KHIRBET AL-MAFJAR
New Excavations and Hypotheses
for an Umayyad Monument
View of Khirbet el-Mafjar from the southeast with the palace in the foreground. Photograph by Donald Whitcomb.
T
he Umayyad palace at Khirbet al-Mafjar, also known as
Qasr Hisham, has been known and appreciated as the
most beautifully decorated of the Umayyad qusur (so-
called desert castles). Its fabulous mosaic carpets, human and
animal figures, extensive stucco wall decorations, and frescoes
have made this monumental complex, located just north of the
city of Jericho, an extraordinary archaeological site. Excavated
by Dimitri Baramki for some 13 seasons, in the 1930s and 1940s,
the site has been assumed to be completely revealed (Hamilton
and Grabar 1959; Whitcomb 1988).1
A new research project for the past five years has proved this
assessment completely unfounded. At the instigation of Dr. Ham-
dan Taha, director of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities,
the Jericho Mafjar Project was conceived as a joint venture of the
Palestinian antiquities department and the University of Chicago.
This was a truly joint project, with equal Palestinian and foreign ar-
chaeologists and specialists working, living, and eventually writing
reports together. The result is a new archaeological monument, one
which is situated within an archaeological park; well-marked paths
with bilingual signage guides the visitors after they have seen an
introductory film and visited a modern museum, displaying both
older and very recent discoveries from the excavations (fig. 1).
78  NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)
This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
Donald Whitcomb, Michael Jennings,
Andrew Creekmore, and Ignacio Arce
The purpose of this article is to suggest the role of hypothesis
formation and testing in the re-examination of an old monu-
ment. As Dr. Hamdan had sensed, there remain many stories
to examine within the complex site (Taha 2005). The dominant
interpretation was that of Mr. Robert Hamilton, director of an-
tiquities under the British mandate. His theory maintained that
the palace, with its decorated halls embellished with dancing la-
dies, was a place of “debauchery,” created by an Umayyad prince,
Walid ibn Yazid (709–744), the nephew of the Caliph Hisham.2
While no one would deny the Umayyad court had its parties, the
purpose of the palatial complex should have a more profound set
of meanings, one that might be explained to modern spectators.
A First Hypothesis
Baramki had excavated a formal entrance, a typical Umayyad
gate flanked by round towers, south of the palace (1953: 4–5).
This was the entrance from the south, leading to the road south
to the town of Jericho, which was still an important focus of the
entire oasis in the early Islamic period. North of the gate was a
free-standing pavilion that Baramki called the shaderwan, since
it stood in a shallow pool of water. North of the pavilion was a
wall leading out from the back of the Audience Hall. A quick
measurement revealed that the distance to the pavilion was the
same as that to the south gate. This suggested that the pavilion
was in the center of a garden between two gates. Trenches were
laid out and, within a few days, a guardroom with pots was re-
vealed just below the surface. Weeks later, an entire gate was
revealed, with paving stones, iron plate and bands once adhered
to the actual gate, and then ornate carved stones of an arch,
once surmounted with crenellations.
The discovery of the gate had two major implications: first
that the palace and Audience Hall was not a jumbled mass of
buildings (as suggested by Hamilton), but an ordered garden
with a long arcade looking east toward the fields, the Jordan
river, and highlands (fig. 2). It was a belvedere or manzara, an
important aspect for the planning of Umayyad palaces. The gate
also provided a transitional structure from the palace complex
into what we called the Northern Area. This was an area as large
as the formal monuments to the south but little understood. It
was speculated to be servants’ quarters, or perhaps a caravanse-
rai; excavated by Awni Dajani in the 1960s, it suffers from a total
lack of publications and even recovered artifacts. The delineation
of the meaning of the Northern Area would be the main focus of
our recent research (see Whitcomb and Taha 2013).

