The Great Temple of Amman – The Excavations

Citation preview

THE GREAT TEMPLE OFAMMAN THE

ExcAvA‫ז‬1o‫א‬s

BY AN‫ז‬H‫ ו‬Kou‫ז‬souKou KENNETH

W. RussELL

MOHAMMAD NAJJAR AHMED MoMAN‫ו‬

-

•

AMERICAN CENTER OF 0RIENTAL RESEARCH Figure ‫ו‬: Aerial ,•iew of the Citadel. May ‫ ו‬993. The white line at lo,vcr let't i., the balloon' � 1e1her.

AMMAN, JORDAN

CONTENTS

American Center of Oriental Research FOREWORD BY PIERRE

Occasional Papers:

I. ACOR: The First 25 Years. The American Center of Oriental Research: 1968-/993

M.

BIKAI ··········································································· VII

PREFACE BY ANTHI KouTsouKou ........................................................................ vm

I.

THE

1990-1992 ExcA v ATI ONS 1990-1992 BY

BY MOHAMMAD NAJJAR ..................................

2. Madaba: Cultural Heritage. Edited by Patricia M. Bikai and Thomas A. Dailey

Locus LIST:

3. The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations by Anthi Koutsoukou, Kenneth W. Russell, Mohammad Najjar, and Ahmed Momani

SUMMARY OF THE PROVENIENCE AND DATING OF THE COINS AND STAMPED HANDLES BY KENNETH II. COINS BY KENNETH

W.

W.

MOHAMMAD NAJJAR ........................................

RUSSELL AND PATRICIA

M.

BIKAI ........................

1

17

20

RUSSELL, MOHAMMAD NAJJAR,

AND ANTHI KouTSOUKOU WITH ASSISTANCE FROM ZBIGNIEW T. FIEMA, JULIAN BOWSHER, AND NAYEF Goussous ................................................... III. STAMPED AMPHORA HANDLES BY KENNETH

The Great Temple of Amman: The Excavations

W.

23

RUSSELL

WITH REVISIONS BY GERALD FINKIELSZTEJN AND ANTHI KouTSOUKOU ...........

39

IV. POTTERY BY ANTHI KouTSOUKOU AND MOHAMMAD NAJJAR .........................

55

V. CERAMIC LAMPS BY ANTHI KouTSOUKOU ..................................................

119

VI. FIGURINES BY ANTHI KouTSOUKOU AND MOHAMMAD NAJJAR .....................

127

By Anthi Koutsoukou, Kenneth W. Russell, Mohammad Najjar, and Ahmed Momani Edited by Patricia Maynor Bikai VII. MISCELLANEOUS FINDS BY ANTHI KOUTSOUKOU

© 1997 by The American Center of Oriental Research WITH NOTES BY AMY APLIN AND MOHAMMAD NAJJAR ................................

All rights reserved VIII. THE

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-2000 I. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development.

1993

135

ExcA VA TIONS BY AHMED MOMAN! AND ANTHI KoUTSOUKOU

WITH ASSISTANCE FROM GLEN

L.

PETERMAN .................................

157

ILLUSTRATION CREDITS .......................................................................................

171

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................

172

AND NOTES BY PETER WARNOCK AND PAUL E. DION

American Center of Oriental Research P. 0. Box 2470, Amman 11181, Jordan PLATES

Layout by Patricia Maynor Bikai Graphic Reproduction by Gulf Scan, U.A.E. Technical Supervision by Shishir Dutta Printed in Jordan by National Press

FOREWORD

_ - - -----: ------~>':;_ -~ ........:::·

.....

--

(.

-~ ::..-=--.

~----.:-_ .. -~~

.

__..

...--c

- -

--::::

· -~

The Temple of Hercules Project, named for the popular appellation of the great Roman temple of Amman, is one of several archaeological development activities undertaken by the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) in an effort to help preserve and protect Jordan's rich cultural heritage. In 1990, ACOR completed the Amman Citadel Feasibility Study under a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Conducted under the auspices of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and on behalf of Jordan's Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, this study proposed a plan to create an archaeological park on the Citadel. The creation of such a park was originally suggested in a USAID-funded United States Park Service report in 1967. The Temple of Hercules Project focused on the site which would achieve the most spectacular results. During this project, the imposing Roman temple on the Citadel and its surrounding temenos, then in a ruined condition, were partially excavated and restored appropriately but dramatically. This volume on the project is the second of two volumes detailing the archaeological and architectural studies conducted at the site. The first volume, The Great Temple of Amman: The Architecture by Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, appeared in 1994. This volume presents the results of nine seasons of archaeological excavations conducted at the temple and its surrounding temenos between July 1990 and April 1993. The project had serious difficulties reaching the publication phase. Originally, responsibility for the publication was given to Kenneth W. Russell and he began work on it in August of 1991. Unfortunately, after his sudden and untimely death in May of 1992, hardly any of his notes on the excavations were recovered. He had written the chapters on the stamped amphora handles and the coins, but the prospects for publication were very dim. In the summer of 1992, Anthi Koutsoukou agreed to carry on with the work and, intermittently over the next three years, brought the material to its present form by finalizing the descriptions of all finds; doing the classification and dating; consulting with the many experts who assisted her; drawing some objects; organizing the drawings and photographs for publication; editing the text; and, in sum, doing everything possible to bring the project to the publication phase. ACOR thanks Dr. Koutsoukou for taking on this project under difficult circumstances. It is due to her dedication and persistence that the present volume exists.

Pierre M. Bikai American Center of Oriental Research

Sketch of the Citadel before the construction of the Great Temple

vi

PREFACE

HISTORY OF THE Excavations on the Citadel of Amman were conducted over nine seasons between PROJECT 1990 and 1993. The purpose of the project was primarily to recover evidence for the study

and partial restoration of the Roman temple and temenos. A large amount of material relating to the sanctuary and other earlier and later structures in the area was produced; problems relating to processing and interpreting this material are discussed below. Directors of the excavations were as follows: first season (July 1990), Mohammed Najjar (Department of Antiquities of Jordan), Mohammad Khair Yassine (University of Jordan), and Rudolph H. Dornemann (Milwaukee Public Museum); second through fifth seasons, Mohammad Najjar; sixth through eighth seasons, Mohammed Najjar and Kenneth W. Russell (ACOR); and, finally, ninth season (April 1993), Ahmed Momani (University of Jordan), assisted by Glen L. Peterman (ACOR) and myself. By early spring of 1992, a sample of the material had been selected for publication and had been sorted out chronologically by K. W. Russell and M. Najjar, with advice on the ceramics from James A. Sauer. Primary recording work of a great part of the material chosen for further study and some work on parallels from other sites was done by Salam Hijjawi (Department of Antiquities) during 1991-92. Before his death, Ken Russell had worked on the chapters on the coins (with assistance from M. Najjar) and on the amphora handles, but these awaited review. In June 1992, ACOR asked me to finish the study in cooperation with M. Najjar and prepare the work for publication, including revising and completing the descriptions, references on the finds, classification of the material, and dating. Dr. Najjar worked on the chapter on the 1990-92 excavations, compiled the locus list, and worked on the Middle Bronze and Iron Age materials. He also assisted with background materials for the April 1993 season, a season that was an interesting challenge and proved rewarding, as we learned more about the large Iron Age structure below the Roman temple. As this was essentially a separate project and, as the object of that excavation is a topic unto itself, it is presented in a separate chapter here. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

viii

The Hercules project was initiated by ACOR Director Bert de Vries, with the assistance of Cynthia Shartzer, and by Rudolph H. Dornemann. The support given by them and by the present director, Pierre M. Bikai, and all of the ACOR staff, made the project possible. 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, former Deputy Director Bastiaan Schouten, as well as to Thomas Dailey and Aied Sweis for their help. Nasri Atalla, former Secretary General of the Ministry of Tourism and Ghazi Bisheh, Director General of the Department of Antiquities, were very helpful, as were Nabil Sweis, Salem Ghawi and Ma'en Nsour of the Ministry of Planning. The participants in the first to eighth seasons of excavation from the Department of Antiquities and the University of Jordan were: archaeologists Ibrahim Abu A'mar, Abdul

Sarni' Abu Dayyah, Adib Abu Shmais, Wafa' Assaf, Hanan Azar, Ishaq Bahri, Mohammad Darwish, Yazeed Ellayan, Romel Ghareib, Mohammad Ghayatah, Sa 'd Hadidi, Ibrahim Haj Hasan, Salam Hijjawi, Mayyadah Jarallah, Huda Keilany, Nidal Lababneh, Sahar Mansour, Ahmed Momani, Ahmad Odeh, Rula Qusous, Ghassan Ramahi, Nazmiyah Rida, Nadine Shbailat, Esmitef Suleiman, K. Traieh and Zuhair Zu 'bi. The architect was Nisreen Lahham; 'Ali Da'aja was the surveyor, and he and Luay Mohamidieh were the draftsmen. Abbas Khammash did the survey of the sanctuary. Other plans were drawn by Kenneth W. Russell and Anthi Koutsoukou. The photographers were Khalil Abd alHadi, Zakatyyah Attiyyat, Salem Da 'ah, and Boghos Darkejian. Jehad Shoubaky gave recording assistance. In the publication phase, several persons were asked to offer expertise on the varied material from the excavations. We hope good use has been made of their suggestions and advice and we thank them warmly. For the Greek and Roman coins, Julian Bowsher went through the text on the coins and gave a first reading of some unprocessed coins in 1993, and subsequently gave further guidance on the rest of the material. Zbigniew Fiema assisted with the finalization of all coin entries and made additional comments. The late Martin Price, director of the British School at Athens, was consulted on one of the Roman coins. The readings of the Islamic coins were checked by Nayef Goussous. For ceramics, valuable advice and help on the dating of the material was given by Khairieh 'Amr, Patricia M. Bikai, Robin Falkner, John Hayes, Ina Kehrberg, Cherie Lenzen, S. Thomas Parker, and Pamela Watson. Gerald Finkielsztejn had been asked by K. W. Russell to review his study of the amphora handles; it is thanks to his extensive comments and suggestions that the chapter was finalized. Rolf Stucky gave information on the Tridacna shell, and Amy Aplin wrote the commentary on it. Paul E. Dion read the inscribed sherd from the 1993 season and gave us guidance on the relevant bibliography. Peter Warnock willingly did the analysis of the organic material of a sample from the 1993 season. The photographs from the 1990-92 excavations are by Mohammad Najjar and courtesy of the Department of Antiquities; other photographs are by J. Wilson Myers and Eleanor Myers, Kenneth W. Russell, Jay Guikema, Bronwyn Douglas, Sarkis Lapajian, Antoni Ostrasz, and courtesy of the Harvard Semitic Museum. The drawings and plans are by Larissa Najjar, Anthi Koutsoukou, Nisreen Lahham, 'Ali Da' aja, Luay Moharnidieh, Ahmed Momani, Sheba Akhtar, Emman Jayyousi, Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, Kenneth W. Russell, and courtesy of Antonio Almagro of the Spanish Archaeological Mission. The graphic on the cover is by this writer and the cover design is by Andrea Atalla. Shishir Dutta supervised the actual production of the book and his help is appreciated. Ahmed Momani is thanked for discussing his notes on the excavations and for his interesting thoughts on several problems of interpretation; his help in all matters is appreciated. Glen Peterman was always a patient audience for our problems and a source of encouragement. Alicia Robinson and Thomas Dailey proofread the final manuscript. Patricia Bikai' s helpful support during this work is acknowledged, as is her work on the IX

layout and final editing. Finally, it is thanks to my husband, Chrysanthos Kanellopoulos, that I first came to Jordan and had the opportunity to learn something of its history and of its people. NOTES ON THE Abbreviations for dimensions: D: diameter; H: height; L: length; Th: thickness; W: CATALOGUE width. Other abbreviations: app.: approximately; c.: century/centuries; est.: estimate;

ext.: exterior; int.: interior; hand.: handmade; DIM.: dimensions; PROV.: provenience; and PAR.: parallels. All measurements for finds are in centimeters except for the coins. For the ceramic finds, degree of fineness-coarseness is indicated as follows: fine; medium fine; slightly coarse; medium coarse; and very coarse. Drawn examples are indicated by an * in the catalogue.

X

CHRONOLOGY

The chronological periods cited are after Homes-Fredericq and Hennessy 1986: 10 and Northedge 1992: 12. This terminology, however, does not apply to the coins, which have their own chronology according to numismatic changes. Early Bronze I-IV 3200-1900 B.c. Middle Bronze I 900-1550 B.c. 1550-] 200 B.C. Late Bronze 1200-1000 B.C. Iron Age I 1000-539 B.C. Iron Age II Iron Age III = Persian 539-332 B.C. 332 B.C. - A.O. 63 Hellenistic Early Roman 1st century A.O. 2d-3d centuries A.O. Late Roman 4th century A.O. - A.O. 635. Byzantine A.O. 635 - mid 11 th century Early Islamic Umayyad 635-750 750-969 Abbasid Fatimid 969-1099 12th century Early Crusader late 12th-1260 Ayyubid 13th century Late Crusader 1260-1516 Mamluk 1516-1918 Ottoman

PERSPECTIVE

A few other notes may help the reader follow this work. Originally, the first chapter of this book was intended to present the historical sources on Amman and a history of the earlier excavations on the Citadel. The chapter had been completed by M. Najjar at the time of the appearance of Studies on Roman and Islamic 'Amman by A. Northedge in the summer of 1993. This impressive publication included an extensive and critical review

review of data on those topics; it was decided not to repeat that information here. It is known that at sites such as the Citadel, continuously occupied since antiquity, the stratigraphy is usually seriously disturbed. It is characteristic behavior for prehistoric and even early historic peoples to simply settle on earlier debris. However, during the historic periods, humans increasingly modified the environment of their predecessors for their own benefit. The result is a complicated stratigraphic situation that presents serious challenges for modern researchers. Regarding the sample selected for publication from the 1990-92 excavation, we outline here which material is included. All recognizable fragments of coins, stamped amphora handles, ceramic lamps, figurines, and other small finds, including grounds tone, are published. Of the pottery, we present the few vestiges of Bronze Age material, of which the finds from the Middle Bronze Age tomb are published in detail by M. Najjar in ADAJ 35 ( 1991 ): 105-30. The Iron Age material comes mainly from a few stratified deposits. Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine finds include material from stratified deposits as well as a sample of characteristic pottery regardless of stratification. Islamic period pottery comes from a series of successive, or interconnected, deposits. It was decided not to include the study of the Ayyubid-Mamluk pottery in the publication, because of time constraints, and also because it was felt that this material could become a small project for a person with a particular interest in the subject. Although Ken Russell would have provided a well-reasoned explanation of the logic behind the sampling, we understand that his purpose was twofold: to present stratified deposits as well as a characteristic sample of finds regardless of stratificationin order to show the sort of material one encounters on this part of the Citadel. This may be useful in supporting theories on the function of sites and on cultural affinities. As to the presentation, because of the small number of well-stratified deposits, the material is classified primarily by chronological and typological groups, rather than by strictly contextual groups . All finds or groups of finds are followed by notes on their context and comments on aspects of chronology, when possible. Notes at the beginning of the chapters about the finds inform the reader of the particulars regarding each group of finds. For the last excavation season, April 1993, we adopted a much stricter sampling procedure and present here a small but characteristic sample. The rest of the material is available for further study. Finally, we do acknowledge the shortcomings of our work and the long delay in publication. The sudden loss of Ken Russell created a void. We hope that he would have approved, at least to some extent, the course we have taken in order to realize this publication.

Anthi Koutsoukou Athens, November 1995 xi

I.

THE

1990-1992 EXCAVATIONS

BY MOHAMMAD NAJJAR

INTRODUCTION

NORTH NORTHEAST QUADRANT

NORTHWEST QUADRANT

The excavations under the so-called Temple of Hercules Project were conducted over eight seasons during the period between 2 July 1990 and I OJanuary 1992, on the Upper Terrace of the Amman Citadel (Fig. I). The Citadel of Amman consists of three platforms (terraces) in the shape of reversed L with the longest arm running east to west (Fig. 2). The first or Upper Terrace extends from north to south for about 360 m. In width it is over 180 m in some areas. This terrace constitutes the northern arm of the Citadel, where the major archaeological remains are located. The total size of the area exceeds 6.5 ha. The second or Middle Terrace includes that part of the Citadel which extends between the temenos wall of the Roman temple to the west and the modern buildings of Amman to the east. This terrace is separated from modern buildings by a 6 m wide modern asphalt road. Occasionally in the literature, this terrace is erroneously referred to as the Lower Terrace. Its size exceeds 3.6 ha (300 by 120 m). The third or Lower Terrace consists of the easternmost part of the Citadel. This terrace is now

1,-l

0

~

o

m

"' ~

~

~

MUSEUNI

N

W

1--T"'""+-+.;-&!A--~-=::J""""f~-q-..-+-+--Hr¼--*-+--+-➔--tf-t--l 55 .-.s~..-..-+-+-+-+-+--+--t'l--ft++--+--tf-+--f---1

50

45

40

"""~""'~"'.)"'r.,,,,~~"'..1..,...1-++-+---f.-4--l--l~M~~~-+---135 30

~~-+--i ~~-+-I ~~d--1

;;.....~,=o~+-+-+--+--+--+-+---f::~-~~~~:i..t----1 M-N-➔--1

151.400 N

25 20 15 10

0

200m

100m

05 00 00

00

ROMAN PHILADELPHIA (AMMAN)

05

A. Temple and Temenos B. North Complex C. Southeastcrn Gate D. South Propylaeon E. Decumanus Maximus F. Nymphacum G. Theater H. Odeon

SOUTHWEST QUADRANT

0

50m

-•c:11-•::::1-•=====:::::i

20

2. Aug. 12-Sept. 13, 1990

• ~

6. June 29-Aug. 2, 1991

3. Oct. 6-Nov. 9, 1990

m

~

7. Aug. 24-Sept. 27, 1991

~

4. Nov. 24-Dec. 29, 1990

□.

8.Dec. 7, 1991-Jan. 10,1992

II

EXCAVATION SEASON 1. July 7-28, 1990

Fig. I.

