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 BY 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 .