Another Hypothesis
The earliest mosque in Jericho was in the Umayyad palace excavat-
ed by Baramki. It was a standard design, placed between the palace
and Audience Hall, with a private entrance for the Caliph from
behind the mihrab or prayer niche. Within the palace, Baramki
had found another large mihrab in a narrow room flanked by four
similar rooms. He thought this was a curious private prayer room
(1953: 40–42). Our architec-
tural archaeologist found this Figure 1 (above). Plan of the archaeological park of Khirbet al-Mafjar. Plan by Donald Whitcomb.
Figure 2 (below). Reconstruction of the palace complex. Modified by Donald Whitcomb from drawings by Vito Cantore
interpretation quite unac- and Francesco Erriquez, Bari University.
ceptable. He noted the dis-
proportionately large mihrab,
the exterior doorway, and the
fact that partition walls were
not attached to the north or
south walls. Demonstrating
his hypothesis, he told me that
there should be column bases,
like the one he sketched in the
sand. Standing behind him, I
stated, “You meant like the one
over there?” His hypothesis is
clearly persuasive: there was an
original broad mosque within
the palace, later replaced by
Baramki’s mosque on the exte-
rior (fig. 3; Arce, in press).
The importance of this dis-
covery is again two-fold. The
mosque was an important part
of the original palace, occupy-
ing one quarter of the ground
floor. Moreover, the palace was

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)  79

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
not incomplete, as suggested by particularly strong correla-
Hamilton, but had undergone tion with the motivations of
significant structural changes its builders; location informs
during its Umayyad occupation more about the cultural pa-
(and subsequent Abbasid pe- rameters that underlie a site
riod (750–late 9th century). This than the physical constraints
would in turn lead to further of the landscape.
speculations on the changing One must begin by ad-
conception of the palace in its dressing the essential ques-
residential and administrative tion: with all the available
functions. This most elaborate- places in the Jericho plain
ly decorated qasr would seem why did the Umayyads, and
to have broad implications for possibly the Romans before
authority and patterns of rule. them, choose to build a major
This project has been complex in the area of Khir-
blessed with the lively imagi- bet al-Mafjar? Its primary dis-
nation of Ignacio Arce, and the advantage is obvious: it has no
remaining sections of this arti- internal water source and is
cle will present, from three dif- separated from Ayn al-Sultan
ferent perspectives, another of by a major obstacle, the Wadi
his hypotheses. These new data Nueima (fig. 5). This wadi ar-
sets seem to suggest that there rives from the west and cuts
was a Roman occupation ante- Figure 3. Plan of the palace mosque, as excavated and published by Baramki, across the Jericho plain to the
cedent to the Umayyad monu- and according to the hypothesis by Ignacio Arce. Plan by Donald Whitcomb. Jordan River. Water supply
ments at Khirbet al-Mafjar. was instead dependent on ex-
ploitation of the springs of the Naaran area, which offered con-
A Landscape with Umayyads and Romans tinuous and abundant supply, but required a major investment
– Michael Jennings in hydraulic infrastructure, including two bridge-aqueducts, to
A study that covers both Roman and Umayyad Jericho poses a reach the area of Khirbet al-Mafjar.
problem best addressed by landscape archaeology (fig. 4). For At first glance, the area of Khirbet al-Mafjar – squeezed up
the Roman period, we have a wealth of historical texts (we even against the Wadi Nueima and other wadi systems and hills, with
know the exact year the Tenth Legion was stationed in Jericho), no immediate water source – seems like a poor choice to build a
but only scattered archaeological remains and no direct evidence major new construction. But disadvantage is in the eye of the be-
related to the location of a legionary camp. For the Umayyad holder and the area of Khirbet al-Mafjar had the exact things the
period, conversely, we have nearly eighteen years of excavations Umayyads were looking for: 1) protection and isolation from the
at Khirbet al-Mafjar but not a single mention in any written still predominantly Christian city of Jericho; 2) the opportunity
sources. At the intersection
of these divergent challenges
is the framework of the land-
scape itself, common ground
as it were.
Most studies of the Jericho
plain are based on the idea
of an oasis landscape, with
settlement clustered around
the spring of Ayn al-Sultan
(Elijah’s Fountain). While
Ayn al-Sultan is one of the
most important water sources
in the Near East, at Jericho
there is more than one water
source capable of sustaining a
settlement, along with plenty
of arable land. The variety of
potential sites means that a Figure 4. Air photograph of the Jericho oasis, looking south (Jennings 2015: fig. 2).
settlement’s location has a Photograph taken with a drone by Michael Jennings.

