Hellenistic Architecture in Syria

Hellenistic Architecture

in Syria

A D ISS ERTATIO N

PRESENTED TO THE F ACULTY O F PRINCETON UNIVERSITY IN CANDIDACY F O R TH E DEGREE O F Docron O F PH ILOSOPHY

R ﬁRRAY R. 5 . BUTLE , J

PRINCETO N UNIVERSITY PRESS PRIN CETO N

LON D ON : HUMPHRE Y MILF ORD OXF ORD U NIVE RS ITY PRES S 1917

1 09 09 05

PREF ACE

The purpose o f this thesis is to show tha t the architecture of S en h D yria up to the d of t e third century A . was Hellenistic. n In general only dated monuments have bee considered, or e c those whose p riod an be determined with certainty. With

these restrictions , all the monuments of Northern Central Syria and D ran a f m of the j ebel Hau , showing det ils o any i po rtance, en Baalbec a have be considered. , as being in process of public i ha s een e c a t on, b omitted exc pt for oc asion l reference . South of the Ha uran only the ruins a t Arak il - Emir ha ve been ih o D r or ren cluded, with those f je ash and Amma n f refe ce . men 1 m Monu ts published by Mr. H . C. Butler since April, 9 , c are not in luded . In the spelling of names the system has been followed that r n a a is employed by D . E no Littm nn in the public tions of the America n Archaeological Expedition to Syr ia in 1 899- 1 900 t n c e n wi hout the use of diacritical sig s . For a l arer illustratio of some details reference has been made to the photographs e taken by the same expedition. Full sets of th se may be se cured on applica tion to the American Archaeological Expedi

N . . . r . tion to Syria, University Lib ary, Princeton, . J , U S A I desire to take thi s opportunity to extend to Professors Allan Marquand and Charles Rufus Morey my grateful acknowledgment for their guidance and criticism in my studies in archaeology : but especially I acknowledge my very great indebtedness to Professo r Howard Crosby Butler. It was at his t in suggestion that his investigation was begun, and his a s a valuable aid, both in m terial and uggestion, alone m de it possible.

5. BU LE URRAY R T R M , J . M rwick n e t e , Pri c ton Universi y, r 1 1 2 Ap il, 9 .

d 1 1 . Revise , July, 9 7

H ELLEN ISTIC ARCH ITECTU RE IN SYRIA

INTRO DUCTIO N ” trz owski architec In his Kleinasien , S yg , speaking of the n has ture of the East in the fourth ce tury, pointed out that it “ Ar hblii i ii r ft nicht anderes als eine t Nac te se n d e von dem, was die hellenistische Kunst des Orients auf diesem Gebiete h ﬁ ”1 “ h friih er esc a en a . sc on g h ben muss and again, Was Kon stantin in seinen Monumentalbauten an den Anfang der ch rist ch Reichskunst li en stellte, das war nicht funkelnagelneu aus dem m e mO lich im e Boden gesta pft, sond rn nur g G folge einer gr ossen Entwicklung der hellenistischen Architektur in den

Grosstadten r des O ients . Von ihr aber wissen wir bis heute so gut t We have, indeed, only too scan y remains of this developed

m . Hellenistic art , such as ust have flourished at Antioch Yet the r r in est of Sy ia, and especially at Palmyra, there is a wealth o r has o f material . Little no attention been paid to the archi tecture of Syria beyond the splendid publication of the monu r ments by M . de Vogue and by Howard C osby Butler. Refer ences to it fall into two classes ; some simply assume it to be c t Greek , while others all Roman every hing that belongs to our 3 th a a r ma t cla ssifica era, e period of Rom n politic l sup e cy ei her h tion being made wit out any specific details or proof . Butler alone has directly denied the Roman influence in the architec ‘ m . ture of this ti e, and he suggested this investigation of details r e As was stated in the p eface , it has b en necessary in gen m Y eral to consider only dated monu ents . et the number of h a ff and t ese is so gre t, and the evidence they o er so varied so

r m striking, that only a p esentation of details by single monu ents ﬂic r could su e. Furthermore, such st ong Oriental inﬂuence was, m r t in any cases , p esent beside the Greek, hat only the presenta tion of the monuments as a whole could lead clearly to the h necessary conclusions . T is has caused much borrowing from ’ m ma Butler s publications . Without his per ission to use his terial it would ha ve been impossible to present this chapter in

Syrian architecture . S yrian monuments have been divided into two great classes ; “ a c . those built before Rom n dominion, and those suc eeding it But it by no means follows that the advent of Roman political power meant the advent of Roman artistic supremacy. Pom ’ pey s cammign was too hurried to be lasting even in its military results : and later we ﬁnd Antony attempting to plunder Pal ‘ myra as an alien and hostile city . The effect of Roman conquest upo n the conquered territory im was political reorganization . Laws and government they posed, but religion and the arts they took unto themselves from m the conquered people. It was as if the Ro an obeyed literally the command m Tu regere imperio populos , Romane, emento ; r r acis u Hae tibi c unt a tes ; p q e imponere morem, r subiec i e erb Parce e t s t debellare sup os. " As Butler has said in speaking of the region of the South “ ‘ ’ - What we ca ll the Roman architecture was not an art

h r that was broug t from overseas and t ansplanted in new soil, but represented the mere extension of the art of one portion of Syria to another portion—from Greek Syria to Semitic Syria a w m her process hich Ro e, with wonderful power for organi zation and ama lga mation accomplished as doubtless no other ” power could have done. The comparative pea ce and security afforded by Roman rule and the stable organization of civil affairs made possible the further development of an architecture that wa s an heritage when the Romans ﬁrst came and which had a lready made its “ sc force felt at Rome . To show this is the aim of this di ussion but for the Romans to intr oduce an art of their own was im i f n possible for no other reaso than that they had none, but t were borrowing from just these provinces, wi h which conquest a had brought them into cont ct, and were carrying home the spoil that ma de Rome the clearing house of the world . In the Imperial architecture of Rom e we ﬁnd only another species of

Hellenistic architecture with certain local modiﬁcations, the results of its new environment . Even the strongest adherents e r of Rome as an artistic c nter, originating rather than eceptive, claim only the arch and all that it involves as an individual Yet w feature . e shall see that the arch was used in Asia Minor in Hellenistic times before Rome had ﬁnished her strug

r gles with Ca thage . And it is doubtful whether Etruria, in

2 hi o bequeat ng the arch to the other Italian pe ples, did not merely h pass on what she herself had received from t e East . It would be absurd enough to spea k of Rome introducing e th forms of her art upon another, wh n she had received em from the common parent ; but a worse ﬁeld than Syria for such D h a transplanting could scarcely be imagined. As ie l has said —“ in spea king of Syria In spite of the profound inﬂuence ex erted n f by Greek civilizatio , in spite o the long duration of ‘ m n r Roman do ination, the cou t y had always remained fort par ’ ticulariste — e e t c had Assur dly the gr at cities, such as An io h, — become, quickly enough, capitals of Hellenism but, beneath th n o th is veneer of Helle ism, there persisted, ab ve all in e coun tr c o f th i im y, the haracteristic traits e Sem tic race, so deeply pressed ou their souls that Syrian Christianity took its special chara cter from

Negative criticism in itself is worthless . Therefore it has not been suﬂi cient to show that the Syrian monuments are not Roman : the attempt ha s also been ma de to recognize those ele h O ments t at are riental , and particularly to notice original t th h fea ures, such as e arc ed intercolumniation, which show that ff this Hellenism in Syria was not the last e ort of a decadence, but a living growth , possessing in itself the power for further an d greater development . Comparison has been made most frequently with Hellenistic monuments of Asia Minor ; not that Syria necessarily borrowed

m r fro Asia Minor, but because Asia Minor best epresents the stage of Greek civilization before and during the period under l . n c consideration Had we any k owledge of Antioch, the apita

r th e m n r of the wo ld, which was by far ost inﬂue tial cente of

t t . the East , here would probably be no hesis to prove As it is , we must turn to other and less important centers fo r the

r material for compa ison . Attention has already been called to the fact that the Syrian architecture shows a quite diff erent spirit from that shown in 1 0 m m r m at . the onu ents Ro e And, as the conside ation of the o s h t n individual m nument will s ow, his is a Greek rather tha m Ro an spirit . he i m m t r im ossi In t case of the earl est onu en s it is, of cou se, p h e h The ble to deny that t ey are a dir ct Hellenistic eritage .

il- il- m m S uweda Kasr Abd at Arak E ir, the te ples and tomb at , and the two temples at Si were all built before the Romans h could secure even a definite political influence in t e country. 3 Y t w A.D e n e s . , eve when come to the first and econd centuries , m n as when arks of a Roman influe ce, if there w ever to be one, r a s th h must su ely have ppeared, we find till e Hellenistic arc i m m tecture, aintaining greater purity than its cousin at Ro e and developing within itself new features that will appear later in the conglomerate style of Rome . h e We ave alr ady said that the mass of evidence , the wide he r ff t unfamiliarity of the subject, t p esence of di erent hreads the the of artistic influence, and above all organic growth of a h h i al n rc itecture, necessitated a c ronolog c prese tation of indi e vidual monuments . It will be well therefore, before proc ed o e e n ing t the evid nce, to state bri fly the ge eral conclusions h whic that evidence demands . There are very few monuments that do not show some native

or Oriental inﬂuence . This is strongest in the Hauran, owing e and h to the power of the Nabata ans , there, in one period, t at m t o m of the te ples at Si, its streng h amounts t an almost co plete

eclipse o f Greek tradition . a The temple pl ns, while in general following Greek tradition, h m S uweda s ow, at ti es, native modiﬁcations , as at , Kanawat, m at . Si , and Pal yra Certain individual characteristics were doubtless caused by

r x m h the mate ial used . The e tre e ardness of the basalt was evi dently the rea son for unchanneled columns everywhere in the r h h South and for the total absence of dentil cou ses . On t e ot er a t m r e h nd, we ﬁnd ﬂuted shafts a Pal y a, and d ntils at both

kirh D e r d Burdj Ba a and m r and in othe Syrian buil ings . Perhaps the most str iking characteristic of all the monu h ments is their purity of proportion . We shall see in t e discus how h m the sion of the various buildings, muc ore closely entablature was conformed to the Greek proportions than to r Hellenis those of Rome . Afte all it was only natural that the tic tradition should remain pur er in a country where it was ’ an diﬂ erent opposed o nly by one d a totally inﬂuence, than in the Imperial city where countless varieties and shades of d artistic expression were mingle . ' ‘ ’ In all the monuments the acanthus is of the crisp V section

r r the r a that is characte istically G eek, and which ea liest Itali n 1 1

m u s s . exa ples, that are p rely Helleni tic, al o show Again, in x e en d the the acanthus rinceau , at a tim wh Rome covere stalks r r completely in a meaningless manne , the pu ity of the Greek 1 2 tradition was maintained . This purity in decoration is uni 4 v non r ersal . There is e of that ﬂorid excess of o nament that dis tin uishes—O r a s—the m c m g m r I perial archite ture . The te ple o f Burd Baki rha a exam t i j to t ke but one ple, is a s rik ng contrast

th nd F i a : in e new to at of Antoninus a aust n and, the cr ation of t h as the m s ca l the r al ypes, suc co po ite pita , pu ity of the origin f r o ms is retained . There are no such ﬂorid crea tions as the ca al a r cal pit s of the C a la baths . The typica l Roman temple pla n with deep pronao s and one “ o r m u m on t e u . ore columns h ret rn, does not occ r Still ore t i l signiﬁcant is the fac that the modillion corn ce, inseparab e “ f r m h t e a l m t n . o Rom n order, is usua ly replaced by a cy a io On the other hand there is abun dant evidence to show that rc u wt m i wn Syrian a hitect re had a gro h and develop ent of ts o , but a growth and development that arose from the earlier Hel l ni ti m r r e s c . t x D e tradition Wi h the e ception of , the f uits of th r is development lie beyond our period, that is, afte the end the t ur m d of hird cent y ; but, in the ti e un er consideration, sev e r r h the ral new features we e evolved that were, later, to fu nis material for that marvellous development in chur ch ar ch itec

r h u tu e w ich took the West several cent ries to equal . The ar ching of th e entablature over the central inter co lum i i ‘ ’ n at on was the most signiﬁcant of these innovations . Its earliest appea rance in Syria is in the case of Nabataea n m th w l monu ents to be quoted later, and, in e discussion , it i l be seen what use of the arch was made by the Asia Minor Greeks . r al h as t r a su A eason, purely theoretic , been he e adv nced in p

o f r r the r port the di ect Hellenistic rathe than Easte n origin , so th m far as Syria is concerned . On e other hand it ust be a dmitted that this arching of the entablature fir st occurs in a m h r n m the r te ple in w ich the Easte n i fluence is uch st onger, although in no other detail o f the temple does this influence r o ccur in the introduction of a form or principle of const uction . ‘ ’ Another innovation is the development of the nich e as a

r r the h r e wall deco ation . It appea s as early as arc ed entablatu d and its use steadily increases in each succeeding perio .

rh h m r n r th Pe aps t e ost inte esti g featu e, if not e most impor ‘ ’ o ur the m the the tant for field, is develop ent of adyton in ‘ ’ m th th e te ple cella, and en the creation of a crypt by vaulting ‘ ’ h the of t e cella floor . The addition of side chambers in adyton h h gives a prototype for t e sanctuary of a Christian churc . In h a s t has t is case, in others , limita ion of space and field pre r n vented the treatment o f much of very great inte est. An eve 5 gr eater handicap has been the lack of any systematic treat ment of the development of Roman architecture . However, the latter can only be of use after there has been a clear recog nition of the relations of the Imperial a rcnitecture to those of the r count ies that came under the Roman sway .

