. 14. The soil also contains pottery, tesserae, and tiles. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

804v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 13.5; W: 7.8; T: 3.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.7; (2) 1.9. Porous and soft. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a soft and porous whitish plaster with no inclusions and few air pockets. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with no inclusions, but with a medium number of air pockets. The surface has four indents.

805v. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 6.7; W: 9.1; T: 3.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.2; (2) 2.1. Porous and soft. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a soft and porous whitish plaster with no inclusions and few air pockets. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with no inclusions, but with a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated in monochrome red.

806v. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 5.7; W: 7.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.8. Porous and soft. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a soft and porous whitish plaster with no inclusions and few air pockets. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with no inclu­sions, but with a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated in monochrome red.

360

807v. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 4.0; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.6. Porous and soft. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a soft and porous whitish plaster with no inclusions and few air pockets. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster with no inclusions, but wi­th a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and decorated in monochrome red.

J16-Vgi-67-18 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vi-67 consists of a reddish-brown soil in the corridor between the walls ev. 17 and ev. 18. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, and mosaics. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by radiocarbon analysis). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

808v. Fragment of mortar Size: H: 5.4; W: 6.9; T: 3.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.9. Porous, poorly preserved, and damaged. Mortar colour: Grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a grey mortar with large air pockets.

809v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 7.5; W: 10.3; T: 4.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.4. Porous, poorly preserved, and damaged. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a poorly preserved and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a few tool-marks.

810v. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 2.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J16-Vi-1-60 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vi-1 consists of a loose, dark brown top-soil, which also contains pottery and a coin. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

811v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 8.6; W: 7.9; T: 3.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth with chisel-marks.

J16-Vi-26-5 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vi-26 consists of a brown-yellow collapse layer in front of the house. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, architectural features, tiles, and coins, etc. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

812v. Fragment of mortar Size: H: 7.4; W: 10.7; T: 7.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 7.6. Crumbly and heavy. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of mortar, which has a greyish colour and a high number of both smaller and larger inclusions including carbon and a large stone.

813v. Fragment of mortar. Size: H: 5.6; W: 8.1; T: 4.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.7. Crumbly and heavy. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of mortar, which has a greyish colour and a high number of both smaller and larger inclusions including carbon and a large stone.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

361

814v. Fragment of mortar

817v. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 5.0; W: 5.3; T: 3.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.9. Crumbly and heavy. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 7.9; W: 11.3; T: 3.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.2. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of mortar, which has a greyish colour and a high number of both smaller and larger inclusions including carbon and a large stone.

J16-Vi-26-24 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vi-26 consists of yellow-brown soil in front of the house. The context also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, mortar, mosaics, a water pipe, and an Umayyad pre-reform coin. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

815v. Fragment of plaster with herringbone pattern Size: H: 6.3; W: 6.9; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.3. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Beige/​ whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a beige white and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with a herringbone pattern.

J16-Vi-26-26 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vi-26 consists of yellow-brown soil in front of the house. The context also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, mortar, mosaics, a water pipe, and an Umayyad pre-reform coin. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

816v. Fragment from a floor Size: H: 14.6; W: 8.7; T: 6.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 6.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a piece of a mortar floor, which is greyish and dense with a high number of large inclusions of bigger and smaller pebbles and carbon. The surface is smooth, but with many stone and pottery fragments.

The fragment consists of a large plaster piece, which is dense and compact. It has a greyish white colour and a medium number of large inclusions. The surface is smooth.

818v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 10.4; W: 19.3; T: 3.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.3. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a large plaster piece, which is dense and compact. It has a greyish white colour and a medium number of large inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J16-Vi-49 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vi-49 consists of a yellow collapse layer, which is covered by ev. 26. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, and mosaics. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

819v. Fragment of mortar floor Size: H: 15.2; W: 9.3; T: 6.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 6.8. Dense and heavy. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is large and heavy and is a piece of a mortar floor. It consists of an uneven surface in which there are several smaller stones/​pebbles and pieces of tesserae. The stones become bigger, and the mortar, which is mixed in, is greyish and dense.

820v. Fragment of mortar floor Size: H: 13.7; W: 12.6; T: 4.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.4. Dense and heavy. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is large and heavy and is a piece of a mortar floor. It consists of an uneven surface in which there are several smaller stones/​pebbles and pieces of tesserae. The mortar also has carbon inclusions.

362

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

821v. Fragment of mortar floor

823v. Fragment of plaster with mortar

Size: H: 15.5; W: 10.4; T: 4.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.6. Dense and heavy. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 12.9; W: 17.7; T: 8.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 2.4; (2) 5.6. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is large and heavy and is a piece of a mortar floor. It consists of an uneven surface in which there are several smaller stones/​pebbles and a medium number of pieces of tesserae and cut-offs from tessera production. The mortar also has carbon inclusions.

J16-Vi-49-9 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vi-49 is a yellowish collapse layer under the lowest part of a stone collapse (ev.  14) south of the stone pavement in the Umayyad house. Pottery fragments (common ware, amphorae, and cooking ware) and tesserae were also found in the layer of ev. 49. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

822v. Fragment of decorative plaster Size: H: 34.0; W: 23.4; T: 11.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 5.4; (2) 7.3. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Moulded as a circle.

The fragment is a large piece of decorative plaster, which consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and coarse plaster moulded as two circles with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusions.

J16-Vi-49-20 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vi-49 is a yellowish collapse layer under the lowest part of a stone collapse (ev.  14) south of the stone pavement in the Umayyad house. Pottery fragments (common ware, amphorae, and cooking ware) and tesserae were also found in the layer of ev. 49. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a greyish white and dense plaster with a high number of inclusions and air pockets. The lower (2) is a greyish and crumbly mortar with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon. The smooth surface is curving.

824v. Fragment of plaster with mortar Size: H: 16.2; W: 13.7; T: 4.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 2.9; (2) 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a greyish white and dense plaster with a high number of inclusions and air pockets. The lower (2) is a greyish and crumbly mortar with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon. The surface is smooth.

J16-Vi-60-11 Context:  Earthquake horizon. The ev.  of Vi-60 consists of a yellow collapse layer, which contains pottery, tesserae, and tiles. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

825v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.3; W: 1.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Fragile and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Yellowish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one rounded fragment, which is a soft and fragile plaster. It is poorly preserved and seems to have a medium number of inclusions.

J16-Vi-60-21 Context:  Earthquake horizon. The ev.  of Vi-60 consists of a yellow collapse layer, which contains pottery, tesserae, and tiles. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

826v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 4.5; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.2. Crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and white plaster with a few inclusions, but a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

827v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 4.3; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.6. Crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and white plaster with a few inclusions, but a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

828v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.3; T: 2.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.4. Crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a crumbly and white plaster with a few inclusions, but a high number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and not decorated, but it has tool-marks.

J16-Vi-67-2 Context: Earthquake horizon. The ev. of Vi-67 consists of a reddish-brown soil in the corridor between the walls ev. 17 and ev. 18. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, and mosaics. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by radiocarbon analysis). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench V.

829v. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.3; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Poorly preserved and crumbly. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and crumbly plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

363

The Umayyad House (Trench U) J16-Uc-19-9 Context: The ev. of Uc-19 consists of a loose and grey soil in the south room of the building. Pottery, tesserae, tiles, and an Umayyad post-reform coin were also found in the layer. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench U.

830u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 3.6; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a soft and greyish plaster (mortar) with large amounts of inclusions. There is no surface, but one side has a deep triangular mark (perhaps mosaic bedding).

J16-Uc-20-17 Context: The ev. of Uc-20 consists of a grey-brown soil collapse in the west room north of the wall ev. 8. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench U.

831u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 3.8; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

832u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 3.7; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with large amounts of inclusions. The plaster is sandy. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

364

J16-Uc-23-7 Context: The ev. of Uc-23 is a compact yellowish soil (presumably roof collapse) inside the west room in the house of trench U.  Pottery, tesserae, tiles, and marble pieces were also found together with the wall plaster. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench U.

833u. Fragment of unpainted wall plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 4.6; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish, dense plaster with a high number of small inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

834u. Fragment of unpainted wall plaster Size: H: 4.5; W: 5.6; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish, dense plaster with a few inclusions, and the architecture of the plaster is rather structural. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

835u. Fragment of unpainted wall plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 5.5; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish, dense plaster with a high number of small inclusions and carbon pieces. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J16-Uc-23-26 Context: The ev. of Uc-23 consists of a compact yellow layer, which also contains pottery, tesserae, basalt, and tiles. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench U.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

836u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 3.9; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

837u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 4.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

838u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 4.0; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and linear structure. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

839u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 4.0; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

840u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 3.0; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

841u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.9; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions and linear structure. The surface is smooth with tool-marks.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

J16-Uc-25-6 Context: The ev. of Uc-25 consists of the southern wall face of the wall ev. 7. Also pottery and tiles were found. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench U.

365

846u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 3.4; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and soft plaster with a medium number of air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

842u. Fragment of unpainted plaster

847u. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 5.0; W: 4.3; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.3. Soft and crumbly. Mortar colour: Brownish white. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 1.9; W: 1.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment is soft and crumbles easily, and the plaster is brownish white with a few inclusions and carbon. The surface is smooth.

843u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.0; W: 2.5; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.1. Soft and crumbly. Mortar colour: Brownish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment is soft and crumbles easily. The plaster is brownish white with a few inclusions and carbon, and the surface is smooth.

844u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 2.7; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Soft and crumbly. Mortar colour: Brownish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment is soft and crumbles easily. The plaster is brownish white with a few inclusions and carbon.

J16-Uc-41-2 Context: The ev. of Uc-41 consists of a layer of yellowbrown soil south of the south wall (ev. 8). The layer also contains pottery and coins.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and soft plaster with a medium number of air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

848u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.2; W: 1.7; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and soft plaster with a medium number of air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J16-Uc-45-15 Context: The ev. of Uc-45 consists of a yellow soil fill south of the wall ev. 8. The layer also contains pottery, tesserae, tiles, and marble. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench U.

Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

849u. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench U.

Size: H: 3.4; W: 3.8; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and porous. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: Monochrome green.

845u. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 2.3; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Soft and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: White. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a white and soft plaster with a medium number of air pockets and a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

The fragment consists of a white plaster with a medium number of inclusions, which is also sandy and porous. The surface is smooth and monochrome green.

366

The Islamic and Medi­eval Structures (Trenches C, D, and T) J12-Cc-29 Context: The south-west room in trench C where the roof collapsed. The wall plaster was found in situ in front of the west wall in the collapse layer. Roof tiles from the older south room (ev.  21) were also found here along with pottery fragments. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013, 71.

850c. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.5; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.5. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: Two parallel incisions.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a plaster that is smooth on the surface with two parallel incisions creating a thin band with two broader bands on each side. The top is also curving. The lower (2) is a coarser plaster, but without air pockets and only a few inclusions.

851c. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 3.9; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a dense and well-preserved plaster. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks (impressions). Towards the surface there are a few air pockets and a few inclusions.

852c. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 5.3; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.6. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense plaster with a smooth surface. The fragment is coarse with a medium number of inclusions and air pockets.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

853c. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.1; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense plaster and well preserved. The surface is smooth with a few chisel-marks (impressions). Towards the surface there are a few air pockets and a few inclusions.

J13-Da-10-9 Context:  Fill layer from reused and rebuilt AyyubidMamluk house (phase 3, east corner of the so-called Ionic Building) in trench D. The fill layer also contains roof tiles and a fragment of a marble torso. Date:  Mamluk (thirteenth–sixteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

854d. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.1; (2) 1.2. Porous and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The wall plaster is porous and crumbles easily. The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a completely smooth plaster with no decorations. The plaster (2) under the smoothened surface is coarse and consists of many pebbles in various sizes. The plaster also holds a medium number of air pockets.

J13-Da-10-31 Context: Yellowish collapse layer in the east corner of the Ionic Building. The wall paintings were found in situ in the north room covered by a collapse layer, which also contained stones from the collapsed walls and a yellowish homogenous layer with large quantities of pottery, some Byzantine glass finds, and broken roof tiles. Date:  Mamluk (thirteenth–sixteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References: Bloch 2011, 120–21, Taf. 58–61; Cruik­ shank Dodd 2004; Eristov and Seigne 2003; Etting­ hausen 1962; Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014; Schlumberger 1986.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

855d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 4.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Brownish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint.

The fragment is painted in a monochrome reddish colour and consists of one horizon. The plaster contains a medium number of inclusions. The thick layer of paint gives the impression of al secco technique.

856d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.1; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: Monochrome reddish paint.

The fragment is painted in a monochrome reddish colour and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) consists of a thick layer of monochrome red paint giving the impression of al secco technique. The lower (2) contains a medium number of inclusions and is coarser.

857d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 6.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 1.2. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: Monochrome pinkish paint.

The fragment is painted in a monochrome pinkish colour and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) consists of a thick layer of paint giving the impression of al secco technique. The lower (2) contains a medium number of inclusions and is coarser.

858d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 7.9; W: 4.8; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 1.1. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: Alternating different coloured bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) consists of a thick layer of paint giving the impression of al secco technique. The lower (2) contains a medium number of inclusions and is coarser. The surface is smooth and painted with one green band, a thinner, black band, a broad, yellow band, a thin, black band, a broad, yellow band, a thin, darker band, and another broad, pale yellow band.

859d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 4.4; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Porous with a small hole (0.4 × 0.5 cm) in the decoration. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: Different coloured bands.

367

The fragment consists of a coarse plaster containing a medium number of inclusions. There is a small hole in the black band (0.4 × 0.5 cm), and the surface is decorated parallel bands:  one green band, a thinner, black band, and then a broad, yellow band.

860d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.9; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 1.1. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: Monochrome pinkish paint.

The fragment is painted in a monochrome pinkish colour and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) consists of a thick layer of paint giving the impression of al secco technique. The lower (2) contains a medium number of inclusions and is coarser.

861d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 2.5; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.7. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: Monochrome light green paint.

The fragment is painted in a monochrome light green colour and consists of two horizons: the upper (1) consists of a thick layer of paint giving the impression of al secco technique. The lower (2) contains a medium number of inclusions and is coarser.

862d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.3; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.6. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: Alternating different-coloured parallel bands.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) consists of a thick layer of paint giving the impression of al secco technique. The lower (2) contains a medium number of inclusions and is coarser. The surface is decorated with a green band, a whitish, thin band, a thin, black band, and a broad, yellow band.

863d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 5.1; W: 4.5; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.1; (2) 0.9. Porous. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: A whitish band followed by a reddish band.

The fragment is painted with two bands with one whitish and one reddish and consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) consists of a thick layer of paint giving the impression of al secco technique. The lower (2) contains a medium number of inclusions and is coarser. The fragment’s string impressions used as guidelines for the paint are preserved.

368

J13-Dab-13-21 Context: The north room in trench D (east corner of the Ionic Building). The fragment comes from a debris layer in the north room, which also contains stones from the collapsed walls and a yellowish homogenous layer containing large quantities of pottery, some Byzantine glass finds, and broken roof tiles. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

864d. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 7.4; W: 9.5; T: 5.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 4.8. Porous and fragile. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is fragile and crumbles easily. It consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is the surface with some marks, but otherwise smooth. The lower (2) under the surface crumbles easily with many air pockets.

J13-Dab-13-44 Context: Debris in the north room containing stones from the collapsed walls and a homogenous yellowish clayish soil, which also contains pottery, Byzantine glass finds, and parts of broken roof tiles. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014.

865d. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.3; W: 5.8; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 1.6. Soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a more soft, porous, and yellow plaster with a few large inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth and has one small hole measuring 0.4 × 0.4 cm.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

866d. Fragment of unpainted plaster. Size: H: 3.7; W: 4.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and not decorated.

J13-Db-10-27 Context: Yellowish collapse layer in the east corner of the Ionic Building. The fragments were found in situ in the north room covered by a collapse layer, which also contains stones from the collapsed walls and a yellowish homogenous layer containing large quantities of pottery, some Byzantine glass finds, and broken roof tiles. Date:  Mamluk (thirteenth–sixteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Bloch 2011; Cruikshank Dodd 2004; Eristov and Seigne 2003; Ettinghausen 1962; Kalaitzo­ glou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2015; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014; Schlumberger 1986.

867d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 4.8; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​ pale brown. Decoration: Two parallel bands: one broad, green band and one thinner, black band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a plaster that is smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The surface is painted in two parallel bands with a broad, green band and a thinner, black band. A  piece has broken off the fragment, where the wall plaster is curving upwards.

868d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 4.6; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​ pale brown. Decoration: Two parallel bands: one broad, green band and one thinner, black band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a plaster that is smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The surface is painted in two parallel bands with a broad, green band and a thinner, black band. A  piece has broken off the fragment, where the wall plaster is curving upwards.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

369

869d. Fragment of painted wall plaster

873d. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 4.1; W: 3.1; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​ pale brown. Decoration: Three parallel bands: one broad, green band, one thinner, black band, and a third band above the black one in a reddish colour.

Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​pale brown. Decoration: Two parallel bands: one reddish and one yellowish with approx. same thickness.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a plaster that is smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The surface is painted in three parallel bands with a broad, green band, a thinner, black band, and a third band above the black one in a reddish colour. A piece has broken off the fragment, where the wall plaster is curving upwards.

870d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 2.4; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​ pale brown. Decoration: Three parallel bands: one broad, green band, one thinner, black band, and a third band above the black one in a reddish colour.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a plaster that is smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The surface is painted in three parallel bands with a broad, green band, a thinner, black band, and a third band above the black one in a reddish colour. A piece has broken off the fragment, where the wall plaster is curving upwards.

871d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 4.7; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​pale brown. Decoration: Three parallel bands: one broad, reddish band, one thin, darker/​blackish band, and then one thin, yellowish band.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a plaster that is completely smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a more brownish-coloured plaster with a few inclusions. The fragment is painted with a broad, reddish parallel band, a thin, dark/​black band, and then a yellowish band above.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a plaster that is completely smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a more brownish-coloured plaster with a few inclusions. The fragment is painted in two parallel bands, one reddish and one yellowish.

874d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 4.3; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.6. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​pale brown. Decoration: Three parallel bands: one is a pale greyish colour, the middle a reddish colour, and the third is also a pale greyish colour.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a plaster that is completely smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a more brownish-coloured plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The fragment is painted in three parallel bands alternating between pale grey and reddish.

875d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 2.9; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.7. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​pale brown. Decoration: Three parallel bands: one is broad and in a yellowish colour, the middle is a darker colour, and the third is also a yellowish colour.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a plaster that is completely smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a more brownish-coloured plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The fragment is painted in three parallel bands alternating between yellow and dark.

876d. Fragment of painted wall plaster 872d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​pale brown. Decoration: Two parallel bands: one reddish and one yellowish with approx. same thickness.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a plaster that is completely smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a more brownish-coloured plaster with a few inclusions. The fragment is painted in two parallel bands, one reddish and one yellowish.

Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.7; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish/​pale brown. Decoration: Painted yellow.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a plaster that is completely smooth on the surface and contains a small number of inclusions. The lower (2) consists of a more brownish-coloured plaster with a few inclusions. The fragment is painted in a monochrome yellow.

370

J13-Dc-10-13 Context: Yellowish collapse layer in the east corner of the Ionic Building. The fragments were found in situ in the north room covered by a collapse layer, which also contains stones from the collapsed walls and a yellowish homogenous layer containing large quantities of pottery, some Byzantine glass finds, and broken roof tiles. Date:  Mamluk (thirteenth–sixteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Bloch 2011; Cruikshank Dodd 2004; Eristov and Seigne 2003; Ettinghausen 1962; Kalaitzo­ glou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014; Schlumberger 1986.

877d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size:  H:  2.6; W:  3.2; T:  1.1. Texture and preservation:  Two hori­zons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster col­ our:  Whit­ish. Decoration:  Three parallel bands in black, green, and red.

The plaster consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a plaster that has a smooth surface with paint on. The paint is divided into three different-coloured bands in black (a thin band), green, and red (a broad band). The lower (2) consists of a sandy plaster bedding with a medium number of pebbles and air pockets.

878d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.8; W: 5.9; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 1.0. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Four parallel bands in black, red, green, and red.

The plaster consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a plaster that has a smooth surface with paint on. The paint is divided into four different bands in black (a thin band), red (a thin band), green, and red (a broad band). The lower (2) consists of a sandy plaster bedding with a medium number of pebbles and air pockets.

879d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.9; W: 4.7; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.1; (2) 1.2. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Four parallel bands in green, black, green, and red.

The plaster consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a plaster that has a smooth surface with paint on. The paint is divided into four different bands in green, black, green, and red (a broad band). It seems like the red paint might be the first colour that was painted on the plaster, since it is visible under the green paint. The lower (2) consists of a sandy plaster bedding with a medium number of pebbles and air pockets.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

880d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 2.8; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 1.2. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Two parallel bands in green and red.

The plaster consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a plaster that has a smooth surface with paint on. The paint is divided into two different-coloured bands:  a green band and a red band. The lower (2) consists of a sandy plaster bedding with a medium number of pebbles and air pockets.

881d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.7; W: 6.2; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Two parallel bands in yellow and green.

The plaster consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a plaster that has a smooth surface with paint on. The paint is divided into two different-coloured bands — one yellow and one green. The lower (2) consists of a sandy plaster bedding with a medium number of pebbles and air pockets.

882d. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.6; W: 7.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.2; (2) 0.9. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Three parallel bands in green, black, and red.

The plaster consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a plaster that has a smooth surface with paint on. The paint is divided into three different-coloured bands — one green, one black, and one red. The lower (2) consists of a sandy plaster bedding with a medium number of pebbles and air pockets.

J13-Dcd-10-5 Context: North room in trench D (east corner of the Ionic Building). The fragment comes from a debris layer in the north room, which also contains stones from the collapsed walls and a yellowish homogenous layer containing large quantities of pottery, some Byzantine glass finds, and broken roof tiles. Date:  Mamluk (thirteenth–sixteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Bloch 2011; Cruikshank Dodd 2004; Eristov and Seigne 2003; Ettinghausen 1962; Kalaitzo­ glou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014; Schlumberger 1986.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

883d. Fragment of painted plaster

885t. Fragment of painted plaster

Size: H: 5.6; W: 11.2; T: 1.8. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.1; (2) 1.7. The upper plaster is dense, and the lower plaster is porous. Plaster colour: Sandy. Decoration: Painted with two parallel bands.

Size: H: 3.9; W: 3.4; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The plaster consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is the dense smoothened surface with paint on. The paint is divided into two parallel bands, one is green and the other is red. The lower (2) is the porous bedding of the plaster which is dense with a few air pockets and small number of pebbles.

J13-Dd-23-3 Context: Yellow soil layer with brownish intrusions in the eastern end of the south room. Date:  Mamluk (thirteenth–sixteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Bloch 2011; Cruikshank Dodd 2004; Eristov and Seigne 2003; Ettinghausen 1962; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014; Schlumberger 1986.

884d. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.5; W: 3.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.4; (2) 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark yellow/​orange.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a coarse, brownish, and sandy plaster/​mortar with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome dark yellow/​orange.

J16-Ta-22-18 Context: The ev. of Ta-22 consists of a brown soil west of the west wall. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date: Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Bloch 2011; Cruikshank Dodd 2004; Eristov and Seigne 2003; Ettinghausen 1962; Kalaitzo­ glou and others (forthcoming b), on trench T; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014; Schlumberger 1986.

371

The fragment is a dense, sandy, and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

886t. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 4.1; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red with one thin, dark band.

The fragment is a dense, sandy, and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and red with one thin, dark band.

887t. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 2.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red with one thin, dark band.

