2 ICAANE Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Volume 2 Islamic Archaeology, General Islamic Archaeology, Symposium Department of History and Cultures, University of Bologna Eisenbrauns The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex on the Amman Citadel: Architectural Features and Urban Significance Ignacio Arce •••••••••••••• Spanish Archaeological Mission1 Introduction: Brief Description of the Area Within the context of excavation and restoration work carried out on the Amman Citadel since 1995, this paper presents and analyses the most relevant structures discovered as a result of the research conducted by the author, namely the congregational mosque and the souq square. These structures, along with the palace vestibule (or audience hall), define the centre of the Umayyad madina on the Amman Citadel (Figure 1a). The core of the setting is the trapezoidal court to the south of the vestibule. Its western and eastern sides converge slightly towards the north, while the southern and northern sides converge sharply towards the west. the northern side, measuring 34 meters long, is composed of the southern façade of the vestibule and two passages: one in the northwest corner that leads to the gate in the western wall of the citadel, and another one in its northeast corner which gives access to the area of the bath. In the south, the square ends with a flight of steps (32 meters long and oriented sharply east–west) that leads to the congregational mosque. The eastern and western sides of the square are lined by two rows of 11 small, identical rooms, each 3.0 by 3.75 meters and entered through a single door from the square. Both opposing rows of rooms had porticoes supported on low stone columns, with prismatic bases and capitals and short cylindrical shafts. Remains of bricks amongst the debris indicate that brick-made arches would have spanned from column to column. The general layout suggests that they were rows of shops, i.e., a souq. The eastern row of shops measures 54 meters long and its portico had 13 or 14 arches (Figures 1b and 1c). Two of the columns were found in situ. Two passages are located at either end of the eastern row of shops. At the northern end, a narrow corridor connects the square with an open area where the great circular birka of the citadel is to be found. To the south the shops terminated in a bigger room, measuring 7.0 by 7.5 meters, which functioned as a bent entranceway. It connected the souq square with the main axis of the upper citadel: 1. The excavation and restoration work of the Umayyad madina and palace on the Amman Citadel is a joint project between the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, the Ministry of Tourism and the Spanish Embassy, under the direction of Ignacio Arce. The work progresses through the collaboration of Assistant Architects Manal Rimawi and Nadim Nasser, Assistant Archaeologist Mohamad Nasser, Draftsman Nagam Assaf, and representatives of the Department of Antiquities Ghassan Ramahei, Hanadi Taher and Bassim Muhameed. 121 Ignacio Arce 122 d a c b The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex 123 FIGURE 1. Congregational Mosque and Souq Square at Amman Citadel: a. General plan. b. Elevation of the souq east portico. c. View to north of the souq east portico. d. View of the blind arch on the western façade of the vestibule. a pre-existing Roman-Byzantine street, refurbished and widened, which led southeastwards to the southern citadel walls and the lower city. The western row, measuring 45 meters long, had 11 shops with at least nine arches. Its northern end is partially destroyed and its layout is not clear, especially the way the portico ended. Apparently, the original plan foresaw a doorway at the end of the portico (built against the southwest corner of the vestibule), that would have given access to the street while entering from the gate of the citadel’s western walls. For that purpose, a huge structural blind arch (Figure 1d), which would have supported the vaulted roof of the doorway, was added to the western façade of the vestibule. This blind arch was built obliquely against the vestibule façade in order to be parallel to the western row of shops. However, the plan was probably abandoned at a later stage when it was decided to extend the western row of shops towards the north, hence increasing their number. The space between the square and the eastern wall of the citadel seems to have been an open area, probably a musara. This Arabic word (unknown in the Levant) is used to designate the place for military exercises and parades (Arce 1998b). In this area the only structure built during the Umayyad period was the great birka. By way of contrast, the space between the square and the west wall was a residential one, with dwellings placed on terraces between north–south oriented streets (Arce 1997). Previous Excavations in the Area to the South of the Vestibule Excavations carried out to the south of the vestibule by Emilio Olavarri in the seventies indicated that this was originally an open area of unknown limits, plan and use. The aim of the excavation campaigns started in 1996 was to clarify these issues, amongst others. The work carried out in this area had two immediate goals. The first goal was to complete the excavation of the areas next to the south façade of the vestibule. These confirmed Olavarri’s conclusions by bringing to light completely the late structures added to the vestibule building. However, they did not answer questions as to the limits, plan and use of the open space (Arce 1987).2 Secondly, a preliminary investigation was carried out by the author on the surface evidence in the area before undertaking further excavations. The assessment of this research—which led to the discovery of the square, the souq and the mosque—is summarized below (see also Arce 1997, Arce 1998a and Arce 1999). Preliminary Research and Identification of the Structures: the Evidence, Research Processes and Related Conclusions Elements taken into account in this preliminary research were: 1. The lack of any Umayyad structure in the central area in front of the vestibule; 2. These excavations were conducted by A. Jimenez in Autumn, 1996 (see Arce 1997). 124 Ignacio Arce 2. The presence of a Fatimid mosque placed to the southeast of the vestibule close to the bath area; 3. Remains in trench B-62 (Area B, Building F) excavated in the 1970s by C.-M. Bennett; 4. Traces of a thick long wall, oriented east–west and located 60 meters to the south of the vestibule. These elements, due to their situation, orientation and building technique, were the initial clues to solving the puzzle. These elements were interrelated in the following sequence. 1. The void in the central area After the excavations were carried out in this area, it became clear that the zone in front of the vestibule was built over with structures dating to the Abbasid period. This “negative evidence” was the starting point of the investigation. 2. The Fatimid mosque This structure was excavated in 1979 by Olávarri and Zapatero. In a published report, Olávarri (1985) stated that, based on the evidence found, this was a Fatimid mosque. He mentions how some vertical lines in the wall could be understood as blocked doors, indicating the reuse of a previous structure. After further cleaning in the area, it became clear that the Fatimid mosque had been built utilising an earlier structure made up of a row of at least four identical rooms awkwardly connected to the bath complex. The terminus ante quem to date this previous structure is the Fatimid period, when it was transformed into a mosque. This mosque was actually formed by demolishing the partition walls between three rooms of the earlier structure and blocking all but one of their doors. As a result of this beginning, the mosque has an unusual elongated shape along its north–south axis. The semicircular mihrab was built by dismantling part of the next partition wall. The door to the second room was refurbished as the entrance to the mosque. The building joints between this structure and the bath complex show that it was built against the latter. The odd change of direction of this structure and its awkward connection to the Umayyad bath complex led Olávarri, and others (Almagro 1983: figure 26), to the conclusion that this building was a later addition to the Umayyad complex, built in the Abbasid era and reused as a mosque in the Fatimid period. 