25

UNITS

5. Jan. 12-24 and April 27-May 24, 1991

~

B

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3. The area in

almost completely covered by modern buildings, but a careful examination of the empty areas between the houses reveals the remains of the ancient walls visible on the surface. The size of this terrace is about 6 ha. This project area was originally divided into four quadrants ( I 00 x I 00 m; see Plate I) by reference to the intersection of N 151.400/ E238.500 on the Palestine Grid. This point was taken as the zero point for the excavation grid, front of the temple before the excavations. looking west around which the NE, NW, SE, and SW sections were established. Each quadrant was then subdivided into 400 squares (5 x 5 m), designated by the cardinal references closest to the zero point. The zero point itself falls near the south western corner of the Roman temple. The absolute altitude above sea level was based on a datum point established by the British Expedition to the Citadel of Amman (836.662 m). During eight seasons of excavation a total of 130 squares were excavated (see Fig. I). The depth of excavation varied between I m and over6 m. Each feature (soil deposits, walls, floors, pits, etc.) excavated as a single locus was given a locus number in a single, running series for each square. These loci were meant to correspond to the natural or historical deposition. When the thickness of the deposits exceeded 0.5 m, a new and arbitrary locus number was assigned. As a result of the excavations, eleven major and four minor occupational phases were distinguished in the Great Temple area. EARL y BRONZE AGE

The last stage of the Early Bronze Age (EB IV, 2250-1900 B.c.) was represented by some residual ceramic sherds (NE45/20. l 0). These sherds came from a square near the modern road to the museum. Separated from the caves to the north by the above-mentioned road, this square is situated exactly in front of one of those caves and it is likely that the EB IV sherds came from clearances of the cave in antiquity (Roman-Umayyad periods), and again in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Although Early Bronze sherds have been encountered at various places on the Citadel (Dornemann 1983), the absence of architectural remains of that era on the Upper Terrace of the Citadel would indicate that this area was not occupied during that period. It seems probable that Early Bronze Age and earlier occupation was confined to the Lower Terrace of the Citadel, which is closer to water resources and farmlands, but now occupied by modern houses; it is probably relevant that some sherds were recovered from the southeast edge of the Middle Terrace (Zayadine et al. 1988).

2

floor; 01-06, 09- 10, 12: fills; and 08, 13, 17, I 8: the Middle Bronze tomb). Middle Bronze sherds were found as residuals in at least 13 other squares. They have been identified in squares NW I0/ 15.25, 28, 32, 38; NW I 0/20.04; NW I 0/25.05; and NW 15/25.21. All of these squares are located in the immediate vicinity of the Middle Bronze Age tomb and it is likely that they represent debris from the tomb that was redeposited during the construction of Iron Age buildings. However, in NE20/20 (some 30 m northeast of the tomb), Middle Bronze sherds mixed with Iron Age II sherds dating to the 7th century s.c. were found in the fill (locus 08) between two stone walls (NE20/20.09, 10). These walls seem to create a corner under the footing of the Roman temple, but do not appear to relate to the Iron Age walls which overlie them. Due to restraints in time, combined with harsh winter weather conditions, work in this area was interrupted before the nature and function of these walls could be determined. They may belong to a Middle Bronze Age structure (possibly a temple?) that appears to have been reused in the Iron II period. Residual remains from the Middle Bronze II were identified also in NEl5/20.03; NE10/25.0l; NE70/75.04, 11, 13; NE10/ 90.22; NE40/95.04; NE40/85. I 8, 20; and finally NE20/40.05. The abundance of unstratified Middle Bronze sherds and the fact that they occur over a relatively extensive area indicate that the Citadel of Amman was well occupied in the Middle Bronze II, especially on the Middle Terrace and probably the easternmost or Lower Terrace. However, the apparent lack of residential architecture on the Upper Terrace and the presence of three tombs may indicate that this portion of the Citadel was considered a sacred area (cemetery or a temple area). The salvage excavation on the Middle Terrace in 1987 (Zayadine et al. 1987) showed that the Upper Terrace was separated from the Middle Terrace by a large stone wall.

Middle Bronze Age To1nh

NWl0/10.08, 13, 17, 18

·-·-,

-...0.. • .b

:

~1~ I •

I I I

I

Fig. 4.

LATE BRONZE AGE

No Late Bronze Age phase ( 1550-1200 B.c.) was isolated, although a few Late Bronze sherds occurred as residual materials in later layers. Such residuals were found in squares NE20/40.02; NE25/40.09, 12; NE35/90. I 0; NE35/95. I4; NE40/95.22, 25; NE I0/95.21; NE25/95.02, 12; NE65/55.06; NW25/20. I I; and finally in SE00/40.05, 12. It is suspected that the absence of Late Bronze architectural remains does not necessarily support Glueck's (I 939: 268) theory that Amman was unoccupied (or at most occupied by nomads) during this period. Alternatively, it may be suggested that different settlement patterns and land use occurred during the Late Bronze Age, and that the Late Bronze Age settlement was located at the Lower Terrace, now under modern occupation levels.

I

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

IRON AGE

A Middle Bronze Age tomb was discovered during the fourth campaign of excavations (November 24 to December 30, 1990; see Najjar 1991 ). Two Middle Bronze tombs had been found previously on the Citadel (Ma'ayeh 1960; Piccirillo 1978). This tomb is located directly to the west of the western wall of the temple in square NW 10/10 (Fig. 4 ); it was partially disturbed at least three times-during the Iron Age, Hellenistic, and Roman periods-resulting in extensive damage to the contents of the tomb and complete destruction of its eastern and southern parts. Middle Bronze ceramic sherds were encountered in almost all the loci of the square. The materials were embedded in a heavily compacted matrix created by roof collapse and water action. Most of the Middle Bronze material came from loci 08, 13, 17, and 18. In this unit (NW I 0/ 10), twenty-three separate loci, including bedrock, were identified (loci 07, 11, 14: walls; 16:

Remains of this period generally are little excavated and are not well understood. No clear indicators were found during our excavations in the Great Temple area, even as residuals in later levels. Certain sherds from the Citadel itself found in earlier excavations may date to the very end of this period (Dornemann 1983: 170). The only, but still uncertain, evidence comes from the west of the temple in NW20/25. An Iron II room was excavated and a probe under its plaster floor produced three floor surfaces (NW20/25.4 I, 43 and 45) with respective occupational depositions (NW20/25.40, 42, 44). Below the debris (NW20/25.46) of the last floor, bedrock (NW20/25.47) was reached at 831.39 m above sea level. Due to the limited size of the probe trench, few sherds were collected that bear the characteristics of Early Iron Age pottery, such as thick, gritty ware; poor firing with thick, blackish core; heavy white slip; ring bases; and rounded collar rims.

3

IRON AGE

NE40/95.17 NE40/95.19 NE40/95. l 6,

20-22 NE40/95.15 NE40/95.18

Fig. 5. Iron II loci in NE40/95

will be discussed.

II

The existence of a substantial Iron II occupation on the Citadel of Amman has been widely documented at several locations by numerous archaeological excavations (e.g., Zayadine 1977-78; Hadidi 1978; Almagro 1983; Northedge 1983; Zayadine et al. 1988, 1989). Further Iron II structures were uncovered during the Temple of Hercules Project. In virtually every square excavated in the area of the temple (roughly 1.5 ha), extensive Iron Age II structures were uncovered. The majority of architectural remains and small finds date to the Iron IIC period (last quarter of the 8th century through the 7th century s.c.). While a detailed discussion of all Iron Age II finds lies beyond the scope of this work, the most representative features in specific squares

The farthest east that Iron Age II architectural remains were found was in squares NE40/IO0 2 and NE40/95. In square NE40/95 is a small room ( 1.3 m ) formed by 0. 75 m wide walls built of rough stones (NE40/95. I 5, 17, 18, 19; Fig. 5). A large number of broken, but restorable pots were uncovered in the 2.5 m of room fill (NE40/95. I 6, 20, 21, 22). Bedrock was reached at 828.80 m above sea level. The small size of the room and the nature of the archaeological finds indicate that this installation (possibly a well) was reused as a rubbish pit in the 7th century s.c. In NE40/ 100, another room was excavated that was formed by roughly-built 0. 75 m wide stone walls (NE40/I00. I 0, 11, 13; t!1e fourth wall is located under the balk). Considering the size of this room (excavated area ea. 2 m -) and the presence of several large storage jars it appears that it was used as a storeroom. Another small room sealed by a later plaster ?-:/."' _ floor was identified in square NE40/95 (Fig. 6); but due to time ,,. ... .. constraints, it was not excavated (NE40/95. l 2). Architectural remains, apparently belonging to a large Iron II structure, were identified immediately to the east of the temple. A large wall extends from north to south for 4 m (NE25/40.08). It is about I m wide and built of large boulders (probably exposed bedrock fragments that were cut and incorporated into the wall) as well as medium cobbles. This wall dates to the Iron Age II, according to the pottery discovered in its foundation trench (NE25/40.08, 09). During the second season of the excavations tt (August to September 1990), the top and the eastern face of this ~ wall were exposed. During the seventh season (August to September 1991) excavations in this area continued to the west of the wall. A series of strata (NE25/35.22, 23, 24, 25) containing Iron II sherds were also excavated. Due to the importance of this structure, work was continued in this unit during the last season (eighth season, January 1992). The inner face of another wall (NE20/20.07) was uncovered ~,., ~{ inside the area of the Roman temple, just south of a large rock outcrop (often referred to in the literature as the "Sacred Rock of ~;,t.:~ "'~ the Ammonites"). Also built oflarge boulders and smaller cobbles, ,,-- ~ this wall extends from east to west for more than 5 m. Its western -~-~ end is cut by the foundation trench of the eastern portico wall of the Great Temple. The continuation of its eastern end runs under the rubble core of the temple staircase, and was not exposed, except on its southern face in a test trench originally excavated by Dornemann ( 1983). However, its orientation suggests that it Fig. 6. Iron Age storeroom sealed by a plaster floor in square meets in a northeast corner with the north-south running wall NE40/95 (NE25/40.08), discussed above. Iron Age II remains were attested

':>·~.:"-

,•

-

i ~--.. ·--1~,

also in squares NE I 0/35 and NE 15/40. These remains consist mainly of surfaces of floors (NE I 0/35.06, 08, 09, I 0 and NE 15/40.1 0; see Fig. 7). Due to the limited area of the excavations, these floors can not be attributed to certain walls, but they are at the same level as the floor uncovered in NW25/35.22-25, and they are of the same composition. That suggests that there may have been a large courtyard in this location which may be dated to the Iron Age II. The area '.! t ~ ~ adjacent to units NEI0/35 and NEI0/40 was not excavated ...i:_; but trench SE00/40 revealed Iron Age II remains at its ,,___~ I:?· .. . ... .,:. .. deepest level (Locus 10). This suggests an extensive Iron .. -,;;;-,, ...,.,Age II occupation in this area. [On the 1993 excavation in this area, see Chapter VIII.] The western end of wall NE20/20.07, which is about 0. 75 Fig. 7. Iron Age plaster floor (NE 10/35.10) upper left. cut by the m wide, extends from northeast to southwest for about 5 m. foundations of the south wall of the Roman temple· s staircase. view Its western end is superimposed by a Roman wall (NE20/ towards the south 20.03), which runs north-south, while to the east it was destroyed by the foundation for the Roman portico. Undisturbed Iron Age deposits (NE20/20.0406) were uncovered south of wall NE20/20.07. The floor level (flagstone pavement NE20/20.05) was reached at 835.20 m above sea level. In trench NW20/20, after the pavement was cleared, we noticed two wall alignments (NE20/20.09, I 0). On the last day of the season, it was decided to excavate part of the Iron Age pavement to clarify the nature and the function of the walls, on the one hand, and to recover some of the material sealed by the pavement, on the other hand. Afterthe clearance, it turned out that those two alignments were the upper courses of two walls. The first one (NE20/20.09), which is I m long and 0.45 m wide, runs from northeast to south west. The second wall, which is 1.25 m long and also 0.45 m wide, runs north west to southeast. The walls were contemporary and make a corner NW25/20.04 NW25 20.12 (lloor), 13 under the Roman wall NE20/20.03. The pottery found in the fill between these -fwalls was a mixture of Middle Bronze and Iron II forms. NW202 32,37,3 Wall NE20/20.09 runs northwest to NW20 25.3 southeast but is not contemporary with ._,,_L wall NE20/20.07. On the other hand, the 20 20.20, 28, Iron Age II pottery from NE20/20.06, and (lloor); 40, 42, particularly locus 08, was mixed with , 46, and I, 43, 45 lloors Middle Bronze Age IIC pottery. It is either the case that wall NE20/20.09 belongs to ,,,~~i,:,:e-++-NW20 20.04 an Iron Age structure earlier than the Iron Age structure associated with wall NE20/ 20.07 and loci 04, 05, and 06, or that it belongs to a Middle Bronze Age structure, reused in the Iron II period. The interpretation is still conjectural, but it is highly possible that the two walls originally belonged to a Middle Bronze structure and were reused in the Iron Age. Substantial architectural remains were excavated directly to the west of the temple (Fig. 8). In NWI0/15, the northwestern 2 part of a room (4.5 m ) was excavated. NWIO 20.29 Bedrock was reached at 832.47 m above NWIO 20.2 sea level. A large number of broken pots NWIO 15.35 NW!NIS~ and storage jars were found in the fill 34, 36-38 Fig. 8. Iron II loci in the NW sector . I (NWI0/15.33, 34, 36, 37, and floor 38,

..1s__-

~r•:..•~ T~ \ ~~..L:_~

:-f-

4

5

Fig. 9. Locus

6

WI0/15.34

which runs to walls NWI 0/15.35, and 10). These ceramics were found on the floor mixed with stones. Most probably, the collapse of the wall was caused by a sudden event such as an earthquake, such that the inhabitants of the house had no time to evacuate their belongings. The Ammonite wall NW I 0/15.35 is superimposed by the stylobate of the Roman temenos NWI0/15.12, on which, in turn, the Abbasid wall NW I 0/15.02 was erected. Only the eastern face of the Iron Age wall was exposed; in order to reveal more of the Iron Age architectural remains, it was decided to excavate the adjacent square to the west of NW 10/15 (NW 10/20, of which the eastern part is recorded as a direct continuation of square NW I 0/15). Iron Age architecture was also identified in that unit. Two parallel walls (NW20/l 5.24 and 30), about 0.80 m wide, extend from east to west; the space in between (NW I0/15.29) is paved with flat stones. This flagstone pavement (NW I 0/20.29) lies at the same level as floor NW I0/15.38, to the east of wall NW I0/15.35 (832.54 m above sea level). Approximately at its center, a stone-lined pit (NW I 0/20.28) was uncovered. Since the western face of wall NW I 0/ 15.35 was covered by debris and the temenos stylobate (NW I 0/20.12), it was impossible to determine how walls NW I 0/20.24 and 30 are connected with wall NWl0/15.35; it appears, however, that they are related and contemporary. Further Iron Age II remains were brought to light in squares NW 15/25 and NW20/25. At least four rooms were identified and excavated to their floor levels. The first room was encountered in the western part of the square, just west of the Roman temenos wall. The north and east walls are 0.9 m wide (NW20/25.39 and NW20/25.3 l ). The room has a plaster floor (NW20/25.38). At least the interior (south) face of the northern wall was also coated with the same kind of plaster. The occupational deposition (NW20/25.32, 37) down to the floor contained a mixture of both Iron II and early Hellenistic period pottery. Apparently, these Iron II houses were occupied into the Hellenistic period, when the easily recognized and typically Greek ceramics begin to appear in the archaeological record. The second room is located in the center of the eastern part of the square between two 0.9 mwide parallel walls (NW20/25. l 9 and 15). Extending from east to west, these two walls are the extensions of walls NW20/20.08 and 04, respectively, in the adjacent square. The floor level of this room was reached at 833.9 m above sea level. A medium-sized storage jar with a plaster stopper was found sunken into the plaster floor, about 0.60 m from the east balk, with its rim at floor level. The stopper consists of two pieces, that is, a lid (0.15 m in diameter) which fits inside a thick ring attached to the rim of the jar. The pottery from the occupational fill (NW20/25.20, 28) and from the floor (NW20/25.36) also belonged to both Iron Age II and Hellenistic periods. In this case too, it is likely that there was continuous occupation from the Iron Age II to the Hellenistic period and perhaps even later. The earliest evidence in this unit came from a small probe trench, dug through the plaster floor (NW20/25.36). Three surfaces or floors (NW20/25.4 l, 43, 45) and corresponding occupational deposits (NW20/25.40, 42, 44, 46) were excavated above bedrock. The material appears to belong to the early Iron Age period (see Iron I, above). The Hellenistic floor (NW25/20. I 2) was cut showing that the two walls were built in the Hellenistic period on top of burned roof material, consisting of burned bricks and clay lumps mixed with straw (NW25/20. I 3). It is possible that these remains belong to a collapsed roof. The debris was levelled before the plaster floor was installed. Probing this unit to a depth of about 0.8 m, a large amount of Iron Age pottery was collected. Bedrock was not reached in this square nor in NW20/20, although the latter was also probed to a depth of 833.74 m above sea level.

IRON AGE III (PERSIAN PERIOD,

539-332 B.C.)