The fragment is a dense, sandy, and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and red with one thin, dark band.

888t. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.5; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense, sandy, and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

889t. Fragment of painted plaster Size: H: 3.2; W: 3.9; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense, sandy, and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J16-Tb-20-19 Context: The ev. of Tb-20 consists of a soil layer north of the wall ev. 3. The layer also contains pottery, glass, tiles, and tesserae. Date: Umayyad–Mamluk (seventh–thirteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench T.

372

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

890t. Fragment of unpainted plaster

894t. Fragment of painted wall plaster.

Size: H: 3.7; W: 4.4; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 2.0; W: 2.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense, compact, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a high number of inclusions. The surface is smooth. There is a thick lime incrustation on the fragment.

J16-Tb-21-2 Context: The ev. of Tb-21 consists of a yellow soil layer in the north-west corner of the house and is covered by ev. 1. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date:  Byzantine–Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Bloch 2011; Cruikshank Dodd 2004; Eristov and Seigne 2003; Ettinghausen 1962; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench T; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014; Schlumberger 1986.

891t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 5.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense, compact, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. There is a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth.

892t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 2.1; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and crumbly. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and could have a white coating.

893t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 1.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense, porous, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. There is a thick lime incrustation, and the surface is smooth. The backside has one parallel line incised.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and monochrome red. The fragment seems to have traces of a soft and yellow plaster under the white, dense plaster.

895t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.4; W: 2.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense, compact, with a thick lime incrustation. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: Monochrome yellow/​ orange.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a thick lime incrustation. The surface is smooth and monochrome yellow/​ orange. The fragment seems to have traces of a soft and yellow plaster under the white, dense plaster.

896t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.8; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense and crumbly. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and could have a white coating.

897t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.4; W: 2.2; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense and crumbly. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and could have a white coating.

898t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 1.8; W: 3.5; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and crumbly. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and could have a white coating.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

899t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

903t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.2; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and crumbly. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

Size: H: 1.1; W: 2.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome yellow.

J16-Tb-21-3 Context: The ev. of Tb-21 consists of a yellow soil layer in the north-west corner of the house and is covered by ev. 1. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date:  Roman–Mamluk (fourth–thirteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). References:  Bloch 2011; Cruikshank Dodd 2004; Eristov and Seigne 2003; Ettinghausen 1962; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench T; Netzer 2001; Prag 2017; Rozenberg 2014; Schlumberger 1986.

900t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.6; W: 5.5; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.3. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

901t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.6; W: 4.4; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

902t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.2; W: 5.6; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 0.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

373

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

904t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.9; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.9; (2) 0.2. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

905t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.0; W: 5.1; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.2. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

906t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 3.2; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.2. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

907t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.8; W: 4.8; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.2. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions and a medium number of air pockets. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

374

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

908t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

914t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.0; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

Size: H: 1.0; W: 2.2; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

909t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

915t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.0; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

Size: H: 1.1; W: 2.1; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

910t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

916t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 2.3; W: 3.0; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

Size: H: 1.5; W: 1.4; T: 0.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.7. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome yellow.

911t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

917t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 1.7; W: 1.5; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

Size: H: 3.1; W: 3.7; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome yellow.

912t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

918t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 1.9; W: 2.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

Size: H: 2.0; W: 3.2; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome yellow.

913t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

919t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 2.7; W: 1.9; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

Size: H: 2.1; W: 2.3; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome yellow.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

920t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 2.1; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome yellow.

921t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.5; W: 3.7; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellow.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and monochrome yellow.

922t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.0; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel yellow and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel yellow and red bands.

923t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.6; W: 3.2; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel yellow and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel yellow and red bands.

924t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel yellow and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel yellow and red bands.

925t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.3; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel yellow and red bands.

375

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel yellow and red bands.

926t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.1; W: 3.9; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel yellow and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel yellow and red bands.

927t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.7; W: 5.4; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel yellow and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel yellow and red bands.

928t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.3; W: 4.1; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel yellow and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel yellow and red bands.

929t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 6.4; W: 6.3; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Parallel yellow and red bands.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with parallel yellow and red bands.

930t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.1; W: 3.0; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.0. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with thin, bluish band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background with a thin, blue band on.

376

931t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 1.7; W: 1.4; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with thin, bluish band.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background with a thin, blue band on.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J16-Tb-27-2 Context: The ev. of Tb-27 is found with an older taboun between the stone collapses north of the north wall. Date:  Mamluk (thirteenth–sixteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench T.

932t. Fragment of painted wall plaster

936t. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 2.3; W: 1.6; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Red background with darker red band on.

Size: H: 4.0; W: 4.6; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and coarse plaster. Plaster colour: Beige/​ whitish brown. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a red background with a darker red band on.

933t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 3.9; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome yellowish.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome yellowish paint.

934t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.3; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.9. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome dark red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with monochrome reddish paint.

935t. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 2.9; W: 4.4; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense and compact. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Reddish background with darker band on top.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a whitish and sandy plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddishpainted background with a thin, darker (maybe blue?) band on top.

The plaster fragment consists of a coarse material in a light brown colour. The surface is not smooth, and there are a medium number of large inclusions.

937t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.0; W: 4.3; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense and coarse plaster. Plaster colour: Beige/​ whitish brown. Decoration: No.

The plaster fragment consists of a coarse material in a light brown colour. The surface is not smooth, and there are a medium number of large inclusions.

938t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.4; W: 4.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense and coarse plaster. Plaster colour: Beige/​ whitish brown. Decoration: No.

The plaster fragment consists of a coarse material in a light brown colour. The surface is not smooth, and there are a medium number of large inclusions, including carbon.

J16-Tb-75-5 Context: The ev. of Tb-75 consists of a soil layer on top of floor ev. 76 inside the north room. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date:  Byzantine–Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench T.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

939t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 12.7; W: 8.5; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 2.7; (2) 0.2. Crumbly and soft. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is soft and crumbly with a whitish colour and a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) is soft and yellow with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon. The surface is smooth.

940t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.4; W: 4.8; T: 2.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.6. Crumbly and soft. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is soft and crumbly with a whitish colour and a high number of inclusions.

941t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.9; W: 5.1; T: 2.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 1.0. Crumbly and soft. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is soft and crumbly with a whitish colour and a high number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a yellow and soft plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J16-Tc-10-33 Context:  The ev.  of Tc-10 consists of a yellow-brown collapse layer from inside the west room. The layer also contains pottery, tiles, and tesserae. Date: Umayyad–Mamluk (eighth–thirteenth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b), on trench T.

942t. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.0; W: 2.9; T: 0.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 0.8. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

The fragment is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

377

The Area around the City Wall (Trench Q) J15-Qa-29-19 Context: Bigger stones and tiles connected by mortar in front of the south profile and contemporary with ev. 37. Date: Late Roman (fourth century ad, dated by archaeo­ logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench Q.

943q. Fragment of mortar Size: H: 1.5; W: 2.6; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense, but fragmented. Mortar colour: Dark grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and dark grey mortar with a medium number of charcoal inclusions.

944q. Fragment of mortar Size: H: 1.9; W: 3.5; T: 1.6. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.6. Dense, but fragmented. Mortar colour: Dark grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and dark grey mortar with a medium number of charcoal inclusions.

945q. Fragment of mortar Size: H: 2.3; W: 2.4; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.3. Dense, but fragmented. Mortar colour: Dark grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and dark grey mortar with a medium number of charcoal inclusions.

946q. Fragment of mortar Size: H: 1.6; W: 2.0; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.4. Dense, but fragmented. Mortar colour: Dark grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and dark grey mortar with a medium number of charcoal inclusions.

378

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

947q. Fragment of mortar

950q. Mortar on stone

Size: H: 3.8; W: 5.3; T: 2.7. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.7. Dense. Mortar colour: Dark grey. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 11.8; W: 13.3; T: 7.2. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 2.5; (2) 1.4; (3) 3.3. Porous. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and dark grey mortar with a medium number of charcoal inclusions.

J15-Qc-30-1 Context: Bigger stones and tiles connected by mortar in front of the south profile and contemporary with ev. 37. Date: Late Roman (fourth century ad, dated by archaeo­ logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench Q.

948q. Fragment with mortar covering stones Size: H: 8.4; W: 9.4; T: 6.6. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 3.9; (2) 4.5. Porous. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a porous and greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusions and a high amount of carbon. The lower (2) seems to be a piece of stone (limestone).

949q. Fragment with mortar covering stones Size: H: 5.3; W: 7.8; T: 5.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 4.5. Porous. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a porous and greyish mortar with a medium number of inclusions and a high amount of carbon. The lower (2) seems to be a piece of stone (limestone).

J15-Qd-25-3 Context: Greyish mortar surrounding the pipe of ev. 33. Contemporary with ev. 11. Date:  Late Roman–Byzantine (fourth–fifth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench Q.

The fragment consists of three horizons: the upper (1) is a grey and porous mortar with a high number of inclusions and a high amount of carbon. The middle (2) is the stone on which the mortar is stuck (limestone). The lower (3) is a mixture of pottery fragments mixed with other inclusions and soil.

951q. Mortar on stone Size: H: 5.0; W: 6.7; T: 5.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon. Porous. Mortar colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one stone (limestone) with mortar on. The mortar is grey and porous with a large number of inclusions and a high amount of carbon. There is no surface, and it is not possible to measure the thickness of the mortar.

J15-Qd-43-2 Context: A fill layer of brownish and loose soil between the stones of ev. 43. Pottery was also found in this layer. Date:  Roman (first–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench Q.

952q. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 6.1; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.5. Dense and sandy. Plaster colour: Brownish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and sandy, brownish white plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and seems to be moulded as a corner.

J15-Qd-52-4 Context: A greyish-coloured soil surrounding the eastern side of the podium of ev.  48. Only a few pottery sherds were found here. Date:  Roman (first–fourth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench Q.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

953q. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 2.0; W: 2.9; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 1.0. Crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: The plaster is greyish white, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a greyish white and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar, which is crumbly and has a few inclusions of charcoal. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

954q. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 2.4; W: 1.8; T: 1.0. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.5. Crumbly and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: The plaster is greyish white, the mortar is grey. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a greyish white and crumbly plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar, which is crumbly and has a few inclusions of charcoal. The surface is smooth with no decoration.

The North Slope and Garden (Trenches H, G, and R) J13-Ha-13-33 Context: Soil layer at the northern end of the trench under the surface soil. Ev. 13 contains a fair amount of Roman pottery mixed with fragments from Byzantine, Umayyad, and Abbasid periods. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

955h. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 5.6; W: 7.3; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.8; (2) 0.5. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons:  the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish and softer mortar with large pieces of carbon included. The surface is smooth.

379

J13-Ha-16-9 Context: Yellowish and brown eroded soil mixed with stones in the deep sondage. Ev. 13 contains a fair amount of Roman pottery mixed with fragments from Byzantine, Umayyad, and Abbasid periods. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

956h. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 8.6; W: 10.7; T: 4.8. Texture and preservation: One horizon 4.8. Dense and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish brown. Decoration: No.

The fragment is dense and heavy and consists of whitish/​light brown plaster with a medium number of large inclusions and air pockets. The surface is smooth.

J13-Ha-19-4 Context: Eroded soil with spots of yellow clay. Ev. 13 contains a fair amount of Roman pottery mixed with fragments from Byzantine, Umayyad, and Abbasid periods. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

957h. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.3; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.5; (2) 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a couple of larger pebbles and otherwise few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

958h. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 2.2; W: 3.1; T: 1.4. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.7; (2) 0.7. Dense. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish and porous mortar with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

380

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

959h. Fragment of unpainted plaster

963g. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.0; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 1.7; W: 3.3; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.8. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome white.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

960h. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 2.9; W: 3.8; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.8. Dense. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a couple of large pebbles and otherwise few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

961h. Fragment of unpainted plaster with mortar Size: H: 2.7; W: 3.7; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: The plaster is whitish, the mortar is greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and whitish plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a greyish mortar with a couple of large pebbles and otherwise few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

J13-Ga-24-1 Context:  Virgin soil with inclusions of gypsum. The material from this soil is characterized by worn and broken pieces and especially the upper part of the soil has yielded a mixture of Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad material. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

962g. Fragment of painted wall plaster Size: H: 4.1; W: 4.2; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 1.5. Dense and well preserved. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome white.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a soft and yellowish plaster with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome white.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a whitish and dense plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a sandy and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and painted monochrome white.

J13-Gd-4-5 Context: The ev.  of Gd-4 is a packed stone fill in the southern part of the trench, and it contains pottery as well. The material from this stone fill is characterized by worn and broken pieces and especially the upper part of the fill has yielded a mixture of Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad material. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

964g. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 6.1; W: 7.8; T: 3.0. Texture and preservation: One horizon 3.0. Porous and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of plaster, which is soft, greyish, and crumbly. It contains a medium number of inclusions and air pockets.

965g. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 3.7; W: 4.2; T: 2.9. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.9. Porous and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of plaster, which is soft, greyish, and crumbly. It contains a medium number of inclusions and air pockets.

966g. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.4; W: 5.8; T: 2.3. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.3. Porous and poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of plaster, which is soft, greyish, and crumbly. It contains a medium number of inclusions and air pockets.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

967g. Fragment of unpainted plaster

971g. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 2.0; W: 4.1; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 2.7; W: 5.0; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 1.0. Dense and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of plaster, which is dense and greyish. It contains a medium number of inclusions and air pockets.

J13-Gd-12-129 Context:  A  very compact fill layer containing small stones, pottery, and charcoal. The material from this layer is characterized by worn and broken pieces and especially the upper part of the layer has yielded a mixture of Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad material. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

968g. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.7; W: 3.4; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.6. Dense and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and greyish white plaster with very few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and more porous mortar with a few inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth.

969g. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.6; W: 3.4; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.7. Dense and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and greyish white plaster with very few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and more porous mortar with a few inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth.

381

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and greyish white plaster with very few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and more porous mortar with a few inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth.

J13-Gd-26-1 Context: Layer of clay and mortar with some organic material. The material from this layer is characterized by worn and broken pieces and especially the upper part of the layer has yielded a mixture of Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad material. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context). Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

972g. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 4.3; W: 5.8; T: 2.7. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.1; (2) 1.6. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and greyish white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with a medium number of inclusions, including carbon. The surface is smooth.

973g. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.8; W: 3.3; T: 1.5. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.8; (2) 0.5. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and greyish white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with a medium number of inclusions, including carbon. The surface is smooth.

970g. Fragment of unpainted plaster

974g. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Size: H: 3.4; W: 3.8; T: 0.9. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.3; (2) 0.6. Dense and porous. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 2.6; W: 2.5; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.1. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and greyish white plaster with very few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey and more porous mortar with a few inclusions, air pockets, and carbon. The surface is smooth.

The fragment consists of plaster, which is dense and greyish white with a few inclusions. The surface is smooth.

382

975g. Fragment of unpainted plaster Size: H: 2.4; W: 3.2; T: 1.1. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 1.0; (2) 0.1. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and greyish white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with a medium number of inclusions, including carbon. The surface is smooth.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

J13-Gf-30-8 Context: A fill layer containing plaster fragments. The material from this layer is characterized by worn and broken pieces and especially the upper part of the layer has yielded a mixture of Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad material. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

976g. Fragment of unpainted plaster

Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

Size: H: 3.2; W: 4.0; T: 1.3. Texture and preservation: Two horizons (1) 0.6; (2) 0.7. Dense, but poorly preserved. Plaster colour: Greyish white. Decoration: No.

980g. Fragment of painted wall plaster

The fragment consists of two horizons: the upper (1) is a dense and greyish white plaster with a few inclusions. The lower (2) is a grey mortar with a medium number of inclusions, including carbon. There are straw impressions in the lower (2). The surface is smooth.

J13-Gf-30-1 Context: A fill layer containing plaster fragments. The material from this layer is characterized by worn and broken pieces and especially the upper part of the layer has yielded a mixture of Roman, Byzantine, and Umayyad material. Date: Byzantine–Umayyad (sixth–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Size: H: 4.1; W: 3.4; T: 2.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 2.2. Dense and crumbly. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decoration: Monochrome red.

The fragment consists of one horizon, which is a dense and whitish plaster with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon. The fragment is moulded as a corner, and the surface is smooth and monochrome red.

J15-Rabc-8-3 Context: Erosion layer of brownish soil with mediumsized pottery fragments. Date:  Byzantine–Umayyad (seventh–eighth centuries ad, dated by archaeo­logical context).

Reference: Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013.

Reference: Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a), on trench R.

979g. Fragment of plaster with embedded tile

981r. Fragment of painted wall plaster

Size: H: 10.5; W: 13.8; T: 5.6. Texture and preservation: Three horizons (1) 2.8; (2) 1.6; (3) 1.2. Soft and crumbly. Plaster colour: Greyish. Decoration: No.

Size: H: 3.4; W: 2.7; T: 1.2. Texture and preservation: One horizon 1.2. Dense. Plaster colour: Whitish. Decora­ tion: Reddish background with bluish parallel band on top.

Large mortar and plaster fragment with a tile in-between. The upper (1) is a soft plaster in a greyish/​white colour with a medium number of inclusions. The middle (2) is the tile in a brown/​reddish colour, and the lower (3) is a greyish and porous mortar with a medium number of inclusions and a medium amount of carbon.

The fragment consists of a whitish and dense plaster with a medium number of inclusions. The surface is smooth and decorated with a reddish background with a blue parallel band on top.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

383

Works Cited Abu-Jaber, N., Z. al-Saad, and N.  Smadi. 2009. ‘The Quarryscapes of Gerasa ( Jarash), Jordan’, in N.  Abu-Jaber and others (eds), QuarryScapes: Ancient Stone-Quarry Landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean, Geo­logical Survey of Norway Special Publication, 12 (n.p.: Geo­logical Survey of Norway), pp. 67–75 [accessed 11 September 2020]. Adam, J.-P. 1994. Roman Building: Materials and Techniques (London: Routledge). Ali, N. 2017. ‘Qusayr ‘Amra and the Continuity of Post-Classical Art in Early Islam: Towards an Icono­logy of Forms’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Diversity of Classical Archaeo­logy, Studies in Classical Archaeo­logy, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols). Ali, W. 1997. Modern Islamic Art: Development and Continuity (Gainsville: Uni­ver­sity Press of Florida). Alpass, P. 2013. The Religious Life of Nabataea (Leiden: Brill). Avni, G. 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeo­logical Approach (Oxford: Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press). Barbet, A. and C. Vibert-Guigue. 1994. Les Peintures nécropoles romaines d’Abila et du Nord de la Jordanie, i: Texte, Bibliothèque archéo­logique et historique, 130 (Beirut: Geuthner). Barfod, G. H. and others. 2015. ‘Revealing Text in a Complexly Rolled Silver Scroll from Jerash with Computed Tomo­graphy and Advanced Imaging Software’, Nature Scientific Reports, 5: 17765 . Ben-Tor, A. 2009. Back to Masada ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Berlin, A. 1997. ‘Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic Period’, The Biblical Archaeo­logist, 60: 3–51. Blanke, L. and A. Walmsley. 2010. ‘Islamic Jerash Project’, in D. R. Keller and C. A. Tuttle (eds), ‘Archaeo­logy in Jordan, 2008 and 2009 Seasons’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 114: 517–19. Bloch, F. 2011. Das umayyadische ‘Wüstenschloss’ und die Siedlung am Ğabal Says, ii: Keramik und Kleinfunde (Mainz: Von Zabern). Boyer, D. D. 2016. ‘Recent Advances in Understanding the Water Delivery System to Gerasa of the Decapolis’, in G. Wiplinger (ed.), De Aquaeductu atque Aqua Urbium Lyciae Pamphyliae Psidiae: The Legacy of Sextus Julius Frontinus; Tagungsband des international Frontinus-Symposiums, Antalya, 31. Oktober – 9. November 2014, Babesch Supplement, 27 (Leuven: Peeters), pp. 143–53. Boynton, R. S. 1980. Chemistry and Techno­logy of Lime and Limestone, 2nd edn (New York: Wiley). Burdajewicz, J. 2017. ‘Wall Painting Decoration from the North-West Church in Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis’, Études et travaux, 30: 161–80. —— 2020. ‘Wall Paintings, Wall Mosaics, and Mable Wall Revetments in Early Christian Churches of the Southern Levant’, in K. Jakubiak and A. Lajtar (eds), Ex Oriente Lux: Studies in Honour of Jolanta Mlynarczyk (Warsaw: Uni­ver­sity of Warsaw Press), pp. 323–35. Busink, T. A. 1970. Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomon bis Herodes: Eine archäo­logisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus, i: Der Tempel Salomons (Leiden: Brill). Corbo, V. 1989. Herodion:  gli edifici della Reggia-Fortezza, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, collectio maior, 20.1 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press). Cramer, J. and others. 2016. Qasr al-Mschatta: Ein Frühislamischer Palast in Jordanien und Berlin, 2 vols (Petersberg: Imhof ). Crowfoot, J. W. and G. M. Crowfoot. 1938. Early Ivories from Samaria, Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931–1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, 2 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund). Crowfoot, J. W., K. M. Kenyon, and G. M. Crowfoot. 1957. The Objects from Samaria, Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931–1933, and of the British Expedition in 1935, 3 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund). Crowfoot, J. W., K. M. Kenyon, and E. L. Sukenik. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria, Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition in 1931–1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, 1 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund). Cruikshank Dodd, E. 1997–1998. ‘Christian Arab Painters under the Mamluk’, ARAM Periodicals, 9–10: 257–88. —— 2004. Medi­eval Painting in the Lebanon, Sprachen und Kulturen des Christlichen Orients, 8 (Wiesbaden: Reichert). Dvorjetski, E. 2005. ‘The Synagogue-Church at Gerasa in Jordan: A Contribution to the Study of Ancient Synagogues’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 121: 140–67. Eisenberg, M. (ed.). 2018. Hippos-Sussita of the Decapolis: The First Twelve Seasons of Excavations, 2000–2011, ii (Haifa: The Zinman Institute of Archaeo­logy, Uni­ver­sity of Haifa). Eristov, H. and J. Seigne. 2003. ‘Le “naos hellénistique” du sanctuaire de Zeus olympien à Jerash ( Jordanie): études préliminaires de restitution’, in M. Sartre (ed.), La Syrie hellénistique, Topoi. Orient-Occident. Supplément, 4 (Paris: De Boccard), pp. 269–98. Eristov, H. and C.  Vibert-Guigue. 2013. ‘Images et textes funéraires dans un hypogée de Gerasa:  une redécouverte’, in Changes and Challenges: ICHAJ (International Congress Archaeo­logy in Jordan), INHA, Paris, 7–12 June 2010 (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 395–402. Eristov, H. and others. 2002. ‘Jordanie: le naos de Théon á Jérash’, Archeo­logia, 385: 26–38. Ettinghausen, R. 1943. ‘Painting in the Fatimid Period: A Reconstruction’, Ars Islamica, 9: 112–24. —— 1962. Arab Painting (Geneva: Skira).