3. Remains Found in Trench B-62 (British Mission excavation) In this trench, excavated by C.-M. Bennett in the 1970s, a number of houses of Byzantine date, and reused in the Umayyad, Abbasid-Fatimid and Ayyubid-Mamluk periods, were uncovered. A section of the Roman street that connected the door in the southern stretch of the Upper Citadel walls with the Roman Temenos in the north was also exposed. This street was kept in use in the later periods, although its floor level and width changed throughout the centuries. In the northernmost area of the trench, Bennett identified a structure labelled “Building F”. It consisted of a wall running east–west, ending in a square block of masonry 1.8 meters wide, apparently without purpose according to Bennett, and a second wall running north– south bonded to the first, which divides Building F into two sections. Bennett stressed that both sections of the building were subdivided in a later period. In the western half she men- The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex 125 tioned that the new partition wall includes two column sections, which she thought were reused and, brought in from a different area (Northedge 1992: 146, figures 145 and 156). Actually, the half column which is placed against the east–west wall is not a reused piece, for it is still in situ, built as a whole against the square block of masonry and bonded to it by means of the typical Umayyad lime-with-ash mortar and chip jointing. The position and orientation of this semi-column, bonded against the square block of masonry, made sense of the latter: it would have functioned as a sort of buttress to counteract the thrust of a portico of which the semi-column would have been the last support. The most relevant fact was that the north-south fragment of the wall of Building F seemed to be aligned with the Fatimid Mosque (or, more precisely, the row of rooms inside which it was built), and both were built with the same Umayyad construction technique. This led the author to suggest that both elements must belong to the same structure: a row of porticoed rooms running along the eastern side of a square. This was confirmed once excavations were carried out between both areas. Hence the complete structure of porticoed shops was brought to light. Further excavations uncovered a similar structure to the west of the square (see Figure 1). 4. The Thick East–West Oriented Wall in the South Area Once both rows of porticoed shops were discovered, it became clear that the thick wall, 1.5 meters wide, was related to the enclosure of this open area (it turned out to be the southern foundation wall of the mosque). This wall was too far southwards to be directly linked to the east–west wall in trench B-62 (in the southwest corner of the square). Furthermore, this new thick wall seemed to turn southwards at its western end, while other traces were visible further to the south. These elements suggested the existence of a very important building in this area to which this wall would belong. Unfortunately, the eastern side of this structure had been bulldozed by the army in the 1970s (Northedge 1992). Probe trenches dug in the area adjacent to trench B-62, as well as the excavation carried out in the rest of the square, brought to light a flight of steps 32 meters long and consisting of at least six rows of steps, 50 centimeters deep by 20 centimeters high. Of these, the first four were complete, the fifth had several pieces missing, and the last only a small piece survived in situ. It is exactly oriented east–west, i.e., parallel to the mentioned wall, demonstrating clearly the close relationship between them. The outstanding position of this new structure, on top of a monumental flight of steps, facing the palace vestibule and flanked by the two rows of shops, indicated that it should have been a very important building. The exact east–west orientation of the wall led the author to the conclusion that it must be a mosque. Subsequent excavations confirmed this hypothesis (Arce 1997).3 The Citadel Mosque Location and Background The mosque was thus placed at the highest and central point on the citadel’s upper terrace, in a clear representative and outstanding venue. It defined the southern side of the souq 3. Excavations were carried out under the direction of the author. In November 1997 a team from the Spanish Archaeological Mission, coordinated by P. Jimenez, collaborated in the excavation of the mosque. 126 Ignacio Arce square, opposite to the palace vestibule. Both rows of porticoed shops of the souq flanked the east and west sides of the square, creating a monumental frame for both buildings. Unfortunately, this elevated position was also the reason for its almost total destruction. In modern times it was partially bulldozed and several structures were built on top of it. In the oldest plans of the citadel, this area is identified as the place of a Roman temple (the plans of Major Gèlis, 1863 and Lt. Charles Warren, 1867) or, more objectively, as “a place were some columns appear” (plans of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1881 and the Princeton Archaeological Expedition, 1907, based on a plan by Armstrong and Conder; see also Northedge 1992: figures 2–5). In al-Muqaddasi’s description of Amman in A.D. 985 (375 H.), as contained in Kitab Ahsan al-Taqasim fi Ma'rifat al-Aqalim, he mentions “a fine congregational mosque in the area of the market, the court of which is ornamented with mosaics. We have already stated that it resembles Mecca. The Castle of Goliath (Qasr Jalut) lies on a hill which overlooks the town. There is also the tomb of Uriah, over which is a mosque, and the Circus of Solomon”. The first mosque described by al-Muqaddasi, due to its proximity to the souq, could lead us at first to identify it with the newly discovered one. This was not the case. Excavations demonstrated that after its total destruction due to the A.D. 749 earthquake, the mosque was transformed into dwellings in the Abbasid period. This proves it impossible that the citadel mosque was the one seen by al-Muqaddasi. Furthermore, no traces of mosaics appeared in the court of the mosque (not even underneath the fallen fragments of stucco revetment still in situ). The fact that the lower town mosque survived until the early 20th century makes of it more likely to have been the one described by al-Muqaddasi. This also means that the souq was transferred after the A.D. 749 earthquake to the lower town. Mosque Layout and Foundations Due to the degree of destruction of the building, most of the information about its plan was inferred from the detailed study of the foundations, as few other remains were still in place. The plot of land where the mosque stands is the highest spot on the citadel. It is quite uneven, as it corresponds to a small hillock located on top of the southern half of the citadel’s Upper Terrace. The summit of this hill is just under the qibla wall and the southernmost bays of the mosque. Starting from this point the terrain slopes down towards the north and west. Due to its dimensions, the mosque had to be built partly on this natural slope, partly on a flattened surface resulting from the