Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-roman-military-base-at-dura-europos-syria-an-arc haeological-visualization-simon-james/
Aresearchprojectconductedincollaborationwith LaMissionFranco-Syrienned’Europos-Doura and YaleUniversityArtGallery
Supportedby UniversityofLeicester,theLeverhulmeTrust,theGerdaHenkelStiftung, theBritishAcademy,theSocietyforthePromotionofRoman StudiesandtheSocietyofAntiquariesofLondon
3GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©SimonJames2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018958835
ISBN978–0–19–874356–9
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
ForSusanMatheson whosegenerosityandopennesshasmaderesearchonYale’sDuraarchivesorewarding & PierreLeriche whomadethemilitarybaseprojectpossible andevenifwedonotalwaysagree!
StudyofremainsascomplexasthoseofDura-Europosmustnecessarilybeacollaborativemultidisciplinaryeffort,involvingarchaeologists,historiansandepigraphers,architectsandancientart specialists,withahostofotherswhosemultipleperspectiveshelpusbuildupafullyrounded pictureofaremarkablemulti-period,multi-culturalancientcity.However,collaborationina largerenterprisestillleavesroomforindividualinitiatives.TemperamentallyIhaveneverfeltany strongdesire,orindeedanymarkedaptitude,toorganizeandlead,asopposedtoparticipatein,an overseasexpedition(althoughsince2015I findmyselfdoingsoinCyprus,andgenerallyenjoying theexperience!).Whilekeyelementsofthepresentprojectconstituteddirectcollaborationswith colleagues(notablythegeophysicalsurveywork),anditwasmadepossiblebythegenerous supportofthelargerFranco-Syrianledprojectteam,mostoftheresearchresembledmyprevious studyoftheportablemartialmaterialculturefromthesiteincomprisingsolitaryeffort.Manyof themostsatisfyingmomentsduringthecourseoftheprojectwereexperiencedonsiteatDura, whenfordaysatatimeIenjoyedthepossiblyuniqueprivilegeofroamingsoloandatwillover sparselypublishedexcavatedandunexcavatedRomanmilitaryremainsequatingtohalftheareaof alegionarybase,ponderingandpursuinganypointofinterestasitarose.Thepleasuresofthis opportunitywerefrequentlymatchedbythe flashesofinsightexperiencedwhilesequesteredin mystudy,surroundedbybooksand files,workingthrougharchivalrecordsincombinationwith thenew fielddata,asIgeneratedbothtextandimagesforthisreport.Moregenerally,aswasthe casewhenwriting DuraFinalReport7 onthemilitaryartefacts,I finditimmenselyproductive andprofoundlysatisfyingtobeabletoundertakearesearchprojectentirelybymyself,fromdata collectionto finalpresentation especiallyintheformofgeneratingmyowninterpretative drawingsasanintegralpartoftheresearchprocess.Isupposethisisinthespiritofthelong traditionofthe ‘lonescholar’ whichhascharacterizedsomuchresearch,notleastontheclassical world.WorkinginthemodernBritishhighereducationsector,inwhichthepressuretofocuson large,bigbudgetcollaborativeresearchprogrammesgrowseverstronger,Iamthereforeacutely awareofhowdeeplyunfashionablethisapproachis.However,Ihopetheresultsofthisproject supportthecaseforcontinueddiversityofapproachestoarchaeologicalresearch,including ‘lone scholarship’ .
Thisvolumewillalsobeseenbysomeasold-fashionedinbeingabig,heavybook.Mycentral justificationforthisisthatitispublishingbasicdata,muchofitforthe firsttime,onalargeareaof afamousandstillintensivelystudiedarchaeologicalsite.Yetitismoregenerallywiththe Zeitgeist inusingdigitaltechnologytocreateit,andthearchivalresourcebehindit.Italsoseeksto innovate oratleast,toassertthevalueofneglectedapproaches inemphasizingsostrongly theroleofthevisualatallstagesofscholarship,fromdatacollectiontopresentation,inan academic fieldstill,inmyview,undulymyopicinits fixationontext.
Asitissuchalargevolume,IshouldaddsomethingonhowIenvisagereadersusingit.Aswith thesubstantialoriginalpublications,Cumont’ s Fouilles andtheYale/FrenchAcademy PreliminaryReports and FinalReports,onlythemostdedicatedDuraresearcherislikelytoreaditfrom covertocover;Ianticipatemanyreaderswilllookattheintroductionandtheconclusions,and pursuethedetailedaspectsofthematerialpresentedwhichinterestthem.Forthesereasons,inthe styleofcontemporarytelevisiondocumentarieswhichprécisthestorylineaftereverycommercial break,thereisadegreeofrepetitionofkeyinformationandargumentstohelporientatereaders dippingintothevolume;apologiestothemarathonreaderifthisirritates,butanyoneemerging fromthelonghaulthroughPartIImayalso finditusefultorecapthewiderpurposesofhaving doneso!
TheprojectwaskindlysupportedbytheUniversityofLeicester,throughgrantingofthe preciousperiodsofleavefromteachingandadministrativedutiesessentialtopermitsustained focusonthetask.IamespeciallygratefultotheLeverhulmeTrustandtheGerdaHenkelStiftung forfundingvitaladditionalresearchleaveatdifferentstagesofthedecade-longproject.Key aspectsofthework,especiallythegeophysicalsurvey,werekindlyfundedbytheBritish Academy,theSocietyofAntiquariesofLondon,andtheSocietyforthePromotionofRoman Studies.
Asacknowledgedabove,theprojectwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouttheactivesupportof manypeople,thedirectparticipationofothersinthe field,andinputfrommanymorethrough discussions.IamespeciallygratefultomyformerstudentandnowvaluedcollaboratorDr JenniferBaird,onwhoseownworkIhavedrawnheavily,regardingboththesiteandtheYale archive.Shewasanimmensehelpindiscussingremainsofthemilitaryhousingonsite,andinthe conductofsurvey,withtwootherCanadians,herhusbandandmycolleagueDrDanStewart,and ourmutualfriendBenGourleyfortheTotalStationwork.TheestimableKrisStruttfromthe UniversityofSouthamptonwithhisassistantsundertooktheinvaluablegeophysics.Andabsolutelycriticalwasthehospitalityof,andinteractionwith,ourFrench,Syrian,andothercolleagues of laMissionFranco-Syrienned’Europos-Doura,aboveallPierreLeriche,whowelcomedtheBrits andCanadianswarmly,ifsometimesinclinedtotease lessujetsdeSaGracieuseMajestébritannique!MFSEDgenerouslyaccommodatedandfedus,andarrangedouraccesstothesitewiththe Syrianauthorities fundamentalcontributions.
EquallyvitalwastheroleoftheDepartmentofAncientArtatYaleUniversityArtGallery.The projectwasbasedonbringingtogetherdirectobservationsatthesitewiththerecordsoftheYale/ FrenchAcademyexcavations,forwhichfullaccesstotheoldexpeditionarchivewasalsoessential. Thiswaswarmlygranted.LisaBrodyandMeganDoyoncontinuedYUAG’sadmirabletradition ofnotsimplyallowingscholarsaccesstothearchive,butalsogivingtheirtimetohelpactively, followingthepracticesetbySusanMathesonfromwhichIhadsogreatlybenefitedduringmy previousDuraproject.
IwouldalsoliketoexpressmygratitudetootherDurascholarsfordiscussionsandanswersto questionsonamyriadofmatters,especiallyTedKaizer,LucindaDirven,andGaëlleCoqueugniot.ChristophBenechkindlygrantedpermissionformetousehismagnetometrydata, andthanksareduetoMartinSterryandNicholeSheldrickforadviceregardingsatelliteimagery. ThanksalsotoMartinMillett,asever,forencouragement,andformanyyearsagointroducingme totheSiretquote.
Thefollowingalsokindlyprovidedvariousreferences:JaneAinsworth,MarkusGschwind, RobMatthew,AnnaWalas,and,fortheJeffersonquote,DiarmaidWalshe.
IwouldalsoliketothankDavidBreeze,IanHaynes,andJenniferBairdforkindlyundertaking theoneroustaskofreadingthedraftofthisbook,providinginvaluablefeedback,andsavingme fromerrors;ofcourse,theydonotnecessarilyagreewiththeviewsexpressed.
