The Great Colonnade of Palmyra Reconsidered

THE GREAT COLONNADE OF PALMYRA RECONSIDERED

MAREK BARAÑSKI

The Great Colonnade of Palmyra, the most spectacular architectural monument of the desert city, has been admired by travellers and scholars ever since the 18th century, while the extraordinary feature of column brackets bearing inscriptions interested historians and epigraphists. The Great Colon- nade and the Monumental Arch became a landmark not only of Palmyra but also of Syria. As it happens, however, some best known monuments do not always get all the attention they deserve. This is the case here, in spite of many descriptions, engravings and photographs provided over the years by travellers and archaeologists active in Palmyra. The first scholarly accounts describing the Colonnade were due to A. Gabriel and O. Puchstein, who briefly described the monument and provided sketchy plans.1 It was J. Cantineau who marked all the standing columns in order to locate the inscriptions he published or republished in his Inven- taire.2 The restoration works at the Monumental Arch, completed in the 1930s, brought an architectural inventory of the monument.3 In the sixties, extensive excavations cleared the central part of the Colonnade and the area to the east of the Arch. Restoration of the Great Tetrapyle, the propylon of the Baths and the portico of the Great Nympheum were ready to mark the XVIIth Con- gress of Classical Archaeology, held in Syria in 1967.4 Some years later, more excavations were conducted in the western part of the Colonnade by the Palmyra Museum. The result was the discovery of a complex of Early

1 Gabriel, A., “Recherches archéologiques à Palmyre”, Syria, 7, (1926), pp. 3-24; O. Puchstein, in: Th. Wiegand, Palmyra, (Berlin, 1932), p. 19. 2 Cantineau, J., Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, III, (Beyrouth, 1930). 3 Cf. R. Amy, “Premières restaurations à l'arc monumental de Palmyre”, Syria, 14, (1933), pp. 396-411. 4 Cf. Ostrasz, A., “Note sur le plan de la partie médiane de la rue principale de Palmyre”, AAS, 19, (1969), pp. 109-120. 38 THE GREAT COLONNADE OF PALMYRA RECONSIDERED

Fig. 1. Development of the central part of the Great Colonnade: ca AD 180, 220, and 300 MAREK BARANSKI 39

Islamic shops inserted into the middle of the avenue, converting it into a suq.5 Many columns were re-erected at various points, and arches at some cross- ings were reconstructed. All this has considerably changed the original land- scape of the ruins as seen by early travellers. The Great Colonnade begins at the Funerary Temple in the West and con- tinues up to the entrance of the Bel Temple. The course of the avenue changes direction twice. There have been several attempts to date to explain this irregular course of the Colonnade.6 The street began its development at the West end in about the middle of the 2nd century. The direction of the western sector was probably determined by the presumed course of the city walls.7 The avenue would thus separate the old town of Palmyra from the Northern Quarter, laid down in the later half of the 2nd century. The regular street grid there is not exactly perpendicular to the Colonnade, suggesting that the new city did not share the same venue as the main street. Apart from a portico of eight columns dated by an honorific inscription to before AD 158,8 some columns further West confirm the early dating, pre- senting brackets for statues mounted as an afterthought in sockets especially cut for that purpose. These columns were made out of six to eight short drums, being clearly distinct from later columns which consisted of three high segments and a short drum cut together with a bracket, as found in the middle and eastern sections of the Colonnade, seemingly dated only in the 3rd century, as suggested by several honorific inscriptions of this period in its central section (Fig. 2-3). This difference results from the general development of the building techniques in Palmyra, bringing in the new technique I have ventured to call “opus Palmyrenum”, and abandoning the classical opus emplectum in favour of huge stone slabs set upright on the edge.9 This practice created a magnifi-

5 As'ad, Kh., Stepniowski, F., “The Umayyad Suq in Palmyra”, DaM, 4, (1989), pp. 205-223. 6 Cf. Schlumberger, D., “Le développement urbain de Palmyre”, Berytus, 2, (1935), pp. 149-162; Frézouls, E., “Questions d'urbanisme palmyrénien”, Palmyre bilan et perspectives (Strasbourg, 1976), pp. 191-207; Saliou, C., “Les rues à colonnades à Palmyre dans le cadre de l'urbanisme romain impérial: originalité et conformisme”, in Palmyra and the Silk Road, Palmyra Symposium 1992, (in print); Will, E., Les Palmyréniens. La Venise des sables (Paris, 1992), p. 122-123. 7 Gawlikowski, M., Syria, 51, (1974), pp. 236-239. 8 Cantineau, J., Inventaire, 3, 26. 9 Baranski, M., “Opus Palmyrenum”, DaM, 5, (1991), pp. 59-63; “Building Techniques in Palmyra”, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, 5, (1995), pp. 231-233. 40 THE GREAT COLONNADE OF PALMYRA RECONSIDERED