demolition of pre-existing Byzantine structures (corresponding to the floor level of the souq square). To solve this problem, the mosque was built on an almost square platform 34 meters long, defined and limited by a solid perimeter foundation wall that is composed of two superimposed structures. These structures worked also as a retaining wall for the soil filling. Primarily, there is the proper foundation wall measuring 1.5 meters thick and 60 centimeters deep. Its upper face was at the same level of that of the mosque floor. From the outside it can only be seen from the west and partly from the south sections of the perimeter street (or ziyada). In the north and east stretches it cannot be seen because it is at the same level as the street surface. This foundation wall is supported by a rougher one that acts as a “pre-foundation”. It is 130 centimeters wider (65 centimeters on each side) than the upper one and its height varies, depending on how deep the bedrock is (it was clearly intended to provide a first leveling to the plot). This wall can only be seen on the west façade and at the southwest corner of the The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex 127 building; in these areas it appears like a bench running alongside the base of the building. Due to the slope of the south and west sections of the perimeter street, it disappears gradually. Probe trenches in the north and east sides showed that this pre-foundation wall existed all around the building. Both structures were plastered with a lime-with-ash mortar rendering studded with small chunks of chalk, which served as a key for a finishing layer. This rendering still can be seen in situ, and it is very similar to the one that covered different stretches of the Umayyad citadel walls (see Wood 1992). Elevations On top of the perimeter foundation wall runs the freestanding wall of the mosque. It is between 1.2 and 1.25 meters wide, drawing back 12 to 15 centimeters on each side from the line of the foundation wall. The wall is articulated by means of meter-wide buttresses that project 12 to 15 centimeters, thereby reaching the same plane as the foundation wall that runs underneath it. This upper buttressed part of the wall only survives on the southern side of the building (the qibla wall) and in the southern half of the west wall. While buttresses project inwards and outwards from the wall, they are not placed in correspondence one behind each other but alternate; only in the western stretch of the qibla wall are they placed one behind the other. Inside the mosque they are placed so that they would correspond to the points from where the arcades that support the ceiling would have sprung. Nevertheless, the three column bases found in situ show that this alignment was only approximate, as they are not exactly in line with the corresponding buttress. This information leads to the conclusion that the internal buttresses had more of a plastic value than a structural one, helping to articulate the long and otherwise dull façades of the building. The Qibla wall and the Mihrab At the centre of the qibla wall there is a large mihrab, semicircular in plan. It is 2.16 meters deep with an opening of 2.90 meters (2.70 meters if we allow for the inner pilasters/ jambs). Traces of stucco columns still survive in the western jamb of the opening, as well as the impression of what could have been a screen wall that would have separated both spaces physically. A small step that makes the mihrab floor slightly higher than the rest of the mosque floor reinforces this spatial separation. Due to the extraordinary dimensions of this mihrab, it could not be built in the thickness of the qibla wall, making it necessary to build a rectangular projection at the rear of the qibla wall that is not precisely orthogonal to the latter. This projection was laid on its corresponding extension of the foundation wall. It projects 24 centimeters in both lateral sides and 55 centimeters at its outer side (instead of the average 12 to 15 centimeters in the rest of the building).4 The Flight of Steps and Related Foundations In front and alongside the north façade of the mosque, four meters away from it, another foundation wall was built. This foundation wall is approximately 1.7 meters wide and 1.8 meters deep. It apparently rests on the flattened surface of the souq square floor.5 4. The Umayyad congregational mosque in the lower city had a similar mihrab in dimensions and shape. 5. Whole areas occupied by Byzantine structures were flattened in the Umayyad period to build the new madina. 128 Ignacio Arce FIGURE 2. Mosque Foundations and Elevations: a. Longitudinal section. b–c. North façade and portico elevations. d. Column base. e. Channel broken by the A.D. 749 earthquake. f. Column bases and foundation socles. g. Portico foundation section. This “sunken wall” is identical to the foundation walls of the court porticoes belonging to the residential buildings at the northern area of the Palace (or those found in the mosque itself). In these areas the solid rock is quite deep, and the soil on which the structures are built consists of fill supported by the Roman Temenos wall that functions as a retaining wall. The building technique used in both cases is quite rough without neither any neat surfaces nor finishing. This would reinforce the hypothesis that this wall is also a foundation. 6 Further evidence in support of this hypothesis is the discovery of good quality lime mortar in several places on top of this foundation wall. These mortar traces consist of square patches of lime placed where the columns of a portico supposedly would have stood, similar to the examples found in the Palace north area. Furthermore, these traces of mortar are placed in line with the columns of the porticoes inside the mosque, confirming that they all belonged to the same building scheme. This evidence would indicate the existence of a portico in front of the main façade of the mosque. It would have completed the design of the perimeter street or ziyada, and that of the souq square. It would have also functioned as a screen between both spaces. The flight of six steps is located in front of this sunken wall. As mentioned, the first four steps were almost intact; a few meters survived of the fifth, and only a single piece from the sixth was still in situ. The staircase probably had two more steps, as these would have allowed access to the floor level of the mosque and its perimeter street. At its eastern edge, the staircase ends in a neat north–south line. The face of this eastern side has the remains of plaster with chevron incisions. These incisions were keying to support the finishing plaster layer, which proves that this face was intended to be seen. On the western edge, however, the steps seem to have finished against a perpendicular wall. There, the heads of the steps are not aligned, with some projecting slightly over the others. In addition to this, we can notice that at the foot of this western edge there are traces of a foundation wall that would correspond to the end of the souq square western portico. Hence, we can assume that the flight of steps ended against this wall which, at the same time, was intended to be the end of the souq square western portico. Column Foundations The columns have an elaborate foundation system. Their prismatic bases rest on square rubble masonry socles 1.20 meters wide and 25 centimeters high. In the infilled area the socles were built on top of east–west oriented foundation walls averaging 1.4 meters wide and joined to the perimeter wall foundations.7 The socles were linked together by shallow brac- 6. The souq porticoes have the same kind of foundation. 