DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32867#0369
PRE-ROMAN PERIOD
337
classic in them as have the details of the temple at Suweda; the bases, however, are
absolutely unclassic. One of them has a row of leaves above its narrow torus base;
these leaves are not inverted. The other consists of a broad and a narrow cyma recta
of very flat profile, which could easily have been carved with inverted leaves, and
which corresponds well with the base mold of the temple proper. Of the entablature
of this colonnade we know only that the architrave was not ornamented, but bore
inscriptions which, although in small letters, could be read from the ground, because
the colonnade was low.
This much of “ the inner and the outer temple,” then, we may safely ascribe to the
first Maleichath, i.e., the base mold of the temple and the two columns of the porch,
with the fragments of architrave ornamented with oblique squares, all of which is in
keeping with the style complete in its details as we see it at Suweda, and besides these
the colonnade of the peribolos, whose details are sufficiently infused with classic ele-
ments to be classed with the rest. The inscription 1 of the elder Maleichath mentions,
moreover, certain other features of the temple that may perhaps be recognized in the
ruins. These are, first, what is called K~lt2' in, “ this theatron,” and, secondly, a
word that is probably to be translated “ watch-towers.” The first expression in all
likelihood refers to a part of the structure upon which the inscription was carved.
It is quite certain that this was upon the architrave of the colonnade which extended
along three sides of the inmost court of the temple. Between this colonnade and the wall
of the temenos, with which it formed a portico, are two ledges disposed like the seats
of a theater, with a narrow passage behind, as may be seen on both sides of the sec-
tion of the portico shown in Plate 2 of “ La Syrie Centrale.” These ledges or steps
may have been built to accommodate spectators, or for the reception of votive offer-
ings, in which case their resemblance to the seats of a theater may have suggested the
use of the term. In any event, the arrangement rendered the portico unserviceable
as an ordinary passageway. The second expression, “ watch-towers,” is scarcely
to be identified with any other feature than the two towers which flanked the chief
entrance to the temenos, and whose massive foundations are still to be seen in front of
the temple. The first Maleichath, we have seen, was probably an older contemporary
of Plerod the Great. M. de Vogiie makes both this Maleichath and his grandson of
the same name contemporaries of the same monarch, and lays great stress upon the
influence of the Idumean dynasty upon the architecture of this period in the Hauran.
The only evidence of this influence that can be discovered at Si‘ is the presence of a
statue of Herod, which was set up in the portico of the temple, and an inscription
which says simply, “ in the reign of Herod Agrippa.” I am inclined to believe that
M. de Vogiie attached greater importance to this Idumean influence than the ruins
and the inscriptions will warrant, and that his profound knowledge of the temple at
Jerusalem and his great interest in it led him to see more of Herod and his work in the
' Part IV, Nab. insc. i.
337
classic in them as have the details of the temple at Suweda; the bases, however, are
absolutely unclassic. One of them has a row of leaves above its narrow torus base;
these leaves are not inverted. The other consists of a broad and a narrow cyma recta
of very flat profile, which could easily have been carved with inverted leaves, and
which corresponds well with the base mold of the temple proper. Of the entablature
of this colonnade we know only that the architrave was not ornamented, but bore
inscriptions which, although in small letters, could be read from the ground, because
the colonnade was low.
This much of “ the inner and the outer temple,” then, we may safely ascribe to the
first Maleichath, i.e., the base mold of the temple and the two columns of the porch,
with the fragments of architrave ornamented with oblique squares, all of which is in
keeping with the style complete in its details as we see it at Suweda, and besides these
the colonnade of the peribolos, whose details are sufficiently infused with classic ele-
ments to be classed with the rest. The inscription 1 of the elder Maleichath mentions,
moreover, certain other features of the temple that may perhaps be recognized in the
ruins. These are, first, what is called K~lt2' in, “ this theatron,” and, secondly, a
word that is probably to be translated “ watch-towers.” The first expression in all
likelihood refers to a part of the structure upon which the inscription was carved.
It is quite certain that this was upon the architrave of the colonnade which extended
along three sides of the inmost court of the temple. Between this colonnade and the wall
of the temenos, with which it formed a portico, are two ledges disposed like the seats
of a theater, with a narrow passage behind, as may be seen on both sides of the sec-
tion of the portico shown in Plate 2 of “ La Syrie Centrale.” These ledges or steps
may have been built to accommodate spectators, or for the reception of votive offer-
ings, in which case their resemblance to the seats of a theater may have suggested the
use of the term. In any event, the arrangement rendered the portico unserviceable
as an ordinary passageway. The second expression, “ watch-towers,” is scarcely
to be identified with any other feature than the two towers which flanked the chief
entrance to the temenos, and whose massive foundations are still to be seen in front of
the temple. The first Maleichath, we have seen, was probably an older contemporary
of Plerod the Great. M. de Vogiie makes both this Maleichath and his grandson of
the same name contemporaries of the same monarch, and lays great stress upon the
influence of the Idumean dynasty upon the architecture of this period in the Hauran.
The only evidence of this influence that can be discovered at Si‘ is the presence of a
statue of Herod, which was set up in the portico of the temple, and an inscription
which says simply, “ in the reign of Herod Agrippa.” I am inclined to believe that
M. de Vogiie attached greater importance to this Idumean influence than the ruins
and the inscriptions will warrant, and that his profound knowledge of the temple at
Jerusalem and his great interest in it led him to see more of Herod and his work in the
' Part IV, Nab. insc. i.