The later part of the Iron Age has long been considered one of the more obscure periods in the archaeological record of Jordan. This characterization reflects an attitude which assumes that the material culture should directly reflect the political situation, i.e., Persian predominance in the area. The extent of such influence on the material culture depends on the extent of foreign involvement in the affairs of the area in question (Dornemann 1983: 26). It has been common practice to look for Persian-style goods, without considering that these need not characterize the material culture; it is more realistic to expect these goods to be luxury items, belonging to an administrative or military elite related to Persian domination. Yet these goods would represent a rather small portion of the material recovered in excavation. Great effort has been made to distinguish Persian goods and some groups of finds have been identified as Persian but later proved to be local. It should therefore be expected that the main bulk of the material remains had a local character and continued existing traditions. The recovery, therefore, of Ammonite pottery which is "typically Transjordanian and can not be paralleled elsewhere" (Dornemann 1983: 179), together with Attic ware lecythoi and typical Achaemenian seals and metal works (Haddad 1984: 7-14; Hadidi 1987: I 0 1-120; Yassine 1984, 1988: I 1-3 I) proves the above theory, rather than creates questions. HELLENISTIC PERIOD

Fig. JO. Hellenistic loci

Evidence from archaeological excavations at the Citadel of Amman and in downtown Amman shows that the occupation in the 3d century B.C. was restricted to the Upper and Middle Terraces of the Citadel. Hellenistic occupation was attested at various places (Northeast and Northwest Quadrants) in the area of the Great Temple, and especially in the area to the east and the west of the Roman temenos walls (NEl5/95.36; NEl5/l00.03, 08; NE20/95.38, 39; NE20/ 100.03, 10; NE25/I00.I I; NE30/95.05; -fNE35/ I 00.03, 05; NE45/ I00.08, 09; NW I0/ 10.07, 10, I I, 14;andNW20/25.15, 19,36, 38, 39; see Fig. I 0). Some of the walls were cut by the temple's foundation trenches. Stratigraphic evidence in most of the trenches excavated to the east and west of the temple shows that there is no gap between the Iron Age II and the Hellenistic occupation of the houses (see above, Iron Age 11), in contrast with common belief that there was a period of abandonment in Amman (and Jordan in general) during the I -fearly Hellenistic period. In some instances, there are indications that the same rooms were in use continuously from the Iron Age II through the Hellenistic period; the lower VT\ strata revealed Iron Age II pottery and the 19 lo upper deposits consisted of a mixture of I I Iron Age II and early Hellenistic ceramics. Finally, there were pure Hellenistic deposits (NW25/20. I 2). However, in one of the trenches, Hellenistic occupation was separated from the Iron Age by a thick layer of decayed mud lumps which could be the remains of the collapsed roof (NW25/ NWl0/1 0.11 20.13). in the NW sector 7

ROMAN PERIOD

One of the major objectives of the project was the definition of the outlines of the Great Temple precinct. To this end, a number of trenches were excavated in order to trace the temenos walls. Work started in the Southwest Quadrant during the first season of the project in July 1990. The foundation of the internal temenos wall and the associated plaster floor were traced in squares SW I0/10.06, SW 15/ I0.08, and SW 15/15. The external temenos wall was also excavated in squares SW20/ 05.05 and SW20/10.03. By the end of the season the internal and the external south west corners of the temenos were located. Fig. I I. The foundation of the south temenos stylobate During the second season of the project (September to October 1990) excavations were concentrated in the Southeast Quadrant, with the purpose of investigating the southern walls of the temenos. The foundation of the stylobate was uncovered in squares SEOO/ 40.10 and SE00/45.12 (Fig. 11 ). The width of the cobble foundation is 1.8 m. Farther to the south the temenos wall was uncovered. The inner face of the wall was exposed in squares SE05/40.39 and SE05/ 45.05, 15. In these two trenches, the temenos wall runs from east to west for about IO m. The height of the wall exceeds 2.2 m. It is built of five courses of dressed limestone ashlars in ~ ~ ~ ~ - .. . -~ ~ the header-and-stretcher technique. A series Fig. 12. South temenos wall with pilasters and Umayyad - Abbasid reinforcements. view from the south of soil deposits (SE05/40.14, 16, 20, 29; SE05/ 45.17, 18) and plaster floors (SE05/40. I9, 30; SE05/45. I 9) are associated with it. Some ceramics obtained from there proved important for confirming the date for the construction of the temple as the second half of the 1st century A.O., a date which was already known from the dedicatory inscription on the architrave of the temple. The destruction layer on the top of the floor of the stoa contained three coins dating to the first quarter of the 3d century A.o. Three squares in the same area (SE I0/3 5, SE I0/40, SE I 0/45) ex posed the external face of the temenos wall and revealed architectural data relating to modifications in later periods. This part of the temenos wall was incorporated into the southern fortifications of the Citadel in the Umayyad and Abbasid periods. A new wall about 1.5 m farther to the south of the Roman temenos wall was built and the space between the two walls was filled with stones, creating a massive defence wall. A trench was excavated in SE I0/40 between the two skins of the fortification, revealing the engaged pilasters, with interaxial spacing 2.91-2.97 m, that decorate the outer face of the temenos wall (Fig. 12). During the third season of the project (Novemberto December 1990) efforts focused in the Northwest Quadrant (the area west of the temple). The aim was to expose as much as possible of the temenos, where the stylobate and two bases were preserved in situ. In this area, more than Fig. 13. The west temenos stylobate with column bases in situ. on top of earlier architectural remains. looking south 25 m of the stylobate was revealed (Fig. 13). In trenches NW I 0/15.12 -

8

#

: .:

--~.

-

-

,,_- - ; :

1,,_~ ~.:. \.-

-

:.- :..

and NW25/20.03, only the foundation survived, while in NW30/20 and NW35/20, the stylobate remained well preserved, extending for I Om. The stylobate consists of two courses: the footing, and the upper course, on which columns were placed at equal distances. The shafts and capitals scattered in the area helped reconstruct the dimensions of the columns. The temenos wall continues north and disappears under the retaining wall of the modern road in front of the museum. It is possible that the best preserved part of the enclosure remains buried in this area. In the fourth and fifth seasons of the project, excavations continued in the Northeast Quadrant and particularly in the area to the east of the Abbasid fortification wall. The main goals were to trace the eastern temenos walls and to locate the probable eastern gate, if there was one. Actually, a large portion of the temenos wall, well preserved in the southeastern corner and the no11heastern corner(NE75/80.12), was revealed. By the end of the season, three of the four corners of the temenos wall were known (the southwestern corner was uncovered during the first season of the Temple of Hercules Project, while the southeastern one was excavated by the British Expedition to the Citadel in the 1970s; see Northedge Fig. 14. The eastern wall of the temenos. looking south. Notice the 1983). This data enabled us to estimate the location of the Abbasid fortification built on a higher le ve l. fourth (north western) corner of the temenos, which should be in the garden of the Jordan Archaeological Museum. In some places (NE 15/95.15), up to I Ocourses of ashlar masonry from the temenos wall were preserved (Fig. 14). The lowest part of the inner face of the wall, originally sealed below the plaster floor of the stoa, was built of rough stones. It was noted that during the Umayyad period the limestone ashlars of the wall had been completely robbed in most areas, while the lower and coarser inner face remained in place until the Abbasid period, when it was incorporated into the new fortifications of the Citadel. The second goal of the season related to the access to the temple area from the Middle Terrace to the east. The only known gate, even at present, is in the southeastern cornerofthe temenos, Gate C, apparently intended to provide access to the sacred enclosure from the lower part of the city in the valley (Northedge 1983; Kanellopoulos 1994). It has been suggested that there was probably another gate in the northeast area of the temenos, giving access to the northern part of the Citadel (Bowsher 1992: 134 ). Considering the orientation of the temple, it is predictable that there existed a main entrance to the temenos from the east, leading directly to the temple. In fact, the relatively good state of preservation of the Hellenistic architectural remains between the temenos and the lower (by more than 7 m) Middle Terrace could be due to the partial levelling of these earlier buildings in order to use them as foundations for a ramp connecting the temenos and the Middle Terrace. Fig. 15. Barrel vault below the rampart connecting the Middle Terrace with the temenos Unfortunately, a long east-west 9

