DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45584#0036
320
Division II Section A Part 5
Corinthian capitals built into the north wall (Ill. 288), and by fragments of two conchas
and the end of one pediment built into the other crude wall. They are not difficult
to restore with every probability of correctness from these fragments, and are almost
exactly similar to niches correspondingly placed in the front walls of the Basilica at
Shakka 1 and the little temple at Br6keh 3 in the Ledja, except that the order in these
other examples was the Ionic. Other details appearing in the new wall are a corner
pilaster cap, a piece of heavy cornice with modillions, pieces of richly carved architrave,
which differ slightly in measurement from the interior architraves, and several bits ot
frieze wrought with the guilloche, some pieces flat and others curved for use in an
arcuated entablature. Some of these fragments undoubtedly belonged to the interior
entablature, others certainly did not, and were quite certainly parts of the exterior
enrichment of the temple. Other interesting details of this fagade of which we have record,
but of which no remnant remains, are four bronze torch holders which were affixed to
the wall at both ends of the lintels of the two small portals. There are parts of four
inscriptions, dedicating the torch holderss, still in place in the wall, and over two of
them are the sockets which received the supports of the torch holders, as shown in
Ill. 292. The restoration of the facade, or north wall, should be compared with the
drawing made by M. Rey of the front wall of the Pretorium at Mismiyeh 4 now entirely
destroyed.
The beauty of the interior ornament is shown in the photographs (Ill. 290 and
291) and in Plate XIX. Very little restoration was necessary, as will be seen in Ill. 292
Section A-B. There are few monuments of antiquity in which the finer details have
been so well preserved. The illustrations speak for themselves, and such parts as are
in situ are indicated by stippling in Ill. 292. It is astonishing to find such refinement
of technique in such a material as basalt, and at a date which we know to have been
near the close of the second century after Christ. Certain points of interest are to be
noted in departures from the canons of Classic architecture: for instance, the interior
entablature is much too heavy for the columns which were already reduced in scale by
being elevated upon pedestals, and the capitals which were given height to suit the
entablature were greatly compressed all around to fit the shafts (Pl. XIX). A similar
error is to be seen in the little pilasters which flank the upper openings beside the
apse, where the caps are much too tall for the pilasters. The omission, above these
pilasters, of a complete entablature, and the substitution of the beautiful volutes are
other features which show that the work is not to be called Roman, and has an inde-
pendent descent from the Hellenistic architecture of Asia. In many respects this
architecture resembles that of the Classic Revival more closely than it does the con-
temporaneous architecture of Rome. Along the side walls, between the engaged columns
of the interior, are projecting brackets to hold statues, and each bracket has its inscription.5
Another inscription,6 one upon the curved wall of the apse, records the gilding of the
statue of Tyche and of the niche itself. The statue of the divinity was perhaps one
of heroic size proportioned to the apse in which it stood.
On the south side of the birkeh, that is the side opposite the temple, are the
remains of a colonnade (Ill. 293). It would be impossible, without systematic excava-
tions, to discover the original form of this structure or its extent; but, from the part
1 cf. A.A.E.S. II, p. 367. 2 cf. II, a. 7. 3 III, a. 5, inscrs. 653 A. B. C.
4 Voyage dans le Haouran^ Pl. III. 5 III, A. 5, insc. 655 et al. 6 III, A. 5, insc. 654.
Division II Section A Part 5
Corinthian capitals built into the north wall (Ill. 288), and by fragments of two conchas
and the end of one pediment built into the other crude wall. They are not difficult
to restore with every probability of correctness from these fragments, and are almost
exactly similar to niches correspondingly placed in the front walls of the Basilica at
Shakka 1 and the little temple at Br6keh 3 in the Ledja, except that the order in these
other examples was the Ionic. Other details appearing in the new wall are a corner
pilaster cap, a piece of heavy cornice with modillions, pieces of richly carved architrave,
which differ slightly in measurement from the interior architraves, and several bits ot
frieze wrought with the guilloche, some pieces flat and others curved for use in an
arcuated entablature. Some of these fragments undoubtedly belonged to the interior
entablature, others certainly did not, and were quite certainly parts of the exterior
enrichment of the temple. Other interesting details of this fagade of which we have record,
but of which no remnant remains, are four bronze torch holders which were affixed to
the wall at both ends of the lintels of the two small portals. There are parts of four
inscriptions, dedicating the torch holderss, still in place in the wall, and over two of
them are the sockets which received the supports of the torch holders, as shown in
Ill. 292. The restoration of the facade, or north wall, should be compared with the
drawing made by M. Rey of the front wall of the Pretorium at Mismiyeh 4 now entirely
destroyed.
The beauty of the interior ornament is shown in the photographs (Ill. 290 and
291) and in Plate XIX. Very little restoration was necessary, as will be seen in Ill. 292
Section A-B. There are few monuments of antiquity in which the finer details have
been so well preserved. The illustrations speak for themselves, and such parts as are
in situ are indicated by stippling in Ill. 292. It is astonishing to find such refinement
of technique in such a material as basalt, and at a date which we know to have been
near the close of the second century after Christ. Certain points of interest are to be
noted in departures from the canons of Classic architecture: for instance, the interior
entablature is much too heavy for the columns which were already reduced in scale by
being elevated upon pedestals, and the capitals which were given height to suit the
entablature were greatly compressed all around to fit the shafts (Pl. XIX). A similar
error is to be seen in the little pilasters which flank the upper openings beside the
apse, where the caps are much too tall for the pilasters. The omission, above these
pilasters, of a complete entablature, and the substitution of the beautiful volutes are
other features which show that the work is not to be called Roman, and has an inde-
pendent descent from the Hellenistic architecture of Asia. In many respects this
architecture resembles that of the Classic Revival more closely than it does the con-
temporaneous architecture of Rome. Along the side walls, between the engaged columns
of the interior, are projecting brackets to hold statues, and each bracket has its inscription.5
Another inscription,6 one upon the curved wall of the apse, records the gilding of the
statue of Tyche and of the niche itself. The statue of the divinity was perhaps one
of heroic size proportioned to the apse in which it stood.
On the south side of the birkeh, that is the side opposite the temple, are the
remains of a colonnade (Ill. 293). It would be impossible, without systematic excava-
tions, to discover the original form of this structure or its extent; but, from the part
1 cf. A.A.E.S. II, p. 367. 2 cf. II, a. 7. 3 III, a. 5, inscrs. 653 A. B. C.
4 Voyage dans le Haouran^ Pl. III. 5 III, A. 5, insc. 655 et al. 6 III, A. 5, insc. 654.