80  NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
to exploit a different water Thus, by constructing a
source than that used by the diachronic picture for the con-
urban population; and 3) a nections between settlement
position on the Jordan Valley typology and environmental
road leading to Baysan, the conditions, the aims and ob-
Galilee, and onto Damascus. jectives of different groups that
Could a similar set of gen- settled in Jericho come into
eral objectives, in a different focus. Landscape archaeology
historical context, have made offers the potential to bridge
this area appealing to the Ro- historical periods which have
man army? different source materials,
After Herod, the central seeking to provide a new per-
theme in Palestine was the spective that starts with the
developing struggle between surroundings of the site. In
Roman authority and various this way, an examination of
Jewish communities unwill- the physical and cultural con-
ing to accept its political rule. text in which Khirbet al-Maf-
The first centuries c.e. was a jar was built has the potential
period of protracted military to shed light on the possibility
campaigns in Judea. They Figure 5. Plan of the Jericho oasis, with landscape settlement zones of Roman settlement over six
(Jennings 2015: fig. 39). Map by Michael Jennings.
would see the destruction of hundred years earlier.
the Temple in Jerusalem and
the violent suppression of a number the rebellions against Ro- Looking Beneath the Surface
man power. The Judea that emerged was a changed region, now – Andrew Creekmore
fully out of the Hellenistic and into the Roman era. Josephus’ In modern archaeology, the large-scale exposures of Baramki
account that Jewish fighters fled to Jericho during the Great Re- and Dajani in the 1930s are rarely possible due to cost and a de-
volt – “the whole army of the Romans were upon them, they put sire to preserve portions of sites for future research. In addition,
them into great fear on every side; so they got in great numbers the magnificent architecture and mosaics at Khirbet al-Mafjar
together, and fled to Jericho” (1998, 4.7.5: 281) –­ suggests that the draw a steady stream of tourists, which presents challenges for
urban core of Jericho was sympathetic to the rebels. maintenance of standing structures, excavation of new contexts,
Just as it did for the Umayyads, the area of Khirbet al-Mafjar and stewardship of buried remains. Geophysics surveys are one
would have offered a key set of advantages for the Roman army. It solution to these challenges.
was separated from the urban core of Jericho, but close enough to The Jericho Mafjar Project applied geophysical methods in-
maintain a strong military presence and to respond swiftly to poten- cluding ground-penetrating radar (GPR), magnetometry, and
tial trouble. The ability to have access to an alternate water source resistivity during the 2014 season (figs. 6, 7).3 Not long ago these
to that of the urban core would techniques were used rarely
increase autonomy; it is not but they are becoming an in-
good strategy to be reliant on tegral part of the archaeolo-
a potentially hostile population gist’s toolkit, applied across
for water. The Roman army the Near East (Casana 2014;
was certainly capable of con- Creekmore 2010; Matney
structing an aqueduct to bring and Donkin 2006). The team
water from elsewhere on the collected data in open spaces
Jericho plain. Finally, this area throughout the site in eight
would have allowed the Roman designated remote sensing
army to control movement and (RS) areas, including within
access along the Jordan Valley the Northern Area, between
road to and from Bet Shean, this agricultural estate and
Tiberias, and beyond. Together the Audience Hall, to the east
with a few strongholds in key of the hall, and between the
positions around the urban palace and the hall (fig. 8).
core (a strategy also employed Most of these areas were as-
by the Umayyads), including sumed to be empty but now
in the highlands above Jericho, have revealed clear or prob-
Roman domination of the Jeri- Figure 6. Magnetometer survey with Andy Creekmore. able architecture. The follow-
cho plain would be assured. Photograph by Donald Whitcomb. ing sections will highlight

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)  81

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
preliminary results and interpretations from some of the most
promising areas.
Within the northern walled estate, RS area 1 sought to deter-
mine whether an unexcavated block of soil was an open court-
yard. Within the walls that enclose this space to the north and
east, there was a rectilinear area of lower resistance that may in-
dicate mudbrick architecture. Within this low resistance space
was an area of higher resistance marking a possible installation,
or stone debris (fig. 9d). The GPR data shows this feature to be
consistent with stone or brick arranged in a somewhat circular
feature buried 0.25 m–1 m deep.