section between the east temenos wall and the temple, that could have tested this hypothesis, could not be realized due to the massive Abbasid fortifications built against the temenos wall, the presence of an Ottoman cemetery within the area, and the poor preservation of the Roman wall in this sector. A barrel vault (NE30/ I00.12) was excavated in the area (Fig. 15). The floor (NE30/ I00.19) of the vault is only a few centimeters above bedrock. The entrance to the vault was from the east and in some places fragments of plaster were still visible on the stones and a small fragment of painted plaster (fresco) was preserved. The vault area was reused in the Byzantine period. During the January to May 1991 season, the foundation of the stylobate was excavated in squares NEI0/85.05; NEI0/90.26; NEl5/95. I I; and NE20/90. I I. It is built of cobbles and small boulders connected with mortar. The height of the foundation varies according to the topography of the site, and its width is 1.6-1.8 m. During the Temple of Hercules Project, the south western and the southeastem comers of the temenos stylobate were determined, while the northeastem comer was only partly preserved. Parts of the temenos plaster floor were uncovered in most related trenches. A series of successive-up to four-floors were excavated. In some trenches (NE05/ 85.13; NEI0/85.04) there was evidence of repairs to, or repaving of, the floor. In some instances (NEl0/90.24), it is 0.2 m thick. The staircase of ~.-'._i).;t~~'..~'\1{f;}.;1)•;;1\:. ~{-._=:~:· ,:\,;: _:·.~, . the temple was another focal point of the excavations (see ·.· Plate II). The foundation of the staircase had been uncovered in a probe during the .z_,j_ second season of the project (NE20/35.3; . ...:~ -}. ;.:,.._... .: Fig. 16). In the sixth and seventh seasons (July to December 1991 ), when work was resumed in this area (NE20/35.03), more information was acquired, despite Fig. 16. Foundation of the Roman temple's staircase in the center, view towards the west the unfavorable circumstances; considering that staircases are readily accessible and provide relatively light building material, it is often the case that little or no trace of them remains, which seemed to be the case with the temple. In fact the probes by the Italian team in the late 1920s, and by a joint team from the Department of Antiquities, Jordan University and the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) in the first season of this project in 1990 had been unsuccessful in revealing any evidence for the staircase. During the last season, the foundations of the southern parotid of the staircase (the extension of the long side of the podium) were traced in NEl0/35, NEI 5/35, and NEl5/40, where it reached its furthermost point to the east. The northern wall had been completely robbed, but levelling marks on the surface of the bedrock indicate its location. Parts of the foundation for the staircase were uncovered in NE25/40.02, 04, 05; NE25/35.02, 03, 04; NE20/30; NE30/30; and particularly in NE30/35 (see Chapter VIII). This sparse evidence did not allow for precise estimates of the dimensions of the steps or for the general appearance of the staircase. The extent of the staircase to the east can be determined by the traces of wear and the position of the chisel marks on bedrock as well as by a cobble pavement which could be interpreted as the border of the temenos floor in front of the eastern side of the staircase. Additional information comes from the plaster floor of the temenos in NE30/45.02 and NE45/35.02, which could mark the extent of the staircase to the east and northeast. According to our calculations, the podium extended to the east (from the eastern wall of the temple) approximately 10 m. The steps did not stop with the wall and they kept going to the east for about 3 m more.

~~~~~-,--

ii l1\~

10

Fig. 17. The foundations of the podium of the Roman temple. west side. facing east

In the area of the staircase, a new fragment of the inscribed architrave (E32 I A) was uncovered (see Plate 11), which helped in the reading of the dedicatory inscription (Kanellopoulos 1994: 48-49, fig. 86). Furthermore, architectural remains dating to the Middle Bronze and Iron Age II were found under the staircase foundation (see above and Ch. VIII). The date of the construction of the temple is safely deduced from the dedicatory inscription on its architrave according to which it was built in the term of Publius Julius Gemini us Marcianus in the Province of Arabia, A.D. 161-66 (Gatier I 986: 45). A coin (C64 ), dating to the reign of Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus, was recovered from the construction fill of the temple portico (NE25/25.02) and agrees with the chronology of the inscription. Two bronze coins dated to Marcus Aurelius came from mixed contexts (C-17 from NE I0/90.02 and C-19 from 25/ I 00.02). The numismatic evidence is, however, informative regarding the destruction of the temenos, or at least of part of it. Three bronze coins were found on the surface of the south temenos portico floor (SE05/ 45.19) under the collapse of roof tiles, which in tum was covered by a tumble of stones. Coins C-10 and Cl I are safely dated to the reign of Alexander Severns (A.D. 222-35). The third one (C-9) from the same locus may be dated to the reign of Elagabalus (A.D. 218-22). Elagabalus or Heliogabalus, son ofCaracalla, was the

Fig. 18. Ground plan of the Roman temple

11

high priest Elagabal (Sun God of the city Homos in Syria). Elagabalus, supported by the Roman troops in Syria, became important (after the death of Makrin, A.D. 217-18) under the name of Caesar Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 218-22). Elagabalus started a series of reforms aimed at the unification of the Roman Pantheon of Gods under the hegemony of the Sun God Elagabalus of Homos, a move that did not meet with the approval of the Roman Senate and army. After his assassination in A.D. 222, the cult of traditional Roman Gods was restored. It is probable that Elagabalus' policy on religious matters resulted in neglect of the maintenance of the temenos on the Citadel, thus initiating the long process of its destruction.

facade took place most probably in A.D. 749 when an earthquake struck the area (Fig. 20). With the architrave disconnected from the cella, the whole structure was greatly weakened. The columns started to fall, not from the top, but from theircenters because the tops were still connected by the architrave. Then the top collapsed in various directions. Pre-A.D. 749 materials were sealed by a thick destruction layeroflarge stones. Umayyad activities were also attested to the east of the eastern temenos wall in the area of the excavated Byzantine barrel vault. The room was reused in the Umayyad period, a new mosaic floor (NE30/ I 00.16, 18) was laid, and the entrance from the east was blocked. A new

UMA YYAD PERIOD

During the Umayyad period the main area of the activity was in the northern part of the Upper Terrace. The Great Temple was not used as a residential area, although it was included within the city wall. The Umayyads used the Roman sanctuary as a quarry for building material for the Umayyad complex at the northern edge of the Upper Terrace. The stones of the cella (mediumsized ashlars) were probably the first to be taken. Larger stones had to be cut in smaller pieces and traces of this activity were identified in several trenches (NE45/25.07, 08; NE40/20.04; NE45/ 15.07; NE45/20.07; see Plate 11), in the form of a substantial layer of stone chips. Part of the limestone building material from the temple was also used in order to obtain lime. Close to the northeast corner of the temple, fragments of limestone slabs were discovered near a 0.5 m thick layer of ash. This ash layer extended into four trenches (NE45/25.09; NE50/25.06; NE50/30.07, 11, 12; NE50/35.06). ;\;'• It may be that the caves "~a... just to the north of the , -_ .Q, temple were also used by ~ _st,, Umayyad stonecutters. The Umayyads could have Fig. 19. Umayyad period cleaned those caves and used some of the stones of the external temenos wall of the temple. When all surface material from the temple was exhausted, the Umayyads started to dig large pits in the northeast (NE35/20; NE35/25; NE35/30) and southeast (NEI0/30; NEI0/35; NE 15/35) corners of the temple to obtain stones from the parotides of the staircase (NEI 0/35.04; Fig. 19). It seems that by the time of the completion of the Umayyad complex, the prostasis of the temple had been completely separated from the cella. That part of the architrave which had connected the facade with the cella was removed from either side, but it is probable that the facade was still standing at the J. •'• Fig. 20. Capital of collapsed column K, northeast of the temple end of the Umayyad period. The collapse of the

J

12

entrance (NE25/ I00.20) with four steps was opened from the south. On the south side, the temenos wall was used as the inner skin of the new fortifications, which reached a width of 2.5 m in places; a new wall was built parallel to the temenos, about 1.5 m south of it, and the space in between was filled with stones and mortar. The outer face of the fortification incorporated building material from the temple. In the area to the west of the Roman temple, a large house was excavated (NW20/25.05, 07. 08, 24; see Fig. 21 ). The ceramics from these rooms belong to at least two phases of occupation, both dated to the Umayyad period. Most probably the complex was built after the destruction of the temple, and the ashlars of the temenos wall were reused in it.

Fig_ 21 _Temenos wall and ,aylobate with Iron Age. Umayyad and Abbasid architectural remains

ABBASID PERIOD

After the destruction of the temple no attempt was made to clear the area to the east of the temple. With regard to fortifications, a new wall was built east of the temple to separate the Upper Terrace from the Middle Terrace, which was completely abandoned in the Abbasid period (Figs. 22-26). It is oriented parallel to the Roman temenos. At the south part, in squares NE I 0/95, NE 15/ 95, and NE20/95, the new fortification runs roughly on top of the temenos wall, but at a higher level (Plate III). The 0.7 m (maximum) thick layer of soil deposit between the remains of the Roman wall and the lower part of the fortification wall shows that the builders of the fortification did not utilize the temenos as a foundation. There was extensive use of column drums from the temple as these were readily available following the collapse in A.D. 749. Some stones from the

Fig. 22. The east Abbasid fortification wall. east face. showing also the middle tower

13

.,_

.,_,

• ••

-,.

•

•·.•~ ' A.


Fig. 23. Abbasid period

·b::.,;

-

)•

temenos stylobate were also used . Apparently the use of these large architectural members did not make imperative the need for a built foundation; therefore the wall rests on soil deposits. This part of the fortification (Northedge' s Sector 25) and Tower G at the north end of it have been studied and dated to the Umayyad period on the basis of the recovered "Umayyad" pottery found at the base of the wall, and also on the basis of the relationship of Tower G with the wall (Wood in Northedge 1992: 120). Considering that the wall includes column drums from the prostasis of the Fig. 24. Northern tower of the fortifications temple which collapsed during the A.D. 749 earthquake (Kanellopoulos 1994: 85), the construction of the east curtain wall postdates the earthquake, and thus should be dated to shortly after A.D. 749, a time when "Umayyad style" pottery was still in use, and the construction constituted a single operation. During our project, the lower part of a tower was revealed at about the center of the wall, 27 .5 m south of the northeast corner (NE35/90 and NE40/90; see Fig. 26). It is built against the curtain, is roughly square (4.20 m west x 5.20 m south x 4.45 m east x 5.10 m north), and survived to a height of 2.70-3.73 m. At the s'urviving level its skin is built with the use of a few large rough stones and rubble and the interior is filled up with rubble. The size of the structure suggests that 14

it was not intended to be a simple bastion, but had at a higher level (that of the top of the curtain behind it) some sort of a superstructure, of which, however, nothing remains. It is a smaller, poorer and simpler construction than tower G, ,: . ,,_ ~ apparently belonging to a slightly later . J! phase . J , To the south of the modern road, a ➔ small portion of a structure was excavated (NE70/60) that was probably a gatetower of the Abbasid city; the rest of it remains under the modern road. The continuation of the Abbasid wall between the Upper Terrace and the Lower Terrace can be seen north of the modern street. It runs to the northeast to be linked with Tower H in the place where the Roman wall makes a corner and runs east-west. This wall (Sector 26) has also been attributed to the Roman period, solely on the basis of the absence of lime plaster on either face (Wood in Northedge 1992: 120). The character and the location of the wall give every reason to think that this wall is a continuation ofNorthedge's Sector 25 wall (which proved to be Abbasid) and contemporary with it. On the maps of the Palestine Exploration Fund Special Survey of Amman, 1881, and of the Princeton Archaeological Expedition to Syria, a doorway was marked in this wall. It is reasonable to assume that the modern road leading to the museum runs over this doorway. It is probable that the curtain wal I that consists of Sectors 25 and 26 was built in the Abbas id period. This indicates the decline of the population in this period. a decline that left the Middle Terrace outside of the city. Tower G and the newly discovered tower (Fig. 26) most probably were built to strengthen the wall, which had been built with no foundations.

Fig. 26. Tower near the center of the wall

A YYUBID-MAMLUK

Fig. 27. Ayyubid tower on the south side of the fortifications

PERIOD

No later than the early 13th century, a tower was built on the south Roman temenos wall (Northedge's Tower B or South Tower). Again elements from the Roman temple were used (Fig. 27). The presence of many pottery sherds from trenches near the northeastern corner of the temple where a well was dug into bedrock suggests some activity in the area. Walls SE00/45.08; SE05/45.02. 13, 12 and floors 03, 04 were dated to the Mamluk period (Fig. 28). The small mosque in the area of the Umayyad complex 15

Locus L!ST:

indicates some residential activity in the area, but most probably occupation was confined solely to the Upper Terrace of the Citadel. The presence of some Mamluk graves in the area of the temple (to the east and southwest) shows that this sector was used as a cemetery.

-_ -- -- ~

-~--~

-~'

.

-

-~~ ~~

-

-S5iI=

s-

-

~

-~ (

~

0 C

• '-'./1.f · .:.t ..,.

~

Fig. 28. Ayyubid-Mamluk era

OTTOMAN

PERIOD (A.D.

1516-1918)

Fig. 29. Photo by Bonfils of the

16

One photograph from the 1870s (Bonfils, Fig. 29) shows that the Ayyubid-Mamluk tower was still standing. Some terrace walls are shown in the picture and they may indicate that there temple area in the 1870s was agricultural activity in the area during this period. The areas to the east and to the west of the ruined temple continued to be used as a cemetery. Fortunately, the restriction of the residential areas mainly to the valleys and the use of the Citadel for pasture preserved and protected the area.

1990-1992 BY MOHAMMAD NAJJAR

Middle Bronze NWI0/10.08 NWI0/10.13 NWI0/10.17 Late Bronze/ Iron Age I NW20/25.44 NW20/25.46 Iron Age II NEI0/95.24 NEI0/95.28 NE 15/100.13 NE20/20.06 NE20/40.09 NE25/35.05 NE25/35.23 NE25/35.24 NE25/35.25 NE25/40.07 NE25/40.08 NE25/40.09 NE35/95.21 NE35/95.28 NE35/95.34 NE40/95.16 NE40/95.20 NE40/95.21 NE40/I 00.15 NE40/l 00.13 NWI0/15 .23 NWI0/15 .26 NWI0/15.27 NWI0/15.28 NWI0/15.31 NWI0/15.32 NWI0/15.33 NWI0/15.36 NWI0/15.37 NWI0/15.38 NW20/25.40 NW20/25.42 NW25/20.13 Iron Age I/Hellenistic NE05/85.09 NE05/85.16 NE05/85.17 NE05/85.19 NE05/90.l l NE05/90.13 NE05/95.07 NE05/95.09 NE05/95.I0 NE05/95. l l NE05/95.13 NE05/95.14 NEI0/90.30 NEI0/90.31

NEI0/90.37 NEl5/90.18 NEl5/90. I 9 NEl5/90.20 NE25/35.21 NE25/35.22 NE35/95 .08 NE35/95 . l l NE35/95.39 NE40/85.23 NE45/90.13 NE45/95.06 NE45/95.07 NE70/75. l I NE70/75.12 NE70/80.04 (cistern) NE70/80.05 (cistern) NWI0/10.04 NWI0/10.05 NWI0/10.06 NWI0/10.09 NWI0/10. IO NWI0/10.12 NWI0/10.14 NWI0/10.15 NWI0/I0.19 NWI0/10.22 NWI0/10.23 NWI0/15.07 NWI0/15 .08 NWI0/15.11 NWI0/15.13 NWI0/15.14 NWI0/15.15 NWI0/15.17 NWI0/15.18 NWI0/15.19 NWI0/15.20 NWI0/15.21 NWI0/15.40 NWI0/20.07 NWI0/20.09 NWI0/20.11 NWI0/20.13 NWI0/20.16 NWI0/20.17 NWI0/25.10 NWI0/25.13 NWI0/25.15 NWI0/25.18 NWI0/25.21 NWl5/25.07 NWl5/25.09 NWl5/25 . 18 NWl5/25.19 NW15/25.20

NWl5/25.21 NW20/20.05 NW20/20.I I NW20/20.14 NW20/20.17 NW20/25.20 NW20/25.21 NW20/25.23 NW20/25.26 NW20/25.27 NW20/25.28 NW20/25.32 NW20/25.33 NW20/25.36 NW20/25.37 NW20/25.38 NW25/20.02 NW25/20.l l SE00/40.07 SE00/40.12 SE05/40.21 Hellenistic NEI0/35.03 NEI0/100.16 NE15/I00. l 2 NE20/I00.09 NE35/ I00.12 NE45/ I00. 10 NE45/l 00.13 Nabataean NWI0/10.18 NWI0/10.21 SE05/45.21 Early Roman (1st c. n.c.-2d c. A.D.)

NE05/90. I0 NEI0/20.12 NEI0/20.15 NEI0/95.09 NEI0/95.10 NEI0/95.16 NEI0/95.17 NEI0/95 . 18 NEI0/95.21 NEI0/95.23 NEI0/95.25 NEI0/95.27 NE15/20.06 NE15/95.14 NE15/95 .27 NE25/35 .04 NE35/95.20 NE35/95.3 l NE35/95.32 NE40/85.21 NE40/85.22 NE45/90.I0

NWI0/10.16 SE00/40.10 SE00/40.12 SE00/45.12 SE00/45.31 SE05/40.19 SE05/40.30 SE05/40.39 SE05/45.05 SE05/45.15 SE05/45.15 Roman (3d c. A.D.)

NE05/85.I0 NE05/90.09 NE05/95. I 7 NEI0/95.05 NEI0/95.07 NEI0/95.13 NE15/95.29 NE15/95.35 NE 15/100. IO NE20/95.35 NE20/95.36 NE20/95.40 NE20/I 00.05 NE25/95.12 NE25/95.14 NE25/95.15 NE25/95.16 NE25/95.17 NE25/95.18 NE25/95.19 NE30/95.07 NE30/95.09 NE30/95. I0 NE30/95.I I NE30/95.12 NE30/95.13 NE30/95.17 NE30/90.31 NE30/90.32 NE35/90.16 NE35/90.17 NE35/90.19 NE35/90.20 NE35/95.29 NE40/85.18 NE40/85.19 NE40/85.20 NE40/95 .05 NE40/95.06 NE40/95.09 NE40/95. IO NE40/95.I I NE40/95.13 SE05/40.14 SE05/40.16

