DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.32867#0370
338
PAGAN ARCHITECTURE IN THE DJEBEL HAURAN
temple at SP than can be borne ont by comparative study. It is quite natural that a
statue of a conqueror should be set up in the most famous shrine of a tributary prov-
ince ; but it is hardly probable that the influence of a single reign could affect the build-
ing operations of tvvo men two generations apart, or evolve two quite distinct styles of
architecture in a country so far removed from the capital city. In the first place, though
possible, it is hardly probable that grandfather and grandson were engaged in extensive
building operations at the same place between the years 23 and 4 b.c. ; and, in the
second place, the earlier inscriptions in the Nabataean language have nothing to say
about Herod. In fact, they mention no other than Nabataean names. The only inscrip-
tion with reference to Herod that has been found is that which was carved in Greek
upon the pedestal of his statue, and the only other reference to the Idumean dynasty
is the statement that Agrippa Ilwas reigning when a Nabataean set up a monument of
some kind, probably a portal.
If the influence of the Idumean dynasty is to be traced in the ruins at Si‘, I believe
it is to be found, not in the work of the time of Maleichath the elder, with its classic
elements, but in the additions of Maleichath the younger, whose style was perpetu-
ated until the end of the Idumean rule, at the close of the first century a.d. A brief
description has already been given of the details at Si‘ which bear the Greek inscrip-
tion in honor of Maleichath the younger. They include the frieze upon which the
inscription was carved, and an architrave which M. de Vogiie, with unquestionable
judgment, placed below it. Of precisely the same style is a doorway which M. de
Vogiie makes the main portal of the temple. There is no evidence in the ruins at the
present time for this arrangement of the fragments of this doorway; but there is no
serious objection to our assigning this particular detail to the man who made the
temple higher and who undoubtedly added the other enrichments. The general
character of the ornament of these details may be studied in Plate 3 of “ La Syrie
Centrale ” ; but M. de Vogtie’s drawing, beautiful and careful as it is, does not do full
justice to the subject. The carving itself, which is now in a shockingly broken condi-
tion, is much more naturalistic than would appear in Plate 3. The leaves of the grape-
vine, instead of being highly conventionalized, as in the drawing, are most elaborately
realistic, showing all the veining of the surface of the leaf. The whole treatment is
precisely of the same technique as that of the inserted jambs at Suweda, and the bay-
leaf ornament of the side molding is exactly the same as in that otlier example. The
whole design was probably the same. The central section of the architrave and the
lintel of the portal at Si‘, details which have been lost at Suweda, show a foliated disk
and certain animal forms mingled with the vegetable, such as birds and small human
heads; but these may have existed in the Suweda portal as well.
If we consider the first Maleichath as a contemporary of Herod the Great, the
second Maleichath was more probably contemporaneous with Herod Antipas, who
was vanquished by the Nabataean king Aretas IV, or with Herod Agrippa I, who
PAGAN ARCHITECTURE IN THE DJEBEL HAURAN
temple at SP than can be borne ont by comparative study. It is quite natural that a
statue of a conqueror should be set up in the most famous shrine of a tributary prov-
ince ; but it is hardly probable that the influence of a single reign could affect the build-
ing operations of tvvo men two generations apart, or evolve two quite distinct styles of
architecture in a country so far removed from the capital city. In the first place, though
possible, it is hardly probable that grandfather and grandson were engaged in extensive
building operations at the same place between the years 23 and 4 b.c. ; and, in the
second place, the earlier inscriptions in the Nabataean language have nothing to say
about Herod. In fact, they mention no other than Nabataean names. The only inscrip-
tion with reference to Herod that has been found is that which was carved in Greek
upon the pedestal of his statue, and the only other reference to the Idumean dynasty
is the statement that Agrippa Ilwas reigning when a Nabataean set up a monument of
some kind, probably a portal.
If the influence of the Idumean dynasty is to be traced in the ruins at Si‘, I believe
it is to be found, not in the work of the time of Maleichath the elder, with its classic
elements, but in the additions of Maleichath the younger, whose style was perpetu-
ated until the end of the Idumean rule, at the close of the first century a.d. A brief
description has already been given of the details at Si‘ which bear the Greek inscrip-
tion in honor of Maleichath the younger. They include the frieze upon which the
inscription was carved, and an architrave which M. de Vogiie, with unquestionable
judgment, placed below it. Of precisely the same style is a doorway which M. de
Vogiie makes the main portal of the temple. There is no evidence in the ruins at the
present time for this arrangement of the fragments of this doorway; but there is no
serious objection to our assigning this particular detail to the man who made the
temple higher and who undoubtedly added the other enrichments. The general
character of the ornament of these details may be studied in Plate 3 of “ La Syrie
Centrale ” ; but M. de Vogtie’s drawing, beautiful and careful as it is, does not do full
justice to the subject. The carving itself, which is now in a shockingly broken condi-
tion, is much more naturalistic than would appear in Plate 3. The leaves of the grape-
vine, instead of being highly conventionalized, as in the drawing, are most elaborately
realistic, showing all the veining of the surface of the leaf. The whole treatment is
precisely of the same technique as that of the inserted jambs at Suweda, and the bay-
leaf ornament of the side molding is exactly the same as in that otlier example. The
whole design was probably the same. The central section of the architrave and the
lintel of the portal at Si‘, details which have been lost at Suweda, show a foliated disk
and certain animal forms mingled with the vegetable, such as birds and small human
heads; but these may have existed in the Suweda portal as well.
If we consider the first Maleichath as a contemporary of Herod the Great, the
second Maleichath was more probably contemporaneous with Herod Antipas, who
was vanquished by the Nabataean king Aretas IV, or with Herod Agrippa I, who