Figure 7. GPR survey, Area 4, 250 mhz antenna. Michael Jennings (L), Andrew
Creekmore (R). Photograph by Eleanor Moseman, ©Andrew Creekmore.

In RS area 4 between the Audience Hall and the estate, the

GPR data show multiple structures with radar reflections char-
acteristic of stone block construction (fig. 9a). These walls have
a shared orientation at a depth within the first 1 m beneath the
surface. Resistivity data corroborates some of these walls and re-
veals a linear feature of low resistance several meters wide that
may be a street or passageway (fig. 9b). Although the structural
plans are incomplete, the dimensions of the architectural units,
the largest of which is 15 m long, could indicate houses or spe- Figure 8. Site map showing Remote Sensing Areas (RS1, 2, etc.) with selected
cial-use buildings. These structures are oriented at an oblique data as follows: RS1: Resistance; RS2 through RS7 GPR; RS8: GPR (north) and
resistance (south). Photograph by Andrew Creekmore.
angle to the estate to the north, and the monuments to the south;
normally this would suggest that they belong to a different pe- oriented at an oblique angle to the Audience Hall (fig. 9c). The walls
riod of construction. seem relatively wide and diffuse but the interior spaces are fairly
The GPR data from RS area 8, northeast of the Audience clear as areas of weaker reflections. The character of the reflections
Hall and the north gate, present rectilinear architecture features indicates that the walls are probably built from something other

82  NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
than solid stone blocks. A test trench excavated in 2013 uncov- different ways of setting buildings in the landscape correspond
ered a building with robbed-out walls but intact sub-foundation respectively to the patterns found in most Roman forts from the
packing consisting of small, irregular fieldstones (Whitcomb and Limes Arabicus (oblique orientation with the corners pointed to
Taha 2013: fig. 8, Area 4). This discovery, when combined with the the compass’ points; Arce 2015) and subsequent Umayyad qusur
character of the GPR reflections, indicates that many of the origi- (predominantly “Cartesian” orthogonal orientation). This has
nal walls in this area were robbed for construction, possibly in the led the author to put forward a working hypothesis that would
Abbasid period. As in RS area 4, the dimensions of the architec- make sense of these structures; the two orientations would imply
tural units in this area, the largest of which is perhaps 20 meters in the pre-existence on the site of a Roman fort 100 m2 (approx-
length, could indicate houses or special-use buildings. imately 300 x 300 Roman feet), probably dating from the Late
The most surprising results of our survey come from RS areas Roman period. This fort would have had similar dimensions and
5, 6, and 7, beneath the mosque and open space in between the orientation to the Roman forts at Daja’aniya, Avdat, Umm al Ji-
palace and the Audience Hall. Both the GPR and magnetometer mal, or Khirbet el Khaw (fig.10).
data show buried architecture The “stratigraphic fact” that
oriented at an oblique angle the buried walls identified by
to the standing buildings (fig. the survey run under the sec-
9e). These buried structures ond Umayyad congregational
lie within one meter below the mosque wall (and are appar-
surface and are likely part of ently cut by the Umayyad pal-
a single stratum that predates ace), indicates without doubt
the palace, mosque, and bath. that these structures predate
The clearest structure within the extant Umayyad struc-
this open space was approxi- tures. The question wheth-
mately 12 x 13 m; and it would er they belong to a Roman
seem to have internal divisions fort (abandoned and looted,
that might suggest a courtyard or maybe transformed and
house. This structure and the reused in Late Antiquity),
widespread extent of oblique or if they correspond to an-
walls would all seem to date other kind of Late Antique
before the Umayyad monu- structure (a monastery or an
mental architecture, but are estate, or even to an “early
unlikely to be an earlier Islamic Umayyad” structure) remains
occupation (see Arce, below). open. Comparative cases like
The geophysics surveys the lower Roman fort at Av-
were highly successful, re- dat (Erikson-Gini 2002) show
vealing a continuous spread Figure 9a–e. Geophysics data. 9a: RS4 GPR (62–86 cm time slice); 9b: RS4 similar complexity, with later
resistance (–16 to 16 ohm, black is high value, white is low); 9c: RS8 GPR (21–34 cm
of architecture from the pal- time slice); 9d: RS1 resistance (20 to 134 ohm, black is high value, white is low); 9e:
walls built atop earlier ones
ace to the northern estate. Al- RS5 GPR (72–94 cm time slice). 9a and b cover the same area, showing rectilinear (Roman walls or their foun-
though geophysics data can- architecture especially between 0–45 m W–E, with a possible street labeled. In 9c the dations). They provide clear
red triangles mark probable interior spaces of rectilinear structures. In 9d the area of
not provide a date for buried high resistance is circled and walls are labeled. Images by Andrew Creekmore. examples of how a joint anal-
remains, the oblique orienta- ysis of the stratigraphy of the
tion of all newly discovered buried deposits and standing
architecture aside from that within the northern estate suggests architectural remains is key to clarifying these situations.
that these buildings date to a different period of construction. In terms of shape, orientation, and dimensions in plan, there
This evidence provides the springing of a new hypothetical ex- are several parallels for this hypothesized fort: Daja’aniya in
planation, as will be suggested by Arce in the next section. South Jordan, the lower fort in Avdat, and those of Khirbet el-
Khaw and Umm al-Jimal (Arce 2015). The last two examples fol-
A Roman Fort at Khirbet el-Mafjar? low the same pattern of growth identified at Hallabat and Deir
A Working Hypothesis el-Kahf, with a 4th century Tetrarchic quadriburgium embracing
– Ignacio Arce a 2nd–3rd century Severan fort without towers, giving as a result
In February 2014 a series of remote-sensing surveys (magnetom- 100 meter-sided almost-square-forts (Arce 2015).
eter, resistivity, and ground-penetrating radar) were carried out The structure identified in the “open space” between the pal-
as part of the Jericho Mafjar Project (Whitcomb 2015). The most ace and the Audience Hall (fig. 11, the Garden House) seems
remarkable characteristic of the walls identified in the survey to be built inside a massive wall reinforced in that point with
was their oblique orientation (in contrast with the “Cartesian” a slightly projecting tower (similar to those from Daja’aniya).
orthogonal arrangement of the exposed Umayyad structures – This structure could be thus a simple building with a court, or
oriented N–S according to the points of the compass). These two remains of the Praetorium, or the Aedes of a fort (due to its

