proceedings of the sixteenth seminar for arabian studies held at oxford on 20th - 22nd july 1982 ||...

BYZANTINE AND ISLAMIC SITES IN NORTHERN AND EASTERN JORDANAuthor(s): Geoffrey KingSource: Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, Vol. 13, Proceedings of the SixteenthSEMINAR FOR ARABIAN STUDIES held at Oxford on 20th - 22nd July 1982 (1983), pp. 79-91Published by: ArchaeopressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41222999 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 17:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Archaeopress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of theSeminar for Arabian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.144 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:08:08 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=archaeopress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41222999?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


79

BYZANTINE AND ISLAMIC SITES IN NORTHERN AND EASTERN JORDAN

Geoffrey King

In 1980 and 1981 a survey was made of Byzantine and Islamic sites in Jordan. During the first season the main objectives were to study the iconography of mosaics from various Byzantine and Umayyad sites, Byzantine and Islamic architecture in the tfawrãn in northern Jordan, and various sites in the eastern desert (1). Further work was carried out in the tJawran and the eastern desert during the second season, while evidence of Byzantine and Islamic occupation of the region between al-Mafraq and Jarash and the region between Mãdabã and Wadlfl- Mujib was also examined.

The Christian ecclesiastical architecture of the tfawrän was already known from the work of earlier expeditions to the area. In certain instances there had been suggestions of alterations to Christian buildings in the Islamic period, although this issue had not been dealt with in any detail in Jordan. We concentrated on churches and related buildings rather than domestic architecture in the tfawran, fOr although most of the churches have been reduced to their foundations through looting of their fabric, this is usually no great hindrance to their study. By contrast, the ancient domestic buildings have been re-occupied since the 19th century by Druze and bedouin settlers. As a result, many of these buildings have been reconstructed with re-used materials in what is often an excellent and confusing imitation of the ancient style. In all periods the building material of the area has been the local black basalt, often to the exclusion of all else, even wood. With such a ready supply of cut stone from antiquity available there has been little incentive to quarry new blocks, and the present state of many of the monuments reflects the depredations of stone-looters. Recent development of the region has also led to the re-furbishing of the ancient birkas with concrete.

The main archaeological study of this northern area was undertaken in 1904-1905 and 1909 by the Princeton University Archaeological Exped- ition to Syria, led by H.C. Butler. The Expedition's work remains the basic account of the architecture and epigraphy of the region from the Nabataean through to the Byzantine period, and to a lesser degree for the Islamic period. Only in recent years has further epigraphic and archaeological work been undertaken in the Hawrän (Mittmann 1970s 190- 207; de Vries 1979:49-55) (2). Taking the descriptions by the Princeton Expedition as the point of departure for the present survey, sites were studied from the area immediately north of al-Mafraq as far as Dayr al- Kinn, on the edge of the desert that lies east of the tfawrän settlements (Fig. 1). These Jordanian Bawrãn villages also mark the limit of the agricultural land before the desert to the south.



80

The district flourished under Nabataean government and there are numerous traces of their presence. Certain £awrln sites in Jordan con- stituted positions on the Roman and Byzantine limes system (Parker 1976:19-31), and at most of the main sites surveyed in this area, the evidence from surface sherd collections indicates successive Roman and Byzantine occupations continuing in many cases on into the Umayyad period. A subsequent Ayy Cibi d -Marni uk use of some sites is also testified by ceramic evidence. The earlier periods in the area aire well substan- tiated by epigraphy as well as literary evidence relating to BuçrS, but the use of these Jordanian £Iawran settlements in the Islamic period is less familiar. Occupation of this region in the early Islamic period should be related to the importance to the Muslims of Damascus and its hinterland, as well as to their settlements in north-west Jordan and Palestine. The continued occupation of the Çawrãn under the early Mus- lims should also be considered in the context of the well-known Umayyad desert "palaces11 some 50 kms further south. As for the Ayyubid-Mamlök presence in the Çawrãn, this should be related to the efflorescence of the entire region from the emergence of Çallfr al-Dïn onwards.

