The Great Temple of Amman : the architecture

Citation preview

THE GREAT TEMPLE OFAMMAN THE ARCHITECTURE BY

CHRYSANTHOS KANELLOPOULOS

AMERICAN CENTER OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH AMMAN, JORDAN

AMERICAN CENTER OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS Patricia Maynor Bikai, Series Editor No. 1

The Mosaics ofJordan by Michele Piccirillo

No. 2

The Great Temple of Amman: The Architecture by Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos

American Center of Oriental Research P. 0. Box 2470, Amman, Jordan © 1994 by Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos

All rights reserved

This publication was made possible through support provided by the United States Agency for International Development Mission to Jordan under the terms of Grant Nos. 278-0266-G-SS-00003-00 and 278-0272-G-SS-20001. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development. Edited by Patricia Maynor Bikai with assistance from Thomas A. Dailey Layout by Patricia Maynor Bikai Technical Supervision by Shishir Dutta Graphic Reproduction by Unique Photo Offset Services, Bombay Printed in Jordan by National Press

Contents Foreward by Pierre M. Bikai Preface

vii ix

Introduction I. The South Propylaeon II. The Southeast Temenos Gate (Gate C) III. The Temenos IV. The Temple Setting Sode and Podium Podium Crown Moulding and Stylobate Foundation and Stylobate of the East Peristyle and Pronaos Column Bases and Interaxial Spacing Column Shafts Column Capitals Antae Architraves The Inscription Frieze Cornices Pediment Unidentified Mouldings Cella and Basement(s) Doo~ Restoration of the Ground Plan Metrological Relationships Rendering of Space, Style and Historical Context Identification of the Deity The Earthquake of A.D. 749 V. Technological Notes VI. Anastylosis

1 3 11 15 23 23 24 27 29 31 33 39 40 47 48 51 53 54 55 57 59 63 74 78 81 85 87 93

Appendices: A. A Colossal Statue from the Amman Citadel by Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos B. Amurca by Peter Warnock and Michael Pendleton C. Earthquake Study by Mohammed Tayyem D. Limestone Weathering Rate Analysis by Thomas R. Paradise E. A Note on Achieving Firm Joints by Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos List of Figures and Plates Bibliography Plates

101 104 106 110 115 119 121

Foreword In 1989-90, the Amman Citadel Feasibility Study was carried out by the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) under the direction of Rudolph Dornemann. The purpose of the study was to design a master plan for the beautification of the site and the development of an archaeological park. The concept was designed by archaeologists and architects from the University of Jordan and plans for the excavation, preservation and restoration of existing structures were included. What was called the Temple of Hercules Project began in 1990. It was a direct outgrowth of the Citadel Feasibility Study and involved the excavation and partial reconstruction of the Roman temple, one of the principal monuments of Amman during the classical period. The project, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was carried out jointly by ACOR and the Department of Antiquities. In 1991, architect Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos began the task of documenting all of the architectural elements of the temple and of planning the actual restoration which got underway in 1992. That restoration had a number of exciting moments. In late 1992, three massive stone blocks which would be carved to replace Roman column drums too damaged for use in the restoration were moved from a quarry near Amman to the Citadel. The stones, one of which weighed 27 tons, had to be moved by truck through Amman in the middle of the night; they were probably the largest stones moved from a quarry in Jordan since antiquity. Once the carving of replacement blocks was completed, the drums were set in place-each presenting special difficulties. Finally, on July 21, 1993, the 16-ton architrave with its backing was lifted. On July 28, 1993, H.R.H. Crown Prince Hassan and H.R.H. Princess Basma honored us with their presence at the ceremony marking the completion of the project. This was fitting as their grandfather, King Abdallah, was present when excavations at the site were begun by the Missione Italiana in 1930. This is the first of two volumes which document the project. The second volume will concern the excavations. The present work details both the study which preceded the partial restoration of the podium, temenos, and temple colonnade, and the restoration itself. We hope that the original purpose of the project-to stimulate further excavation and restoration on the Citadel-will be successful and that, one day, Amman will have an archaeological park in the center of the city of which this monument will be only a small part. Pierre M. Bikai American Center of Oriental Research

viii

0

Capitolias 0

Nysa - Scythopolis 0

Bostra

0

Gerasa

"/ Philadelphia (Amman) ®

Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem)

$ Madaba '

,® Rabbathmoba - Areopolis ri> Charachmoba

'

0' Thornia - Thana

~

Petra

Auara

Aila km

50

Preface The Roman temple on the middle terrace of the Amman Citadel is recognized to have been one of the main buildings of the ancient city, but it is poorly preserved. Questions about the temple have been more numerous than answers, not just regarding details but also concerning major aspects of the monumentits ground plan and the deity to whom it was dedicated. Fortunately, the surviving part of the dedicatory inscription provides evidence for the date of construction of the temple, A.D. 161-66. Other evidence now lost because of the continuous occupation of the Citadel cannot be recovered. However, it was known that some questions could be answered by further excavation of the site and thus the Temple of "Hercules" Project was launched as an effort to understand the monument through new excavations in combination with a reconsideration of the existing evidence. It was also meant to provide Amman with a sense of the monument through limited restoration. It is hoped that the results of this effort, both in the form of this publication and the partial restoration of the temple, will trigger further scholarly study, and also encourage Jordanians and others to appreciate Amman's history. Scattered material at the site was catalogued according to the following system: the first letter, i.e., N, S, E or W, signifies the direction relative to the temple itself in which the material was discovered. This is followed by a number identifying each element and then by another block letter, i.e., A, B, C, F, G, I, K, P, S, T, W, for architrave, base, column, frieze, cornice (geison), podium ashlar (isodomic), capital, plinth, semi-engaged column, capping moulding, wall of the temple, or a, b, c, f, g, k, etc., for those of the temenos; e.g. N13C or E25k. Aluminum tags were fixed to the elements with two screws as paint would fade and the stone is often too brittle for carving registration numbers. This temple is the only monument of the area known to have had a detailed numbering system carved on its column drums by the ancient builders. This text often uses the Roman numbering system, which is connected with the physical position of each drum within its shaft. B IIII, meaning fourth drum of shaft B, is obviously less complicated than our arbitrary documentation number, e .g., SBC. Wherever the original numbering system is used, it is clear. From the beginning of the project when lapidaria were created for sorting the material, the simple digits proved to be also useful for communication with the laborers and crane operators. It is obviously easier for two persons who speak no common language or who are illiterate, to refer to digits, showing them with their fingers rather than actually trying to find the equivalent word for a number. This simple numbering system must also have worked well in antiquity when architects, chief masons and slaves, speaking many different languages, were gathered together to build such a monument.

