Reconstructing the South Theatre at Jerash
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANES 37 (2000) 3-25 Reconstructing the South Theatre at Jerash Frank SEAR Centre for Classics and Archaeology School of Fine Arts, Classical Studies and Archaeology University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 AUSTRALIA Fax: 61 3 8344 4161 E-mail: [email protected] Andrew HUTSON Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Building University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 AUSTRALIA Fax: 61 3 8344 5532 E-mail: [email protected] Abstract A team from the University of Melbourne made a detailed architectural survey of the South Theatre at Jerash in 1994-6. In addition to the survey a study was made of several thousand architectural fragments which were stored behind the theatre. This allowed a reconstruction to be made of the missing upper order of the scaenae frons. As the original survey had been made digitally the informa- tion was used to produce digital reconstructions of the missing parts of the theatre as well as a visualisation of the theatre as it may have looked in Roman times. The value of such digital recording and computer reconstructions is that they can easily be altered to take account of new evidence. Introduction The South Theatre at Jerash was surveyed in 1994-6 as part of an ongo- ing study of Roman theatre architecture by a team from the University of 4 F. SEAR & A. HUTSON Melbourne.1 The survey was part of the Australian Roman Theatres project, funded by a grant from the Australian Research Council. The project began in 1990 and since then the theatres surveyed completely or in part are those at Gubbio, Volterra, Pompeii, Taormina, Orange, Cales and Benevento. The Jerash theatre was chosen for three main reasons. Firstly it has a num- ber of unusual architectural features. The most unusual, discovered by the team in 1992, it shares with the theatre at Taormina in Sicily. Both theatres have a rectilinear scaenae frons, but the podia on which the columns stand recede around the doorways to form semicircular niches. Semicircular podia in combination with a rectilinear scaenae frons are not in themselves uncommon — they are found in several other theaters of Asia Minor and the Levant, such as Hierapolis in Turkey and the Large Theatre at Philadel- phia (Amman). However in both Taormina and Jerash the columns next to the doorways are slotted into the wall. The aim was no doubt to give the impression that the doorways are set within fully semicircular niches, as they are in a number of theatres, e.g. Benevento in South Italy, Bostra in Syria, and Sabratha in Libya. This aspect of the theatre has been fully dis- cussed in earlier articles and will not be discussed further here.2 The second reason the theatre was chosen was because it is well docu- mented epigraphically, which is of great importance in the case of a build- ing which has never been excavated stratigraphically and where no excava- tion was envisaged. The wealth of epigraphic material means that the date of the South Theatre of Jerash can be established within close limits. An inscription dating to between AD 83-96 records that a certain T.Flavius donated 3,000 drachmas to build a kerkis of the theatre.3 An inscription dating to AD 90 records the consecration of the theatron,4 but the whole theatre was not complete at this time.5 A cylindrical stone basis found near the west end of the stage with a long inscription dating to between AD 102- 114 suggests that the scaena is Trajanic.6 The final reason the theatre was singled out for study is its excellent preservation. It is a monument which has been relatively undisturbed over the centuries. Ulrich Seetzen in the account of his travels, published in 1 The team that worked at Jerash included Barry Rowney, Chris Little, Shane Harvey, Scott Newman, Zig Kapelis. Maurice Smith and the authors. 2 Sear 1992-33, pp.185-7; Sear 1996a, pp.∞217-230, Sear 1996b, pp.∞41-79. 3 Jones 1928, pp.152-3, no. 13. 4 By theatron I understand the place where the audience sat. See CIL X 833-5 from the Large Theatre at Pompeii where theatrum is distinguished from crypta and tribunalia and can only refer to the seating of the cavea. 5 Pouilloux 1977, pp. 246-54; Pouilloux 1979, pp.276-8. 