TheancientcityofDura-Europos(Salhiyeh),overlookingtheEuphratesineasternSyria,hasfora centuryprovidedourmostvividwindowintolifeintheArsacidParthianandRomanMiddle East.ThisHellenisticmilitarycolonygrewunderArsacidhegemonyintoamodesttownwitha Greek-speakingrulingclassbutlargelyAramaic-speakingpopulation,and AD c.165passedinto theRomanorbituntilitsdestructionandabandonment c.256asaresultofaSasaniansiege.The sitewasneverreoccupied,makingitsentiretyreadilyaccessibletoarchaeologicalexplanation followingitsidenti ficationin1920.Discoveriesduringlarge-scaleexcavationsbetweentheWorld Wars,notablypapyri,inscriptions,andthewall-paintingsoftemples,anearlychurchand Synagogue,madethesitefamous.DuraalsoaccommodatedaRomanimperialgarrison,which carvedoutalargemilitarybaseinthenorthernpartofthetown.Muchofthiswasrevealedinthe 1930s,butitwasneversystematicallystudiedorpublished.Believedtohaveoccupiedaquarterof thewalledareaofthecity,themilitarybasewasclearlyanimportantpartofthestoryofDurain its final,Romanera.Italsoconstitutestheonlysubstantiallyexploredexampleofamajorclassof RomanmilitarysiteofthePrincipate:urbancantonments,verydifferentfromthefamiliar ‘playingcard’ fortsofEurope.Researchandpublicationofthebasethereforeofferedtheprospect ofmakingcontributionstotheunderstandingofDuraandtheRomanMiddleEast,andmore generallytoRomanmilitarystudies.
Thepresentwriterconductedanarchaeologicalprojecttoinvestigatethemilitarybase,involving fieldworkatthesite(2005–10)conductedincollaborationwith laMissionFranco-Syrienne d’Europos-Doura (whichundertookrenewedresearchandconservationworkfrom1986to2011), andwithYaleUniversityArtGallerywhichholdsthearchiveofthemajorpre–WorldWarII excavations.Theprojectbecameanexerciseinvisualarchaeology,andthestudyofspaceand movement.
Dura’smilitarybaseprovedtobeevenlargerthantheoriginalexcavatorsrealized.Anotherkey conclusionwasthatmuchofitwascreatedsigni ficantlyearlierthanhasbeenthought.Itwasnot, ashasbeencommonlyaccepted,acreationoftheyearsaround AD 210,andsoafeatureonlyofthe secondhalfofDura’sRomanperiod;ithadgrownlargedecadesbeforethis.Aparallelstudyof thecompositionandsizeofthegarrisonbasedonthetextualevidencecomestothesame conclusion thattheRomanmilitarypresencegrewlargeinthelatersecondcentury,notthe earlythird.Theseconclusionshaveimportantimplicationsforthepoliticalhistoryofthecity, whichhasbeenarguedtohaveseenaPalmyreneprotectorateinthelatersecondcentury,a hypothesisnowlookinglesstenable.
Anotherimportantoutcomeoftheprojectisidenti ficationofanothermajor,hithertounrecognizeddemographiccomponentatRomanDura:largenumbersofmilitarydependents servantsandfamilymembers comprisingtherestofan ‘extendedmilitarycommunity’.Much morethanabodyofsoldiers,theRomanmilitaryandmilitary-relatedpresencewaseffectivelya citywithinacity.Suchanewperspectivehaswide-rangingsocialandeconomicimplications.
AllthisimpliesthattheRomanmilitarypresenceexertedanevengreaterinfluenceonlifein Durathanhasbeenrealized.Previouscommentatorshavevariouslyrepresenteditaseverything fromabrutalmilitaryoccupationthrottlingthelifeoutofthecity,toanewengineofeconomic growthandprosperity,leadingtowardsintegrationofsoldiersandciviliansinthedecadesbefore thecity’sdestruction.Dura’sremarkablecombinationofarchaeologicalandtextualevidence constitutesperhapsthebestcasestudywehaveformilitary–civilianrelationsfromtheRoman provinces,offeringtheprospectofmorenuancedinterpretationsofwhathappenedduringthe coexistenceofthecity’stwocommunities.ThenewpictureofDuraofferedinthepresentwork exploresthecomplexitiesofboththehosturbansocietyandtheextendedmilitarycommunity, envisagingshiftingpatternsofinteractionwithbothwinnersandlosersatalllevels,againstthe
widerbackgroundofimperialpoliticsandwars,whichwouldultimatelysnuffoutthecity entirely.
ThatitispossibleatalltoconductthisstudyisaconsequenceofthetragicdestructionofDura inwarbetweentheRomanandSasanianempires,leadingtopermanentabandonmentofthesite. DuringthecourseoftheSyriancivilwarwhicheruptedin2011,theruinsofthecityandits adjacentnecropolisfellvictimtosystematiclootingonanindustrialscaleamountingtothesecond destructionofDura.ThisassaultontheheritageofSyriaandthewiderworldplacesgreater urgencyontheneedtopublish,andsosecureforthefuture,theknowledgeweholdona remarkableancientcityinmuseums,archives,andprojectrecords.Thepresentworkconstitutes acontributiontothatwidereffort.
ListofIllustrations xv
ListofTable xxix
ListofPlates xxxi
ListofAbbreviations xxxv
Conventions xxxvii
SiteRecording:AreaLabellingSystem xxxix
TerminologyfortheSite,itsStructures,Features,andAreas xli
1.TheBigPicture3
IntroductionandOverview3
TheSignificanceofDura-Europos10
RomanBaseandGarrison:KeyAspectsofDura’sLaterHistory13
2.ProjectContext:DuraResearch,PastandPresent26
RediscoveryandExploration26
3.DevelopingaNewPerspectiveonDura’sMilitaryBase32
ProjectBackground32
Oppressionvs Concordia?ConceptualizingaNewStudyofGarrison, Base,andCity33
Remit,ResearchAims,andObjectivesoftheStudy34
FormationProcessesofSiteandRecord:A ‘PompeiioftheSyrianDesert’?35
TheEvidence:Site,andNatureofExcavationRecord37
MethodologyandExecution:AVisualApproach41
4.ZoomingIn:Rome,theMiddleEuphrates,andDura49
HistoricalSetting:WorldEmpiresandaModestCity49
MaterialRealities:NaturalandHumanEnvironment55
ExtentoftheBase61
5.ThePlateauZoneWestofGSt63
TheTempleofBêl(‘TempleofthePalmyreneGods’ or ‘Temple ofZeus’)inJ9,anditsPlaza63
‘HouseofthePrefect’,J1-A66
TheTempleofArtemisAzzanathkonaanditsMilitary Compound,E770
The principia (‘Praetorium’),E778
Changesto10thSt:The ‘ViaPrincipalis’ ThatNeverWas90
TheE3BathandE4 palaestra Complex93
TheGreatE4House:FromHQtoDefensiveStrongpoint103
TheF3Bath109
TheAmphitheatre,F3118
Probable Horrea inJ6andJ5125
TheMithraeum,J7125
‘CampWall’ 130
MilitaryHousingWofGSt135
MilitaryHousingSofthe Principia:E8135
MilitaryHousingEandSEofthe Principia:E6andE5143
MilitaryHousingWofthe Principia:J1toJ4144
MilitaryHousingalongtheCityWallinJ7145
MilitaryHousingalongtheCityWallinJ8andK7152
MilitaryHousingontheSSideof8thSt:K7,K5,K3,F7,andF5153
6.ThePlateauZoneEastofGSt157
TheRomanPalace(‘Palaceofthe DuxRipae’),BlocksX3/X5157
‘
MilitaryHousingEofGSt183
MilitaryHousinginX7183
MilitaryHousingNof10thStandtheRomanPalace:E1,E9,X5,X7, X9,X10186
MilitaryHousingSof10thStandtheRomanPalace:E2,F1,X8, ‘X1–X4’ , and ‘X6’ 186
7.TheWadiZone: Campus,Citadel,andC3Bath188
MilitaryEnclosurebetweenCitadelandWadiEdgeinA1188
TheMilitary Campus Zone190
The ‘TempleoftheRomanArchers’,A1190
TheMilitaryZeusTemple(‘CitadelZeusTemple’),A1195
TheMilitary Campus,A1-A2196
TheCitadel199
TheCitadelinRomanTimes:MoreMilitaryHousing202
MilitaryOccupationaroundtheCitadelinB2206
TheSouthernLimitoftheBase:B4andLowerMainStreet?211
8.MilitaryPresencearoundandbeyondtheBaseArea212
TheC3Bath212 M7Bath221
L4:AMilitary-RelatedFacility?226
SoldiersandMilitaryDependantsResidentoutsidetheBaseArea227
CityWalls:Gates,Curtain,Towers,andStairs230
PreviewofMainConclusionsaboutBaseandGarrisonCommunity239
9.WhoLivedandWorkedintheBase?241
WhattheTextualRecordTellsUsabouttheGarrison241
TheNatureandExtentoftheTextualRecordfortheGarrison241
TextualEvidenceforMilitaryFormationsatDura242
Discussion:AttestedResidentFormations244
FurtherUnnoticedThousands?An ‘ExtendedMilitaryCommunity’
10.WhatandWhere?RevisedOverviewofBaseExtent256 TheMilitaryQuarter orThird?TheBaseasNowSeen256
11.When?NewOutlineofDevelopmentandChronology259 EpigraphicEvidenceforBaseChronology259 ArchaeologicalRelationsandSequences:RelativeChronology260 DevelopmentoftheBaseoverTime264
12.WhyWastheBaseWhereItWas,andAsItWas?270
StandardRomanCastrametation’
‘OrientalLaxity’ orSoundMilitaryTradition?272
13.HowDidtheBaseWork?275
orUnlocatedComponents284
14.ImpactofGarrisonandBaseontheCity286 MilitaryDominationofBothUrbanSpaceandTime286
CriticalDetailsintheBigPicture:SignsofMilitaryConsideration forCivilDura287
OrCitywithinaCity?298
1.1.LayoutofDura-Europos:topR,blocksandstreetlabels,withtrueNand thesiteNusedinthetext;bottomL,importantstructuresinthemilitary baseandciviltown.