7. This is a feature common to many mosques from Al Andalus, like the one at Medinat AzZahra, where these foundation walls run perpendicular to the qibla. The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex a b c d g e f 129 130 Ignacio Arce FIGURE 3. Architectural Elements in Stone: a–b. Anastylosis of the mosque façade pieces. c. Cornice fragments from the mosque façade. d–e. Cornice fragments from the mosque court (?). f–g. The mosque capital. h–k. Small niches from the lateral or inner (?) facades. ing walls (only one course high) that run between the socles just underneath the pavement (Figures 2f and 2g). All these techniques were not strong enough to withstand the A.D. 749 earthquake that provoked the collapse of the building. It can be seen in Figure 2e how the displacement of the column base and the foundation socle (as a result of the quake tremor) broke the water channel running beside it. The poor compacting of the fills, as well as the design itself of the building, were the reasons for this displacement of the column foundation and the consequent collapse of the building. Columns Creswell uses the accounts of Ibn Jubayr and Ibn ºAbd Rabbihi to describe the columns of the al-Walid’s Mosque at Medina. Based on Ibn Jubayr, Creswell notes that the columns “were composed of stone drums, each with a hole in the centre to take an iron rod, or dowel, fixed with molten lead, exactly as in the Great Mosque at Kufa and Wasit. All the columns were covered with plaster, rubbed and polished so as to look like white marble”. Referencing Ibn ºAbd Rabbihi, Creswell noted that the columns “rested on large square socles and had gilt capitals” (Creswell rev. Allan 1989: 43; see also Figure 2d). The same system is also mentioned by al-Tabari and Ibn Jubayr regarding the second great mosque at Kufa. It is striking how well this description fits with the columns found at the Amman Citadel mosque. The columns have a straight cylindrical shaft 53 centimeters in diameter resting on a prismatic base or socle with sides measuring 75 centimeters and a height of 40 centimeters, of which half was buried underneath the pavement. 8 The columns follow the same design, although with different dimensions, as those on the colonnaded street (shaft diameter: 49 centimeters; base sides: 64 centimeters; base height: 15 centimeters) and those of the souq square (shaft diameter: 51 centimeters; base sides: 57 centimeters; base height 20 centimeters). In all cases the base and the first section of the shaft are carved out of the same block. Linkage between successive drums was done by means of iron rods fixed with molten lead into holes carved in the drums. It is noteworthy that the diameters of the column shafts belonging to the mosque are much smaller than the dimensions of the base, whereas with the souq and colonnaded street columns the shaft perimeter border on the sides of the base. This would also explain the slightly larger diameter of the capital neck with regard to the shaft diameter (see below). 8. Although these columns could resemble Roman milestones, they are actually related to Sasanian tradition and shapes. Originally built with gypsum mortar and rubble stone and lined with mortar rendering (as can be seen in the palace), here they are carved in stone (see Almagro and Arce 1996). The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex a b c f d g e h i j k 131 132 Ignacio Arce A Capital Two fragments of a single broken architectural element were found during the cleaning of the mosque grounds.9 Due to its shape, this piece at first resembled a base rather than a capital: a square prismatic block bearing an echinus with a thorical profile. The sole decoration is found on the “lower” face of its prismatic body. It consists of a simple bead-and-reel moulding carved on the echinus. Four trefoils stem from the circular moulding towards the corners and dual symmetrical trefoils flank the previous ones, filling the gaps on the face itself of the prism. There is no decoration on the other five faces of the block. Only the vertical edges of the prismatic body have a corner groove, indicating that resting on each capital were four arches to support the roof (Figures 3f and 3g). This uneven distribution of the carved decoration was the final piece of evidence that led to the conclusion that this piece was a capital and not a base. We know that the original in situ bases are plain. Besides this, evidence of the presence of carved stucco on the internal surfaces of the mosque explains this uneven distribution of the carved decoration on this stone piece. It makes sense if we consider that the only place where plaster cannot be applied securely is on horizontal surfaces looking downwards. For this reason, on those inverted surfaces decoration was carved on the stone itself and not applied by means of plaster. The lateral faces of the capital, as well as the rest of the supported arcades, were probably covered all over by carved stucco.10 The diameter of the capital neck is 60 centimeters (six centimeters more than the corresponding column shaft diameter). This difference would indicate that both pieces do not correspond to each other. The resultant gap would have been covered by a polished plaster or carved stucco lining, taking into account the mentioned combination of decoration carved on the stone itself and applied by means of plaster. This treatment would have resulted in the same ratio between the diameter of the column shaft and the side of the square base, as in the other similar bases from the souq and the colonnaded street (see above). Pavement Part of the original pavement still exists against the qibla wall. On top of the fills that form the mosque floor was laid a layer of cobbles covered by two layers of mortar. The first layer (the levelling one) is made of the rougher greyish coloured lime-with-ash mortar. The second one (finishing) is made of fine white lime with some portions of crushed bricks. The same kind of pavement can be seen at Qasr al-Hallabat mosque. The Hydraulic System A cistern, located where three channels converge, is to be found at the centre of the courtyard of the mosque. Two channels running diagonally from the northwest and northeast corners of the mosque drained rainwater from the roof into the cistern. The straight channel running north–south has two slopes. It can drain water into the cistern and, once filled, can act as an overflow channel; i.e., it changes the direction of water flow by diverting 9. Another corner fragment of a second piece, as well the prismatic body of a third (the decorated face been carved away completely), have so far been recovered. 10. A similar situation can be observed in the overhanging elements. Whenever we have an interior decorated with applied decoration (no matter if it is carved stucco, wall paintings on lime renderings or parietal mosaics) the overhanging cornices and corbelled elements have their decoration carved on the stone itself. The interior of the calidarium at Qusayr ºAmra or the Dome of the Rock are two good examples. The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex 133 the surplus to the souq square. The channel ends in a gap at the base of the flight of steps. Surplus water is ultimately collected in the cistern placed at the centre of the square. There is another cistern with two mouths in the west riwaq. A number of cisterns are also found in the perimeter street. An ablution basin is located in the southeast section of the mosque. It is cylindrical in shape, with a diameter of 77 centimeters and 60 centimeters deep, with its kerb 15 centimeters lower than the floor level. It probably had a stone kerb on top of it. Its walls were plastered with a fine mortar render (for a more detailed and comprehensive study on the Umayyad citadel hydraulic system, see Arce 1999b). The Plan The mosque was almost square in plan, although the west and east walls converged slightly towards