DOI Artikel:
Meyza, Henryk: Remarks on the western acqueduct of Palmyra
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26418#0034
under the Principia. This does not falsify the general impression of agreement
between the building and the channel and resulting hint on their contemporaneity.
But at the same time we cannot point at any substantial argument for this idea.
There is, on the contrary an argument speaking for placing acqueduct construction
considerably earlier than that of the „Temple des Enseignes”. Its similarity to the
Bel Channels, noticed by Michałowski, would suggest a 1-st century date9. If the
acqueduct has been constructed significantly earlier than the Principia, either it is
still in the same place since then, or its course has been slightly accomodated to the
new conditions. In case of the second possibility we should be able to detect traces
of the earlier channel under the ,,Temple des Enseignes”. No stratigraphical distur-
bances of such type were observable in sounding below the front hall of the building.
But this helps not in determining the date of construction. Neither shall help specula-
ting about the causes of acqueduct passing under the Principia. The slope of Gubwel-
-el-Husainiyet was much the same before the Temple erection, unless radically changed
by levelling, which seems not probable. If the course of the channel were to avoid
the building, it would have to be built not only winding around the Principia cor-
ners, but also its upper or lower part would have to be changed. Therefore the
simplest explanation of the existing line is that it was relatively easier to build it in
such a way, or let it remain unchanged. Such an explanation cannot be tested and
holds as well for the earlier as for contemporary with the „Temple des Enseignes”
date of construction.
Having thus shown how little value the internal evidence of the Principia has for
dating the acqueduct, we should turn attention to other possibilities. These are co-
nnected with study of the course above and below the Temple.
Idea that the acqueduct leads to the stone pipe along the Great Colonnade has
been expressed by several authors10 and seems to be the most obvious one. The
pipe in the upper part of the known course comes from NE to the Colonnade line
at point opposite to the Christian Basilica. This may lead to assumption that above
this point it crosses Diocletianic walls (CDD) coming from the defensive wall of
„Diocletian’s Camp” by a wide bend. There are no surface traces within the town
walls, a fact not to be marvelled about, as near the Colonnade the pipe is buried ca.
1 m below the surface. Outside the walls the only trace visible is a so-called „wavy
wall”, which however is certainly not a part of the acqueduct, and most probably
is very late in date1X. Anyway, trying to test the above hypothesis a trench was ope-
ned against the inner face of the Camp defensive wall at the point where the acque-
duct should have left the „Diocletian’s Camp”. A water channel, built of small sto-
nes bound by ashy mortar was found (trench A). Its cross-section was rectangular
and it formed an L — one side leaning against the wall, the other pointing towards
9 K. Michałowski, Rapport... 1965, p. 13.
10 D. P. Crouch, o. c., p. 164; A. Bounni, N. Saliby, Six nouveaux emplacements fouilles
a Palmyre, AAAS 15, 1965, p. 138.
11 J. Starcky, o. c., p. 56.
28
between the building and the channel and resulting hint on their contemporaneity.
But at the same time we cannot point at any substantial argument for this idea.
There is, on the contrary an argument speaking for placing acqueduct construction
considerably earlier than that of the „Temple des Enseignes”. Its similarity to the
Bel Channels, noticed by Michałowski, would suggest a 1-st century date9. If the
acqueduct has been constructed significantly earlier than the Principia, either it is
still in the same place since then, or its course has been slightly accomodated to the
new conditions. In case of the second possibility we should be able to detect traces
of the earlier channel under the ,,Temple des Enseignes”. No stratigraphical distur-
bances of such type were observable in sounding below the front hall of the building.
But this helps not in determining the date of construction. Neither shall help specula-
ting about the causes of acqueduct passing under the Principia. The slope of Gubwel-
-el-Husainiyet was much the same before the Temple erection, unless radically changed
by levelling, which seems not probable. If the course of the channel were to avoid
the building, it would have to be built not only winding around the Principia cor-
ners, but also its upper or lower part would have to be changed. Therefore the
simplest explanation of the existing line is that it was relatively easier to build it in
such a way, or let it remain unchanged. Such an explanation cannot be tested and
holds as well for the earlier as for contemporary with the „Temple des Enseignes”
date of construction.
Having thus shown how little value the internal evidence of the Principia has for
dating the acqueduct, we should turn attention to other possibilities. These are co-
nnected with study of the course above and below the Temple.
Idea that the acqueduct leads to the stone pipe along the Great Colonnade has
been expressed by several authors10 and seems to be the most obvious one. The
pipe in the upper part of the known course comes from NE to the Colonnade line
at point opposite to the Christian Basilica. This may lead to assumption that above
this point it crosses Diocletianic walls (CDD) coming from the defensive wall of
„Diocletian’s Camp” by a wide bend. There are no surface traces within the town
walls, a fact not to be marvelled about, as near the Colonnade the pipe is buried ca.
1 m below the surface. Outside the walls the only trace visible is a so-called „wavy
wall”, which however is certainly not a part of the acqueduct, and most probably
is very late in date1X. Anyway, trying to test the above hypothesis a trench was ope-
ned against the inner face of the Camp defensive wall at the point where the acque-
duct should have left the „Diocletian’s Camp”. A water channel, built of small sto-
nes bound by ashy mortar was found (trench A). Its cross-section was rectangular
and it formed an L — one side leaning against the wall, the other pointing towards
9 K. Michałowski, Rapport... 1965, p. 13.
10 D. P. Crouch, o. c., p. 164; A. Bounni, N. Saliby, Six nouveaux emplacements fouilles
a Palmyre, AAAS 15, 1965, p. 138.
11 J. Starcky, o. c., p. 56.
28