At most of the Çawrãn sites examined during our survey traces were found of at least one church and sometimes more, built during the By- zantine period to serve the needs of the local Christian Arab population. A number of monasteries have also been identified in the area. At Sama, 14 kms north of al-Mafraq, the Princeton Expedition of 1904- 1905 had noted the church of St. George, dated by a foundation inscription in an attached building against the north side to A.D. 624-625 (519 of the Province) (Butler II .A. 2:83-86, ill. 64, 65; Littmann III. A. 2:45; Mittmann 1970:196). However, Butler was somewhat hesitant in his account of St. George to accept this date for he felt that the church itself could be dated 5th or 6th century A.D. because of its fine construction. The buildings attached to the church on the north side he believed to have been a monastery (Fig. 3), and it is to this monastery that the date of A.D. 624-625 may refer: at this time, of course, the Sassanians still occupied the region. Our own examination partly supports this interpretation of the chronology but with certain modifications. Our ground-plan (Fig. 4) shows merely the church itself and the two-room structure А, В which includes in its masonry the dating inscription. We do not feel confident of the antiquity of the other buildings of Butler's monastery, and there is good reason for believing that alterations have taken place since his visit to confuse matters. It appears that the two-room structure А, В represents a single building campaign and there is a clear break in bond between this structure and the church. Butler neglected this and other significant breaks in bond which is surprising, since the breaks coincide with the variations in building quality between the church and the northern complex that Butler recognized.

The Princeton Expedition erroneously regarded the tower of St. George as a part of the Church (Fig. 2). Instead, we propose that it is a later structure. Creswell (Creswell 1969:492), following the Princeton account, took the square tower as one of the Christian examples of a Syrian form that gave rise to the early Islamic square minaret of the area. Our examination of the tower of St. George shows that its presence required the prior demolition of the apse of the church and the partial resetting of the apse to allow the tower to be constructed, for part of the tower rests directly on top of the remains of the apse: the existence of the one precludes the other. Furthermore, a wall has been built screening off the nave of the church from the wrecked apse and this wall is apparently of the same period as the tower. On its east side, the tower rests on a corner of room A, built against the



81

church in A.D. 624-625 and this involved some slight alteration to the south-west corner of the room. It is thus suggested that the tower is later than the Byzantine period since the Christians are most unlikely to have destroyed and walled-off the apse: instead it seems more plaus- ible to date the destruction of the apse, its walling-off and the construction of the tower to the Islamic period and to propose that the tower is in reality a minaret built when the church was transformed in- to a mosque. An alternative view is that the addition was intended as a watch-tower, although the deliberate screening of the ruined apse be- speaks a more calculated intent and understanding of the significance of the apse than would be necessary for a simple look-out point. In greater Syria as a whole there are several examples of temples transformed successively into churches and then converted into mosques and it is in this category of churches made over to mosques that St. George belongs. The south wall of the church, of course, would have been appropriately oriented for the qibla, but where the mibrãb should be there is only a space. The date of the transformation of the church into a mosque and the addition of the tower is harder to settle. Buçrã fell to Khãlid b. al-Walid in A.H. 13/A.D. 634. Sama continued to be occupied until at least the fall of the Umayyads, as the sherd evidence seems to indicate. The next significant occupation of Sarna, judging once more from surface sherding, appears to take place under the Ayynbids and Mamluks. By the time of the Princeton Expedition, the site was mostly ruined and only partly occupied. From these rough and unsatisfactory guidelines of the chronology, it can be hazarded merely that the tower may have been constructed in the early Islamic period or after the latter part of the 6th/12th century when the AyyQbids came to dominate the area.