ARAK IL- EMIR

Kasr iI- Abd a il - r the The , at Ar k Emir, in the count y east of Jordan and south of the Hauran was ﬁrst seriously described “ . o in e by M de V gue his Temple de J rusalem. It has been “ c a t noti ed by m ny travellers and explorers , but its comple e

publication and description are due to Mr. Howard Crosby " Butler. In endeavo ring to single out the Greek inﬂuence in u the architect re , reference will be made to his work alone . He the far has given in full the history of site, so as is known , and

the v - e idence for the probable date of the Kasr il Abd . m t . In the egali hic character of the masonry, M de Saulcy has n e see Phoenician inﬂuence, while in the fri ze of lions we can f l 1 8 not but be reminded o the a most identical one at Susa . Indeed it seems highly probable that in this monum ent several lines of artistic tradition met to receive a more or less free the handling by the builders , as is certainly the case with Greek,

with which alone we are concerned . he To take up t details, in the north porch there are plinths t benea h the column bases , a use occurring as early as the III m n B r r . Ce t . . C . in the p opylon of the ago a at Magnesia The plinths are not of one piece with the base as was the Roman ” Priene custom, but are separate blocks , as at and Magnesia m t shows the sa e cutting of the entire base, bo h of the columns 2 1 r h and pilaste s , on the lowest drum of the shaft . At a heig t 1 th r of 6 cm . above e base the shaft carries a projecting ing,

rr r which Mr. Butler believes had to do with qua ying or t ans 22 h rtation . t e po The proﬁle of base itself is , curiously enough , r very close to that of the best period of Greek architectu e . As the Hellenistic period advanced the base scotia was cut back "8 m r the r more and o e, giving greater prominence to upper to us , but here the hollow of the scotia lies very little nearer the shaft “ e h center than the conv x of t e upper torus, as in the base of "s “ the Erectheion and of the monument of Lysicrates. The shafts are unchanneled as is almost universal throughout ” ’ h r r are Mr . Syria . The capitals , whic , in Butle s resto ation ,

h h a re r the assigned to the nort porc , a va iety of Greek Corin 6 2 8 h a a thian . In t eir gener l appear nce, in the arrangement of the m u a rows of leaves, and in the a o nt of bell left b re, they are ” k ur Y most li e those from the Tholos at Epida os. et the ff the springing of the central spirals is di erent, abacus is lower, and the leaves , which are of a water plant, are uncut, a capital Th instance of a native translation of a Greek form . e type of leaf and the disposition in a double row is precisely that found ” on f n the base of a pier o the seco d order, the upper in the restoration . D c The entablature is an a daptation of the Greek o ri . Ar hi m c trave r . o , etopes and t iglyphs are of one block The prop r h : I . I t h t e tion of architrave to frieze, I 4, is almost exac ly t at of "1 Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros : that o f the triglyph to th e t metope, on the central block of e pis yle, is about one to one ” a The and one half, the norm l proportion . upper end of the h triglyph groove is ﬁnis ed by a straight horizontal line, instead of a curve as in the best period ; but the triglyphs themselves ” are ﬂush with the face of the architrave and do not project as might easily have been the case if they were copied from a “ mo del o f the Seleucid period . The smaller order shows immediately above the upper torus ” of the base a double row of leaves . This also occurs above “ the base of a column from the triumphal arch at Djerash and above the bases of the co lumns of the facade of the temple at ” S uweda are h r , where, however, the leaves inverted with s a p m tongues showing between . Also in the peribolos of the Te ple ” n of Baal Samin at Si two sorts o f bases o ccur . O e has a o f h single row leaves , that are broad and cut ; the ot er, above a broad inverted cyma a narrow one that might easily have r a m received a ca ved inverted row of le ves . Such a otif is cer ” tainl r a y not Attic Greek, but p obably of Egypti n origin , or o ‘ r Persian, occuring arely in the Occident, as on the votive ‘ 1 column at D elphi and at the so - called Baths of Diana at “ Nimes .

r The Persian capitals , found in the porch and inte ior, were n h r appare tly intended to be finished, eit er by finer ca ving, or by “ ’ h h applying metal details . Capitals with bulls heads t at mig t “ repr esent the finished form occur in the Sanctuary of the ” “ r D a Ho ns at elos , and in an ex mple in the British Museum “ from Cyprus which doubtless were the result of the same “ Persian influence . The string course running below the lion frieze is certainly 7 r r not O iental, nor is the co nice that crowns the restored facade. the o f e en These details, with bases the low r order, and the l ic e m u tablature, are He len le ents in a mon ment, otherwise n thoroughly Oriental in co ception and execution . They are x m o a e a the e tremely i p rt nt, however, b c use they are by far x m earliest e a ples of Greek influence in Syria that we have . The “ . t h cen date assigned by Mr Bu ler, the beginning of t e third m r B . C. c tu y , annot be too early in view of the rese blances mentioned above to Greek work o f the fifth and fourth centuries .

SUWEDA

m r t n T o H m h . i o b a a . 8 ? B C . th The f , ca 5 Apart from e “ scription the only Oriental feature of this tomb would be “o r r tablature the stepped py amid that p obably rose above the en . “ . u d r h in situ M de Vogue fo n the fi st course of t is still , and in h r r ec d . his plate I , s ows part of a s on cou se Just such a c own ’52 h m Knido s ing is found above t e Lion To b at , thought to have been erected by the Athenians a fter their victory at Knido s ” B Dmir D r si m . C . i es in 394 At Alinda, now j , is a to b, on a m d unfluted D crepido a of four steps, istyle in antis , with oric m m m bi colu ns , crowned by a flat ass of asonry, one course g Curious combinations of both this rectangular crowning and the elements of a stepped pyramid occur in the facades at 55 “ Petra a nd at Hegr pointing probably to an Oriental origin of i n relig ous sig ificance . The Alinda tomb and numerous other examples such as the ” “ Mauso leion Ha likarana sso s ereid m at , the N Monu ent, the ’ u th e r Sarco phag s of Mourne s , and Theron s tomb at Akra "o h h th c u gas , s ow t at e general type of re tang lar tombs with

a r he vy c ownings was familiar, and not conﬁned to any one

r h r pa t of t e G eek world . ’ The architectural forms of Hamr ath s tomb are purely

Th unﬂuted D - e Greek . e oric half columns have no bas s , and m t h h are lower dia e ers in heig t, a proportion t at belongs " 1 h r the to the best period . Like t e best G eek work also is

r m h m slight inward batte . The s ooth s afts , al ost universal

a nd the m the r u in Syria , absence fro egulae of g ttae and of mutules from the cornice ar e provincial traits that m ay very r m probably be due to the ext e e hardness o f the basalt . The h h the profile of the echinus , w ile not t at of best period, is x m h better than that in some Hellenistic e a ples, and, furt er 8 a th n more, in the gre ter projection of e echi us, with abacus, in proportion to its height, again the imitation of good Greek “ n models is show . e The narrow architrave, however, is a sign of decad nce, and i u a inter olunm the d strib tion of triglyphs, three to e ch c a r space, h is c aracteristic of the Seleucid epoch , whose influence also a ppears in the Macedonian helmet with pendants and other m m m h ar orial orna ents between the colu ns . Were the tomb t at w m o of a arrior these ight be therwise explained, but though Hamrath wa s a woman we cannot conceive of her as an Ama zon, and we find a similar use of armor for decoration on the ba rriers between the columns of th e second storey of the Stoa “ “ m m th e ilet of Eu enes at Perga on and in Bouleuterion at M os. h and The placing of a triglyph at eac angle, the consequent the r th u r widening of metope , and the na rowing of e o te most “ r m inte columniations , all are Greek. At Ro e , even in the r m r Theatre of Ma cellus, where so e G eek influence persists , the “8 r u m r Vit uvian r le of a half etope at the end is obse ved . The profile of the gutter is a cyma as might be expected in a m m n Mr onu ent executed under Helle istic influence . . Butler ha s assigned an appro ximate date of the early fi rst century B “ . C.

"0 Th P ri ter al T m le h m h Mr e e p e p . T is te ple , w ich . Butler " H . o m w e mb amr th ca . 8 ? B . C dates s e here betwe n the To of a , 5 ,

- h m 0 . D . d B . C . A and the te ples at Si , 3 , is include in t is

s er th di cussion , which prop ly has to do only wi dated monu e th e m nts , for sake of illustrating the gradual trend in the

ura r m h . Ha n towa ds an al ost w olly Oriental style, as at Si 7 2 d r h The building has deci ed ir egularities . The plan s ows m h r the seven colu ns in t e epinaos , a peculia ity found also in " m o a and h m Te ple of Heli s at K nawat, arising per aps fro “ an O riental and religious origin . It is possible that the facade is o f different date from the ” unﬂuted rest of the peristyle . Its columns have an inverted row of leaves above Attic bases their capitals exceed one lower diameter in height ; and their intercolumniations dimin

e r the ish from the c nte . On the sides and rear, however, capi h r and the c tals are less t an a diamete , inter olumniations are h x a re equal, except t ose ne t to the corners which widened for " r me the width of pronaos and epinaos . Mr . Butler info ms a he that the astragal on the facade angle capit l is on t shaft, h a while in the ot er cases it is part of the c pital, and that it may 9 be that t he temple was originally pro style and was afterwa rds r made peripteral . Both capitals and bases are ve y like those "8 of the same period in the temple of Baal Samin at Si . r b a The a chitrave is made up of two stone e ms , laid side by o h n side ver eac intercolum iation . On the rear and sides the inside face of the inner of these is plain ; the outer one has four c d er equal fas iae incline slightly backward, beneath a narrow p i l “ end cu a r a . a p f scia, all with quirked edges This w s probably h r c true of t e facade also, as o iginally constru ted . Its present dilithic h condition, however, shows an architrave, also , wit an inner member treated precisely as the outer of each pair on the and e a w sides and rear, an outer one carv d with a bro d band belo

th . ree narrow fasciae, decreasing upwards The broad band is decorated with a continuous pattern of oblique squares with "0 n mo ti rosettes in the centers and pellets in the a gles , a f that D occurs in the Temple of ionysos at Pergamon, of the III Cent. 8 1 B . C.

D a oubtless in the rebuilding, the old outer half of the rchi fo r e a nd e trave was used the inn r half , an ntirely new outer h e member substituted for the old . W en this r construction a c took pl ce, we, of course, la king inscriptions, cannot tell . Yet m hi if we judge fro the capitals of the facade which, w le nec essaril r t ma y copying the olde ones in design, by heir height y abataean a point to a N influence, it must have t ken place before A a c 0 D . 4 . when the Haur n ame under Roman sway This wo uld also seem to be the case judging by th e curious orna n filleted me tal projecting course above the architrave, with a cyma recta on the inner face and panels on the sofii t of the i c r m overhang ng portion, de o ated geo etrically, which is no more

Roman than Greek . The mo uldings and ornaments of the portal jambs are almost rt all Oriental . Only an ovolo with egg and da and a bead h h t th e a recall t e Greek . In the nic es hat ﬂank the door s me is

t the . h true, hough cyma reversa also occurs But w ile both the Classic and the Oriental appear in the proﬁles and in the use a r decoration, the of the niche itself as an ornamental fe tu e ” “ Strz owski is purely Eastern . yg has discussed its origin and regards its use in Syrian temples as a translation from earlier

- brick constructions in the East . The non Greek charac ter of the niches here i s further shown by their “ ” raking cornices that do not termina te upon the co rnice ff pro per or reproduce its proﬁles . Of very di erent inspiration 10 a nd execution are the raking co rnices above the niches o f the peribolos wall from the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphro ” “ ” di i k r u d in r s as. The ra ing co nices at S we a are carved e lief ou the single block which stands above the crowning mo uld “ ings of the niche itself . The upper corners of this block are h notched out to ﬁt t e courses of the wall . On its face in the “ ” m - e an r pedi ent is an eight lob d disk, Easte n ornament pre l D cise y like those found by Mr . oughty far to the south of ” h n m Petra . T is triangular decoration may ot be derived fro

th - the form of the Greek pediment, but from e zig zag or tri ” m e n a h s angle orna nt so commo on f cades in the East . T i m oti o e o a s same f, m re fully dev l ped in later period, dominate h “ “ the great frieze of Ms atta . There is no feeling for a pedi ” a w the c w in ment l cro ning of ni he ; for later, hen the arch is ” troduced as a t , in the temple Atil, the termination of the " niche is also a niche . It is interesting to notice also that the lower edge of the ” the r i tympanum block is cut away in center, thus fo m ng f i r what is a very early example in Syria o a ﬂat reliev ng a ch .

S I ” Tem le o B aal S am n B . C. p f i , A very com plete discussion of the fragments from this place and of the r n pe iods to which they belong has bee given by Mr . Butler “ c D r the dating has been discussed by Fr. Savigna and by . “ o f Littmann . Of interest to us are only those details the O second period, with mixed Classic and riental elements, in wh ich was placed the Temple at S uweda by the analogy of its “ m the for s . In this period Mr. Butler has placed temple n a base mould, the two colum s of the porch, the rchitrave dec s and orated with oblique quares, the details of the peribolos l he a unc assic. t colonn de . The base mould is The columns in " porch have capitals very like those at S uweda to which we

refer for the question of origin . The development of the leaves to the acanthus fo rm in the examples from Si would seem to show that a classic influence xa l was felt even in the older e mples, in spite of their O rienta h t ro form. Just suc an influence must have been hat which p ” ” a Th duced the capitals o f the peribolos which is w lled . e D ev and s influence o f the oric and Ionic orders is ident, the form “ ” under discussion have been well named Nabataean transla

11 It is interesting to see tha t in the case of the Ionic “ the borrowing was evidently made from a capital of the Her ” mo enes 1 01 g type, as we should naturally expect . The archi a ha fﬁ tr ve, decorated with oblique squares, s been su ciently dis d S uw a . a es cussed under the Temple at e , which see The le v “ ” above the bases of the Nabataea n Ionic columns of the peri “ bolos and those from the temple itself‘ recall very strongly r Suweda a the examples f om , lthough the base leaves in the peribolos are not inverted . In both however the acanthus ap a a t th e pears , stronger classic m nifes ation, as in the lea ves of al temple capit s . Of greater interest to us is the adjoining

the so - Dushara building, called Temple of . Th Te l B T o n e mp e of usha ra . his m nume t whose complete publication has appeared in the Publica tions of the Princeto n m University Archaeological Expedition to Syria had pre viousl d y been described by its iscoverer, Mr . Howard Crosby F lo rile ium Butler, in the g Melchior de x o t In plan, as well as in e ecuti n of details , there is little hat h h m is classic about t e temple . As in t e Te ple of Baal Samin there is a suggestion of the Corinthian or der in th e foliate th r its r capital and in e entablatu e with th ee divisions , besides Th h a h t . e t e ddition ere of an At ic base capital , with its great “ ” 1 °‘s h the Nabataean acant us leaves, is only another of type that w e have seen in one form or another with more o r less

o f the il- m S uw eda inﬂuence Corinthian, at Arak E ir, at , and at

m h r the nearby Temple of Baal Sa in . Still the Oriental c a acter m h m predo inates, and it is just t is that akes the suggested dat

- B . A 2 C 0 D . h 1 1 . t e ing, between 3/ and about 3 only m r the possible one . Were the te ple earlie , style would be w m m H am rath o ver hel ingly classic, as in the To b of ; or, also , if i w . u h re on later, as in the temples at At l and Kana at S c a p p

r m h th derance of O iental for s , with a slig t infusion of e classic, m me o th d r as shown in this onu nt , can bel ng only to e thir a chi r h tectural per iod in the Hau an . T is begins with th e rule of B u 2 C. r Herod the Gr eat in 3 . and lasts ntil nea ly the end h m r s c . t e h of the ﬁ t entury And inscription, entioning P ilip 1 07 r rc ter minus ad uem A the Tet a h gives a q of about 30 D . The date of th e temple is all the more important because of the r n r m a feature of ve y greatest i te est, na ely the arched en m th e r tablature . It is i possible to doubt cor ectness of Mr . ’ o r n Butler s rest ation , based on existing fragme ts, which fur h the nishes us wit earliest known example of this construction . 12

Schneider who believes that its introduction was due to a cen ” tral intercolumniation too wide for the horizontal architrave . In support of this he cites various examples in which the inter 1 1 8 c . olumniation that was arched is narrower than the rest But, x h h cen of his e amples , the only one that is earlier t an the t ird AD m tury . is not Eastern, but the Purgatoriu of the Isis temenos at Pompeii‘ “ and here the arching is the heading of a m the niche and the date is the ti e of Nero . Now latter is ante m D ushara dated by the Te ple of , and in the Hauran there is another instance of a rched entablature dating from the second m century and probably three o thers . Further ore in all of these the central intercolumniation is not only broader than the rest , but in two of the cases whose dates are not certain , it is h 1 ’° so broad that it could be spanned only by an arc . For con venience a list of the Syrian examples with their dates is added here . h 1 21 — m D ar . 0 A D . C . S i Te ple of us a 33 B . 3 m 1 2 2 1 1 AD Atil Te ple 5 . m Z 1 28 A D Kanawat Te ple of eus II Cent . . . Temple of Helios P“ Tychaion Propylaea1 26 Propylaea? " ‘ ” Propylaea