6 Jones 1928, pp. 153-6, no. 14. RECONSTRUCTING THE SOUTH THEATRE AT JERASH 5 1810, mentions ‘two superb amphitheatres.’7 In 1818 when Irby and Man- gles visited they spent a week there and praised the scene of the large the- atre as ‘singularly perfect.’8 The excellent state of preservation of the theatre is confirmed in the earliest photographs taken of it, brought back by a small party led by Charles Warren of The Palestine Exploration Fund, which was established in 1865 A photo of the theatre from the north taken in 1877-18899 shows the ima and most of the summa cavea standing as well as several columns of the scaenae frons, including the two with a section of architrave at the east end of the scaenae frons.10 In 1925, following the appointment of John Garstang as the first Director of the Department of Antiquities in Jordan, conservation work began on the South theatre under the direction of George Horsfield.11 Horsfield cleared the orchestra and revealed the whole stage area, and the architectural fragments from the upper part of the scaenae frons were collected and placed in the orchestra to await study.12 When the restoration of the South Theatre began 1953 most of the ima cavea was relatively intact including the vaults over the aditus maximi; the central two cunei of the summa cavea stood almost to their full height and only the top few rows of seats were damaged in the lateral parts of the summa cavea. However most of the outer casing around the summa cavea had been destroyed and only the footings of the stage front survived in situ. Remarkably, all the podia of the columnatio still stood as well as some of the columns. In fact a pair of columns at the west end and another on the east side survived complete with capitals along with the architrave they supported. The scaenae frons wall itself stood in parts to a height of 10 or 11 courses of masonry, almost to capital height. In the 1953 restoration the three doors of the scaenae frons were rebuilt using new material in the pediments and reinforced concrete beams were inserted inside the lintels. The arched entrances at the sides of the stage were rebuilt, as well as both arched entrances into the orchestra and the tribunalia above them. In 1956 funding ran out and it was some years before the stage and proscaenium wall were finished (Fig.∞∞1). Later on the orchestra and cavea were cleared and the upper seating consolidated. In the course of this work several hun- dred carved blocks belonging to the upper order of the scaenae frons col- lected by Horsfield were removed from the orchestra and deposited behind the theatre. Work continued on the theatre throughout the 1970’s and 7 This is presumably a reference to the North and the South theatres. Seetzen, 1810. 8 Irby and Mangles 1832. 9 Cliché Bonfils. Neg. H.S.M. 976, fiche 8C.5, in the Harvard Semitic Museum. 10 The photo is published by Seigne 1989, fig. 15. 11 A plan of the building appeared in an article by Austen and Harrison 1927, pl. 1. 12 Fisher, in Kraeling 1938, p.20. 6 F. SEAR & A. HUTSON large sections of the outer wall of the theatre were rebuilt as part of the Petra/Jerash project. The unusual design features were the starting point of our interest in the theatre, but when the survey began it became clear that there was sufficient material available for us to make a complete restoration of the building. Not just a paper reconstruction but a physical one.13 There was an enor- mous quantity of well-preserved architectural material from the scaenae frons deposited behind the theatre. We calculated that there were about 4,000 blocks and that the work of cataloguing them would take us two seasons. The reconstruction The cavea The theatre is c.76 metres wide and faces north. Its cavea is built against the hill of the Temple of Zeus. The lowest 14 rows of seats, the ima cavea, seems to have been cut into the hillside and around it a rock-cut path runs at approximately the level of the praecinctio dividing the ima cavea from the upper parts of the cavea. The ima cavea has 14 rows of seats, divided into four cunei and the praecinctio, 2.19-2.21 metres wide, is surrounded by a podium (Fig.∞∞3). Originally there was a 15th row of seats which stood around the rim of the praecinctio. Most of these seats have disappeared, although 15 fragments can still be seen at intervals along the corridor. They had high backs, which suggests that they were for persons of importance, and were 56 cm deep, including the overhang at the front and 49 cm without it. When placed over the cuttings behind the top row of seats they reduce the width of the praecinctio to 1.04-1.06 metres. The best-preserved seat (the last one on the west side) has a back 87 cm high and a seat 44 cm high. The back is broken at the top and was originally somewhat higher. On the analogy of similar high-backed seats in the theatre of Amman and the West Theatre at Umm Qais, the Jerash seat can be restored as a little over a metre high.14 The floor level of the praecinctio was probably at the bottom of the two rows of orthostates which form the podium around the praecinctio.