2.TempleofBêl
3. ‘HouseofthePrefect’
4.TempleofAzzanthkona
5. principia
6.E3bath
7.X9Temple
8. ‘Dolicheneum’
9.RomanPalace
10.F3bath/amphitheatre
11. ‘TempleoftheRomanArchers’
(RedoubtPalace)
1.2.AerialviewfromtheNW,showingDurainitssettingofplateau,Euphrates cliffs,andwadiswithMesopotamiatotheL.FrenchAirForce,29March 1939.
1.3.ViewofDurafromtheNW(orsiteN),withthemilitarybasezoneinthe foreground.TakenbytheFrenchAirForceaftertheendoftheYale excavationcampaign,probablyin1939.
1.4.AerialviewofDurafromtheNE,takenbytheFrenchAirForceinthe late1930s.
1.5.DurafromtheS,FrenchAirForce,1932.
1.6.AreconstructionofDuraintheRomanerafromtheSE,asitwas understoodinthemid-twentiethcentury,byN.C.Andrews.Known andexcavatedstructuresarepickedoutinheavierlineandhatching.This finedrawingisneverthelessnowknowntocontaininaccuracies,e.g.with respecttothemilitarypartoftheinnerwadi.
1.7.ThecampandhorselinesoftheBritishimperialIndiantroopswho revealedtheidentityofDura-Europosin1920.Theywereunwittingly bivouackedontheexercisegroundoftheRomanmilitarybase.
1.8.Excavationtechnique:locallyhiredworkmenandboysusingshovels, baskets,andminingcarsonrails:diggingthemiddlegateoftheCitadel.
1.9.FranzCumont(L)andMikhailRostovtzeffintheMithraeumatDura soonafteritsdiscovery.
1.10.PierreLericheintheHouseofLysiasin2010.
1.11.ThelocationofDura-EuroposontheMiddleEuphrates,downstream oftheconfluenceofthemajortributary,theKhabur.Top,Durainrelation toimportantcitiesoftheregion.Itlayroughlyhalf-waybetweenthegreat HellenisticcitiesofAntiochandSeleuciaontheTigris,andtheParthian royalcapitalofCtesiphon.Italsolaybetweentheotherfamoussteppe citiesofPalmyraandHatra.Bottom,itssettingadjacenttoawideand fertilestretchoftheEuphratesvalleyandlowerKhabur(darkergrey). AlongtheriversweredottedsmallersettlementsandRomanmilitary stationsmentionedinthetexts(e.g.BecchufraynandAppadana)and/or knownarchaeologically(e.g.Qreiye).Groundabove300mshownin lightergrey.
1.12.MosaicofaerialphotographsofDuratakenbytheFrenchAirForcein March1936.
1.13.Pearson’ s fifth-seasoncentralbaseplan,archivedrawingE7N.1, anexampleofaninkedarchivaldrawingpreparedonsiteatDura, buttoo finelydetailedforpublicationatanynormalpagesize.
1.14.ReducedtracingofPearson’sarchiveplanofthecentralbasearea, reproducedas PR5,plateIII.
14
15
1.15.DurafromacrosstheEuphrates,showingtheheightofthecliffsandthe differenceinlevelsbetweenplateauandlowertown. 17
2.1.SomeofthekeystaffoftheYale/FrenchAcademyexpedition.Toprow, thethreesuccessivesitedirectors.a.MauricePillet(withwalkingstick), seenwithpartofthethird-seasonexcavationteam.b.ClarkHopkins,with hisdaughterMary-Sue.HiswifeSusanHopkinswasakeyteammember, butextremelycamera-shy.c.FrankBrown.d.ArchitectHenryPearson, dismantlingthesynagoguepaintings.e.MargaretCrosby.f.Robertdu MesnilduBuisson,usingaplanetableandalidade.
2.2.ExcavationsunderwayontheYaleexpedition.LocallyrecruitedArab workmendiggingwithshovels,withtheearthremovedinbasketsto miningtrucksonnarrow-gaugerailtracks. 28
3.1.Organicpreservationinthewesternramparts:L,afragmentofRoman textileexposedinthemud-brickglacisofTower15in2005;R,reedsin thestructureoftheHellenisticmud-brickcurtainwallbehindBlockJ7.
3.2.SchematicelevationofthewesterndefencesbyTower19:a. mortared-rubblefoundationsand floorofhousebackingontoWallSt; b.mud-bricksuperstructureofbuilding;c.accumulatedlevelsinWallSt; d.Hellenisticmasonrycitywall;e.mud-brickanti-siegeglacis; f.mud-brickrevetmentstohousewalldesignedtohelpretaing.;g.infilling ofWallSttocreateadeepanti-siegerampart;h.extensionoframpart toshoreupb./f./g.,andtopermiteasyaccesstoentirerampartwalk during fighting;i.reinforcementofglacis.
3.3.TheDuraarchiveatYale:a.theoriginal1930s filingcabinetsandnew drawersatWestCampus,2016;b.archivednegatives;c.nitratenegatives fromthesixthseason;d.examplephoto filecard,withprintofimageB87 andnotes;e.adrawerof ‘locus files’,ofcollatednotesandphotosofeach majorstructureortopic;f.examplesofsiterecordcards,relatingtotheM7 bathandtheE8 ‘barracks’,fromthelocus files;g.theplanchestsoflarge drawingsandartwork.
3.4.KrisStruttundertakingmagnetometrysurveyin2007.
3.5.L,BenGourley,JenBaird,andDanStewartconductingTotalStation surveyin2008forBaird’shousingprojectandthemilitarybase research.R,theauthorworkinginthe principia in2010.
4.1.StructuraldetailsoftheHouseofLysiasinblockD1.Theexceptionally largeandopulentresidenceofDura’srulingdynasty,itsconstruction neverthelessexemplifiesbasicfeaturesofDurenearchitecture,namely mortared-rubblesubstructuresusuallywithmud-bricksuperstructures, thewholethenplastered.Largerslabsofworkedgypsumwereusedfor thresholdsanddoor-frames.
4.2.SchematicdiagramofDureneroofconstruction,fromanarchivedrawing.
5.1.GeneralplanoftheNWplateauzoneofthebase,fromthecitywall facingtheopensteppeintheW,tothelineofESt.(Excavatedareas notdistinguished.)
5.2.AnexampleofaplanfromtheYaleDuraarchive:oneofPearson’ s drawingsoftheTempleofBêlandTower2,the ‘ToweroftheArchers’ .
5.3.Planofthe ‘HouseofthePrefect’,J1-A,andadjacentstructuresin DSt,basedonarchiveplanE7N1andresurvey.Roofedareapicked outindarkergrey.
5.4.The ‘HouseofthePrefect’,J1-A,appearsinarchivalphotographsonly asabackgrounddetail.Top,seenfromtheEinshotsoftheTempleof Azzanathkonacombinedinphotomosaic;andbottom,anincomplete viewfromtheW.