SERMEDA

We turn now to the first of the three monuments of North a ern Central Syria that we shall consider . The architectur l history of the monuments of classic style in this section of the m country is summed up by Mr. Butler. — The first dated monument leaving Palmyra for special at — Sermeda h- D b tention is at , on the nort east slope of the je el ‘ c Halakah, between Antio h and Aleppo . mo i r Bicolcmmar M onument. Excavations at Telloh and N e seem to point to an Eastern origin for the erection of individual ’ mo columns , and in Solo n s temple occurs an early instance of 1 81 twin columns with symbolic meaning. In Greece we have t m ” Pausanias as au hority for their early use in arking graves, but the use of tw o columns a bove a tomb seems to have arisen m th r nk in Syria . In e no th several pairs occur at S eso while at h s Kara Kus they stand ingly, in pairs, or grouped by threes ) “ 14 The date o f the pair at Sermeda is between 1 32 and 1 41 D l "5 “ A. . The mouldings of the basement, the details of the h a e execu Corint ian capit ls, are pure in style and refin d in

Judging by the drawing of M . de Vogue and the ‘" e unﬂuted photograph of Mr . Butl r, the columns, which are on m a are about eight and e half dia eters high , and the capit ls o one . The section of entablature joining the shafts at ab ut two t t an m hirds of heir height, is perhaps adaptation to twin colu ns of the console brackets on the shafts of colonnades and temples , as at Palmyra and elsewhere . ATIL

‘” Tem le 1 1 AD D p 5 . At Atil, on the west slope of the jebel w Hauran, are two temples . For our material eshall consider only the western one which is It is a monument of c t special interest not only because of the ar hed en ablature, but also because the podium has arches within that suppo rt the cella ﬂoor . This use of arches is not surprising co nsidering the extended use of the arch that we have noticed in discussing the Temple B h m of us ara at Among the exa ples there cited, it will s d be remembered , was an arched pas age in the po ium of the “ 1 h h . B C. t C . Propylaea of Samo race , III ent Just such an arc ed construction as this at Atil occurs in the podium of the Temple “ z ? K na wat th rt of Helios at a , in e Temple of A emis at ‘“ ‘“ Djerash whose foundations are vaulted and in the Temple of Zeus at e a The Corinthian order of the columns is pur . The capit ls bu m t very slightly exceed one dia eter in height, and the form ” c of the leaves is Greek . A onsole projected from each col

mu . u and anta at about one half the height These , doubtless , ” r t the were to car y s atues , after Syrian fashion as at Palmyra . The architrave was decorated with the Greek fret and

e . rosettes, which wer very popular in Syria No cornice frag n a ments have bee found, but over the centr l intercolumniation, r the its the archit ave, and frieze with ornament of leaf scrolls “ a e arched. two in reli f , were The pairs of panels , ﬂanking the c a th c door, were de or ted wi rin eaux , the inner with the grape ‘“ h vine and t e outer with acanthus . Evidently the Oriental the u ornament, so common in earlier mon ments , had not wholly a t disappeared . Between these p nels are quar er columns , where

h e . e t e w ll is slightly broken out These are ﬂut d, the only in

15 ° stance of this that we shall ﬁnd in the Hauran except the columns decorating the gateway of the o utermost court at Si . Further Oriental treatment comes in the decoration of the niches that stand between the panels and the outer The maeander and rosettes that ornament the panels of the e ch r couch es low r ni es are sui gene is. The upper niches end in the c h e below jambs whi h are carried over in an arc , and d co rated with a most individual treatment of the guilloche . Th a re o e the h . e The niches in pairs , one ab v ot er upper of rm h the these te inate in a conch , framed by t e arching of 1 51 m Th rz o ki . e t w s ja bs conch, as S yg has observed is thoroughly Ea stern and a natural step in the evo lution of the niche as wall decoration which ﬁrst appears translated from brick into stone m in the temples and nymphaea of Syria and Asia Mino a Fur thermore the placing of the conch with linesradiating upwards , here m as and in all other , exa ples we shall quote, is Eastern , as “ ut has been pointed o by Wiegand . So far as we can judge this is the earliest example in Syrian the h r m he architecture of conc . It rep esents a develop ent in t h use of the niche parallel to the arching of the entablature . T is is an evidence of growth in the Hellenistic architecture in the East that was continuous and whose continuity was maintained r m by fresh infusions f o the Orient .

SITT- UR- RUM

Tomb o Eisidoto bicolumnar m f s. Another monu ent, dated 1 52 is o ur second monument from Northern Central

h rm eda . Syria . This is of even greater severity t an that at S e The simple mouldings that form the caps of the quadrangular h th the s afts , and e proﬁle of connecting entablature, are most

- m The h re un Ro an . pointed nic es on the faces of the shafts call the deeper o nes ou the column to Tiberius Claudius Sosan ” a dro s at B shindel ya .

BURDJ BAKIRHA T em le. t m Bur p The tetrastyle, prostyle e ple, called dj Baki rha h h D , on the nort slope of t e jebel Barisha in Northern d 1 6 1 Central Syria, ates from and is one of the very m few monuments to show any Ro an inﬂuence . Yet this in ﬂuence is neither strong nor consistent, as study of the details will prove .

16 ” the t o f h et In the plan dep h the pronaos is ardly Greek, y “ a Roman temple would have one or more columns on the re ”1 53 h turn . Furthermore there is no podium. In t e elevatio n the pedestals beneath the column bases and the proportions of the m I r m the d pedi ent , about seem ve y Ro an ; yet wi e spacing of the pilasters o n the sides and rea r is not . In the o é c m mi Mais n Carr e at Nimes, engaged olu ns, perfor ng the m h in sa e function, are muc more closely spaced ; so too the

F o rtuna h temple of Virilis , so Hellenistic in its arc itecture , which would tend to show tha t this exceptionally wide spacing no t th is not only Roman but also not Greek . Actually e pilasters are placed so as to empha size on the exterior the “ r h p esence of an adyton within t e cella . The distance from

r h the pilaste , t us marking the interior division , to either end of the cella wall is such that it is impossible that there was once a series of pilasters evenly spaced . Notice ha s been called to the fact that an adyton is usually to be found in a Syrian The principal examples are in th e Temple at Burdj B akirha 1 6 1 Temple of Zeus at Kanawat ‘Antonine

- l o T. Baa bec S called Jupiter , Antonine Temple of Artemis at D jerash Antonine m T h i - anamen 1 1 A D yc a on at Is S 9 . .

Altho ugh at an early period in Greek architecture such a ”1 °° locus templi secretior ad quem nulli est aditus nisi sacerdoti 1 6 6 was not unusual it soon disappeared and is not found in the r later pe iods o r at Rome . Its origin has been referred to an Oriental source‘" and its occurrence would seem to depend o upon the presence of certain str ng Oriental influence . If so , it is less surprising to find it lacking in th e Hellenistic work in o he Asia Minor, which is pr bably t cause of its absence in the earlier Hellenistic buildings in Syria . It may be that its sud den appearance in Syria was due to some sudden change in 1 6 8 cult . t Burd Bakirh ll x a a . The e ample j is very simple A wa , ff o o . pierced by a do rway, shuts a part of the cella But it has not been possible to excavate sufficiently to determine whether there were not side chambers also , forming a three fold division f m o . D of the cella, as in all but one the later exa ples At jerash , in the Temple of Artemis the adyton is an extremely small

1 7 a the comp rtment, between two stairways , and separated from °° r h m 1 cella by an a c springing fro the ends of the stair walls . In the Temple of Zeus at Kanawat1 70 the construction is very i similar . However n this case the chambers which ﬂank the d c h r a yton do not seem to have ontained stairs . T ey give rathe 1 " the ff o f the Musmi e and e ect of the plan Pretorium at y , of 1 7 2 “ the Tychaion at Is-~ S anamen and the division of the nave of the cella by two rows of columns and the construction of the rooﬁng, as restored by Mr . Butler, increase the similarity to the r h Sy ian C ristian basilica plan . The most developed type is in 1 7 3 the so- Baalb c called Jupiter Temple at e . Here the side chambers are separated from the adyton only by column s and the whole sanctua ry is raised seven steps above the rest of the “ ” cella . As the foundations of the cella a re vaulted a crypt is m thus for ed . h Mr. Butler as called attentio n to the similarity between such

the T chaion - S anamen a plan , in y at Is , and that of many Chris tian churches in Sufﬁcient evidence is available to develop this theory of the origin of the plan of the Syrian r h Ch istian basilica, but that lies beyond the ﬁeld of t is discus h sion and is in process of publication elsew ere . r em Burd Baki rha Retu ning to the discussion of the T ple at j , c n th the capitals, a cordi g to Mr. Butler, are a little taller than e m “ b t Ro an type . Yet judging from his restoration they u x h slightly e ceed t e lower diameter in height .

The details of decoration , or their absence , however, are a r r and m cert inly Greek, not only f om their pu ity si plicity, but m the r h h also fro rest aint t at the builders s owed . There is not a trace of that profusion of elabo rate ornamentation that char acterizes ma m m Ro n work of the sa e period, as for exa ple, the highly decorated frieze of the Temple of Antoninus and

” The unfluted a capitals of the columns which are , exhibit ) ” very elegant treatment of the Corinthian order Those of c ff the pilasters, onsisting of a row of four sti acanthus leaves, h curling slightly over beneath an egg and dart ec inus moulding, are very beautiful, and of a type found nowhere in Rome . A h m t similar use of an egg and dart ec inus , placed above a pal et e the on a cymation , is found on capitals of the interior columns 1 7 9 from the altar hall of the precinct of Artemis at Magnesia . The substitution for the frieze o f a narrow flat band is in keeping with the restraint shown in the whole monument . The 1 8 u e h only sc lptured decoration of the ntablature, apart from t e e s d ntils, is a serie of bucrania and garlands, relieved on a deep c h yma recta that replaces t e corona . As bucrania are found as mo "8 e III B r i 1 arly as the Cent . . C. on both the A sinoe on and 1 82 Ptolemaio n S m at a othrace , and then a more developed form with the skulls joined by garlands on the frieze of the temenos ‘ ” of Artemis at Magnesia and on the portico of Athena Polias ‘“ at Pergamon the origin of this motif must be put in the “ Hellenistic East, not at Rome . In the second of the three courses o f the western pediment an h ur eagle appears in hig relief, a fig e found with much attend ant decoration on the sofli t o f the cella door of the Bel Temple

at Palmyra .

M'USHENNEF

‘ s" Tem le h the e p At Mushennef in t e Hauran, on other sid the e t e of great plateau from Atil, is a temple whos remains

t the . semble , in many ways, that a latter place It is assigned to l '" h h o Butler inscri t e period of t e Ant nines by Mr . from an p 8 8 tion found nearby" and from a compar ison with the temple 1 at Atil . There seems to have been a peribolos as early as 4 1 8 8 AD . 1 89 m The plan , distyle in antis , is very si ple . The temple is m raised upon a podiu , lower than that at Atil, projecting far r b s the eyond the cella wall , and with a more elaborate cap m h oulding. At t e four corners of the cella are pilasters , as at ”0 Burd Bakirha t j , wi h Corinthian caps , the leaves showing m h the V section of Greek work ans ip . The base mould of the antae is Attic . The upper torus is carved with bay leaves , e the the scotia with deep p rpendicular grooves , and lower ml l ” r to us with a guilloche . Both the bay leaf and the guilloche recall some Of the most beautiful of earlier examples . The d 1 "8 unflute . column bases are Attic, undecorated, and the shafts a i the The c pitals, unl ke the antae caps , are of type called com d posito. For a better un erstanding of this type it will be well to look a little more closely than has been done into its origin and development . The skeleton of the theory has already been “ formed in a History of Architecture . To this may now be added more ex amples and from it further conclusions may be drawn . krati in o m an At Nau s the Temple of Ap llo, a frag ent of ” themion necking was found which is nothing else than a pro 19 f h h i n tot e o t e Erect e o . yp developed capital of the Some one, feeling that the regular Ionic capital was not high enough to sufli cientl the give a y dignified conclusion to shaft, added the n ff m n or amental necking. A sti Ro an translatio of this type h 1 9 7 is now in t e Lateran Museum . The next natural step in development would be a form in which the necking would a h ce se to exist as such , and would become an integral part of t e h “ capital . An example of t is is the little known anthemion ” “ 3 m r co posite capita l of the theat e at Laodicea . Here all the

O f are h forms the Ionic capital retained, and t at joining of the volutes by a horizontal ﬁllet which is a chara cteristic of the “ 1 9 9 r Hermogenes capital , arising in Asia Minor and car ied m m 2°° . e wh o he fro there to Ro e The n cking, ich is n w part of t c s h apital above a fully developed a tragal, is generally like t at 201 Er c h eion e t . of the , but simpler in execution Instead of con inuous o m th a m t t scr lls fro which e p l et e grows , these are so h th acanthus calices, t at we naturally expect e next step in the development to be the entire replacing of anthemion by th colurrms the Z acanthus , as in the capitals of e in antis of eus 202 Aizan i m Temple at o . It is fortunate that this te ple can be 208 m dated, as of the time of Hadrian, for a co parison of the forms of the entablature with those o f the La odicea theatre “ will clearly show that the theatre is the earlier. In every way m its forms are ore simple and more severe . The fasciae of the h he the architrave are not edged wit t bead and reel, nor is ’ m m h architrave s crowning e ber decorated with t e anthemion . ha th The temple has modillions, the theatre s not ; and e cyma h m Th tion of the theatre as a much simpler orna ent . e decora o the ti n of ﬁllet, joining the volutes of the temple capitals , is very simila r to that on the capitals of the Ptolemaion of Samo “ s Aizanoi B . . C . thrace, III Cent That this example is one of the earliest instances of the use of the acanthus composite capital is supported by the fact that in the theatre at the sa me h h m the place, whose forms are later t an t ose of the te ple, capital has rinceaux of acanthus between the echinus and the ? “ m r m Aiza noi com astragal Further o e, in the Te ple at the

posite capitals are used in company with the Ionic. The type x rm then was not yet fi ed as a fo , but it must have been popular ” . th enough to develop rapidly For, at Myra, the eatre which 208 - 1 A was restored in 1 55 56 D . has capitals with two rows of was acanthus leaves . The feeling that this form akin to the Corinthian capital is manifested by the use of an acanthus leaf 20 period there was no such marked architectural develo pment as h h r he to t ere was in t e earlier pe iods in t Hauran, it is possible h m 2 1 8 give t e only a very approximate date . Z u 2 1 9 h Temple of e s. The plan o f t e cella shows two rows of interior columns and a chamber in each of the corners . Those th t a the at e rear flank the ady on, sep rated from the rest of e b me m t c lla y an arch , an arrange nt very si ilar to hat in the h 22° h Artemis Temple at D jeras . The niches in the c amber h one the walls flanking the adyton arc , and the two, above a h th e other, in e c of anta walls , are all rectangular and, as the h t . doorway, flanked by mouldings , wi out any ornamentation The revised plan shows the cella triply divided by rows of m Th n o h colu ns . e sig ificance of this in conjuncti n wit the m e adyton has already be n noted . ‘ a The Attic column bases, bove low panelled plinths, are a u the c rved with g illoche and bay leaf, as in second Temple of m n f Helios and at Mushen e . The shafts of both temples show m unfluted h arked entasis ; they are , of course, , as everyw ere in 22 3 e the Hauran . The capitals have a height of but low r c c o diameters . The width of the entral inter olumniati n, about m m u 5 eters, see s to indicate an arched entablature . This is p h a m in situ a eld by frag ent of architrave, still , with the b nds h of the face carried round t e end . “ Temple of H eliosfi The plan shows seven columns in the 22 5 r m da S uwe . rear, as in the pe ipteral te ple at The interior of ? “ the podium was built up with arches covered by slabs The a r s treatment of the podium w ll, b oken out into shallow pilaster the c below olumns , recalls that on the North and Middle Tem i ri m t D el ples in the Forum Hol to um at Ro e . This trea ment ? ” brueck refers to Hellenistic influence from Asia Minor The columns stand upon pedestals that are only paralleled by those beneath t he two central columns at the entrance of the 228 - D so called iocletian Basilica at Palmyra . Behind the ruins are fragments of a large conch which may have covered an apse o f at the end the cella .