TECHNICAL NOTES

X

When two members are reported as, e.g., E116A+E321A, this means that they are matching fragments. For the most part in the text, for the actual restoration of stones the Greek word anastylosis has been used, while the words restoration and reconstruction refer to reconstructions on paper. As to terminology, in general McKenzie's 0990) glossary is followed. The term Decapolis, although it often signifies a geographical and cultural region and not the economic-political league, was not used in the Antonine years. Provincia Arabia is preferable. This work began as the Temple of Hercules Project. The name Great Temple of Amman is preferred here over the popular appellation, as no secure identification of the deity can be made. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The project was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). A debt of gratitude goes to Director William T. Oliver, former Director Lewis P. Reade, and Deputy Director Bastiaan Schouten, as well as to Thomas Dailey, Aied Sweis, H. Peter Delp and Roy Johnson of USAID for their help throughout. U.S. Ambassador Roger Gran Harrison was also very supportive. Encouragement was given by H.R.H. Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid. A thank you is owed to Mamdouh Bisharat for his support of our efforts from the start. Nasri Atalla, Secretary General of the Ministry of Tourism, was very helpful during the project. Ghazi Bisheh, former Director of the Department of Antiquities and Safwan Tell, the present director, also assisted. Thanks are due to Mohammed Najjar, Rustom Mkhjan, and Mohammed Shweimat of the Department of Antiquities, as well as to the staff of the Archaeological Museum of Amman. Alexander Papanicolaou gave continuous advice throughout the project. The project was initiated by ACOR Director Bert de Vries with the assistance of Cynthia Shartzer. The support given by them and by the present director, Pierre M. Bikai, and the ACOR staff, including Glen L. Peterman, Kathy Nimri, Marwan Yassin, and Branwen Denton, made the project possible. Actual fulfillment of our objectives was due to the very hard work of the masons under the direction of foreman Nabil Zeno. During the project, Mohammed Tayyem and Sheba Akhtar assisted. GEMT Laboratories, UNISYS computer systems, Lama Kamal, Emman Jayyousi, and Kerem Aksoy helped to document the remains. Autodesk, Inc. donated AutoCAD® Release 11 to ACOR in 1991, making many of the drawings here possible. The University of Jordan and the Royal Scientific Society helped with technical aspects of the project. Thank you to Eugenio Alliata for the map of Jordan (p. viii), to Zbigniew T. Fiema for adapting it, and to Antonio Almagro for the map of fig. 1. Photographs are by J. Wilson Myers and Eleanor Myers, Bill Lyons, Boghos Drakhjan, Bronwyn Douglas, Gaetano Palumbo, Glen L. Peterman, Kenneth W. Russell, Jay Guikema, Pierre Bikai, Patricia Bikai, Mohammed Tayyem and Anthi Koutsoukou. Other photos are courtesy of the Department of Antiquities, the Palestine Exploration Fund and the Harvard Semitic Museum. Abbas Khammash did the survey of the

xi

sanctuary. Nasrene Laham, Ali Daja and Luay Mohamidieh drew the excavation ground plan (pl. I). Glen L. Peterman created the graphic of fig. 131. Other plans were drawn by Mohammed Tayyem, Kenneth W. Russell and Anthi Koutsoukou. The contributions by Peter Warnock, Michael Pendleton, Mohammed Tayyem and Thomas Paradise are appreciated. Julian Bowsher, Zbigniew T. Fiema, Giorgio Gullini, Antoni Ostrasz, Roberto Parapetti and Jacques Seigne commented on various technical problems and on the manuscript itself. Patricia Bikai insisted that this volume be created, edited it with assistance from Thomas Dailey, and made its production possible. Shishir Dutta overcame the technical problems of producing the actual book. I am grateful to them. Kenneth W. Russell was a part of this project from the time I began until his death in May of 1992. His help to me is remembered here. Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Anthi Koutsoukou, for her support and encouragement during difficult moments of the project. The author, attempting to shed light on the problems of this monumentproblems such as the ground plan, entablature and inscription-considers himself fortunate to have had at his disposal the means to turn over, examine and document every block-means and technology unavailable to previous scholars. Documentation provided by Bonfils, Butler, Bartoccini and Ceschi was used as much as possible. Their mistakes, concerning the interpretation of the temple, are mistakes only in retrospect. Scholars of the heroic early days of archaeology-which they were-expressed the spirit of their day. Most expeditions to al-Qal'a were influenced by passages from the Bible. 1 Bartoccini was interested in the Iron Age settlement under the temple, a settlement which can be associated with Biblical incidents, and he neglected the Roman building. Ceschi, on the other hand, tried to record and thus to save as much evidence as possible on the architecture of the temple. His valuable drawings were published only in 1983 by Almagro. 2 The author hopes that by using these drawings, Almagro's wish 3 for them is fulfilled. Criticism of the methods of others flows from the perspective allowed by the passage of time. Thus, the description of the previous restoration of the west socle implies no moral statement. That anastylosis, conducted by the Department of Antiquities, probably by Haroutune Kalayan himself, is now part of the history of the monument. The author welcomes any criticism or suggestions. He also expects that someone, perhaps generations in the future, will find either the first or the fifth architrave of the facade. It may tell us which deity was worshipped in this great monument. Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos July 1993 1. 2 Samuel XII: 27-31. Field 1960: 71. 2. Almagro 1983. 3. Almagro 1983: 631.

PERSPECTIVE

Figure 1: Aerial view of the Citadel, May 1993. The white line at lower left is the balloon's tether.