5.5.GeneralplanoftheheartofthemilitarybasebetweenDandGSts, comprisinginE7the principia (withthepartiallytaken-overTempleof Azzanathkonabehind),thewidenedstretchof10thStlinkingitwithFSt, themainapproachfromthecentreofthecity,andtheE3/E4bathing facility.Unexcavatedareasareshowninwhite,importantmagnetic anomaliesinblockE5outlinedingrey.
5.6.PlanoftheTempleofArtemisAzzanathkonaandenvirons,basedon archivalplansandnewsurvey.
5.7.N
5.8.E
5.9.PhotomosaicofthetempleofAzzanathkonafromtheE,withnaos D3atcentre.Theroomsofthemilitarycompoundarebeyondit,onits LandRsides.TheJ1houseisbeyondthetemple,withtheTemple ofBêlintheRbackground.
5.10.Tentativereconstructionofthemoreprominentimagesandtextsonthe wallsofE7-W14;schematic,nottoscale.Therear,Nwallwaslargely missingonexcavation.
5.11.EarlySeveraninscriptionfromroomW12inthemilitarycompound oftheTempleofAzzanthkona(no.561).
5.12.Planofthe principia andsurroundingstructures,basedonarchival plansandnewsurvey.
5.13.The principia inthe fifthseason,before(top)andduringexcavation (bottom).Thetall fingerofmasonryontheupstandingwallappearsto havefallenbetweenphotographs.
–SelevationdrawingbyDetweiler.
5.15. Principia E–WelevationdrawingsbyDetweiler.
5.16.Detailsofconstructioninthe principia aroundtheSEcornerofroom6, soonafterexcavation(top)andin2008(bottom).L,thepeculiarcomposite constructionofsidewalls,withmasonryandbrickstructureinfilledwith mudbricklacedwithtimbers,whichhaddecayedleavingvoids.TopR, partofapiercedstonescreenacrosstheentrancestill insitu.
5.17.Inscription577fromthe Principia,attesting LegioIIICyrenaica.
5.18.Fallenplasterfromthe principia cross-hallceilingshowingreed impressions.Scale300mm.
5.21.Thenewlyexcavated principia forecourt,withtheendoftheNcolonnade of10thStcolonnadeinforegroundandroomsontheformerlineof EStatright.
5.22.a.ReconstructiondrawingoffragmentsE598a–cofanaltarfoundinthe principia court,fromanarchive filecard.Theindicatedscalesuggestsitwas just250mmtall,witha ‘3½cmdepression’ inthetop.b.Archive file-card drawingofthebaseofasimilaraltar(E793)fromthesmallshrineE7-19. c.Archive file-carddrawingofafragmentarystatuettefromshrineE7-19 (E792).
5.24.Portico18and(R)shrine19ontheaxisof10thSttotheSfront ofthe
5.25.Plinthinthe
5.26.ProposedsequenceofreorganizationofE7causedbyconstructionofthe principia:a.hypotheticaloriginalarrangement,withtwotemplesboth co-optingEStastheirEfrontage.Asseeninthe190s,withtheearly militarycompoundcreatedattherearoftheTempleofAzzanathkona; b.howthe principia,associatedconstructions,and10thStwideningrelated tothefootprintoftheearlierSsanctuaryinE7,ofwhichafragmentwas preservedintact;c.howthisnewarrangementpreservedbutreconfigured theSsanctuary,withwidened10thStservinganancillaryroleparalleling thatoftheapproachtothelessdrasticallyremodelledTempleof Azzanathkona.
5.27.FoundationsofthearchacrossFStatthe10thStjunction.Top,seenfrom theN,withcolumnbasesandpartofthestylobateof10thSt’ s Ncolonnadeintheforeground.Bottom,thefoundationsfromtheS,with theoriginalpiersonthelineof10thSt’sScolonnadeintheforeground,and E3bathRbackground.
5.28.ThearchacrossFStatthe10thStjunction,inrelationtosurrounding structures,includingthe10thStcolonnades,thechangeindirection ofFSt,andtheE3bath.
5.29.PlanoftheE3bath,basedprimarilyonDetweiler’s1937resurveyand plan(Neg.Y589),plusdirectobservationsandTSsurveypoints.Thewall
tonesfollowDetweiler,distinguishingthebrick/concretebathblockfrom thesurroundingmortared-rubblestructures,wallswithmud-brick superstructure.
selevationsoftheE3bath.
5.31.a.PanoramaoftheE3bathfromtheSin2010,andarchiveimages:b. roomFfromtheEandc.fromtheW,showingtheexposed flooringofan earlierbathonadifferentalignment;d.theWendofroom1,showingthe plunge(backL)andwalled-uppassagetoC(backR);e.theNsideofroom 2,showing tubuli,theapse,andcollapsed floorwithtracesofmarbleslabs; f.roomClookingWtowardstheapsidalpool;g.viewfromroom2,with Nfurnace fluebottomR,throughdoortoroom3andontoC;h. fragmentsof figuralwallpaintingsfromroomA.
5.32.L,planoftheE3bathhypocaustsystemandR,thewatersupply/drainage system,basedonDetweiler’s1937drawings,plusdirectobservationsand TSsurveypoints.Inthisscheme,Detweilerappearsheretohaveconflated twoseparateandsuccessivedrainsystems.
5.33.NcorneroftheE3aqueduct,withdetailoftumbledsuperstructure showingtilecourseandbeddingforanotheronwhathadbeenitsupper surface.
5.34.Fragmentofnichewhichmayhavebeenpartofthestructuresurrounding theNW praefurnium (centre)oftheE3bath.
5.35.TheEsideoftheNWplateaubaseenclosure,asitwas AD c.212before theamphitheatrereplacedtheF3bath.Itcomprisedtwobathing establishments,eachwitha palaestra ononesideandserviceyardwith fuelstoreandash-dumpontheother,mirror-imagedeithersideofthe largeE4house.
5.36.ThedevelopmentoftheE3/E4bathcomplex:a.approximate arrangementofsmallinitialestablishmentonthecitygridalignment;b.the later,larger,angledbathhouseblocking10thStwithaqueduct,and palaestra inE4.ThewatermainalongDStwasthenlaidaroundthislarger complex,before:c.roomE3-Bwasextendedoverit,blockingGStaswell. OntheW,10thStwaswidenedanditsNcolonnadebuiltupagainstbath andaqueduct.
5.37.PlanoftheE4houseafterBaird’sdrawing,Knox’spublishedplan,and Detweiler’ssurvey.(WiththankstoJenniferBaird.)Thedarkergrey connotesroofedspacesaroundthetwoopencourts.
5.38.TheE4houseonexcavation:a.theviewfromlobby5tocorridor20 (notethe ‘cooler’),withthestableblockinthebackground;b.court14 lookingNE,withdrainsintocentralcistern,exposedearlierfoundationat backedgeofcourt,andentranceto23(R);c.afragmentofpebble ‘mosaic’ flooringfallenfromtheupperstorey(scaleunknown);d.room33fromthe SE,withhypocaustandpainteddécor;e.E4-23fragmentarypainting, probablyofamilitarysacrifice,room23(reproducedretrogradein PR6, pl.XL,4).
5.39.a.ViewofE4fromtheSWin2010.b.door32-29withnicheinSwall. c.Blockingofdoor22/36withRoman firedbricks,seenfromtheS.
5.40.PlanofF3bathandtheamphitheatrewhichsucceededit,showing inferredstructureofbath palaestra andlaterarena.BasedonVanKnox
96
98
99
100
101
102
104
106
107
surveyanddrawing, PR6,pl.III,withcorrections.Tonesreproduce distinctionsmadebyKnox.Tilingschematicallyrepresented.
110
5.41.F3bathhypocaustandhydraulicplans,after PR6,pl.III.Artworklost, nitratenegativedecayed,survivingonlyinanarchiveprint. 111
5.42.ReconstructedelevationofF3bath,lookingN.Thisconflates frigidarium phases.DrawingbyKnox,publishedin PR6,pl.III.Artworklost,nitrate negativedecayed,survivingonlyinanarchiveprint.
111
5.43.TheF3bathin2010:a.fromtheSWandb.fromtheEwith amphitheatrearenaatR;c.the caldarium fromtheNE. 113
5.44.PaintingofNikeorVictoryfromtheF3bath. 114
5.45.ArchivephotosofF3bathcourt/frigidarium underexcavation. a.Ceramicpipesinfallenfragmentofthefrigidariumarcade;b.pipes usedasbenchsupports;c.thelineofthepipedmainexcavatedbeneath thetile floor;d. frigidarium watersupplypipesagainstthewallofthe heatedsuite;e.,f.closerviews.