SE05/40.20 SE05/40.29 SE05/45.17 SE05/45.18 Byzantine NWI0/25.11 Umayyad (PreA.D. 749 Collapse) NE15/40. 12 NEl5/40. 13 NEl5/40.14 NEl5/40.17 NEl5/40.18 NEl5/40.19 NE15/95.07 NE15/95. IO NEl5/95.ll NEl5/95.12 NE15/95.13 NEl5/95.19 NEl5/95.20 NE20/95.08 NE20/95.09 NE20/95.15 NE20/95 . 16 NE20/95. l 7 NE20/95.18 NE20/95 .19 NE20/95 .21 NE20/95.23 NE20/95.24 NE25/95.02 NE25/95.03 NE25/95.04 NE25/95.06 NE25/95.07 NE25/95.08 NE25/95.09 NE25/95 . I0 NE25/95. l l NE35/90. l l NE35/90.14 NE35/90 .15 NE40/90.05 NE40/90.08 NE40/90.09 NE40/90.l l NE40/90.13 NE40/90.15 NE40/90.16 NE40/90.17 NE40/90.18 NE40/90.19 NE45/90.07 NE45/90.09 NE50/25.06 NE50/30.12

NE50/35.06 Mixed Early Islamic (8th 9th c. A.D.) NE05/85.08 NE05/85.15 NE05/90.05 NE05/90.08 NEI0/35 .04 NEI0/35.04 NEI0/35.05 NEI0/40.02 NEI0/85.03 NEI0/85.04 NEI0/90.02 NEI0/90.03 NEI0/90.05 NEI0/90.08 NEI0/90.21 NEI0/95.06 NEI0/100.13 NE15/20. I0 NE15/20.I I NEl5/20.12 NEl5/30.0l NEl5/30.03 NE15/35.04 NE15/35 .05 NEl5/35.06 NEl5/40.06 NEl5/40.08 NE15/40.09 NE15/40.I I NE15/40.16 NEl5/95.06 NEl5/95.08 NEl5/95.34 NE20/30.03 NE20/35.04 NE20/35.05 NE20/35.06 NE20/40.02 NE20/40.03 NE20/40.04 NE20/40.05 NE20/40.07 NE20/90.02 NE20/90.03 NE20/90.04 NE20/90.05 NE20/90.06 NE20/95.06 NE20/95.07 NE20/95.12 NE25/40.02 NE25/40.03 NE25/40.05B NE25/40.16 17

NE25/40.17 NE25/45.06 NE25/45.08 NE25/45. I l NE25/90.07 NE25/90.12 NE25/90.13 NE25/90.15 NE25/90.16 NE25/I 00.15 NE25/I 00.17 NE25/ 100.18 NE25/ I00.19 NE25/I 00.21 NE25/ 100.22 NE25/I 00.23 NE30/40.02 NE30/40.04 NE30/45.02 NE30/90.02 NE30/90.04 NE30/90.05 NE30/90.07 NE30/90.08 NE30/90. I0 NE30/90.l l NE30/90.12 NE30/90.14 NE30/90.15 NE30/90.16 NE30/90.22 NE30/90.23 NE30/90.25 NE30/90.26 NE30/90.30 NE30/95.02 NE30/95.03 NE30/95.04 NE30/I 00.06 NE30/I 00.08 NE30/100.10 NE30/I 00.13 NE30/I00.14 NE30/I 00.15 NE30/I 00.16 NE30/I 00.19 NE35/35.04 NE35/40.05 NE35/85.09 NE35/85.I0 NE35/85.15 NE35/85.16 NE35/85.03 NE35/90.06 NE35/90.07 NE35/90.08 NE35/90.09 NE35/90.10 NE35/95.02 18

NE35/95.03 NE35/95.05 NE35/95.06 NE35/95.07 NE35/95.09 NE35/95.15 NE35/95.35 NE35/95.38 NE35/ 100.04 NE35/100.06 NE35/I 00.08 NE35/ I 00.09 NE40/30.05 NE40/35.07 NE40/35.08 NE40/85.04 NE40/85.06 NE40/85.07 NE40/85.13 NE40/90.03 NE40/90.04 NE40/90.06 NE40/95.03 NE40/95.04 NE40/95.23 NE40/95.24 NE40/95.25 NE40/95.26 NE40/95.27 NE40/95.28 NE45/15.07 NE45/15.08 NE45/15.10 NE45/20. I0 NE45/20.12 NE45/25.07 NE45/90.03 NE45/90.04 NE45/90.05 NE45/90.06 NE45/95.02 NE45/95.03 NE45/95.04 NE45/ I 00.03 NE45/I 00.04 NE45/ 100.05 NE50/30.07 NE50/30.08 NE50/30.09 NE50/30.10 NE50/30. I I NE65/55.04 NE65/55.05 NE65/55.14 NE65/55.15 NE65/55.17 NE65/60.04 NE65/60.05 NE65/60.06

NE65/60.07 NE65/60.08 NE65/60.12 NE65/60.13 NE65/60.14 NE65/60.15 NE65/60.16 NE65/60.17 NE65/60.20 NE65/60.22 NE65/60.23 NE65/60.24 NE65/60.26 NE65/60.27 NE65/60.28 NE65/65.12 NE65/65.13 NE65/65.14 NE65/65.15 NE65/65.16 NE65/65.17 NE65/65.18 NE65/70.10 NE65/70.12 NE65/70.13 NE65/70.14 NE65/70.15 NE65/70. l 6(20) NE65/80.06 NE65/80.08 NE65/80.07 NE65/80.09 NE65/80. I I NE65/80.12 NE65/85.04 NE70/60. l l NE70/60.12 NE70/65.06(05) NE70/70.04 NE70/70.09 NE70/75.04 NE70/75.06 NE70/75.07 NE70/75.10 NWI0/15.25 NWI0/20.03 NWl0/20.04 NWI0/20.05 NWI0/25.03 NWl0/25.04 NWl0/25.05 NWl0/25.06 NWl0/25.19 NWI0/25.20 NWI0/25.22 NWl0/25.23 NWl5/15.0I NW15/15.03 NW15/20.02

NWl5/20.03 NWl5/20.07 NW15/20.08 NW15/20.09 NWl5/20.I0 NWl5/20.I I NW15/20.12 NW15/20.13 NW15/25.03 NWl5/25.05 NWl5/25.06 NWl5/25.I I NW15/25.12 NW15/25.13 NW15/25.15 NW20/20.0I NW20/20.02 NW20/25.0I NW20/25.02 NW20/25.05 NW20/25.09 NW20/25.17 NW25/20.0I SE00/45.01 SE00/45.02 SE00/45.03 SE00/45.04 SE00/45.11 SE00/45.15 SE00/45.17 SE00/45.18 SE00/45.19 SE00/45.20 SE00/45.21 SE05/40.02 SE05/40.04 SE05/40.06 SE05/40.07 SE05/40.12 SE05/40. I 7 SE05/40.18 SE05/40.24 SE05/40.36 SE05/40.37 SE05/45.0l SE05/45.02 SE05/45.04 SE05/45.06 SE05/45.09 SE05/45.16 SEl0/35.01 SEI0/35.03 SEI0/35.05 Abbasid (]Oth11th c. A.D.) NE05/85.02 NE05/90.02 NEI0/30.02 NE20/40.0I

NE20/90.08 NE25/35.0I NE25/45. I0 NE35/85.0I NE40/85.0l NE45/25.06 NE45/30.05 NE45/85.0I NE45/85.02 NE45/85.03 NE70/80.07 NE70/80.08 NE70/80.09 NE70/80. l I NE70/80.12 NE70/80.13 NE45/85.04 NE70/60.02 NE70/60.05 NE70/60.06 NE70/60.09 AyyubidMamluk NEI0/15.08 NEI0/20.02 NEl0/20.03 NEI0/20.05 NEI0/20.08 NEl5/20.03 NEl5/20.05 NE15/20.14 NE15/25.0I NEl5/25.02 NEl5/25.13 NEl5/35.0l NE15/35.02 NE15/35.03 NEl5/40.0I NE15/40.04 NE15/40.05 NEl5/95.05 NE20/15.0I NE20/20.02 NE25/25.02 NE25/45.0I NE25/45.02 NE25/45.04 NE25/90.0I NE25/90.02 NE25/90. I l NE25/95.0I NE25/95.05 NE30/20.0l NE30/20.02 NE30/20.04 NE30/20.05 NE30/20.06 NE30/20.07 NE30/20.08

NE30/20.09 NE30/20.I0 NE30/30.02 NE30/30.03 NE30/30.04 NE30/30.06 NE30/30.07 NE30/30.08 NE30/30.09 NE30/30.10 NE30/30.15 NE30/30.16 NE30/35.0l NE30/35.02 NE30/35.04 NE30/35.05 NE30/35.06 NE30/35.07 NE30/35.08 NE30/35.09 NE30/35.10 NE30/35.l l NE30/35.12 NE30/35.13 NE30/40.0I NE30/90.06 NE30/90.09 NE30/90.24 NE30/90.28 NE30/90.29 NE30/95.27 NE35/25.04 NE35/25.08 NE35/25.09 NE35/25.I0 NE35/25. I I NE35/30.08 NE35/35.0l NE35/35.02 NE35/40.0I NE35/40.02 NE35/40.03 NE35/40.04 NE40/20.03 NE40/30.02 NE40/30.04 NE40/35.0I NE40/35.02 NE40/35.04 NE40/35. I l NE40/35.12 NE40/40.0l NE40/85.03 NE40/95.0I NE40/I 00.16 NE45/15.03 NE45/15.05 NE45/15.09 NE45/20.0I

NE45/20.02 NE45/20.04 NE45/20.05 NE45/20.06 NE45/20.08 NE45/20.l l NE45/25.03 NE45/25.04 NE45/25.08 NE45/25.09 NE45/30.0l NE45/30.02 NE45/30.03 NE45/30.04 NE45/30.06 NE45/30.07 NE45/35.02 NE45/35.03 NE45/35.04 NE50/25.0l NE50/25.02 NE50/25.03 NE50/25.04 NE50/25.05 NE50/25. l l NE50/30.02 NE50/30.03 NE50/30.04 NE50/35.0l NE50/35.02 NE50/35.05 NE65/55.02 NE65/65.10 NE65/65.l l NE65/70.05 NE65/70.06 NE65/70.08 NE65/75.l l NE65/75.14 NE65/85.02 NE70/60.03 NE70/65.0I NE70/65.07 NE70/70.03 NE70/80.02 NE70/80.03 NE70/80.06 NE70/80.24 NE75/75.0l NE75/75.02 NE75/75.03 NE75/75.07 NE75/75.09 NE75/75.10 NE75/75.14 NE75/80.04 NE75/80.05 NE75/80.06 NE75/80.07

NE75/80.08 NE75/80.I0 NW20/15.04 SE00/40.01 SE05/40.33 Contaminated with modem materials NE05/85.04 NE05/85.06 NE05/85.07 NE05/85.14 NE05/90.0I NE05/90.04 NE05/90.06 NE05/95.0I NE05/95.05 NE05/95.12 NE05/95.18 NE05/95.06 NEI0/20.06 NEl0/20.07 NEI0/20.09 NEI0/20.13 NEI0/30.01 NEI0/35.01 NEI0/35.02 NEI0/40.01 NEI0/85.01 NEI0/85.02 NEI0/90.01 NEI0/90.06 NEI0/90.07 NEI0/90.0 NEl0/90.10 NEI0/90.11 NEI0/90.12 NEI0/90.13 NEI0/90.15 NEI0/90.16 NEl0/90.18 NEl0/90.19 NEl0/90.25 NEI0/90.28 NEl0/90.29 NEI0/95.01 NEl0/95.02 NEl0/95.03 NEI0/95.08 NEI0/100.01 NE 10/100.02 NEl0/100.04 NEI0/100.05 NEl0/100.08 NEI0/100.09 NEI0/100.10 NEl0/105.01 NEI0/105.04 NE I 0/105.05

NE I 0/105.06 NEI0/105.07 NEl5/20.0I NE15/20.02 NE15/20.07 NEl5/20.08 NEl5/20.13 NEl5/25.05 NE15/25.07 NE15/25.08 NE15/25.10 NEl5/40.02 NEl5/40.03 NEl5/40.I0 NE15/90.0I NE15/90.02 NE15/90.03 NEl5/90.04 NEl5/90.06 NE15/90.07 NE15/90.08 NE15/90. I0 NE15/90. I 3 NEl5/90.23 NE15/90.24 NE15/90.25 NE15/90.26 NE15/90.27 NEl5/95.28 NE15/90.30 NE15/95.0I NE15/95.02 NE15/95.03 NEl5/95.04 NE 15/100.0 I NE15/I00.02 NE 15/ I 00.03 NE 15/100.04 NEl5/I00.05 NEl5/I00.06 NE15/I00.07 NEl5/I00.09 NE20/15.02 NE20/20.0I NE20/20.03 NE20/20.04 NE20/20.05 NE20/30.0l NE20/40.08 NE20/40. I I NE20/40.12 NE20/90.0l NE20/95.0I NE20/95.02 NE20/95.03 NE20/95.04 NE20/95.22 NE20/95.27 NE20/95.28

NE20/95.33 NE20/95.34 NE20/95.37 NE20/I00.0l NE20/I00.02 NE20/I 00.06 NE20/I 00.08 NE20/I 00.13 NE25/35.02 NE25/35.03 NE25/40.0l NE25/40.05 NE25.40.09 NE25/40.12 NE25/45.07 NE25/90.03 NE25/90.06 NE25/90.08 NE25/90.09 NE25/90. I0 NE25/I 00.0 I NE25/I00.02 NE25/I00.03 NE25/ I 00.05 NE25/ I 00.06 NE30/30.05 NE30/45.0l NE30/85.0I NE30/90.0I NE30/95.0I NE30/95.23 NE30/ I 00.02 NE35/20.0I NE35/20.02 NE35/25.03 NE35/25.12 NE35/25.14 NE35/25.16 NE35/90.0I NE35/90.03 NE35/90.04 NE35/95.0l NE35/95.04 NE35/95.12 NE35/95.13 NE35/95.14 NE35/95.16 NE35/95.17 NE35/95.19 NE35/95.22 NE35/95.23 NE35/95.25 NE35/95.26 NE35/95.30 NE35/95.33 NE35/95.36 NE35/95.37 NE35/ I 00.02 NE40/20.0l

NE40/20.02 NE40/20.05 NE40/25.02 NE40/25.04 NE40/30.0I NE40/30.07 NE40/35.05 NE40/35. 10 NE40/40.02 NE40/40.03 NE40/55.0I NE40/85.05 NE40/85.08 NE40/85. 10 NE40/85. l I NE40/85.12 NE40/85.16 NE40/85. I 7 NE40/90.0I NE40/95.02 NE40/I00.0l NE40/I00.02 NE40/I00.03 NE40/ I 00.05 NE40/ I 00.08 NE40/I 00.09 NE45/15.0I NE45/25.0I NE45/25.05 NE45/35.0I NE45/90.0I NE45/95.0I NE45/I 00.0 I NE45/ I 00.06 NE45/ I 00.07 NE45/I 00.1 1 NE45/I00.12 NE50/30.0I NE50/30.05 NE50/35.03 NE50/35.04 NE65/55.0I NE65/55.03 NE65/60.25 NE65/65.02 NE65/65.06 NE65/65.0I NE65/65.03 NE65/65.04 NE65/75.03 NE65/75.04 NE65/75.05 NE65/75.10 NE65/75.13 NE65/75.15 NE65/80.03 NE65/85.0I NE70/70.0I NE70/75.02

NE70/75. I 3 NE70/80.0I NE75/80.0I NE75/80.03 NWI0/10.01 NWl0/10.02 NWl0/10.03 NWI0/15.01 NWI0/15.03 NWI0/15.04 NWl0/15.06 NWl0/15.16 NWl0/15.22 NWI0/15.39 NWI0/20.02 NWI0/20.08 NWI0/20.10 NWI0/20.12 NWI0/25.01 NW15/25.0I NW20/15.0I NW20/15.02 NW20/15.03 NW20/20.03 NW20/20.08 NW20/25.13 NW20/25.22 SE00/45.26 SE00/45.27 SE00/45.28 SE00/45.29 SE00/45.30 SE00/45.33 SE05/40.0I SE05/40.05 SE05/40.08 SE05/40.09 SE05/40.10 SE05/40. l l SE05/40.15 SE05/40.20 SE05/40.23 SE05/40.25 SE05/40.28 SE05/40.31 SE05/40.34 SE05/40.35 SE05/40.38 SE05/45.07 SE05/45.10 SE05/45. l l SE05/45.20 SEl0/40.01

19

SUMMARY OF THE PROVEN/ENCE AND DATING OF THE COINS AND STAMPED HANDLES BY KENNETH

w. RUSSELL AND PATRICIA M. BIKAI

The following summary presents the entire corpus of handles and coins recovered according to their spatial provenience by quadrant and excavation unit number, the loci and context in which they were recovered, their artifact number, and their dating.

Northeast Quadrant NE0S/85.08 (Mixed early Islamic context, 8th-9th c. A.D.). Coin 7 (C-1 ), Aretas II, ea. 110-96 B.c.

NE0S/90.13

context), Handle 13 (S50), ea. 215-210 s.c.

context, Sequence III), Coin 65 (C-80)

NElS/20.03

NE20/90.03

(Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 48 (C-67), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

(Early Islamic context), Handle 49 (S-32). early Knidian, first half 3d c. B.C.

NElS/30.03 (Early Islamic context, Sequence I). Coin 42 (C65), 'Abd al-Malik, A.H. 74-77 (A.D. 694-97), or ea. A.D. 685-97

NElS/35.Balk Coin 60 (C-44), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NElS/35.03 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 57 (C-68), Umayyad. A.D. 697-750

(Iron II-Hellenistic context), Coin I (C-2), Ptolemy II, Philadelphus?, 271-246 B.C.

NElS/90.10

NE0S/90.19

NElS/95.18

(Iron II-Hellenistic context), Coin 17 (C-16), Elagabalus, A.D. 218-22

NE0S/95.11 (Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle I I (S13), ea. 222 s.c.

NEl0/90.02 (Early Islamic context), Coin 12 (C-17), Marcus Aurelius as Caesar, A.D. 139-61

NEI0/90.05 (Early Islamic context), Handle 8 (S-17), end Period I-beginning Period II

(contaminated context) , Handle 31 (S-3), ea. 175146 B.C. Handle 26 (S-5), Period III. until ea. 184 B.C.

NElS/95.28 (contaminated context), Handle 44 (S-37). late 3d through 2d c. B.c.

NEIS/95.34 (Early Islamic context) , Handle 14 (S-47)

NEl0/90.31 (Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle 6 (S-20) , Period I (-Period II); Handle 54 (S-26)

(Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle 55 (S34)

Handle 29 (S-1 ), ea. 184 s.c.-beginning of Period V

NE20/40.01 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 23 (C-75), late 2d-early 3d c. A.o.; (post-A.D. 749 context) , Coin 21 (C-73), Philip II, A.D. 247-49

NEl0/90.37

NE20/40.04 (Umayyad, post-A.D. 749

NE25/100.23 (Early Islamic context), Coin 33 (C-23), Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodosius I, Arcadius and Flaccilla, A.D. 383

NE30/20.07 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 51 (C-4 I), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE30/35.0l

Handle I (S-45), mid-7th to early 6th c. s.c.

NE25/25.02

NE30/50.Topsoil

(Ayyubid-Mamluk context; internal construetion fill of the temple portico), Handle 37 (S54), Periods III-IV and maybe to the beginning of Period V; Coin 14 (C-64), Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161-80) or Lucius Verus, (A.D. ( 6 (-69?)

Coin 36 (C-22), late 4thearly 5th c. A.D.

NE20/95.36

NE25/40.01

(Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 56 (C-43), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE20/35.02

(contaminated context), Coin 13 (C-19), Marcus Aurelius?, A.D. 170/71; Coin 46 (C-50), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

(Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin I 0 (C-15), Domitian as Caesar, A.D. 69-79

(Hellenistic context). Handle 4 (S-49)

(Iron II-Hellenistic 20

NE20/95.23

NE25/45.04

(Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 2 (C-61 ), Antiochos IV, Epiphanes. 175-164 B.C.

(contaminated context), Handle 2 (S-51)

(contaminated context), Handle 33 (S-48)

NEIS/100.12

NEI0/90.15

NEI0/90.29

NE20/95.22

(contaminated context). Handle 24 (S-44 ), .6.aµoK>-..ijs II, Period Ill. before 188 B.c.

(contaminated context), Handle 53 (S-36) (contaminated context), Handle 5 (S-9), ea. mid3d c. B.C.

(Umayyad context). Handle 12 (S-16), close to 210 B.C.

(contaminated context), Coin 22 (C-74), Lucius Verus, December A.D. 162 - Autumn A.D. 163; Coin 29 (C-76), A.D. 330-35

NEIS/100.06

NE20/15.0l

NEI0/90.18

NE20/95.08

NE25/100.02

NE25/95.06 (Umayyad context), Handle 28 (S-35), 'ApwTd8as II, ea. I 82176 B.C.

NE25/95.11 (Umayyad context), Handle 34 (S-8), Tlo>-..uciparns II

NE30/90.07 (Early Islamic context), Coin 55 (C-49), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750, early type

NE30/90.25 (Early Islamic context), Handle 21 (S-25), Beginning of Period III

NE30/95.02

NE35/25.12

NE40/90.0S

(contaminated context), Coin 66 (C-36), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

(Umayyad, pre-A.D. 749 context, Sequence I), Coin 49 (C-79), late Umayyad or early Abbasid

NE35/25.14 (contaminated context), Coin 41 (C-42), 'Abd alMalik, A.H. 74-77 (A.D. 694-97), or ea. A.D. 685-97

(Umayyad context), Handle 56 (S-41)

NE35/30.Surface

NE40/100.0S

Coin 68 (C-34), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

(contaminated context), Handle 41 (S-43), late 3d through 2d c. B.c.

NE35/30.02 Coin 50 (C-35), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE35/30.06 (Under temple portico collapse), Coin 44 (C-38), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE35/30.07 (Under temple portico collapse), Coin 43 (C-39), al-Walid I, A.H. 90 (A.D. 708-9)

NE35/30.08 (Under temple portico collapse), Coin 63 (C-40), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE35/85.10 (Early Islamic context), Handle 46 (S-22), late 3d through 2d c. s.c.

NE35/90.07 (Early Islamic context), Coin 8 (C-78), Aretas IV?, ea. 6 s.c.-ca. A.D. 18

(Early Islamic context), Coin 11 (C-18), Hadrian, A.D. 135/6; Handle 45 (S46), late 3d through 2d c. B.C.

(Early Islamic context), Coin 20 (C-72), Philip I, A.D. 244-49?

NE30/l 00.08-09

NE35/90.15

(Early Islamic context), Coin 32 (C-24), Valentinian I or Valens, ea. A.D. 364-78

(Umayyad context), Handle 47 (S-40), late 3d through 2d c. B.c.

NE35/20.Surface Coin 69 (C-37), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750; Coin 61 (C-69), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE35/20.01

NE35/90.08

NE35/95.19 (contaminated context), Handle 38 (S-39), Period II?

NE40/25.04

NE40/90.09

NE45/20.03

NE65/SS.02 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 54 (C-45), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE65/60.06 (Early Islamic context), Coin 37 (C-26), Maurice Tiberius, A.D. 595/6

NE65/60.07

Coin 53 (C-33), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

(Early Islamic context), Coin 34 (C-8), A.D. 388 early 5th c.

NE45/25.06

NE65/60.08

(Umayyad - Sequence 11), Coin 40 (C-28), 'Abd alMalik, A.H. 74-77 (A.D. 694-97), or ea. A.D. 685-97

(Early Islamic context), Handle 25 (S-53), 188186 B.C.

NE45/25.09 (Chipping debris and ash layer under temple portico column collapse; Umayyad - Sequence II), Coin 38 (C-29), 'Abd alMalik or earlier, A.H. 7274 (A.D. 692-94), or ea. A.D. 645-97; Coin 39 (C66), 'Abd al-Malik or earlier, A.H. 72-74 (A.D. 692-94 ), or ea. A.D. 64597; Coin 52 (C-30), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750; Coin 59 (C-32), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750; Coin 67 (C-31 ), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE45/30.02 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 64 (C-27), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE45/30.07 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 73 (C-51 ), 1942

NE45/35.01

(contaminated context), Coin 71 (C-53), 1939

(contaminated context), Coin 28 (C-13), Licinius II, A.D. 317-18

NE40/85.06

NES0/25.06

(Late Roman context), Handle 35 (S-15)

(contaminated context), Coin 72 (C-60), 1942; Coin 16 (C-63), early 3d C. A.D.

(Early Islamic context), Coin 15 (C-77), late 2dearly 3d c. A.D.

(Umayyad context), Coin 26 (C-14 ), Claudius II Gothic us, A.D. 268-70

NE25/95.19

NE35/25.08

NE40/85.07

NES0/30.12

(Late Roman context), Handle 40 (S-28), late 3d through 2d c. B.c.

(Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 74 (C-52), 1943

Handle 17 (S-55), end of Period II-Period III (ea. 210-199 B.C.)

(Ash layer under temple portico collapse; Umayyad - Sequence II),

NE25/95.12

Coin 62 (C-70), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750; Coin 58 (C-71), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE65/65.16

36 (S-21)

NE75/75.03 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 47 (C-47), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

NE75/75.10 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 45 (C-48), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

Northwest Quadra,rt NWl0/15.04 (contaminated context), Handle 16 (S-10), end Period II-beginning Period III

NWl0/15.19 (Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle 9 (S-6), 24 J-225 B.C.

NWl0/15.21

(Early Islamic context), Handle 27 (S-33), ea. ) 82-176 B.C.

(Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle 39 (S11 ), late 3d through 2d c. B.c.; Handle 51 (S-2)