D MER

229 Tem le? s h p A tudy of the arc itecture of Syria, especially t h from the four h century on, s ows a development to forms ” n most strikingly Roma esque . The Temple ? at Dmer in the A 2 3° H 2 D . auran, dated 45 by an inscription of Philip the Arab,

22 the e shows beginning of this evolution , still under the inﬂuenc

. B t A m dera of the Hellenistic style me , on the site of ancient d e , D lies to the east of amascus . The building under discussion

has been fully published by Mr . Butler . 2 31 c . The plan, so far as Syria is oncerned, is unique The “ ” - h m u recessed portal , ﬂanked by tower like c a bers , s ggests the ? ” portal of the Temple of Baal Samin at Si The Syrian Hel lenistic m a re a h for s more or less ret ined in the pilasters , t e

entablature, the gable front, and the portal arch . The capitals of the pilasters are of the composite order. A 23 3 careful examination of the photo gr aph from which the illus ’ tration 02 h on page 4 of Mr . Butler s work was made, s ows that “ they follow the Asia Minor- Hellenistic form? a lthough the in ru leaves are uncut . The abacus is left free without any t h h sion of the ﬁllet that joins t e volutes . The latter a re of t e

o m Aizanoi Ionic f r as found in the type , and not the Corin h u t ian vol tes as found at Mushennef . The its portal arch is heavier than any that we have seen, and

mouldings are returned across the capitals of the piers, as in ? “s the later churches The hood moulding above the proﬁled archivolt and the cornices show the earliest instances of con in h h c t soles t e Hauran . It is interesting to note t at, ac ording o

D elbrueck the r . , console cornice, as used at Rome , p obably goes ? “ back to a Syrian origin Above the narrow pulvinated frieze h m is a plain band t at ight have been carved with dentils , which h en are found on the entablature within the cella . The w ole “ ” tablature is broken out en ressaut above each pilaster ; earlier 2 3 7 instances of this in Syria are the Propylaea at D jerash and ” h mm the m . at A an, both Antonine, and central triu p al arch at F “ “ B osra The pilasters within the cella have caps of good Corinthian Unfortunately they are not illustrated in m a . to . the public tion The rooﬁng, according Mr Butler, see s to 23 9 have been of wood . sum n : 2 00 To up the in this monument, dated years after Herod Agrippa I became the Roma n representative in the H auran , there are still strong indications of the Hellenistic t t architecture tha t Syria held throughout her leng h and bread h .

Of Roman influence, as in plan, or in florid decoration that 2 m h time 4 r prevailed at t is , the e are no traces, except possibly “ the treatment of the entablature en On the other n hand, there are eve more than the beginnings of the new step in architectural development that was to reach fullness in the 23 n t r s the m influ ext hree centu ie , At ti e when the Hellenistic a infl ence finally w ned, when , if ever, we might expect the u en not the m c ce of Rome, it is I perial archite ture of , Italy that h v appears in t is distant province, but an independent nati e de velo ment o p , growing out of the f undations that were laid in the v n r on continuous survi al of Helle istic fo ms, decorati , and

u . na h o h constr ction And ﬁ lly, there was suc p wer in t e artistic spirit that it was able to anticipate the Occident, in its con structions a , by ne rly half a century .

PALMYRA

N t m m o e. In treating the onu ents of Palmyra it has been necessary to go into detail even more than in the case of the

r m r h r rest of Sy ia . In spite of the agnificence of the uins t e e h t o . a is but one publication , hat of W od W ile his pl tes, espe ciall t his no t w y wi h restorations, are always trust orthy, and th e - m th cross references leave uch to be desired, only e highest m w c m praise can be given to so agnificent a ork, ac o plished under such difficulties and long before archaeo logy as a science f h B r m r h O t o . e thon was born . e w rk of E e in Pal y a during t e mm 1 8 n r m r h su er of 95 o ly a p eli ina y report has been publis ed,

m Revue de D eux M on X 1 8 . s des by E Guillau e in the , C LII , 97, and a report on the inscriptions by Chabot in the J ournal X Asia ti ue 1 8 8 . d q , II ( I), 9 Reference will also be ma e to the skeleton report of the German Expedition excavating at l Baa bec. It will be noticed that the spelling Bel has been retained i th r m n e g eat te ple . This has been done both out of deference to Wood and also to avoid confusion with the eastern and smaller temple of Baal or Baal Samin .

BEL TEMPLE AND PERIBOLOS m The Temple of B el . The oldest parts of the te ple are ha h Th the cella walls t t run nort and south, and the peristyle . e m h n plan of the cella ust ave bee originally of Greek form . Its o f the r proportions are classic, as those pe istyle, with eight Th the . e columns at front and back, and ﬁfteen on sides present form of the cella, with a side entrance and windows in “ he and t side walls , and the walling up of pronaos epinaos , is 1m l eration . due to an a t Had the intention been, at the time d th the peristyle was built, to provide a si e entrance, e columns

24 would not have been so disposed that one occurred directly h t e c a . the opposite middle of the ella w ll As it was , when m o n a change was ade , one c lum had to be removed from the ﬂ nk “ ﬁ to provide an entrance which was necessarily o center .

That this was felt to be a necessity, and was not a choice, is clearly sho wn by the position of the windows in the eastern n h cella wall . U hampered by t e necessary position of an en mm h c . be trance, t ey are spa ed sy etrically It may noted here th e e that exedra at either end of the cella, marked A and B in n n the plan , were not a part of the origi al plan , a d, when intro 2 45 duced r Puchstein , did not se ve as adyta as has asserted . An examination of the photograph of the American Archaeological “ t the Expedition will show his , for central compartment is u only a vestibule, with side chambers opening out of it. F rther examination will show the patch ed a nd hasty character of the h h construction . At the sides of t e doors the decoration above t e m the o pedi ents of slender niches is not the same, and ab ve them h are placed massive pilaster bases , probably taken from t e old “ west wall of the peribolos when it was rebuilt in 1 75 AD ?2

t th r or else , and his is more probable, during e repairs afte the Th o sa ck by Aurelian in 2 73 . e florid ornamentati n of the ceil ings o f the vestibules also points to a late date for their con 248 struction . We must now leave the temple for a moment and turn to the h e peribolos, w ere we have our first d finite evidence for date. P i olos The er b . The epigraphical evidence for the dating o f the peribolos is as follows . For convenience reference will be t made to the inscrip ions by number, and they are arranged in r c a ch onological order. Those alled bilingual h ve both Greek and Palmyrene text . A D = . 1 1 0 2 1 . h No . . 3 Seleucid Era Bilingual , found, wit 2 o n the n r m No . a stone, in i te ior of the te enos, by n l La re Pri ce Abame ek za w . Published by M . de ? “ D r Vogue The purpose of the stone is not clear. . ” Littmann has suggested 0 that it was placed under a h nic e in the temple wall . A = l I D 2 8 e . . 2 . S a No 7 . 3 Bilingual, on s me stone as 2 51 above . = 2 1 A D . n . In i tu No . 3 . . 333 Sel Palmyre e s on column 2 152 ” Eutin F bracket of temenos portico , published by g = m A O . I D . n itu No . 4 . . 34 Sel Pal yrene s on bracket of co lumn number four from north end of eastern 25 . D w portico iscovered, together ith No . 5, by Litt h AAE IV ? “ mann, and publis ed in S = ? “ N . A D 82 o 5 . . 3 Bilingual In si tu on bracket of column number three from north end of r h m c t . . easte n portico, and se ond to e south fro No 3 N 1 A D 8 . . 6 0 . In u o Bilingual . sit on bracket of c m n olu n number te from west end of southern portico . ? “ 1 A = 2 m 1 8 . D . t No . 7 . 4 9 Sel Pal yrene In si n on bracket of column number twenty one from west end of r southe n portico . ” 1 2 D = ? I N 8 A. . ua o . 7 439 Sel . Biling l n sitn on bracket

of column in southern portico .

N D = r A. . I u . 1 2 . n sit o 9 4 453 Sel G eek . on bracket of col m d 2 60 u n . in portico, discovered by Woo A D N o . 1 0 . . In si t .q 79 Sel . Greek u on bracket 26 o f i n 1 column portico, discovered by Wood . D — N . 1 1 1 A. . 86 f o . t 75 4 Sel . Bilingual In middle o sou h ”m r l ern side wall of opy aea . — p N ote A Puchstein also mentions an inscription of 1 50 D m‘ 8 A . . — N t . 1 a e B . Littmann has mentioned the inscriptions No ? “ d 2 o an No . of de Vogue as bel nging to the temple This rI‘ h is incorrect . e description given by de Vogue , sur une ” “ grande colonne isolée an nor d du temple du Soleil and sur é a e e une grande colonne renvers e , qui faisait pendante la pr c ” d an sud- onest du not ente, temple, do indicate that these o columns were in the temenos . On the contrary they st od at some distance, as is proved by the fact that the Greek text of

f i r . . 2 o o . c t No . is identical with that Wood, p , Ma mor Palm X I on 0 X , which he found the isolated column , marked 3 in the i plan , Tab . II , at a d stance of over a quarter mile from the he io in peribolos . The two columns that bore t inscript ns a 2 8 0 v the q uestion were those m rked and 3 , respecti ely, in ’ e uidis same plan, and, if Wood s plan is trustworthy, were q tant from the temme itself . — . B t N ate C It has been suggested by Mr . H . C utler tha t there may be reason to believe that Wood was wrong, hat de

and h n r t. un Vogue followed him, t at Littman is cor ec It is o h fortunately impossible t verify t is at present. ” h Per ibolos . a T e , con The idea of a w lled peribolos goes ” back to an early Egyptian origin . Later on in Greece there a re various instances of enclosures o f sacred but they 26 c n r ontai mo e than one shrine . Such are the altis at Olym ? “ ”0 ia p and the peribolos of the Olympieion at Athens .

r In the Hellenistic East, however, a single temple is f e a quently surrounded by walled peribolos . This is the case w m 27 1 ith the Temple of Baal Sa in at Si, the Temple of Jupiter “ ? “ Aizanoi r at , the A temis Temple a t Djerash and the Tem ’ “ le 2 p of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias . At Amman there are m n 27 5 re ains of a great peribolos upo the acropolis , but the m b u m H ltzin r ilding within is co pletely ruined . o ge adds the “ ‘ ” Baalbec m o m sun temple at , a state ent not c nﬁr ed by the re ? " port of the German Expedition unless he considers the eu

in r on m r closed court f t of the te ple a pe ibolos . He lists also a “ t D emil emple at j a in Algiers . the In the West , on other hand, instances are rare . At ? " the m o Pompeii, Te ple of Apollo with its peribolos dates fr m “ ” t h ? m inﬂu 281 e Tufa period of untra meled Hellenistic ence.

h r At Rome t e e are but two examples of a walled peribolos . ”2 That of the Portico of the Argona uts about the Temple of N 2 28 3 h B . C . m t e eptune, was built in 5 At the ti e of Saturnalia i 28 4 t served as a bazaar . This and the testimony of ancient c r x the the once ning the other e ample, Portico of D 286 h anaids about the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine , ﬁnis ed m ’ 2 B 2 L ia i i n 6 . . C anc n s , substantiate observation as to their m 28 3 undane character . It is necessary to add the exa mples of the Iseum et S era 289 ’ m o f an peum, in direct i itation Egypt, d Aurelian s Temple ” o f h h t e Sun wit its Syrian prototypes . All other instances o f temple enclosures in Rome are simply open colonnades with ”1 ’ r a out walls , another case of Rome s altered t e tment of an i he dea borrowed from the East . It is well worth noting that t t e o f i earliest one of h se , that about the temples Jup ter Stator ch and of Juno Regina, was built by a Greek ar itect, Hermo d m 1 orus of Sala is , in 49 ”’ Th Per i l l e bo os Wa l . The exterior of the peribolos wall as and w broken by pilasters, evenly spaced carrying a complete h u . on t entablat re Between each of these , e north, south , and 2“ e e ast, were windows , crown d by a gable The western front was built much higher and the spaces between the pilasters ? ” w ere left quite plain This construction was continued on 29° the north and south for abo ut seventy feet On the inter i or of the peribo los the west side has a single colonnade . On ha t he other three sides the portico d a double row of columns . 27 The porch o f the entrance at the west had been destroyed 2 9 7 m r o . h before W od ade his d awings Of his fourt plate, then, i we may consider only the wall in its entirety, and ts a decor tions .

The r o i inte ior of the wall on the n rth , south , and east s 2 9 8 e e r . r ho precisely lik the ext rio That of the weste n wall , w an d h ever, and of its continuations on the north sout , has a 2 9 9 r double ow of niches . Th P eri o l n e b los Co on a des. It is unfortuna te that we have no detailed illustration of the order of the columns on the h h . can t north, sout , and east Nor we judge by e analogy of the pilaster s on the outside o f the wall which was undoubtedly

he m m F r t . o h built at sa e ti e , ere again , our illustrations fail “ x m s m us , e cept on a very s all scale Still we can judge fro this of the severity of the decora tion which is carried out in the o f rm h windows , trapezoidal fo , crowned by gables wit raking 3 01 r cornices . In st iking contrast to these are the decorations of h the entrance in the west wall , a double row of nic es and doors , 3 02 m r h u r so e with p oﬁled arc ivolts , co ches , and elaborately ca ved ” s“ d n rn h e Th r moul ings, an esse tially Easte sc em e f ieze of h o h d m the nort , s uth and east walls , bot insi e and out, see s to 8 05 h h have been undecorated . W ile this was copied on t e ex terio r of the new west on the inter ior there was an entablature very characteristic of the middle of the second 807 century . Puchstein , on the evidence of the inscriptions, that we have m 6 8 and nu bered , and 9 , the one mentioned in Note A, has “ admitted that jedenfalls unter Hadria n schon ein Teil des r o r 2 1 Pe ibol s fe tig We have besides, inscriptions of D m 8 1 0 A 8 M A D . . D A. . . . , , and These are on con h h soles t at could not have been fastened to the s afts , after use h mn m in another location, for eac is part of the colu dru , or r r r ather, a projection from the d um itself, necessarily a pa t of h h m o f m h t e t e . colonnade at ti e erection From ti e to time , t en, ff r cut as occasion o ered , inscriptions we e and statues set up, h as we s all see in the ca se of the street colonnades . t u n The Peribolos, hen, m st have bee erected not later than 8 1 2 m the beginning of our era, and ost probably at the time when the change in the temple cella was made and a door

w mn o f . placed between t o colu s the peristyle For, it cer tainly could not have been built very long before the change in the temple was made so as to have an entrance opposite to the 28

w t o f with hich they are given below, in comparison with hose h t e Temple of Vespasian at Rome .