5.46.InterpretiveplanoftheNhalfofblockF3,showingtheamphitheatre layout.Thearenageometryisindicated,andreconstructedseatingarcs projectedindarkergrey.
119
5.47.Theamphitheatrein2008fromtheE(above),andfromtheNW (below)in2010. 120
5.48.Theamphitheatrearenaafterexcavation:a.theNhalfofthearea, showingitsW-orientatedentranceand(backL)itsouterwall.Muchofthe silt fillingthearenaisseenstill insitu;b.interioroftheShalfofthearena, showingitsdoubleEgates;c&d.thetophalfofthearena ‘wall’ canbe seenheretocompriseunexcavatedsiltsabovetheremainingstone foundation,left insitu bytheexcavators.Collapsefromtheactualwall intothearenaisseenherebytheWarenagate.
5.49.ReconstructedS–NsectionofamphitheatreatGSt,showingproposed structureanchoredintotheSwallofthegreatE4house,carrying seatingover10thSt.
5.50.DrawingofagraffitoshowinggladiatorsfoundinblockC7.
5.51.Pearson’sinkedplanoftheMithraeumasexcavated,publishedas PR7/8, fig.30.
5.52.TheMithraeumunderexcavation,beforeremovalofthepaintings. NotetheplanetableatR. 126
5.53.The ‘EarlyMithraeum’ asreconstructedbytheYaleexpedition(note wallsbetweenitandthecitydefences),withceilingplansoftheEarly, Middle,andLatephasesofthetemple.DrawingbyHenryPearson, publishedas PR7/8, fig.32.
5.54.The firstMithrasrelief, AD 169.
5.55.Inscription847,commemorating ‘restoration’ oftheMithraeumin AD 209–10.
5.56.ColumnwithdipintiandgraffitiintheMithraeum.
5.57.Thelineofthecampwallafterexcavation,seenfromthecitywallby Tower21lookingE.Intheforeground,thewallcanclearlybeseenbuilt throughtheroomsformingtheSrangesofhousesK5-A(largelyexcavated inthecentreoftheimage)andK5-B(Lforeground,mostlyunexcavated andcoveredwithspoil).BeyondthesehousesandBSt,thewallcanbe seencontinuingtoDSt.
5.58.OriginofthecampwallagainstthecitywallbyTower21.L,theragged brokenstubofthecampwallisvisibleemergingfromthefurthestpierof thesubsequentlybuiltcitywallaccessstair.Notethebeamholeinthe cornerofTower21behind,ataboutthesameheightasthetopofthecamp wallstub.R,thebaseofthewallstairpier(L)andofthecampwall(R)after partialremovalofboth,andsectioningofthefoundationofthelatter.The campwallwasclearlybuilt first,rightuptothecitywall.Thestairwasthen builtinlargerbricks,aftermorethanametreofdeposithadaccumulated againstthecampwall.
5.59.PlanandcorrectedphotographicelevationoftheareaaroundTower21, andtheoriginpointofthecampwall.BasedonDetweiler’sarchivesketch planandmeasurements,observationsin2005–10,andarchive photographs.
5.60.L,themainSroomofhouseK5-A,seenfromtheSW,withthemass ofthecampwallrunningthroughit.Gelin’sexcavationisbottomL,where mud-brickcoursingisvisible.R,viewalongthestretchofcampwallbuilt withinthemainroomofK5withGelin’sexcavationintheforeground,and thepointoforiginofthecampwallinthedistance,justLofTower21.
5.61.TheendofthecampwallatDStasexcavatedin2005.Thegreymud brickofthewallwasvisibleacrossK1andacrosstheWpartofDSt,but notovertheEsideofthestreet,whilea sondage insidetheadjacentF7 buildingconfirmeditdidnotcontinuefurther.OntheWsideofDSt,red mudbricksandrubblesuggestedalaterebuildofthewall,whiletipsfrom asheafofwooden-shaftedartilleryboltsappeartoattestalaststandinside thebasearea.
131
132
132
5.62.ThestashofartilleryboltsbythecampwallatDSt,2005. 134
5.63.PlanofblockE8basedonBaird’sresurveyedplot,withadditional informationfromBrown’snotebooksandYUAGarchivedrawings:the originalpencilsitedrawing(probablybyDetweiler,numberedbyBrown), interpretivetracingsofthecivilandmilitaryphases(annotatedbyBrown), andunpublishedinkedversion(byDetweiler).
5.64.Sketchplansofthetwocasualtiesofthefallofthecityfoundinblock E8,fromBrown’snotebooks.ThebodyinE8-80isapparentlyaRoman soldier;thelabelnotes ‘fragg.ofmailcuirass’.ThatinE8-18, ‘Skeleton ofyouthorgirlwithskullstovein mouthopenwide’,wasprobably asoldier’sfamilymember.(seePlateXVIII)
5.65.BaseofanovenincourtE8-54shownwithBrown’ssketchbook drawingofanovenofthesametypeinE8-7.
5.66.OriginalacetatetracingofwallpaintingofMelpomene,Museof Tragedy,fromE8-12.
5.67.Centre,themilitarybuildingsofblockJ7seenfromtheNintenthseason, showingtheshallownessoftheremainsontheEside(L),andthe considerableheightofsomeontheW,preservedbyencasinginthelate rampart.Top,roughlythesameviewin2007showingthedegreeof erosion.Bottom,detailofthetenth-seasonphotoshowingtheinnerface ofthecitywallwithniches,apparentplasteringofroomwalls,androws ofbeamholesattestingabuttingbuildings.TheMithraeumisat(a);room J7-23at(b). 146
5.68.PlanofthemilitarystructuresinJ7,basedonPearson’sarchivalplan correctedto fitthemodernsurveyofthecitydefences,andwith additions.Hatchingindicatespre-militaryphasefoundations.
5.69.PlanofthemilitarybuildingswithphotomosaicofcorrectedYalearchival imageryshowingtheinsideofthecitywallwithitsnichesandtimber sockets.Areaswithout1930scoveragesupplementedwithnewimagery oftheerodedsurfacetakenin2008.
5.70.PlanofarchaeologicalfeatureswithinthelineofWallStaroundTowers 22and21,includingbuildingplans,theoriginpointofthecampwalland latecity-wallaccessstairs;withphotomosaicwallelevationandschematic reconstructedelevationofthecampwallandstair.Thephotographyis mainly2008imagery.
5.71.CivilhousingconvertedtomilitaryaccommodationinK5.Top,plan basedontheonlyarchivedrawing,Detweiler’spreparatorysurveyforthe citymap,withextensivecorrectionsfromthe2005resurveyandplan,plus Figs1.12and5.57.Below,reconstructedelevationsofK5-Aasacivilian house,and(bottom)inits finalformafterconversiontomilitaryuseand constructionofthecampwall.
6.1.GeneralplanoftheplateaubaseareaEofGStinthefarNcornerofthe city,andofthezonearoundthecriticalHSt/8thSt/WadiAscentRoad junction.ThecircleWoftheRomanPalacemarkstheobservedpositionof alowmound,perhapsrepresentingastructureontheboundaryofthe additionalenclosureidentifiedbesidethePalace.
147
148
152
158
6.2.TheRomanPalacecomplex,includingpartoftheapparentadditional serviceyardforitsbathX5totheW. 159
6.3.TheRomanPalacefromtheS,afterexcavation(top)andin2010.
160
6.4.Anearly-third-century-stylegold fibulasetwithadarkgreenstone intagliodepictingNarcissus,88mmhigh,foundjustoutsidethePalace. 161
6.5.Detweiler’selevationofthePalace.Thelineoftheclifffacade(L)was probablyincorrect.
162
6.6.ThenewlyexcavatedRomanPalace:a.theapseofroom2;b.viewalong loggia62;c.apse21withwallpainting;d.room11givingaccesstothe bath,withholesinthe floorforinsetpotteryvessels. 162
6.7.DetailsofairphotosoftheriverfrontagearoundtheRomanPalace, verticalandoblique.TheseimagesshowthequarriedverticalfaceSofthe siteofthePalace,includingtherock-cutfoundationofthesquaretower5a (L).Thecourseofthecliff-topcitywallnearTower5(R)isclear.Below thePalacesite,solidstrataemergingfromthescreepart-waydownthe slopeindicatethatthiswas,inRomantimesastoday,asteepsloperather thanverticalface.Top,proposedreconstructionofthelineofthe Hellenisticwallcircuitonthisstretch. 164
6.8.Centre,thecitywallrunningSfromTower5towardstheRomanPalace (themoundofitsbathisontheskyline,withthepiersofloggia62onthe cliffedgebeyond,andtheCitadelinthedistance).Herethecitywallisseen builtonastratumofgypsumwellbelowtheleveloftheplateausurface whichhadalreadycollapsedwhenitwasbuilt.Thespacebehindwas filled intoplateaulevel.BeyondthePalace,thesquare,rock-cutbaseofwall tower5aisseenprojectingatL.