INTRODUCTION

The great Roman temple on the Citadel, or Jebel al-Qal'a, in Amman is popularly known as the Temple of Hercules and can be securely elated by its dedicatory inscription to the term of the Roman governor Geminius Marcianus, i.e., to A.D. 161-66. The temple is situated on the middle terrace of the Citadel within the western area of a colonnaded temenos at an altitude of about 838 m above sea level (31 °57' N., 35°53 ' E.). It is oriented along an east-west axis, with its facacle to the east, in accordance with Greek tradition. The temenos was connected to the Roman city below by a monumental staircase entered by a propylaeon. The temple had a hexastyle facacle on a podium . The foundations of the facacle and the podium, completely subterranean during the Roman period, have, over the years, acquired disproportionate prominence, as they are among the few well-preserved elements of the temple. The site was visited by Ulrick Jasper Seetzen (1806) who thought he saw the remains of a rotunda; John Lewis Burckharclt (1812); James Silk Buckingham (1816); Leon de Laborde (1826); George Robinson (1830); F. de Saulcy (1863); H. B. Tristram (1864); A. E. Northey (1871); Selah Merrill (1875); L. Oliphant (1880); C. R. Conder (1881); and Howard Crosby Butler 0904). 1 Their observations concerning the architecture are, however, of limited value. Excavations were first conducted on the Citadel between 1930 and 1938 under the direction of archaeologist Renato Bartoccini and architect Carlo Ceschi of the Missione Italiana in Amman. Further archaeological work was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s by the Department of Antiquities of the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, by Rudolph H. Dornemann of the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR), and by F. elFakharani. El-Fakharani interpreted the installation as a library. 2 In 1979 and 1981, A. Northedge excavated along the temenos enclosure and at Gate C and published the first stratigraphic sequence from the sanctuary. 3 In 1990, excavations at the Citadel were resumed under the combined auspices of the Department of Antiquities and ACOR, funded by a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The excavations were conducted by archaeologists Mohammed Najjar of the Department of Antiquities and Kenneth W. Russell of ACOR; in the first season 0990), Rudolph Dornemann and Khair Yassine of the University of Jordan also participated. As· part of the same project, a partial anastylosis of the temple was initiated in July 1991 by the author with the assistance of engineer Mohammed Tayyern of ACOR. A major objective of this work is to clarify the layout of the ground plan of the temple. This fundamental issue has been

debated for many decades. Conder,' Butler, 5 Bartoccini6 and Ceschi 7 proposed a tetrastyle prostasis for the temple; Bennett/; Northedge 9 and Zayadine, 10 on the other hand, suggested that the temple had a hexastyle-peripteral floor plan . These hypotheses, however, were based on an insufficient consideration of the physical evidence. It is hoped that the arguments presented here will adequately substantiate the proposed restoration of the temple as a hexastyle-peripteral structure . Moreover, detailed analysis of the material remains, as outlined in this study, refutes the claim that a regular peristyle existed. Several new elements were uncovered by the excavation and others were first noted during this study of the monument; these led to a re-evaluation of the evidence. These new points are, in brief, the following: The northeast corner of the temenos, previously thought to be located under the Abbasid tower, was found to be farther north. The assembly of a temenos column made possible the calculation of the height of the order. Excavation in front of the temple revealed the foundation of the temple's south parotide . The existence of a vaulted basement can be securely posited from its remains. At the lower levels, parts of a large Iron Age structure, measuring at minimum 7 x 21 m, were discovered on either side of the Roman temple's east pteroma. Newly discovered and newly recognized architectural elements include cornices of the entablature, a member of the pediment and a new fragment of the dedicatory inscription. In addition, previously unnoticed graffiti were discovered on the socle. The study of the architecture includes calculations of the orders of both the temenos and the temple . The discovery of a third order can be attributed to Gate C. In addition to the examination of the temple itself, this work deals with a contemporary monument, the Temple of Artemis at Jerash, and reviews examples of other Roman temples in the region with variations in their intercolumnar spacing. 1. A full discussion of the travelers and their reports is given in Bowsher 1992: 129-31. 2. El-Fakharani 1975. 3. Northeclge 1983; 1992. 4. Conder 1889: 31-32. 5. Butler 1907: 38, ill. 24 . 6. Bartoccini 1930: 16. 7. Almagro 1983: 609, fig. l ; 617, fig. 9. 8. Bennett and Northeclge 1977-78: 174, fig. 1. 9. Northeclge 1984: 33. 10. Zayadine 1982: 22, fig . 21.

N

~

~..

'

0 DEC[MBC~ 1978

Figure 2: Map of the Jebel al-Qal'a area . Legend: A=temenos and the great temple; B=north complex; C=southeastern gate (Gate C); D=approximate position of the southern propylaeon; E=lower terrace; F=Byzantine church; G=Nymphaeum; H=tristoon; J=theater; K=odeon; L=Umayyad reception hall ; M= Ayyubid/ Mamluk tower. Scale 1:4000.

I

THE SOUTH PROPYLAEON

The remains of a propylaeon below al-Qal'a were first recorded by Burckhardt in 1812, who thought he saw the back wall of a temple with niches. 1 Photographs were taken by H. Phillips in 1867 (fig. 8), and then by Bonfils in the 1870s (fig. 7) with the caption "ruines d 'un petit temple ." Two more photographs of the hill taken by T. R. Dumas in 1875 clearly show the surroundings of the structure (figs. 4-5). In 1881, Conder also