Fig. 2. Columns of the 2nd century type (6 + 8 drums). MAREK BARANSKI 41 cent impression of monumental ashlar masonry, while in fact the fabric is much less solid. The introduction of “opus Palmyrenum” resulted in enor- mous time saving, crucial in the period of intense building activity in the city. The columns made up of a smaller number of elements contributed to the same effect and could be dated to the same time. The analysis of architectural development of Palmyra confirmed that this technique was widely used from the beginning of the 3rd century, presumably from its second decade. This particularity can be an additional factor in dating specific sectors of the Great Colonnade, and in general stays in agreement with the style of the capitals. It can be very helpful wherever no inscriptions remain. The decorative patterns of column brackets can also be considered: up to eight forms of brackets may be seen along the Great Colonnade. All these observations show that most of the porticoes of the 2nd century were erected in the western part of the avenue, while only a few can be found in the central and eastern parts. Moreover, while earlier porticoes are always short and correspond to single blocks of buildings, most 3rd century colonnades form long lines independent of the layout of adjacent buildings. The later date is suggested in this case by the fact that some long porticoes were never erected and their alignment was marked only by a row of unfinished bases. The width of the Great Colonnade varies considerably. The western part is 11.7 m wide in the middle, with two sidewalks of ca. 7 m each, while the eastern part uniformly measures 22.7 m in the middle, while the sidewalks are 6.7 m. The dimensions of the central part are more complex: the street width diminishes considerably from ca. 14 m at the Tetrapylon to 10 m in front of the Monumental Arch, while the southern sidewalk has 8.5 m at the Caesareum, 8.95 m at the Theatre, and 6.8 m behind the Nebo Temple, and the northern porticoes range from 7 m at the propylon of the Baths, and 6.7 m at the Nymphaeum, to 6.3 m close to the Monumental Arch. Moreover, while we find a uniform row of columns on the southern side, the northern tier was interrupted by the high portico of the Nymphaeum and the protruding entrance to the Baths. More intriguing is the fact that the southern colonnade deviates slightly from its course to point toward a pilaster of the Monumental Arch. Common opinion describes the Great Colonnade as an avenue cutting through an existing town in order to link the western end of the city and the gate of the great sanctuary of Bel. Its course is said to have avoided earlier buildings, while the resulting changes of direction were concealed by such monuments as the Great Tetrapylon and the Monumental Arch. However, as 42 THE GREAT COLONNADE OF PALMYRA RECONSIDERED

Fig. 3. Columns of the 3rd century type (with short bracket drums). MAREK BARANSKI 43 the western sector of the Colonnade was traced before AD 158, the only important building standing in the way at that time of which we know was the Nabu Temple. Therefore, there should be some other reason for the street not to lead directly to the Bel Temple, with just one turn to avoid the temenos of Nabu. At the same time, adjusting an angle of this temenos in about 180 AD10 and building the Caesareum and the Theatre at about the end of the 2nd century seems to show that the whole avenue was not originally planned as early as its western sector. Indeed, the irregular layout of the middle part of the Colonnade could suggest that it was not meant as a direct continuation of the western part. A closer look at the Monumental Arch strongly confirms this impression. Indeed, it seems clear that the Arch was first designed as a free-standing structure, fully visible from the west and presumably also from the east. A dramatic change occured when the rows of columns reached the monument. This resulted in the insertion of brackets into the original decorative pan- els, intended to support the entablature of the Colonnade. Presumably only then was an upper tier added to the structure of the Arch, as it was built using a different technique. Additionally, the southern row of columns deviates slightly from its course in order to meet the pilaster of the Arch. The Monumental Arch was in fact a part of another major architectural project. It opened an imposing colonnaded approach to the Propylaea of the Bel Temple. This was, for some reason, traced obliquely to the orientation of the sanctuary itself and presumably cut through a densely-built area between the temples of Bel and of Nabu. Shops and banquetting rooms were erected behind the colonnades of this monumental complex resembling the earlier Transverse Colonnade at the other end of the city.11 Presumably, the monumental setting of the approaches to the sanctuary of Bel was started at about the end of the 2nd century and continued into the begining of the 3rd, that is, after the Propylaea were completed in 175, but continued when the andron was set up in 211. The cutting of a corner of the Nabu temenos at about that time therefore seems to have been intended to allow a better view from the West towards the Monumental Arch and wider access to the avenue leading to the Bel temple. The Great Nympheum is a later addition inserted into the already existing Colonnade between the Arch and the sanctuary.