6.9.SchematicreconstructionofthelateHellenisticcitydefencesbetweenthe Citadel(L)andTower5(R).Exceptperhapsastretchofhigherwalling aroundTower5tofoilinfiltrationfromtheNwadi,allofthiswas constructedonprojectingstrataatlevelswellbelowplateaulevel,thespace behindinfilledtocreateaterraceneedingnomorethanaparapetabovethe 40mrivercliffdrop.However,thesomewhatmorevulnerablesloping re-entrantbelowthesiteofthefutureRomanPalacewasdominatedbythe massiveTower5a.
6.10.TheSwadi,showinghowthesideofthewadiwasquarriedintoavertical defensiveface,herewitharock-cutprojectingbaseforthemasonry superstructureformingTower12.AtL,spoiltipsfromYale’sexcavations.
6.11.Theunusualconstructiontechniqueusedinroom28oftheRoman Palace:L,itsNwall,showingthemasonryconstructionwithcavities originally filledwithmudbrickoradobetotheoutside;R,theexteriorof itsSwallinroom29,showingmortarcastsoftimberlacingwhichtiedthe compositestructuretogether.
6.12.TheRomanPalaceriversiderangefromtheW,withthemasonry superstructureoftheapsidalroom2prominentatthecentre,andone oftheremainingpiersofloggia62seenontheveryedgeofthecliff.
6.13.Sculptureplinthaxialtoroom28.
6.14.DetailplanoftheRomanPalacebath.
6.15.TheRomanPalacebath:a.theterminalapseoffrigidarium55,andb. apsidalpool68,in2010;c.plungein65,d.latrine44,ande.corridor42 soonafterexcavation.
6.16.ThestateofthePalacebathsin2008,withlatrine44intheforeground andthelongapsidalroom55beyond.
6.17.PlanofX7showingthetempleintheSWcorneroftheblock,surrounded bymilitaryaccommodation.Notetheoff-gridoriginalstreetlines, especiallyIStreet,whereaccommodationforsoldierswasextendedonto theWhalfoftheIStcarriageway,RoomX7–34wassubsequentlypartly demolishedtomakewayforthecornerofRomanPalaceforecourt58, positionedtoblockIStentirely.
6.18.Detweiler’ssections/elevationsoftheX7 ‘Dolicheneum’ .
6.19.TheX7 ‘Dolicheneum’,showingcourt4fromtheSW.
6.20.TwooftheDolichenusaltarsfromoutsidetheX7temple.L,Inscription 970of AD 211.R,Inscription972of251–3.Nottosamescale.
168
6.21.TheX7militaryhousingfromtheS,withroom5Lforeground,12atR, andtheRomanPalaceanditsbathsbackgroundR. 184
6.22.Eagle figurines(nos.i748,L,57mmtall,andi745,R,48mmtall)fromthe possibleJupiter/ZeusshrineinX7-5. 186
7.1.GeneralplanoftheCitadelandinnerwadizone. 189
7.2.Top,newplanoftheA1MilitaryTemple.Darkgreydenotestraces ofmud-bricksuperstructureontopofmortared-rubblefoundations. Bottom,profileoftemplepodiumtosamescale.
190
7.3.ArchiveviewfromtheNWtoweroftheCitadel,showingthetemple (Lforeground,facingL)withabuttinghouseA1-Abeyond,withlaneto NCitadelentranceatR.Notefallenpiersinsidethetemple,andtheancient repairindrystoneintheforeground. 191
7.4.a.TheMilitaryTemplelookingacrosstheporchfromtheS.Notelarge socketbelowfootofporticopillar,partofstairstructure;b.thenaveofthe temple,showingtheroofpiers,altar,andstatuenichearea;c.altarand statuenichestructure;d.altarinscriptionH1;e. ‘ablutionniche’ to Lofaltar. 193
7.5.PlasterfriezefromtheMilitaryTemple(Yaleno.1929.374). 193
7.6.StairstothepodiumoftheMilitaryTemple.BottomL,belowscale, remainsofplasteredstairtreadrevealedincleaningin2008. 194
7.7.TheEsideoftheMilitaryTemplepodium,showingtheslopeofthe floorandsuperstructure,andplasterrenderingscoredtoimitateashlar. 194
7.8.TherearpartofthesmallMilitaryZeusTempleexcavatedin2011. 195
7.9.InnerwadizoneshowingtheOttomanroadatL,theCitadelatR,and military campus:a.1930sairphoto,stillshowingthe1920horselines (Fig.1.7);b.samewithmagnetometryresultssuperimposed;c.detailof 2009satelliteimagery(DigitalGlobe,Inc.).Thelastshowsrecentmachine tracksalsopickedupbythemagnetometry;therewasnoroadupthe middleoftheancient campus 197
7.10.Planofthereconstructedextentofthe campus withitsknowntemples, andtheCitadel,witharchivedrawingofelevationofthelatter. 198
7.11.TheCitadel,withthewadi-floor campus zone(L),andblockB2(R). TheC3bath,withtheOttomanroadrunningthroughit,isinthe Rforeground. 199
7.12.TheCitadel,detailsof(L)verticalairphotoof1936,and(R)anundated butslightlylaterone. 200
7.13.DetailofobliqueairphotoshowingtheCitadelandinnerwadifrom theriverside.
7.14.TheCitadeldominatingthecentralwadiand campus
7.15.ViewoftheCitadelinteriorfromtheN,showingthesteepinternal slope,andfragmentofplateauwithruinsoftheCitadelPalace.
7.16.DetailsofexternalandinternalelevationsoftheNandSendsofthe Citadelsuperstructure,showingsequencesofbeamholesattestingthe pitchedroofofamilitarytemple(a.,right)andupper floorsand flatroofs ofprobablesoldiers’ accommodationinsideandout.(Detailsfromarchive drawings,withtheadditionoftheMilitaryZeusTemplebeamholestoa.)
7.17.InterioroftheNendoftheCitadel:L,topofpicture,foundationsand wall-keyingofdemolishedHellenisticinteriorstructuresinsideNgate. Centre,Ngatewithlaterbeamholesaboveit,andcutintothebaseofits vault.R,insidetheNWtower,showinglower,built-injoistsockets,and upperbeamholeslatercutintothewalls. 203
7.18.TheCitadelinterioratitsSWend.TopL,pre-excavation,showing abandonedArabdry-stonevillagebuildingsontheextantgroundsurface, andtwobeam-socketseriesintheendwall,onenowhangingoverthecliff. TopR,theendwallandtheScornertowerandgatewithmorebeamholes. BottomL,beam-holeseriesvisibleinsidethetower,andapparently representingatwo-storeystructurebuiltagainstitsexterior,notrespecting itsupperdoor.Notealsotheholeshighabovethegate,suggestinga structureuptothreestoreyshigh.BottomR,morebeamholessuggestinga floorturningthegatevaultintoanupperroom.
7.19.Interiorofthemiddlegate,showingbeamholesinitstympanum(top) correspondingwiththenarrowingofitsportal(below).Thenarrowed doorwasitselflaterinfilled.(Thepipeatthetopwasarelicoftheuseofthe gatevaultbytheYaleexpedition,apparentlyasanablutionroom.) 205
7.20.BuildingsexcavatedbythemiddlegateoftheCitadel. 206
7.21.FragmentofterracottaplaquebearingclassicRomanmilitaryiconography, fromtheCitadel.Itispartofasceneportrayingacavalrymanridingdown andspearingafallenbarbarian(Yale1938.4922:widthc.87mm). 206
7.22.Seriesofbeamholescutin,andwallsbuiltagainst,theCitadelaroundthe twoSEgates:a.theSgate;notetheveryhighrowofbeamsdirectlyover theportal;b.thesamegatefromtheinsideshowingbeamholesinthegate vault,andwallsofexternalbuildingsimpingingontheportal;c.walls constructedimmediatelyoutsidethe ‘middle’ gateappeartobeofnormal Dureneconstructionandappeartobepre-Roman;d.morebeam-hole seriescutintothewallsoftheCitadelaroundandoverthe ‘middle’ gate andtheadjacenttower.