., • •

• •

• • •

• • • • •

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

interpreted the remains of the propylaeon as the ruins of a temple. He published a photograph taken from the north (fig. 6) and recorded the monument in relation to the theater and alQal'a .2 The monument was correctly identified for the first time by Schulz in 1906.3 Butler'1 drew a ground plan and elevation of this structure (fig. 9). According to his plans, the structure had a width of 24 .8 m, with a central door opening of 5.5 m. Nothing remains today of this monumental structure but it should have been located near the corner of Sabsough and Ha you Qal'a Streets. The ground plan drawn by Butler is highly restored and therefore problematic. It is considerably influenced by the arrangement of the propylaeon of the Temple of Artemis at Jerash. Butler's reconstruction of the propylaeon combines a tetrastyle portico taken from the Artemis propylaeon (but with no apparent remains on the ground) and a hexastyle portico added to it (based on the existence of a single column) . Butler daringly but justifiably attributed this column to the structure, as it is considerably thicker than the columns of the colonnaded street and it corresponds to the eastern anta of the building (compare Butler's drawing and Dumas's photograph). This thicker column can be used as part of a hypothesis in which there would have been a portico in front of the entrance wall . A tetrastyle portico would faithfully match the arrangement of the Artemis propylaeon, but it would result in extremely wide and therefore unsound openings for the architraves, as our structure has a facade width of 24 .8 meters as opposed to only 21.4 meters in the case of the Artemision, 5 but such a portico cannot be ruled out. A hexastyle facade would be more plausible in our case and safer for most of the architraves . A Syrian pediment spanning the central intercolumnar opening (approximately 8.3 m) is also possible. The arrangement suggests that the two central columns of the portico would have to correspond to the two columns that stood by the doorway.

• •

•

0

••••

o===---•o==~•s----~m

Figure 3: Proposed plan of the propylaeon and the arrangement of a piazza in relation to the modern city plan. Scale: 1:500.

1. Burckharclt 1822: 356, building cl, 358. 2. Conder 1889: plate facing p. 32. See also the map of Amman , plate facing p. 24. 3. Schulz 1906; Haclicli 1978: 216. 4. Butler 1907: 44, ill. 28. 5. Parapetti 1989: 24.

4

Figure 4: The propylaeon as seen from the south . Above, the Citadel. T. R. Dumas 1875. Courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund.

4

...•,_.... _;_ •- . - ·1 · :..:..- ... .~

.r.·

~

~-·t-'~--:~J .

::~'--.

... ., ;:t.••,

Figure 5: The propylaeon as een from the lower terrace of the Citadel. Behind. the river and the 'ymphaeum. T. R. Dumas 1875. Courtesy of the Palestine Exploration Fund .

On the other hand, an unusual feature that is not compatible with a normal portico should be taken into consideration: the end of the anta is not treated with a full pilaster that should correspond to the corner column. Moreover, there is no rough treatment of the front plain anta surface that could indicate a joint and would allow the restoration of a pilaster attached there (a pilaster attached there would al o have been highly problematic as it would have had no integration w ith the rest of the masonry) . The plain end of the anta and the pilaster projecting only to the south is clearly visible in the photographs by Dumas and Phillips and in Butler's ground plan of the existing remains. Butler added a full pilaster because he needed one to correspond to the portico (fig. 9). The pace from the thick column to the anta and thereafter the distance between the portico restored there and the end of the anta is 8 m. 6 Therefore , Butler's suggestion that two more columns should be re-

5 stored between the corner columns of the portico and the antae is understandable. 7 Another pair of columns in front of the entrance wall is suggested by a rectangular beam socket on the column shaft which stood by the central door (figs. 7, 8). A beam inserted there would have had to correspond to another column in front of it. The situation becomes even more complicated if we take into consideration the fact that a wooden beam with such a small section (probably used by later squatters) could not have extended all the way through the deep porch (from the aforementioned socket to the column of the portico) for a length of approximately 11 m . A second row of columns between the portico and the entrance wall is therefore required. Those columns may not have been necessarily relevant to the architraves spanning the front portico, but could have been votive ones .8 Alternatively, the structure could be identified as a simple enFigure 6: The north side of the propylaeon in the late 19th century (Conder 1889: facing p. 32). trance wall with three openings and no porch at all , hence the morphology of the antae. The thick Problems appear also in Butler's elevation; he never saw a column which Butler attributed to a portico might not have had stylobate or ground level (fig. 9) . Pedestals under the columns exact correspondence to the eastern anta and thus it could be would raise the height of the doors, thus adding more approdisassociated from the structure. It could as well have been a priate proportions. The columnettes flanking the niches above votive column or part of another composition that we here igthe lintels were standing on small pedestals as can be seen in nore completely (such as a colonnaded street at the encl of which Conder's photograph (fig. 6) and the one from Bell's archive. 12 the entrance stood). This interpretation is very economical conFigure 3 is an overlapping of Conder's ground plan on the sidering the available data, as it does not involve a very deep modern city so that the relationship between the orientation of porch and explains the form of the antae. The restoration of the the ancient structure and the present streets can be seen. 9 structure as an entrance wall at the end of a colonnaded street It is very improbable that this is the only propylaeon of the would afford the dubious restoration of a low central arch, given temple of al-Qal'a; hence our preference for the name "south the low arches above the side doors, the whole thing ending in propylaeon ." This monumental structure connected the forum an attic (fig. 10). in the valley and the Decumanus Maximus with the Citadel and Judging from Gelis's, Warren's, Butler's and Conder's plans gave access through the Great Temple to the Roman temple on of Amman, 10 it seems that the propylaeon was not situated exthe north side of the Citadel. The propylaeon of the former must have been at its eastern end as the landscape there (the Lower actly at the colonnaded part of the Decumanus Maximus, but considerably farther to the north. Seigne's suggestion" is that the Terrace) secured the desired axiality with the Great Temple as well as an easier ascent. columns pictured in Dumas's photographs and as they are arranged in Concler's ground plan of Amman must belong to a square or circular piazza in front of the propylaeon. This seems 6. This is not a great distance as compared to the homologous space reasonable, except for the fact that the whole compositionin the Artemis propylaeon (approximately 9.3 m) . In the latter inpropylaeon and colonnaded street-is in an area of the slope stance, however, there is a passageway in this space that allows a which is too steep to allow for a piazza without complications. very deep porch with no second row of columns between the main The remains of some vaulted chambers in front of the portico and the antae. Parapetti 1989: 24. 7. Compare the propylaeon in the Zeus sanctua1y atjerash as restored propylaeon, seen only in the old photographs (fig. 4), could by Seigne (1986: 30, fig. 1). have been the infrastructure that evened the slope for such a 8. See the Nymphaeum at Jerash; Browning 1982: 145, fig . 79. piazza . However, some of them are at a higher level than the 9. Northedge feels this arrangement is the most likely. Northedge bases of the columns and could be later. The facial projection 1992: fig . 14. of the antae does indicate that the whole structure was part of 10. All the plans are now reprinted in Northedge 1992: figs. 3-4. a bigger composition, if not at the end of a piazza, then at the 11. J. Seigne, personal communication. 12. Northedge 1992: pl. 64C. end of a colonnaded north/ south street.