384

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

Foerster, G. 1995. Masada, v: Art and Architecture: The Y. Yadin Excavations 1963–1965; Final Reports ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew Uni­ver­sity of Jerusalem). —— 1997. ‘The Wall Paintings of Masada’, in G. Hurvitz (ed.), The Story of Masada: Discoveries from the Excavations (Provo: BYU Studies). Gawlikowski, M. 1986. ‘A Residential Area by the South Decumanus’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 107–36. Gordon, R. L. and others. 2016. ‘An Umayyad Period Magical Amulet from a Domestic Context in Jerash, Jordan’, Syria, 93: 369–86. Gschwind, M. and H. Hasan. 2014. ‘The Legionary Fortress and Roman City Raphaneae’, in K. Bartl and M. Al-Maqdissi (eds), New Prospecting in the Orontes Region: First Results of Archaeo­logical Fieldwork, Deutsches Archäo­logisches Institut Orient-Abteilung, Orient-Archäo­logie, 30 (Rahden: Leidorf ), pp. 119–31. Haensch, R., A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja. 2016. ‘Christen, Juden und Soldaten im Gerasa des 6. Jahrhunderts’, Chiron, 46: 177–204. Hamarneh, C. 2010. ‘A Study of the Conservation and Restoration of the Mosaic Floors of the Churches: Sts. Cosmas and Damianus and Bishop Genesius in Jarash’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Uni­ver­sity of Jordan, Amman). Hamarneh, C. and N. Abu-Jaber. 2013. ‘Documentation and Protection of the Quarries of Gerasa’, Levant, 45: 57–68. Hoffmann, A. and S. Kerner (eds). 2002. Gadara – Gerasa und die Dekapolis (Mainz: Von Zabern). Hurvitz, G. 1997. The Story of Masada: Discoveries from the Excavations (Provo: BYU Studies). Kalaitzoglou, G., A.  Lichtenberger, and R.  Raja. 2013. ‘Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 57–79. —— 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jarash North-West Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Field Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 11–37. —— 2015. ‘Preliminary Report of the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 11–43. —— 2016. ‘Ausgrabungen im Nordwestviertel von Gerasa ( Jordanien)’, in Jahresbericht des Instituts für Archäo­logische Wissenschaften für das akademische Jahr 2014–2015 (Bochum: Ruhr Universität Bochum), pp. 89–94. Kalaitzoglou, G. and others (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. —— (forthcoming b). ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Karasneh, W. 1991. Excavation Report (Amman: Department of Antiquities). Kehrberg, I. 2004. ‘Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Pottery of Gerasa: A Commercial Enterprise in View of International Norms’, in Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, viii (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 189–96. Kehrberg, I. and J. Manley. 2001. ‘New Archaeo­logical Finds for the Dating of the Gerasa Roman City Wall’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 45: 437–46. Kennedy, D. 2007. Gerasa and the Decapolis: A Virtual Island in Northwest Jordan (London: Duckworth). —— 2008. ‘Jarash Hinterland Survey 2008 Season’ (unpublished report, Department of Antiquities Archive). Kerner, S. 2002. ‘Gadara – Schwarzweisse Stadt zwischen Adjlun and Golan’, in A. Hoffmann and S. Kerner (eds), Gadara – Gerasa und die Dekapolis (Mainz: Von Zabern), pp. 125–36. Khouri, R. G. 1988. The Desert Castles: A Brief Guide to the Antiquities (Amman: Al Kutba). Kolaiti, E. and L. G. Mendoni. 1992. ‘The Relation between a Quarrying Site and a City-Centre: The Case of the Ancient City of Karthaia, Keos Island, Greece’, in M. Waelkens, N. Herz, and L. Moens (eds), Ancient Stones, Quarrying, Trade and Provenance, Acta archaeo­logica Lovaniensia mono­graphiae, 4 (Leuven: Leuven Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 29–36. Kraeling, C. H. 1938. ‘The History of Gerasa’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 27–73. Leonard, A. 1987. ‘The Jarash-Tell el Husn Highway Survey’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 31: 343–90. Lichtenberger, A. 2003. Kulte und Kultur der Dekapolis:  Untersuchungen zu numismatischen, archäo­logischen und epi­graphischen Zeugnissen, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 29 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Lichtenberger, A. and R.  Raja. 2012. ‘Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2011’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 56: 231–40. —— 2015a. ‘A Hoard of Byzantine and Arab-Byzantine Coins from the Excavations at Jerash’, Numismatic Chronicle, 175: 299–308. —— 2015b. ‘Intentional Cooking Pot Deposits in Late Roman Jerash (Northwest Quarter)’, Syria, 92: 309–28. —— 2015c. ‘New Archaeo­logical Research in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash and its Implications for the Urban Development of Roman Gerasa’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 119: 483–500. —— 2016. ‘Jerash in the Middle Islamic Period: Connecting Texts and Archaeo­logy through New Evidence from the Northwest Quarter’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 132: 63–81. Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja. 2017. ‘Mosaicists at Work: The Organisation of Mosaic Production in Early Islamic Jerash’, Antiquity, 91.358: 998–1010.

8. Wall Paintings from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash — Catalogue

385

Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2013. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 9–56. —— 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 39–103. —— 2015. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Northwest Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 45–131. Lichtenberger, A. and others. 2015. ‘Radiocarbon Analysis of Mortar from Roman and Byzantine Water Management Installations in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash, Jordan’, Journal of Archaeo­logical Science: Reports, 2: 114–27. —— 2016. ‘A Newly Excavated Private House in Jerash: Reconsidering Aspects of Continuity and Change in Material Culture from Late Antiquity to the Early Islamic Period’, Antiquité Tardive, 24: 317–59. Linn, R. 2017. ‘Layered Pigments and Painting Techno­logy of the Roman Wall Paintings of Caesarea Maritima’, Journal of Archaeo­ logical Science: Reports, 11: 774–81. Magness, J. 2012. The Archaeo­ logy of the Holy Land:  From the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ver­sity Press). Marshak, A. K. 2008. ‘Herod the Great and the Power of Image: Political Self-Representation in the Herodian Dynasty’ (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale Uni­ver­sity). Michèle Daviau, P. M. 2010. Excavations at Tell Jawa, Jordan, iv: The Early Islamic House, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 11.4 (Leiden: Brill). Moormann, E. M. 2014. Divine Interiors: Mural Paintings in Greek and Roman Sanctuaries, Amsterdam Archaeo­logical Studies, 16 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam Uni­ver­sity Press). Nelson, C. 2015. The Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit, i: The Architecture (Leiden: Brill). Netzer, E. 2001. Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great ( Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press and Israel Exploration Society). —— 2006. The Architecture of Herod, the Great Builder (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Netzer, E. and R. Laureys-Chachy. 2004. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, ii: Strati­graphy and Architecture ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Oates, J. A. H. 1998. Lime and Limestone: Chemistry and Techno­logy, Production and Uses (Weinheim: Wiley-VCH). Oleson, J. P. and others. 2004. ‘The ROMACONS Project: A Contribution to the Historical and Engineering Analysis of Hydraulic Concrete in Roman Maritime Structures’, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeo­logy, 33: 199–229. Peleg-Barkat, O. 2014. ‘Fit for a King: Architectural Décor in Judaea and Herod as Trendsetter’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 371 (May): 141–61. Piccirillo, M. 1993. ‘La chiesa del prete Wa’il a Umm al-Rasas-Kastreon Mafaa in Giordania’, in F. Manns and E. Alliata (eds), Early Christianity in Context: Monuments and Documents, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, collectio maior, 38 ( Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press), pp. 313–34. Ploug, G. 1985. Hama: fouilles et recherches, 1931–1938, iii.1: The Graeco-Roman Town (Copenhagen: Fondation Carlsberg). Prag, K. 2017. Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961–1967, vi: Sites on the Edge of the Ophel (Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxbow). Raja, R. 2012. Urban Development and Regional Identity in the Eastern Roman Provinces, 50 bc – ad  250:  Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Athens, Gerasa (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press). Reisner, G. A., C. S. Fisher, and D. G. Lyon. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910, i: Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni­ver­sity Press). Rozenberg, S. 2003. ‘Wall Painting Fragments from Area A’, in H. Geva (ed.), Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969–1982, ii: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2: Final Report ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeo­logy, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity), pp. 302–28. —— 2008. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, iv:  The Decoration of Herod’s Third Palace at Jericho ( Jerusalem:  Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeo­logy, Hebrew Uni­ver­sity). —— 2014. ‘Wall Paintings in Herodian Judea’, Near Eastern Archaeo­logy, 77.2 (special issue: Herod the Great): 120–28. Schlumberger, D. 1986. Qasr el-Heir el Gharbi (Paris: Geuthner). Schulze, I. and W. Schulze. 2020. ‘The Umayyad Coins Excavated during the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2012–2016’, in T. Goodwin (ed.), Coinage and History in the Seventh Century Near East, vi: Proceedings of the 16th Seventh Century Syrian Numismatic Round Table Held at the Hive, Worcester on the 6th and 7th April 2019 (London:  Archetype), pp. 175–80. Schumacher, G. 1902. ‘Dscherasch’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 25: 109–77, pl. 6. Seigne, J. 1992. ‘Jérash romaine et byzantine: Dévelopement urbain d’une ville provinciale orientale’, in M. Zaghloul, G. Bisheh, and I. Kehrberg (eds), Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, iv (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 331–41. —— 2002a. ‘Gerasa-Jerasch – Stadt der 1000 Säulen’, in A.  Hoffmann and S.  Kerner (eds), Gadara – Gerasa und die Dekapolis (Mainz: Von Zabern), pp. 13–14.

386

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen

—— 2002b. ‘Comments on Some Recent Articles Published on Gerasa/​Jerash’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 46: 631–37. Seigne, J. and others. 1986. ‘Recherche sur le sanctuaire de Zeus à Jerash’, in F.  Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 29–106. Smith, R. H. 1990. ‘The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period’, Levant, 22: 123–30. Tell, S. 1995. ‘Frescoes:  From the Decapolis to the Umayyad Places’, in Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, v (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 375–82. Thorpe, M. 1995. Roman Architecture: Classical World Series (London: Bristol Classical Press). Uvarov, V., I. Popov, and S. Rozenberg. 2015. ‘X-Ray Diffraction and SEM Investigation of Wall Paintings Found in the Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit, Israel’, Archaeometry, 57: 773–87. Vibert-Guigue, C. 1998. ‘Le Peinture d’un tombeau à as-Salt’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 42: 369–74. —— 2011. ‘Wall Painting and Stucco in Jordan:  From Miniature to Megalo­graphy’, in Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, xii (Amman: Department of Antiquities), pp. 329–47. Vibert-Guigue, C. and G. Bisheh. 2007. Les Peintures de Qusayr ‘Amra: un bain omeyyade dans la badiya jordanienne, Bibliothèque archéo­logique et historique, 179, Jordanian Archaeo­logy, 1 (Beirut: Institut français d’archéo­logie du Proche-Orient). Vriezen, K. J. H. and U. Wagner-Lux (eds). 2015. Gadara – Umm Qēs, ii: The Twin Churches on the Roman-Byzantine Terrace and Excavations in the Streets (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Walmsley, A. 2001. ‘Turning East: The Appearance of Islamic Cream Wares in Jordan – The End of Antiquity?’, in E. Villeneuve and P. M. Watson (eds), La Céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (ive-viiie siècles) (Beirut: Institut français d’archéo­logie du Proche-Orient), pp. 305–13. Watson, P. 2002. ‘Pella – Die Stadt am Jordangraben’, in A.  Hoffmann and S.  Kerner (eds), Gadara – Gerasa und die Dekapolis (Mainz: Von Zabern), pp. 59–71. Will, E. and F.  Larché. 1991. Iraq al Amir:  le Château du tobiade Hyrcan, Bibliothéque archéo­logique et historique, 132 (Paris: Geuthner). Zayadine, F. 1966. ‘Samaria-Sebaste: Clearance and Excavations (October 1965 – June 1967)’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 12: 77–80. Zayadine, F. 1986a. ‘The Jerash Project for Excavation and Restoration’, in F. Zayadine (ed.), Jerash Archaeo­logical Project, i: 1981–1983 (Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan), pp. 7–28. —— 1986b. ‘Peintures murales et mosaïques à sujets mytho­logiques en Jordanie’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 14: 407–32. Zimmermann, N. and S. Ladstätter. 2011. Wall Painting in Ephesos from Hellenistic to the Byzantine Period (Istanbul: Ege Yayinlari).

9. The Colour Palette of the Northwest Quarter: Geochemical Evidence from Pigments Used on Roman and Early Islamic Wall Decorations Gry H. Barfod Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research (AGiR) Platform, Department of Geoscience / Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet), School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ ver­sity. [email protected]

Figure 9.1. Plan of the Gerasa Northwest Quarter with excavated trenches 2012–2016 marked by letters A–X. Blue, red, and punctuated black circles mark the find locations of powdered raw pigments, plastered wall fragments, and hematite rocks, respectively.

Introduction and Materials Pigments have been used throughout time for a wide variety of decorative purposes, such as burial rituals, body art, cave paintings, and wall decoration as well as on ceramics and for colouring glass.1 In urban settings such as the ancient city of Gerasa, studies of pigment application methods and choices of materials can provide better understanding of the techno­logical knowledge, local customs, and, ultimately, the regional trade networks. This pilot study explores the types of pigments used from Roman to early Islamic times in the Northwest Quarter from material recovered during the excavations of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project dur1 

E.g. Zagorski 2007.

ing the 2013, 2015, and 2016 campaigns (Fig. 9.1).2 The finds include three samples of pristine, powdered pigments; two found ready for use in small ceramic crucibles and one as a loose powder (Table 9.1, P1–3). Two rocks potentially representing ochre raw material (Table 9.1, P4–5) used for red pigment were included in the sample selection due to their presence out of place in the Northwest Quarter that is underlain by limestone.3 These pristine pigments and ochre rocks are compared to a selection of paints on excavated plaster wall fragments (Table 9.1, P6–17) in order to test if pigments and paints match. Plaster wall 2  Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b); Lichtenberger and Raja 2017a. I am very grateful to Prof. Rubina Raja and Prof. Achim Lichtenberger for the opportunity to study these finds and for providing all strati­graphic information. The project was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation; the Danish National Research Foundation under Grant DNRF119 — Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet); the Danish National Research Foundation under Grant 26–123/​8 (Niels Bohr Professorship in Geoscience), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft; Deutscher Palästina-Verein; the EliteForsk initiative of the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science; and H. P. Hjerl Hansens Mindefondet for Dansk Palæstinaforskning. 3  E.g. Abu-Jaber, al-Saad, and Smadi 2009.

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume  ii: Wall Paintings and Mosaics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 387–396 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126444

Gry H. Barfod

388 Table 9.1. Overview of colours, composition, and types of pigments used for wall paintings in Jerash. Colours analysed

Sample no. Age

Elements in pigments > 1 wt%a

Pigments

Chemical formula

J13-Gb-12-135 Unknown age

P1

Crucible w. Fe, Si, Ca, Al, As red pigment

Red ochre

Hematite — Fe2O3 and clays

J15-Jk-57-5 Late Roman

P2

Crucible w. orange pigment

Pb, Cu

Minium

Pb3O4

J15-R-20-9 Unknown age

P3

Orange

Pb, Ca, P

Minium

Pb3O4

J15-Qac-41-1 City wall

P4

Red rock

Fe, Si, Al, K

Red ochre

Hematite — Fe2O3 and clays

J15-Pc-59-3 Unknown age

P5

Red rock

Fe, Si, Al

Red ochre

Hematite — Fe2O3 and clays

J16-Sk-105-16A Roman

P6

Red

Fe, Si, Al

Red ochre

Hematite — Fe2O3 and clays

J16-Sk-105-16B Roman

P7

Yellow Green White

Si, Fe, Al Si, Fe, Al, K Ca, Si, Fe

Yellow ochre Green earths Calcite

Goethite — FeO(OH) and clays Clays CaCO3

J16-Sd-22-40A Roman

P8

Green

Si, Fe, Al, K

Green earths

Clays

J16-Sd-22-40B Roman

P9

Red Light red

Si, Fe, Al, Mg Si, Fe, Al, Mg

Red ochre Red ochre

Hematite — Fe2O3 and clays

J16-Sd-22-40C Roman

P10

Red White

Fe, Si, Al Ca, Si, Fe, Al

Red ochre Chalk (plus red ochre)

Fe2O3 and clays Calcite — CaCO3

9. The Colour Palette of the Northwest Quarter Sample no. Age

389

Colours analysed

Elements in pigments > 1 wt%a

Pigments

Chemical formula

J16-Sd-22-40D Roman

P11

Yellow

Si, Fe, Al, Mg

Yellow ochre

Goethite — FeO(OH) and clays

J15-Pa-35A Early Islamic

P12

Yellow Black Background Red

Fe Cb, Fe Ca, Fe Fe

Goethite Soot Plaster Hematite

Goethite — FeO(OH) Carbon — C Calcite — CaCO3 Hematite — Fe2O3

J15-Pa-35-b18 Early Islamic

P13

Yellow Red

Si, Al, Fe Si, Fe, Al, K

Yellow ochre Red ochre

Goethite and clays Hematite and clays

J15-Pa-16-86 Early Islamic

P14

Yellow Orange Red Background

Si, Al, Fe Pb, P Si, Al, Fe Ca, Fe

Yellow ochre Minium Red ochre Plaster

Goethite and clays Pb3O4 Hematite and clays Calcite — CaCO3

J15-Pd-16-138A Early Islamic

P15

Red

Fe, Si, Al

Red ochre Hematite and clays

Fe2O3 and clays

J15-Pd-16-138B Early Islamic

P16

White Green

Ca, Si, Fe Si, Fe, K, Al, Mg

Chalk Green earths

Calcite — CaCO3 Clays

J15-Pd-16-138C Early Islamic

P17

Orange Pb, P, Striped layer Ca, Si

Minium

Pb3O4

a b

Note that calcium (Ca) is not listed for the wall paints since this was introduced from chalk mixed with the pigments prior to application. XRF method cannot detect carbon (C) and its presence is therefore based on the black streak colour and the absence of other likely colourants.

samples come from two localities of Roman and early Islamic contexts (marked with red circles in Fig.  9.1) and are only described briefly here. Detailed sample and locality descriptions are in the catalogue of Kristine Thomsen’s unpublished doctoral thesis, in Thomsen (this volume), and in the preliminary reports of the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project.4 4 

Thomsen 2019; Thomsen (this volume); Lichtenberger, Raja, and Sørensen 2014; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a);

The pristine pigments were found in two small damaged crucibles with diameters around 8 cm (P1–2) and as a loose powder (P3) within fill layers in trenches J, R, and G (blue circles in Fig. 9.1).5 Due to secondary contexts, ages are difficult to constrain except for crucible P2 (forthcoming b). I thank Kristine Thomsen for discussions about the wall painting samples in this study. 5   Raw pigment samples: J13-Gb-12-135, J15-Jk-57-5, and J15-R-20-9. Ochre material: J15-Qac-41-1 and J15-Pc-59-3.

Gry H. Barfod

390

Table 9.2. Summary of sample information and major element compositions (in wt. %) of Jerash pigments determined by micro-XRF. Compositions are averages of three analyses per sample. “-” = Below detection limit. Abbreviations: BG = Background, Str = striped layer, R = Red, DR = Dark red, LR = Light red, Y = Yellow, G = Green, O = Orange, W = White, B = Black. Sample No. Cat. No.

Sample

Colour

Typo­logical dating

Notes  

SiO2

TiO2

Al2O3

Fe2O3

MnO

-

0.4

-

2.3

0.1

Unpainted plaster P12-BG

J15-Pa-35A

wall plaster

background

Umay ad 600–700

P14-BG

J15-Pa-16-86

wall plaster

background

Umay ad 600–700

-

-

-

1.3

-

P16-Str

J15-Pa-16-138B

wall plaster

striped layer

Umay ad 600–700

7.2

-

1.3

0.9

-

P17-Str

J15-Pa-16-138C

wall plaster

striped layer

Umay ad 600–700

1.0

-

0.3

0.3

-

Red ochre Fe3O4 w. clay P1-R

J13-Gb-12-135

crucible

red

L. Roman–E. Byzantine

6.6

0.2

2.8

85.6

-

P4-R

J15-Pc-59-3

rock

red

Umay ad 600–700

26.5

0.8

14.5

57.1

-

P5a-R

J15-Qac-41-1

rock

red

city wall complex

16.3

0.4

9.6

71.7

0.2

P5b-R

J15-Qac-41-1

rock

red

city wall complex

 

16.3

0.4

9.8

69.6

0.2

P6-R

J16-Sk-105-16A

wall plaster

dark red

Roman ad 100–200

stripes

4.1

-

1.8

14.0

-

P9-R

J16-Sd-22-40B

wall plaster

red

Roman ad 100–200

 

7.8

-

2.8

4.6

-

P9-LR

J16-Sd-22-40B

wall plaster

light red

Roman ad 100–200

 

5.0

-

2.4

1.6

-

P10-R

J16-Sd-22-40C

wall plaster

red

Roman ad 100–200

 

8.2

0.2

3.0

9.9

-

P12-DR

J15-Pa-35A

wall plaster

dark red

Umay ad 600–700

 

-

0.2

-

26.4

-

P12-LR

J15-Pa-35A

wall plaster

light red

Umay ad 600–700

 

-

0.3

-

4.6

0.1

P14-R

J15-Pa-16-86

wall plaster

red

Umay ad 600–700

 

9.4

0.1

3.0

2.3

-

P14-R

J15-Pa-16-86

wall plaster

red

Umay ad 600–700

 

10.0

0.2

3.3

3.5

-

P15-R

J15-Pd-16-138A

wall plaster

red

Umay ad 600–700

stripes

7.1

0.2

3.7

9.8

-

P13-R

J15-Pa-35 b18

wall plaster

dark red

Umay ad 600–700

 

21.5

0.4

7.8

17.2

-

Yellow ochre Fe3O4 w. clay P7a-Y

J16-Sk-105-16B

wall plaster

yellow

Roman ad 100–200

 

19.1

0.3

3.3

5.8

-

P7b-Y

J16-Sk-105-16B

wall plaster

yellow

Roman ad 100–200

 

14.8

0.4

3.4

6.6

-

P11-Y

J16-Sd-22-40D

wall plaster

yellow

Roman ad 100–200

 

12.1

0.5

3.4

10.8

-

P12-Y

J15-Pa-35A

wall plaster

yellow

Umay ad 600–700

 

-

-

-

7.5

-

P14-Y

J15-Pa-16-86

wall plaster

yellow

Umay ad 600–700

 

17.0

-

5.5

1.8

-

P13-Y

J15-Pa-35 b18

wall plaster

yellow

Umay ad 600–700

 

19.0

0.7

6.7

3.9

-

-

0.5

-

-

-

0.8

-

1.0

0.4

-

Orange — minium Pb3O4 P2-O

J15-Jk-57-5

crucible

orange

L. Roman ad 300–400

P3-O

J15-R-20-9

powder

orange

Unknown

P14-O

J15-Pa-16-86

wall plaster

orange

Umay ad 600–700

-

-

0.5

0.6

-

P17-O

J15-Pd-16-138C wall plaster

orange

Umay ad 600–700

0.3

-

0.6

0.4

-

P7-G

J16-Sk-105-16B

wall plaster

green

Roman ad 100–200

 

22.1

0.4

3.9

9.1

-

P8-G

J16-Sd-22-40A

wall plaster

green

Roman ad 100–200

 

22.8

0.5

5.4

9.6

0.2

P16-G

J15-Pd-16-138B

wall plaster

green

Umay ad 600–700

 

32.1

0.2

2.8

9.7

-

Green clays

White — limestone P7-W

J16-Sk-105-16B

wall plaster

white

Roman ad 100–200

 

3.3

-

1.0

2.8

-

P10-W

J16-Sd-22-40C

wall plaster

white

Roman ad 100–200

 

9.3

0.3

3.5

9.0

-

J15-Pa-35A

wall plaster

black

Umay ad 600–700

 

-

0.5

-

3.2

0.2

Black — coal P12-B

9. The Colour Palette of the Northwest Quarter

MgO

CaO

K2O

P2O5

PbO

CuO

-

96.2

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

0.3

-

81.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.2

88.4

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

87.1

-

-

9.7

-

-

0.2

-

-

3.3

0.2

-

0.3

-

-

1.0

1.8

-

0.6

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.9

1.0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1.4

0.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cr2O3 As2O3

SO3

-

78.5

-

0.4

-

-

-

-

0.8

1.1

82.8

0.3

0.4

-

-

-

-

-

1.4

88.9

0.3

0.4

-

-

-

-

-

0.5

77.2

0.4

0.3

-

-

-

-

-

-

72.3

0.4

0.4

0.1

-

-

0.2

0.2

-

94.0

0.5

-

0.1

-

-

-

0.3

2.7

82.0

0.3

-

0.1

-

-

-

-

2.7

79.7

0.2

-

0.1

-

-

-

-

-

78.3

0.4

0.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

49.8

0.9

0.5

-

-

-

0.3

0.9

-

70.7

0.6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

74.0

0.6

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.1

69.8

0.4

0.7

-

-

-

-

-

0.2

90.3

0.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

73.3

0.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

69.0

0.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

92.6

4.8

-

-

-

-

12.0

0.3

2.3

83.1

0.2

0.2

-

-

-

9.8

-

3.3

88.9

-

-

0.2

-

-

10.6

-

3.3

84.4

-

-

-

-

-

61.1

2.8

0.3

-

-

-

-

-

0.5

58.0

2.6

0.3

-

-

-

-

-

2.8

46.8

4.5

-

-

0.6

-

-

-

-

92.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

76.2

0.4

0.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

94.9

0.6

-

-

-

-

-

0.4

391 from trench J that was found in a late Roman context.6 The two red ochre rocks come from the city wall excavations (P4 from trench Q) and a domestic complex of early Islamic date (P5 from trench P), respectively (black punctuated circles in Fig. 9.1), respectively. Both pieces are about 3 cm in diameter, soft with a hardness of 1–2 (typical of clays) and with a high proportion of the hematite (Fe2O3) based on the reddish-brown streaks. Both are natural rocks 7 that texturally differ significantly; sample P4 has a fine-grained and homogeneous texture corresponding to ochre type D in Figure 9.3 from Hodgskiss,8 whereas sample P5 consist of hematite-rich encrustments on the surface of shale (finely laminated clay-stone) corresponding to ochre type A in Hodgskiss. The high content of hematite in both rocks make them likely candidates as raw materials for the red pigments used on the Northwest Quarter wall paintings. The oldest plaster wall paintings (P6–11) are from trench S and come from fill layers within a Roman cistern filled during the third or fourth century ad (Fig. 9.1; Table 9.1). The decorations include monochrome colours as well as polychrome circular designs (best seen on P9 in Table 9.1). 9 Painted plaster fragments (P12–17) come from destruction layers from the ‘House of the Tesserae’; an early Islamic house within trench P (Table 9.1; Fig. 9.1).10 The colours on the wall paintings include red, yellow, orange, green, black, and white, and were chosen in order to include all colours present in the Northwest Quarter. The only unfortunate omission was blues, found solely on a few fragments that were not available for this study.