Bel T . Vesta T . Vespasian T . Capital height Architrave height

Field of frieze 0 . 5 Cornice height Entablature

The common unit i s the lower diameter .

r th and The f ieze about e cella was undecorated, convex in “ ﬁ a th in th e m 1 1 6 pro le, as was lso e case Te ple at Srir of ” 5 c r r r AD . Friezes with urved p oﬁles occur in G eece as ea ly 8 26 ”? a s the fourth century in the Tholos and in the Theatre E r x 18 m at pidau o s. A later e ample that fro the Theatre at ' 8 2 8 ” izan i r ra re A o . In Rome, howeve , instances are f the ear liest being the pulvinated friezes of the Portico of the Argo 3 3 ° 3 3 1 u n m o f na ts a d of the Te ple Neptune , both dating probably 8 8 2 from the restor ation under Hadrian . P ri o a l and Entrance The Western e b los W l . The newest part h h th x of all t e temple precinct , wit e exception of the e edrae in h t e . the cella, is western peribolos wall We have already men A r m i n 1 1 1 D . t o ed . as No , the inscription of 75 f o the western a the and m wall . Cert inly forms orna ents of the entrance are h h i m later than any of t ose we ave d scussed, and are very si ilar to others that we have seen belonging to the latter half of the

r second centu y . s” ’ The plan shows a central intercolumniation of 1 3 It would have been impossible to spa n this with anything but an ” arch, as has already been suggested . This is just what might ex m be expected, considering the other a ples of arched entab lature r h in Yet the use of the a c , known in Palmyra “ at least as early as the beginning of the seco nd centuryf did a and not find as re dy acceptance as free use as in the Hauran . ” o u h The niches at Atil sh wed a round head with a co c , and “ at Musmiyeh a full entablature was carried above the conch 9 but in the niches o f Palmyra a horizontal entablature is carried fi” either above or below the a rchivolt We have unfortunately no figures for the lower diameter of o the shafts in the col nnade, and lack of photographs on any thing like the necessary scale prevents such a discussion of the Corinthian capitals a s ~Wiegand has given to those from Baal “0 bee. On the other hand certain marked distinctions between 30 the Greek and Roman forms of the Corinthian are well known , and will suffice to show that the capitals of the western peri bolos colonnade approach the Greek much more closely than The m b the Roman . bell of the capital is not completely asked y and d the volutes and leaves, the secon row of leaves is not 8 41 fir h st. twice as high as the But a complete masking, wit the h upper row of leaves double the heig t of the lower, is charac teristic m m m r m of the Ro an for , as shown in the exa ples f o ” “ “ 4 m a In the te ples of Mars Ultor, Vespasi n, and Castor . ’ deed Wood s drawing makes the capitals compa re not unfav ” rabl h r o y wit those f om the Olympieion at Athens . The flat h section of the leaves s own in hi s plate must not be considered . m h m B aalbec th In the case of t e Jupiter Te ple at , in e cella a h a m r h h the c pitals , he s ows si ila ly flat section w ic photographic ” h i a rm er h n Puc ste n c . B t o e evidence of ontr dicts Furthe ore , says the acanthus was of the Greek type and not like that at ” B lb I r n aa ec. t is interesting to ecall, in this con ection, ’ Rivoi ra s m u state ent abo t Corinthian capitals in the East, as sumin m x m m g the to be, of course, e a ples of Ro an workman “ —1 2 8 1 —i ship . He says : nei tempi anzidetti to 93 migliori capitelli vogliono esser cercati nella On the other hand D elbrueck has said that we must reckon with the possi ) “ bility that the Corinthian O rder was Syrian The frieze above the colonnade has a flat profile “51 That 852 r x r h on the pe ibolos wall is conve , and is o namented wit u f I acanthus rincea x . Yet, even i erected in 75, the acanthus d oes not occur with stalk completely covered by leaves , as at ” “ Rome in the Trajan Fo rumf and later in the Frontispiece of S im N Again, in the palmettes of the , we find the m h the distinction fro purely Roman types . They ave not leaves sharply pointed at the ends that the architecture of “ s“ x m Rome shows? as , for e ample , in the Trajan Foru and W Baths the Agrippa , but leaves with their ends rolled over

- h . h t e in a flat, snail like fo rm T is is universal form at fi“ a r fre uenc P lmyra, and of ve y great q y h ummar . S y We have, t en, four periods of architectural m activity on the site of the Bel Te ple . B C I . Not later than end of first century, . .

Temple cella and peristyle . A 2 1 D . II . Not later than Rearrangement of cella ; addition o f door in peristyle o and building of perib los . 31 1 AD . III . 75 o r Rebuilding of west wall of peribolos . To this, o ur th he perhaps t a fo period under Aurelian, belong t e exedrae i n the temple cella . The latt r are the only

rema ins that can be assigned to this last period . Aurelian’ s letter to Bassus expressly states that he “ d r —ad m — it esi ed templum ea formam quae fu , Such repairs as he made then must have consisted chieﬂy in setting up what had been thrown

down in the sack of the city . TOMBS

il- - In the Wadi Kebur, to the south west of the city, are the m 86° ffi re ains of many tombs . Two of these have been su ciently preserved to warra nt their publica tion ; that of Iamlichus by de Ela l u be o s . Vog e, and that of by Wood “ 1 To Iamli hus 8 AD mb of c 3 . The date is given by a "” bilingual inscription Both this and th e following tomb are “ in the form of a square or rectagular tower 3 The ornamental i details show a strong classic nfluence . The pilasters between a o the cubicul of the first storey are C rinthian, as are those of

the . upper niche of the facade The door with moulded jambs,

o m n o s ek. D cr wned by a pedi ent carried o c nsole , is Gre e Vogue “ a cofiered lso mentions in his text sculptured friezes, and ceil a v ings with he ds in relief, probably very similar to the car ing of the soffit of the side door in the west wall of the and to the ceilings” in the fully classic sepulchre marked ‘W’ ’ “ all in Wood s plan . For such later examples the ceilings of the tomb would be prototypes . ” A a“ Tomb o Elabel s 10 D . t f o 3 This omb, dated twenty Iamlichus a years later than that o f , shows a more severe f cade, but with a beautifully profiled archivolt spanning the upper e niche. The interior has beautifully channel d Corinthian pi w lasters, cro ned by a severe entablature, on the sides ; and at the end O pposite the door, there is a superimposed order of en mn gaged colu s, both with smooth shafts , the lower of Corin

a th . thi n, and e upper of the Ionic order The ceiling was ff o f Elabelo his co ered in squares, enclosing two reliefs, s and

wife . CROSS COLONNAD E It is unfortunate that in no case have we a photograph o f any f o a h column r m which particular inscription as been taken . 82 However, since the consoles on which the inscriptions were cut t , are of a piece wi h the drum of the shaft, it is evident a o that a colonnade c nn t be later than its earliest inscription,

especially, as in this case, when there are inscriptions covering

a continuous series of years . The photographs of the American Expedition show part h i of t is colonnade , with Corinth an capitals whose leaves have

the crisp Greek section . h c A list of all dated inscriptions from t e colonnade, omplete n so far as we k ow, is added .

m ﬁ" Wa . o n de Vogue dd C . I . G L catio 887 2 9 1 0 ﬁrst of four standing,

with double conso les . next to abo ve ( C

EASTERN TEMPLE OF BAAL O R BAAL SAMIN

t o f The inscrip ion on a column the pronaos , dating the tem “ ’ 1 1 A D ple, 3 . . , and also Hadrian s journey to Palmyra, are ” discussed by de Vogue . It may be added that the space ” between the fir st numeral and the vinculum of the second numeral is too great for the first figure of the date to be a five ; m th 2 it ust therefore have been four, thus giving e year 44 1 AD 1 . S eleucid era , or 3 h r n Anot er inscription, in ve y poor preservation, is found o

h m - t e console of the colu n at the south east corner . The date m Lidzbar ski a in is inco plete ; but , on the b sis of other dated scri tion m 0 p s containing the same na e, has restored it as 39 Sel . A “ h or 79 D . T is would not be surprising in view of the h character of t e architectural details . Th m m e Te ple is tetrastyle, prostyle , with one colu n on the return . Apparently there was no podium . The Attic bases f unﬂut i o the ed Cor nthian shafts rested on low square plinths . m h h th The capitals , about lower dia eters hig , ave leaves of e Th m e . crisp Greek section . entablature is si ple The frieze i s h h carved with acanthus rinceaux, wit out any projecting eads i n or other additions . Every detail fact points to a monument 33 executed under a purely Hellenistic inﬂuence . For example, a the tendrils of the acanthus are not wholly encased in le ves, m ” as in the Trajan Forum in Ro e . The height of the cornice,

. 2 a ha h about 7 lower diameters , is consider bly less t n t at of o x m 3 7 3 w R man e a ples , and the hole entablature, about l e i s ow . lower diamet rs , relatively The mouldings of the two w wo s windows, set high in the cella all, between t of the pilaster t h x r Th t e . hat adorn e terio , are simple e form of the windows m r the e s the selves is t apezoidal, as in early parts of the p ribolo m wall of the Bel Te ple . The architectural style, then , would ’ seem to conﬁrm Lidzbarski s O pinion as to the date o f the th m second inscription mentioned above, and e Te ple may very AD well belong to the ﬁrst century .

THE NYMPHAEUM ?

The so -c D a m alled iocletian basilic , ca p, or headquarters

u h the il- stood j st to the nort of the entrance of Wadi Kebur, ti inscri on the very outskirts of the city . Owing to a La n p 3 80 t the tion on a broken archi rave of building, it has always ’ D e m r been considered a work of iocl tian ti e, despite the st iking 88 1 evidence of the architecture to the contrary . Am i s ong the Palmyrene nscriptions of de Vogue , he give “ 882 édiﬁce é r été un m au one grand ruin , qui pa ait avoir te ple ; ” ’ - l d sucI ouest de la grande colonnade . Sur e linteau . Woo s h h plan of t e city shows but one suc ruin, namely that of the 3 88 D h r r iocletian building. To t is it may ve y p obably have e belonged, and as it was on a lint l , it must have been either r r from the cella entra nce or from the door in the inte io . de — Vogue translates the inscription as follows the safety f—t —t his ro the 0 hat of his children, and of b thers , in year — ” ts . 46 these and all i ornamentation, with his money It is evident from the language that the building was de i r s voted to a relig ous use . A man did not e ect civil structure hi i a fo r the safety of s fam ly . The d te as it stands in the 884 m e 60 r . Pal yrene t xt is 4 , which is the yea of our era was Unfortunately there is a blank after the date, which

the m . probably filled by the name of onth Yet , even if more out e is figures had originally been ther , the space available the m m such that, in the Palmyrene notation, at maxi u , there n b m h could o t have een ore t an a twenty, a ten , a five, and four

m i . is ones , aking the highest poss ble total, 499 Sel which A D . . 34 i The inscr ption is doubly important . For it not only conﬁrms r the natural conclusions as to the pe iod of the architecture, but i h also, by its text, helps to determ ne t e character and purpose of the building . “ The plan is extraordinary) but the building was too well preserved when Wood examined it to cause any doubt of its “ ” r 3 8 6 accu acy . Were it not for the continuation of the nave or n c it cella betwee the olonnaded wings , would have a strong m Iuliae rese blance to the basilica at Colonia Fanestri , built by ﬁ“ Vitruvius O n d the the other han , a comparison of eleva ‘m8 ion r ff t s will show still mo e striking di erences . The singular plan would seem to indicate a special temple form such as a

re The superstructu stood upon a high podium, approached had by sixteen steps . The central part the form of a tetrastyle, m prostyle te ple . The four columns of the entrance stood upon h h h h ca . ig pedestals , wit base and p mouldings T ese are car ried as a continuous base course beneath the columns of th e wings . Th e Corinthian capitals are slightly less than a lower diame ” m ter in height) a proportion that no Roma n example shows . ‘ ’ The leaves have the crisp Greek V section , as even the small ”2 m hO W photograph of the A erican Expedition will S . In place ‘ ’ h ﬂos ab i s h of t e on the acus there a small bust , probably t at l i h . u v o f t e founder. The entablature is quite simple The p nated frieze is not The sima shows the palmette in “ r f i its Greek form . The p oportions o the entablature are g ven c below , in omparison with those of the Athena Temple at ” Pri ene) and those of the Ionic order of the Baths of Diocle “ tian )

m haeum ? Priene Ny p Temple, architrave 78 ﬁeld o f frieze 5 cornice 92 entablature

mfn n i The co o unit is the lower d ameter. The decoration of the front cella wall is richer than we have m f seen at Pal yra, for the building, dating from the latter hal o f h nsid the second century, is later t an any that we have co n a o f ered . O the p nels the pilasters at the corners of the

35 3 °" cella , and on the side of the jambs of the great cella door, r x rv fre the g ape vine is e quisitely ca ed . The bay leaf occurs ” c ca itals quently, as on the cavetto of the aba us of the p f and “00 on the ovolo mouldings of the great door and of the upper ”1 i . the o n ches Beside the four niches in pr naos wall, placed 402 a one bove the other in pairs beside the great door, the plan ‘“ and the view of th e ruins show three niches on the inner wall of the apse that terminated the cella . The exterior of the latter might be called octagonal, but reference to the plan will be better than any description . Within the cella a broad arch r r the O pened into the apse . Its a chivolt was p oﬁled with same a th h mouldings s those of e architrave, w ich was carried around the cella by Co rinthian pilasters , and also continued around the the apse . The mouldings of archivolt are brought down upon this half entablature and do not continue it as in the case of m h an arched intercolumniation . The vaulting see s to ave been of stone . n th Now i all the deta ils of e building, there is nothing to suggest the massive forms with ﬂorid decoration of the archi ’ l o tecture of Dioc etion s time . We have nly to compare his “ s work at the Baths in Rome that bear his name, ‘“ or the Basilica of Maxentius to realize how impossible it is that this building should have been constructed during his h reign . Thoug we only possess examples from this period, an h ffi carried out on immense scale, t eir details su ce for the

comparison . The altered proportions , the ﬂorid capitals and ornament in general are of a spirit and period totally different m t c fro that, still charged with Hellenis ic inﬂuence, in whi h the

Nymphaeum Pwas built . ’ The emperor s only connection with it was in utilizing a a e monument that had been standing more th n a c ntury, as his

headquarters .

GRAND CO LO NNADE Colonnaded streets were a feature in the Greek cities of the i ” East, made necessary because of the cl mate . The line of P x 1 00 columns at almyra e tended more than 5 meters, south “ ” - r m m east and north west, f o the arch of triu ph near the

Temple of Bel to a point opposite the valley of the tombs ,

where doubtless there was a city gate . Rivoira has referred to this colonnade as of about the third

century but it belongs by no means to that period . We 36 proﬁled with three fasciae to correspond to the architrave on m m the colu ns . They spring fro an impost block, similarly proﬁled, that rests upon a low pier with a Corinthian cap . This i s th e logical outcome of a construction such as that in the n i f h spri g ng of the apse arch o t e Nymphaeum .

6 8 NOTES INTRO D UCTIO N 1 P . 184. 2 P . 1 85. 3 As Puch stein i n J hb. 1 02 . 1 10. , , XVII, 9 , p 4 tl r Bu e , Arch, p. 5 Puch stein 10 - , op. ci t., pp . 9 1 10 . 0 A ian s B l li u e Civ. b. . pp , . V 7 utler Ar ch 2 B , , p . 34 . 8 D elbr k 1 1 12 uec . 1 1 1 . , II, pp , , 76 9 ’ D iehl M anuel Ar t B 2 , d yea ntin, p. 2 . ° 1 ler Ar c ut h 8. B , , p. 4 1 1 C . tem les o f esta at Tivoli and o f Minerva at Assisi and see f p V , ; D lbr k D T e uec . . 2 , , p . 6. 1 2 S ee on rie o f e ern eri l wall Palm r 1 d f ze w st p bo os at y a, p . 3 , an

oo . W d tab XI . 3 1 There is n x i h l l r o e ce t on s rn Tem l f aa Pa m a . e p , t e ea te p e o B at y 1 4 Mo dillions a re ound ho wever D era sh Philadel hia Amman f , , at j , p ,

and in other instances.