NE65/65.17

NWl0/15.33

(Early Islamic context), Coin 35 (C-25), Arcadius, Honorius, Theodosius II, A.D. 395-408

NE65/65.18 (Early Islamic context), Coin 27 (C-20), Licinius I, A.D. 316

NE65/80.03 (contaminated context), Handle 48 (S-27), late 3d through 2d c. s.c.

NE65/80.06 (Early Islamic context), Handle 30 (S-38), Period III- Period IV

Handle 3 (P-375)

NWl0/15.40 (Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle 19 (S23; probably from same amphora as 18 (S-42), beginning of Period Ill; Handle 18 (S-42), beginning of Period Ill (ea. 210-199 s.c.)

NWl0/20.06 Coin 31 (C-3), A.D. 35161

NWl0/20.17 (Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle 52 (S-4)

NE70/75.03

NWl0/25.01

Coin 70 (C-46), Umayyad, A.D. 697-750

(contaminated context), Handle 15 (S-7)

NE70/80.02

NWl0/25.05

(Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 4 (C-5), Demetrios II, Nikator?, 145-140 B.C.

(Early Islamic context), Coin 3 (C-4), Demetrios II, Nikator, 145-140 B.c.

NE70/80.05

(Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle 22 (S29), ea. 200 s.c.

(Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle 50 (S30), beginning of the 2d C. B.C.

NE70/80.06 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Coin 6 (C-6)

NE70/80.12 (Abbasid context), Handle

NWl0/25.13

NWIS/25.07 (Iron II-Hellenistic context), Coin 30 (C-21 ), Constantius II and Constans, or Constantinius II and Gallus, A.D. 346-50, or 351-54 21

NW15/25.15 (Early Islamic context), Coin 9 (C-7), John Hyrcanus II, 67 and 63-40 B.c.; Handle 42 (S-18), late 3d through 2d c. B.C. NW15/25.18 (Iron II-Hellenistic context), Handle 43 (S-24), late 3d through 2d c. B.c. NW20/15.03 (contaminated context), Coin 5 (C-62), Antiochos

VII, Euergetes (Sidetes), I 38- I 29 B.C. NW20/15.04 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context), Handle 7 (S-52), ea. 250-225 s.c. NW20/20.03 (contaminated context), Handle 23 (S-14), t.aµoKAfjs II, Period III, before I 88 B.C. NW25/20.0l (Early Islamic context),

Handle 20 (S- I 9), beginning of Period III Southeast Quadrant SE00/40.05 Handle 10 (S-12), before ea. 240 B.c. SE00/45.03 (Early Islamic context), Handle 32 (S-3 I), ea. 175-146 B.C. SE0S/45.18 (Surface of temenos floor, under collapse of roof

tiles), Coin 19 (C- I 2), Caracalla or Elagabalus?, late 2d-3d c. A.D. SE0S/45.19 (Surface of temenos floor, under collapse of roof tiles), Coin 24 (C-10), Alexander Severns, A.D. 222-35; Coin 25 (C-11), Alexander Severns, A.D. 222-35; Coin 18 (C-9), Elagabalus, A.D. 218-22?

II.

COINS

BY KENNETH

W.

RUSSELL, MOHAMMAD NAJJAR, AND ANTHI KOUTSOUKOU

WITH ASSISTANCE FROM ZBIGNIEW

T.

FIEMA, JULIAN BOWSHER, AND NAYEF

Goussous

INTRODUCTION

A total of I I I bronze coins and six coin fragments were found during the Temple of Hercules excavations. Of the 31 completely illegible coins we may note the following: nine are very small coins (flan diameter 8-9 mm) and appear to be Byzantine; 15 have thin flans around 9-14 mm, and could be Late Roman or Byzantine, except one from NE30/90.07, which may be Hasmonean, according to the shape of the flan; finally, seven have thicker and larger flans than the above and their date may range widely. Six recent coins of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan were also found, but these are not included in the catalogue. The other 74 intact coins have been minimally identified as to their general period of original distribution, while most have been precisely dated. It is these coins which are documented and discussed within this chapter. The numismatic profile of these 74 coins is as follows: six are Hellenistic (8.1 % ); two are Nabataean (2.7% ); one is Hasmonean ( 1.3% ); 12 are Greek Imperials or civics (16.2%); 15 are Roman Imperials (20.3%), of which five are Early Roman and 10 Late Roman; one is Byzantine (1.3%); 33 are Early Islamic/Umayyad (44.6%); and five coins belong to the Mandate Period (5.4%). HELLENISTIC PERIOD

Most, if not all, of the following coins can be attributed to the 3d and 2d centuries B.C. Among the five which could be dated with some confidence, one appears to be of Ptolemy II (285-246 B.c.), two are attributed to Demetrios II (145-140 B.c.), and one each to Antiochos VII (138-129 B.c.) and Antiochos VIII (121-96 B.c.). One unidentified coin may also belong to this period. The only mint which can be identified is Tyre, to which the two coins of Demetrios II may be attributed. However, it would seem that in general, the principal external economic activities of Philadelphia during this_period were with the Seleucid kingdom to the north, presumably involving the commercial centers of the Phoenician coast. The large number of Greek stamped commercial amphora handles of the late 3d and 2d centuries s.c. found during the excavations may also reflect such economic ties. One coin of John Hyrcanus II (67 and 63-40 s.c.) was also found. With the Seleucid empire weakened through dynastic strife, the Ptolemaic empire split between the ambitious Cleopatra III and her brother Ptolemy IX. As Rome was occupied by a civil war and by the conquests of Mithridates VI of Pontus, the end of the Hellenistic period in Transjordan was dominated by the political and territorial aspirations of the Hasmonean dynasty and the Nabataean kingdom. Around 83/82 B.c., the Hasmonean Alexander Jannaeus ( I 03-76 B.c.) apparently conquered the cities of Pella, Gerasa, Abila, Gadara, and Dium, and took Medaba and Esbus from the Nabataeans (Josephus Antiquities XIII.xv.3-4, Wars l.iv.2-3, 8). However, Philadelphia remained under Nabataean control (Josephus Wars l.vi.3), as it had been since the defeat and death of Antiochos XII, Dionysus (87-84 B.c.) by the forces of Aretas III (Josephus Antiquities XIIl.xv.1-2, Wars l.iv.7). In this context, it is worth noting that while only one early Nabataean coin of Aretas II (ea. 110-96 B.c.) was recovered during the Temple of Hercules excavations, classical Nabataean and Nabataean-inspired ceramics are relatively well-attested. Hasmonean and Nabataean aspirations in the region were brought to an end by the arrival of Pompey the Great in 64/63 s.c. Nevertheless, there is a later coin, probably of Aretas II (ea. 6 s.c. to ea. A.D. I 8). 22

23

has been identified from the Byzantine period. The 24 illegible small coins (not presented in the catalogue), which could be Late Roman and/or Byzantine, suggest that there is no major gap in the numismatic record, although the absence of large denominations is noteworthy. These coins come primarily from the areas northeast of the temple, from the east side of the temenos and east of the temenos; their distribution is similar to that of the Umayyad coins. It is interesting to add that ten were recovered from NE25/100.07, in a mixed Early Islamic context. Overall, however, there is little evidence for Byzantine construction and only scant dump deposits near the northeast corner of the temenos were found during the Temple of Hercules excavations. The late 6th or early 7th century(?) church just north of the northeastern corner of the temple complex (Bagatti 1973: 277-83) is the nearest known Byzantine structure, and it is not surprising that the coin of Maurice Tiberius was found in one of the excavation units just to the south. Much of the building stone and all of the columns and capitals used in the construction of the Byzantine church were taken from the temenos portico. It seems probable, but cannot be demonstrated, that the Temple of Hercules complex, in particular the portico of the temenos, had became a convenient source of building materials.

ROMAN PERIOD OVERVIEW

In the record of coins, the general paucity of coins dating to the I st centuries s.c./A.O. is particularly striking. The earliest Roman coin is of Domitian as Caesar, no. 10. However, the foundations of the temple complex often lay directly upon Hellenistic and Iron Age deposits, with most deposits of the I st centuries s.c./A.O. having been removed when the complex was constructed, and this may account for the absence of material from this period. From well into the 2d century until the third quarter of the 3d century, 15 coins were recovered, providing a fairly continuous sequence. There is another gap in the excavated material in the last quarter of the 3d century until the early 4th century, and thereafter we have I Ocoins, spread evenly through the century into the beginning of the 5th. NUMISMATICS AND TEMPLE CHRONOLOGY

One coin, probably of Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus (no. 14), was found in the internal construction fill of the temple portico. This is temporally consistent with the known dedication of the temple during the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (A.O. 161-69) under the governorship of P. Julius Geminius Marcianus (attested elsewhere in the Province of Arabia in A.O. 162-66). There had previously been no direct evidence for when the temple complex finally went out of public use. On this latter issue, numismatic and depositional data recovered during the excavations provide new evidence. Four coins (one apparently ofElagabalus, one ofCaracalla or Elagabalus, and two of Alexander Severus, nos. 18, 19, 24, 25) were recovered from the last occupation surface of the portico along the south-central section of the temenos, and were sealed on that floor by a collapse of portico roof tiles. As there are no earthquakes during this period which might account for such a collapse (Russell 1985), other explanations must be sought. One possibility is that this destruction relates to events surrounding the Palmyrene revolt of A.O. 270, an hypothesis which could eventually be tested through further excavations in the area of the temenos portico. The absence of coins from the last quarter of the 2d century might prove relevant to those events. Regardless, it does appear that at least the south-central portion of the temenos portico went out ofuse around the middle of the 3d century. It is suspected that this dating would broadly apply to the end of the entire temple complex as a public monument. However, continued activity in the vicinity of the complex is reflected by the other Late Roman and Early Byzantine coins found scattered around the site. NUMISMATICS AND COMMERCE

Philadelphia minted both quasi-autonomous and civic coins from the reign of Titus through that of Elagabalus (Spijkerman I 978: 242). Two of the 16 Roman period coins which can be attributed to mints were struck in Philadelphia. All but one of the other issues dating to before the middle of the 3d century were similarly derived from eastern mints, including two from Caesarea, two from Antioch and one each from Alexandria, Gaza, Neapolis, and Bostra. Most of them are Greek coins, while Roman Imperials number four. Philadelphia was linked to the Palestinian coast and the Via Maris by an east-west road from Caesarea (through Scythopolis, Pella and Gerasa), and sat on the intersection of this route with the Via Nova Traiana, running north-south from the commercial port of Aila through Petra to the north (Fiema 1987; 1988; 1991: 84-86). While the available sample is not large, the distribution of city mints found during the Temple of Hercules excavations closely tracks numismatic expectations based upon assumed economic activ)ty along these routes. Such commerce may well underlie the apparent opulence of Philadelphia, Gerasa and Pella during the 2d and 3d centuries A.O. Unfortunately, from the 4th century A.O. there is less evidence on mints. From ten coins, only four mints were identified; two come from Constantinople and Antioch, while the other two seem to be products of western mints. Both these latter coins (27 and 28) are dated to the first quarter of the century. BYZANTINE PERIOD (A.D.

PTO LEMA IC

1

(C-2); PROV .: NE05/90. l 3. Ruler: Ptolemy II, Philadelphus? Dating: 271-246 s.c. OBY.: Diademed head of Zeus Ammon, right. iREV.: Eagle standing, left; in field to left, club; around, legend: to left, [TTl~C?(AEMAI OYl, to right, illegible. D.: 19 mm; weight: 4.8 gm. Mint: Tyre or Gaza. References: I~opwvos 1904: 104, pl. 20, nos. 19-20 (Tyre), or 125, pl. XXIV, nos. 14-17 (Gaza, if there are cornucopia on eagle's shoulder or on club).

SELEUCID

2

2

3

4

3

498-634)

Only one coin, of Maurice Tiberius, dating to A.O. 595/96 and minted in Antioch (Theupoli s), 24

CATALOGUE OF HELLENISTIC TO BYZANTINE PERIOD COINS

5

(C-61); PROV.: NE20/15.0I (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Ruler: Antiochos IV, Epiphanes, 175- I 64 s.c. OBY.: Diademed and radiate(?) head, right. iREV.: (offstruck to right) Zeus standing, left, over shoulder himation; holds thunderbolt and scepter; on right, legend [BAI]I A[H2I/ AN ]TI OX[OY]; on left, [8EOY ETTi ]~ANOYI in field to left, illegible monogram. ·· D.: 20 mm; weight: 5.8 gm. References: Gardner 1963: 37, pl. XII, no. 6. (C-4); PROV.: NWI0/25.05 (Early Islamic context). Ruler: Demetrios II, Nikator, 145140 B.C. OBY.: Diademed head, right. iREV.: In beaded circle, row of galley, right (offstruck to top right); legend above, B[AII AEOI/ ~ ]HM[HTPI OY]/8[EOY]; legend beneath T Y( PI ON]. D.: 21 mm; weight: 2.4 gm. Mint: Tyre. References: Gardner I 963: 60, similar to pl. XVIII, no. 4. (C-5); PROV.: NE70/80.02 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Ruler: Demetrios II, Nikator?, 145-140 B.C. OBY.: Bust right. iREV.: Palm tree with fruit; to right, legend illegible. D.: 14 mm; weight: 5.8 gm. Mint: Tyre. References: Hanson 1980: 55-56, pl. I. (C-62); PROV.: NW20/15.03 (contaminated context). Ruler: Antiochos VII, Euergetes (Sidetes), 138-129 s.c. OBY.: Winged bust of Eros, right, wreathed with myrtle. iREV.: Head dress of Isis; on right, restored legend [BAIi AEOI/ AN]TI [O]X[OY]; on left, [EY]EPfETOY; in field to left illegible monogram? beneath, crescent and· illegible date. D.: 20 mm; weight: 6 gm. References: Gardner 1963: 73-74, pl. XX, no. I I.

GENERAL DATING

4

6

(C-6); PROV.: NE70/80.06 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). 25

OBY.: Male head, right; around, beaded circle; offstruck to left. i REV.: Horizontal legend illegible. D.: 22 mm; weight: 3.5 gm. NABATAEAN

7

8

15

( C-1); PROV.: NE05/85.08. Ruler: Aretas II (ea. 110-96 s.c.). OBY.: Helmeted bust, right. i REV.: Winged Nike standing (very poorly executed). D.: 15 mm; weight: 2.2 gm. References: Meshorer 1975: 85-86, pl. I, nos. 1-4. (C-78); PROV.: NE35/90.07 (Early Islamic context). Ruler: Aretas IV? Dating: ea. 6 B.C.-ca. A.O. 18. OBY.: Laureate bust right. ~ REV.: Crossed cornucopia; within, illegible inscription; offstruck to right. D.: 18.8 mm; weight: 1.8 gm. References: Meshorer 1975: 45, 49.

16

17

ffASMONEAN

8

9

(C-7); PROV.: NWl5/25.15 (Early Islamic context). Ruler: John Hyrcanus II. Dating: 67 and 63-40 B.C. OBY.: In field, palaeo-Hebrew legend in five lines, surrounded by wreath: llT::lil'

18

,m7;,::i;, ;:::iry', 'i'i1

17

0.

i REV.: Crossed cornucopia adorned with ribbons and pomegranate arising between horns; below left, trace of monogram; around rim, beading. D.: 14 mm; weight: 1.9 gm. References: Hendin 1976: 21-22; similar to no. 22, but legend ending O'i'i1 like no. 26; Meshorer I 98 I: similar to nos. 144-45, but legend ending similar to no. I 65.

19

CIVIC OR "GREEK IMPERIALS"

11

13

26

10 (C-15); PROV.: NE30/35.0I (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Emperor: Domitian as Caesar. Dating: A.O. 69-79. OBY.: [KAI C]A[P] ~[OMI TI AN]m;; laureate bust right. ,J, REV.: [LrMP] i°AA[~EAEON]; bust of Tyche, right, wearing turreted crown. D.: 25 mm; weight: 8.6 gm. Mint: Philadelphia. References: Spijkerman 1978: 246-47, pl. 54, no. I 0. 11 (C-18); PROV.: NE30/95.02 (Early Islamic context). Emperor: Hadrian. Dating: A.O. 135/ 6. OBY.: [A VT KAI ]C TPAI AN A~PI AN[OC; laureate, draped and cuirassed bust, right. i REV.: Head of Zeus Ammon right. In· field at bottom right, K (regnal year 20 = A.O. 135/6). D.: 33 mm; weight: surviving (flan is cut) 2.1 gm. Mint: Alexandria. References: Poole 1892: 70, similar to no. 571. 12 (C-17); PROV.: NEI0/90.02 (Early Islamic context). Emperor: Marcus Aurelius as Caesar. Dating: A.O. 139-61. OBY.: A]V]PHAI O[C KAI CAP]; bareheaded bust right. tREV.: T]~XHN T[PAI BOC]; bust ofTyche, right, draped, wearing turreted crown; long tresses on neck. D.: 25 mm; weight: I. 7 gm. Mint: Bostra. References: Spijkerman 1978: 72-73, pl. 13, no. 19. 13 (C-19); PROV.: NE25/I00.02 (contaminated context). Emperor: Marcus Aurelius? Dating: A.O. J70/7 J. OBY.: Legend illegible; laureate and draped bust right. ~ REV.: r AZA [trace of date, AAC?]; Heracles nude, standing facing, looking left, holding club in extended right hand and lion skin against hip in left. D.: 10 mm; weight: 1.5 gm. Mint: Gaza. References: Meshorer 1981: no. 931. 14 (C-64); PROV.: NE25/25.02 (internal construction fill of the temple portico). Emperor:

20

21 21

Marcus Aurelius (A.O. 161-80) or Lucius Verus (A.O. 161-69)? OBY.: Laureate bust, right, bearded? i REV.: ?]CV _CO_[?; bust of Hercules or Asteria? right? D.: 24 mm;· weight: 8.3 gm. (C-77); PROV.: NE40/85.06 (Early Islamic context). Dating: Late 2d-early 3d c. A.O. OBY.: O[?; laureate bust, right. REV.: Illegible. D.: 17; weight: 3.5 gm. (C-63); PROV.: NE35/20.01 (contaminated context). Dating: Early 3d c. A.O. OBY.: ?]C[?]A[?]V[?; laureate bust, right. i REV.: Above?; in exergue OC[?; founder ploughing right with pair of oxen. D.: 28 mm; weight: 16.2 gm. · (C-16); PROV.: NE05/90.19. Emperor: Elagabalus, A.O. 218-22. OBY.: ?]T KECAP[?; laureate bust, right. j REV.: ?l_O[_?]CVPI A[C]; bust of goddess (Asteria), right, veiled and draped, with cruciform star on top of head. D.: 15 mm; weight: 4.4 gm. Mint: Philadelphia. References: Spijkerman 1978: 256-57, no. 47, pl. 57. (C-9); PROV.: SE05/45.19 (surface of temenos floor, under collapse of roof tiles). Emperor: Elagabalus, A.O. 218-22? OBY.: Laureate bust, right; around, legend illegible; rectangular countermark (1.5 x I mm) on neck. j REV.: Mount Gerizim with arched colonnade, roadway, shrines, altar and temple; around, legend illegible; in exergue, illegible. D.: 30 mm; weight: I 2.4. Mint: Neapolis. References: Hendin 1976: I08-9, no. 253; Meshorer 198 I: countermarked as nos. I 001-5. (C-12); PROV.: SE05/45.18 (surface of temenos floor, under collapse of roof tiles). Emperor: Caracalla or Elagabalus? Dating: late 2d-3d c. A.O. OBY.: Laureate bust, right; around, legend illegible. ➔ REV.: Illegible. D.: 20 mm; weight: surviving (flan is cut) 6.5 gm. (C-72); PROV.: NE35/90.08 (Early Islamic context). Ruler: Philip I, A.o. 244-49? OBV.:[A VTOKKMI OV]AI I Al TTTTOCCEB; laureate bust, right. ,J, REV.: Bust of Tyche, draped, veiled and turreted, right; above, ram running right, looking back; beneath bust, star; in field, ~EISC; around, legend illegible. D.: 29.5 mm; weight: 14.1 I gm. Mint: Antioch. References: B.M.C. 20: 214-15, no. 527. (C-73); PROV.: NE20/40.01 (post-A.o. 749 destruction context). Ruler: Philip II, A.O. 247-49. OBY.: A VTOKKMI OVA[I ]I Al TTTTOCCEB; laureate bust, wearing paludamentum and cuirass, right. · ·· · j, REV.: Bust of Tyche, right, draped, veiled and wearing turreted crown with three merlons; above, ram running right, looking back; beneath, bust, star; in field, ~EISC; around ANTI OX EON MHTPOKOAON. D.: 29 mm; weight: I 3. 7 gm. Mint: Antioch. References: B.M. C. 20: 219, no. 566.