Methods To keep the wall paintings intact, the chemical composition was determined by μ-X-ray fluorescence (μ-XRF). The wall fragments were placed on the stage with the painted surfaces facing the detector. Because the μ-XRF optics produce an X-ray beam with a diameter of about 20  μm, it investigates small sample areas and can be used on irregular sample surfaces. This allowed for nondestructive analyses of the wall fragments, while at the 6 

Thomsen 2019; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a). I am grateful to Ruth Siddal for identification of the nonprocessed nature of ochre rock sample P4. 8  Hodgskiss 2012, fig. 3. 9  Thomsen 2019; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). 10  Thomsen 2019; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); Lichtenberger and Raja 2017b. 7 

Gry H. Barfod

392

Figure 9.2. Video image from μ-XRF of red ochre pigment of plaster wall P15 with green box marking the area mapped for Fe (red) in the lower image. Lower image shows the sub-paint layer with striation marks left by tools.

same time producing maps showing elemental spatial distributions. For the pigments in the crucibles and the powdered orange pigment, small aliquots were extracted and analysed. These analyses therefore represent the pure pigment, whereas analysis of the painted layers on the plastered wall fragments includes some fraction of the underlying plaster layer. When possible, unpainted surfaces were analysed to evaluate this background. Despite this, it is hard to estimate these effects given that the pigments were also mixed with lime prior to application and the analyses should therefore be considered as semiquantitative. The analytical work was done at the AGiR (Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research) platform using a M4 Tornado Micro-XRF (Bruker Nano, Berlin, Germany) with a rhodium (Rh) tube.11 Analytical settings were fluorescence radiation voltage of 50 kV and a current of 600 μA at 20 mBar vacuum. Analysis of USGS 11 

Erin J. Rosenberg is thanked for help with μ-XRF analyses.

Figure 9.3. Video image from μ-XRF of sample P17 with green box marking the area mapped for Pb (red) and Ca (blue) in the lower image. Sub-paint layer (black in upper image) shows striation marks from use of tools.

glass standard GSD-1 run with the samples is reported elsewhere.12 Quantification was done using the Bruker software supplied with the instrument and is reported as oxide weight percentages normalized to 100 (Table 9.2). Note that elements with atomic numbers (Z) below 11 cannot be detected, excluding significant elements such as carbon (C), one of the main constituents of plaster (calcite).

Results and Discussion Unpainted Plaster Surfaces Unpainted surfaces were analysed when possible to create a baseline for the paints. The background layers (Table 9.2, P12-BG and P14-BG) are made up almost entirely of plaster (calcite CaCO3) which in one case (P14-BG) was mixed with sand (SiO2). These provide 12 

Barfod and others 2019.

9. The Colour Palette of the Northwest Quarter

393

a relatively neutral background for the paints when accidently sampled due to the penetration depth of the X-rays. The preparatory layers of fine-grained plaster are in four cases overlain by a secondary dark plaster layer with striped texture presumably to better support the pigments (Table 9.1, P11 and P16; Figs 9.2–9.3). The striped textures indicate the use of a tool in the preparation of this layer. Painted Plaster Surfaces The majority of the wall painting pigments were found to be soil-based pigments consisting of iron hydroxides (yellow), oxides (red), or green earths mixed with lime. Reds Ochre is a naturally occurring pigment consisting of hematite (iron oxide  = red ochre) or goethite (iron hydroxide = yellow ochre) with varying amounts of clays and sand. The crucible with finely powdered red pigment (P1) is made up of iron (Fe2O3 = 85.6 wt%) with a small component of clays (seen by the relatively low concentrations of silicon and aluminium; Table 9.2). The high purity indicates a high-quality red ochre possibly Sinop ochre. Sinop ochre is a dark red ochre that obtains its colour from hematite (Fe2O3) and is mined in Cappadocia and distributed throughout the ancient world from Sinop, a city on the Black Sea.13 The 1 wt% As2O3 clearly shows that besides ochre, an arsenic compound (presumably in the form of the mineral realgar) was mixed with the ochre to intensify the red colour (Tables 9.1–9.2). The two ochre rocks (P4 and P5) have compositions that are similar to the powdered red ochre (P1) although with a slightly higher clay content (Table 9.2) and therefore represent plausible raw materials. The red paints on the Roman and early Islamic wall paintings in the Northwest Quarter in Jerash have high lime (CaO) concentrations due to mixing of the pigments with lime prior to application but otherwise have compositions comparable to red ochre rocks P4–5 and the powdered pigment in crucible P1 (Table 9.2). The combination of high lime and iron content (10–17 wt%) with some clays (~2–8 wt% Al2O3 contents) in the red pigments on wall fragments P6, P9–10, P13, and P15 (Fig. 9.2) correspond well to observations for red ochre

Figure 9.4. Line-scan by μ-XRF across pigments on wall plaster P12 showing the distribution of Fe (red), As (yellow), Ti (green), and Mn (blue). The pigments on this sample are unusual due to the use of hematite with a small proportion of realgar for red and goethite for yellow rather than red and yellow ochres.

pigments on Byzantine wall paintings at Mani, Greece.14 Wall fragment P14 stands out due to its relatively lower Fe2O3 and higher MgO contents (~3 wt%; Table 9.2) as well as due to its ‘greasy’ surface, which could indicate the presence of an organic sealer. The high magnesium could thus be due to contributions from this sealer or related to ‘use of a dolomitic binder or due to the use of magnesium-rich pigments’.15 A line-scan across the red, black, and yellow pigments on wall fragment P12 shows the red pigment to be made up of mainly FeO (hematite) and a small amount of an arsenic-based compound (Tables 9.1–9.2; Fig. 9.4). Enhancement of the red colour was thus most likely done by adding the toxic mineral realgar (As4S4) to red ochre as is also seen on wall 14 

13 

E.g. Bakiler and others 2016.

15 

Hein, Karatasios, and Mourelatos 2009, 2066, table 3. Hein, Karatasios, and Mourelatos 2009, 2064.

Gry H. Barfod

394 fragment P13 (As2O3 = 0.3 wt%) and in the raw red pigment in crucible P1 (see above). Another toxic mineral, cinnabar (HgS), was the most commonly used precious red pigment in the Roman Empire,16 but there is no sign of its use in the Northwest Quarter of Gerasa from this study. Cinnabar was mined in Spain, Egypt, Macedonia, and Italy, whereas realgar was traded from the Solfatara crater near Naples (Italy), Hungary, Romania, southern Germany, and Slovenia.17 The use of realgar in Gerasa may therefore reflect arrival by northern trade routes, and its low amounts in the pigments may reflect that the use was limited due to price and/​or low availability. Yellows The yellow colours on the wall paintings in the Northwest Quarter come from yellow ochre; a natural pigment made of the iron hydroxide mineral goethite (FeO(OH)) often mixed with clays. They contain the same proportion of clays (Al2O3~ 5wt%) and lime as the red ochre, but have relatively more sand (SiO2 ~ 20 wt%; Table 9.2). Wall fragment P12 stands out through the use of pure red hematite (see above) and, likewise, the yellow pigment in this sample differs from the remaining wall paintings through the use of pure goethite (with no clays; Table 9.2 and Fig. 9.4). Goethite associated with dolomite can be found along the faults of the Jordan Rift Valley18 and may therefore be local. However, the best yellow ochre is said to come from Cyprus.19 There were no indications in this study of the use of bright yellow pigments such as the toxic orpiment (arsenic sulphide As2S3). Orange The orange pigment in the small crucible P2 and the loose powdered pigment (P3) are made of lead oxide corresponding to the pigment minium (Pb3O4). Pigment in P2 consists of pure lead oxide with a little copper (4 wt%; Table 9.2), which is most likely a reflection that the crucible had previously been used for copper. In the same way, pigment P3 is pure lead oxide mixed with lime (CaO = 12 wt%; Table 9.2), although this is presumably due to contamination from the local chalk since depoE.g. Bakiler and others 2016; Amadori and others 2015. Bakiler and others 2016; Amadori and others 2015; Porat and Ilani 1998. 18  Ilani 1989. 19  Hradil and others 2003.

sition. Minium is a synthetic orange pigment that was produced by heating of the mineral hydrocerussite (also known as ‘white lead’ PbCO3xPb(OH)2) under oxidized conditions. Hydrocerussite was mined from oxidized lead ore deposits or made artificially by exposing litharge or scrap lead to manure and heat. It is interesting to note that the white surface layer on the pigment in the crucible is probably re-precipitated hydrocerussite that formed due to the exposure over the centuries to the carbonate rocks that make up the Jerash basement (Table 9.1). Minium has been used on two of the studied wall paintings (Table 9.1, P14 and P17), in both cases mixed with small amounts of lime (up to 10 wt%; Table 9.2). The minium on sample P17 is flaking off revealing a striped blackish sub-surface that does not appear to have provided a good substrate for the pigment (Fig. 9.3). In contrast, the organic surface layer that is indicated to be present on wall painting P14 (see above) from its greasy appearance has provided an excellent sealer for the pigments (Table 9.1). Greens The green pigments are made from ‘green earths’ (seen by relatively high Al2O3, K2O, and Fe2O3 contents; Table 9.2) and mixed with lime. ‘Green earths’ are the most commonly used green pigment in the Roman Empire and were typically made up by mixing two clays; glauconite — a green sediment formed in shallow, calm ocean waters — and celadonite — an alteration product from breakdown of volcanic rocks found e.g. in the Troodos mountains on Cyprus and near Verona in Italy20 as well as from the Phlegraean Volcanic Complex near Naples, Italy. The green earths are all rich in potassium, aluminium, iron, and magnesium and their provenance can therefore not be constrained further. Only in one case (wall fragment P16) was there a minor component of the widely used copper-based greens seen by the CuO content of 0.6 wt%. This points to a minor component of the mineral malachite (CuCO3) or the artificially produced verdigris made by corroding metal copper.

16 

17 

20  These two locations are mentioned in the text De architectura by Vitruvius from the first century bc assuming that Smyrna refers to Troodos. Hradil and others 2011, 563.

9. The Colour Palette of the Northwest Quarter Blacks Black pigment was typically done by mixing soot or char with lime and, sometimes, hematite. That this is also the case for wall paintings in the Northwest Quarter can only be deduced from the absence of other elements given that the μ-XRF method is limited to masses above 11. A black streak colour confirmed the presence of soot (Fig. 9.4). There are no indications of other colourants used for blacks. Whites The high CaO content of 95 wt% in the white paint on wall fragment P7 shows that calcite (CaCO3) was used as pigment (Table 9.1). There are no signs of dolomite (CaMgCO3), which the Romans sometimes mixed in with the calcite to produce whites.21

395 This study implies that the Northwest Quarter was using a ‘poor-man’ Roman colour palette — whether this be due to economy or low availability — in the sense that bright colours such as pinks (kaolinite), blues (Egyptian blue), and bright reds (cinnabar) such as those seen in e.g. Rome, Herculaneum, Pompeii, and King Herod’s palaces in Israel were absent.25 There are also no signs of the Roman tradition of producing greens by mixing Egyptian blue (Cu) with ochre or hematite (Fe) or producing violet by mixing Egyptian blue with kaolinite. Even though the sample selection in this study focused on identifying pigments from fragments with the most vibrant wall decorations as well as characterizing the few pristine pigments recovered from the Northwest Quarter, the conclusions are indicative only given the very small number of samples analysed.

Implications for the Northwest Quarter In his Naturalis historia, Pliny the Elder distinguishes between two types of pigments; floridi colores and floridi et austere.22 The use of bright and rare pigments (floridi colores) during Roman and early Islamic times in the Northwest Quarter is indicated to have been restricted to minium for orange and, rarely and only in small amounts, realgar for red. Earth-tone pigments (floridi et austere) such as red and yellow ochres, green earths, white chalks, and black soot are implied to have dominated the wall paintings. Some of these pigments (black soot, white chalk, and red/​yellow ochre) had been in use in the area since Neolithic times e.g. at Tell Abu Suwwan, a site very close to the ancient city of Gerasa23 and could be found or produced locally. If this was the case, the high iron combined with relatively low clay contents of the red paints indicate that the painters mixed in additional hematite with the red ochre, which seems plausible given that hematite would have been easily accessible from ores and concretions in the Negev Desert, Israel, as well as within Jordan.24 The rare pigments green earths, minium, and realgar that came into use during Greek and Roman times would have arrived to the Northwest Quarter via trade routes.

21 

Porat and Ilani 1998.

22 Plin., HN xxxv.12.30. 23  24 

Al Nahar 2018. Ilani 1989.

25 

Porat and Ilani 1998.

396

Gry H. Barfod

Works Cited Abu-Jaber, N., Z. al-Saad, and N.  Smadi. 2009. ‘The Quarryscapes of Gerasa ( Jarash), Jordan’,  in N.  Abu-Jaber and others (eds), QuarryScapes: Ancient Stone Quarry Landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean, Geo­logical Survey of Norway Special Publication, 12 (Trondheim: Geo­logical Survey of Norway), pp. 67–77. Al Nahar, M. 2018. ‘The Neolithic Site of Tell Abu Suwwan in Jerash, Jordan’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 7–14. Amadori, M. L. and others. 2015. ‘Invasive and Non-Invasive Analyses for Knowledge and Conservation of Roman Wall Paintings of the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum’, Microchemical Journal, 118: 183–92. Bakiler, M. and others. 2016. ‘Material Characterization of the Late Roman Wall Painting Samples from Sinop Balatlar Church Complex in the Black Sea Region of Turkey’, Microchemical Journal, 126: 263–73. Barfod, G. H. and others. 2019. ‘Middle Islamic Pottery from Jerash: Ceramic Fabrics and the Implications for Production Patterns of HMGP Pottery in Northern Jordan’, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie, 12: 140–67. Hein, A., I. Karatasios, and D. Mourelatos. 2009. ‘Byzantine Wall Paintings from Mani (Greece): Microanalytical Investigation of Pigments and Plasters’, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 395: 2061–71. Hodgskiss, T. 2012. ‘An Investigation into the Properties of the Ochre from Sibudu, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa’, Southern African Humanities, 24.1: 99–120. Hradil, D. and others. 2003. ‘Clay and Iron Oxide Pigments in the History of Painting’, Applied Clay Science, 22: 223–36. Hradil, D. and others. 2011. ‘Mineralogy of Bohemian Green Pigment and its Microanalytical Evidence in Historical Paintings’, Archaeometry, 53: 563–86. Ilani, S. 1989. ‘Epigenetic Metallic Mineralization along Tectonic Elements in Israel’, Israel Geo­logical Survey Report: GSI/​12/​89. Kalaitzoglou, G. and others (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. —— (forthcoming b). ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 61. Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja (eds). 2017a. Gerasa/​Jerash: From the Urban Periphery (Aarhus: Fællestrykkeriet, AU). —— 2017b. ‘Mosaicists at Work: The Organisation of Mosaic Production in Early Islamic Jerash’, Antiquity, 91.358: 998–1010. Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2013. Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 39–103. Porat, N. and S. Ilani. 1998. ‘A Roman Period Palette: Composition of Pigments from King Herod’s Palaces in Jericho and Massada, Israel’, Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, 47: 75–85. Thomsen, K.  D. 2019.  ‘Urban Life in Jerash, Jordan: The Techno­logical and Stylistic Development of Mortar, Plaster and Wall Paintings from Roman Times to the Middle Islamic Period from an Archeo­logical and Geoarchaeo­logical Perspective’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity). Zagorski, M. 2007. ‘The Geo­graphy of Significant Colorants: Antiquity to the Twentieth Century’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, George Mason Uni­ver­sity).

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash William T. Wootton Classics Department, King’s College London. [email protected]

Introduction The experience of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project’s excavations in the twenty-first century echoes that of Crowfoot back in the early twentieth century, ‘It is difficult to dig anywhere at Jerash without finding mosaics’.1 Almost all the trenches in this northwestern area of the site reported finds related to mosaics.2 For the most part, however, these were small numbers of loose tesserae found in the topsoils or secondary contexts and, therefore, lacking primary or in-situ contexts. Still, mosaic represents a significant component in the architectural history of ancient Gerasa and has often been considered as one of the most important elements for understanding the decoration of churches in the Byzantine period in the region in general.3 Excavations in the Northwest Quarter have revealed a previously unknown Byzantine religious structure with mosaic decoration and have also provided new evidence for the embellishment of floors at ground level and on upper storeys from the Roman through to the Early Umayyad periods. Mosaics are a multi-material medium, requiring the acquisition and transformation of different components to create a smooth, functional and hard-wearing surface. In so doing craftspeople created environments designed to meet the needs of commissioners, serving their religious, social, and practical requirements. The excavated finds speak to these issues. Although largely fragmentary, apart from the in-situ mosaics in the so-called ‘Mosaic Hall’, their current state reveals their materials and mak*  My thanks to the directors of the Danish-German Jerash North­west Quarter Project Rubina Raja and Achim Lichtenberger for their kind invitation to visit the excavations and study the mosaics. 1  Crowfoot 1931, 39. 2  Lichtenberger and Raja 2012; 2015a; 2016; 2018a; 2019; Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2013; 2014; 2015; Lichten­ berger, Raja, and Sørensen 2013; 2014; 2015; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b). 3  Biebel 1938, 297.

ing processes, giving insight into the methods used by the people tasked with their production. They can be associated with a range of building types with original functions that relate to the requirements of public and private spaces. They also cover a large time span, around 650 years, offering evidence for differing approaches as well as traditions of making that passed knowledge and techniques across the generations. In a couple of cases, the social and historical circumstances surrounding the mosaic project can be reconstructed giving a greater understanding of the intentions behind the investment of time, labour, and money put into their production. This chapter is concerned with documenting the finds from across the excavated area, focusing on the pavements in tessellated mosaic using stone tesserae.4 In addition to describing them, it discusses their production and the related historical and social contexts.5 These are examined with regard to time and space, so that the practices and choices are assessed at particular moments and in specific locations.

Mosaic Documentation This section is organized chrono­logically by trench (Fig. 10.1): starting with S (Roman), then O and X (Late Roman/​Byzantine), followed by N and W (Byzantine), and finally P and V (Umayyad). It provides an overview 4  No evidence for wall mosaics was excavated in situ. There were finds of glass tesserae in the trenches which were included with the other glass finds and studied partly by Holger Schwarzer and published in the final excavation series by Ruth E. Jackson-Tal ( Jackson-Tal 2021). A separate article analysing the glass tesserae from the Northwest Quarter has been published: Boschetti and others 2021. A short overview of the glass tesserae is provided in Chapter 11 of this volume. 5  Scientific research on the materials associated with the mosaics — glass, mortar, and stone — has been undertaken in parallel and will be published separately, see Boschetti and others 2021; Ball and others (in preparation); Williams and others (in preparation).

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume  ii: Wall Paintings and Mosaics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 397–423 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126445

William T. Wootton

398

Figure 10.1. Plan of the Northwest Quarter with excavated trenches with mosaic fragments marked and the city wall highlighted in brown.

of each area, focusing on contextual issues related to the mosaics, followed by a detailed description and discussion of the finds. Together these build a comparative and synthetic analysis of the trenches. Trench S: Fragmentary Survival of a Roman Mosaic from a Large Building Overview Trench S is positioned at the highest point of the Northwest Quarter excavations and contained a large cistern (c. 18 × 12 m) on top of which stood a monumental structure of unknown function (Fig. 10.1).6 The cistern was decorated and the building above of high status. Fragments of sculpture, polychrome plaster, stucco, 6 

Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29; Lichtenberger and Raja 2015b.

and mosaic were found and the wall plaster was painted on the steps down into it.7 The building above was destroyed at some point in the later third or fourth centuries ad; the materials in the cistern seem to have been deposited during a single event and then sealed.8 The structure is, therefore, Roman in date, probably built in the late first or second centuries ad based on the excavated materials, radiocarbon dates of the mortars in the cistern, and quarry marks belonging to about the same time.9 The mosaic finds consist of fragments of different sizes with surfaces of polychrome tesserae and the bedding intact, as well as individual tesserae of varying colours and materials. 7 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a, 150–53. The final account of the strati­g raphy will be published in volume 6 of the excavations. 9  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a, 148; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). 8 

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

399

1

2

Figure 10.3. Reconstruction of the surviving decoration on the mosaic from trench S. Figure 10.2. Mosaic fragments from trench S: 1. Fragments with plain white tessellation; 2. Fragments with polychrome tessellation.