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)  83

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
shape and location within the hypothesized fort). Similarly, the
two square structures identified by the survey and located to the
north (near the Umayyad north gate), might be the towers flank-
ing the main entrance: the Porta Praetoria (usually looking SE or
NE in standard Roman forts of the region).
The confirmation of the hypothetical pre-existence of this
fort would represent another sample of similar cases in which
abandoned Roman forts were reused in the 5th–6th centuries, of-
ten transformed into monasteries, and then later modified into
Umayyad qusur (Arce 2015). In the case of Khirbet al-Mafjar,
the new Umayyad structures were built beside (and over) it. The
fact that this hypothetical Roman fort was apparently not reused
could be due to the original building technique of the fort, us-
ing probably mud-bricks (like the one at Qasr el-Hayr el Ghar-
bi) which would have been heavily weathered. This hypothesis
could also further clarify the setting of the Umayyad buildings
in relation to the hydrogeology of the area, due to the impact of
the courses of water that run across the site from west to east (fig.
10; maybe combined with the effect of earthquakes). These fac-
tors could have heavily damaged the Roman fort making reuse
impossible and making it necessary to rebuild ex-novo (but not
ex-nihilo) the new Umayyad structures.

Figure 10a–c. 10a: Walls identified in the remote sensing survey (Whitcomb 2015) with the hypothetical location of a Roman Fort in red shadow (note the blue arrows
indicating the hypothetical lines of flow of the branches of wadi Nueima crossing the site); parallel structures from the Limes Arabicus (all of them 100x100m approx.); 10b:
Daja’aniya (Parker 2006); 10c: Avdat (Oboda, Lower fort -Erickson-Gini 2002). Plans by Ignacio Arce.