Further south-east at Khirbat Umm Al-Surab, the Princeton Exped- ition of 1904-1905 planned and described the church of Sts Sergius and Bacchus, dated by an inscription over the principle entrance to A.D. 489 (384? of the Province) (Butler II .A. 2:95-99, ill. 78, 79; Littmann III. A. 2:57-58) . Here the Princeton Expedition found a church with a tower and what was described as "ecclesiatical residences11 on the north side built around a rectangular courtyard. Yet contrary to Butler's plan (cf. Figs. 6, 7) none of these northern structures bonds with the church, thus allowing for the possibility that the northern complex could be later. It is curious that this Christian north complex seems to have no crosses on the stonework (3). The Princeton account over- looked a similar complex with a courtyard built against the south side of the church, parts of which also do not bond with the church. While some hesitation must be expressed regarding the southern complex as a whole, room W (Fig. 7) very probably belonged to the church and gave access to its south gallery: Butler had been unable to locate a staircase to this gallery. The church of Sts Sergius and Bacchus was decor- ated quite elaborately: glass, marble and coloured stone mosaic cubes were found near the apse and marble mosaic cubes were found elsewhere in the church. There was also a piece of plaster in which mosaics had been embedded which may have come from an interior wall-surface of the nave. The church may also have had marble fittings and other ornament- al stone-work in basalt.

As with St. George at Sarna, the most striking feature of Sts Sergius and Bacchus is the tower on the north sida of the ruined apse (Fig. 5). It was regarded by the Princeton Expedition as a part of the original church. Creswell subsequently followed this view and added the tower to his list of the antecedents of the Syrian-style square minaret (Creswell 1969:491). Our examination suggests that the upper part of the tower where it tapers is actually an addition, resting on



82

and within an earlier room which had had vertical walls and part of which survives as the tower base on the west side. This room had been one of two sacristies that flanked the curved apse of the church: Butler identified the north room as the pro thesis and the south room which remains as the diaconicon. The prothesis had originally been entered from the west, from the north aisle of the church, but when the tower was inserted in this room the west doorway of the prothesis was blocked by the staircase which was built simultaneously with the tower inside the old sacristy. Instead, a new doorway was constructed in the base of the tower on the south side. The position of the tower and its south entrance suggest that the apse had ceased to be used before this time. In the same way as in St. George at Samã, the ruined apse of Sts Sergius and Bacchus was walled-off , but with a doorway in this screening wall for access to the nave from the east. It is significant that the tower of Sts Sergius and Bacchus is in a position corresponding to that occupied by the tower of St. George at Sama. Once again it is proposed that the tapering tower at Sts Sergius and Bacchus should be ascribed to the Islamic period in view of the destruction of the apse and its walling-off and it is suggested that this church too was converted into a mosque in the same way as St. George at Sarna. In neither case is there epigraphic evidence to date these conversions although at Sts Sergius and Bacchus, as at St. George, ceramic evidence indicates a Byzantine and early Islamic occupation sequence, followed by Ayyübid- Mamluk use of the site.

In Khirbat Umm Al-Surab, the Princeton Expedition had also found two apsidal buildings (Butler II. A. 2: 95) but no description or plan was published. These two buildings seem to coincide with two churches located during the second season of our survey. They are particularly finely constructed and the existence of three churches of size and quality at Umm al-Surab implies a settlement of some importance in the Byzantine period, although certainly overshadowed by Umm al-Jimãl to the south-east with its 15 churches. At Sabfra, beyond Umm al-Jimãl to the east, a church was located in 1980 that appeared to correspond to the Princeton Expedition's "Double Church" (Butler II .A. 2 t 114-115, ill. 92) although it had been demolished some 25 years before our visit and subsequent structures built on it, obscuring the ruins. Another church in Sabba mentioned in the Princeton account could not be located but a small church or chapel was identified which apparently had not been described and planned before. At Umm al-Quttayn, still further east, a similar problem arose with the identification of churches recorded by the Princeton Expedition (Butler II .A. 2*137-142, ills. 116-122): Harding had encountered the same difficulties at Umm al-Quttayn (Harding n.d.). It appears that the French airforce had bombed the town in the 1920s during the Druze rebellion, damaging still more the ruins that Butler and his colleagues had described. Subsequent looting of masonry had also added to the damage, while the Druze are said locally to have carried off camel-loads of inscribed stones to al-Suwaydã1 to the north in Syria. It is perhaps as a result of these ravages that we could locate only the Dayr mentioned in the Princeton report, but of the other three churches and two chapels to which Butler referred, none could be identified with any confidence. Instead, we found four churches or chapels whose plans and positions in the town do not correspond with the churches Butler described. None of the churches seen during our survey of Umm al-Quttayn was as grandiose as those further west at Umm al-Jimãl or Umm al-Surab, although the Umm al-Quttayn ruins are only the second in size in this area of Jordan after those of Umm al-Jimãl. Neverthe- less, the very number of churches at Umm al-Quttayn is striking evidence of the strength of Christianity among the Arab population at the eastern end of the Hawrãn between the 4th century A.D. and the coming of