the north (hence the qibla wall is 34 meters long, while the north façade is only 33.6 meters). It was very accurately oriented towards the south (i.e., towards Mecca). This orientation forced the layout of the whole neighbouring urban fabric, specially the odd trapezoidal shape of the souq square.11 The mosque was freestanding, in that it was surrounded by a perimeter street—a ziyada (“extension”)—which served as a buffer/respect zone separating the sanctuary proper from the secular buildings. The monumental flight of steps that runs parallel to the north façade gives access to the mosque from the souq square. As already noted, on top of the steps and alongside the main façade there once stood a portico. The inner plan of the mosque could only be inferred from the foundations of the building columns and from three columns found in situ. From these fragments it can be deduced that internally the mosque was conceived as a hypostyle hall with a regular grid of columns (seven rows oriented east–west, and six north–south). Four columns were removed from the plan to create a courtyard measuring 13 by 10.4 meters. Therefore, it could be described as a mosque with three bays parallel to the qibla wall and seven aisles perpendicular to it, with a wider central nave. It had a courtyard with a double portico (riwaq) surrounding it. The approximate span of the aisles set perpendicular to the qibla wall is of 3.7 meters, except for the central nave, in axis with the mihrab, which measures 4.1 meters, and the outer aisles, which measure 3.8 meters. The outer aisles vary perceptibly due to the convergence of the east and west mosque walls. The span of the bays parallel to the qibla are approximately, from south to north, 3.25, 3.30 and 3.22 meters (these constitute the Prayer Hall); then 3.22, 2.86 and 2.86 meters (which correspond to the courtyard or sahn); and finally 3.48 and 3.20 meters (which correspond to the northern riwaq).12 Its sharp square plan and its lack of clear spatial distinction between the sahn and the haram, reinforced by the small dimensions of the court and the almost continuous level of pavement in both areas, presents a completely different type of mosque from the “Syrian model”, in which there is a clear differentiation pray hall and court. Hence the use of the terms sahn, haram, and riwaqs may not be entirely appropriate. The hypostyle layout, within an angular square plan, of this new mosque resembles Mesopotamian models from Iraq and Iran. It especially resembles the Susa and Uskaf Banni Junayd mosques, but also those at Kufa, Wasit and Siraf, as well as the Tarik Khana 11. Regarding this issue we must remember that the position of the vestibule was also fixed, as it was built on top of the remains of a Byzantine building, probably a pretorium (see Olávarri 1985). For urban planning antecedents, see Arce 1998b and Arce 1997. 12. Due to the aforementioned absence of precise evidence these measures are only approximate. 134 Ignacio Arce mosque at Damaghan and those built by Walid I at Medina and Sanaºa (for which see Creswell rev. Allan 1989). The Roofing System Regarding the roofing of this structure, two possibilities could be suggested based on the plan. Firstly, the rows of columns may have supported a lintel structure; secondly, that they supported arcades similar to the ones that we presume existed in the souq square and in the courts of the residential buildings of the Umayyad Palace. 13 From the stucco fragments found on the court floor, we can affirm that the columns supported rows of arches, as some of these fragments have decorative patterns that follow a curved line. If we assume that the columns were supporting arcades, it would still be uncertain if these arcades were supporting a flat roof or a series of barrel vaults (Figure 2a). Another unclear question is in which direction the arcades ran because of the “isotropic indefinition” of the hypostyle hall. Most probably the arcades spanned in two directions, which would explain the aforementioned corner grooves of the capital. These would define a different arch springer on each of its four faces. The vaults, if any, should have been arranged parallel to the qibla wall in keeping with the foundation walls of the columns. The Mosque Façades Earlier it was mentioned that the mosque façades were articulated by means of buttresses or pilasters. Besides this piece of evidence, most of the information was inferred from the decorative pieces found in the area and subsequent research conducted on them. Doors. To the east of the mihrab there is a meter-wide door placed in line with the axial entrance to a building located across the street behind the qibla. Probably the qibla wall doorway gave direct access from this building to a maqsura inside the mosque. The building could have had a similar function to the one that existed behind the qibla of the Abu Dulaf mosque at Samarra. According to Creswell, this would have been an official building for the caliph (Creswell rev. Allan 1989: 371, figure 240). Its existence at Samarra is due to the distant location of the palace from the mosque—something that also occurs on the Amman Citadel—and the need for a restricted area near the maqsura for security reasons. In the Sanaºa, Mafjar and Anjar mosques, there is likewise a door in the qibla wall in the same place. At Mafjar it gives access to a covered corridor leading to the palace. The case of Anjar resembles much that of Amman: The door in the qibla wall opens to a street, but facing it across the street is another door that gives access to the palace. 14 In the west façade a single door, one meter wide, can be traced. It is in line internally with the courtyard (sahn) and externally with a small street that branches from the west pe13. At the Medina mosque, the two same possibilities had been suggested: Some authors suggest wooden architraves, while others suggest arches spanning from column to column. It seems that at least around the court there were arched porticoes. Also it is important to notice that at the Medina mosque there appears a transept, a domed vault in front of the mihrab, and a mihrab in the shape of a niche for the very first time. This reaffirms the idea that the whole citadel complex, and specifically the citadel mosque, was built after al-Walid I’s reign. 14. In the description of al-Maqrizi about the Dar al-Imara next to the Ibn Tulun mosque in Caior, he says: “he used to stop in this dar when he went to the Friday prayers.. He would repose there, repeat his ablutions and change his garments. It was called Dar al-Imara” (Quoted in Creswell, rev. Allan 1989: 392). Another possibility is that this building would be the Dar al-Imam and the door used by him to have access to the mosque. The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex 135 rimeter street just in front of this door. Some steps resolve the change of level (1.3 meters approximately) between the mosque floor and the street level. A symmetrical door probably existed in the east façade. All of them were placed in the theoretical position of one of the external buttresses. The Main Façade (North). During the excavation of the souq square, some pieces of engaged colonnettes, similar to the ones from the frieze of niches from the vestibule, appeared reused in Abbasid structures. They are, however, slightly different from the ones of the vestibule: a little higher (105 centimeters instead of 100 centimeters), and have a carved decoration of pierced beads and engaged arrowheads. They also present an offset of 12 to 15 centimeters. They were in symmetrical pairs (two couples were found) indicating that they belonged to a single series (Figures 3a & 3b). The unusual offset, and its dimensions, provides the clue to understanding the provenience of the colonnettes. When the south and west