Contents Foreward by Pierre M. Bikai Preface

vii ix

Introduction I. The South Propylaeon II. The Southeast Temenos Gate (Gate C) III. The Temenos IV. The Temple Setting Sode and Podium Podium Crown Moulding and Stylobate Foundation and Stylobate of the East Peristyle and Pronaos Column Bases and Interaxial Spacing Column Shafts Column Capitals Antae Architraves The Inscription Frieze Cornices Pediment Unidentified Mouldings Cella and Basement(s) Doo~ Restoration of the Ground Plan Metrological Relationships Rendering of Space, Style and Historical Context Identification of the Deity The Earthquake of A.D. 749 V. Technological Notes VI. Anastylosis

1 3 11 15 23 23 24 27 29 31 33 39 40 47 48 51 53 54 55 57 59 63 74 78 81 85 87 93

Appendices: A. A Colossal Statue from the Amman Citadel by Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos B. Amurca by Peter Warnock and Michael Pendleton C. Earthquake Study by Mohammed Tayyem D. Limestone Weathering Rate Analysis by Thomas R. Paradise E. A Note on Achieving Firm Joints by Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos

101 104 106 110 115

List of Figures and Plates Bibliography Plates

119 121

Foreword In 1989-90, the Amman Citadel Feasibility Study was carried out by the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) under the direction of Rudolph Dornemann. The purpose of the study was to design a master plan for the beautification of the site and the development of an archaeological park. The concept was designed by archaeologists and architects from the University of Jordan and plans for the excavation, preservation and restoration of existing structures were included. What was called the Temple of Hercules Project began in 1990. It was a direct outgrowth of the Citadel Feasibility Study and involved the excavation and partial reconstruction of the Roman temple, one of the principal monuments of Amman during the classical period. The project, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was carried out jointly by ACOR and the Department of Antiquities. In 1991, architect Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos began the task of documenting all of the architectural elements of the temple and of planning the actual restoration which got underway in 1992. That restoration had a number of exciting moments. In late 1992, three massive stone blocks which would be carved to replace Roman column drums too damaged for use in the restoration were moved from a quarry near Amman to the Citadel. The stones, one of which weighed 27 tons, had to be moved by truck through Amman in the middle of the night; they were probably the largest stones moved from a quarry in Jordan since antiquity. Once the carving of replacement blocks was completed, the drums were set in place-each presenting special difficulties. Finally, on July 21, 1993, the 16-ton architrave with its backing was lifted. On July 28, 1993, H.R.H. Crown Prince Hassan and H.R.H. Princess Basma honored us with their presence at the ceremony marking the completion of the project. This was fitting as their grandfather, King Abdallah, was present when excavations at the site were begun by the Missione Italiana in 1930. This is the first of two volumes which document the project. The second volume will concern the excavations. The present work details both the study which preceded the partial restoration of the podium, temenos, and temple colonnade, and the restoration itself. We hope that the original purpose of the project-to stimulate further excavation and restoration on the Citadel-will be successful and that, one day, Amman will have an archaeological park in the center of the city of which this monument will be only a small part. Pierre M. Bikai American Center of Oriental Research

Preface The Roman temple on the middle terrace of the Amman Citadel is recognized to have been one of the main buildings of the ancient city, but it is poorly preserved. Questions about the temple have been more numerous than answers, not just regarding details but also concerning major aspects of the monumentits ground plan and the deity to whom it was dedicated. Fortunately, the surviving part of the dedicatory inscription provides evidence for the date of construction of the temple, A.D. 161-66. Other evidence now lost because of the continuous occupation of the Citadel cannot be recovered. However, it was known that some questions could be answered by further excavation of the site and thus the Temple of "Hercules" Project was launched as an effort to understand the monument through new excavations in combination with a reconsideration of the existing evidence. It was also meant to provide Amman with a sense of the monument through limited restoration. It is hoped that the results of this effort, both in the form of this publication and the partial restoration of the temple, will trigger further scholarly study, and also encourage Jordanians and others to appreciate Amman's history. Scattered material at the site was catalogued according to the following systern: the first letter, i.e., N, S, E or W, signifies the direction relative to the temple itself in which the material was discovered. This is followed by a number identifying each element and then by another block letter, i.e., A, B, C, F, G, I, K, P, S, T, W, for architrave, base, column, frieze, cornice (geison), podium ashlar (isodomic), capital, plinth, semi-engaged column, capping moulding, wall of the temple, or a, b, c, f, g, k, etc., for those of the temenos; e.g. N13C or E25k. Aluminum tags were fixed to the elements with two screws as paint would fade and the stone is often too brittle for carving registration numbers. This temple is the only monument of the area known to have had a detailed numbering system carved on its column drums by the ancient builders . This text often uses the Roman numbering system, which is connected with the physical position of each drum within its shaft. Billi, meaning fourth drum of shaft B, is obviously less complicated than our arbitrary documentation number, e.g., S8C. Wherever the original numbering system is used, it is clear. From the beginning of the project when lapidaria were created for sorting the material, the simple digits proved to be also useful for communication with the laborers and crane operators. It is obviously easier for two persons who speak no common language or who are illiterate, to refer to digits, showing them with their fingers rather than actually trying to find the equivalent word for a number. This simple numbering system must also have worked well in antiquity when architects, chief masons and slaves, speaking many different languages, were gathered together to build such a monument.