83

Islam. The existence of these churches and chapels may be explained as the results of pious generosity although here as elsewhere the numbers of churches may reflect the presence of several Christian sects.

While surveying the Islamic sites of the eastern Jordanian desert we examined Qaçr al-Mushãsh, lying some 20 kms east of al-Muwaqqar on the north bank of Wãdl 'l-Mushãsh as it flows towards the Azraq basin (Figs. 8, 9) (4). The various emplacements that constitute the exten- sive Qaçr al-Mushãsh complex were identified during several visits to the site in 1980 and 1981 ^Further features were located in the course of the third (1982) season of the survey after this paper was delivered at the Seminar]. The principle units of Qaçr al-Mushãsh include a qaçr with stone walls measuring 26.6 m. x 26.5 m. (Fig. 8, i); a small cir- cular birka that was originally roofed (ii); a rectangular enclosure defined by earth ramps some 34.5 m. x 33 m. (iii); an area with wall- traces and heavy deposits of soft ash, with piping lined with ash and marble and baked brick fragments (iv) taken to be a furnace; a birka measuring 17.98 m. x 6.81 m. and 2.56 m. deep (v) lying just west of the furnace area; a large birka measuring 19.35 m. x 18.35 m. and 4.69 m. deep in a tributary wãdi to the north (ix) a T-shaped birka partly roofed by natural rock in another tributary wãdi (xiii) and four similar birkas (xiv-xvii), two nearby and two off the track to Qasr al-tfarana. All but one of these four birkas is blocked up. To date (September, 1982) a total of eighteen separate units has been identified at Qaçr al-Mushãsh, not including wall-traces of a structure some distance towards Qaçr al-Harãna. Surface sherds found during the survey indicate that the complex was in use during the Umayyad period, although a conclusion regarding its ultimate origin must await the outcome of excavations initiated by Dr. Ghazi Bisha ^Dr. Bisha's excavations so far have included the qaçr (i) and the ashy area (iv) which has proven to be a furnace and a bath buildingj .

To the south of Qaçr al-Mushãsh and Qasr al-Harãna, the inaccur- ately named Qaçr al-Jilãt was examined in 1981. It consists of two dams rather than a qaçr with the principle dam built across Wadî'l- Jiiat, silted completely on its upstream face but exposed on the down- stream side (Fig. 10). The dam is made of well-cut stone and stepped with three reinforcing buttresses. The second dam, now broken, originally blocked a tributary channel to the main Wãdi 'l-Jilãt gorge but it was of poorer construction and it was probably of a different date to the main dam. The al-Jilãt site has been visited by other expeditions (Field 1960:75; Waechter 1938:172-186; Glueck 1951:49-53) although there has been confusion about the identity of the site. Field called it 'Birkat Tuba1, while Waechter gave the name of the Wadî incorrectly. Glueck ascribed the principle dam to the Romans on the basis of a comparison with a dam at Kurnub in southern Palestine. We found no dating evidence at the main dam itself, but a scatter of sherds to the south of it included Umayyad wares, showing that the place was visited in the early Islamic period. The Wadî'l-Jilat gorge was very wet in August 1981: wells in the channel floor were full and water trickled from the cliffs, while a veritable waterfall poured from a crack in the side of the main dam. Such a site must have always been an attraction in the desert.