84  NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
 There are ample references to Roman forts in Jericho, now
missing. At least three different Roman forts are referenced from
the 1st century c.e. throughout the Tetrarchic period. Herod built
new fortresses and reinforced pre-existing Hasmonean ones,
creating a chain of three forts and the new fortress of Cypros
that dominated wadi Quelt and Jericho. In the winter of 68/9
c.e., with the Jewish Revolt in progress, the Tenth Legion was
stationed at Jericho. Jericho’s strategic location in the Judean des-
ert, with access to the Jordan Valley and the Judean highlands,
necessitated Roman military control of the city. While there is no
direct archaeological or written evidence that the Tenth Legion
built a legionary camp at Jeri-
cho, the contemporary case
of nearby Masada suggests it
is likely. We also know from
written sources that a Roman
fort was established in Jericho
oasis in 130 c.e. The loca-
tion of this military installa-
tion should be in a place near
crossroads, close to easily
accessible water sources, not
amidst an existing city or vil-
lage, but most probably away
from it. Finally, we know
that under Diocletian new
forts (quadriburgia) of vari-
ous sizes were built to protect
main roads across the region. Figure 11. Magnetometry image of the Garden House in RS 5, located between
The aforementioned parallels the Audience Hall (red), the palace (blue) and mosque (green). During the
excavations, this was assumed to be an empty garden and structures flattened.
to our hypothetical structure Images by Andrew Creekmore and Donald Whitcomb.
date also to the Tetrachic pe-
riod: Avdat itself, Daja’niya,
Khirbet el Khaw, and Umm al Jimal). Thus, the hypothetical
Roman structure at Khirbet al-Mafjar might have been part of
this same plan to reinforce key strategic crossroads in the Araba-
Negev region during the Tetrarchy.
Once abandoned by the regular Roman army in the 5th century,
many of these forts became monasteries patronized by the Ghas-
sanid Phylarchs. Several different accounts mention monasteries
around Khirbet al-Mafjar (including the famous monastery “of
the Eunuchs”) that were apparently razed and abandoned during
the Persian invasion. They could have also provided spolia and
material for construction (like the columns with crosses used
in the courtyard of the palace). All these characteristics would
make this area one that could be claimed, built, and exploited by
the Umayyad elite in a pattern of physical transformation and
change identified in many sites in the region.
All these hypotheses are at this point purely conjectural and
would require excavations to be confirmed. They would give a
plausible explanation to the evidence produced by the remote
sensing survey in connection with the exposed remains. And more
importantly, they would follow a pattern of transformation of Ro-
man forts into Umayyad qusur that has been identified in several
places and would help to answer the question regarding the loca-
tion of the Roman forts we know were built in the oasis of Jericho.
This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
Some Additional Thoughts
– Donald Whitcomb
As the team members of the Jericho Mafjar Project discussed
this newest hypothesis, we had a surprising intervention. Ta-
sha Vorderstrasse has worked with the project, reporting on
the evidence of coins and ostraca. While she was in the Pal-
estine Archaeological Museum (the Rockefeller) in Jerusalem,
she found and researched a statue from Khirbet al-Mafjar (fig.
12). This was a classical marble head of Athena (or possibly
Minerva; Merker 1987), prominently on display. Vorderstrasse
was shown the statue’s marble arms, one apparently holding
a spear, the other resting on
a shield. More importantly,
the find spot was recorded
in 1944: about one meter
below surface from “outside
apse II of Building B II.” This
would place its discovery just
outside the Audience Hall,
within RS area 5 and near the
garden house. Were this stat-
ue in a proper archaeological
context, it might suggest a
temple attached to the prae-
torium. We should be clear
that this discovery is hardly
proof of the new hypothesis
presented here; rather, this
tantalizing figure of Roman
art may add a new dimen-
sion, that this important Is-
lamic monument had a for-
gotten Roman past.
When Creekmore showed the magnetometry image of the
Garden House to the director of archaeology, Dr. Hamdan Taha,
his reaction was, “Ah, this is for the future.” He is correct of
course, in that the five-year research commitment is now com-
plete for the Jericho Mafjar Project and the production of final
reports is now necessary. The archaeological results have been
very satisfying, and the site is left with a museum and archaeo-
logical park. But the larger purpose of this work, and this article,
is to demonstrate the interaction of hypotheses and fieldwork at
this extraordinary and continually exciting monument.
Acknowledgments
The Jericho Mafjar Project is a new kind of cooperative re-
search, the inspiration of Dr. Hamdan Taha, with Jehad Ya-
sin, our field director and constant companion. The fieldwork
benefited from talented archaeologists of the department,
particularly Awni Shawamra. Likewise, we came to rely on
well-trained students from al-Quds University. Drs. Sy Gitin
and Matt Adams at the Albright Institute have provided timely
logistical support. We are indebted to Silvia Krpyuko for fa-
cilitating this archival research at the Rockefeller Museum,
and to the IAA for permission to refer to the Khirbet al-Mafjar
Athena statue.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)  85