TECHNICAL NOTES

xi

sanctuary. Nasrene Laham, Ali Daja and Luay Mohamidieh drew the excavation ground plan (pl. I). Glen L. Peterman created the graphic of fig. 131. Other plans were drawn by Mohammed Tayyem, Kenneth W. Russell and Anthi Koutsoukou. The contributions by Peter Warnock, Michael Pendleton, Mohammed Tayyem and Thomas Paradise are appreciated. Julian Bowsher, Zbigniew T. Fiema, Giorgio Gullini, Antoni Ostrasz, Roberto Parapetti and Jacques Seigne commented on various technical problems and on the manuscript itself. Patricia Bikai insisted that this volume be created, edited it with assistance from Thomas Dailey, and made its production possible. Shishir Dutta overcame the technical problems of producing the actual book. I am grateful to them. Kenneth W. Russell was a part of this project from the time I began until his death in May of 1992. His help to me is remembered here. Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Anthi Koutsoukou, for her support and encouragement during difficult moments of the project. The author, attempting to shed light on the problems of this monumentproblems such as the ground plan, entablature and inscription-considers himself fortunate to have had at his disposal the means to turn over, examine and document every block-means and technology unavailable to previous scholars. Documentation provided by Bonfils, Butler, Bartoccini and Ceschi was used as much as possible. Their mistakes, concerning the interpretation of the temple, are mistakes only in retrospect. Scholars of the heroic early days of archaeology-which they were-expressed the spirit of their day. Most expeditions to al-Qal'a were influenced by passages from the Bible. 1 Bartoccini was interested in the Iron Age settlement under the temple, a settlement which can be associated with Biblical incidents, and he neglected the Roman building. Ceschi, on the other hand, tried to record and thus to save as much evidence as possible on the architecture of the temple. His valuable drawings were published only in 1983 by Almagro. 2 The author hopes that by using these drawings, Almagro's wish 3 for them is fulfilled. Criticism of the methods of others flows from the perspective allowed by the passage of time. Thus, the description of the previous restoration of the west socle implies no moral statement. That anastylosis, conducted by the Department of Antiquities, probably by Haroutune Kalayan himself, is now part of the history of the monument. The author welcomes any criticism or suggestions. He also expects that someone, perhaps generations in the future, will find either the first or the fifth architrave of the facade. It may tell us which deity was worshipped in this great monument. Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos July 1993 1. 2 Samuel XII: 27-31. Field 1960: 71. 2. Almagro 1983. 3. Almagro 1983: 631.

PERSPECTIVE

INTRODUCTION

The great Roman temple on the Citadel, or Jebel al-Qal'a, in Amman is popularly known as the Temple of Hercules and can be securely elated by its dedicatory inscription to the term of the Roman governor Geminius Marcianus, i.e., to A.D. 161-66. The temple is situated on the middle terrace of the Citadel within the western area of a colonnaded temenos at an altitude of about 838 m above sea level (31 °57' N., 35°53' E.). It is oriented along an east-west axis, with its facacle to the east, in accordance with Greek tradition. The temenos was connected to the Roman city below by a monumental staircase entered by a propylaeon . The temple had a hexastyle facacle on a podium. The foundations of the facacle and the podium, completely subterranean during the Roman period, have, over the years, acquired disproportionate prominence, as they are among the few well-preserved elements of the temple. The site was visited by Ulrick Jasper Seetzen (1806) who thought he saw the remains of a rotunda; John Lewis Burckharclt (1812); James Silk Buckingham (1816); Leon de Laborde (1826); George Robinson (1830) ; F. de Saulcy (1863); H . B. Tristram (1864); A. E. Northey (1871) ; Selah Merrill (1875); L. Oliphant (1880); C. R. Conder (1881); and Howard Crosby Butler (1904). 1 Their observations concerning the architecture are, however, of limited value . Excavations were first conducted on the Citadel between 1930 and 1938 under the direction of archaeologist Renato Bartoccini and architect Carlo Ceschi of the Missione Italiana in Amman. Further archaeological work was carried out in the 1960s and 1970s by the Department of Antiquities of the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, by Rudolph H. Dornemann of the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR), and by F. elFakharani. El-Fakharani interpreted the installation as a library. 2 In 1979 and 1981, A. Northeclge excavated along the temenos enclosure and at Gate C and published the first stratigraphic sequence from the sanctuary. 3 In 1990, excavations at the Citadel were resumed under the combined auspices of the Department of Antiquities and ACOR, funded by a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The excavations were conducted by archaeologists Mohammed Najjar of the Department of Antiquities and Kenneth W. Russell of ACOR; in the first season 0990), Rudolph Dornemann and Khair Yassine of the University of Jordan also participated. As· part of the same project, a partial anastylosis of the temple was initiated in July 1991 by the author with the assistance of engineer Mohammed Tayyem of ACOR. A major objective of this work is to clarify the layout of the ground plan of the temple. This fundamental issue has been

debated for many decades. Conder,' Butler, 5 Bartoccini6 and Ceschi7 proposed a tetrastyle prostasis for the temple; Bennett, 8 Northeclge 9 and Zayadine, 10 on the other hand, suggested that the temple had a hexastyle-peripteral floor plan. These hypotheses, however, were based on an insufficient consideration of the physical evidence. It is hoped that the arguments presented here will adequately substantiate the proposed restoration of the temple as a hexastyle-peripteral structure . Moreover, cletailecl analysis of the material remains, as outlined in this study, refutes the claim that a regular peristyle existed. Several new elements were uncovered by the excavation and others were first noted during this study of the monument; these led to a re-evaluation of the evidence. These new points are, in brief, the following: The northeast corner of the temenos, previously thought to be located under the Abbasicl tower, was found to be farther north . The assembly of a temenos column made possible the calculation of the height of the order. Excavation in front of the temple revealed the foundation of the temple's south parotide. The existence of a vaulted basement can be securely posited from its remains . At the lower levels, parts of a large Iron Age structure , measuring at minimum 7 x 21 m, were discovered on either side of the Roman temple's east pteroma. Newly discovered and newly recognized architectural elements include cornices of the entablature, a member of the pediment and a new fragment of the dedicatory inscription. In addition, previously unnoticed graffiti were discovered on the socle . The study of the architecture includes calculations of the orders of both the temenos and the temple . The discovery of a third order can be attributed to Gate C. In addition to the examination of the temple itself, this work deals with a contemporary monument, the Temple of Artemis at Jerash, and reviews examples of other Roman temples in the region with variations in their intercolumnar spacing. 1. A full discussion of the travelers and their reports is given in Bowsher 1992: 129-31. 2. El-Fakharani 1975. 3. Northeclge 1983; 1992. 4. Conder 1889: 31-32. 5. Butler 1907: 38, ill. 24. 6. Bartoccini 1930: 16. 7. Almagro 1983: 609 , fig. l; 617 , fig. 9. 8. Bennett and Northeclge 1977-78: 174, fig. 1. 9. Northeclge 1984: 33. 10. Zayacline 1982: 22 , fig . 21.