Detailed description There are two clearly defined groups of material which come from trench S: a collection of fragments and tesserae that can be associated with what was originally a single pavement (Fig. 10.2.1–2), and then a series of loose tesserae whose original context and relationships remain unknown. They were found in a range of evidences from the disturbed topsoils to stratified secondary deposits dating from the Late Roman period onwards. A homogenous group of fragments and tesserae can be identified on the basis of similarities in material and bedding. When combined they give insight into one small section of a mosaic floor, which was broken up, probably in the later Roman period, with parts being deposited in the cistern. Thirty-nine fragments were excavated, ranging in size between 4.0 × 5.0 cm to 5.5 × 6.5 cm.10 The surface tesserae are all stone and fall into four distinct colour groups — cream-white, black, red, yellow — and 10 

The evidences are 1, 2, 4, and 21.

two different unit sizes; a smaller format, c. 0.5–0.9 cm, with a tessera density of 120–30 per dm2 and a larger one, 1.0–1.2 cm, with a density of 65–70 per dm2 (Table 10.1).11 From the surviving fragments, the original floor can be reconstructed as follows (Fig. 10.3): an adjusting border of the larger cream-white tesserae with a black frame inside (5 cm and 5-tesserae wide), followed by a yellow-cream fillet (3 cm and 3-tesserae wide) and then a geometric pattern made up of red tesserae forming triangles or diamonds outlined by, or opposed with similar shapes in, yellow-cream tesserae. All the fragments have similar foundations. In each case, two bedding layers survive (Fig. 10.4). These were inspected using a hand lens in advance of scientific analysis.12 This preliminary investigation was able to charac11  Petro­g raphic analysis of the tesserae, including study of the microfossils to understand their provenance, has been undertaken in collaboration with Ian Wilkinson of the British Geo­logical Society and Mark Williams of Leicester Uni­ver­sity, see Williams and others (in preparation). 12  Analysis of the mortars has taken place at the Uni­ver­sity of Bath in collaboration with Dr Richard Ball, see Ball and others (in preparation).

William T. Wootton

400

Figure 10.4. Views of the surface, bedding, and base of the largest mosaic fragment from trench S.

terize an upper layer in a bright white lime mortar with no visible inclusions, ranging in thickness between 0.5 and 0.8 cm, and a lower layer of white lime mortar with a quartz-grain aggregate, around 1.5 and 2.0 cm thick. The complete sequence, including the tesserae, measured c. 3.0 cm. Every fragment had a flat base preserving the smooth surface onto which they were originally laid. The clean separation between the two attests to the weak bond between the surviving lower layer and those below, which do not. This may explain why the rest of the foundations were not found. The coarser foundation layers — the rudus or statumen — would have been separated when the building was demolished and the floor broken up. They may also have been disaggregated during this process. Over the course of the excavation of trench S, nearly three thousand individual tesserae of various sizes and colours were found. These come from contexts dating to the Late Roman period and some from the topsoils.13 They all had mortar adhering to them, suggesting that they had at one point been used in a mosaic. It is not known where or how many mosaics they relate to but the distribution of the finds suggests they do not belong to the same one. On the basis of size, colour, and material, some of them can be associated with the fragments of mosaic already identified. There are, however, three other size formats which do not correspond. They are all larger than the tesserae used for the pavement: one is c. 1.4 cm on a side, another is c. 1.8 cm, and the largest is c. 2.5 cm. These individual tesserae also have a wider array of colours. In addition to the four above, there are tesserae in various shades of brown, grey, yellow, and pink. All are stone. One tessera had a small amount of black pigment on the underside, associated with the mortar, which might be the result of the depositional environment or evidence for the use of painted guide13 

The evidences are 2, 4, 8, 13, 21, 22, 23, 29, 37, 45, 50, 103, 104, and 105.

lines at Jerash.14 Without further analysis, however, this observation should be treated with caution, although one gold-glass tesserae with red pigment demonstrates that this technique was used for wall mosaic.15 Discussion There are only a handful of mosaics from Jerash that date to the Roman period. Byzantine mosaics in churches are by far the largest group and, unsurprisingly, have been the focus of scholarly work since the early twentieth century.16 The first ‘excavated’ mosaic at Jerash, however, was Roman: a high-quality pavement featuring a border with literary figures and muses surrounding a central field with Dionysiac scenes.17 Seen in 1907, it was subsequently lifted in fragments and now resides in multiple collections.18 The date is much disputed but it probably belongs somewhere in the latter part of the second century ad or the first half of the third.19 The fragments from trench S may belong to the earliest phases of the building above the cistern, which would date them to the late first or early second century ad. Their materials, technique, and decoration support this. If correct, they would be the earliest mosaics so far discovered at Jerash. One reason for the dearth of Roman mosaics is that the residential quarter remains under the modern town; the Mosaic of the Muses was found underneath one of these houses.20 The fragments from trench S are from a 14  Another tessera was found in trench U ( J16-Ud-12-4 MR69) with what seemed to be black pigment on top of the mortar setting bed. 15  See Boschetti and Wootton (chap. 11 in this volume). 16  Crowfoot 1931; 1938; Biebel 1938; Piccirillo 1993, 270–98. 17  Joyce 1980; Piccirillo 1993, 282; Kriseleit 2000, 35–40. 18  Grossman 2006, fig. 4. 19  Kondoleon 1994; Talgam 2014, 49–52. 20  Stinespring 1938, 3; Schröder 1919, 118; Mortensen 2018.

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

401

Table 10.1. Relative densities of the tesserae (per dm2) between the trenches of the Northwest Quarter. Location

Trench S Trenches O and X Trenches N and W: Mosaic 1 Trenches N and W: Mosaic 2 Trenches P and V

Adjusting border

65–70

–

40–42

41–43

24–28

Decorative bands

120–30

–

36–40

36–39

24–28

Main field

120–30

19–21

36–47

36–39

24–28

Border of inscription

–

–

35–39

37–38

–

Inscription

–

–

65–76

60–78

–

quite different area of the site and belonged to a monumental structure. The size of the tesserae, their density (Table 10.1), and the technique mark them out as the highest quality mosaics found in the Northwest Quarter. Decoratively, however, they are quite simple — perhaps austere might be a better term when considering the possible public architectural context. In stark contrast, the Mosaic of the Muses is an exuberant figurative mosaic with luxuriant garlands interspaced with intellectuals and literary figures as well as a series of registers with Dionysiac themes. Not only is it quite different in content from the surviving fragments in trench S but it is also of even higher quality. The tesserae from the Mosaic of the Muses are between 0.3 and 0.6 cm on a side and include glass alongside the stones.21 The new fragments from trench S, however, provide important evidence for mosaics being used to decorate buildings at about the time that the Province of Arabia was established by Trajan and Gerasa became the seat of the financial procurator.22 The second century saw a significant boom across the city with many of the major public buildings constructed and a large number of private dedications. The mosaic from trench S provides precious evidence of this increase in activity connected to a particular historical moment and its impact on interior decoration, perhaps in a monumental public structure.

1

2 Figure 10.5. Unusual tesserae from trenches O and X. 1. Two views of the green marble tessera from trench O. 2. Two views of the gold-glass tessera from trench X.

Trenches O and X: Fragmentary Survival of a Late Roman or Early Byzantine Pavement

X, a sediment basin from the cistern was transformed into a flooring surface in the Byzantine period,24 while in trench O an early Umayyad narrow street, running north–south, was discovered with buildings to either side.25 The surface and topsoil finds are heterogeneous, representing unstratified materials of unknown origin. Those with archaeo­logical context are also from mixed fills, probably the result of the levelling of the terrace and the changes in use of the area. Their homogeneity, however, may indicate that some were originally associated, perhaps in a single pavement of unknown original location but probably of late Roman or early Byzantine date.

Overview

Description

Trenches O and X are situated next to each other on a terrace above another large cistern (Fig.  10.1), to the south-west of, and below, the Synagogue Church and ‘Mosaic Hall’ (see trenches N and W below).23 In trench

In both trenches, the topsoils contained tesserae that varied in size, shape, colour, and material. Tessera size was categorized from small to large, with various increments in between, 26 while the colours ranged from white,

21 

Kriseleit 2000, 135–40. 22  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a, 147. 23  Lichtenberger and others 2015.

24 

Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014, 29–30. Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 64. 26  The sizes are as follows: small: c.  1.0  ×  1.1  ×  1.1; small25 

William T. Wootton

402

Figure 10.6. Pile of elongated tesserae from trench O.

red (pink to brown), and black. A large number of the tesserae, by far the largest proportion of the total, were rectangular cuboids, or elongated; the rest of the tesserae were square. There were very occasional finds of an unusual nature, including one large green cube of metamorphic rock, probably marble, and one gold-glass tessera (Fig.  10.5, 1–2). 27 None of these finds can be dated strati­g raphically, but most present a similar typo­logy and in the same quantities as those from excavated layers. The remaining materials are from stratified deposits and belong to the Late Byzantine and Early Umayyad periods. They can be divided into two main groups: loose tesserae and the offcuts from tessera production (Figs 10.6–10.7),28 and large fragments of mortar bedding, very occasionally retaining the upper tessellated surface (Figs 10.8–10.10).29 The tesserae have a compato-mid: c.  1.4  ×  1.4  ×  1.4; mid-size: c.  1.8  ×  1.8  ×  1.4; large: c. 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.0–1.5; and elongated: c. 1.6 × 1.6 × 3.2. 27  Green marble: J15-Og-30-10A; sandwich gold glass: J16Xb-7-13 (MR25). For gold-glass tesserae, see the chapter on the glass tesserae by Boschetti and Wootton (chap. 11 in this volume). 28  The evidences from trench O include 10, 30, 31. 29  The evidences from trench O include 30, 52, 54, 56; and from 2 in trench X.

rable range to those from the topsoil. The sizes are similar and there is a distinct preponderance of elongated white tesserae. The cubes come in a variety of colours, from white and beige, through brown and yellow, pink and red, to grey and black. Most often the tesserae had mortar adhering to them, suggesting that they had been used at one point. There was also a significant amount of debris from the processing of tesserae, whether ‘sticks’ from which cubes could be struck or flakes from their actual cutting (Fig. 10.7). These offcuts can be associated with the production of square or rectangular cuboids, but the large proportion again was associated with the processing of elongated tesserae. Fragments of bedding consisting of lime mortar with aggregate were found in trench O.30 These had no tessellation, rather they presented a rough, flat mortar surface. Numerous offcuts from the production of elongated tesserae, from flakes to partially processed tesserae, were visible there and in the section (Figs 10.8–10.9). The mortar fragments ranged in size, with the largest nearly 30 cm across and the smallest just 4 cm. The larger ones all 30   Key

finds from trench O: J15-Og-30-4A (PL32); J15Og-52-1 (PL58); J15-Og-54-2 (PL46); J15-Og-56-11 (PL48).

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

403 Figure 10.7. Debris from tessera processing trench O.

Figure 10.9. Fragment with flat upper surface and the debris from tessera processing in its bedding from trench O. Views of surface and base.

Figure 10.8. Fragment with flat upper surface and the debris from tessera processing in its bedding from trench O. Views of surface and base. Figure 10.10. Fragment with surface of elongated tesserae from trench O. Views of the surface, three-quartered and from the side.

404 had a similar depth of around 7 cm, suggesting they were from the same pavement. They were of the same composition, combining a lime mortar — whiter in some places and greyer, ashier in others — with an aggregate made up of the offcuts, sand, and charcoal. These slight differences are not visible as separate layers, in fact the fragments seem to consist of one single homogenous layer. The discovery in trench X of a mortar fragment with the bedding and surface intact proved a relationship between the loose elongated tesserae and the mortar fragments from trench O (Fig. 10.10).31 The tessellation of this fragment had a rough, slightly uneven surface with mortar still adhering — although it was not apparent whether this was related to its phase of use or was the result of its deposition.32 The tesserae themselves were elongated, with a depth of c. 3.2 cm compared to their surfaces which were c. 1.6 cm on a side. In profile, like the other mortar fragments, there were no distinct layers. The tesserae sat upon a lime mortar, around 7 cm thick, with an aggregate of stone offcuts, charcoal, and sand. It seems, therefore, that the bedding consisted of a single, thick layer, laid to level and allowed to dry. Then a very thin skim of lime mortar was laid down onto which the tesserae were placed rather than embedded. This explains the almost total loss of the tessellated surface from the other fragments and the large number of loose tesserae. Discussion Although the mosaic-related finds from these two trenches are rather disparate, they are homogenous in terms of the general area. The levelling of the terrace had a major impact on the strati­graphy, but within these mixed fills, a fragmentary mosaic could be identified. The size, weight, and materials of the mortar fragments suggest that they originally belonged to a mosaic floor. Where the pavement was located is unknown. Most likely it was in the vicinity of these trenches because such large fragments would not have been moved long distances. It must predate the remodelling of the terrace so probably belongs in the Late Roman or Early Byzantine period. A small number of coeval mosaics are known, for example there is a late fourth-century mosaic in the so-called Glass Court and there may have been mosaics in the nave and apse of the Cathedral at about the 31 J16-Xb-2-280. 32 

Size: L: 1.4 × W: 1.5 × H: 1.1 cm; tessera density: 19–21 per dm2.

William T. Wootton same time.33 The first floor in the Synagogue is probably fifth century and the main series of Byzantine floors was installed from the 520s onwards.34 The function of the pavement was utilitarian and by implication the space in which it was laid. The coloured tesserae found in the fills are similar to materials excavated throughout the Northwest Quarter so they were not necessarily associated in one pavement in antiquity.35 The practical nature of the floor can be argued on the basis of the bedding, which is coarse with its single large nucleus, the density of the surface tessellation, which is the lowest from the Northwest Quarter (Table 10.1), and the elongated tesserae themselves, which are used for the surface. These long tesserae may have worn better and longer. The extra depth would have helped to hold the tessellation together, making the pavement more resistant to damage such as the tesserae being dislodged. Although the physical quantity of stone required was more, processing the longer tesserae would have been time- and labour-saving as fewer cuts were required to produce them. The choice also allowed for a minimal setting bed with the tesserae and the grout playing a greater role in maintaining the integrity of the surface. Elongated tesserae are found elsewhere, although there has been no attempt yet to draw together the evidence or explain the phenomenon. They were used in the Republican and Imperial periods in Italy and were observed in a black and white mosaic in Croatia dated to the first century ad.36 The practice seems to continue into the Byzantine and Umayyad periods in the eastern Mediterranean. Loose elongated tesserae have been found in large quantities and interpreted as materials awaiting further processing.37 The finds from trenches O and X give another option, however, that such tesserae could be and were used in pavements for their primary surface. This is supported elsewhere in the region. In the 33   Biebel 1938, 309–11; Browning 1982, 94–95; Piccirillo 1993, 283. 34  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b. 35  If so then there would have been tesserae of two different depths, not impossible but unusual. 36  Elongated tesserae have been found in Pisa during the first half of first century ad (see Fabiani and Rizzitelli 2020) and there are unpublished examples from the Roman Forum, Rome, and at Ostia. The mosaic from Zadar, Croatia, has tesserae that are 2.5 cm thick: [accessed 1 March 2020]. 37  Yadin 1965, 102; 1966, 112; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987, 110; Netzer 1991, 360–69; Hamarneh 2015; 2016.

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

405

Figure 10.11. Plan of the so-called ‘Mosaic Hall’.

Petra Church, elongated tesserae are known and in the Church of Saints Lot and Procopius, elongated black tesserae were employed for outlining the figures. 38 The same form is found in Byzantine glass tesserae at Qibbuz Kabri,39 south of the Byzantine site of elTuweiri, and continues in use during the eighth century ad at Qasr al-Mschatta.40 The aggregate of the pavement includes material recycled from the processing of the tesserae. This suggests that they had been prepared in advance, presumably close to the site of installation, with the offcuts used to pack out the mortar and create the flat surface onto which the tessellation was laid. Reusing materials as aggregate is common and makes good practical sense. In this case, the offcuts provide a sharp aggregate which would bind well and, as limestone, shared similar material characteristics to the binder. The foundations are also a convenient place to deposit materials that were no longer required because it avoids the necessity to remove or store them.41 Production debris is not always recorded or studied but provides a valuable insight into the making process.42 Similar evidence can be found in the surrounding region showing that this was not an isolated activity.43 Trenches O and X provide supplementary data on the manufacture of a more practical pavement, unusual for its elongated tesserae and coarse bedding, which may have embellished a structure quite different from the other mosaics from the Northwest Quarter and elsewhere in Jerash, one focused on more utilitarian activities. 38 

Waliszewski 2001, 219; Zohar 2016. See [accessed 1 March 2020]. 40  Hamarneh 2015, 255; 2016. 41  For the recycling of materials, such as shells, at Aquileia, see Dilaria 2017, and Secco and others 2018 for questions of quality. 42  Wootton 2012a; 2012b. 43  Hamarneh 2015, 255; 2016 (Qasr Mushatta); Zohar 2016, 38–39 and n. 10 (the Samaritan Synagogue at Khirbet Samra), n. 11 (Ma’ale Adumim and Horvat Berachot), and n. 12 (Masada and Beth Shean). 39 

Trenches N and W: Two Pavements from the So-Called ‘Mosaic Hall’ Overview Trenches N and W are situated just to the north-west of the so-called Synagogue Church, now the Church of the Electi Iustiniani, and were the source of the so-called ‘Mosaic Hall’ (Fig. 10.1). Excavations took place here between 2015 and 2016 revealing a large rectangular building with at least three phases.44 Two mosaic pavements with inscriptions give the dates for their installations. The earlier of the two was made in ad 576 and may be coeval with the construction of the building, which aligns with the Synagogue Church and communicates directly with its atrium via a set of stairs. The fifthcentury synagogue was probably converted into a church in the first third of the sixth century ad, an inscription records a donation dated to ad 530/​31.45 It may have been a military church associated with the Electi Iustiniani, who are named in the later mosaic inscriptions, with the hall being added subsequently as a place for assembly or other activities.46 The two mosaics and their inscriptions provide crucial evidence for under44  Haensch, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2016; Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b; 2019, 62–64; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b). 45  Dvorjetski 2005; Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b. 46  Haensch, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2016; Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b.

William T. Wootton

406

Figure 10.12. Photogrammetric survey of the mosaics in trenches N and W.

standing the social and political history of Jerash at this time as well as contemporary craft practices. Description The so-called ‘Mosaic Hall’ in its excavated extent is roughly rectangular (Fig.  10.11).47 The two phases of mosaic only partially survive but still cover most of the interior floor (Fig.  10.12). During the third and final phase of the building, dated to the Early Umayyad period, it was subdivided into smaller rooms with walls being built directly over the mosaic pavement. These walls have largely obscured the interfaces between the two mosaics. One small section on the south side is visible, however, which provides some indication of how the mosaicists integrated the later mosaic with the earlier one. Enough remains of these important floors, how47 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b): it is 17.15–18.49 m long and 10.47–10.64 wide.

Figure 10.13. Detail of the inscription of the ad-576 mosaic.

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

Figure 10.14. Two details of the seam running between the two phases of mosaic on the western side of the Mosaic Hall. Above, the seam is visible running parallel to the frame; below, it is highlighted by a red dotted line.

ever, to understand their production history thanks to two inscriptions detailing when they were made and by whom. The earliest surviving mosaic was laid in ad  576. The date is recorded in a tondo positioned in the southwestern quarter of the floor, close to the doorway leading to the Synagogue Church (Fig. 10.13). At this point in time, the building was probably rectangular in form measuring around 13.5 to 14.5 m long and 10.5 m wide. The mosaic consists of an outer border running next to the wall delimited by a frame with geometric decoration inside. The frame follows the course of the walls, even respecting the buttress in the eastern wall (Fig. 10.12). On the south side, the frame continues to the west before turning north once past the entrance. In this area, a ‘curvy seam with a slight disorder of the tesserae rows’

407

was observed. 48 It runs broadly parallel to the frame, between it and the ‘chessboard diamonds’ of the later mosaic, and in close proximity to the wall of the final phase (Fig.  10.14). The seam indicates where the two pavements abutted and results from the different laying directions of the tesserae which are perpendicular to one other. The andamento of the earlier floor runs east to west, following the southern wall, while the later follows the frames from south to north. In the north-western area of the mosaic, the frame continues further to the west than on the south side. The visible parts suggest that the mosaic followed another buttress in the western wall, which was later removed, before carrying on to the doorway. This leaves an empty space in the south-west corner of the rectangle. Accepting that the decoration carefully respects the course of the walls, it is possible that there was originally a wall here, perhaps a small interior space, or some other form of mosaic decoration that was removed and is now where the lower part of the later inscription is positioned. More likely, perhaps, is that there was another doorway here, which demanded a change in the decoration. It is notable that the inscription is orientated in this direction which might suggest that it was an area of some significance. The mosaic is bichrome with red decoration against a plain white background (Figs 10.12 and 10.15). The adjusting border is in simple white tessellation, usually laid in the same direction as the wall but sometimes with three rows following the walls and then the remaining tesserae at right angles until they meet the double ‘halo’ of the interior frame.49 Within this area were placed 48  Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a). Haensch, Lichten­ berger, and Raja (2016, 182) also mention the seam (or Naht in German) where three different decorative patterns are proposed rather than two (see n. 62). 49  It was not possible to confirm the laying direction across the whole of the pavement.

408

William T. Wootton

Figure 10.15. Detail of the decoration from the adjusting border to geo­ metric field of the ad-576 mosaic.

geometric motifs: four ‘chessboard diamonds’ along the south side, another five by the northern part of the east wall, and three ‘saltires of tassels’ on the east side of the north wall.50 After the two lines of white tesserae, the frame is a bichrome triple fillet made up of a single row of red tesserae, two rows of white, and then a single row of red.51 The inner red fillet connects to the geometric decoration of the main field which is a grid of superposed and opposed tassels with the compartments enclosing a bichrome saltire of four tassels.52 The tassels are made up of six tesserae while the saltires are formed of four of these tassels arranged at each corner of a single red tessera. The background of the compartments is filled with white tesserae laid in rows perpendicular from one square to the next moving from north to south.53 The inscribed tondo (c.  1.52  m in diameter; Fig. 10.13) was placed in the south-west, close to the staircase down to the Synagogue Church. It is not orientated directly towards the doorway, south or southwest, but is instead designed to be read from the west, where the later inscription was subsequently placed. The Greek inscription has been published along with close epi­g raphic analysis including discussion of its formula 50 

Balmelle, Prudhomme, and Raynaud 1985, 30, pl. 4j–k. Balmelle, Prudhomme, and Raynaud 1985, 26–27, pl. 1s. 52  Balmelle, Prudhomme, and Raynaud 1985, 44–45, 190–91, pls 15j, 125b. 53  Balmelle, Prudhomme, and Raynaud 1985, 161, pl. 105d. 51 

and meaning.54 An English translation can be made as follows: Through the grace of God, Marianos being our most saintest [sic] bishop, under the (first) leadership of Stephanos, son of Kosmas, the most God-loving deacon of the numerus (unit) of the Elected (soldiers) and Zacharias being silver collector, this mosaic was made in the month of March in the times of the 9th indiction in the 638th year (ad 576).

The tondo is framed by a white halo, a red fillet, another white band, and then a band of simple meander followed by a single white line which reinforces the frame.55 The interior inscription is divided into nine lines. There is no surviving evidence to prove that the mosaicist used painted or incised guidelines to lay out this inscription. It seems likely, however, that a basic guide was employed in the same way that inscriptions on stone were sketched out with lines and letters before carving.56 In mosaics, sometimes these ‘lines’ become part of the surface decoration to accentuate the text.57 This is not the case here, but a single row of larger white tesserae demarcates the lines, usually with a second row of smaller tesserae probably added when completing the letters and their back54  Haensch, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2016; Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b, 93. 55  Balmelle, Prudhomme, and Raynaud 1985, 70–71, pl. 30c. 56  McLean 2002, 9. 57  Leatherbury 2014.