Figure 12. Photograph of a marble sculpture found in 1944. This is described as a
head of Athena and is now in the Rockefeller museum.
Photograph by Tasha Vorderstrasse.
Endnotes
1. “The “desert castles” or qusur (qasr, sing.) are a large set of rural
estates founded in the Umayyad period (661–750). These had their
inspiration from the pre-Islamic Hijaz and Yemen and are similar to
the Roman villa (Whitcomb and Taha 2013).
2. The case for Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik (691–743) as the builder of
Khirbet al-Mafjar is much stronger. Baramki found an ostracon with
his name on the site, and the very similar palace of Qasr al-Hayr al-
Gharbi, located near Damascus, is clearly the work of this Caliph.
3. For magnetometry we used a Bartington Grad 601-2 fluxgate gradi-
ometer to collect a sample density of one half meter by one eighth
meter. This instrument is most sensitive to magnetic fields within 1
m of the ground surface. For resistance we used a Geoscan RM85
Resistance Meter to collect a sample density of one half meter by
one half meter in a twin configuration with maximum penetration
of 0.5 m depth. For GPR we used a Mala Pro Ex system with 500
mhz and 250 mhz antennas to collect data at variable resolutions but
at least one half meter by 5 centimeters. These antennas are capable
of recording data to several meters in depth but our results indicate
that maximum penetration was about 1m. Magnetometry measures
the susceptibility of soil and buried features to the pull of the earth’s
86  NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)
This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.
magnetic field, as well as thermoremanent magnetism caused by
heating such as in a hearth or house fire. Resistance measures the
resistance of a volume of soil to the passage of an electric current.
Ground-penetrating radar sends radar waves into the ground and
records how long it takes them to reflect back to the receiving an-
tenna, and the strength or amplitude of the return waves. For fur-
ther reading about these methods, consult Aspinall, Gaffney, and
Schmidt 2008, Schmidt 2013, and Conyers 2013.
References
Arce, Ignacio. In press. A New Umayyad Mosque at Khirbet al-Mafjar:
Physical Transformations and Changes of Use of the Umayyad Com-
plex. In Recent Advances in Islamic Archaeology, eds. Katya Cytryn-Sil-
verman and Kristoffer Damgaard. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
. 2015. Severan castra, Tetrarchic quadriburgia, Justinian coeno-
bia, and Ghassanid diriyat: Patterns of Transformation of Limes
Arabicus Forts during Late Antiquity. Pp. 98–122 in Roman
Military Architecture on the Frontiers, eds. Rob Collins, Matt
Symonds, Meike Weber. Oxford: Oxbow.
Aspinall, Arnold, Chris Gaffney, and Armin Schmidt. 2008. Magneto-
metry for Archaeologists. Lanham: Altamira.
Baramki, Dimitri. 1953. Arab Culture and Architecture of the
Umayyad Period: A Comparative Study with Special Reference
to the Results of the Excavations of Hisham’s Palace. PhD diss.,
University of London.
Casana, Jesse. 2014. New Approaches to Spatial Archaeology: Applica-
tions from the Near East. Near Eastern Archaeology 77: 171–75.
Conyers, Lawrence B. 2013. Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology.
Lanham: Altamira.
Creekmore, Andrew. 2010. The Structure of Upper Mesopotamian Cit-
ies: Insight from Fluxgate Gradiometer Survey at Kazane Höyük,
Southeastern Turkey. Archaeological Prospection 17: 73–88.
Hamilton, Robert W. and Oleg Grabar. 1959. Khirbat al Mafjar: An
Arabian Mansion in the Jordan Valley. Oxford: Oxford University.
Jennings, Michael J. 2015. Beyond the Walls of Jericho: Khirbet al-Ma-
fjar and the Signature Landscapes of the Jericho Plain. PhD diss.,
University of Chicago.
Josephus. 1998. Josephus: The Complete Works, Wars. Translated by
William Whiston. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson.
Matney, Timothy and An Donkin. 2006. Mapping the Past: An Archae-
ogeophysical Case Study from Southeastern Turkey. Near Eastern
Archaeology 69: 12–26.
Merker, Gloria S. 1987. A Statuette of Minerva in the Rockefeller
Museum, Jerusalem, Eretz-Israel: Michael Avi-Yonah Memorial
Volume: 15*–20*.
Schmidt, Armin 2013. Earth Resistance for Archaeologists. Lanham: Altamira.
Taha, Hamdan 2005. Rehabilitation of Hisham’s Palace in Jericho. Pp.
179–88 in Tutela, conservazione e valorizzazione del patrimonio
culturale della Palestina, ed. F. Maniscalco. Naples.
Whitcomb, Donald. 1988. Khirbet al-Mafjar Reconsidered: The Ce-
ramic Evidence, BASOR 271: 51–67.
. 2015. Jericho Mafjar Project, The Oriental Institute Annual
Report, 2013–2014: 83–87.
Whitcomb, Donald and Hamdan Taha. 2013. Khirbat al-Mafjar and
Its Place in the Archaeological Heritage of Palestine. Journal of
Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1: 54–65.
 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Donald Whitcomb is a Research Associate (Associate Professor) at The Oriental Institute and
the Middle East Center, University of Chicago. He directs a program in Islamic Archaeology
in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. He has been a curator at the
Field Museum of Natural History and held research fellowships at the Smithsonian Institu-
tion and at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. His archaeological research includes
direction of the excavations at Quseir al-Qadim, a port on the Red Sea, and at Luxor. He was
director of the excavations at the early Islamic port of Ayla (Aqaba) and at Hadir Qinnasrin,
the early Islamic capital near Aleppo. His most recent work at Khirbet al-Mafjar is available at
www.jerichomafjarproject.org.

