DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44946#0095
cAmman {Philadelphia).
59
that the structure was in some way connected with the water, and, for that reason, I
have called it a nymphaeum, and I notice that a nymphaeum at Amman is mentioned
in the report1 2 of the Berlin Expedition. The presence of niches and exedras suggest
statuary and places for ceremonial, though the latter may have been only public resting-
places like the exedras of a gymnasium. The edifice probably faced a great open space,
like a forum, in the most level and open part of the city, where the two colonnaded
avenues joined. It was certainly one of the most important and most beautiful buildings
of ancient Philadelphia. The following are among the references to this building in
the notes of various travellers : —
Seetzen, I, p. 396; Burckhardt, p. 358;
G. Robinson, II, p. 174; Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 535;
Merrill, p. 401 (Ill.); Thomson, III, p. 611 (Ill’s.).
Apsidal Building. There are still to be seen foundations and fragments of a wall,
a hundred meters or less to the southwest of the nymphaeum, which is described by
Captain Conder as a wall of the “Cathedral.” The structure is in complete ruins, and
it would be impossible now to secure as full details of its plan as are given in The
Survey of Eastern Palestine ~. The enclosing walls in front of the wall with the apse
are entirely concealed by modern structures. And although the apse may have been
utilized as part of a Christian building, and although the enclosing walls in front of it
may have been the walls of a church, it is impossible to believe that the wall in
question was originally built for any such purpose. The axis of the apse points a little
east of south, so that its orientation is more that of a mihrab than of a presbyterium.
The wall is of unusual thickness, laid dry, and the niches on either side of the apse
bear a strong resemblance to those of the nymphaeum. The exterior surface of the
wall is of draughted masonry, the surface within the draught being smoothly finished. That
bosses “plain and not rustic”, in draughted work, are “usual in the Byzantine masonry”,
as Captain Conder says, is doubtful; but it is certain that stone work of this description
is found in pre-Roman masonry at 'Arak il-Emir, and in Roman construction at Bacalbek
and elsewhere. The interior surface of the wall is pitted with cramp holes for a
revetment. This ruin stands beside the stream, its rear wall rising directly from the
bank ; its width is about equal to that of one section of the great wall of the nymphaeum,
and its apse is almost as wide as the central apse of that building, its niches are about
the same dimensions as those of the nymphaeum, and it is certainly of about the same
date as that great Roman building. It must therefore have been an edifice of very
much the same character and appearance as the nymphaeum with the exception of the
basin in front. It may easily have extended in either direction to form a plan of
polygonal outline. It may have been part of a gymnasium or a portico with an exedra,
and, indeed, it may have been joined to the nymphaeum, in which case a high massive
wall may be conceived of as rising from the river for a distance of nearly 200 meters,
with a colonnade in front opening upon the plataea between the river and the junction
of the two colonnaded avenues (See map).
The Conduit. The great work of Roman engineering skill in Philadelphia was
the vaulted conduit through which the water of the Wadi 'Amman was carried from one
1 Otto Puchstein, Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Dezitschen Archaologischen Institzzis, Band XVII (1902) p. 108.
2 5. E. P., p. 55.
59
that the structure was in some way connected with the water, and, for that reason, I
have called it a nymphaeum, and I notice that a nymphaeum at Amman is mentioned
in the report1 2 of the Berlin Expedition. The presence of niches and exedras suggest
statuary and places for ceremonial, though the latter may have been only public resting-
places like the exedras of a gymnasium. The edifice probably faced a great open space,
like a forum, in the most level and open part of the city, where the two colonnaded
avenues joined. It was certainly one of the most important and most beautiful buildings
of ancient Philadelphia. The following are among the references to this building in
the notes of various travellers : —
Seetzen, I, p. 396; Burckhardt, p. 358;
G. Robinson, II, p. 174; Tristram, Land of Israel, p. 535;
Merrill, p. 401 (Ill.); Thomson, III, p. 611 (Ill’s.).
Apsidal Building. There are still to be seen foundations and fragments of a wall,
a hundred meters or less to the southwest of the nymphaeum, which is described by
Captain Conder as a wall of the “Cathedral.” The structure is in complete ruins, and
it would be impossible now to secure as full details of its plan as are given in The
Survey of Eastern Palestine ~. The enclosing walls in front of the wall with the apse
are entirely concealed by modern structures. And although the apse may have been
utilized as part of a Christian building, and although the enclosing walls in front of it
may have been the walls of a church, it is impossible to believe that the wall in
question was originally built for any such purpose. The axis of the apse points a little
east of south, so that its orientation is more that of a mihrab than of a presbyterium.
The wall is of unusual thickness, laid dry, and the niches on either side of the apse
bear a strong resemblance to those of the nymphaeum. The exterior surface of the
wall is of draughted masonry, the surface within the draught being smoothly finished. That
bosses “plain and not rustic”, in draughted work, are “usual in the Byzantine masonry”,
as Captain Conder says, is doubtful; but it is certain that stone work of this description
is found in pre-Roman masonry at 'Arak il-Emir, and in Roman construction at Bacalbek
and elsewhere. The interior surface of the wall is pitted with cramp holes for a
revetment. This ruin stands beside the stream, its rear wall rising directly from the
bank ; its width is about equal to that of one section of the great wall of the nymphaeum,
and its apse is almost as wide as the central apse of that building, its niches are about
the same dimensions as those of the nymphaeum, and it is certainly of about the same
date as that great Roman building. It must therefore have been an edifice of very
much the same character and appearance as the nymphaeum with the exception of the
basin in front. It may easily have extended in either direction to form a plan of
polygonal outline. It may have been part of a gymnasium or a portico with an exedra,
and, indeed, it may have been joined to the nymphaeum, in which case a high massive
wall may be conceived of as rising from the river for a distance of nearly 200 meters,
with a colonnade in front opening upon the plataea between the river and the junction
of the two colonnaded avenues (See map).
The Conduit. The great work of Roman engineering skill in Philadelphia was
the vaulted conduit through which the water of the Wadi 'Amman was carried from one
1 Otto Puchstein, Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Dezitschen Archaologischen Institzzis, Band XVII (1902) p. 108.
2 5. E. P., p. 55.