DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32867#0342
CHAPTER IX
ARCHITECTURE IN THE DJEBEL HAURAN
rPHE architecture of the Djebel Hauran offers a most forceful contrast to that of the
J- mountains of Northern Syria, in plans, principles of construction, and ornamental
details-—in all those things, in fact, that go to make up styles. The periods of archi-
tectural development in the two regions partly coincided, that of the Hauran beginning
a century or more earlier than the other, and not lasting quite so late ; beyond this the
architecture of the two districts has almost nothing in common, excepting the classic
style that held sway in both during the second century a.d.
The earliest historic architecture in the Djebel Hauran, unlike that of the north, is,
with the exception of a single monument, of native, or at least of Oriental, origin.
This earliest style was supplanted during the Empire by the classic style, in which
Oriental influence is hardly traceable, but which differs in many of its details from the
classic style of the north. The third century, scarcely represented in the architecture
of the north, has left many monuments in the Hauran which bear no relation to the
architecture of the same century at Ba'albek. They are of a unique style, molded
upon classic lines, yet full of originality and novelty. Again, the Christian architecture
of the fourth and fifth centuries in the Idauran follows none of the styles which preceded
it, and has none of the beauty or refinement that characterized both of them, but starts
out in a practically independent manner. It is simple and virile, strong in its crude-
ness, but devoid of beauty of proportions or of ornament, and it was destined never to
develop a complete system of design. But the architecture of the sixth century in the
Hauran did not experience the high development of that in the north ; there seems to
have been no “ Renaissance ” here corresponding to that which produced the wonder-
ful shrine of St. Simeon at Kal'at SinVan and the splendid churches that succeeded it
in other parts of Northern Syria. The sixth-century monuments of the Hauran, in the
main, followed the style of the fourth and fifth centuries there. The only conspicuous
innovation seems to have met with little popularity, only two examples of it having
been discovered: this was the dome, a dome of concrete, which appears to have been
derived from late classic monuments in the same locality, with certain modifications,
but not to have been related to the Byzantine domes of the same century.
3 IQ
ARCHITECTURE IN THE DJEBEL HAURAN
rPHE architecture of the Djebel Hauran offers a most forceful contrast to that of the
J- mountains of Northern Syria, in plans, principles of construction, and ornamental
details-—in all those things, in fact, that go to make up styles. The periods of archi-
tectural development in the two regions partly coincided, that of the Hauran beginning
a century or more earlier than the other, and not lasting quite so late ; beyond this the
architecture of the two districts has almost nothing in common, excepting the classic
style that held sway in both during the second century a.d.
The earliest historic architecture in the Djebel Hauran, unlike that of the north, is,
with the exception of a single monument, of native, or at least of Oriental, origin.
This earliest style was supplanted during the Empire by the classic style, in which
Oriental influence is hardly traceable, but which differs in many of its details from the
classic style of the north. The third century, scarcely represented in the architecture
of the north, has left many monuments in the Hauran which bear no relation to the
architecture of the same century at Ba'albek. They are of a unique style, molded
upon classic lines, yet full of originality and novelty. Again, the Christian architecture
of the fourth and fifth centuries in the Idauran follows none of the styles which preceded
it, and has none of the beauty or refinement that characterized both of them, but starts
out in a practically independent manner. It is simple and virile, strong in its crude-
ness, but devoid of beauty of proportions or of ornament, and it was destined never to
develop a complete system of design. But the architecture of the sixth century in the
Hauran did not experience the high development of that in the north ; there seems to
have been no “ Renaissance ” here corresponding to that which produced the wonder-
ful shrine of St. Simeon at Kal'at SinVan and the splendid churches that succeeded it
in other parts of Northern Syria. The sixth-century monuments of the Hauran, in the
main, followed the style of the fourth and fifth centuries there. The only conspicuous
innovation seems to have met with little popularity, only two examples of it having
been discovered: this was the dome, a dome of concrete, which appears to have been
derived from late classic monuments in the same locality, with certain modifications,
but not to have been related to the Byzantine domes of the same century.
3 IQ