7.23.MilitaryoccupationinferredwithintheSendoftheCitadelandaroundit inblockB2,basedonPearson’splanandAllara’srestudy.Darkergrey indicatesmilitaryroofedstructures.HatchingindicatesbuildingsinB2and B4alsoproposedtohavebeeninmilitaryhands.
7.24.MilitarystructuresaroundtheSendoftheCitadelinblockB2:a.thearea shortlyafterexcavation(theroofedstructureatLwaslabelled ‘police house’ ononeoftheplans);b.blockB2 c.2007;c.viewfromtheCitadel wallontotheNpartofPiazza10showingthepalimpsestofstructures, includingtwokilns.Thesewereburiedundergroundmakeupinthe militaryperiod,thehigherlate floorlevelindicatedbythethreshold betweenS12andcourtyardintheforeground.
8.1.AprovisionalnewplanoftheC3-Abathingestablishmentinitssetting, basedonarchivalphotographsanddrawingsbyBrownandPearson, supplementedbypreliminaryre-examinationandmagnetometrydata. Constructionofthebathrequireddemolitionofasubstantialpartofblock C3,butwaspartofabiggerschemetocreateanopenpublicspacewhere therehadbeenanarrow,twistingmainstreet.Thiswasprobablyalso connectedwiththeelaborateinsetentrance ‘b’ acrossLowerMain SttotheNW.
207
208
209
213
8.2.TheC3-AbathfromtheNin2005,withroom1siltedtogroundlevel andgrass-covered(L),androom2atcentre.OtherbuildingsinC3are visibleterracedintothesteepwadislopebehind,withthe Strategeion on theskylinetopR. 214
8.3.Top,theC3bathfromtheNW(centre),afterexcavationinthesixth season.ItsserviceyardliesunexcavatedtoitsR,andtheOttomanroad runsthroughitonthefarsideoftheexcavatedheatedblock.Inthe foregroundisthewidenedLowerMainSt,andtheelaboratedentrancebto blockB4.Beyondthebathliestheexpeditionhouse.Below,fallenroofing vaultoftheC3bath. 215
8.4.PoolareaatSendof frigidarium F:a.therearwallofthepoolin2010, showingerodedniches,vegetation,andtessellated floorofaroomabove andbehindthepoolweatheringoutofthesection(arrowed);b.Thepool
afterexcavation;c.reverseangleshowingpoolsteps,tiled floor,anddoors to apodyterium A(L)andtopresumed palaestra (R). 216
8.5.C3bath,room1:a.lookingN,showingpartofthemosaic floor,with Ottomanroadbeyond;b.theSendoftheroomshowingplungewithniche stillfullofearthatback,andapparentearlier,blockeddoortoroomFon itsEside;notevaultspringing;c.theplungefromgroundlevel. 217
8.6.Mosaic floorinbathC3room1:a.MargaretCrosbyandamalecolleague cleaningandwettingthemosaicpanelsforphotography;b.thethree SpanelsandpartoftheNpanelwithapparentplasterrepair(topL);c. detailofpanel1;d.detailofpanel2;e.detailofpanel3withinscription roundel;f.panel4,roundel,againwithplasterrepaironneareredge. 218
8.7.C3bath,room2:a.lookingW,showingapsewithwindow,andfurnace flue;b.theNsideoftheroomwith floorrobbedexposinghypocaustpilae; c.viewfromWwindowshowingdoorto1;d.detailofapsewithdamaged floorand insitu lowestrowof tubuli. 219
8.8.R,C3bathRoom2lookingEtodoorto1and(R)3;noteremovalof bricksofthe flatdoorarches.L,archivesketchoforiginaldimensionsof oneofthedoors. 220
8.9.C3bathroom3Esideshowing ‘ledge’ (tubuli?)andwallholes. 220
8.10.RectifiedcompositeimageofmosaicpanelsinroomC3-3(Nattop). 221
8.11.ProvisionalnewplanoftheM7bath.IntheabsenceofnewTotal Stationpointsanddetailedresurvey,thisisabest-estimatecompositeof Cavro’ssurvey,andBrown’sreworkingofit,combinedwithKnox’splan ofadjacentstructures,archivalphotographs,and2010photographyand observations.Thedifferentwalltonesreproducedistinctionsmadeby Cavro,buttheirsignificanceisuncertain. 222
8.12.TheM7bath:a.seenfromtheW,itscolonnadedentrancefacingonto MainSt,withacivilhouseinforeground.Takeninthefourthseasonfrom thecitywalljustSofthePalmyreneGate;b.thebath’scolonnadeonMain St,lookingtowardsthePalmyreneGate;c.theSstokehole;d.box fluetiles fromtheheatedsuite.
223
8.13.BathM7,a.largepoolattheendoftheM7bath frigidarium;b.poolat Sendofroom1,showingBrown’slowvaultspringingoverit. 224
8.14.CollageofCavro’sdrawingsoftheM7hypocaustsystem,astracedand reproducedbyBrown(PR 6,pl.IV).Planinvertedandsectionreversedto matchorientationofFig.8.11.
8.15.Fragmentofhithertoundescribedgeometricmosaic,patchedand plasteredover,onhypocaust floorofM7bathroom3.
8.16.ThetwophasesofconstructioninL4,recordedinthearchivalplan offeaturesvisibleinthesurfaceofthisunexcavatedblock. 226
8.17.Pearson’sarchivaldrawingcomprisingreconstructedelevations,plan, andisometricofstateofpreservationoftheL7-A ‘HouseoftheRoman Scribes
8.18.ReconstructionofRoman-eraL7-A ‘HouseoftheRomanScribes’ ; drawingbyHenryPearson.
8.19.VaultedRoman-erasuperstructureaboveentrancetoL7-A? ‘Houseof theRomanScribes’,seenfromthecitywallwalk.DrawingbyHenry Pearson.
8.20.PlasterceilingpanelfromL7-A ‘HouseoftheRomanScribes’,with portraitofawomanlabelledThaamare.
8.21.ThePalmyreneGatein2007:top,externalview.Thefootofthelate anti-siegemud-brickglacisaroundthegatehasbeenreconstructed.Behind it,Lofthegatestructure,partofthewallofthegateforecourtcanbeseen upstanding.Bottom,interiorviewofthegatelookingalongMainSt,with theM7bathatL.
8.22.ArchiveplansandelevationsofthePalmyreneGatebyHenryDetweiler, withadditionofextentofforecourtandmainentrancerouteafterGelin etal.1997, fig.33.
8.23.VonGerkan’sinterpretationofthedevelopmentofthePalmyrene Gatedesign,drawnbyDetweiler.
8.24.InscribedandpaintedmilitarytextsinsidethePalmyreneGate. 233
8.25.MilitaryaltarsandgraffitionthewallsofthePalmyreneGatecarriageway. 234
8.26.AltartoCommodussetupinsidethePalmyreneGate. 235
8.27.InscriptionC3totheTycheofDuraontheNwallofthecarriageway throughthePalmyreneGate.Lettering c.40mmhigh,paintedredon discovery.
8.28.ReliefdepictingNemesis,PalmyreneGate.
8.29.MainSt,theprincipalcross-citythroughroute,withhypothetical reconstructionofthelostRiverGate.Inset:elevationviewfromacross theriver,showinganapproachrampascendingundertheSEcitywallsand towerstothelevelofthelowertown.
9.1.Schematicrepresentationoftheproposeddevelopmentsincomposition, andapproximatescale,oftheRomanimperialgarrisonbasedatDura, throughthe firsthalfoftheRomanperiodandthemajorreorganization around210.Afterarrivalofthelegionarycontingents,garrison compositionseemstoundergonenofurthermajorchangesuntilthe turbulent250s. 251
9.2.Hypotheticalprojectionofthenumbersofmarriedsoldierswithina notionalmilliaryRomanauxiliaryformationofthelatersecondto earlierthirdcenturies AD
11.1.Diagramsummarizingobservedsequencesandinferredrelationsbetween structuresandfeaturesofthemilitarybase,againstconventionalDura chronology,withelapsedtimerunningfromtoptobottom(theopposite ofaHarrismatrixrepresentingstratigraphy,butchosentocorrespond withthecomplementarygarrisonchronologydiagram,Fig.9.1).Agreat dealofmilitary-relatedconversionandconstructionactivity,inseveral casesmultiplephases,isidentifiedasantedatingthebuildingcampaignof the210s,attestingpriorexistenceofasubstantialbaseestablishedover earlierdecades.
