DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45581#0038
90
II. A. 2. — Southern Hauran
grape-vine ornament of the pilasters of the great portal are reminiscent of details in
the Nabataean temples at Sic. The stone-work of the steps, and of the east wall, might
easily be of Nabataean origin, or Roman work of the best period in the Hauran. It
is perplexing to find that the south, west, and north walls of the building are not of
the highly finished quality of the east wall, but of smooth quadrated work, and that
the piers which carry the arches of the interior are of different heights and show very
different kinds of workmanship. The lower half of the tower is of highly finished
stone-work; but its coursing does not correspond to that of the facade, the courses
being narrower, and the surface finish is not quite so fine as that of the facade. Even
in the facade itself two periods of building seem to be represented (Ill. 69). It
cannot be presumed that the circular window plate, with its inverted Ionic pilasters,
stands as originally placed ; indeed the whole wall above it, though carefully laid, shows
the work of different hands from those which built the rest of the wall. One can
hardly be sure that the over-lintel of the great portal is now in its original position.
As to the other two window-panels one cannot say whether they are inserted in an
older wall or not; one of them fits the ancient coursing with perfect precision, the other
does not. Even in view of the Nabataean character of the carved ornament on the
pilasters of the great portal, I am not prepared to give a date to the original parts
of this facade that would correspond to the earlier dates of the Nabataean buildings
in other parts of the Hauran. The date of certain early parts of the temple of Sf
falls in the second quarter of the first century B.C. \ and the date of a very late temple
built under Nabataean influence at Dfir il-Meshkfik2, in the Southern Hauran, falls in
the first quarter of the second century after Christ, after Roman influence had begun
to manifest itself in the art of the region; but the building at il-Umtafiyeh was very
different in plan from that at Der il-Meshkfik, and there are no grounds for compari-
son. In discussing the probable date of the original structure here, the present plan
and arrangement of the building should be eliminated; for only the wall of the facade
and, probably, the steps in front of it, belong to the earliest period of construction.
It is impossible to know what the original plan may have been; but it is plain that
the facade, with its triple entrances, was not designed for a building of the present
shape. It is quite certain that at some period, the date of which is unknown, the plan
of the original structure was changed, that only the east wall of the original building
was retained, that the south, west, and north walls were rebuilt on new foundations and
in a different style of masonry. At the same time, in all probability, the lower half
of the tower was built, though this was a better example of wall building than the
other new walls, and may belong to the older period. The first set of interior piers
and arches also appear to belong to the second period. At a still later time the interior
arches and piers were rebuilt, a new roof was provided, and, still later, the uppermost
story of the tower was added. It is only the east wall then, with the steps and perhaps
the lower parts of the tower, that are to be considered in discussing the date of the
earliest work. As I have said, there is nothing here to link this work with Nabataean
architecture except the steps and the pilasters. The steps, however, and the triple
portals, reproduce details in the so-called Basilica3 at Shakka in Djebel Hauran, and
three portals are found in the east wall of the Kaisariyeh4 at the same place. The
1 Sect. A, Part 6. Sic.
3 A. C. Pls. 15, 16.
2 cf. Der il-Meshkuk, No. 48 in this Part.
4 A.A.E.S ZZ, pp. 370—375·
II. A. 2. — Southern Hauran
grape-vine ornament of the pilasters of the great portal are reminiscent of details in
the Nabataean temples at Sic. The stone-work of the steps, and of the east wall, might
easily be of Nabataean origin, or Roman work of the best period in the Hauran. It
is perplexing to find that the south, west, and north walls of the building are not of
the highly finished quality of the east wall, but of smooth quadrated work, and that
the piers which carry the arches of the interior are of different heights and show very
different kinds of workmanship. The lower half of the tower is of highly finished
stone-work; but its coursing does not correspond to that of the facade, the courses
being narrower, and the surface finish is not quite so fine as that of the facade. Even
in the facade itself two periods of building seem to be represented (Ill. 69). It
cannot be presumed that the circular window plate, with its inverted Ionic pilasters,
stands as originally placed ; indeed the whole wall above it, though carefully laid, shows
the work of different hands from those which built the rest of the wall. One can
hardly be sure that the over-lintel of the great portal is now in its original position.
As to the other two window-panels one cannot say whether they are inserted in an
older wall or not; one of them fits the ancient coursing with perfect precision, the other
does not. Even in view of the Nabataean character of the carved ornament on the
pilasters of the great portal, I am not prepared to give a date to the original parts
of this facade that would correspond to the earlier dates of the Nabataean buildings
in other parts of the Hauran. The date of certain early parts of the temple of Sf
falls in the second quarter of the first century B.C. \ and the date of a very late temple
built under Nabataean influence at Dfir il-Meshkfik2, in the Southern Hauran, falls in
the first quarter of the second century after Christ, after Roman influence had begun
to manifest itself in the art of the region; but the building at il-Umtafiyeh was very
different in plan from that at Der il-Meshkfik, and there are no grounds for compari-
son. In discussing the probable date of the original structure here, the present plan
and arrangement of the building should be eliminated; for only the wall of the facade
and, probably, the steps in front of it, belong to the earliest period of construction.
It is impossible to know what the original plan may have been; but it is plain that
the facade, with its triple entrances, was not designed for a building of the present
shape. It is quite certain that at some period, the date of which is unknown, the plan
of the original structure was changed, that only the east wall of the original building
was retained, that the south, west, and north walls were rebuilt on new foundations and
in a different style of masonry. At the same time, in all probability, the lower half
of the tower was built, though this was a better example of wall building than the
other new walls, and may belong to the older period. The first set of interior piers
and arches also appear to belong to the second period. At a still later time the interior
arches and piers were rebuilt, a new roof was provided, and, still later, the uppermost
story of the tower was added. It is only the east wall then, with the steps and perhaps
the lower parts of the tower, that are to be considered in discussing the date of the
earliest work. As I have said, there is nothing here to link this work with Nabataean
architecture except the steps and the pilasters. The steps, however, and the triple
portals, reproduce details in the so-called Basilica3 at Shakka in Djebel Hauran, and
three portals are found in the east wall of the Kaisariyeh4 at the same place. The
1 Sect. A, Part 6. Sic.
3 A. C. Pls. 15, 16.
2 cf. Der il-Meshkuk, No. 48 in this Part.
4 A.A.E.S ZZ, pp. 370—375·