ARAK IL-EMIR “ 1 e T e l - - d o . e m le d rusa . l u e e J m 8 s. V g , p , pp 3 43 p XXXIV XXXV ° 1 r and Man les Travels in E a nd Nubia S r ia and the H ol I by g , gypt , y y Land l . l se h Anti d 1 au c 1 6. S ee a so o us Iu iv 1 De S , p 4 J p , q. ., XII, , ; y, a -2 d r t P Vo n Ter r n . 2 1 1 on r y g e e e S ai te, pp 35; C e , S u vey of Eas ern a les

tin - l e . 8 F r r her r n t 2 6 . o u re e e es see ut er o i . . . , pp 5 7 f t f c B , p. c , p 5 1 "P AE A - U S I . 1 1 . II, , pp 9 1 8 P l h m le ri ra i in h har m . C . d ck d t n e 8: . . C t e ena e eco o t e , V, p XI f. b Kh r P II l at o sabad . 81 C. . , , , p . XV 1 ° n i 2 2 2 Mag es a, p . 1 7 ; date, p . . 2° u ler i t 1 Ex m les a R m a o und in B t , op. c ., p. 0 . a p t o e m y be f Stadium on the Palatine ; Library on the Palatine ; Atrium Vestae ; Aediculae Vestae ; Temple o f Antoninus and F austina Temple o f

Saturn ( in some ca ses). 2 1 P 2 i i 1 . r ene, p . 9 . Magnes a, p . 35 22 i . 1 0 . 0p. c t. , p 2 3 r l ea a Ma nesia Tholo and Theatre a E idauros all Cf . p opy a t g , s t p ; f w his in m oderation whil he or i f Athena P lia a o these sh o t , e t p t co o o s t Per amon like the Tem le o f F o rtuna irilis at Rome ha s a decided g , p V , overhang . 24 l ll r N 1 . ut er o i t i . 6 a . o . B , p. c ., 5, , f g 2 5 fi Marquand, g . 81 . 2 ° M r u n fi 8 . a q a d, g . 3 27 n e hb 1 . n 1 . F o r other insta ces s e J . 9 14, p 56 a d note 39 2 3 Delbru k ec . 1 re ers them Alexandri n n , II, p 59, f to a ; so Wiega d i hb 1 1 2 I . . and al h se a 9 4, p 4 , so t o t S i and Ka nawat. 2 ° Mar uan fi q d, g . 2 58. ° 3 utler i ill o . c t. . . ra . N B , p , 5, 6 f g o . 8. 3 1 E i aur d . p e, p 55. 3 2 Mar u q and, p . 1 38. 3 8 utler o ci t ill r B , p. ., . 5, f ag . No . 4. 3 ‘ Chois 2 2 - y , I, pp. 3 3 . 3 5 utler o i ill r . c t. 6 a . B , p , . 5, , f g No . 8. 3 °ZDP V 1 2 . 1 , 90 , p 57, abb. 30. 3 7 utler Ar ch B , , p . 330 . 38 utler Ar B , ch , p . 336. 3 9 P 81 C . 2 l . . and . c al so Delbr k uec 1 . , I , p 57 , p VIII ; f . , II, p . 59 4° P C . . 6 1 . . , V, pp 45 , 49 41 F uilles d D l he o e e s 1 l . . p , II, , p XV 42 Clérissea u M onum nt i I e de N mes l . , s , p LI I, LVI . ‘ 3 u ler P AE AI ill r t U S . a N d 1 1 1 . 6 . o . 1 1 n 6 B , , II, , 5, , f g , a pp . , 44 Homo lle in BCH l , VIII, p . XVII . “5 H S 18 1 1 . I , XII, 9 , p. 34 ’ 40 F r Persi n i l i h ll a s o a ca ta s w t u s he ds r st n l s e P. p , b , b ea , a d eg , s e 81 fi 1 1 P l C . . . C s . c 81 . , V, g 3 ; f. V, p I, IV 47 P AE I A . 1 u l m 1 d e T m e e . U S c . e o u e le de J r sa , II, , p 7 ; f V g , p , p 4 , n tler r 2 u A . d ch . a B , , p 34

SUWEDA ‘9 de o ue l . . S ee also de a o rde Vo a e de la S ri e . 1 1 V g , p I , L b , y g y , p 9, l u l - B - - 1 . er Ar . 2 2 D . 10 . . t 8 ch . p 59 B , , pp 3 4 3 7 , III, pp 9 49 mi 1 2 . Cor . Insc S e t. 6 p . II, 5° A rami akka r P I 1 r mid a Medum s py d at S a, . 81 C. , , p . 2 4 ; py a t ,

h i m r . 1 . . 1 H r n T P P . 2 2 Ka r ear e . 81 C 6 81 C . t e a , I, p ; b , y , III, p 5 1 de o ue . 2 . V g , p 9 52 ewton Histor o D isc verie t H alica rnassus nidus and N , y f o s a , C ,

Bra nchida e l . 6 . , I, p 3 53 rdn r l 2 6. Ga e , S culptured Tombs of H e las, p . 2 54 R Ar hi A i n ein ch l i . a . c t. s M . , p e II, 7 5°B - D ﬁ 1 1 - 1 , I, gs. 7 73 . 5° 1 r h. Puchstein, die Naba taischen Grabfassaden; in J hb. 19 0 . A c

- Anz . 1 1 abb. 0 . , I, 57 nd Marqua , p. 374. 5° O ver eck Geschicht der Gr Pla stik . 1 1 . b , e . , II, p 9 5° - 2 8-2 1 md B ein h e N ro l R l 0 idon . Ha ey ey R ac , Un éc po e oya e S , pp 3 7 ,

- ls 1 1 . p . 4 3 ° r uand . Ma q , p . 60 “1 M r u n 1 Cf . a q a d, p . 33 . “2 l r 2 But e , Arch , p . 3 6. ‘ 3 A r la i za o is 16 utler r ch . 26 of. P o ea a Palat t h . B , p 3 ; py t , C y, I, p 3 ; m l Z u emea M r uand 1 and T m l o f and Te p e o f e s at N , a q , p. 34 ; e p e 8 Di n r m n hb Pr euss 1 88 8 l D urm Gr . . 22 o yso s at Pe ga o , J . ., 9, p. 3 ; a so , , p , abb. 1 51 . “4 i ﬁ . Cho s . 16 . 1 Cf. y, I, p 3 , g 5

40 05 Mar uand . q , p 32 1 . 0° Knackfuss das R hau a at s v n Milet . 2 , , pp 46, 5 . ‘ 7 d e o ue . . V g , p 30 03 Durm , R., p . 378. 09 utler Ar 2 ch . . r In Co . mit sc. S e . 1 . B , , p 3 5 p , II, 95 7 ° d l e o ue . . de La o rd e o . cit. l 6 . 12 0 l r rc V g , p IV b , p , p , 5 , p ; But e , A h ,

- - - . 2 B D 111 pp 3 7 334 ; . . pp. 93 96 u er B tl , Arch , p. 333 . 7 2 utler Ar ﬁ 1 B , ch , g . 18. 7 3 utler Ar B , ch , p . 354. 7 4 F or O rienta l us o f even col mns i e s u c . eno t . 1 2 . , f B , p 4 7 “ C u l r Ar - . t e ch . 0 1 and ur s i f B , , pp 33 , 33 , o ect on on Arak il Emir .

7 ° - C . second u er order at Arak il Emir f ( pp ) . 7 7 In the a ora M n g at ag esia , the outermost intercolumniations meas ure the rest Ma ne i 1 - s a . 1 1 , g , p 5, abb. 1 8 1 19 . 7 8 e 1 S e pp. 1 , 1 2 .

7 ° utler r 0 - B , A ch , pp . 33 33 1 . ° 8 utler Ar - B , ch , pp. 330 33 1 . 3 1 Per am e ﬁ n g , g . o p. 55. 9 3 C a similar us he T m l m f . e in t e p e o f S aturn at Ro e. 8 3 ell Th Th ous nd n n r - l e a a d hu h . D e b B , e O e C c es, pp 448 456 and ru ck, 11 - , pp . 97 99 . 94 Kleinasien 8 als in H 1 1 R , pp . 3 , 39 ; o J S , 907, p . 1 5; cf. ivoria , Le

O ri ini della Ar chitettura L mb r ff . o a da . g , I , pp 7 8 5 Texier Ruins l 2 , , p . 3 . 8° Thi ca n b lainl n h Am Ex Ph o N 2 ee n e . Ar h o . s e p y s o t c . . t o . 5 0. l l Less c earl i lus. n o f utler Ar h y o p . 333 B , c . 3 7 it d C e b utler Ar . l 16 B c see a s oo tn t t . c ut y B , h , p 333 ; o f o e o p 3 ; f . l Ar h h - er c . 2 n e n . 2 . , , p 3 a d not ; a d I b. Preuss , 1904, pp. 66 2 68 3 ° hi n i O n t s oi t and fo r re erences see Strz o sk in hb Pr eu s. p , f , yg w , J . s , 26 3 . 3 ° i I Strz owsk o cit. ta f . yg , p. , . V II 9 ° 1 See pp. 1 5, 6. 9 1 Strzygowski has asserted this as true when the use o f vaults was

- K . introduced l in n 8 . , e asic , pp 3 39 SI

“2 - dc o ue . 1 8 ls. 2 V g , pp 3 3 . p . 3. 4 9 ° - h n l si n h v e n ound to be in ler r . is co c u o s a e e But , A ch , pp 334 340 ; b f m l discover since the u perfect acco rd with the date o f the Te p e, ed p b r A m m let u lication him is ound in lication o f this wo k. ore co p e p b by f

- A 8 . P AES 6 . U , II , , pp 373 3 5 9 4 d i na Re B bl. 1 0 . 81 . Date by S av g c, v. i , 9 4, p 5

9 ° - - No 1 . PUAES A . 6 8 No . 100. AAES . 8 0 . , IV, pp 5 9 , , IV , pp 7 7 , 9 ° Butler , Arch , p . 333 . 9 7 l r Ar . 0 . S ee But e , ch , p 33 9 3 d o ue l . . e V g , p 4 9 9 l i 2 2 . e . 6 F o r a discussio n of peribo o , s e pp , 7 1 0° Butler, Arch , p . 336. 1 01 S ee under the discussion o f the composite capitals o f the temple 1 2 0 at Mushennef, pp. 9, . 41 1 03 de o ue l V g , p . 3. 1 08 PUAES A - . 8 0. , II, 6, pp 3 5 39

1 04 - P . 1 p 79 9 . 1 05 B ut c . . 6 n 2 8. f pp , 7, . 1 0° t f T m l mi A ln is the da e o the e ple o f Baa S a n. n scri tio n o nd on a ed sta o r h em l f usha ra P AES p , f u p e l bef e t e T p e o D , U , A N 1 1 i e o . 0 ves the terminus ad uem o f a out 0 AD . Se IV , , g q b 3 l F l r i i m - a so o le u elchi o . n n 2 g M or de V gue, pp 90 9 1 a d o te . P AE A U S No . 101 . , IV , 1 03 Pr i n e . 2 2 e, p 9 . 1 “ C n e ﬁ 2 o . 0 . z , II, p 44, g . ’ ' 1 1 ° ur ius B ei tni e zu e h u o r hi e nasi ens C t , g r G sc ichte . Typ g ap c Kl i , ill rm l 1 n in D u R. b s a s Cho i . . 6 a d us. a b 28 28 ee o s p 5 ; , , . 3, 5; y, I, p 5 9,

and Curtius in Ab B r l Ak 2 arti l hl e a . , k. e . ad., 187 , c e Ma t p 1 1 1 Ath tt rl . Mi . 1878, ta f . V I.

1 1 2 P i - r e e . 2 2 2 2 . n , abb 3, pp . 2 7 2 9 1 1 3 Pri n 2 0 2 1 b 1 . e e, a b. 99, 0 , p. 7 1 1 4 i . Pr en a . 2 2 2 e, bb 73 , pp. 268, 69 , 74 1 1 5 D el l t in k t n r o n n Kun t . 2 S pa a o, e Mar s ei de R ma ische s , p 3 6 ; cf.

rueck . 1 . b , II, p 34 1 1 ° l o k r R e Kun t 2 . S pa a t , ein Ma r stein de omanisch n s , p. 3 7 1 1 7 n Il r e - n I gs Kunstg eschichtlichen Cha a kter bildern aus O st. U yam n if pp. 44 . 1 1 3 1 S ee 11 . 1 5. 1 1 " h l i Kunst . 1 . S be Welt esc chte d. y , g , p 4 9 1 2° Kan at T m l f Z us central s an out meters utler aw , e p e o e , p ab 5 , B , r 2 A ch , p . 35 .

n Peri r m l en ra s an a o ut meters utler Ka awat, pte al Te p e, c t l p b 5 , B ,

Ar ch , p. 357. 1 2 1 S ee 11. 92 . 1 22 l - 6 l 11 1 ut r Ar c s . . B e , h pp. 343 34 ; see a o 39 1 23 l r A 1 - r u l b i re ise lan ut e rch mo l u . th v d B , , pp. 35 357 ; e f y p w p ,

AE 6- A 0 . PU S . , II, 5, pp 34 35

1 24 - utl r Ar 1 . B e , ch , pp. 35 357

1 2 5 - u l A 1 6 1 2 ull u . in P AES r Re r ch . b U t e v. 0 B , , VIII, 9 , pp 4 3 4 3 ; f y p , 1 - 2 11. A5. pp. 3 5 3 2 . 1 “ de e l . o u . 28 V g , p . pp 74. 75 1 2 " l r A AI 6 ill n for Re erred to in ut e PU ES . and . o f B , , II, , p 4 , P 45;

d n. . 1 2 . 1 6 n date see J hb. 90 , p 0 , a 34 1 28 - 6 utler PUAES A1 . . B , , II , , pp 43 4

S ERMEDA

1 29 - er . Butl , Ar ch , pp 47 49 . n o d l . utler Arch . 60. e o ue , V g , p 93 B , pp 59, 1 8 1 ron. 1 . II Ch , III, 7 1 8 2 Pausanias 2 2 IX 0 IV 2 , IX , 5, ; . 3 . 7 ; " 3 : 3 1 3 3 P in e n Kl in n N or ri e Humann u. uchste : R ise in e asie u. d S y m f ta . . 34, XV 1 “ P h tein : e e l n n N r en Humann u. uc s R is n in K ei asie o d S yri ,

- 1 taf. . 39 4 , 43 , XVI, XVII

42 1 85 AAE N d N 6 S o . 8 a d o 2 8 , III, 7 ; W . . 7 1 “ ler ut Ar h . B , c , p. 59

1 3 7 h i h - A r k l- i o il d . Cf. t e sect n o n t e Kasr b at A a i Em r

ATIL 1 3 8 l - 6 Ar . Re o u l . ut er ch V a e dans le Ha ran . B , , pp 343 34 y ; y g , p IX d l 2 1 h d a r r . v i e o e Vo a e de la S ie . 1 1 1 on O en e m L b , y g y , p 53, pp , 3 . pp , m l l l d v i ttel ee su P r i chen l o . 00 r n M e o . om r m s s G f, pp p 1 (w o g y abe e - D - 1 ll u na a . 102 0 m le . Ka w t . B ca s it so th e ) , III, pp 5 ( t p ) 1 “ AAE N a d. N 2 1 1 AD . o 2 d 2 S o . a . s o . 5 , III, 4 7 ; W , . 37 ; C. I G , R N 6 . D d N . . o 1 2 M n n R i n o 08 C . . ussau issi o e o 4 ; I , III, 37 ; , da s l s eg s r i ue e la enn u - 2 r M o e . B r dése t s d S ri e 20 b t D . 10 e e s q y y , p ; , , III, p , p f f 2 1 1 AD i nd 1 l i d a e e a h 1 . o l s h m i b. . T s t o . W g , J 9 4, p 59 , f ow h s do e not se m ssi l fo r l h e idenc f th rchi ectur i n r r e po b e a l t e v e o e a t e s to the co t a y .