5 stored between the corner columns of the portico and the antae is understandable. 7 Another pair of columns in front of the entrance wall is suggested by a rectangular beam socket on the column shaft which stood by the central door (figs. 7, 8). A beam inserted there would have had to correspond to another column in front of it. The situation becomes even more complicated if we take into consideration the fact that a wooden beam with such a small section (probably used by later squatters) could not have extended all the way through the deep porch (from the aforementioned socket to the column of the portico) for a length of approximately 11 m . A second row of columns between the portico and the entrance wall is therefore required. Those columns may not have been necessarily relevant to the architraves spanning the front portico, but could have been votive ones .8 Alternatively, the structure could be identified as a simple enFigure 6: The north side of the propylaeon in the late 19th century (Conder 1889: facing p. 32). trance wall with three openings and no porch at all , hence the morphology of the antae. The thick Problems appear also in Butler's elevation; he never saw a column which Butler attributed to a portico might not have had stylobate or ground level (fig. 9) . Pedestals under the columns exact correspondence to the eastern anta and thus it could be would raise the height of the doors, thus adding more approdisassociated from the structure. It could as well have been a priate proportions. The columnettes flanking the niches above votive column or part of another composition that we here igthe lintels were standing on small pedestals as can be seen in nore completely (such as a colonnaded street at the encl of which Conder's photograph (fig. 6) and the one from Bell's archive. 12 the entrance stood). This interpretation is very economical conFigure 3 is an overlapping of Conder's ground plan on the sidering the available data, as it does not involve a very deep modern city so that the relationship between the orientation of porch and explains the form of the antae. The restoration of the the ancient structure and the present streets can be seen. 9 structure as an entrance wall at the end of a colonnaded street It is very improbable that this is the only propylaeon of the would afford the dubious restoration of a low central arch, given temple of al-Qal'a; hence our preference for the name "south the low arches above the side doors, the whole thing ending in propylaeon ." This monumental structure connected the forum an attic (fig. 10). in the valley and the Decumanus Maximus with the Citadel and Judging from Gelis's, Warren's, Butler's and Conder's plans gave access through the Great Temple to the Roman temple on of Amman, 10 it seems that the propylaeon was not situated exthe north side of the Citadel. The propylaeon of the former must have been at its eastern end as the landscape there (the Lower actly at the colonnaded part of the Decumanus Maximus, but considerably farther to the north. Seigne's suggestion" is that the Terrace) secured the desired axiality with the Great Temple as well as an easier ascent. columns pictured in Dumas's photographs and as they are arranged in Concler's ground plan of Amman must belong to a square or circular piazza in front of the propylaeon. This seems 6. This is not a great distance as compared to the homologous space reasonable, except for the fact that the whole compositionin the Artemis propylaeon (approximately 9.3 m) . In the latter inpropylaeon and colonnaded street-is in an area of the slope stance, however, there is a passageway in this space that allows a which is too steep to allow for a piazza without complications. very deep porch with no second row of columns between the main The remains of some vaulted chambers in front of the portico and the antae. Parapetti 1989: 24. 7. Compare the propylaeon in the Zeus sanctua1y atjerash as restored propylaeon, seen only in the old photographs (fig. 4), could by Seigne (1986: 30, fig. 1). have been the infrastructure that evened the slope for such a 8. See the Nymphaeum at Jerash; Browning 1982: 145, fig . 79. piazza . However, some of them are at a higher level than the 9. Northedge feels this arrangement is the most likely. Northedge bases of the columns and could be later. The facial projection 1992: fig . 14. of the antae does indicate that the whole structure was part of 10. All the plans are now reprinted in Northedge 1992: figs. 3-4. a bigger composition, if not at the end of a piazza, then at the 11. J. Seigne, personal communication. 12. Northedge 1992: pl. 64C. end of a colonnaded north/ south street.

°'

-- :·~-;;_·~~::~

··>'9~"i-,:~ ~~-

'J:\liit!} !}1~

~

j ,; f.

:·•:·

~

~

'. .• , .·1 :~_'·

/.

...........

,

Nil . '}

----~. · ,- • .. Y••...

... ,_.

.

,:-_-: ·~: .:.:;-.-~---:";~· ~.·.. ~·.:~~ :~~·::;~~:·_ ~.:_ /;':~~~;~-" •'

•

~,

I

1

I

I

I

_J

_J

11, ••

••• - ---

' it.

I~ '-

7

·c .

•

~;p; . .,. ~ - _'.iitm,-1~-

, :.r ; :I :' - 1 ~ ~~ __: .. --I . I

I

I- - -

.

I

I

==-:. --

:.,

'

I

I

I

I

I

;. :.::::.:., I _---1·•_L_ _ _ _ _ _ I

I_.

I

I

I

I

I I ...J_,_

'- ,I ____ ,_ I

I I -----

AcTV AL s-rA TE

_ ____ L

I

·

A B·PLAN· ·--SS!i

A·

-2-Jo 7~--So

-2~'j5

--------

SCALE·

o 0025: 1M·

B

---========- ,9. 4-0

Figure 9: The ruins of the propylaeon as recorded by Butler (1907). Scales 1:100 above and 1:250 below. -..J

00

~

/

/

~

I'\.