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

409

Figure 10.16. Detail of the inscription of the ad-591 mosaic.

ground. The rows are largely equal in height, although the lowest is slightly larger; the text is more bunched in the upper lines and less so at the bottom. This may indicate that the mosaicist began working from the top, at the beginning of the inscription, starting off more cautiously with regard to the available space and becoming more generous towards the end when close to the bottom of the tondo. The letters were completed in red tesserae and are well spaced again suggesting some design in advance. They are skilfully laid with tesserae cut with care to create the curvilinear letter forms and the background. The effect is highly legible with the red text and white background clearly differentiated. A later mosaic was laid in ad 591, some fifteen years after the first, as recorded in an inscription placed on the west side of the communicating doorway (Figs 10.12 and 10.16). This second phase was accompanied by a remodelling of the building, expanding the total area by about a third (Fig. 10.11). The rectangular form was maintained but elongated by around 5 m towards the west which involved moving the west wall and renewing the roof.58 The walls were decorated with plaster and a small stepped podium (1.6 × 0.9 m) was installed against the south face of the extended north wall.59 Like the earlier mosaic, the frame respects the walls and other per58 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a, 156; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b). 59 

manent additions (Fig. 10.12). It is not possible to trace its complete circuit, however, due to the subsequent remodelling of the interior. The frame follows the central buttress, which must have been left to support the roof, before heading south running parallel to the older mosaic down to the south wall, just to the west of the doorway leading to the Synagogue Church. It then goes along the south and west walls before disappearing under a later bench and reappearing as it traces the podium. At this point on the northern wall, the frame and the mosaic pass under a later wall which hides the area where the two mosaics would have met. Presumably this was resolved by their frames running parallel in a manner similar to the south side, with another seam at the point where the two mosaics met. This mosaic is also bichrome with red decoration against a plain white background and a similar general layout to the earlier one (Fig. 10.17). It has an adjusting border in simple white tessellation which has been laid following the direction of the walls. The red frame is an identical bichrome triple fillet with a single row of red, two rows of white, and then another row of red. Around this adjusting border there are individual motifs which are comparable to the previous floor. On the east side, between the two inscriptions, there are seven chessboard diamonds. Another is situated by the south wall, near to the doorway, while further to the west there is a saltire of tassels. A further five chessboard diamonds are located

William T. Wootton

410

Figure 10.17. Detail of decoration from adjusting border to geometric field of the ad-591 mosaic.

along the northern part of the west wall — there may have been more to the south, but the mosaic is damaged. Close to the central buttress there is probably another one and, on either side, two poised serrated squares with a red tessera in the middle.60 Inside the triple fillet is a recognizable geometric pattern based on square compartments. The grid, however, is different, consisting of bichrome serrated triple fillets.61 The compartments enclose a bichrome floret of four tassels which are mostly larger than those in the older pavement with the tassels made up of four tesserae along each axis, rather than three, with a total of eight tesserae not six. This is not the case throughout the pavement. On the northern side, close to the podium, the saltires and their tassels become smaller, the same size as the earlier floor, which they are in close proximity to.62 The method of laying the interiors of the compartments is the same, however, with the tesserae aligned in perpendicular rows from one to another, again running north to south. The inscription was placed within a tabula ansata (rectangular part 1.85 m long × 0.86 m wide; Fig. 10.16). It sits centrally in the pattern between the south wall and the buttress while the height is one and a half of the 60  61 

and c.

Balmelle, Prudhomme, and Raynaud 1985, 31, pl. 5b. Balmelle, Prudhomme, and Raynaud 1985, 188–89, pl. 124a

62  Haensch, Lichtenberger, and Raja (2016, 180–84) inter­ preted this as another phase between the two, but there are no other observable differences in the technique or materials of the later mosaic to suggest a phase between the two. The adjustment in the size of the saltires may have been made to fit the earlier pattern or have some other practical explanation. Without being able to assess the area where the two phases met, this question cannot be resolved definitively.

diamonds so that there is some irregularity on the east and west sides as well as the way in which the ‘dovetail handles’ interact with the pattern. The frame of the tabula ansata is a double fillet, two red tesserae wide.63 The handles have a white interior, the southern one is laid to observe the shape with ever smaller triangles while the northern has two white lines which follow the triangular form and then rows of tesserae along an east–west axis. The inscription has been well studied and published.64 The English translation is follows: Under the third — with God’s benevolence — leadership of Stephanos, son of Kosmas, the most God-loving deacon, and Alexander being silver collector of the (unit of the) Electi Iustiniani even this western part of the kellion was paved with a mosaic in the month of July in the times of the 10th indiction in the 654th year (ad 591).

The text is laid out in five equally spread lines, each divided by one row of slightly larger tesserae, probably used for the laying out, in a similar fashion to the tondo, with at least one line, usually two, on either side. The letters are in red tesserae which have been carefully prepared to create their linear and curved forms. They are regularly spaced in the lower four lines but there appears to have been a problem with the available room at the end of the first one. Here, six letters are reduced to almost half the size of the others and packed more tightly together in order to complete it and keep the name of ‘Stephanos, son of Kosmas’ all together. Other than this, the effect is similar to the older inscription with the letters being well made and legible. There are 63 

Balmelle, Prudhomme, and Raynaud 1985, 26–27, pl. 1j. Haensch, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2016; Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b, 93. 64 

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash differences in the construction of the letters between the two, however, that suggest a different ‘hand’ or individual at work. This is most noticeable in the gammas, kappas, upsilons, and omicron-upsilon ligatures which end in triangular tesserae in the later mosaic when they are almost all square in the earlier one. Notably the omegas are formed in the same way in both, with the two curvilinear downstrokes continuing upwards, meeting and then continuing into two triangular tesserae. The tesserae of both pavements are red, with shades ranging towards pink to brown, and creamy-white limestones. They were cut into cubes whose size format is generally around 1.4 cm on a side, although on occasion the range is as low as 1.2 cm in the inscriptions and as high as 2.0 cm elsewhere. The likelihood is that the materials were quarried locally and then processed on site, as evidenced by the offcuts in the bedding layers.65 The size of the materials and the complexity of their laying can be assessed through their density (Table 10.1). Comparison between the two suggests that there is not a significant difference in the general quality of the mosaics, in fact the densities are similar. There is, however, some variability within the two mosaics. The earlier pavement has much wider ranges in density, especially in the geometric field, than the later one. This may be indicative of craftspeople with different abilities for the first and a subsequent group of more equally skilled individuals. The same cannot be said for the inscriptions where a greater range in densities would be expected when producing complex letter forms against simpler backgrounds. The higher density in the second mosaic is due to smaller tesserae being used in the upper right-hand corner, but the rest of the inscription is produced at a lower density to the earlier one. The bedding of both mosaics is also quite similar. 66 Where visible, it was possible to observe that the tesserae of the earlier pavement were bedded into a thin layer of lime mortar which in turn sat on a friable mix of lime mortar, soil, charcoal, and aggregate. The aggregate consisted of pottery sherds and offcuts from the processing of the white limestone tesserae. The bedding of the later mosaic was more accessible; it is, therefore, possible to 65  Hamarneh and Abu Jaber 2013; Arce 2014; Williams and others (in preparation). 66   There were limited opportunities to assess the bedding, but a couple of areas, which had lacunae, were visually observed. Scientific analysis of the bedding mortars in the Mosaic Hall has been undertaken by Kristine Thomsen as part of her PhD thesis (Thomsen 2019). A preliminary report on the mortars has appeared: Thomsen 2017.

411

describe it in more detail. The tesserae were set into a white lime mortar, similar to the earlier one, which was about 1 cm thick. This sat upon a crumbly grey mortar with charcoal, pottery fragments, and offcuts along with tessera cubes. A further bed was identified made up of large stones. The foundations of each seem to be of poor quality; it is difficult, however, to say whether one should be considered worse than the other.67 Equally, it might be observed that both were good enough, maintaining a stable flat surface through the use life. The second phase probably lasted into the early sixth century so the mosaic may only have been used for a few decades, the first mosaic for just a few more years. In the Early Umayyad period, the hall was transformed into smaller rooms, an event associated with the defeat of the Byzantine army and the Islamic conquest of the Levant in ad 636.68 An earlier date between ad 614 and 628 has also been proposed as this was when Jerash came under Persian occupation, a time when it seems likely that the Byzantine soldiers stationed there would have left.69 The hall, in its new form, continued in use until destroyed by the earthquake in ad 749. Discussion The main mosaic series at Jerash is Byzantine, beginning in the mid-fifth century with numbers expanding significantly in the sixth and production declining in the early seventh.70 They mostly decorate religious spaces — more than twenty are known — but they have also been found in civic structures,71 and what may have been a private house.72 The Mosaic Hall provides precious new evidence for the continued boom in mosaic production in the second half of the sixth century. The inscriptions not only give us precise dates for the dedication of these floors but also provide information about the people involved. Both inscriptions record the same person — Stephen, son of Kosmas — as being responsible for the commission, the first mosaic during his initial term of office and the second in his third. We learn that he was a diakon of the Electi Iustiniani, essentially a military administrator of a group of special forces. 67 

For comparison, see Hamarneh and Abu Jaber 2017. Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 69. 69  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b, 95. 70  Piccirillo 1993, 270–98; March 2009, 118–19; Talgam 2014, 130–31. 71  Piccirillo 1993, 283. 72  Z‘ubi and others 1994; Talgam 2014, 372–73. 68 

412 Other people named include the Bishop Marianus and two money collectors, Zacharias and Alexander. The second inscription informs us about the name of the building, a kellion. This term, and the role it denotes, remains obscure. It seems to indicate some sort of military facility that may have been used for logistical purposes. Together the complex may have formed a military church.73 The inscriptions locate the mosaics chrono­logically, spatially, and socially. They belong to a precise moment within the city when patrons are recording their commissioning of mosaics in other public places in a similar manner. Examples can be found in the so-called Bishop Marianus Chapel, with an inscription dating the floor to ad 570, the so-called Clergy House to ad 578, and the so-called Placcus Baths to ad 584, as well as in a sixth-century house and shops along the so-called Cardo.74 Close correlation can be found between the two geometric designs in the Mosaic Hall and these coeval pavements, but there are other mosaics produced at about the same time that have quite different decoration. Significantly, the sort of square compartments found in the Mosaic Hall seem to have been considered appropriate for subordinate rooms, suggesting a relationship between decoration, context, and function. It seems likely that late sixth-century Gerasa could support a range of craftspeople including mosaicists who would group together to produce these commissions.75 The similarities, and differences, in the designs and layouts chosen relate to the preferences of patrons, current fashions, and the knowledge, and capabilities, of the makers. It is not necessarily the case, therefore, that the same groups of craftspeople were responsible for the same or similar decoration. It is interesting to note, for example, that the Bishop Marianus Chapel uses significantly fewer tesserae to create the same pattern: generally around 25–30 tesserae per dm2 rising to around 60 per dm2 in the inscription.76 Conversely another side room near the Hippodrome with a similar pattern also has a density of 60 per dm2 in the inscription but slightly higher densities in the decoration — between 50–60 per dm2. Focusing on the Mosaic Hall itself, the similarities in 73 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2018b. 74  Haensch, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2016, 180–84. 75  Baldoni 2019. 76   Biebel (1938, 305–06) recorded the following densities per dm2: 45 in the Glass Court (lower level); 80 in the Church of the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs; 85 in the Church St John the Baptist: 85; 100 in the Procopius Church; 100 in the vestibule of the Synagogue; over 100 in the Cathedral Chapel.

William T. Wootton style, technique, and location might indicate a similarly constituted group of people producing them. A possibility that is further supported by the same individual being responsible for both commissions. It is noticeable, however, that the surface laying of the later pavement is slightly more accomplished, perhaps due to more investment on the part of the patron or a more skilled team being engaged. The difference is incremental, however, reflecting slight changes that may be due to a number of factors, not least the need to create a mosaic that both fitted with, responded to, and differed from another which had been laid only fifteen years previously. Comparably, the densities of the pavement denote its quality as ‘fine’,77 but the bedding is not of equally good quality. This might result from a decision by the client to focus their economic resources on the visible surface. It could also simply be the case that the foundations were good enough for the particular purpose for which it was intended; both floors were in use for relatively short periods of time and, perhaps, that was anticipated. The recycling of building debris in the bedding layers adds further evidence to that from trenches O and X. Included in those materials were more offcuts from the processing of tesserae, again suggesting that this was a task done in advance and close to the hall itself. The inscriptions add detail to our knowledge of the production. They specify the months in which the mosaics were laid: March for the first one and then July for the second. This indicates that the mosaicists worked during the cooler months of spring, as might be anticipated, but were also required to operate in the heat of the summer. This must have been much harder physically while also demanding greater control and management of the materials, in particular the faster setting times of the lime mortars in the higher temperature.78 The mosaics of the Mosaic Hall add important new knowledge of a building, and its extension, by a specific group associated with the military at a particular moment in the history of Gerasa when mosaics continue to be a popular choice for embellishing buildings. Investment in this art form, however, will soon decline rapidly. 77   Hamarneh (2015, 254) quoting Avi-Yonah 1933: 4–20 tesserae per dm2 is called ‘coarse’, 20–30 ‘middle quality’, and 42–100 ‘fine’. 78  There was an important conference organized by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja on seasonality in October 2018 at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen, which dealt with key issues on this topic. It included a paper by them entitled, ‘Seasonality and Urban Economy: The Case of Gerasa in Jordan’. See Lichtenberger and Raja 2021.

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

413

Figure 10.18. Plan of the so-called ‘House of the Tesserae’, trenches P and V.

Trenches P and V: Mosaics and Tesserae from the So-Called ‘House of the Tesserae’ Overview Trenches P and V are located next to each other and contained the so-called ‘House of the Tesserae’ which is in the eastern section of the Northwest Quarter excavations (Figs 10.1 and 10.18). It sits on the East Terrace, overlooking the Roman-period Artemision, where two properties were found, this one and the so-called ‘House of the Scroll’ (trench K), just to the north-west.79 The ‘House of the Tesserae’ is positioned partly on top of the ‘Central Street’, to the north-east of the ‘Mosaic Hall’ (see trenches N and W) and the Synagogue Church. The 79 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a, 159–60.

trenches partially exposed an impressive early Umayyad complex built around a courtyard.80 The floors of the upper storey were decorated with mosaic. They had collapsed, however, during the earthquake in ad 749 and the layout upstairs is unknown. The ground floor was not paved with tessellated mosaic but a trough containing a large number of unused tesserae was discovered, hence the name given to the house by the directors of the project. 81 At the entrance to the property was found a skeleton; an individual presumably killed during the destruction of the property. A tool was discovered nearby. It is of a type with many possible 80  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a, 160–61; Lichtenberger and Raja 2019, 64–66. 81  Lichtenberger and Raja 2017, 1001–05.

William T. Wootton

414

1

Figure 10.19. Mosaic fragments from trenches P and V. 1. Fragments with plain white tessellation. 2. Fragments with black and white tessellation.

2

functions, one of which may have been to process larger bits of stone into tesserae.82 Together with other evidence, it seems that the house was being renovated when the earthquake struck. The stratified finds consist of individual loose tesserae, both unused and used, fragments of mortar from the bedding of a mosaic pavement, and fragments of the mortar foundations along with tessellated upper surfaces. These latter examples give an insight into the decoration of the mosaic floors from the upper storey of the house. 82 

Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming b); Eger 2020.

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

415

Figure 10.20. Tesserae from trench P.

Description It is not known whether there were mosaics in the first phase of the property. It is assumed that the tesserae and associated mortar fragments belong to a phase of renovation during which the earthquake struck. At this time, there were no mosaics on the ground floor of the house. All the fragments of bedding mortar, with or without tessellated surfaces, belong to the upper storey (Fig. 10.19a–b). That is also where all the loose tesserae, with mortar adhering to them, are likely to have come from (Fig. 10.20). Tesserae, and offcuts from their processing, were found in construction fills in the walls,83 as well as in the foundations of the upper floors. There are, however, loose tesserae that belong to the archaeo­logy of the ground level. The house was organized around a courtyard which communicated directly with a corridor providing access to the entrance in the south (Fig. 10.18). The courtyard had staircases leading 83 

Nielsen 2017, 30.

up to the first floor and down to the basement. It was also the location of a sophisticated system of water collection and storage. Continuing north, there were two rooms. To the north-west, a partially excavated room retains evidence associated with cooking. It originally connected to another room to the east. The doorway between the two, however, was blocked off at some point before the earthquake. It was along the length of this wall that a rough, rectangular container was built using recycled stones (Figs 10.21–10.22). This ‘trough-like’ structure was c. 350 cm long, 40 cm wide, and 44 cm deep. It was roughly coated on the inside with mortar and contained somewhere in the region of 33,000–46,000 tesserae.84 At least part of the structure was covered with stone slabs at the time of the earthquake. 84   6602 tesserae were removed and kept. The directors of the project estimated that this formed some 15–20 per cent of the original total, so the total may have been somewhere between c. 33,010 and 46,214.

William T. Wootton

416

Figure 10.21. ‘Trough’ with tesserae in the so-called ‘House of the Tesserae’, trench P.

Figure 10.23. Some of the tesserae found in the trough, including cubes and triangles.

Figure 10.22. Northern section of the ‘trough’ with tesserae in the so-called ‘House of the Tesserae’.

The container held tesserae that were unused (Fig. 10.23). They were almost all white, although a small number were blue-black in colour. There were generally cuboids, between 1.5–2.0 cm on a side, although often with curved surfaces from splitting with a mosaic hammer rather than cutting with a saw — the same size as those used elsewhere in the house. There were very occasional tesserae which had been further processed and cut along the diagonal to produce triangular shapes. The location and number of the tesserae poses a number of questions about the reasons they were processed and deposited, when this was done, and their intended use, whether originally or at a later point in time. The debris from the collapse of the upper storey included fragments of mosaic, surface and bedding, alongside loose tesserae, with mortar adhering, which probably had become detached during the catastrophic earthquake and subsequent reburial. The extent of the destruction is such that it is not possible to reconstruct the number, size, and layout of the upper floors. The surviving fragments do, however, give some impor-

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

tant insights into their original nature and production. The excavations of the two trenches found over fifty mosaic fragments — the largest of which was c. 27 cm long × 35 cm wide × 7 cm deep — and thousands of tesserae (Figs  10.19–10.20). Some differences can be observed between the two areas. In trench P, the tesserae were largely creamy-white and blue-black in colour with the great preponderance being white, in a ratio of around six or eight white to one black. In trench V, the bulk of the tesserae were also white but there was a greater variety of colour including black and grey, yellow to brown, and pinkish red. In both trenches, the tesserae ranged in size from 1.5 to 2.0 cm on a side with some even larger ones, around 2.5 to 3.2 cm. They are generally cubes with square faces but there are some triangular tesserae, cut when setting tesserae at a forty-five degree angle. The surviving mosaic fragments offer some indication of the possible decorations in use (Fig. 10.19a–b). This includes white tessellation laid orthogonally and obliquely. A few fragments have both showing that there was a transition between the two which was not mediated by any other decoration such as a coloured fillet.85 Instead, a series of white triangular tesserae were laid along the edge of the line of white tesserae, from which rows could be laid at the desired angle. There are a few fragments with black tessellation, up to five rows, suggesting that there was a motif or band in this colour.86 The bichrome fragments are generally small in size and number which makes any reconstruction difficult. A couple of fragments show a relationship between the white and black tessellation, suggesting a black fillet running parallel to the white.87 Another has black tesserae laid 85 

J16-Vi-26-27 (MR42); J16-Vh-31-1; J16-Vi-1. 86  J16-Vh-1-15 (MR15). 87  J16-Vh-1-15 (MR15).

417

Figure 10.24. Fragment from trench P. Views of the surface, base and from the side.

diagonally through the white tessellation, almost like a chessboard pattern, although only one line survives.88 A further fragment has three white and three black in two interlocking L-shapes although this is likely due to survival rather than an actual pattern.89 Finally there are a very small number of fragments which have tesserae in other colours: one has white and black tesserae with a pink-brown tessera while two others have a red tessera surrounded on three sides by white ones.90 The fragments show that the pavements were decorated in a simple manner, largely white tessellation with some additions of black, perhaps in bands or basic geometric patterns, and then occasional additions of colour in the form of pinkish-red or brown tesserae. Examination of the fragments shows that the laying was of high quality with the tesserae set together tightly, with minimal interstices, the rows straight, and the triangular tesserae for the angles skilfully cut. In addition, the surfaces are highly polished creating a smooth, in places almost glassy effect. The density is low, between 24 and 28 tesserae per dm 2, because the tesserae themselves are fairly large (Table 10.1). They are all stone cubes of about 1.8 cm on a side, although some range from 1.5 to 2.0 cm. The tesserae were bedded into a fairly homogenous foundation suggesting they were all made at the same time, but there are some small differences in the thickness of the layers between the two trenches (Fig. 10.21). It is hard to know whether this is diagnostic or not. Some 88 

J16-Vh-1-15 (MR15); J15-Pd-16-15 (PL33); J15-Pb-15-10 (PL2). 89  J15-Pa-11-88 (PL61). 90  J15-Pd-16-109; J16-Vh-1-52; J16-Vh-26-53 (MR50).

William T. Wootton

418

Figure 10.25. Fragments with debris from tessera processing in the bedding from trench V. Three examples shown with views of their surfaces above and the bases below.

fragments have the complete sequence of layers while others have only partial survival (Fig. 10.24). Where it does survive, three layers were used, starting with the statumen:91 a layer of stones — 5–7 cm long × 3–5 cm wide × 3–3.5 cm thick — set into a mortared surface. On top of this was the nucleus, around 3.0 to 4.5 cm thick, consisting of a grey layer of lime mortar with an aggregate of charcoal, pottery fragments, and plant-like material. The upper part of this layer and its surface were dominated by the offcuts from tessera processing (Fig. 10.25). These had been deposited into the nucleus once laid and tamped down to form a hard, flat surface. Next is a fine white lime mortar, with very occasional charcoal, into which the tesserae were set. This layer is between 2.0 to 2.5 cm thick, although some fragments from trench V have a slightly thinner bed at 1.0 to 1.5 cm. The total thickness of the bedding was around 10 cm. Frequently, however, the setting bed and nucleus had become detached from the upper tessellation and the statumen. In these cases, it was possible to observe that the mortars were very light, leading to the question whether this was purposeful, intended for pavements laid upstairs.92 Some of the fragments had hard perpendicular edges in the mortar.93 These might come from the edges of the pavement, where they abutted the wall, or might be evidence for shuttering used within the pavement to manage the laying between different areas over time. 91 

J15-Pb-16-154 (PL73). 92  Ball and others (in preparation). 93  J15-Pa-15-29 (PL8); J15-Pd-16-136 (PL67).

Discussion These two trenches have uncovered an early Islamic house belonging to the first part of the eighth century and destroyed in the earthquake of ad 749. They demonstrate that mosaic production did not cease in the seventh century but continued, being redeployed in different contexts from its major role in the decoration of churches. Although the fragments from the upper storey have the second lowest tessera density, equating to ‘middle quality’, they are in fact well made with polished upper surfaces, tightly packed tesserae, and strong bedding layers made up of good-quality lime (Table 10.1). They add to our knowledge of mosaics in the Early Umayyad period which tend to be associated with buildings of high status, especially ‘palaces’, although usually with smaller tesserae and higher densities.94 Like the earlier floors from the other trenches, recycling and reuse play an important role in their production. The debris from splitting the stone to produce the tesserae was used as aggregate here too. The preparation of the tesserae in advance, enabled the laying of the tessellated surface to progress as quickly as possible. The trough-like container on the ground floor of the building provides important new evidence that helps us to understand the production process of these mosaics. The simplest explanations for the tesserae in the trough are that they were left over from the renovations upstairs or 94   Floor mosaics are known at Qaser Hisham (Khirbat alMafjar), Jericho (Creswell 1958), Qastal palace (density: 48–145 per dm2; Bisheh 2000), Qusair Amra (density: 155 per dm2; Hamarneh 2015, 254).

