DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45603#0009
152
II. B. 4.
position, represent a unit over against the Djebel Riha from which they are separated
by a plain less than 20 miles wide. Interesting as are these comparisons, it would be
a fruitless task to spend much time in attempting to account for them. I shall not
offer any definitive explanation, and shall only mention a few points which may have
some bearing upon the situation. It is not difficult to account for the contrasts be-
tween the architecture of these hill-towns and that of the towns in the basalt country
over toward the Euphrates, or of the towns in Southern Syria ; for the material at hand
gives a sufficient explanation; but there is no such explanation for the contrasts that
exist between the architecture of the Djebel Riha and that of the groups of hills further
north; for the material is identical in both regions — a fine white limestone. It can-
not be assumed that there was any important racial difference between the inhabitants
of the two districts; yet it is important to note that, while the language of the in-
scriptions of the Djebel Riha is uniformly Greek, with occasional instances of Latin,
the inscriptions of the other groups of hills were written, not only in Greek and Latin,
but also quite frequently in Syriac, two notable examplesx, of secular character, appear-
ing upon shop-fronts. This is, of course, no proof, but is an indication that the more
northern groups of hills were more closely in touch with the Syriac centres of civili-
zation farther east, across the Euphrates. In this same connection it should be noted
that the northern groups were situated in closer proximity to the great trade route
between the northern Mediterranean ports and the nearer Orient. The Plain of Ser-
meda, in the heart of the northern hills, was the diverging point of two great high-
ways ; for the Roman road from Antioch and the coast bifurcated in this plain, one branch
following the ancient road, of which there are still such impressive remains, in the
direction of Chaicis, Palmyra and the southeast, the other taking the course of the
present post-route to Aleppo (Beroea), and on to the Euphrates, connecting with Edessa
and northern Persia. The chief outlet of the Djebel Riha was only the old road to
the Phoenician-Greek cities of the coast, like Gabala, Aradus and Tripolis, by way of
the Roman road from Djisr ish-Shughr to Ladikiyeh. These facts alone might account
not only for the more common use of Syriac in the inscriptions of one locality, and
the exclusive use of the Classical lanomaofes in the other: but also for the differences
in the character of the towns in the two localities, and in their architecture. The
commercial character of many of the towns in the northern group may be sufficiently
explained by their nearness to the highway of trade; the peculiarities of architectural
forms may be the reflection of contact with the East. And, on the whole, as one
studies the architecture of the two districts, he finds that the buildings of the Djebel
Riha, especially the houses and monumental tombs, preserve more of the Greek spirit,
in the dignity of their proportions and the reserved quality of their ornament;
while the architecture of these groups of hills to the north manifests a more Oriental
quality, in less dignity of proportions, in the playful treatment of the Classical orders,
and especially in the richness, intricacy, and> often, over-elaboration, of its carved
ornament.
Aside from a larger interest in trade in the north, there can be little doubt that
the inhabitants of both localities followed very much the same pursuits. In both regions
we discover the same extensive remains of wine and olive culture; in both, the towns
IV, Syr. inscs. 14, 15.
II. B. 4.
position, represent a unit over against the Djebel Riha from which they are separated
by a plain less than 20 miles wide. Interesting as are these comparisons, it would be
a fruitless task to spend much time in attempting to account for them. I shall not
offer any definitive explanation, and shall only mention a few points which may have
some bearing upon the situation. It is not difficult to account for the contrasts be-
tween the architecture of these hill-towns and that of the towns in the basalt country
over toward the Euphrates, or of the towns in Southern Syria ; for the material at hand
gives a sufficient explanation; but there is no such explanation for the contrasts that
exist between the architecture of the Djebel Riha and that of the groups of hills further
north; for the material is identical in both regions — a fine white limestone. It can-
not be assumed that there was any important racial difference between the inhabitants
of the two districts; yet it is important to note that, while the language of the in-
scriptions of the Djebel Riha is uniformly Greek, with occasional instances of Latin,
the inscriptions of the other groups of hills were written, not only in Greek and Latin,
but also quite frequently in Syriac, two notable examplesx, of secular character, appear-
ing upon shop-fronts. This is, of course, no proof, but is an indication that the more
northern groups of hills were more closely in touch with the Syriac centres of civili-
zation farther east, across the Euphrates. In this same connection it should be noted
that the northern groups were situated in closer proximity to the great trade route
between the northern Mediterranean ports and the nearer Orient. The Plain of Ser-
meda, in the heart of the northern hills, was the diverging point of two great high-
ways ; for the Roman road from Antioch and the coast bifurcated in this plain, one branch
following the ancient road, of which there are still such impressive remains, in the
direction of Chaicis, Palmyra and the southeast, the other taking the course of the
present post-route to Aleppo (Beroea), and on to the Euphrates, connecting with Edessa
and northern Persia. The chief outlet of the Djebel Riha was only the old road to
the Phoenician-Greek cities of the coast, like Gabala, Aradus and Tripolis, by way of
the Roman road from Djisr ish-Shughr to Ladikiyeh. These facts alone might account
not only for the more common use of Syriac in the inscriptions of one locality, and
the exclusive use of the Classical lanomaofes in the other: but also for the differences
in the character of the towns in the two localities, and in their architecture. The
commercial character of many of the towns in the northern group may be sufficiently
explained by their nearness to the highway of trade; the peculiarities of architectural
forms may be the reflection of contact with the East. And, on the whole, as one
studies the architecture of the two districts, he finds that the buildings of the Djebel
Riha, especially the houses and monumental tombs, preserve more of the Greek spirit,
in the dignity of their proportions and the reserved quality of their ornament;
while the architecture of these groups of hills to the north manifests a more Oriental
quality, in less dignity of proportions, in the playful treatment of the Classical orders,
and especially in the richness, intricacy, and> often, over-elaboration, of its carved
ornament.
Aside from a larger interest in trade in the north, there can be little doubt that
the inhabitants of both localities followed very much the same pursuits. In both regions
we discover the same extensive remains of wine and olive culture; in both, the towns
IV, Syr. inscs. 14, 15.