10 Seigne, J., in: Bounni, A., Saliby, N., Seigne, J., Le sanctuaire de Nabu à Palmyre, (Paris, 1992), pl. III and VI. 11 Cf. Will, E., Syria, 60, (1983), pp. 69-81. 44 THE GREAT COLONNADE OF PALMYRA RECONSIDERED

Fig. 4. Unfinished column bases east of the Monumental Arch. MAREK BARANSKI 45

At the other end of the Great Colonnade, the gate opening the avenue from the West was built at about the end of the 2nd century. It is striking that for a long time the gate opened onto the outward direction to nowhere. The Transverse Colonnade, nearly perpendicular to the Great Colonnade, led into the same more or less empty area, lacking any architectural character. This situation changed dramatically in the middle of the 3rd century, when two huge neighbouring tombs (nos 86 and 173d) closed the perspectives of the Transverse and the Great Colonnades. Their construction created a magnifi- cent architectural setting at the meeting point of the two avenues, but it obviously was an afterthought. The lack of such a solution in the 2nd century leads me to suppose that at that time the Great Colonnade was a rather sec- ondary entrance to the town center, probably providing an access for those who wanted to avoid the narrow and crowded streets of the old part of Palmyra. We can presume, therefore, that the original project of the Great Colonnade was limited to its western sector. It appears from these considerations that the middle part of the Colonnade would have been built later than both ends of the avenue, and should be considered an attempt to organise the already existing urban space. The development of this area was obviously not homogenous, and it was apparently not planned at the time when the western sector was being erected. There is also a notable difference between the ground levels at the central and the western parts of the Colonnade. Creation of the monumental approach to the Bel temple changed the situation dramatically, and led to a correction of the Nabu temenos. As a result, two separated colonnades at the west and east ends of the city were connected by building the southern row of columns, probably starting from the East as is suggested by an inscription of the year 224. The erection of the Great Tetrapyle on an oval plaza harmonized in a masterly manner with the old colonnades and made them look uniform. We can presume from the presence of several honorific inscriptions for Odeinath and Zenobia, set up in the years 257 to 267 on columns in front of the Theatre, that the central sector of the Great Colonnade became the most important part of the avenue. The latest element of the avenue is the portico of the Baths, set on a podium, yet perfectly incorporated into the colonnade (Fig. 1). A fragmentary inscription on the architrave above the street arch east of the Theatre may be another proof of a late date for the erection of the southern colonnade in the middle sector. I am grateful to Professor Gawlikowski who kindly read it for me and provided a reinterpretation. He reads the date as AD 259/260 or 262/263, applying it to the building of the arch itself. This is therefore the only inscription of the Colonnade directly providing a building 46 THE GREAT COLONNADE OF PALMYRA RECONSIDERED date. However, the dated honorific inscriptions on nearby columns, while obviously giving only the ante quem dating, fit perfectly in the same chronologi- cal range.

Note on the inscription on the arch near the Theatre (M. Gawlikowski) The inscription was recorded at the turn of this century by M. Sobern- heim,12 but was first commented upon by J.T. Milik 65 years later.13 Unfor- tunately, Milik considered this fragment to have been reused in order to be able to join it with other fragments found to the East of the Monumental Arch, and attributed it to an andron, supposedly built in AD 128. In reality, the stone is without any doubt in its original place and consequently has noth- ing to do with the supposed “andron”. The Greek letters …WNA ETOUS are followed by traces that can be read as A/G and O/S, and as the preceding word cannot be ANDR]WNA, being inscribed as it is on a street arch, but is most probably to\n pa/tr]wna, referring to none other than Odeinath, as suggested by the wording of a series of inscriptions from the Colonnade dated in AD 257/258.14 The date must be restored as AO[F]' or DO[F]”, that is AD 259/260 or 262/263.

12 “Palmyrenische Inschriften II”, MVAG, (1905), 2, p. 24, no 17. 13 Milik, J.T., Dédicaces faites par des dieux (Paris, 1970), p. 240. 14 Gawlikowski, M., Syria, 62, (1985), pp. 254-5.