The o rm s o f the Tem le at He ran P AE A - 2 U S . 2 f p b ( , II, 5, pp 3 3 3 5) whi h s dated er inl 1 AD P AES A No 6 nn t c i c ta . U ca o y 55 ( , III , 5, . 59 ) r A il M r r h b e earlie than tho se at t . o eove t e Princeton Expediti on found several tem le inscri tions ro m the time o f Antoninus Pius s ro m p p f , a , f D ren a u t b u li sh in P AE s N r m iska i ( bo t o e p b ed U S a o . f o Bab m r AE I P E B N . r i UA S o o u d Bak rha A S II No . ( , III, 4, f B i ( , , e nd and ro m H e ran menti oned a ove. O n th o ther hand h ou 48) f b , b e t y f d il in f i f a ra ll r s u n at d u d o the me o C ca a nd tha o tr s . b t o e e b g t , a t i s a f e nscri ti ons o f an so rt o f the time o f Ca racalla in S ria are ver I p y , , y y

sca rce.

1 4° 1 2 - 1 S ee pp . 4. 1 41 ee 1 n 1 . S p. 3, . 09 1 42 22 See p . . 1 43 c lled b Puchstein J hb 1 02 . 106 called S un S o a y , XVII, 9 , p ;

- P 2 2 1 . m l chumach er ZD V 1 0 . 1 Te p e by S , , 9 , pp 3 37 1 “ h i n f u n . 1 1 2 . m . 1 2 a d a . P c ste o cit. cher t. t . S chu a , op. ci , p 3 , 9 ; , p , p 1 “ r in 2 . Texie , Ru s, p. 4 1 46 Ex P to . 22 . e m . Ar o o Best se n in the A ch . . h N . 5 1 47 2 2 28 2 S ee pp . 5, 6, . 3 . 33. 37 1 “ im t loc. cit. nh ci . von O ppe e , op. , 1 49 2 n . 1 . Cf ., p . 9, 3 3 1 5° m rch Ex ot . No . 2 1 taken ro F o r clearest view see Am. A . . Ph o 5 , f the other temple. 1 51 H 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 . 1 S , XXVII , 9 7, pp 4, 5 1 52 8 Kleinasien, p . 3 1 53 1 1 . 6 J hb, , 9 4, p 4

S ITT- UR- RUM 1 “ AE 11 B 2 2 6° o ue l . . PU S de V g , p 94 . . S. PP 59 1 5“ i d o ue l . 2 2 b s' e V g . p 9 1 9

BURDJ BAKIRHA use l n AA II H rmes ion on t e o ES I No . 8 e By an inscript h py , , , 4 ; ,

1 18. XXXVIII , p. 1 “ acin . 68. Butler, Arch , f g p 1 53 hois . 66 C y, I . p 5

43 5° 1 Puchstein in hb 1 02 J , 9 , p. 1 12 . 1 0° S ee 11. 1 6 and 5 1 57. “ 1 S ee 11. 2 1 9. 1 ” J hb 1 02 f - , ta . and . but c . ie and ”l b 1 1 9 , 5, pp 94 99 ; f W g . . 9 4. PD if and 43 . p. 90 . 1 “ ZDP V 1 02 ta f. but see Wie and J hb 1 1 , 9 , 9 ; g , . 9 4 p . 56 n. 2 . 1 “ Puaes A , II, S, pp 1 “ er A S v. en. 1 1 II, 5. 1 “ Koldwe u. Puch stein d y , ie Griechischen Tempel in Unteritalien u i ili n . S c e , p . 79 . 1 " S ee la s t no te.

1 “ - C . utler Arch 2 f B , , pp. 3 1 32 4. 1 “ Z D PV 1 02 . f , 9 , p 1 35, ta . 9 . 1 7° e 11 2 1 S e . 9 . 1 71 de o ue 6 V g , p. 4 . 1 7 3 e 6 S e 11. 1 4. 1 " hb 1 02 af J , 9 , t . 5. 1 74 R A h 1 - ev. rc 06 . 1 2 9 , pp 4 3 4 3. 1 " utler A B , r ch , p. 67. 1 " d’E spouy, pl. 92 . 1 " S ee pp . 4, 6. 1 78 e 11 S e . 1 57. 1 79 M n i ag es a, abb. 103 . 1 3° Conze 1 6 , I, p. . 1 81 o n f I C e ta . LX . z , I, , LXII 1 ” Con e taf XL L z , II, . XXXVIII , X VII . 1 83 Ma n i g es a, abb. 92 . 1 84 P am erg e, p. 1 1 7. 1 9 5 Po er e h rt M diaev Ar . e al c 1 an not . , . I, p 3 d

MUSHENNEF 1 8° utler A - B , r ch , pp. 346 351 . 1 " tler A Bu , rch , p. 347. 1 8°AA ES No . 803 add. No . 22 12 nscri tion on lmtel f , III, 3 , W ; I p o

at o f eri o l s f AD . E e o o 1 in AA S No . 80. g p b , 4 , III, 3 1 8° er ﬁ 2 Butl Ar ch , g. 12 . 1 9° utl r A B e r ch , p. 349 . 1 °1 Did m y es, p. 1 51 . 1 ” ’ d Espouy, pl . 1 2 , 1 9 3 S ee pp. 4, 6.

1 94 Anderso n n iers Ar hi u c an R m zed a d Sp , c tect re of Gree e d o e, , pp 18 18 1 9 5 g ri E l . et ii Thir Memoir o Ex l r F und Naukratis . ; d f gypt p o . ; I, p III ’ 1 9 ° Es ou l 1 d p y, p . 2 ’ 1 " E u l d spo y, p . 78. 1 “ Anti ui tie Ionia l . L. q s of , II , p 0 1 “ - k e nn 2 2 D el ruec D .T. 2 M n sxa Du , G, pp. 47 48. b , , pp. 5 , 53 ; ag , P x m l r 1 70. E a p es a e — b T Di n sos Tem le Cent B .C . e n eas o end f . u y p , o III (b g y B An n Ma at lea st 1 .C. ti . o ia ch . LI l . dated in 93 ) q I , I, , p II ; g n si 1 2 e a, p . 64 note . 44

”1 utler Ar ﬁ B , ch , g . 144. 3 32 d x e o ue te t . V g , , p 33 . 2 “ Am Ar h Ex c P o o . No . . . . h t 450 . 3 “ - S ee pp . 19 2 1 . 3 “ As fo r instance ha el a ri r utler , C p t S , B , Ar ch , illus. on

Church o f t. im n li S S eo Sty tes, urch o f Kal Lauz h Ch b e ,

. h r u h N C u ch at R we a, ”0 D l r e k - e b u c 16 1 6 1 . , II, pp. 4 7, 75 3 8"P AE 11 AI U S , , , p. 44.

”8 - D - - B . . . 20. AE 1 PU S A 2 2 . , III, pp 4 , II, 4, pp. 43 47 ”9 l r Ar ut e . 2 B , eh , p 40 . 3 “ C . the ath s o f aracall nd s i l ﬂ i m f B C a, a e pec al y the o r d co po site

“ 1 This i s ound at Rom as earl s a h f ri i f e y a the B t s o Ag ppa, Beno t,

Do 473

PALMYRA B el Temple 3“ ood b 1 A - XI ta C tab X m Ar h. Ex. Ph to . . A . c o W , , , , . III

- No. 6 8 re ro duc d i u l r A 43 439 (437, 43 p e n B t e , rch , pp. 50 , nﬁls P N 6 N i n Bo ho o . . 2 2 1 2 r t o 13 3 , 13 5, 3 , 389 ; . B. Pa ts o f thi s sect o n o the Tem le o f Bel wer u in the 1 1 £84 where p e p b. 9 5, pp . 76, , v n by mi sad erta ce, the names o f Guillaume and Berthone were trans u 2 posed o p. 68. 3 “ m l id doo r in em l Be - D s Z PV 2 Cf. s a l s e t p e t et Tai at j era h ( D , 190 , 1 2 n i i E er m l l lm r abb. a d w ndo n as n Te e f a a . ) ws t p o B a , P y a ( see p and in small em l at anub in e anon hb 1 02 10 nd note t e J . a p J L b ( , 9 , p 7, Kl c . S trz owski einasien . 1 0 note . 45, p. f yg , , p 3 , 5 3 “ o o d tab . W , . XVI “ 5 hb 1 0 1 1 . J , 9 2 , p. 3 see Ar Am ch Ex. Ph . . . . oto No 439 . “ 7 S ee 11 2 62 . . 3 “ ood tab. W , XIX .

“ 9 - A V 1 88 . 2 2 2 . J . . III , 3, I , pp 4 44 3 5° -6 AAES Pal No . . 62 . , IV, . 3, pp 5 ”1 - AAES Pal No 62 6 . , IV, . . 4, pp. 5 3 ” ee AAE 61 62 . S S , IV pp, , “ 3 1 N . 2 . S . B . A. W., 1 887, p. 4 3, o 10 3 “ 0 A AAES Pal . No. 1 . 8 also 1 0 . , IV, , pp 5 , 59 ; 9 , p 437 ; L ,

- 1 1 Clermo nt Ganneau . 1 2 2 Lidzbarski . 90 , II, p. 379 ; , VII, pp , 5; , II , p

M rnh im MDVG 1 0 o . 10 . . So e e 283, ; b , , 9 5, II, N ”5 i i el e in F r m co rres ondin reek Thi s date i s not po s t v y c rta . o the p g G

n w can b sure it is o f the rs cent A. D . See AARS inscriptio e e ﬁ t . , III,

- - N 2 lermont Ganneau . 12 1 26 Lidzbarski . o . 35 ; C , VII, pp 4, ; , II, p

284, N . 3 “ - bernh i MDVG P l N . m P x in AAE a . o 2 . 62 So e al. e t S t , IV, , pp 59 , ,

1 1 No . 1 1 . 905, II, p. 7,

3 " - - 1 z H . n nn 10 1 Lid r ki . 280 l rmo t Ga eau . ba s C e , VII, pp ; , II, p , ;

rnheim MDVG 1 0 . 1 1 No. . S obe , , 9 5, II, p , 5 46 2 “ Clerm n - nn Ca ea u II . 1 1 Li r o t V dz . ba ski . 28 1 , , pp , , II, p , J S o ernheim MDV 1 1 N G 0 . o b , , 9 5, II , p 4, . 7. ”9 lermont- Ganneeu 12 Lidzbarski 2 82 K obern C . S , VII, p ; , II, p. , ; im MD he V 1 NO . . G 1 0 . 8 , , 9 5, II, p 5, 3 0° d . o o i t a rm r . I N o c M o Pal V . add. No 2 C . O . W , p. . , . m. ; W . 589 ; G E i 4489 . ut ng . 1 887, No . 103 . “1 o ernh eim MDV 1 1 N N S G 0 . 0 o . 2 add o . 2 80 b , , 9 5, II, p , ; W , 5 ;

oo it. rm r N W d . o c Ma o Pal m . o . 88 , p , . XXV ; 44 . “ 3 S o ernheim M 1 lerm n - ann DV 1 No . 1 o t C eau G 0 . b , , 9 5, II, p , ; C , VII,

- . 2 1 Li z rski 2 hs 0 1 1 . 0 d ba . 6 F Puc tein J hb. 1 2 . 10 0 pp ; , II, p 7 , ; cf. , , 9 , pp 5, 3 “ h 1 2 J b., 90 , p. 1 1 1 . 2 “ In cr i n l 1 s ptio s S émitiques, Pa . NO . , 2 . 205 AAR 61 . S , IV, p. 0 ' ‘ 2 ° - l r l s ‘ ood tab. ut e Ar t h il u . on W , III XVI, B , , p. 5 3 07 K As arnak.

ass e i r k i e 6 Bo tt che , Te ton k der H llenen, p . 43 .

”9 m n u - o rr an di e F nd w n O l m ia af . . B , e y p , t XXIX XXX 3 7° r nd Re e An ie A ch l . Stua t a v tt ti uit s o thens . 1 . , q f , II, , p XXXI 2" h r e m l een eri olos at 1 n. 2 . T e s e s a so to hav a S ee p . 4 , 9 e e b p b d D e el hekh Berekat utler Mushenne AAE . 2 8 an at S f, S , III, p 9 ; j b , B , I - 1 nd E I . 26 Arch , p. 47, a AA S , I, pp 104 . ”3 r l 1 1 Texi e , Ruins, p . .

3 " Z 2 2 - 1 D PV, 190 , pp. 13 37. 3 " in l Texi er, Ru s, p . 2 7. 2 ” utler in PUAE AI and lan on . 2 . B S , II, , p . 35, p p 4 3 7° k u 1 . Altchristli che Ar chite t r, p. 0

3 " 1 1 - 16 02 8 -1 2 J hb 190 , pp. 33 0 ; 19 . pp 7 3 3 " ’ ent n Al erie l. Expl. S ci . da s l g , p 45.

3 “ - l m eii . 81 . Man Ke sey , Po p , p

28 ° - Mau Kel se Pom eii . 81 . y, p , p

28 1 - m i 2 . Mau Kelsey, Po pei , p. 4 9 2 82 . 1 8 8 l . . F R 1 . B .C U , 5 , 7 , p IV, V 3 88 111 . Jo rdan, , p 574. m u l VI 1 x1 x 12 . vena . Marti al, 111, 2 0, 1 1 ; , . J . . 53 2 “ ll 81 . Pr 1 2 . e . op. II , 3 , , 9 V II,

3 3 ° R m. H 2 . F o r con ectural lan see o Plin . y, N . XXXVI, 4, 3 j p , 6 Mitt . 1 89 , p. 2 00. 3 8 7 o rdan 66 J , III, 3 8 8 i A ent Rome ’ Ruins and Excavat ons of nci , 1 445

3 90 F UR, 1 6. “ 1 Tho se about the t—emples o f B onus Eventus Character o f enclo sure cannot be determined.

- 8 1 2 2 n 81 See B .C . 18 8 . 2 12 2 1 . 1 . Jo rda , III, p. 5 . 7 , pp 3 9 , pp 4 R 1 2 2 . EU 2 . 7 — , rdan F UR but c . de S act. . o Claudius Mart. p II, 9 J , , 33, f

FUR 2 0 6 . Jo rdan 2 33. and . 9 . 3 . 35. 3 . — D Titi ordan . 6 6 . Diuarum in aede ivi J , III, pp 5 4, 5 5 — - Re ina ordan . 8 2 . Jupi ter S tator and Iuno g J , III, pp 53 54

F UR, 2 1 . 47 H ercules and Muses—ordan J , III, p. 545. uirinus— rd n - o a 1 F R . 0 0 . U 1 " J , III , pp . 4 7 4 , 6 Venus a nd Rome— rdan L -2 F o 1 0 R 2 . J , III, pp. 7 . U , 9 3 ” D elbrueck 2 Vit v . 1 . ru 2 . , II, p 5 . III , , 5 2 9 3 d 1 ‘ ’ oo tab. C and lan tab. . W , , , p , III ‘ ’ 2 9 4 o d o tab . W , XII , B . ‘ ' 29 5 o od b n ta d ta . . C a b W , I, , IV. 2 “ B ﬁl P on s hot . Am x o . o . 8 . Ar E ch . Pho to . o r r , N 3 9 . N . 437 ( ep o duced in utler Ar B , ch , p . 2 9 7 d s d . 2 i io n f oo e cr t o tab. . W , p 4 , p IV 2 ” utler Ar ch illus. 1 c the eri olo s wall f m l B , ; p. 5 ; f . p b o the te p e o f A hrodite a t A h rodisia s re erre n p p , f d to in ote 85. 2 ” ler ut loc cit. and oo d tab. and B , , W , XIV XI . 0° 3 Bo nﬁls Photo , , No. 389 . 301 S ee 11. 2 94. 3 02 C . . 1 6 n 1 1 n n. 1 a d . f p , . 5 53 8 03 d oo tab. W , VI, VII, IX, XI, XIV. 3 04 C hb P reus - . J . s . 262 f , 1904, pp 2 60 .

