DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45582#0025
Umm idj -Djimal ( Thantia ?)
165
is known to have had this form, and it is too large, and too well lighted, to have
been a tomb. The plan of its vaults, however, is an almost complete reproduction of
those of the so-called Praetorium 1 * formerly existing at Mismiyeh (ancient Phaencc} in
the northern part of the Ledja, the only detail lacking being a large niche, or apsis,
in the eastern branch of the cross, and columnar, instead of solid, supports. It was
this similarity that suggested the probability of the building before us having served
a similar purpose. The Praetorium of Phaena was an earlier building, and its classi-
cal elements are far more in evidence; but, as we have seen in the general discussion
of the architecture of this region 3, classical architecture never penetrated these southern
parts of the Province of Arabia to the same extent that it did the northern parts, and
the slight differences existing between the vaults of the two buildings, as enumerated
above, are hardly sufficient to deny a similarity of purpose. The building at Mismiyeh
stood by itself, a rectangular structure, cruciform within, and having a portico of col-
umns in front. The present structure, as we have seen, was part of a larger build-
ing, of a plan very highly articulated for. the locality, and absolutely unique in its
form. It appeared, at first sight, that the edifice might have been a large public bath;
but a more minute examination proved this conjecture to be wholly erroneous; for the
most significant details of the baths in southern, and in northern Syria (the conduits
and water pipes) are wanting. As I have said above, it is not possible to reconcile
the building, as a whole, with any religious or sepulchral purpose; but if we assume
that the vaulted chamber was of the same character as the Praetorium of Phaena,
it is not difficult to conceive of the whole structure as a government building, the seat
of the chief official, or officials, of this portion of the Arabian province. One may
tentatively think of the vaulted chamber — the Praetorium proper — as the bureau of
the chief civil and military authority, and of the great hall as a basilica, or court-
room, in which cases were tried; the atrium afforded a suitably dignified and secluded
entrance to both, and a passage from one to the other, as well as a waiting-room
for persons having business in either of the other rooms. The square, arched cham-
bers along the north wall may be regarded as various important dependencies, (S) as
a private office, or retiring-room, opening off from a dais at the west end of the
court-room, (T), (V), and (W) as bureaus of various officers, clerks or secretaries,
and (X) as a general cloak room, or, perhaps, a library, (p) might be regarded as
a store-room for archives, and (x), I believe, was a latrina. It would be possible, in
the same manner, to assign uses for the upper floor; but I have proceeded far enough
in this tentative allotment of uses to the various divisions of the building to convey
my idea of the probable purpose of the structure.
The dating of the building involves a curious crux; for I propose to date it by
an inscription3 found not in the building itself, but upon a stone now serving as a
lintel of the southernmost of the three west portals of the “Cathedral”, about 70 m.
northeast of the edifice in question. This lintel is not the main lintel of the portal
of which it is a part, but spans the doorway in a second wall, directly within the
present front wall, built, apparently after the front wall, to strengthen it. The in-
scription is the famous Latin one, published by Waddington, giving the names of the
Emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian, and recording the erection of a burgus.
1 S.C. pl. 7. 2 ii. a. 2. p. 66. 3 III, Insc. 233.
Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria, Div. II, Sec. A, Pt. 3. 22
165
is known to have had this form, and it is too large, and too well lighted, to have
been a tomb. The plan of its vaults, however, is an almost complete reproduction of
those of the so-called Praetorium 1 * formerly existing at Mismiyeh (ancient Phaencc} in
the northern part of the Ledja, the only detail lacking being a large niche, or apsis,
in the eastern branch of the cross, and columnar, instead of solid, supports. It was
this similarity that suggested the probability of the building before us having served
a similar purpose. The Praetorium of Phaena was an earlier building, and its classi-
cal elements are far more in evidence; but, as we have seen in the general discussion
of the architecture of this region 3, classical architecture never penetrated these southern
parts of the Province of Arabia to the same extent that it did the northern parts, and
the slight differences existing between the vaults of the two buildings, as enumerated
above, are hardly sufficient to deny a similarity of purpose. The building at Mismiyeh
stood by itself, a rectangular structure, cruciform within, and having a portico of col-
umns in front. The present structure, as we have seen, was part of a larger build-
ing, of a plan very highly articulated for. the locality, and absolutely unique in its
form. It appeared, at first sight, that the edifice might have been a large public bath;
but a more minute examination proved this conjecture to be wholly erroneous; for the
most significant details of the baths in southern, and in northern Syria (the conduits
and water pipes) are wanting. As I have said above, it is not possible to reconcile
the building, as a whole, with any religious or sepulchral purpose; but if we assume
that the vaulted chamber was of the same character as the Praetorium of Phaena,
it is not difficult to conceive of the whole structure as a government building, the seat
of the chief official, or officials, of this portion of the Arabian province. One may
tentatively think of the vaulted chamber — the Praetorium proper — as the bureau of
the chief civil and military authority, and of the great hall as a basilica, or court-
room, in which cases were tried; the atrium afforded a suitably dignified and secluded
entrance to both, and a passage from one to the other, as well as a waiting-room
for persons having business in either of the other rooms. The square, arched cham-
bers along the north wall may be regarded as various important dependencies, (S) as
a private office, or retiring-room, opening off from a dais at the west end of the
court-room, (T), (V), and (W) as bureaus of various officers, clerks or secretaries,
and (X) as a general cloak room, or, perhaps, a library, (p) might be regarded as
a store-room for archives, and (x), I believe, was a latrina. It would be possible, in
the same manner, to assign uses for the upper floor; but I have proceeded far enough
in this tentative allotment of uses to the various divisions of the building to convey
my idea of the probable purpose of the structure.
The dating of the building involves a curious crux; for I propose to date it by
an inscription3 found not in the building itself, but upon a stone now serving as a
lintel of the southernmost of the three west portals of the “Cathedral”, about 70 m.
northeast of the edifice in question. This lintel is not the main lintel of the portal
of which it is a part, but spans the doorway in a second wall, directly within the
present front wall, built, apparently after the front wall, to strengthen it. The in-
scription is the famous Latin one, published by Waddington, giving the names of the
Emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian, and recording the erection of a burgus.
1 S.C. pl. 7. 2 ii. a. 2. p. 66. 3 III, Insc. 233.
Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria, Div. II, Sec. A, Pt. 3. 22