DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45586#0011
Division II Section A Part 6
370
centuries before Christ. We have specimens of it, dating from the second century
b. c., in the building erected by John Hyrkanos at Arak il-Emir.1 In this building
there are two varieties, one large and having a double row of plain water-leaves, the
other small, with a single row of true acanthus. The Nabataean capitals at Si', which
follow the Corinthian model to a certain extent, have but one row of leaves, and that
a tall one, and the leaves resemble the acanthus more perhaps than those of any
other plant.
There are three perfectly distinct periods of building represented in the ruins at
Sf, two of which are definitely dated by inscriptions, the third, by unmistakable peculi-
arities of style. The first is a Nabataean period dated by an inscription which tells us
that the temple was begun in the third quarter of the first century before Christ. I
believe that some of the fragments here are somewhat older than the earliest date
named in the inscription — 33 b. c. - or, in other words, that the inscription does not
record the actual foundation of the building. The second period is also devoid of
Hellenistic influence, and is dateable within fifty years by means of inscriptions of
Agrippa II, i. e. from 50 to circ. 100 a. d. The third period is represented by frag-
ments of architectural details which were certainly executed in the second century after
Christ. The three periods would then be roughly speaking, 1st. from 50 b. c. to 50 A. d. ;
2nd. from 50 a. d. to 106 a. d., when Arabia became a Roman province under Trajan;
3d. from 106 a. d. to the close of the reign of Caracalla in 217 a. d., which marks the
end of this particular style in Syria. There are no evidences of building activity in
Sic in the later style of the Roman period, or in Christian times; in fact, as we shall
see later, the temples appear to have been the particular mark of early Christian
violence, perhaps, as M. de Vogue suggests, owing to the activities of Herod and of
the presence of inscriptions of that prince in the precinct. It is probable that the place
has been deserted since the beginning of the fourth century.
Restoration.
The general condition of the ruins and the state of preservation of the buildings
has been briefly referred to in the foregoing pages. It is not difficult to imagine that
the task of restoring them in drawings for these publications has not been a simple
one. None of the buildings preserves more than two metres of the original height of
its walls; but this is sufficient, in a majority of cases, to provide us with a ground plan.
Wherever the fallen fragments of the superstructures have been destroyed, or carried
away, the problem is very difficult, and usually insolvable. But fortunately, in the greater
number of these buildings, the details of the superstructure still lie as they fell, and the
first step is to separate those details and fragments which have some character or
meaning from the ordinary building stones and debris. Then, in the case of architecture
of the Roman period, the task is an easy one. If the lower parts of the building are
in situ it is not difficult to reconstruct arches and columns, and to compose entablatures
from pieces of architrave, frieze and cornice. But with the Nabataean buildings the
case is quite different. For these there is only one example which preserves even a
small part of its superstructure intact to the roof, that is the temple at Suweda which
is in many respects very different from the buildings at Sic. When strange-looking
1 II, A. 1. Pl. 11.
370
centuries before Christ. We have specimens of it, dating from the second century
b. c., in the building erected by John Hyrkanos at Arak il-Emir.1 In this building
there are two varieties, one large and having a double row of plain water-leaves, the
other small, with a single row of true acanthus. The Nabataean capitals at Si', which
follow the Corinthian model to a certain extent, have but one row of leaves, and that
a tall one, and the leaves resemble the acanthus more perhaps than those of any
other plant.
There are three perfectly distinct periods of building represented in the ruins at
Sf, two of which are definitely dated by inscriptions, the third, by unmistakable peculi-
arities of style. The first is a Nabataean period dated by an inscription which tells us
that the temple was begun in the third quarter of the first century before Christ. I
believe that some of the fragments here are somewhat older than the earliest date
named in the inscription — 33 b. c. - or, in other words, that the inscription does not
record the actual foundation of the building. The second period is also devoid of
Hellenistic influence, and is dateable within fifty years by means of inscriptions of
Agrippa II, i. e. from 50 to circ. 100 a. d. The third period is represented by frag-
ments of architectural details which were certainly executed in the second century after
Christ. The three periods would then be roughly speaking, 1st. from 50 b. c. to 50 A. d. ;
2nd. from 50 a. d. to 106 a. d., when Arabia became a Roman province under Trajan;
3d. from 106 a. d. to the close of the reign of Caracalla in 217 a. d., which marks the
end of this particular style in Syria. There are no evidences of building activity in
Sic in the later style of the Roman period, or in Christian times; in fact, as we shall
see later, the temples appear to have been the particular mark of early Christian
violence, perhaps, as M. de Vogue suggests, owing to the activities of Herod and of
the presence of inscriptions of that prince in the precinct. It is probable that the place
has been deserted since the beginning of the fourth century.
Restoration.
The general condition of the ruins and the state of preservation of the buildings
has been briefly referred to in the foregoing pages. It is not difficult to imagine that
the task of restoring them in drawings for these publications has not been a simple
one. None of the buildings preserves more than two metres of the original height of
its walls; but this is sufficient, in a majority of cases, to provide us with a ground plan.
Wherever the fallen fragments of the superstructures have been destroyed, or carried
away, the problem is very difficult, and usually insolvable. But fortunately, in the greater
number of these buildings, the details of the superstructure still lie as they fell, and the
first step is to separate those details and fragments which have some character or
meaning from the ordinary building stones and debris. Then, in the case of architecture
of the Roman period, the task is an easy one. If the lower parts of the building are
in situ it is not difficult to reconstruct arches and columns, and to compose entablatures
from pieces of architrave, frieze and cornice. But with the Nabataean buildings the
case is quite different. For these there is only one example which preserves even a
small part of its superstructure intact to the roof, that is the temple at Suweda which
is in many respects very different from the buildings at Sic. When strange-looking
1 II, A. 1. Pl. 11.