Michael Jennings is Director of Field Data at the Center for Digital Archaeology (CoDA) at the
University of California, Berkeley. His dissertation was recently submitted to the department
of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, The University of Chicago (2015). This research
explores the relationship between landscape and settlement in Jericho from the Hasmonean to
early Islamic periods and this contribution is a first presentation of his methodology. An inter-
est in urbanism and urbanization has led Michael to investigate cities throughout the Mediter-
ranean and Near East, including field projects in Italy (Palermo and Ravenna), Jordan (Qasr
al-Hallabat and Aqaba), in addition to Jericho.

Andrew Creekmore is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Northern Colo-

rado. His research focuses on the spatial organization of settlements, especially urban sites, and
the application of geophysics to archaeological problems. His most recent publication on this
topic is Making Ancient Cities: Space and Place in Early Urban Societies, with Kevin Fisher (Cam-
bridge 2014). He is currently mapping urban space with geophysics at the Middle Bronze Age
city of Kurd Qaburstan, Iraq.

Ignacio Arce is an architect and archaeologist specializing in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, with
emphasis on heritage preservation and stratigraphy. His dissertation research was on Amman
Citadel (summa cum laude). For many years he has directed the Spanish Archaeological Mission
to Jordan, and the excavation and restoration of the Umayyad complexes at Amman Citadel, Qasr
al-Hallabat / Hammam as-Sarrah, Qusayr Amra, and Deir el-Kahf in Jordan. He also directs the
From Rome to Islam project and the Anastasius Edict project. His collaboration with the Jericho
Mafjar Project is supported with a Marie-Curie Grant from the University of Copenhagen.

NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 79:2 (2016)  87

This journal was published by the American Schools of Oriental Research and is available on JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/journal/neareastarch.
You may receive the journal through an ASOR membership or subscription. See http://www.asor.org/membership/individual.html for more information.