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash had been prepared in advance of work to be undertaken elsewhere in the house. It is important to begin by quantifying the tesserae in order to approach these questions in terms of scale. The tesserae in the container could have covered a floor with a total area of between 10.3 and 16.5 m2 which equates to a square room between 3.21 m and 4.06 m on a side.95 The full extent is known of only one room on the ground floor, a small space to the south-west of the courtyard which is 5.4 by 2.1 m or 11.34 m 2. This is not to say that the tesserae were designated for this room, rather that the number of tesserae is quite small in terms of floor coverage. The area excavated was 159.2 m2, which is thought to be about half of the total original size of the property.96 The extent and layout of the upper storey is not known, nor whether mosaics covered its entirety. Assuming the courtyard was not covered, the flooring of the upper storey might have been around 277.9 m2.97 If completely decorated with mosaic, the tesserae in the container would represent about 4 to 6 per cent of the total used, rising to 17 to 24 per cent if only a quarter of the total area had mosaic.98 These estimates can also give an idea of the relative labour involved in processing the tesserae. Cutting the cubes would have taken about three or four days of work.99 This is not an insignificant amount but, depending on the square meterage of mosaic upstairs, the total cutting time could have ranged from sixteen to seventyfour days.100 Quantifying the unused tesserae in these ways does not suggest a large miscalculation, whether at the outer limits or not, but rather the opposite. The tesserae represent a small misjudgement, probably the result of doing much of the processing in advance of laying. It is highly unlikely that these tesserae, and their 95  This assumes the same tessera density as the upper floors (28–32 tesserae per dm2). 96  Nielsen 2017; Lichtenberger and Raja 2017; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a); (forthcoming b). 97  The courtyard was 4.5 m wide and may have been up to 9 m long, giving an estimated area of 40.5 m2. 98   Speaking to contemporary mosaicists, when pre-cutting tesserae for a project they usually overestimate their quantities by about 15–20 per cent. 99  This equates to c. 2.75–3.85 10-hour days of work, a figure which includes the cutting and sorting as well as removing the waste. See Wootton 2015, n. 15 on p. 265. 100  This gives the outside ranges with the minimum assuming a quarter of the upper storey (69.5 m2) was paved using 28 tesserae per dm2 and for the maximum the whole upper storey (277.9 m2) using 32 tesserae per dm2.

419

location, are evidence for a ‘workshop’ of a mosaicist or group of mosaicists, as already suggested by the directors of the project.101 It is worth noting that there was no processing debris found in the clay floor of the room itself, so it is assumed that those activities took place elsewhere.102 The waste from tessera production found in the bedding mortars upstairs indicates that it took place close by, was then tidied up and deposited into the nucleus. It seems likely that the tesserae were not for imminent use. They were being stored for the longer term in case of future repair or another project.103 They had been placed within a closed container and the numbers are low: enough to pave a small room if part of an ongoing project. Two further factors are also persuasive: the appearance of a small number of triangular pieces and black tesserae. Both types appear in the pavements of the upper storeys, the black as part of the decoration and the triangular to create oblique rows. If these materials were for a preplanned mosaic then many more of both kinds would be expected. A better explanation would be that these are leftovers. The triangles would have been cut specially so their low numbers are expected. Black tesserae are rarer in the decorative scheme so should be proportionally smaller and could also be used up more effectively. It seems, therefore, that the tesserae were remnants from work already completed. They were deposited in a container, roughly prepared inside, and then covered, which suggests a longer-term solution. Intriguingly, it may not have been totally covered when the earthquake happened, opening up the possibility that work was being done that necessitated access to these tesserae even if, as argued above, the tesserae were probably not being readied for a particular project. The fragmentary nature of the upper storey makes it difficult to interpret the ‘trough’ and its contents. Both the low numbers of small finds, when compared to the House of the Scrolls, and the scored wall plaster, ready for subsequent layers, suggest that the house was in a 101 

Lichtenberger and Raja 2017, 1007–08. See for example the new evidence from Trimithis in the Dahkla Oasis of Upper Eg ypt, published by Nuovo and Prell (2020). Belonging to a fourth-century renovation of a bath complex, the finds consist of unused tesserae, organized by colour and situated close to the walls, alongside cutting debris and their source materials, positioned in the centre of the room. The evidence and its arrangement indicate a temporary working surface for the preparation of materials as part of a mosaic project. This was never completed due to abandonment for reasons currently unknown. 103  As evidenced elsewhere, especially considering ordering and ownership of materials, see Wootton 2012a. 102 

William T. Wootton

420 state of renovation when the earthquake hit. The mosaics from the upper floors do not seem to have been in the process of being made, supporting the conclusion that the unused tesserae resulted from a project rather than being prepared for one. As mentioned, it is also not known how many rooms, and therefore floors, there were or how they were laid out. What is clear, however, is that they were of high quality and there were few finds in the debris, perhaps indicating that they were unfurnished as is also suggested by the ongoing plastering of the walls, an activity that usually follows the completion of the floors. The stone used was probably local.104 This would fit with material used elsewhere in the Northwest Quarter and is supported by other buildings with Umayyad mosaics.105 Similarly there is good evidence from the surrounding region for the preparation of tesserae as well as their reclamation and storage.106 The earthquake hit in January of ad 749 just when the mosaics had been completed and the leftover materials put into store. Like the Mosaic Hall, this gives a further insight into the production of the interior decoration.107 If the work had just been completed then this would suggest it was done during the milder months in the autumn and winter.108 The remains of a human body carrying a multi-purpose tool — which could have been used to cut tesserae — gives a tragic overtone to this observation as it seems that they may have been working in the house at the time of the natural disaster.

104 

Williams and others (in preparation). Hamarneh 2015, 255. 106  Pers. Comm. Achim Lichtenberger for the evidence from Khirbet El Minya and from Benyamin Storchan for Beit Nattif where a large ‘storage bin’ of used tesserae, belonging to the eighth century, was found. 107  Lichtenberger and Raja 2018a, 160–61. 108  See Lichtenberger and Raja 2021. 105 

Conclusions The mosaic finds from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project excavations offer an insight into a specific craft over the course of around 650 years. In many ways, the craft processes remain wholly recognizable with minimal changes in the nature of the materials, which were almost exclusively local, and the techniques used to transform them into practical and decorative floors. At the same time, however, they are wholly specific to their historical moments, reflecting the social, cultural, religious, and economic motivations for their production. Other than the two mosaics from trenches N and W, these finds are largely small fragments with limited decoration. Still they all tell an important story about the use and decoration of buildings in this area of the city, from the embellishment of high-quality Roman imperial-period buildings, through the creation of utilitarian pavements, to the commissioning of floors over a short period of time for a religious and military Byzantine complex, and, finally, to the making of pavements for the upper storey of a wealthy Umayyad household.

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

421

Works Cited Arce, I. 2014. ‘Late Antique and Umayyad Quarries in the Near East: A  Model of Optimization of Resources’, in J.  Bonetto, S. Camporeale, and A. Pizzo (eds), Arqueo­logía de la construcción, iv: Las canteras en el mundo antiguo: sistemas de explotación y procesos productivos; actas del congreso de Padova, 22–24 de noviembre de 2012 (Mérida: Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas, Instituto de arqueo­logía de Mérida), pp. 383–412. Avi-Yonah, M. 1933. ‘Mosaic Pavements in Palestine’, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine, 3: 26–73. Baldoni, D. 2019. ‘Archaeo­logical Evidence for Craft Activities in the Area of the Sanctuary of Artemis at Gerasa between the Byzantine and Umayyad Period’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, Jerash Papers, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 115–58. Ball, R. and others (in preparation). ‘Mosaics and Mortar: Materials and Methods in Gerasa’s Northwest Quarter’. Balmelle, C., R. Prudhomme, and M.-P. Raynaud. 1985. Le décor géométrique de la mosaïque romaine: répertoire g­ raphique et descriptif des compositions linéaires et isotropes (Paris: Picard). Biebel, F.  M. 1938. ‘Mosaics’, in C.  H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934) (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 297–351. Bisheh, G. 2000. ‘Two Umayyad Mosaic Floors from Qastal’, Liber annuus, 50: 431–38. Boschetti, C. and others. 2021. ‘Loose Glass Tesserae and Lost Decorations: Chrono­logy and Production of Mosaics from Gerasa’s Northwest Quarter’, Archaeometry, 63: 960–74. Browning, I. 1982. Jerash and the Decapolis (London: Chatto & Windus). Crowfoot, J. W. 1931. Churches at Jerash: A Preliminary Report of the Joint Yale-British Expeditions to Jerash, 1928–1930 (London: Council of the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem). —— 1938. ‘The Christian Churches’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934) (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 171–262. Dilaria, S. 2017. ‘Costruire ingegnosamente riutilizzando materiali poveri. L’impiego di conchiglie a fini edilizi ad Aquileia tra età repubblicana e tarda antichità’, European Journal of Roman Architecture, 1: 25–55. Dvorjetski, E. 2005. ‘The Synagogue-Church at Gerasa in Jordan. A Contribution to the Study of Ancient Synagogues’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 121: 140–67. Eger, C. 2020. ‘Die Metallkleinfunde aus dem Nordwestquartier von Gerasa/​Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Metal Finds and Coins: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, ii, Jerash Papers, 7 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 7–121. Fabiani, F. and C. Rizzitelli. 2020. ‘Area dell’Arcivescovado. La ricomposizione di un contesto residenziale da vecchie e nuovi scavi’, in F. Cantini and others (eds), Le case di Pisa: edilizia privata tra età romana e Medioevo; atti del convegno, Pisa, 7-8 maggio 2019, Centro congressi ‘Le Benedettine’ (Sesto Fiorentino: All’Insegna del Giglio), pp. 39–48. Grossman, R. A. 2006. ‘A New Reconstruction of a Mosaic from Gerasa’, Yale Uni­ver­sity Art Gallery Bulletin, 2006: 148–53. Haensch, R., A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja. 2016. ‘Christen, Juden und Soldaten im Gerasa des 6. Jahrhunderts’, Chiron, 46: 177–204. Hamarneh, C. 2015. ‘Understanding Early Islamic Mosaic Production: Archaeometric Study of Material from Qasr Mushatta’, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, 15: 249–58. —— 2016. ‘Mosaike’, in J. Cramer, B. Perlich, and G. Schauerte (eds), Qasr al-Mschatta: Ein frühislamischer Palast in Jordanien und Berlin (Petersberg: Imhof ), pp. 137–43. Hamarneh, C. and N. Abu Jaber. 2013. ‘Documentation and Protection of the Quarries of Gerasa’, Levant, 45: 57–68. —— 2017. ‘Mosaic Pavement Mortar Production in Gerasa in the Byzantine Period’, Archaeo­logical Research in Asia, 9: 22–33. Jackson-Tal, R. E. 2021. ‘The Glass Finds from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), Glass, Lamps, and Jerash Bowls: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, iii, Jerash Papers, 8 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 13–49. Joyce, H. 1980. ‘A Mosaic from Gerasa in Orange, Texas and Berlin’, Römische Mitteilungen, 87: 307–25. Kalaitzoglou, G., A.  Lichtenberger, and R.  Raja. 2013. ‘Preliminary Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 57–79. —— 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jarash Northwest Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Field Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 11–37. —— 2015. ‘Preliminary Report of the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 11–43.

422

William T. Wootton

Kalaitzoglou, G. and others (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 60. —— (forthcoming b). ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 61. Kondoleon, C. 1994. Domestic and Divine: Roman Mosaics in the House of Dionysos (Ithaca: Cornell Uni­ver­sity Press). Kriseleit, I. 2000. Antike Mosaiken: Altes Museum, Pergamonmuseum, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (Mainz: Von Zabern). Leatherbury, S. V. 2014. ‘Writing in Colour in Late Antiquity: Evidence from North African Mosaic Pavements’, Mosaic, 41: 9–16. Lichtenberger, A. and others. 2015. ‘Radiocarbon Analysis of Mortar from Roman and Byzantine Water Management Installations in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash, Jordan’, Journal of Archaeo­logical Science: Reports, 2: 114–27. Lichtenberger, A. and R. Raja. 2012. ‘Preliminary Report of the First Season of the Danish-German Northwest Quarter Project 2011’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 56: 231–40. —— 2015a. ‘New Archaeo­logical Research in the Northwest Quarter of Jerash and its Implications for the Urban Development of Roman Gerasa’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 119: 483–500. —— 2015b. ‘Intentional Cooking Pot Deposits in Late Roman Jerash (Northwest Quarter)’, Syria, 92: 309–28. —— 2016. ‘The Danish-German Northwest Quarter Project at Jarash: Results from the 2011–2013 Seasons’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 12: 173–88. —— 2017. ‘Mosaicists at Work: The Organisation of Mosaic Production in Early Islamic Jerash’, Antiquity, 91.358: 998–1010. —— 2018a. ‘A View of Gerasa/​Jerash from its Urban Periphery: The Northwest Quarter and its Significance for the Understanding of the Urban Development of Gerasa from the Roman to the Early Islamic Period’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja (eds), The Archaeo­logy and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations in Jerash, Jerash Papers, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 143–66. —— 2018b. ‘From Synagogue to Church. The Appropriation of the Synagogue of Gerasa/​Jerash under Justinian’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum, 61: 85–98. —— 2019. ‘The Danish-German Jarash North-West Quarter Project: Results from the 2014–2015 Seasons’, Studies in the History and Archaeo­logy of Jordan, 13: 51–71. —— 2021. ‘Seasonality and Urban Economy: The Case of Gerasa in Jordan’, in A. Lichtenberger and R. Raja, The Archaeo­logy of Seasonality, Studies in Classical Archaeo­logy, 11 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 9–24. Lichtenberger, A., R. Raja, and A. H. Sørensen. 2013. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Second Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2012’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 57: 9–56. —— 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Registration Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 39–103. —— 2015. ‘Preliminary Registration Report of the Fourth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2014’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 59: 45–131. March, C. A. 2009. Spatial and Religious Transformations in the Late Antique Polis: A Multi-Disciplinary Analysis with a Case-Study of the City of Gerasa (Oxford: Archaeopress). McLean, B. H. 2002. An Introduction to the Epi­graphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 b.c.-a.d. 337) (Ann Arbor: Uni­ver­sity of Michigan Press). Mortensen, E. 2018. ‘Travellers and Early Urban Archaeo­logy in the Levant: The Case of Jerash’, in R. Raja and S. M. Sindbæk (eds), Urban Network Evolutions: Towards a High-Definition Archaeo­logy (Aarhus: Aarhus Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 147–52. Netzer, E. 1991. Masada, iii: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965: Final Reports; The Buildings, Strati­graphy and Architecture ( Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society). Nielsen, L. E. 2017. ‘The House of the Tesserae – A Study of Cultural Changes and Continuities in Domestic Architecture from the Roman Period into the Early Islamic Period (749 ce)’ (unpublished master’s thesis, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity). Nuovo, M. M. S. and S. Prell. 2020. ‘The Mosaic that Never Was. Tesserae and Raw Material for an Unlaid Mosaic Floor in Trimithis (Dakhla Oasis, Egypt)’, Journal of Mosaic Research, 13: 191–217. Ovadiah, R. and A. Ovadiah. 1987. Mosaic Pavements in Israel (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider). Piccirillo, M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research). Schröder, B. 1919. ‘Erwerbungen der Antikensammlungen in Deutschland’, Archäo­logischer Anzeiger, 1919: 90–118. Secco, M. and others. 2018. ‘The Evolution of the Vitruvian Recipes over 500 Years of Floor-Making Techniques: The Case Studies of the Domus delle Bestie Ferite and the Domus di Tito Macro (Aquileia, Italy)’, Archaeometry, 60: 185–206. Stinespring, W.  F. 1938. ‘The History of Excavation at Jerash’, in C.  H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis: An Account Embodying the Record of a Joint Excavation Conducted by Yale Uni­ver­sity and the British School of Archaeo­logy in Jerusalem (1928–1930), and Yale Uni­ver­sity and the American Schools of Oriental Research (1930–1931, 1933–1934) (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 1–10. Talgam, R. 2014. Mosaics of Faith: Floors of the Pagans, Jews, Samaritans, Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State Uni­ver­sity Press).

10. The Mosaics: In-situ Floors and Fragments in Jerash

423

Thomsen, K. D. 2018. ‘Mortar and Plaster Production in Jerash: Changing Perspective from Macro to Micro’, in R. Raja and S. M. Sindbæk (eds), Urban Network Evolutions: Towards a High-Definition Archaeo­logy (Aarhus: Aarhus Uni­ver­sity Press), pp. 109–15. —— 2019. ‘Urban Life in Jerash: The Techno­logical and Stylistic Development of Mortar, Plaster and Wall Paintings from Roman Times to the Middle Islamic Period from an Archaeo­logical and Geoarchaeo­logical Perspective’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity). Waliszewski, T. 2001. ‘Mosaics’, in T. Z. Fiema (ed.), The Petra Church (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research), pp. 219–70. Williams, M. and others (in preparation). ‘Mosaics, Micropalaento­logy and Provenance: Sourcing the Limestone Tesserae from Gerasa in Jordan’. Wootton, W. T. 2012a. ‘Mosaic Production in 4th-c. Britain: Materials, Makers and Making at Badminton Park’, in T. M. Kristensen and B. Poulsen (eds), Ateliers and Artisans in Roman Art and Archaeo­logy, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, Supplementary Series, 92 (Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy), pp. 145–68. —— 2012b. ‘Making and Meaning: The Hellenistic Mosaic from Tel Dor’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 116: 209–34. —— 2015. ‘Figuring out the Facts: Calculating Mosaic Labour Times in 4th-c.  a.d.  Britain’, Journal of Roman Archaeo­logy, 28: 261–82. Yadin, Y. 1965. ‘The Excavation of Masada – 1963/​64: Preliminary Report’, Israel Exploration Journal, 15: 1–120. —— 1966. Herod’s Fortress and the Zealot’s Last Stand (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson). Zohar, D. 2016. ‘Stone by Stone: Team Construction and Production Procedures of Sixth-Century Mosaics in Palestine and Transjordan’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) [accessed 1 March 2020]. Z’ubi, I. and others. 1994. ‘Note sur une mosaïque à scène bacchique dans un palais d’époque Byzantine à Jérash’, Liber annuus, 44: 539–46.

11. Mosaic Glass Tesserae from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash Cristina Boschetti IRAMAT-Centre Ernest-Babelon, UMR 5060 CNRS, France. [email protected]

William T. Wootton Classics Department, King’s College London. [email protected]

Glass is a man-made material produced by melting, at high temperatures, a batch composed of a silica-rich raw material, sand or quartz, with a fluxing agent of mineral or vegetable origin.1 The product obtained by this transformation is transparent and colourless. It can be remelted to be coloured and opacified by adding metallic oxides and pigments, or directly softened and fashioned into objects. The whole process of making and shaping glass is predicated on the availability of the raw materials, complex industrial infrastructures, and a high level of technical knowledge and skills. For these reasons, ancient glass production was fragmented into a few primary centres devoted to glass-making and more numerous secondary centres specialized in glass working.2 The evidence of blocks of raw glass in the cargo of shipwrecks supports this model.3 The archaeo­logical record for glass-making during the Roman and Byzantine period is very poor, but we have sufficient evidence to identify the Levantine coast and Egypt as the leading producers of raw glass in the Mediterranean.4 In these regions, glass was made in a small number of centres, as reflected by the chemical composition of Roman glass, which tends to be fairly homogeneous.5 Identifying where glass was coloured is even more problematic due to the total lack

of archaeo­logical evidence. 6 Colour is an important aspect of mosaic glass tesserae, and understanding this process is crucial for interpreting the dynamics regulating their production and trade. During the Hellenistic period, when glass tesserae appeared for the first time in the history of mosaic, glass was a valuable material, produced in small quantities and reserved for a limited number of wealthy clients and their commissions.7 In this earliest phase, proper cuboid tesserae were combined with fragments of broken glass vessels, which were reused in the decoration.8 Glass tesserae become increasingly common only from the first century ad, after the radical change in the glass economy resulting from the invention and diffusion of blowing.9 This new forming technique, which originated on the Levantine coast around 50 bc,10 spread quickly across the Mediterranean and caused a strong depreciation of glass and a significant increase in the volume of production.11 For the first time, glass became a medium for making objects for everyday use. In architecture, the increasing adoption of glass tesserae took place in parallel with the diffusion of the first windowpanes.12 6 

Boschetti and others 2016. Guimier-Sorbets and Nenna 1992; 1995. 8   The reuse of fragmentary vessels for wall mosaics is documented occasionally in floors (Guimier-Sorbets and Nenna 1992) but is characteristic of the earliest Roman wall mosaics dating between the end of the second century bc and the first couple of decades of the first century ad (Boschetti 2011 with references; Boschetti 2020). 9  Boschetti 2011. 10  Israeli 1991. 11  Stern 1999. 12  The earliest examples of windowpanes in private buildings 7 

*  The authors would like to thank the directors of the DanishGerman Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, for their kind invitation to write this chapter. 1  Sayre and Smith 1961. 2  Freestone, Gorin-Rosen, and Hughes 2000. 3  Fontaine and Foy 2007. 4  Kowatli and others 2006; Nenna, Picon, and Vichy 2000. 5  Brems and others 2018; Paynter and Jackson 2018; Free­stone 2015; Ganio and others 2012.

Architectural Elements, Wall Paintings, and Mosaics: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project IV. Volume  ii: Wall Paintings and Mosaics, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja, JP 9 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2022), 425–432 BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

10.1484/M.JP-EB.5.126446

426 Excavations in the Northwest Quarter retrieved loose glass tesserae in substantial quantities, which are distributed across fifteen of the twenty-five trenches investigated. 13 All the tesserae were deposited in secondary contexts dating from the early fourth to the eighth centuries ad (Table 11.1). The lack of tesserae in primary depositional contexts makes their interpretation problematic and their chrono­logy uncertain. All the fragments of tessellated floors excavated in the Northwest Quarter are made exclusively of stone.14 Glass tesserae of Roman and Byzantine date are attested in other sectors of Gerasa.15 Both floors and walls were embellished with them, with the best-known coming from churches dating from the fifth into the early seventh century ad.16 There is also evidence for the systematic collection and recycling of glass towards the end of this period.17 It is difficult to identify precisely the decorative function of the tesserae from the Northwest Quarter. It is possible, though, to offer some hypotheses based on the surviving evidence. The tesserae include a variety of textures and colours: opaque white, yellow, blue, turquoise, green, brown, black, and translucent blue and green. Only a few tesserae are gilded. This group is very important, however, because gold is usually well attested in wall mosaics and is quite rare in floor decoration.18 One of the gilded tesserae retains abundant traces of red pigment on the back (Fig. 11.1).19 Painted beddings are documented occasionally in floor mosaics, but are freare found in the towns of the Vesuvian region. Glass windowpanes become more common in buildings restored after the ad  62 earthquake, see Whitehouse 2001; Foy and Fontaine 2008. 13  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a, b). 14  See Wootton (in this volume), in which the use of glass tesserae in the floor mosaics of Roman Gerasa is mentioned. 15  Piccirillo 1993, 270–99; Balty 1995, 111–40; Michel 2001. A brief overview of the use of glass tesserae appears in Boschetti and others (submitted). 16  For wall mosaics, see the Church of the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs (Talgam 2014, 179), the Church of St  Theodore (Crowfoot 1938, 196), the Church of St George (Talgam 2014, 179), the Church of St John the Baptist (Crowfoot 1938, 243–44), and the Church of Sts Cosmas and Damian (Crowfoot 1938, 196). For floors and walls see, for example, the Propylaea Church (Talgam 2014, 179) and the Cross Church (Arinat, Shiyyab, and Abd-Allah 2014). 17  For example, the materials found in the Cathedral complex: Biebel 1938, 517–18; James 2006, 38–39. 18  Neri and others 2016. 19  See Wootton (chap. 10 in this volume) for a similar observa­ tion on a stone tessera.