stretches of the mosque wall appeared, the dimensions of the buttresses (specifically 12 to 15 centimeters by 100 centimeters) caught the author’s attention. The author realized that when displaying a couple of these symmetrical pieces, with a decorated back panel in between them, the dimensions were exactly the same of those of the mosque buttresses. Furthermore, there was another architectural piece that, due to its height and carved decoration, seemed to belong to the same series. Although quite weathered, it could be seen that it represented an engaged colonnette measuring also 105 centimeters in height. This piece had a smaller but complete niche carved in the face next to the engaged colonnette. It had a lozenge decorative pattern carved on its lateral face as well, showing that this face would correspond to an opening. At the back it presented what seemed to be a doorstop. It was clear that on top of the colonnette there must have sprung the arch of a niche. But whereas the first colonnette belonged to a blind niche with a decorated rear panel, the second type must have been the impost of a door or window lintel. With these elements and knowing from the qibla wall the theoretical position of the façade buttresses (which would have corresponded to the aisle arcades), a hypothetical reconstruction of the façade can be attempted (Figures 2b, 3a and 3b). The main façade of the mosque featured a central door 1.6 meters wide by 3.2 meters high, which is a standard door dimension in other areas of the palatine complex Two questions remain. The first concerns the total number of doors in this façade. The Mesopotamian mosques, the group to which this one apparently belongs, tend to have several doors in contrast with the Syrian mosques, which usually have just three. Accordingly, there could have been from one to seven doors. In the proposed restoration three are shown, placed to correspond with the central nave and alternating aisles. The second question is the possible existence of a portico (porch) in front of this façade. The evidence of the foundation wall found in front of the façade indicates that the existence of a porch is highly likely (above). Other mosques from the region whose walls are better preserved (like the one from downtown Amman and at Qasr Al-Hallabat) exhibit in their façades rows of beam holes, also evidence of the existence of porches. Decorated Architectural Elements Carved in Stone Here are presented the pieces that were found in the mosque premises mixed with the A.D. 749–earthquake debris, or reused in later structures, that would have belonged to the mosque. 136 Ignacio Arce Cornices. Two different series of cornice pieces appeared. Pieces of the first group are 38 centimeters high and project just 15 centimeters at the top, and thus have quite a vertical face. The carved motif they bear is a symmetrical, upward-pointing, split palmette flanking a lotus bud (or pine cone) over a bead-and-reel moulding which itself stands over a dentil moulding. The cornice top has a frieze of triangles (“dog teeth”) pointing upwards (Figure 3d).15 Four new pieces from this series appeared, all reused in Abbasid structures within the mosque premises or among the debris from the 749 earthquake. The place where they appeared, as well as the fact that the already known piece of this series belongs to an inside corner, would indicate that they could have belonged to the mosque courtyard (Figure 3e). Another group of three pieces belonging to a different cornice series was found among the debris. They are lower in height (just 18 centimeters), but their upper end projects almost 20 centimeters making them quite horizontal. Their decoration consists of a frieze of big triangles, each with a vertical groove in its axis, with trefoils in the spaces between. 16 At the base of the triangles, and running all along the base of the cornice, there is a bead-andreel moulding. In the corners, the triangles are stretched and distorted to adjust the pattern, as are the trefoils, to fit into the gaps. In one case the trefoil is replaced by a half palmette. The most noteworthy feature about these cornice pieces is their position on the plan. Considering they follow the contour of a recess measuring 12 to 15 centimeters, which corresponds to the offset of the mosque façades buttresses, and the fact the fragments were found among the collapsed debris of the mosque, in all likelihood these cornices belonged to the mosque façade (Figure 3c). Small Niches Series and Lateral-Inner Façade Decoration. In this series of small niches, similar in design to the larger ones present on the palace vestibule and the mosque main façade, the two colonnettes flanking the decorated panel are carved from the same stone block. It measures 46 centimeters in width and 59 centimeters in height. Besides already known examples, three new ones were found. 1. This piece combines arch, panel and colonnettes, with the same height but slightly wider (59 centimeters) than the average (48 centimeters). The panel does not have any carved decoration; perhaps a painted or mosaic decoration was applied on it (Figure 3h). 2. This piece includes also an archivolted arch. The panel bears a huge trefoil motif that occupies the whole area of the arch. The height of the arch is 37 centimeters (Figure 3i). 3. The panel decoration of this already known piece has a composite tree with a zigzag stem and alternating half-palmettes, medlar leaves, and a pomegranate on a 15. A corner piece of this series was published by Northedge (Northedge 1992, Plate 29A C1) and by Almagro who presents it as belonging to the vestibule, although no explanation was given to support this hypothesis nor to which part of the palace it belonged (Almagro 1983a figure 18b). After thorough study carried out on the vestibule by the author, it can be affirmed that it cannot belong to the palace vestibule, as it does not correspond to any of its architectural spaces. 16. The dog teeth with trefoils motif seems to be a further step in the evolution of the egg-andleaf pattern that would be an evolution in its turn from the Classical egg-and-dart or dartand-tulip. In this further stage, the egg is replaced by triangle with a groove in the middle, revealing a clear influence of Sasanian decorative patterns. The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex 137 ground of three semicircles (Northedge 1992: figure 54.4 and plate 28f; Bartoccini 1933: 14, no.i) (Figure 3j). 4. The panel from this new piece has a composite tree with a central stem and alternating half-palmettes pointing downwards and bunches of grapes. The ground has the typical three semicircles (Figure 3k). A single colonnette of the same series and another small fragment were found in the undisturbed debris from the mosque collapse in the west street/ziyada. There is an important characteristic of this set of niches that contrasts with the standard type (consisting of double engaged colonnettes, archivolted arches, and decorated panels). In the standard freezes, the decoration is displayed on a separate panel that is placed between two double-engaged colonnette pieces. Each of these pieces—with colonnettes—support two different neighboring archivolted arches. Therefore, we have an alternating vertical joint building system that provides more strength to the whole. In this other case, the elements are not three but two (and in some cases just one): the archivolted arches and the blocks that bring together the decorated panel are flanked by single colonnettes. Thus each niche stands on its own pair of colonnettes and decorated panel, without any link to the neighbouring ones. The standard set was designed to tie together its pieces as structural weight-carrying elements that formed part of the ashlar masonry fabric. In the small set case, the mechanical characteristics seem not to be so demanding. Another important feature is the scale of the pieces and consequently the place they were designed for. After knowledge achieved from the restoration of the vestibule, it can be asserted that the higher or more distant a decorated niche is away from the observer, the bigger it is in size.17 In our case, their smaller dimension would indicate that they were intended to be seen close up, as would be the case in a narrow street. This evidence would indicate that these small-scale pieces could have belonged to the lateral façades of the mosque, or even to its interior, being placed in between the buttresses. Inner Decoration: Carved Stucco Several pieces of carved stucco were found on the mosque courtyard floor and inside its cisterns. Therefore, it could be inferred that while the outside façades were decorated with carved stone the interior of the mosque was mainly decorated with carved stucco. 