ROMAN IMPERIALS

22

Early Roman (pre-A.D. 295) 22 (C-74); PROV.: NE25/40.0l. Emperor: Lucius Verus. Dating: December A.O. 162 - Autumn A.O. 163. OBY.: I MPCAESLA VREL VERV[S AVG]; draped bust, right. i REV.": Legend illegible; Verus in military uniform galloping right; right arm raised, holding spear. D.: 31.5 mm; weight: 3.2 gm. References: Mattingly and Sydenham 1968: 321, similar to no. 1357 (on reverse Verus is riding; he appears thrusting at a fallen enemy only in coins commemorating his victory on the Armenians; ibid.: nos. 1362-63 and 1402-7). 27

23 (C-75); PROV .: NE20/40.0 I (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Dating: late 2d-early 3d c A. D. OBY.: Male bust, right. REV.: Standing figure? D.: 32.7 mm; weight: 33 gm. 24 (C-10); PROV.: SE05/45. l 9 (surface of temenos floor, under collapse of roof tiles). Emperor: Alexander Severns, A. D. 222-35. OBY. : I Ml CA[ES ALE]X[ANDER]; laureate bust, right. )"REV .: SPQR within wreath supported by spread wings of facing eagle, head left; around, legend: ME[T]ROPOL. D.: 17 mm; weight: 3.6 gm . Mint: Caesarea. References: Meshorer 1981: obv. as nos . 808-9, pl. 25; rev. legend as no. 813 . 25 (C-11); PROV.: SE05/45.19 (surface of temenos floor, under collapse of roof tiles). Emperor: Alexander Severns, A. D. 222-35. OBY.: IM CA[ES] A[LE]X[ANDER]; laureate bust, right. i REV.: SPQR within wreath supported by spread wings of facing eagle, head left; around, legend: C[PF AF]C CAES [METRO]POLI . D.: 19 mm; weight: 3.6 gm. Mint: Caesarea. References: Meshorer 1981: obv. as nos. 807-8, rev. as no. 809. 26 (C-14); PROV .: NE50/25 .06 (Umayyad context). Emperor: Claudius II Gothicus, A.D . 268-70. OBY.: IMP C CLA VDI VS AVG; radiate bearded head, right. i REV.: VI RTVS AVG; Mars standing, right, holding branch and spear, shield at fee t. D. : 20 mm; weight: 2.9 gm . Mint: Rome? References: R.I.C. V.I: 219, no. 109. Late Roman (A.D. 295-498) 27 (C-20); PROV.: NE65/65 . l 8 (Early Islamic context). Emperor: Licinius I, A.D. 308-24. Dating: A.D. 316. OBY.: IMP LI Cl NI VS P F AVG ; laureate and cuirassed bust, right. j REV. : GEN! 0 POP ROM; Genius turreted standing left, chlamys across shoulder, holding patera in right hand and cornucopia in left hand ; in lower field to left, T ; to right, F ; in exergue, ATR. D. : 20 mm; weight: 3.2 gm. Mint: Treveri . References : R.I.C. II : 151-52, 172-73, no. 121. 28 (C-13); PROV.: NE45/35.0 I (contaminated context). Emperor: Licinius II, A.D. 317-24. Dating: A.D. 317-18. OBY.: VAL LI Cl NI VS NOB CAES; laureate and cuirassed bust, right. j REV.: I OVI CONSER VA TORI; Jupiter standing, left, holding thunderbolt in right hand, leaning on scepter; chlamys across left shoulder; in lower field to left, C; to right, S; in exergue, PARL? D. : 19 mm ; weight: 2.9 gm . Mint: Arelatum ? References : R.I.C. II: 248, no. 142. 29 (C-76); PROV.: NE25/40.01 (contaminated context). Dating: A. D. 330-35 . OBY.: Legend illegible; bust, right. IREV.: GLOR [I AEXERC]I TUS; two soldiers standing, each holding spear and leaning on shield; between them two standards. D.: 17 mm; weight: 0.7 gm. References: L.R.B.C. II: 34; Gloria Exercitus, type 2.

23

24

25

26 28

27

28

30 (C-21); PROV.: NWl5/25 .07 (Iron 11-Hellenistic context). Emperors: Constantius II and Constans, or Constantinius II and Gallus. Dating: A. D. 346-50, or 351-54. OBY .: D N CONS[TAN]-TIVS PF AVG ; drapedandpearldiademed bust, right. .J,REV .: F]EL TEMP RE-PARATIO;fallinghorsemantype; Virtus advancing left, ~,/ith shield on left arm, spearing falling horseman, who is clutching horse's neck; shield on ground at right; in upper left field, mint mark r, in exergue, C]ONSA .

29

30

31

D.: 18 mm; weight: 2 gm. Mint: Constantinopolis. References: l.R.B.C. II : I 08 , falling horseman type 4, nos 2024-25 (A.o: 346-50), or, if there is dot after r, nos 202829 (A.D. 35 )-54 ). 31 (C-3); PROV.: NWI0/20.06 . Dating: A.D. 351-61. OBY.: Pearl diademed or laureate bust right; legend missing, due to small size of fl an. "-.. REV .: Fel Temp Reparatio, falling horseman type; Virtus advancing left, spearing horseman falling who is rai sing arm behind him ; shield on ground at right; periphery of type and legend mi ssing, due to small size of flan . D.: 14 mm ; weight: 1.5 gm . References: l.R.B.C. II : 108, falling horseman type 3. 32 (C-24); PROV .: NE30/I00.8-9 (Early Islamic context). Emperor: Valentinian I or Valens . Dating: ea. A.D. 364-78 . OBY.: Diademed head, right; around, legend illegible. f-REV.: Standing winged figure, left, probably Victory. D.: 15 mm; weight: 1.4 gm. References: l.R.B.C. II: 109-110, on the reverse type. 33 (C-23); PROV.: NE25/I00.23 (Early Islamic context) . Emperors: Gratian, Valentinian II , Theodosius I, Arcadius and Flaccilla. Date: A.D. 383. OBY.: Illegible. REV .: Within wreath , legend in four lines: VOT/X/[MVLT/X]X ; in exergue, ANTA . D.: 12 mm ; weight: 1.3 gm . Mint: Antioch . References: l.R.B.C. II: nos. 2729-37 . 34 (C-8); PROV. : NE65/60 .07 (Early Islamic context). Dating: A. D. 388 - early 5th c. OBY .: ?]A[?]A VG; male bu st, right. tREV.: Salvs Republicae type; Victory to left, trophy on shoulder, dragging captive; exergue and legend around, illegible. D.: 14 mm; weight: 0.9 gm . References: L.R.B.C. II: Salvs Republicae, type 2; 109. 35 (C-25); PROV.: NE65/65 . l 7 (Early Islamic context) . Emperors: Arcadius, Honorius, Theodosius II. Dating: A. D. 395-408. OBY .: ?]PF A[VG ; bust, right. ~ REV .: Gloria Romanorum type: three emperors, facing; center figure smaller, holds spear in right hand , emperor on left holds spear and rests left hand on shield ; emperor on right rests right hand on shield and holds spear in left. D.: 18 mm; weight: 1.5 gm . Mint : Eastern mints only . References: l.R.B.C. II: 109; Gloria Romanornm , type 21 . 36 (C-22); PROV.: NE30/50, topsoil. Dating: Late 4th-early 5th c. A.D. OBY.: ?]VSPF AV[G]; bust, right. tREV.: Large Christogram between Band E. D.: 13 mm; weight: 2.7 gm . BYZANTINE (A.D. 498-634) 37 (C-26) ; PROV .: NE65/60.06 (Early Islamic context). Emperor: Maurice Tiberius. Dating: A. D. 595/6. "-.. OBV .:[fl N MAUrl S N P]AUT; bust, facing , wearing crown with trefoil ornament, and consular robes; in right hand, mappa ; in left, eagle-tipped scepter. REV.: Large M between A/N/N/[O and XI 111 ; above, cross ; beneath, officina r ; in exergue, THE]UP'. · D.: 28 mm; weight: IOgm. Mint: Antioch (Theoupolis). References: Wroth 1908: 145, no. 183. EARLY ISLAMIC/UMAYYAD PERIOD (A.D.

634-750)

OVERVIEW

37

During the excavations total of 33 coins were recovered which can be positively identified as being of the Early Islamic/Umayyad period. Representing nearly 44% of the entire corpus of identifiable coins recovered, they form the largest single temporal corpus. While Early Islamic/ Umayyad building activities and occupation on the Citadel were previously known (e.g. , Almagro and Olavarri 1982; Bennett 1975, 1979a, 1979b; Bennett and Northedge 1977-78; Harding 1951; Northedge 1977-78, 1983), these coins specifically reflect the extent and intensity of such activities during this period around the Temple of Hercules complex. 29

CHRONOLOGICAL ISSUES

in Damascus, while one (48) may also come from the same mint.

The standard catalog reference for Early Islamic and Umayyad coins remains that of Walker ( 1956), although the historical descriptions he provided are now a matter of some debate. Initially, Early lslamic/Umayyad coinage may be readily divided into three apparent phases. The first is an "Imperial Images" phase, with issues derived from (or inspired by) Byzantine or Sasanian prototypes and depicting emperors and sometimes religious images. This was followed by an "Arab Images" phase, with the principle issues of Syria bearing an obverse image of a standing caliph girt with sword. These sometimes bear reverse images of the first phase, but more frequently bear what is known as a "modified cross on steps." Finally, there was an "Islamic Legends" phase, with issues bearing only religious legends in Arabic. It is generally agreed that the last phase began around A.H. 77 (A.D. 696/7), and represents the reformed coinage historically attributed to the caliph 'Abd al-Malik (e.g., Bates 1986: 255, 1989: 208; Qedar 1988-89: 30; Walker 1956: !iii). This reform coinage continued through the end of the Umayyad caliphate in A.D. 750, and for bronze coinage, probably another 20 or 30 years into the early Abbasid period (see Qedar 1988-89: 30, n. 7). Here, however, scholarly agreement ends. At present, there are two schools of thought concerning the dating and nature of the two earliest phases of lslamic/U mayyad coinage. The first of these was formalized by Walker ( 1956), whose operating assumption was that the Arabs began to mint imitation coins based upon Byzantine prototypes following their conquest of Syria and Palestine between A.D. 634 and 640. He termed this series of early imitation coins "Arab-Byzantine," dating them ea. A.D. 640 through 693. The second phase, overlapping the first, was generally attributed to ea. A.D. 670 through 696/7, thus beginning under the first Umayyad caliph, Mu'awiya I. Arguing from the basis of dated gold issues and objecting to both Walker's implied continuation of Byzantine coinage and the dating associated with it, Bates has challenged this view of Early Islamic and Umayyad coinage in a series of publications ( 1976, 1982, 1986, 1989). Bates maintains that the so called "Arab-Byzantine" issues actually represent an innovation on the part of the caliph 'Abd al-Malik, and dates this earliest phase from A.H. 72 through 74 (A.D. 692-94). The second phase, representing a further innovation by 'Abd al-Malik, is dated from A.H. 74 through 77 (A.D. 694-97). While allowing for "unofficial issues of an earlier date" (Bates 1989: 199, n. I 0) involving bronze coins with Byzantine images but without mints (often poorly struck on irregular flans), Bates maintains that official Umayyad coinage did not begin prior to A.D. 692 under 'Abd al-Malik. In turn, the chronology of Bates has been challenged by Qedar ( 1988-89), who defends and expands the traditional perspective of Walker. Qedar ( 1988-89: 28-30), rejecting the temporal arguments of Bates based upon dated gold coinage, maintains that a lapse of at least sixty years without any coinage in Syria seems doubtful, and that the large number and variety of the so-called Arab-Byzantine types were unlikely to have been issued in the span of only five years or less. He alternatively suggests that coins of the first phase actually began as semi-autonomous local issues shortly after the Persian invasion of A.D. 61 I, and continued to be issued in various forms until A.D. 697. Similarly, he would attribute coins of the second phase to the period from ea. 685 through 697, encompassing the entire rule of 'Abd al-Malik up to time of his monetary reforms. At present, no resolution of these temporal issues seems possible. Further discoveries of dated coins may eventually help in testing these divergent hypotheses, as might coin discoveries in otherwise datable archaeological contexts. Obviously, much work remains to be done on the nature and chronology of Early Islamic/Umayyad coinage. In the present analysis, both systems of dating are given for the early coins.

NUMISMATICS AND TEMPLE CHRONOLOGY

COMPOSITION OF THE CORPUS

The 33 Early Islamic/Umayyad coins recovered during the Temple of Hercules excavations include two examples of the "Arab-Byzantine" type (38 and 39) and three of the Standing Caliph type (40-42). All of the other 28 examples bear only religious legends in Arabic. In this latter group, only one is dated (43), specifically to A.H. 90 (A.D. 708-9), placing it in the reign of al-Walid I. All of the others (44-70) are presumed to be Umayyad coins dating to between A.D. 697 and 750, although it is possible that some may date into the first 20-30 years of the Abbasid period. Of the 27 coins with religious formulas but no dates, six bear legends referring to their mints (44-48). However, only two of these can be read with certainty (44 and45), and both were minted 30

Of the 33 Early Islamic/Umayyad coins recovered during the excavations, 26 (83.9%) came from loci around the eastern end of the temple itself, 4 ( I 2. I%) from loci near the north eastern corner of the temenos, and 3 (9%) from loci at the east end of the temenos. This bias in spatial distribution cannot be explained solely on the basis of area exposed, since a greater exposure was made in the latter two areas than the former. One particularly important group of five coins were recovered from a layer of chipping debris and rock dust just north of the temple (NE45/25.09). This layer represents the dismantling and recarving of the temple's stone in preparation for reuse. The coin group includes both of the "ArabByzantine" examples (38 and 39), and three religious forrnularies (52, 59 and 67). Also temporally significant in dating the Umayyad dismantling of the temple was the recovery of coin 42, a Standing Caliph issue minted in Amman, from directly on top of the robbed foundation at the southeastern corner of the temple (NE I 5/30.03). This coin marks the bottom of the earliest deposition which occurred after the temple's foundations were robbed in this area. A full meter to a meter and a half of deposition subsequently occurred in this area prior to the collapse of the temple portico columns and architraves. NUMISMATICS AND COMMERCE

Amman was revived as a mint under the Umayyads, as were several other classical mints (Walker 1956: lxxxiv, xcii-xciii). CATALOGUE OF EARLY ISLAMIC/UMAYYAD PERIOD COINS ARAB-BYZANTINE

38

3

38 (C-29); PROV.: NE45/25.09 (Chipping debris and ash layer under temple portico column collapse; Umayyad - Sequence II). Caliph: 'Abd al-Malik or earlier. Dating: A.H. 72- 74, A.D. 692-94 (Bates I 982, I 986, I 989); or ea. A.D. 645-97 (Qedar 1988-89). OBY.: Emperor standing facing, wearing crown ornamented with cross, and chlamys, cuirass and paludamentum; holding (or leaning on) long cross in right hand and globus cruciger in left hand; to left of right elbow, side view of bird on T standard facing right, beak and head lifted upwards towards cross in field around globus cruciger, A above, E to right, and O below; thin wreath around rim. .!. REV.: Large M between A/N/0 and X/C/11; above, cross with small star on either side; beneath, officina mark; in exergue, ~AM'; beaded circle around rim. D.: 20 mm; weight: 3.6 gm. Mint: Damascus. References: Walker 1956: 5-6, nos. 711, pl. II. 39 (C-66); PROV.: NE45/25.09 (Chipping debris and ash layer under temple portico column collapse; Umayyad - Sequence II). Caliph: 'Abd al-Malik or earlier. Dating: A.H. 72- 74, A.D. 692-94 (Bates I 982, 1986, I 989); or ea. A.D. 645-97 (Qedar I 988-89). OBY.: Emperor seated facing, wearing long robe and crown; holding long cross in right hand and olive or palm branch(?) in left hand; in field below right elbow, cross with two lines below; in field below left elbow, globus cruciger(?); beaded circle around rim. )'I REV.: Large uncialµ between A/N on left and illegible letters to right; above, cross; in exergue, ? ] I Kl O (0 is uncertain, small and placed high); beaded circle around rim. D.: 22 mm (flan is cut); weight: 2.7 gm. Mint: Diospolis? see Qedar (1988-89: 33). References: Qedar 1988-89: 32, somewhat similar to pl. 6, no. I 6. STANDING CALIPH

40 (C-28); PROV.: NE45/25.06 (Umayyad - Sequence II). Caliph: 'Abd al-Malik. Dating: A.H. 74- 77, A.D. 694-97 (Bates 1982, 1986, 1989); or ea. A.D. 685-97 (Qedar 1988-89). OBY.: Standing figure of Caliph with left hand grasping sheathed sword and right hand laid on pommel; three bands hanging from right arm; to right and left, clockwise marginal legend, beginning top right: g al.II UI [.JI Ul

[..J.IIJg..a,lJ~

A~~

31

REV.: Transformed "cross on steps"; in field to right, downward, mint name ?[.:jJ.:i.o:a.; to right and left, marginal legend, clockwise, beginning top center (offstruck to right) :

[a.lJI J] !--", ~ a.lJI ~ D. : 18 mm; weight: 2.7 gm. Mint: Damascus. References: Walker 1956: 251-52, nos . 832-33, pl. XXVII. 45 (C-48); PROV.: NE75/75 . 10 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Dating: Umayyad, A.o. 697750. OBY.: Triple beaded circle borders; in field, legend in three lines:

i.(

[a.lJIUI Al.JI U a.lJ (I Jg...,l, ~