253
261
11.2.ThetriumphalarchonthesteppeWofthecity,byDetweiler. 265
11.3.ThehypothesizedtwininitialRomanmilitarynucleiinthecity. 266
12.1.GroundpenetratingradarimageoftheinteriorofthesquareRomanfort ofSeverandate,apparentlywithanannexetotheN,atQreiye(‘Ayyash) ontheEuphrates.ImagerotatedtofacilitatecomparisonwiththeDura baseplans. 271
14.1.SkeletonofanadultmalefoundburiedintheNWtoweroftheCitadel, probablyinthepre-Romanera.Apparentlyanexecutionvictim,hestill hadanoosearoundhisneck.
14.2.APalmyrenepriestmakesanofferingtotheGad(guardiandeity)of Dura.FromthePalmyrenesanctuary,theTempleoftheGaddé. 309
14.3.PlanofblockL7showingthedevelopedsynagogueacrossthemiddleof theblock,whichitsharedwiththeRomansoldiersintheHouseofthe Scribes.
14.4.ThesynagogueWwallshortlyafteritsexposure.
14.5.DetailofthepaintingsontheWwallofthesynagogue,showingMoses partingtheRedSea,andtheTwelveTribesofIsraelcrossing.TheIsraelites withtheirlongtrousersandovalshieldslookstronglyliketheRoman soldiersofDura,evenmoresoaseachtribeisledbyastandard-bearer holdinga vexillum aloft. 312
14.6.AxonometricreconstructionbyHenryPearsonoftheChristian building,withvaultedbaptistryatR.
14.7.ApartyofGermanLutheranssingingintheChristianchapel(partly reconstructed)onEasterSunday2001.The figureontheskylinestands onTower17,showingtheproximityofthechapeltoapresumedRoman militarypost.TherewasnothingclandestineabouttheChristian sanctuary.
16.1.Satelliteimageof4November2015,showingDuraafteritsdevastation bylooters(comparePl.VII).(Image(c)GoogleEarthandDigitalGlobe, 2017).
16.2. Aveatquevale? Oneofthefragmentsofpaintingsresemblingthe Terentiusscene,foundbyMFSEDinthenewlyidentifiedMilitaryZeus Templein2011.AmongtheverylastdiscoveriesmadeatthesiteasSyria wasengulfedinwar,theydepict milites ofDura’sgarrisonwithhands raisedinsalute.DoubtlessasintheTerentiusscenetheywerewitnessinga sacrifice,butinthecontextoftheirdiscovery,these figuresappeartobe wavingfarewellasDurafaceditsseconddestruction. 318
9.1.DatabletextualevidenceforRomanmilitarycontingentsatDura.244
I.TheTerentiussacrifice,awallpaintingfromtheTempleofBêl.Itdepictsthe tribuneTerentiusmakinganofferingbeforeanassemblyofRomansoldiersto theR,withatLrepresentationsofthreePalmyrenedeities,the Tychai ofDura andPalmyra,andaregimental vexillum anditsbearer.Terentius(labelledin Latin),andThemessonofMocimus,regimentalpriest(labelledinGreek; touchingthe vexillum),areknownfromotherDurenetextstohavebelongedto theresidentgarrisonregiment, cohorsXXPalmyrenorum,andtherefore presumedtobeshownhereveneratingthisunit’ s ‘national’ gods. ‘Colourized’ artworkbasedonaphotograph,fromCumont(1923,pl.1).
II.PortraitofHeliodorusthe actuarius,ceiling-panelpaintingfromhouseL7-A.
III.TheEuphratesanditsfertileplain,lookingSEfromtheCitadel.
IV.Theexpeditionhouse,blockB2,theCitadel,andtheEuphratesatdawnin April2005.
V.Thewesterncitywall,lookingSfromTower26.ThebreachinthewallispostRoman,andrevealsasectionofthemud-brickdefencesatthispoint.Mostofthe wall,inthedistance,wasbuiltinashlar;thestretchintheforegroundwasofmud brick,subsequentlyreinforcedwithmoreofthesamematerial,visibleinsection inthebreach.TheopensteppeplateauisseenatR.Thechangeofdirectioninthe citywallenfoldsblockJ7,partofthemilitaryaccommodationinsidethebase.
VI.ThelargerpartofDetweiler’scitymap,excludingmuchofthenecropolis.This, thedefinitivemapofDurapublishedbytheoriginalexpedition,wasoriginally publishedwith PR9.1 asaseparatefoldedsheet,0.46 0.43m.Drawnin1938 onthebasisofasurveyconductedin1935duringtheninthseason,itomitted tenth-seasonwork.
VII.SatelliteimageofDura-Europosunderlow-anglewintersunpickingoutthe topographyandexcavatedremains,beforethesitewaslooted.Imagery: DigitalGlobe,Inc.,0.6mresolution,takenon6January2009.
VIII.Plotofmodernmagnetometrydata,combiningthatfromthepresentproject collectedbyKrisStruttwithanearliersurveybyChristophBenech,superimposed onthe1936airphotography.
IX.TheE3bath,withthelevelledinteriorofthecitybehind,andthecitywalland PalmyreneGateinthebackground.
X.PhotomosaicsoftheE3bathheatedsuitein2008.Top,fromtheNE,and bottom,fromtheNW.
XI.Fragmentsof figuralwallpaintingsfrombath apodyterium E3-A.
XII.Viewfromthecitywallof(L)theTempleofBel,itsplaza,andtheNwadi defences,withtheJ1house,TempleofAzzanathkona,and principia inthe middledistanceatR.
XIII.The ‘HouseofthePrefect’,J1-A,seenfromtheN,takenfromtheTowerofthe Archersin2010.
XIV.Panoramaofthe principia lookingNE,withtheforecourtatcentre(crossedby theOttomanroad),andatLthecross-hallandNrange,withtheTempleof
Azzanathkonabeyond.BottomR,thelowplatformofshrine19,with colonnadedcourt18infrontofit,andthelineofsightthroughthe principia forehalltocolonnaded10thStbeyond.TheE3/E4bathisinthemiddledistance.
XV. Principia cross-halllookingE.
XVI. Principia cross-halllookingW.
XVII.PanoramaofE8fromtheSasitwasin2007,showingthepoorstateof preservationoftheblock.Thethresholdtothe8thStdoorintoroom1isvisible centreforeground,inlinewiththeupstandingwallofthe principia cross-hallon theskyline.
XVIII.Brown’ssketchofwallpaintingofMelpomene,MuseofTragedy,fromE8-12, onasitecard.
XIX.Photomosaicofthe ‘Dolicheneum’ andX7fromtheSWin2010.
XX.TheWadiAscentRoad,leadingfromthelowertownand campus intheshadow oftheCitadel,pastthemilitarytemple(R),uptowardstheH/8thStjunction(L). Muchoftheroadbedisstillvisiblehere.Theupstandingwallofthe principia is seenontheskylineatL,theRomanPalacelikewiseatcentre.TheOttomanroad, stillusedasavehicletrack,isintheforeground(photomosaicbySJ).
XXI.Citadel,innerwadi,and campus withOttomanroadatR,lookingSE.
XXII.AnewpictureofDura-EuroposanditsRomanmilitarybase,I.A2D presentationofknownelements,andinterpretationoftheoveralllayout,ofthe basewithknownboundaryofcampwall,anditsinferredcontinuationinred; dashedlinewhereconjectural.Yellow:administrativeandsupplyfacilities.Blue: bathsandamphitheatre.Pink:sanctuaries.Green:excavated,inferred,and(inthe Spartofthebase)suggestedareasofmilitaryaccommodation.Orange:key structuresintheciviltown.
Key: A:CampWall
B:Probablegranaries
C:Mithraeum
D:TempleofBêl
E:J1 ‘HouseofthePrefect’
F:Militarycompoundwithin:
G:TempleofAzzanathkona
H: Principiα
I:Reconfiguredanonymoussanctuary
J:E3/E4bathingcomplex
K:E4house
L:F3bath,succeededbyamphitheatre
M:X7 ‘Dolicheneum’
N:X9temple
O:Residentialbathbelongingto:
P:RomanPalace(‘ofthe duxripae’)
Q: ‘TempleoftheRomanArchers’
R: Campus Zeustemple