18 The decorative patterns and the technique used are exactly the same as those present in other Umayyad structures such as Khirbet al-Mafjar, Qasr al-Hallabat and Mafraq. Most of the patterns can be also seen carved in stone in the vestibule. The stucco plaster is mainly composed of a mixture of gypsum and lime at an approximate proportion of one to three or two to three. The technique is also a standard Umayyad one: the decoration is carved and modelled directly in the hardening plaster with a blade or putty knife (no moulds nor cast stamps were used at all), before drying and hardening totally. The chiaroscuro effect is reinforced with some eyes or holes drilled in specific points (piercing beads or where the main lines change direction as in leaves, stems and branches). This craftsmanship has consequently a more expressive quality than the stiff plaster ornament stamped with moulds. 17. In the vestibule the upper register niches are bigger than the ones from the lower one; the niches on the main (south) façade are even bigger, because they can be seen from a long distance in the souq square. 18. For a more detailed study of these fragments and stucco issues see Arce 2001 and also Arce et al. 1996. 138 Ignacio Arce FIGURE 4. Carved Stucco and Inscriptions from the Mosque: a–d. Hanks, trefoils, zigzag, beads and heart-shaped petals bands/borders. e–f. Kish I, stucco from an arch (Batrausatis 1939: figures 195–197). g. Stucco band from Hallabat (Bisheh 1980: plate 51.1). h. Mafraq mosque panel. i–j. Marble slab with inscriptions. k–q. Scales and braid patterns, palmettes, rosettes and wine scrolls. Fragments found inside the cistern were badly worn due to moisture, which made them almost unintelligible. The ones lying on the court floor presented sharper profiles, although broken into tiny pieces, after painstaking restoration work carried out by the author. The main features and decorative patterns identified are as follows. 1. Heart-shaped petals in a border (Figure 4a), commonly found at Mafjar and Hallabat (see Hamilton 1959 and Bisheh 1980: plate LI.2). 2. Fluted or hanks pattern. Parallel listels with their ends connected by semicircular sections and drilled eyes (at their ends, in the inflection points) in the shape of parallel hanks (or a fluted-like surface). It is used as a wide band or on rounded edges (Figure 4a). 3. Trefoils stemming from volutes at their bottom and flanking tongues (Figures 4b and 4e, 4f). This originally Sasanian motif is certainly an evolution of classical patterns. We could mention as antecedents the anthemion and palmette pattern. The samples of this pattern seem to follow the line of an arch. A Sasanian sample from Kish I, with a similar pattern arranged also along the profile of an arch is an antecedent that reinforces the hypothesis of having been used to decorate the face of an arch (see Batrausatis 1939: figures 195–197). 4. Zigzag pattern. A series of parallel lines define alternating triangles with pierced beads at their bases (Figures 4c and 4e, 4f). This pattern can be seen in the mihrab panel at the Mafraq mosque. A similar pattern exists at Hallabat, with palmettes placed within the triangles (Bisheh 1980). 5. Bead border, running between two parallel lines or fillets that frame them (Figure 4d). It is one of the most common Umayyad patterns. In some cases the beads have pierced eyes. Used alone or in combination with the heart shaped petals border, sometimes in geometrical interlaced strips in the shape of octagonal stars (two interlaced squares). 6. Scale pattern.19 This pattern presents superimposed circular scales with a decoration of concentric lines. It certainly derives from a classical motif and it is also related to the palm-trunk pattern. We can find it as an overall pattern or used on rounded edges or colonnettes (Figure 4k, 4l). In the mosque fragments it was mainly used in this latter context, as at Khirbet al-Mafjar where this pattern decorates the edges of the entrance arch to the bath porch (see Hamilton 1959). 7. Braid pattern. A three-ply strand form this border pattern used on rounded edges (Figure 4n). 19. This pattern is called “Braid border pattern” by Northedge. As a border representing an actual braid exists, we prefer to use these terms in the way we do here (see also Figure 4g). The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex a b f e d c g i j h n m k l p o q 139 140 Ignacio Arce 8. Palmettes. Different samples point upwards or downwards (Figures 4m, 4o). 9. Wine stem/scrolls with bunches of grapes (Figure 4p). 10. Rosettes. Drawn with teardrop placed radially (Figure 4q). Carved Inscriptions Among the collapsed debris from the 749 earthquake at the base of the west wall of the mosque a piece of great interest was found. It is a fragment of a marble slab with a carved Kufic inscription. Each line of the text was alternatively painted with red and pale blue pigments. Being Kufic, the inscription does not have diacritical marks. It has a carved edge that fitted into a supporting groove. On the rear another, much rougher, inscription can be seen, also in Arabic, indicating the block was reused. In both inscriptions the only complete word that can be read is “Allah” (Figures 4i, 4j). Other noticeable inscriptions are those scratched on the third step in front of the mosque; only “Allah ºumma” and also “Illa[. .]” can be read. The Urban Setting and its Significance: Two Congregational Mosques (jawamiª) for a Double City (Madaºin) These newly discovered structures, as well as the surrounding urban fabric, indicates that with the refurbishment of the Amman Citadel in the Umayyad period a completely new plan was designed for the whole city. The reuse of the pre-existing structures is limited to the essential so that we can speak of a city ex-novo but not ex-nihilo. The result is a major change in our understanding of the urban plan of Umayyad Amman, as the settlement on the citadel would not have been a suburb to the lower city but a new palatine city built exnovo over the ruins of the Byzantine upper city and beside the existing lower one. It is certain that the citadel mosque was the urban jamiº or congregational mosque for this palatine complex (the madina and the walled palace). The presence of two congregational mosques, this new one and the one in the lower town (Northedge 1992: 63), would reinforce the hypothesis of Amman as a madaºin or double city. It comprized a lower city with a Christian majority that probably saw few changes (except the construction of a jamiº beside the cathedral), and a new palatine city on top of the citadel for the newly installed ruling elite (which probably incorporated sections of the highest ranks of the Christian religious establishment). The physical setting of the complex recalls Hellenistic and Central Asian urban patterns rather than Roman ones. The design and scale of the souq