DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32867#0354
322
PAGAN ARCHITECTURE IN THE DJEBEL HAURAn
most northerly districts was short-lived, it is quite certain that the Nabataeans held
undisputed sway in the Hauran from this time until the Romans interfered and com-
pelled them to cede that country to Herod the Great in 23 n.c. In the early part of
their occupation, the Nabataeans began to build. Before the year 50 b.c., 1 the tomb of
Hamrath, a Nabataean woman, was built at Suweda. This tomb, however, was not
built according to any style which could have been brought from the south, but upon
the simple classic lines of the architecture of the Seleucid kingdom, with which the
Nabataeans had recently been brought in contact. It is, in fact, a counterpart of
contemporaneous structures erected under the later successors of Alexander in Asia
Minor.
Soon after this period, it would seem, an era of building was inaugurated in the
Hauran which was part Greek and part Nabatasan. It was at this time that the great
temple of Ba‘al Samin at Si‘ was begun by one Maleichath, according to an inscrip-
tion, and to this period we may assign the foundations of the temple, with a few
fragments that show signs of classic influence, and, by analogy, the temple at Suweda.
Nabataean influence at this time seems to have been strong enough to introduce
native elements into the art which had been learned by contact with the Greek civili-
zation of Damascus and the north. In the former structure, the temple at Si‘, they
introduced an Oriental plan and certain Oriental elements of decoration; while in the
latter, the temple at Suweda, they conformed to the Greek temple plan, but infused
the ornament with Oriental motives.
The next wave of art activity seems to have come from the south again, for the
third period is thoroughly Oriental in its architectural details. During this period
the second Maleichath appears at Si‘, and, according to the inscription, “ made the
temple higher.” M. de Vogiie found a portion of the architrave of the temple with a
Greek inscription of the second Maleichath upon it. This architrave is totally different
in style from that of the temple at Suweda, but its ornament corresponds closely to
fragments found in and about the temple at Suweda, which were not part of the origi-
nal structury., A number of years later, additions were made to the temple precinct
at Si‘, in a style in which no classic elements appear, and a broken lintel has been found
with an inscription 2 of the reign of Agrippa II (50-100 a.d.) upon it, which is perhaps
the most Oriental of all the fragments found in the ruins of the temple of Ba'al Samin.
For the earliest and the latest of these periods we have monuments with approxi-
mate dates, a tomb in Greek style at Suweda being dated, by epigraphical evidence,
before the year 50 b.c., and the latest fragment, at Si‘, which is purely Oriental,
being dated, by its inscription, within the second half of the first century a.d.
The problem, then, is to arrange the chronology of the various monuments of the
intermediate or mixed style. The evidence for the solution of this problem is of two
kinds: that which may be derived from the known inscriptions at Si‘, and that which
‘ Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, II, 162.
2 Part III, insc. 428.
PAGAN ARCHITECTURE IN THE DJEBEL HAURAn
most northerly districts was short-lived, it is quite certain that the Nabataeans held
undisputed sway in the Hauran from this time until the Romans interfered and com-
pelled them to cede that country to Herod the Great in 23 n.c. In the early part of
their occupation, the Nabataeans began to build. Before the year 50 b.c., 1 the tomb of
Hamrath, a Nabataean woman, was built at Suweda. This tomb, however, was not
built according to any style which could have been brought from the south, but upon
the simple classic lines of the architecture of the Seleucid kingdom, with which the
Nabataeans had recently been brought in contact. It is, in fact, a counterpart of
contemporaneous structures erected under the later successors of Alexander in Asia
Minor.
Soon after this period, it would seem, an era of building was inaugurated in the
Hauran which was part Greek and part Nabatasan. It was at this time that the great
temple of Ba‘al Samin at Si‘ was begun by one Maleichath, according to an inscrip-
tion, and to this period we may assign the foundations of the temple, with a few
fragments that show signs of classic influence, and, by analogy, the temple at Suweda.
Nabataean influence at this time seems to have been strong enough to introduce
native elements into the art which had been learned by contact with the Greek civili-
zation of Damascus and the north. In the former structure, the temple at Si‘, they
introduced an Oriental plan and certain Oriental elements of decoration; while in the
latter, the temple at Suweda, they conformed to the Greek temple plan, but infused
the ornament with Oriental motives.
The next wave of art activity seems to have come from the south again, for the
third period is thoroughly Oriental in its architectural details. During this period
the second Maleichath appears at Si‘, and, according to the inscription, “ made the
temple higher.” M. de Vogiie found a portion of the architrave of the temple with a
Greek inscription of the second Maleichath upon it. This architrave is totally different
in style from that of the temple at Suweda, but its ornament corresponds closely to
fragments found in and about the temple at Suweda, which were not part of the origi-
nal structury., A number of years later, additions were made to the temple precinct
at Si‘, in a style in which no classic elements appear, and a broken lintel has been found
with an inscription 2 of the reign of Agrippa II (50-100 a.d.) upon it, which is perhaps
the most Oriental of all the fragments found in the ruins of the temple of Ba'al Samin.
For the earliest and the latest of these periods we have monuments with approxi-
mate dates, a tomb in Greek style at Suweda being dated, by epigraphical evidence,
before the year 50 b.c., and the latest fragment, at Si‘, which is purely Oriental,
being dated, by its inscription, within the second half of the first century a.d.
The problem, then, is to arrange the chronology of the various monuments of the
intermediate or mixed style. The evidence for the solution of this problem is of two
kinds: that which may be derived from the known inscriptions at Si‘, and that which
‘ Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, II, 162.
2 Part III, insc. 428.