Cristina Boschetti and William T. Wootton

Figure 11.1. The gilded tessera ( J14-Kc-3-467): view from front, back, and side. The remains of red pigment are easily visible (photo taken at IRAMAT-CEB by C. Boschetti. © The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

quent in wall mosaics.20 Interestingly, the earliest phases investigated in the Northwest Quarter date to the early second century ad,21 exactly when gold tesserae become increasingly common in Mediterranean wall mosaics.22 It seems likely, therefore, that the glass tesserae, in particular the gilded examples, come from wall mosaics, although their use in floors cannot be ruled out. A campaign of chemical analysis was conducted by LA-ICP-MS at CNRS IRAMAT-CEB of Orléans on seventy-six tesserae, with the intention of clarifying their chrono­logy and the techno­logy of production (Table 11.1, also see Fig. 11.2).23 The tesserae can be divided into four different groups, according to their chemical make-up. The four groups correspond to base glasses documented in the literature and dating from the second to the seventh centuries ad. A few tesserae, all retrieved from trenches with Roman features, can be identified as Levantine Roman base glasses, which date to the second or third century ad and were coloured directly from the raw glass. Most of the tesserae reflect new compositions which appeared in the Levant during the fifth century and can be associated with the primary furnace

20  The practice of painting backgrounds is documented since the earliest wall mosaics (Boschetti and others 2011; Boschetti 2020) and is common during the Byzantine period (Schibille 2014, 122; Andaloro 2002). 21  Kalaitzoglou, Lichtenberger, and Raja 2014; Kalaitzoglou and others (forthcoming a, b). 22  Boschetti 2011. 23  A detailed discussion of the scientific investigation is available in Boschetti and others 2021. It is notable that chemical analysis of glass was part of the first major excavation project in Jerash, under­ taken by Dorothy Hodgkin (née Crowfoot), Stinespring 1938, 6.

11. Mosaic Glass Tesserae from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

427

Figure 11.2. The selection of tesserae analysed at IRAMAT-CEB and representing the colour palette of tesserae from the Northwest Quarter (photo taken at IRAMAT-CEB by C. Boschetti. © The Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project).

Cristina Boschetti and William T. Wootton

428

Table 11.1. List of the tesserae excavated in the Northwest Quarter and analysed by LA-ICP-MS at IRAMAT-CEB, CNRS Orléans. FIND NUMBER

COLOUR

TRENCH

J13-Db-1-1

green-yellow

D

modern

J13-Fh-29-2

turquoise opaque

F

seventh century ad

J14-Ih-42-35

yellow

I

second half of seventh century ad

J14-Jb-8-38

blue bubbly translucent

Jc-22-8 J14

blue opaque

J14Ka-3-104

turquoise opaque

seventh century ad

J14-Kc-3-467

colourless, yellow tinge (gilded)

second half of seventh century ad

J14-Kc-3-467

blue-green bubbly

seventh century ad

J14-Kd-46-5

turquoise opaque

seventh century ad

J14-Kd-46-5

green-yellow

seventh century ad

J14-Ke-3-216

blue bubbly translucent

seventh century ad

J14-Ke-3-216

blue-green bubbly

seventh century ad

J14-Ke-3N-399

blue opaque

seventh century ad

J14Kf-3-529

colourless, yellow tinge (gilded)

second half of seventh century ad

J14-Kf-3-529

blue opaque

seventh century ad

J14-Kf-44s-6

turquoise opaque

post ad 696

J14-Kf-44s-6

turquoise opaque

post ad 696

J14-Kf-47-1

blue bubbly translucent

seventh century ad

J14-Kf-71-15

blue opaque

J14-Kf-71-6

blue bubbly translucent

post ad 696

J14-Kf-71-6

white

post ad 696

J14-Kf-71-6

green-yellow

post ad 696

J14-Kf-84-4

turquoise opaque

seventh century ad

J14-Kf-84-4

green-yellow

seventh century ad

J14-Kfh-85-6

brown

seventh century ad

J14-Kfh-85-6

turquoise opaque

post ad 696

J14-Kg-3-250

colourless, yellow tinge (gilded)

second half of seventh century ad

J14-Kg-39-13 J14

brown

seventh century ad

J14-Kg-44-24 J14

turquoise opaque

post ad 696

J14-Kh-3-499

blue opaque

seventh century ad

J14-Kh-3-499

turquoise opaque

seventh century ad

J14-Kh-87-3

aqua green-purple bubbly

seventh century ad

J14-Lc-2-46

turquoise opaque

modern

J14-Ld-50-18A

blue bubbly translucent

post ad 696

J14-Ld-50-18A

blue opaque

post ad 696

J14-Ld-50-5

colourless, yellow tinge (gilded)

post ad 696

J14Lh-29-52

deep blue translucent

J14-Lh-29-69

colourless, yellow tinge (gilded)

post ad 696

J14-Li-50-101A

black

post ad 696

J14-Li-50-101A

blue opaque

post ad 696

J14-Li-50-106

colourless, green tinge (gilded)

post ad 696

J

K

L

DATE OF THE BACKFILL

modern modern

seventh century ad

seventh century ad

11. Mosaic Glass Tesserae from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

429

Table 11.1 (cont.). List of the tesserae excavated in the Northwest Quarter and analysed by LA-ICP-MS at IRAMAT-CEB, CNRS Orléans. FIND NUMBER

COLOUR

TRENCH

DATE OF THE BACKFILL

J15-Nb-20-60

green-yellow

J15-Nb-57-178

black

J15-Nj-20-74

blue opaque

J15-Oa-86-22

green-yellow

O

seventh century ad

J15-Pa-55-3

turquoise opaque

P

seventh century ad

J15-Qc-29-3

blue opaque

Q

first half of seventh century ad

J16-Sa-2-28

decolourized (gilded)

fourth–seventh centuries ad, with modern disturbances

J16-Sc-59-2

green opaque

fourth–seventh centuries ad, with modern disturbances

J16-Scd-13-91

blue opaque

fourth–seventh centuries ad, with modern disturbances

J16-Si-21-63

blue opaque

fourth–seventh centuries ad, with modern disturbances

J16-Si-21-63

blue opaque

J16-Si-21-63

blue opaque

fourth–seventh centuries ad, with modern disturbances

J16-Si-21-63

blue opaque

fourth–seventh centuries ad, with modern disturbances

J16-Si-21-63

blue opaque

fourth–seventh centuries ad, with modern disturbances

J16-Si-4-4

blue opaque

fourth–seventh centuries ad, with modern disturbances

J16-Td-12-1

light blue opaque

J16-Ud-56-12

green-yellow

J16-Ud-56-12

green-yellow

first half of seventh century ad N

first half of seventh century ad first half of seventh century ad

S

T U

fourth–seventh centuries ad, with modern disturbances

ante ad 749 earthquake seventh century ad seventh century ad

J16-Vac-61-15

white

seventh century ad

J16-Vac-61-69

colourless, yellow tinge (gilded)

seventh century ad

J16-Vac-61-69

blue bubbly translucent

seventh century ad

J16-Vac-61-69

blue bubbly translucent

seventh century ad

J16-Vac-61-69

turquoise opaque

seventh century ad

J16-Vac-61-69

turquoise opaque

seventh century ad

J16-Vac-61-69

turquoise opaque

J16-Vac-61-69

green-yellow

seventh century ad

J16-Vac-64-22

blue translucent

seventh century ad

J16-Vac-64-22

turquoise opaque

seventh century ad

J16-Vc-84-23

turquoise opaque

seventh century ad

J16-Ve-98-2

blue opaque

seventh century ad

J16-Vh-26-55

aqua green bubbly

seventh century ad

J16-Wc-15-5

turquoise opaque

J16-Xb-7-13

black

J16-Xf-2-244

brown

J16-Xh-1-89

black

V

W

seventh century ad

ad 749 earthquake destruction seventh–eighth centuries ad

X

seventh–eighth centuries ad modern

Cristina Boschetti and William T. Wootton

430 excavated at Apollonia in Israel.24 All the tesserae of this group are clearly recycled glasses and were made by colouring cullet. Glass recycling was a common practice in Byzantine Jordan and is documented in the vessels excavated in the Northwest Quarter. It is possible that colouring was practised on site, after the broken vessels were collected.25 The small group of gilded tesserae is particularly interesting. All the tesserae were identified as Egyptian base glass compositions, dating between the second half of the fourth and the sixth centuries. The published comparisons for glass tesserae and glass in general from Roman and Byzantine Jordan are limited,26 but it is clear that Levantine compositions are dominant and Egyptian imports scarce and isolated. One explanation for the Egyptian provenance of the gilded group can be sought in the high level of specialization required to make this product. Interestingly, gilded tesserae made with Egyptian base glass are documented in Khirbat alMinya, Israel, during the eighth century, associated with recycled Levantine glass tesserae.27 However, while in Khiribat al-Minya later base glass compositions are well represented, in Jerash these are totally absent. The frequent presence of loose glass tesserae in eighth-century backfills points to a systematic collection of tesserae from earlier buildings with the purpose of recycling them or reusing them to make new decorations. The Northwest Quarter excavations produced no wall or floor mosaics which used glass tesserae, only floors in stone. The loose finds of glass tesserae, however, attest to a type of material and form of decoration that is well known elsewhere in Gerasa, especially in Byzantine religious buildings. Their ubiquity across this part of the site further confirms the importance of mosaic. The tesserae themselves show not only the range of colours and textures in use but also offer insight into their production and provenance. The gilded examples were imported from Egypt and likely embellished walls. The others were likely recycled locally for walls and floors. It is not known whether these tesserae decorated architecture in the Northwest Quarter or ended up there for other reasons, such as for recycling or reuse. 24  

2008.

25 

Phelps and others 2016; Freestone, Jackson-Tal, and Tal

Barfod and others 2018. On the chemical composition of vessels from Jordan, Barfod and others 2018 with previous references. On the glass tesserae from the Petra Church, Marii and Rehren 2009. 27  Adlington, Ritter, and Schibille 2020. 26 

11. Mosaic Glass Tesserae from the Northwest Quarter of Jerash

431

Works Cited Adlington, L., M. Ritter, and N. Schibille. 2020. ‘Production and Provenance of Architectural Glass from the Umayyad Period’, PLoS ONE, 15.9: e0239732 . Andaloro, M. 2002. ‘I mosaici dipinti’, in G. Biscontin and G. Driussi (eds), I mosaici: cultura, tecno­logia e conservazione, atti del XVIII Convegno Scienza e Beni Culturali, Bressanone (2–5 July 2001) (Marghera: Arcadia Ricerche), pp. 350–57. Arinat, M., A. Shiyyab, and R. Abd-Allah. 2014. ‘Byzantine Glass Mosaics Excavated from the Cross Church, Jerash, Jordan: An Archaeometrical Investigation’, Mediterranean Archaeo­logy and Archaeometry, 14: 43–53. Balty, J. 1995. Mosaïques antiques du Proche-Orient: chrono­logie, icono­graphie, interprétation (Paris: Les belles lettres). Barfod, G. H. and others. 2018. ‘Geochemistry of Byzantine and Early Islamic Glass from Jerash, Jordan: Typo­logy, Recycling, and Provenance’, Geoarchaeo­logy, 33: 623–40 . Biebel, F.  M. 1938. ‘Mosaics’, in C.  H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 297–351. Boschetti, C. 2011. ‘Vitreous Materials in Early Mosaics in Italy: Faience, Egyptian Blue, and Glass’, Journal of Glass Studies, 53: 59–91. —— 2020. ‘Vetro e blu egizio nel Ninfeo di Segni: aspetti decorativi, tipo­logici e tecno­logici’, in F. M. Cifarelli (ed.), Il ninfeo di Q. Mutius a Segni (Rome: Quasar), pp. 51–53 and 55–67. Boschetti, C. and others. 2011. ‘Il ninfeo di Piazza Marconi a Cremona. Ricomposizione, restauro e musealizzazione’, in C. Angelelli (ed.), Atti del XVI Colloquio AISCOM (Palermo, 17–20 marzo 2010) (Tivoli: Scripta Manent), pp. 627–32. —— 2016. ‘Mosaic Tesserae from Italy and the Production of Mediterranean Coloured Glasses (3rd Century bce–4th Century ce). Part I: Chemical Composition and Techno­logy’, Journal of Archaeo­logical Science: Reports, 7: 303–08 . —— 2021. ‘Loose Glass Tesserae and Lost Decorations: Chrono­logy and Production of Mosaics from Gerasa’s Northwest Quarter’, Archaeometry, 63: 960–74 . Brems, D. and others. 2018. ‘Characterisation of Byzantine and Early Islamic Primary Tank Furnace Glass’, Journal of Archaeo­logical Science: Reports, 20: 722–35 . Crowfoot, J. W. 1938. ‘The Christian Churches’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 171–262. Fontaine, S. D. and D. Foy. 2007. ‘L’Épave Ouest-Embiez 1, Var: le commerce maritime du verre brut et manufacturé en Méditerranée occidentale dans l’Antiquité’, Revue archéo­logique de Narbonnaise, 40: 235–65. Foy, D. and S. Fontaine. 2008. ‘Diversité et évolution du vitrage de l’Antiquité et du haut Moyen Âge: un état de la question’, Gallia, 65: 405–59. Freestone, I. C. 2015. ‘The Recycling and Reuse of Roman Glass: Analytical Approaches’, Journal of Glass Studies, 57: 29–40. Freestone, I. C., R. E. Jackson-Tal, and O. Tal. 2008. ‘Raw Glass and the Production of Glass Vessels at Late Byzantine ApolloniaArsuf, Israel’, Journal of Glass Studies, 50: 67–80. Freestone, I. C., Y. Gorin-Rosen, and M. J. Hughes. 2000. ‘Primary Glass from Israel and the Production of Glass in Late Antiquity and the Early Islamic Period’, in M.-D. Nenna (ed.), La route du verre: ateliers primaires et secondaires du second Millénaire av. J.-C. au Moyen Âge (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen), pp. 65–83. Ganio, M. and others. 2012. ‘Roman Glass across the Empire: An Elemental and Isotopic Characterization’, Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 27: 743–53 . Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. and M.-D. Nenna. 1992. ‘L’Emploi du verre, de la faïence et de la peinture dans les mosaïques de Délos’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 116: 607–32. —— 1995. ‘Réflexions sur la couleur dans les mosaïques Hellénistiques: Délos et Alexandrie’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 119: 529–63. Israeli, Y. 1991. ‘The Invention of Blowing’, in M. Newby and K. Painter (eds), Roman Glass: Two Centuries of Art and Invention, Society of Antiquaries Occasional Papers, 13 (London: Society of Antiquaries of London), pp. 46–55. James, L. 2006. ‘Byzantine Glass Mosaic Tesserae: Some Material Considerations’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 30: 29–47. Kalaitzoglou, G., A. Lichtenberger, and R. Raja. 2014. ‘The Danish-German Jerash North-West Quarter Project 2013: Preliminary Field Report’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, 58: 11–37. Kalaitzoglou, G. and others (forthcoming a). ‘Preliminary Report of the Fifth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2015’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. —— (forthcoming b). ‘Preliminary Report of the Sixth Season of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project 2016’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Kowatli, I. and others. 2006. ‘A Pottery and Glass Production Site in Beirut (BEY 015)’, Bulletin d’Archéo­logie et d’Architecture Libanaise, 10: 103–29.

432

Cristina Boschetti and William T. Wootton

Marii, F. and T. Rehren. 2009. ‘Archaeo­logical Coloured Glass Cakes and Tesserae from the Petra Church’, in K. Janssens and others (eds), Annales du 17e Congrès de l’Association internationale pour l’histoire du verre (Anvers, 2006) (Antwerp: Uni­ver­sity Press Antwerp), pp. 295–300. Michel, A. 2001. Les Églises d’époque byzantine et umayyade de la Jordanie (provinces d’Arabie et de Palestine), ve–viiie siècle: architecture et liturgie (Turnhout: Brepols). Nenna, M. D., M. Picon, and M. Vichy. 2000. ‘Ateliers primaires et secondaires en Égypte à l’époque Gréco-Romaine’, in M.-D. Nenna (ed.), La route du verre: ateliers primaires et secondaires du second millénaire av. J.-C. au Moyen Âge (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée), pp. 97–112. Neri, E. and others. 2016. ‘Glass and Gold: Analyses of 4th–12th Centuries Levantine Mosaic Tesserae. A  Contribution to Techno­logical and Chrono­logical Knowledge’, Journal of Archeo­logical Science, 70: 158–71 . Paynter, S. and C. Jackson. 2018. ‘Clarity and Brilliance: Antimony in Colourless Natron Glass Explored Using Roman Glass Found in Britain’, Archaeo­logical and Anthropo­logical Sciences, 11: 1533–51 . Phelps, M. and others. 2016. ‘Natron Glass Production and Supply in the Late Antique and Early Medi­eval Near East: The Effect of the Byzantine-Islamic Transition’, Journal of Archaeo­logical Science, 75: 57–71 . Piccirillo, M. 1993. The Mosaics of Jordan (Amman: American Center of Oriental Research). Sayre, E. V. and R. W. Smith. 1961. ‘Compositional Categories of Ancient Glass’, Science, 133: 1824–26. Schibille, N. 2014. Hagia Sophia and the Byzantine Aesthetic Experience (Farnham: Ashgate). Stern, E. N. 1999. ‘Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context’, American Journal of Archaeo­logy, 103: 441–84. Stinespring, W. F. 1938. ‘The History of Excavation at Jerash’, in C. H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research), pp. 1–10. Talgam, R. 2014. Mosaics of Faith: Floors of the Pagans, Jews, Samaritans, Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State Uni­ver­sity Press). Whitehouse, D. 2001. ‘Window Glass between the First and the Eighth Century’, in F. Dell’Acqua and R. Siva (eds), Il colore nel medioevo: arte, simbolo, tecnica; la vetrata in Occidente dal IV all’XI secolo; atti delle giornate di studi, Lucca, 23–24-25 Settembre 1999, Collana di studi sul colore, 3 (Lucca: Istituto storico lucchese), pp. 21–43.

About the Authors Gry Hoffmann Barfod — Aarhus Geochemistry and Isotope Research (AGiR) Platform, Department of Geoscience/​Centre for Urban Network Evolutions, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark Gry Hoffmann Barfod is a member of the academic staff at the Department of Geoscience, Aarhus Uni­ver­ sity, and affiliated with the Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet). Her work uses trace metals and isotopes to determine the nature of geo­logical events and processes, to constrain the provenance of archaeo­ logical artifacts, and trace essential and toxic metals in bio­logical materials.

Cristina Boschetti — IRAMAT-Centre ErnestBabelon, UMR 5060 CNRS, Orléans, France Cristina Boschetti holds a laurea equivalent (MA+BA) in Curatorial Studies (Art History and Archaeo­logy) from the Uni­ver­sity of Parma, Italy (2001), a laurea in Classics from the same university (2005), a diploma in Conservation of Paintings from ENAIP Botticino, Brescia, Italy (2004), and a PhD in Archaeo­logical Science from the Uni­ver­sity of Padua, Italy (2009). Since 2009, she has covered postdoctoral research positions at the Universities of Nottingham (UK), Padua (Italy), and Cairo (Egypt). Since 2007, she has been guest curator at the Museum of Jewellery of Vicenza, Italy. In 2008, she joined IRAMAT-CEB CNRS of Orléans, France, as postdoctoral researcher on the ERC-funded project GlassRoutes, directed by Nadine Schibille. Her research interests include the study of the economy and techno­logy of glass from the Hellenistic period to the high Middle Ages and the study of Hellenistic and Roman mosaics and wall paintings, with a focus on the exploration of workshop practices.

Achim Lichtenberger — Institut für Klassische Archäo­logie und Christliche Archäo­logie/​A rchäo­ logisches Museum, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany Achim Lichtenberger (Dr  phil 2001, Uni­ver­sity of Tübingen) is a Professor of Classical Archaeo­logy and Director of the Archaeo­logical Museum at Münster Uni­v er­sity. Together with Professor Rubina Raja (Aarhus Uni­ver­sity), he co-directs the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project. His research interests are the Hellenistic to late antique Near East, numismatics, ruler representation in antiquity, Mediterranean studies, and ancient religion.

Rubina Raja — Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet)/​Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark Rubina Raja is Professor of Classical Archaeo­logy at Aarhus Uni­ver­sity and Centre Director of the Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions. Since 2011, she has codirected the ‘Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project’ together with Professor Achim Lichtenberger (Münster Uni­ver­sity), and since 2017, she has codirected the Danish-Italian excavations of Caesar’s Forum in Rome together with Jan Kindberg Jacobsen and Claudio Parisi. Her research interests include the Mediterranean from the Hellenistic to the medi­e val periods, high-definition archaeo­logy, the intersection between archaeo­logy and natural sciences, icono­graphy, and portrait studies as well as history of religion in the Roman world.

Kristine Damgaard Thomsen — PhD from Centre for Urban Network Evolutions (UrbNet)/​ Classical Studies, School of Culture and Society, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Denmark Kristine Damgaard Thomsen received her PhD degree in Classical Archaeo­logy from Aarhus Uni­ver­ sity in 2019. The PhD project was a joint collaboration between the Danish National Research Foundation’s Centre of Excellence for Urban Network Evolutions and Bio­logical and Environmental Sciences, Uni­ver­sity of Stirling, Scotland. The project focused on the development of mortar and plaster production in Jerash, Jordan, as well as the development of the wall paintings. She also participated in the excavation campaigns of the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project, and her research interests include Mediterranean archaeo­ logy, wall paintings in the Near East, and mortar production.

William  T. Wootton — Classics Department, King’s College London, United Kingdom William T. Wootton (BA, MPhil, DPhil, FSA) is a classical archaeo­logist in the Classics Department of King’s College London. He is a specialist in ancient craft production and focuses on the interactions between materials and techniques, craftsmen and patrons, and the impact of time, place, and society on things made. His research crosses the disciplinary boundaries between archaeo­logy, art history, ancient history, digital humanities, and contemporary heritage matters. He was the Principal Investigator on the Leverhulmefunded The Art of Making in Antiquity and co-directed the Ancient Itineraries project on digital art history. He developed and directed the heritage project Conserving and Managing Mosaics in Libya, funded by the Getty Foundation. He was involved in the creation of the Heritage Gazetteer of Libya and co-directed Training in Action, funded by the British Council, where he led on conservation, heritage management, and community engagement. He is currently the director of the Managing Libya’s Cultural Heritage project, which is funded by the ALIPH Foundation and focuses on their World Heritage Sites, and will soon co-direct the ERCfunded project, ‘The Roman Emperor Seen from the Provinces’.

Jerash Papers All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field.

Titles in Series The Archaeology and History of Jerash: 110 Years of Excavations, ed. by Achim Lichten­berger and Rubina Raja (2018) Middle Islamic Jerash (9th Century–15th Century): Archaeology and History of an Ayyubid-Mamluk Settlement, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2018) Byzantine and Umayyad Jerash Reconsidered: Transitions, Transformations, Continuities, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2019) Hellenistic and Roman Gerasa: The Archaeology and History of a Decapolis City, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2020) Environmental Studies, Remote Sensing, and Modelling: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project I, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2020) Metal Finds and Coins: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project II, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2020) Glass, Lamps, and Jerash Bowls: Final Publications from the Danish-German Jerash Northwest Quarter Project III, ed. by Achim Lichtenberger and Rubina Raja (2021)

In Preparation David Donald Boyer, Water Management in Gerasa and its Hinterland: From the Roman to ad 750