square plan suggests that this urban space served not only as a monumental frame for the mosque and the palace vestibule, but also as an urban link between the palace and the madina. This link is not only architectural but also social and economic, as it was the site of a major market (souq). It was probably also used as a musalla whenever all the faithful could not be accommodated within the mosque. The Amman Citadel offers one of the oldest examples of perimeter ziyadas designed exprofeso (Creswell suggested that the Classical Temenos was the antecedent of the ziyada). The proximity of the souq to the mosque would reinforce the idea of an early existence of a waqf, so that the financial benefits of renting the souq shops could have served to maintain the jamiº. In similar cases where jamiº and souq are very close (as with the Ibn Tulun mosque), the ziyadas are intended “to shelter the mosque proper from the immediate contact with secular buildings of the town. The outer doors of the mosque marked (as in Kufa) the ends of bazaars converging perpendicularly to its outer walls, and the ziyadas served to isolate the mosque from contact with them” (Creswell rev. Allan 1989: 395–396). The dimen- The Umayyad Congregational Mosque and the Souq Square Complex 141 sions of the market, beside the existence of a mint at Amman, reaffirm not only the political importance of Amman as the capital of the Balqa Governorate, but also its economic significance as the main market of the region.20 The foundation of new cities as part of early Islamic urban and territorial policy had a strong symbolic value, serving to legitimize the claim to new territories. The establishment of a new city beside an existing one belonged to a long tradition with a clear political manifesto: to express the new rulers’ power and prestige. Other instances include: Resafa-Hisham beside Resafa-Sergiopolis; Raqqa (and later Rafiqa, Raqqatan—“the two Raqqas”) beside Callinicos; Medinat az-Zahara and later Medinat az-Zahira beside Cordoba. The importance of this symbolism seems to define a general trend in early Islamic urbanism towards the creation of new cities beside the old ones, instead of the refurbishment of an existing urban fabric. Amman is a clear and significant case that will deserve a more detailed analysis, with special focus on the urban planning patterns applied in its design. The mixed urban and palatial characteristics of this new city is similar to that of Jerusalem, although its commercial features, in addition to the completeness of its urban fabric, makes it a more complex and interesting case. References Almagro, A. 1983 El Palacio Omeya de Amman I, La Arquitectura. Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Arabe de Cultura. Dirección General de Relaciones Culturales. Almagro, A. and Arce, I. 1996 El acázar omeya de Amman, crisol de técnicas constructivas. In Proceedings of I Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción. Huerta, S. ed. Pp. 25–30. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Historicos de Obras Publicas y Urbanismo (CEHOPU), Centro de estudios y Experimentacion (CEDEX) & Instituto Juan de Herrera (Escuela Tecnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid). Arce, I. 1996 El estudio de los acabados y revestimientos de la arquitectura. In Arqueología de la Arquitectura. Zoreda, L. and C. Escribano, eds. Pp. 87–102. European Social Fund. Burgos: Junta de Castilla y Leon, Consejeria de Educacion y Cultura. 1997 Preliminary Report on the Research and Related Excavations carried out between August 1996 and October 1997 in the Area South of the Vestibule of the Umayyad Palace. Unpublished report lodged in the Department of Antiquities Library Archive and Register (Register No. 18/965), Amman. 1998a Conocimiento y finalidad: Del fragmento a la unidad (Planificar la excavación, proyectar la restauración intervenir en la obra). In Progettare il restauro (Proceedings of the XIV International Conference “Scienza e Beni Culturali”). Biscontin, G. and G. Driussi, eds. Pp. 583–604. Padova: Edizioni Arcadia Ricerche 1998b Umayyad Urbanism at Amman Citadel. In Trabajos arqueológicos españoles en Jordania. Pp. 16–39. Amman: Cervantes Institute. 1999a El análisis estratigráfico y la intervención sobre edificios históricos: El caso del Palacio Omeya de Amman. In Tratado de restauración y rehabilitación I: Metodología de la restauración. Edited by Departamento de Construccion y Tecnologia arquitectonicas (Escuela Tecnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid). Pp. 237–250. Madrid: Editorial Munilla-Leria. 20. Here are briefly presented a few notes on an issue that would require more space for a complete analysis (due to publishing limitations, my second contribution at the Copenhagen conference, which deals with this issue, will be published elsewhere). 142 Ignacio Arce The Umayyad Hydraulic System at Amman Citadel. In Proceedings of the International Symposium “The Archaeology of Water in the Middle East” (in press). Berlin: German Archaeological Institute, Oriental Section. 2000 Un tipo inédito de trompas en la arquitectura omeya. In Proceedings of III Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción. Madrid, 2000. Huerta, S. ed. Pp. 37–47. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Historicos de Obras Publicas y Urbanismo (CEHOPU), Centro de Estudios y Experimentación (CEDEX) & Instituto Juan de Herrera (Escuela Tecnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid). 2001a The Early Islamic Stucco Techniques and the Parto-Sassanian Tradition. Continuity and Change. In Lo Stucco, cultura, tecnologia e conoscenza (Proceedings of the XVII International Conference “Scienza e Beni Culturali”). Biscontin, G. and G. Driussi, eds. Pp. 107– 123. Padova: Edizioni Arcadia Ricerche. 2001b The Umayyad Carved Stucco from Amman Citadel Mosque. In Lo Stucco, cultura tecnologia e conoscenza (Proceedings of the XVII International Conference “Scienza e Beni Culturali”). Biscontin, G. and G. Driussi, eds. Pp. 125–140. Padova: Edizioni Arcadia Ricerche. Arce, I., F. Doglioni and R. Parenti 1996 Gli strati di rivestimento: Strategie e tecniche di indagine tra conoscenza dello spessore storico e finalità di conservazione/restauro. In Dal sito archeologico alla archeologia del costruito (Proceedings of the XII International Conference “Scienza e Beni Culturali”). Biscontin, G. and G. Driussi, eds. Pp. 39–48. Padova: Edizioni Arcadia Ricerche. Bartoccini, R. 1933 Scavi ad Amman della Missione Archeologica Italiana in Bolletino dell’Asociazione Internazionale per gli Studi Mediterranei. A.IV, 1933–34 no. 4–5: 10–15. Batrusaitis, J. 1939 Sassanian Stucco. In A Survey of Persian Art, vol II. Pope, A. U. and P. Ackerman, eds. Pp. 601–630. London: Oxford University Press. Bisheh, G. 1980 Excavation at Qasr Al-Hallabat. ADAJ 24: 69–78. Creswell, K. A. C. (Revised J. A. Allan) 1989 A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture, Revised Edition. London: Scolar Press. Hamilton, R. 1959 Khirbat Al Mafjar: An Arabian Mansion in the Jordan Valley. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Northedge, A. 1992 Studies on Roman and Islamic Amman, vol. 1. The Excavations of Mrs C-M Bennett and Other Investigations. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 3. Oxford: British Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History and Oxford University Press. Olávarri, E. 1985 El Palacio Omeya de Amman II, La Arqueología. Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo. Wood, J. 1992 The Fortifications. In Studies on Roman and Islamic Amman, vol. 1. The Excavations of Mrs C-M Bennett and Other Investigations. A. Northedge, ed. Pp. 105–27. British Academyy Monographs in Archaeology 3. Oxford: British Institute at Amman for Archaeology and History and Oxford University Press. 1999b