D.: 20 mm; weight: 2.4 gm . Mint: Damascus? References: Walker 1956: 26, nos. 8687, pl. VI. 41 (C-42); PROV.: NE35/25.14 (contaminated context). Caliph : 'Abd al-Malik. Dating: A.H. 74-77 , A.O. 694-97 (Bates 1982, 1986, 1989); or ea. A.O. 685-97 (Qedar 1988-89). OBY .: Standing figure of Caliph with left hand grasping sheathed sword and right hand laid on pommel ; to right and left , clockwise bungled marginal legend , beginning top right: ( g a.lJI UI 4 UI ( Ul (gL.., ~ (4.:u,) i.( REV.: Transformed "cross on steps"; in field to right, downward trace of mint name (~~ or .:,i_?); to right and left, bungled marginal legend, clockwise, beginning top right: [illegible] a.II UI a.II U D.: 19 mm ; weight: 2.7 gm . Mint: Damascus. References: Walker 1956: 26 No 87, or 29 no. 96. 42 (C-65); PROV.: NEl5/30.03 (Early Islamic context, Sequence I). Caliph: ' Abd al-Malik . Dating: A.H. 74-77, A.O. 694-97 (Bates 1982, 1986, 1989); or ea. A.O. 685-97 (Qedar 1988-89). OBY .: Standing figure of Caliph with left hand grasping sheathed sword and right hand laid on pommel; three bands hanging from right arm ; to right and left, clockwise marginal legend, beginning top right: ga.lJl[Ula.llUl [a.lJI J!--",l .:>.o- [.l,...a

4

4.:U.9

a.lJI

45

[-~ ] .,..J.sll l.:i.dt.] .,.,... a.lJI ,-.[~ ]

D.: 18 mm; weight: 2.9 gm . Mint: Amman. References: Walker 1956: 29, no. 96, pl. VII. RELIGIOUS FORMULARY WITH DATE

43 (C-39); PROV.: NE35/30.07 (Under temple portico collapse) . Caliph: al-Walid I. Dat-

ing: A.H. 90, A.O. 708-9. OBY .: Trace of wreath border; in field , legend in three lines: UI a.II U

Around , counterclockwise legend beginning at top center: [.:j.l.Jll ~~g..,.~ [ ~l al ..., [,ll a.lJI jg...,[, ~La '\REV.: Trace of outer thin wreath border; field illegible; marginal counterclockwise legend:

legend similar to no. B.61, p. 292. RELIGIOUS FORMULARY WITH MINTS

44 (C-38) ; PROV.: NE35/30.06 (Under temple portico collapse). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697750. OBY. : Triple beaded circles for border; in field , legend in three lines: 4 .:u. g a.lJI UI a.lJ U '\ REV .: In field, legend in three lines: ~~

44

32

.,....LiJI l.:i.dt.

..,.,.._

Outside, two beaded circles broken at top by star and crescent; between circles, marginal counterclockwise inscription beginning at top left:

~

D. : 21 mm; weight: 3.9 gm . Mint: Damascus. References : Walker 1956: 252, no. 837. 46 (C-50); PROV.: NE25/I00.02 (contaminated context). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-750. OBY.: In field, legend in three lines: 4.:u,g a.lJIUI a.lJU Along left margin, counterclockwise legend beginning at top right: _?] [,..- [_? J"REV .: In field , legend in three lines : a.lJI J!--", ~ Around upper three-fourths of rim, illegible legend. D.: 14 mm; weight: 4.5 gm . 47 (C-47); PROV.: NE75/75 .03 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697750. OBY.: Two beaded circles for border; in field, legend in three lines: 4 .:u. g a.lJI UI a.lJ U iREV: Beaded circle border; in field, legend in three lines: a.lJI J!--", ~ Marginal counterclockwise legend beginning at lower right: D.: 18 mm; weight: 2.8 gm . References: Walker 1956: 252, similar to nos . 836-37. 48 (C-67); PROV.: NEl5/20.03 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697750. OBY.: Triple thin wreath borders; in field, legend in three lines: 4 .:u. g a.lJ I UI a.lJ U \.iREV.: Thin wreath border; in field, legend in three lines (J of J!--", missing): a.lJ I !--", ~ Around, counterclockwise in scription beginning at top right : [?-~ ] .,...WI l.:i.dt. [.,.,..-] a.lJI ~ D.: 27 mm (irregular flan); weight: 3. 1 gm . Mint: Damascus? References: Walker 1956: 252, similar to nos . 836-37 .

g a.lJI UI a.II U a.lJI Jgl .... l, .:>.o- [.l,...al

[ ~ l a.;.... ~ UI l.:i.dt. .,.,.._ a.lJI ~ l D.: 20 mm; weight: 4.6 gm. References: Walker 1956: 289, Ties. 20; layout of obv.

~

J!--",

~~..,... .Li.II l.:i.dt. .,.,.._ a.lJI

.:u.l

.:u. g a.lJI

a.lJU

Marginal counterclockwise in scription beginning at top:

f-REV .: Transformed "cross on steps ;" in field to right, downward mint name .:,i.-; in field to left, trace of star; to right and left, marginal legend, clockwise, beginning top center:

[a.11 ~_,.;;:. U 4

a.lJIUI

f-REV .: Beaded circle border; in field , legend in three lines:

RELIGIOUS FoRMULARY ONLY

48

49 (C-79); PROV.: NE40/90.05 (Umayyad, pre-A.o. 749 context, Sequence I). Dating : A large number of early Islamic coins with religious formulary but no mint name are known. They may be from Bilad al-Sham (Syria), where there is no break in the evolution of copper coinage with the arrival of the Abbasid Dynasty, whereas there is a clear change in the silver and gold issues. Judging from the style of the inscriptions on such coins they may be attributed to the late Umayyad or early Abbasid eras. OBY. : Trace of punch outline ; in field, legend in three lines: .:J~ ,a.Jg ~ ,a.I .........,.JI a.lJI =( a.lJI Around, counterclockwise inscription: .:j.l.JI ~~ g r..,.~ ~al ...,,I a.lJI Jg...,,l ~ REV.: Illegible. D.: 21 mm (irregular flan) ; weight: 4.4 gm. RELIGIOUS FORMULARY WITH POMEGRANATES

50 (C-35); PROV.: NE35/30.02. Dating: Umayyad, A.o. 697-750.

33

OBY.: Circle border with trace of a second; in field, legend in three lines: A~

g

[.i]lJI UI

.JJ

u

~REV.: Two wreaths for border; at center of field, pomegranate; around, counterclockwise legend: .JJ [I] J~J ~ D.: 18 mm; weight: 4.4 gm. References: Walker 1956: 203, nos. 595-96, pl. XXIII. 51 (C-41); PROV.: NE30/20.07 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697750. OBY.: Two circles for border; around, legend in three lines: "~ g

.J.11 UI

.JJ U

iREV.: Two circles for border; at center of field, pomegranate; around, counterclockwise legend: .J.11 Jg...,J ~ D.: 20 mm; weight: 4.2 gm. References: Walker 1956: 203, nos. 595-96, pl. XXIII. RELIGIOUS FoRMULARY WITH SMALL SYMBOLS

51

52 (C-30); PROV.: NE45/25.09 (Chipping debris and ash layer under temple portico column collapse; Umayyad - Sequence II). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-750. OBY.: Circle border; in field, legend in three lines (offstruck to left): " ~ g .J.11 UI .JJ U ">i REV.: Circle border; in field, legend in three lines (offstruck to bottom) with small

inverted triangle above center of first line: .J.11 Jg...,J [~] D.: 19 mm; weight: 3.1 gm. References: Walker 1956: 209-10, nos. 634-38, pl. XXIII. 53 (C-33); PROV.: NE45/20.03. Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-750. OBY.: Two wreaths for border; in field, legend in three lines: "~ g .J.11 U[I] .JJ [U] tREV.: Two wreaths for border; in field, legend in three lines, with small inverted triangle above center of first line: .J.11 Jg...,J ~ D.: 18 mm; weight: 3 gm. References: Walker 1956: 209-10, nos. 634-38, pl. XXIII. 54 (C-45); PROV.: NE65/55.02 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697750. OBY.: Two wreaths for border; in field, legend in three lines: "~ g

.J.11 U[I]

.JJ [U]

iREV.: Two wreaths for border; in field, legend (offstruck to bottom) in three lines, with small inverted triangle above center of first line: .J.11 Jg...,J ~ D.: 18 mm; weight: 3.9 gm. References: Walker 1956: 209-10, nos. 634-38, pl. XXIII. 55 (C-49); PROV.: NE30/90.07 (Early Islamic context). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-750, early type. OBY.: Circle border; in field, bungled legend in three lines, with mint error in second line: I should be at the beginning of the line instead of the end. "~ g .J.11 UI .JI U ">i REV.: Circle border; in field, legend in three lines, with crescent above center of first

line:

55

34

.J.11 Jg...,J ~ D.: 19 mm; weight: 2.5 gm. 56 (C-43); PROV.: NE25/45.04 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Dating: Umayyad, A.o. 697750. OBY.: In field, legend (offstruck to right) in three lines, with trace of a star(?) above ligature between second and third letters of .J.11: " .:i.[.J. g] .J.11 U[ I] [.JJ U] REV.: Corroded, illegible. D.: 15 mm; weight: 3.9 gm. 57 (C-68); PROV.: NE15/35.03 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-

750. OBY.: Trace of beaded circle border; in the field, a legend in three lines, with an eight pointed star in center of second line: [ A ~] [ g] .JJ I u I All [ U] .l'REV.: Trace of double circle border; in field, legend in four lines: [ :,,]J ~ [,.Jg] ~ ,.J [ .:..o-,::,.]J I .JJ I [=I] .JJ I D.: 20 mm; weight: 3.8 gm. References: Walker 1956: 223, similar to nos. 724 and 725, pl. XXIV.

"*

J

r

I

I )

FULL RELIGIOUS FORMULARY

58 (C-71 ); PROV.: NE50/30. l 2 (Ash layer under temple portico collapse; Umayyad - Sequence II). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-750. OBY.: Double circle borders (trace only of outer wreath); in field, legend in three lines: [A :,,].Jo, g [.i]lJI UI .J [I] u ">i REV.: Double beaded circle borders (trace only of outer circle); in field, legend in three lines: [.i]lJI [Jg...,]J ~ D.: 27 mm (irregular flan); weight: 3.4 gm. 59 (C-32); PROV.: NE45/25.09 (Chipping debris and ash layer under temple portico column collapse; Umayyad - Sequence II). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-750. OBY.: In field, bungled legend in three lines (offstruck to top): [-] I .JJI

.JJI [ UI]

.JI [ Ul

.l'REV.: Circle border; in field, legend in three lines: .JJ[ I] Jg...,[J] .:i+[.l..d] D.: 17 mm; weight: 4.3 gm. References: Obv. legend bungled somewhat like that in Walker 1956: 217, no. 689. 60 (C-44); PROV.: NE15/35, balk (47 cm above foundation of temple podium and 1.2 m below modern surface). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-750. OBY.: Trace of circle border. In field, legend in three lines: [A] .:i.[.J. g] .JJ [ I UI] .JI u REV.: Trace of punch outline. In field, illegible. D.: 17 mm; weight: 1.5 gm. 61 (C-69); PROV.: NE35/20, surface. Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-750. OBY.: Double circle border; In field, legend in three lines (the first is bungled, giving .JI with ligature): [A :,,].Jo, g .J.11 UI .JJ U REV.: Trace of circle border; in field, illegible. D.: 17 mm; weight: 2.9 gm . 62 (C-70); PROV.: NE50/30.12 (Ash layer under temple portico collapse; Umayyad - Sequence II). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697-750. OBY.: Badly corroded; in field, remnant of legend in three lines: [A~ g] .JJ [I UI] [.JJ U] iREV.: Badly corroded; only middle line partly visible: -lg...,[D.: 19 mm; weight: 3.3 gm. 63 (C-40); PROV.: NE35/30.08 (Under temple portico collapse). Dating: Umayyad, A.O. 697750 . OBY.: Badly corroded; trace of punch outline; in field, illegible legend in three lines. REV.: Badly corroded; trace of punch outline; field illegible. D.: 19 mm; weight: 2.9 gm. 64 (C-27); PROV.: NE45/30.02 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Dating: Umayyad, A.o. 697750. OBY.: Illegible. ic REV.: Trace of circle border; illegible legend in three lines. D.: 17 mm; weight: 3 gm. 65 (C-80); PROV.: NE20/40.04 (Umayyad, post-A.o. 749 context, Sequence III). 35

Jordan was founded. In 1949, the Jordanian Currency Council was established, and the first Jordanian coins issued after independence date to that year (al-Tell 1986: I 04-5). Six coins of the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan were found from the dig. MANDA TE PERIOD 71 (C-53); PROV.: NE40/25.04 (contaminated context). Date: 1939. OBY.: Wreath around 11 mm diameter hole in center of coin; at top center, PALESTINE; to right, .:, ,:6 ul ;; to left, (·~) m·ntv'?!:l Date at bottom center in two lines:

OBY.: Circle border; in field, legend in three lines: [ " .:,.J,, g] .J.11 UI .JI [ U] ~EV.: In field, legend in three lines: [o]lJI J,-..., ~ D.: 19 mm; weight: 4 gm. ABBREVIATED RELIGIOUS FORMULARY 66 (C-36); PROV.: NE35/25 . I 2 (contaminated context). Dating: Umayyad, A.D . 697-750. OBY.: Trace of punch outline; in field , legend in two lines: .J.11 [ UI] [.JI U] iREV.: Trace of circle. In field, legend in three lines (offstruck to right): .J.11

J,-...,

1939

~[. . . ]

D.: 13 mm; weight: 1.7 gm. 67 (C-31 ); PROV.: NE45/25.09 (Chipping debris and ash layer under temple portico column collapse; Umayyad - Sequence II). Dating: Umayyad, A.D. 697-750. OBY.: Beaded circle border; in field, legend in two lines (large letters, partially struck with bias to top, offstruck to left): [.J.11 UI]

67

1942 1ur

.JI U

iREV.: Thin wreath border; in field, legend in two lines (large letters): [J]g...,, ~ D.: 16 mm; weight: 2.8 gm. References: Walker 1956: 209-10, nos. 634-38, pl. XXIII . 68 (C-34); PROV.: NE 35/30, surface. Dating: Umayyad, A.D. 697-750. OBY.: Trace of thin wreath border; in field, legend in two lines (large letters within punch outline): .J.l[I UI]

.JI U

REV.: Trace of circle border; in field, legend in three lines (large letters; rectangular countermark(?) punch in center (4.5 by 2.5 mm) with trace of letter at one end): [J] g..., J [~] .Jo.....11 D.: 16 mm; weight: 4.2 gm. 69 (C-37); PROV.: NE35/20, surface. Dating: Umayyad, A. D. 697-750. OBY.: Trace of rim. In field, legend in two lines (large letters): ,ll

4.:,.J,,

,..,

REV.: At top center, 20. To right, MILS; to left, ',·o; at bottom, J..... r · D. : 30 mm . References: Goussous and Tarawneh 1991 : 95, no. 147; al-Tell 1986: I 10, pl. 57. 73 (C-51); PROV.: NE45/30.07 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Date: 1942. OBY.: Legend in three lines: ~ PALESTINE (•~) ;,i·ntv'?!:l Date below in two lines: 1942 1ur REV.: Olive bough; on left of stem, 1; on right, I; at top center, ONE MIL; to right, J.....; to left, ',·o D.: 21 mm. References: Goussous and Tarawneh 1991 : 95, no. 151; al-Tell 1986: I I 0, pl. 57 . 74 (C-52); PROV .: NE35/25.08 (Ayyubid-Mamluk context). Date: 1943. OBY .: Legend in three lines: ~ PALESTINE (·~) ;,i•ntv'?!:l Date below in two lines:

1943

1,Ir

REV.: Olive bough; on left of stem, l; on right, I; at top center, ONE MIL; to right, J.....; to left, ',•o D.: 21 mm. References: Goussous and Tarawneh 1991: 95 , no . 151; al-Tell 1986: 110, pl. 57.

73

INDEX OF RULERS AND MINTS

II

D.: 14 mm; weight: 3.8 gm. MODERN PERIOD (20TH CENTURY) COINS

Ten modern coins were recovered during the excavations, reflecting more recent political events in Jordan and continued activities in the vicinity of the temple. After the withdrawal of the Ottomans from Jordan in 1918, Turkish currency continued in general circulation, along with British and Egyptian money (Goussous and Tarawneh 1991: 92-95; al-Tell 1986: I 04 ). After the San Remo agreement of 1920, Jordan and Palestine became British mandated territories, but continued without an indigenous currency. The first indigenous currency was not issued until 1927, when the Palestinian Currency Council was established (Goussous and Tarawneh 1991: 92-95; al-Tell 1986: 104). The coins struck by the Council were of copper and zinc, with legends in Arabic, Hebrew and English. Such coins were issued until 1946, when the mandate was terminated and the Hashemite Kingdom of 36

72

g.J.11

'\i REV.: Perhaps illegible marginal legend field, legend in two lines (large letters within square punch outline): [Jg.] .... , ~ D.: 15 mm; weight: 4 gm. 70 (C-46); PROV.: NE70/75.03. Dating: Umayyad, A.D. 697-750. OBY.: Trace of wreath border; in field, legend in two lines (large letters, square punch) : .2o.g. [-] f-REV.: Trace of wreath border; in field, legend in three lines (large letters, f set sideways and v abbreviated to fit); mint error in second line : .lo is missing from ~ ;

J,-...,

1,r,

REV. : At top center, 5. To right, MILS; to left, o·',·o; at bottom, .::.u_.. 0 D.: 20 mm. References: Goussous and Tarawneh 1991 : 95, no. 149; al-Tell 1986: I 10, pl. 57. 72 (C-60); PROV.: NE35/20.0l (contaminated context). Date: I 942. OBY.: Wreath around 6 mm diameter hole in center of coin; at top center, PALESTINE; to right, ~ to left, (·~) i1l'ntv'?!:l Date at bottom center in two lines:

This index covers the rulers and mints identified in the coins recovered. Temporal headings are based on the historical periods presented earlier. Mints are presented alphabetically, while rulers are presented chronologically. For ease of reference, the ACTH No. is given in parentheses. HELLENISTIC MINTS Gaza: 1 (C-2)? Tyre: 1 (C-2)?, 3 (C-4), 4 (C-5) HELLENISTIC RULERS Ptolemy II, Philadelphus : 1 (C-2)? Antiochos IV, Epiphanes: 2 (C-61) Demetrios II, Nikator: 3 (C-4), 4 (C-5) Antiochos VII, Euergetes (Sidetes): 5 (C-62) NABATAEAN RULERS Aretas II: 7 (C-1) Aretas IV: 8 (C-78) 37

HASMONEAN RULER

John Hyrcanus II: 9 (C-7)

III.

STAMPED AMPHORA HANDLES

BY KENNETH

W.

RUSSELL

ROMAN MINTS

Alexandria: 11 (C-18) Antioch: 20 (C-72), 21 (C-73), 33, (C-23) Arelatum: 28 (C-13)? Bostra: 12 (C-17) Caesarea: 24 (C-10), 25 (C-11) Constantinopolis: 30 (C-21) Gaza: 13 (C-19) Neapolis: 18 (C-9) Philadelphia: 10 (C-15), 17 (C-16) Rome: 26 (C-14) Treveri: 27 (C-20)

WITH REVISIONS BY GERALD FINKIELSZTEJN AND ANTHI KouTSOUKOU

INTRODUCTION

A total of 56 stamped and incised storage and transport jar handles were found during the Temple of Hercules excavations. Three of these date to the Iron II period, while the rest derive from Hellenistic period amphoras. This latter corpus is particularly important for its temporal implications and the insights it provides into the commercial connections of Amman during the Hellenistic period.

ROMAN RULERS

Domitian as Caesar: 10 (C-15) Hadrian: 11 (C-18) Marcus Aurelius as Caesar: 12 (C-17) Marcus Aurelius: 13 (C-19) Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus: 14 (C-64) Lucius Verus: 22 (C-74) Elagabalus: 17 (C-16), 18 (C-9)? Alexander Severns: 24 (C-10), 25 (C-11) Philip I: 20 (C-72)? Philip II: 21 (C-73) Claudius II Gothicus: 26 (C-14) Licinius I: 27 (C-20) Licinius II: 28 (C-13) Constantius II and Constans or Constantinius II and Gallus: 30 (C-21) Valentinian I or Valens: 32 (C-24) Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodosius I, Arcadius and Flaccilla: 33 (C-23) Arcadius, Honorius, Theodosius II: 35 (C-25)

IRON

Three storage jar handles bearing markings were recovered from Iron II contexts. The first of these bears on its shoulder the imprint of a formal stamp seal with an Ammonite legend. The other two exhibit an incised "V"-shaped numeral or geometric mark on their shoulders. AMMONITE STAMP IMPRESSION

BYZANTINE MINTS

Antioch (Theoupolis): 37 (C-26) BYZANTINE RULERS

Maurice Tiberius: 37 (C-26) UMAYYAD MINTS

Amman: 42 (C-65) Damascus: 38 (C-29), 40 (C-28), 41 (C-42), 44 (C-38), 45 (C-48), 48 (C-67)? Diospolis (Ludd): 39 (C-66)? UMAYYAD RULERS

'Abd al-Malik: 38 (C-29), 39 (C-66), 40 (C-28), 41 (C-42), 42 (C-65) al-Walid I: 43 (C-39)

>t.\, y,·

r;;

~~-~

,,

,;..t

1:· , l\ '-1