"

I

(/j-llr~ I

'\

I

/

~H~ '\

' '

'-

\

I I

~

J "' ~,,.f~,;,1 d

~ -

[ ~

L

J

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

"'~~v

LL

/ /

( '-

\

/

'

I

I

I

~I

~

'

l

/

~

~ I r, ~

/

/

"

"(~Y

'11·¥-rr\.,

~

"f}f

'

I

I

,a==

/

~

~~

-

r

\

e

•§

~

I

=

'

/

--

>--

-

-

-

I

I

I

I

'/

I

/

I '-

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

'

I

"

\.

I

/

I

I

'-

I

I

I

0

Figure 10: Proposed elevation of the propylaeon. Scale 1:100.

1

2

3

4

Sm

----\_

(I_

--

I\ ~/

,r

I

,r

'

l "I

:

---------:i r-------..

I I

~~

I~ '

r------

/

'

~

~( /

'

/

)

I

,

'

/

I

I

I

I

I

I


'--_ -.lou Outjpou µE0'wv ExaplaaTo [. .. 20 ... ]

2. [TQ ... ?... ]4J To lEp[6]v Kai EH3.]E[ ... 11 ... ]v. vucat 'Errl r!E]µLv[ou M[ap]K[L]avo[u] [rr]prn~EU[T]oii ~E~aaTwv dv[na]TpaTtjyou. vacat E[TOus-? ... µriv6s? ... ].

For the safety of Emperors Lords Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Verus together with whom ... (he) dedicated the sanctuary to god ... and erected the temple? ... In the term of Geminius Marcianus legate of the righteous emperors. Year ...

Publius Julius Geminius Marcianus was the legate of the Province of Arabia during A.D. 161-66. 52 Inscribed front block fragments S116A+E321A+E200A, N180A+Ayyubid tower fragment +S304A and N50A can be restored in sequence both because of joins and on the basis of the inscription. The total length of fragment N180A+Ayyubid tower fragment+S304A is approximately 5.3 m. Despite the difference in dimensions, this beam can only be restored over the slightly shorter central interaxial space of 5.18-5.19 m. Similarly, block N50A, with a length of 4.582 m, is restored over its original interaxial space, i.e., the adjoining in-

;J

I

teraxial space to the north of the central space, with a dimension of 4.723 m. Thus, the joints are slightly shifted from the axis of the columns, by 0.11 m and 0.046 m, towards the ends of the facade. Although uncanonical, such variations are common in most monuments.

45. Gatier (1986: 44-45) has a complete bibliography on the topic. 46. I acknowledge with gratitude the contributions of P. L. Gatier and J P. Rey-Coquais, their generous assistance to the late K. W. Russell and the author, and their unwavering support of a hexastyle restoration. The letter w on architrave fragment S116A was deciphered by K. W. Russell and the letter E on architrave block N50A was deciphered by the author a week before Dr. Russell 's untimely death in May 1992. Following Dr. Russell's death, the author analyzed the new information. 47.Welles 1938: 405, inscr. 65 48.Welles 1938: 402-3, inscr. 60; Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938: 90-91. 49.Welles 1938: 386, inscr. 22. 50. ' H 0E6s as a female is not an unknown type but it is early (Liddell and Scott 1968: 791). 51.For otK080µ11 as temple, see Welles 1938: 376, inscr. 6; Downey 1988: 92, 103, 127. 52.Sartre 1982: 83; Gatier 1986: 45. Geminius Marcianus was also associated with the construction of the Temple of Zeus at Jerash. (Littmann 1907: 18; Welles 1938: 380, Figure 86: Architrave fragment E321A. inscr. 11; 405, inscr. 65).

50

Figure 87: Decoration of the soffit of the architrave backings.

Figure 88: Soffit decoration of the architrave front .

Figure 89: Architrnv

blocks

50A and N4 A matched together.

rote the non-correspondence of the clamps.

51

Q

'. "9.(..(-;: ... ·' . ..._ ' .:, ;,. :•;-

Figure 90: Architrave blocks N50A and N44A (lower surfaces) matched together.

FRIEZE

No physical evidence of a frieze exists. Bartoccini records the discovery of a frieze fragment with rosettes, "-~ but no such fragment has been found in the vicinity of the temple. A fragment of a frieze which is carved with rosettes does, however, exist in the very small collection of architectural elements in the garden of the Amman Archaeological Museum on the Citadel (fig. 91). Unfortunately, the block carries no registration num-

ber, so its provenance is uncertain. The width of this slab is 0.22 m, its extant height is 0.65 m, while its restored height is approximately 0.85 m (which convincingly associates it with the architrave height of 1.05 m; see fig. 110). Judging from its dimensions and decoration, it seems reasonable to assume that this carved fragment is the one mentioned by Bartoccini. The fragment is tentatively restored in figs. 110-11 only. 53. Bartoccini 1930: 16

Figure 91: Frieze fragment in the garden of the Amman Archaeological Museum.

52 0.66

T

0.213

- + - - - - 0.29

---+-

r

0.299

1

1 0.386

I - 0.17 ----, Figure 92: Cornice block W94G. Scale 1:10.

I/

fl :;· ·t ,,~'jJ'" /1,,,,,-~~;;--1;::~ ---,,~ _·

l

!

.

j

/Y,

J'/I{/

., (J., ,.

c.. . :;;j

i/~:--- .·.·

C _p __ .

(J

:· :_. :_·. _. . . ~ 1/./ ·/

\_.-.?'}_ ✓ -,(

'-=~ :· _,, / ~:i

0.334

Figure 93: Cornice block W206G. Scale 1:10.

Figure 94: Cornice block W94G.

I

0.298

1

53 CORNICES

Four large cornice fragments (W94G, W205G, W206G and W219G) were found immediately to the west of the temple. Their attribution to the temple is made on the basis of their proximity to it. The four fragments represent a single type of horizontal cornice, executed either simply (W94G) or crowned with an engaged sima (W205G, W206G and W219G). It is possible, therefore, to identify from this material a horizontal cornice in its two forms, viz., the simple frontal cornice occurring below the pediment, and the crowned cornice occurring at the sides. The sequence of features over the height of the cornice is typical of the Corinthian order. From the base to the top, the motifs are as follows: ovolo decorated with eggs and tongues;