S ee note 2 96. 806 S ee o rtions f all a h sid f n o w e c e o e trance oo d b. . p , W , ta IV 3 07 S di scussion o f es all lo ee w t w be w. 3 08 hb 1 2 . 1 1 1 J ., 90 , p . 809 No . 3. 8 1 0 NO . 4 3 1 1 N . o . 5 3 1 2 C . AAES . 6 . f , IV, p 5 81 8 rz k h Preu C o s i in b . 2 . f. St yg w , I . ss, 1904, p 88 3 1 4 nﬁl 2 6 r Bo s Pho to o 1 1 2 . ood tab. omits deco a , , N . 3 3, 3 W , XVII ( tion).

3 1 5 - See pp . 9 1 1 .

8 1 ° 1 1 - 12 See pp . .

3 " 1 2 - 1 S ee pp . 4. 8 1 8 AAES . and PUAES A intro . . 111 x. Cf. , IV, p 93 , IV , pp , 8 1 9 Ca sts o f the entire door are now on exhibition in the Library of

Princeton University. 3 2° ‘ ’ de o ue l . A V g , p 3 , . 83 1 d XVI Woo , tab. . 82 2 1 2 . 1 1 8. ZDPV, 90 , pp 37, 3 3 23 d b ‘ ’ oo ta . W , XVIII, I 3 24 ‘F ’ ood tab . . W , XVII, m 6 1 2 . PUAES , 1 . 135, op. p. 3 3 3 ° 6 E i re l da e . 1 dau . t 0 . p , p VII, , p 8 27 ill 1 date 2 1 an no 1 . E ure . 2 0 . d te pida , p. , , p 4 ”9 l r i Mi 1 1 Reinach, p . A chit. As e n. . ”9 h is . 1 . C o y, I , p 55 3 3° - ﬁ B .C. 18 8 tav . 1 . , 7 , . II III , g 8 81 1 8 . 2 B .C., 78. p 4 8 82 1 1 2 , C, ’ 8 . ”3 VV d tibi III and resto ration in tab. . The lan oo , , IV, XIV p

48 in tab. i vin the con ectured elevation o f th exterior taken IV, g g j e , is rom the interior and vice vers i f ; a n tab. XIV. “ 3 Stur i s D A iet. o r ch. . 2 8. It must e remem ered that g , f III, p 7 b b ’ the u er a rt o f ood resto ra i n i s rel n pp p W s t o enti y a matter o f co j ecture. ‘ ’ ’ S ee tab. 1 fo r th n , B , e co diti on o f the entrance at th e time o f Wood s i vi s t.

3 3 “ - S ee pp . 12 14. 3 0 3 Tom o f Elabelo s e b , 103 AD . s e below. 3 3 7 See p. 1 6. 3 “ Durm R 6 . abb , . 4 5. 3 3 9 d oo tab. W , IX, XI . b 1 1 - - M . 0 8 6 . 9 4. pp 37 5 . 5 3 3 41 o od tab . . W , XV “ 2 ’ Gres and Ta lor Ar ch Anti R m l . o o e X d Es . L ou y y , q f , p . X III. p y,

l . 6 p 53. 5 . “ 3 Gres and Ta lo r Arch Anti o R me l L o . y y , . q. f , p XXXI . 3 “ Gres and Ta lor Ar ch Anti o Rome l L y y , . q. f , p . XXXVI. 3 “ ee Mar nd ﬁ 2 61 S qua , g . . 3 “ o d R n B o ui s o aalbec tab. . W , f , XXXVII 3“ hb 2 a f 1 . J ., 90 , t 9 . 3 “ Revue de D eux M ondes C 18 00. s , XLII, 97, p. 4 “ 9 u ' An l o 1 2 66 N ova to gia, 904, p . . 3 5° D el k bruec 16 . , II , p. 5 8 51 ood tab . . W , XV 3 52 hr si rre d ab. at a A odi a s re e d to in note 8 . o o t . C . th t W , XI f , p f 5 8 53 ﬁ f Ph An rs 1 r r duced in . oto . de on No . 850, ep o g 55 o Tropaeum

- Tr oia ni b tudniczka which ee 10 n this oint. , y S , s , pp . 93 4, o p ’ 3 “ l -6 d Es ou s. 62 p y, p 4. 3 “ dni zk 6. tu i . . 8 S c a, op. c t , pp 5, 8 3 5° ’ E l d s ou . p y, p . 80 ’ “ 7 u l d Espo y . p . 75. ‘ ’ ‘ ’ 3 58 O n doo rs Wood tab A on windows ; , . VIII B , XII , XLVIII ; ‘ ’ ‘ ’ ‘ ’ and nich es C L. on c matia o f cornices , X B , , XII B , ; y , XXIII ,

XLVI . 3 5° i A r elia nus ch. 1 Vop scus, D iv. u , 3 . Tombs 3 0° 2 8 ood tab. . W , II, 3, 3 3 01 l d 2 6. de o ue . an . V g , p 73 p 3 02 6 d No 2 1 C.I. G. No I l . Wa d. . 6 . d ue S ém usc Pa No . e Vog , . . . 3 4 4504 3“ 8. Cf. p . 3 “ ‘ ’ o o d tab I D . W , V II

ood tab . L . W , X II 3 “ 1 Woo d, tab. . “ 7 ‘ ’ ‘ ’ A L tII loca ion tab. a . d b . V t Woo , ta LV , LVI, ; , I 3 “ l ue em mor Pa m de o S . Mar . . o cit. Wood, p , II ; V g ,

- dd No 261 I No . 0 a . . 37 59 ; C. .G. 45 5; W , 5 Cr oss Colonnade ‘ ’ 8“ m Ar No tab P 1 1 . A . ch . Ex . Photo . Wood, . I , , II, 3 7° ' S em . Insc. Pal . " 1 addin to n Inscri tions Grec ues et La tines l r W g , p q de a S y i e. 3 7 2 Thi s inscripti on mentions a coating o f co lour applied to the i arch traves. 8 " The Pal m rene ﬁ ures are artl rase u y g p y e d, b t the latest po ssible date wo uld 2 be 89 AD . Easter n Temple of Baa l or Baal S amin 3 “ ‘ ’ ood ta b. X to and I E . L i W , XXVII XXI, XXX I ocat on in tab. ‘M’ 2 . Am Ar h . c . Ex Pho to . No . I , II, 7 . 443 , 444. 3 7 5 de o ue em In P l S . s c. a . o . 1 6. S ee al s add. N 2 8 V g , N o W O . 5 5 lerm nt- Ganne o a u . 1 1 d I an C. .G. NO 82 . C , VII, pp 4, 5 . 44 8 7° Lidzb r ki a s 28 P. M d . c . DVG 1 0 2 1 o 1 an , II, p 7, f , 9 5, II, p . , N . 4, Clerm o nt- Canneau 1 , VII, p. 4. 3 " S ee note 353 . " 3 o rnice o f Tem le o f es asian lower di ameter f P C p V p , s ; o an theon interio r o rder f xt ri r rder , , o e e o o , Nymphaeum ” " 9 Called Diocle ianis h t dl er tli t c e S an ag , namen ch dessen Principia Pu h stein h 1 2 — b c J b 0 . 10 illustra ions d t : oo tab . y , 9 , p 5 ; W , XLIV LII, ‘ ’ n Am d . Arch . Ex P 1 a . hoto . No . 2 LV B ; 44 , 44 . 3 3° oo d t M 6 i . arm r l dd . o c P m . . . . o a a . NO 2 26 W , p. , . XXVII W . ; C I L 1 2 1 N 666 . 1 o . 1 . III, 33, p 9, 3 3 1 d 1 u h stein uill m in hi oo . . P c r W , p 3 , loc. cit. G au e, s repo t on the wo rk o f B erth one Revue des D e x M n e 1 u d s C 8 . , o , XLII, 9 7, p 395, ’ m entio ns le res es d c o n n m l lai D i lé m s t e c qu om e o pa s de oc ti en, ai s ’ ” ui sem le lu Ot un chatea u ea u o un n m hée ls Eutin q b p t d u e y p . Cf. a o g , A l rm - n 2 SE 188 . 6 1 on No and C e ont Gan eau . n. . W, 5, p 7 . 4 , V, p 93, 3 82 1 No . 4. 3 8 3 N 1 1 6 nd 1 n i im re M rk d 1 n . . o a ev n i h s e a e 8 t b s. e t e w o a II 5, , 7 “ n i l n N n so much ruined that we could not eve guess at the r p a . o o e i h ri o f these could po ssibly j ust fy t e desc pti o n in de Vogue. 3 “ m l de o ue S e . Insc ate 2 No . 1 . V g , . p , 4 3 3 5 ood tab . W , . XLIV “ 0 o od tab . W , . LII

3 " - l . v 1 hois itru e . 1 86 1 88. . 6 Vitru . 1 . S ee C V v V, , 7 y , , I, pp IV, p 4 , 47 r l tru iu P lli basil ca eu F anum F ortunae also , P este , des M . Vi v s o o i , r 1 0 1 S trassbu g , 9 . 3 3 8 tab . Durm R. abb. 0 1 . Wo o d, . XLV, LII , 7 ”9 S ee no te 381 and compa re the resto ra ti on o f the ( later)

m Amman utler in PUAES A I ill. 8 and l. . Nymphaeu at , B , II, , 3 , p V 89° l er di ameters Actually about ow . ” 1 l r itals ual lower diameters Temple Ma rs U to , cap eq es asian V p , 1 Casto r,

ri r Pantheon, inte o ,

exterior, ”3 2 No . 44 . 3 ” P 1 . 2 6 is undou tedl b in bb. r euss. 0 The fragment pu . I 9 4, p 7 , b y

ni he such as shown in ood tab. L I. f rom a c , W , X VI 3 “ S ee p. 3 1 and n. 355.

itektonischen O rdnun en taf. 2 . Mauch, Arch g , 9 3 ” Mauch Ar chi tektonischen r dnun O en f. 2 . , g , II, ta ‘ ' 8 07 ood LI W , tab. A . 8 99 LI ‘ ’ B . 8 99 ‘A’ and . XLVI, LI 400 XLVIII . 401 L 402 XLIV. 403 s h ee lso Am Ar . Ex h a P . . c oto o . 1 LII . N 44 . 4“ Adam uin h , R s of t e Pala ce of the Emper or D i ocletian at S pala to ’ iemann der Palast Di okletia n s in S ala o : He ra rd Z e N , p t b ct eiller, L

Palais de Di ocletia n. 405 P lin au , Ther mes dc Di oclétien . unsen B hr esc eibun 2 1 . B , g, III , p. 9 Gra nd Colonnade

407 As at E heso s An i ch D r h p , t o , je as , Amman. 408 Rivoira o m a rdi Archit e c ectur 0. , L b , I, p. 5

409 - C . Clermont Canneau f , V, pp. 93, 94. 4 1 °S em Ius . c. 41 1 Ro man numerals refer to hi s Palmyrene inscriptio ns ; Arabic to e r in ri th G eek sc ptions. 4 1 2 S ee 11. 371 .

41 3 l m - 2 - C er o nt an eau . No 6 G n . 8 , V, pp 9 94, 3 . “ 4 Wolfe Expeditio n to Babylonia ; Papers o f the America n School

- a t A n l 1 1 8 . the s o 88 . v . 8 , III, 4 5, pp 439, 440 41 5 de o ue makes an rr r ransl tin h 1 V g e o by t a g t e date as 47. 4 1 ° The P lm ren i n i en C I. N hi h ve da a y e s o t g v ; S ee . R. o . 1045 w c gi s te

4 1 7 D rr b AA e - ate co ected ittmann ES . 8 . Cl rmon Gan y L , , IV, p 4 t

neeu . . , VII, p 38 4 1 8 d n Z M i a d. a d Lo ew D G 186 No . v date as W y, , XVIII, 4, VIII, g e

4 1 9 - Palm rene text in AAES Pal. No . 10. C . Clermont Ganneau. y , IV, f II V . pp. 34. 35. ‘ ’ 42° Very clo se to the stem are the eyes between the leaves o f the i ls o f the tem les o f Mar Ulto r es a sian Co nco rd esta An cap ta p s , V p , , V , ni F in n Pantheo ortico A ical reek to nus and aust a , a d of the n p . typ G " ’ exa mple with the eyes far out from the central stem i s the capita l

o f the Tholos at Epidauro s. “ 1 ﬁ m r h Ex P 2 1 . Bon ls Photo . NO A . A c . . hoto . No . 4 9, 43 , 430 , 395 LIST O F ABBREVIATIO NS

P eri odica ls

Abk. B erl Aka A h ndl n en er k . d. b a u g d K. A ademie der Wi ssensch af ten zu erlin B . American ournal f Ar J o chaeology . Mitteilungen des D eutsch en Archaeologischen In i u in Ath n st t ts e . Bulletino della Commissi one archaeolo gica com

munale di Ro ma.

. ulletin d corres nd n i B c po a ce hellen que.

H erme Z it ri f l l i s ; e sch ft ii r c assische Philo og e. rn l sia i ue Jou a A t q . ah r d D e l J buch es K. utschen archaeo ogischen n i I st tuts.

ahr uch der K. Akademi d r is ens a n Ihb. Preuss. J b e e W s ch fte z erlin u B . r f Hell ni t i Jou nal o e c S ud es.

Mitteilungen der Vo rdera siati schen Gesellschaft. R r evue A chéo logique. Revue i li ue B b q . Mitteilungen des Deutschen archaeologischen In i u R m st t ts in o .

A it un s erichte der P d mi er is en SB W S z g b K. . Aka e e d W s scha f n zu er in te B l . ZDMG Zeitschrift des D eutschen morgenlandischen Ge

sellschaft.

ZD P Zeits raf de De tschen P l estina- er ns V ch t s u a a V ei .

Publications o f an American Archaeological Ex -1 ar s Ne York pedition to Sy ria in 1 899 900. 4 p t . w , 1 0 Part i re err d to e a ratel as utler 9 3. II s f e s p y B ,

Ar ch. q . v. h Ex Pho r hs k n b American Archaeo Am . Arc . . Photo tog ap ta e y an

- 1 l logi cal Expedition to Syria in 1 899 900 . App y

to Universit i rar Princeton . . y L b y, , N J ’ ’

n i 1 1 1 . en i r hi e r A i ité. P r s Benoit B o t : L A c t ctu e ; l t qu a , 9 r nn u n D masze ski di Pro i nci a B ue ow . vo o w : e v

- Ar i . vo ls Stra ss ur 1 1 0 ab a 3 . b g , 904 9 9. utler : Architecture nd other Arts in Butler, Arch. H . C. B a n ral ria nd D e r No rthern Ce t Sy a the j bel Hau an. Part II o f the Publications o f an American

Reinach Leba s : Voyage Archéologique en Gréce et en Asi e Min eure. Pu liées mmen r R i b et co tées pa S . e nach P ri , a s, 1888. ’ Texier Descri tio n Texier : D escri ion l A i , p pt de s e Mineure, Pari s, 1 839-49

Texier and Pull n : Prin i l u o f Asi Texier, Ruins a c pa R ins a

Mino r o ndo n 1 86 . . L , 5 d e Vo gue de Vo gue : Syrie Centrale Architecture civile ct u e l P ri 6 - 1 et religi e s , 2 vo s, a s, 18 5 877. d Waddi n ton : nscri tions Grec ues et Latines de Wad . g I p q

la Syrie. o Ruins f Palm r London 1 Wood W od : o y a . , 753 .