The position and character of Qasr al-Mushãsh, and to a lesser extent of al-Jilãt, raise questions regarding the Umayyad use of the eastern Jordanian desert and the relationship of the Umayyad sites to each other. Set near the margin of the desert Qaçr al-Mushãsh is an important additional indication of the Umayyad intention to develop farming and perhaps pastoralism in this area. Recent excavations at



84

Qaçr al-Çallãbãt by Dr. Bisha have also revealed evidence of agricultural facilities, apparently Umayyad, whose publication is awaited with interest. The existence of two large-scale farming establishments, reflecting considerable investment in the eastern desert of Jordan, throws light on the character of the Umayyad presence in the region. It further undermines the view that the Umayyads were drawn to the area by an atavistic or romantic love of the bãdiya, which Grabar (Grabar 1973:32 ff., 141 ff.) has rightly called into question; nor were they drawn by a wish for solitary luxury in palaces and baths in the wilder- ness of al-Balqãf. Qaçr al-Mushish is perhaps related to Yazld II b. cAbd al-Malik's qagr at al-Muwaqqar to the west; but it may also help to explain the lack of agricultural facilities at Qaçr al-Çarãna (Urice 1981:9), to be dated to before Muftarram 92/toovember 710 and visible on the eastern horizon from Qaçr al-Mushãsh.

The relative positions of the Umayyad desert sites in Jordan suggest that they also served a role as staging posts. Among other lines of communication (5), the clearest is that which runs from Azraq westwards through Quçayr cAmra, Qaçr al-Harãna and Qaçr al-Mushãsh to the area of al-Muwaqqar, Qasr al-Mushatta/al-Qastal and cAmmãn. Beyond to the west are the farming" towns and villages in the vicinity of pisbãn, Umm al-Walîd and Umm al-Raçãç, where Byzantine and Umayyad occupation is attested. The regular distribution of these Umayyad sites across the desert from the northern end of Wãdl • 1 -Sircan towards the west calls attention to the immediately pre-Islamic and early Islamic use of the Wãdl 'l-Sirtiln itself (6): this interesting issue should be addressed for the outcome may prove to have a bearing on our understanding of the Umayyad desert sites within Jordan. Finally, it should be recalled that these Umayyad sites in al-Balqa1 were in a region thoroughly familiar to the Arabs before Islam and inhabited by elements of Ghassãn, Judhãm, Kalb and other tribes. The Umayyad attention to al-Balqã1 may stem from a pre-Islamic Arab awareness of the potential of this area of the desert, as well as from political and tribal factors.

Footnotes

(1) The survey was undertaken with the fullest co-operation of Dr. Adnan Hadidi, Director-General of Antiquities of Jordan and also with a great deal of assistance from Dr. Ghazi Bisha of the Depart- ment of Antiquities. The team consisted of Mrs. E. Rodenbeck (1980), Mrs. J.L. King (1980), Mr. J.D. Deemer (1980-1981), Mr. Muflih Ghuraiba (1980-1981), Department of Antiquities Repres- entative, and the author as director. The 3rd season of the survey continued during July-September, 1982. A 4th and final season is planned for 1983.

(2) Dr. de Vries undertook a major excavation at Umm al-Jim51 in 1981, the results of which should contribute greatly to understanding of the Islamic period in the area.

(3) There are crosses carved on the masonry of Qaçr Burquc in eastern Jordan and at Kilwa in northern Saudi Arabia. Both sites appear to have been monasteries.



85

(4) Dr. Bisha has pointed out to me that the site had been visited by Sir Aurei Stein, whose papers have recently been published by Dr. David Kennedy. We discovered that G.L. Harding had listed the site in his Notebooks but under a slightly different name.

(5) Connection should also be considered between these sites and the Çawrãn villages discussed above.

(6) A building at Dawqira near WadT • I-Sircan was thought by Florence Day (Field 1960:158-160) to be Umayyad: however, the possibility of GhassSnid presence in the Wldi 'I-Sircan area has been tentatively suggested (Adams, Parr et аД.. 1397/1977:37).

References

Adams, R. McC, Parr, P.J., Ibrahim, M. , al-Mughannum, A.S. 1397/1977. •Saudi Arabian Archaeological Reconnaissance 19761. ATLAL It 21-40.

Bisha, G. 1980. 'Excavations at Qaçr al-Hallabat, 1979 f. ADAJ xxiv: 69-77, plates xlvi-lvii.

Butler, H.C. 1909. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904-1905. II. A. 2. Leyden.

Creswell, K.A.C. 1969. Early Muslim Architecture I part ii. Oxford.

Field, H. 1960. North Arabian Desert Archaeological Survey, 1925-50, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, XLV, no. 2. Cambridge, Mass.

Glueck, N. 1951. 'Explorations in Eastern Palestine IV, part I, text1. AAS OR xxv-xxviii (1945-1949).

Grabar, O. 1973. The Formation of Islamic Art. New Haven, London.

Harding, G.L. No date. Unpublished Notebooks, Registration Centre, Department of Antiquities, cAmman.

King, G.R.D. 1982. 'A survey of Byzantine and Islamic sites in Jordan. First preliminary report, 1980f, ADAJ xxvi (in press).

Littmann, E., Magie, D.R., Jr#, Stuart, D.R. 1910-1921. Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904-1905. III. A. 2. Leyden.

Mittmann, S. 1970. Beitrage zur Siedlunqs- und Territorialgeschichte des nordlichen Ost Jordanlandes, Wiesbaden.

Parker, S.T. 1976. 'Archaeological Survey of the Limes Arabicus. A Preliminary Report1. ADAJ xxi : 19-31.

Urice, S. 1981. »The Qaçr Kharana Project, 1979*. ADAJ xxv: 5-20.

de Vries, B. 1979. 'Research at Umm al-Jimal, Jordan, 1972-19771. BA 42, no. 1:49-55.

Waechter, D.J. d 'A., Seton Williams, V.M. et al» 1938. 'The excavations at Wadi Dhobai, 1937-1938 and the Dhobaian Industry*. The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society xviii nos. 3-4: 172-186.



86

Figure 1 s Map of Qawrãn and eastern Jordanian desert

Irbid I.- 4.5k «Визга /•

' *Umm al Surab /'

Ajlun í Г ^1_ Umm lSabía .eJT^/Trw/ W"m •Dayral-Kinn

# í Umm aKJímãl W"m al-Qutfayn Jarash ,. >i

' VW^ .«I-Azraq^» /^^_ H«K.-n / Qasr .l-MujgW) ^^ ^v/ 3,

%tódabã ' »Оасг al-Harin«

>x^ ^-^

V *QaeralJllàt J^ ^-*"*^' ^' /)

? '"• yv .Qasral-Tûba '^ ' ) (



87

Figure 2 : View of St. George, Sam!.

Figure 3 : Plan of St. George, Samã (after H.C. Butler).



88

Figure 4 : Plan of St. George, Samã, 1981.

Figure 5 : View of Sts Sergius and Bacchus, Umm al-Surab, 1981.



89

Figure 6 s Plan of Sts Sergius and Bacchus, Umm al -Sur ab (after H.C. Butler) .

Figure 7 i Plan of Sts Sergius and Bacchus, Umm al-Surab (1981)



90

Й1 M

? 1 а H (О

•H M

M «H

•s 'I H

и s* а <н о

H PU

GO

S d Oí •н tu



91

Figure 9 : Birka (v), Qasr al-Mushãsh.

Figure 10 : Principle Dam, al-Jilãt.



proceedings of the sixteenth seminar for arabian studies held at oxford on 20th - 22nd july 1982 ||...

Documents